Here's some context before my question.

Let $\mathbb{V}$ be a topological vector space, which is Hausdorff and such that its topology is generated by some arbitrary family of seminorms $\{\rho_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha \in I}$; this means that $\mathbb{V}$ is locally convex. Now, if $I$ turns out to be countable (or if we can reduce the family $\{\rho_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha \in I}$ to a countable one, while keeping the same topology in $\mathbb{V}$), we can define a metric in $\mathbb{V}$ by $$d(u, v) = \sum_{i = 1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2^i} \frac{\rho_i(u - v)}{1 + \rho_i(u - v)},$$ where $\{\rho_i\}_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ is some enumeration of $\{\rho_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha \in I}$, so that its topology is metrizable. I've been told that the converse is also true, which leads to my question.

QUESTION: Let $\mathbb{V}$ be a topological vector space having a metrizable topology, generated by some metric $d$. How can I prove that $\mathbb{V}$ admits a countable family of seminorms generating its topology? Also, do I need to impose the condition that $d$ is translation invariant (since this happens in the above construction)?


  • 4
    $\begingroup$ There is a classical result which says that if $X$ is a locally convex space with a countable family of neighborhoods at $0$ then we can find a metric $d$ compatible with the topology on $X$ and invariant by translation. So in particular if we assume the space metrizable then we can find an invariant translation metric which gives the same topology to $X$. If we assume $X$ locally convex then all the balls for $d$ will be convex, so in this case we can take $\rho_n(x):=\sup\{\alpha>0, \alpha x\in B(0,n^{-1}\}$. $\endgroup$ – Davide Giraudo Feb 12 '12 at 17:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A reference for the first result is Rudin's book, Functional Analysis. $\endgroup$ – Davide Giraudo Feb 12 '12 at 17:56

We first show the following result:

Let $X$ locally convex topological vector space with a countable family of neighborhood of $0$. We can find a metric $d$ compatible with the topology of $X$ and invariant by translation.

Sketch of proof: We can take a basis a neighborhoods $\{V_n\}$ such that each $V_n$ is convex and for all $n$: $V_{n+1}+V_{n+1}+V_{n+1}+V_{n+1}\subset V_n$. Let $D$ the set of rational numbers of the form $r=\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}c_n(r)2^{-n}$ where $c_i(r)\in \{0,1\}$ and $c_i=0$ except for a finite numbers of index $i$. We put $A(r)=X$ if $r\geq 1$ and for $r\in D$ we put $A(r):=\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}c_n(r)V_n$, $f(x):=\inf\{r\in D: x\in A(r)\}$ for $x\in X$and $d(x,y)=f(x-y)$.

Now we put $\rho_n(x):=\sup\{\alpha>0, \alpha x\in B(0,n^{-1})\}$. Since the balls $B(0,n^{-1})$ are convex, $\rho_n$ is a seminorm. Since the topology given by these seminomrs is the same as the topology given by $d$, we are done.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is probably worth pointing out that the local convexity assumption is essential (it is stated in the title but not in the question itself). The space $L^0[0,1]$ with the topology of convergence in measure is completely metrizable while not locally convex -- the only convex neighborhood of zero is the space itself. In particular it doesn't admit any continuous semi-norm or functional. $\endgroup$ – t.b. Feb 14 '12 at 13:19
  • $\begingroup$ @t.b. Indeed, I forgot the local convexity assumption in my question. That's an interesting example, btw. $\endgroup$ – student Feb 15 '12 at 1:19
  • $\begingroup$ except for the zero functional, of course. Nice comment. $\endgroup$ – Max Jun 27 '18 at 14:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.