1
$\begingroup$

I'm reading the proof of a theorem due to Mackey in a note of functional analysis:

enter image description here

I don't see why the first sentence is clear. By the definition of neighborhood base and locally convex topology, to show the underscored sentence, it suffices to show that

given a closed absolutely convex neighborhood $U$ of zero in $X$, there exists $B\subset Y$ absolutely convex and $\sigma(Y,X)$-compact such that $^oB\subset U$.

Could anyone show me why such $B$ exists?

[Edited:] Thanks to the comment, denoting the collection of sets of the form $^oB$ (with $B$ satisfying the properties) as $\mathcal{B}$, I should show the following instead:

  • Each set $V\in\mathcal{B}$ is balanced (trivially true) and absorbing;
  • For every $V\in\mathcal{B}$ there exists $U\in\mathcal{B}$ such that $U+U\subset V$;
  • Given $U,V\in\mathcal{B}$, there exists $W\in\mathcal{B}$ such that $W\subset U\cap V$.

To show that $^oB$ is absorbing, I think one somehow needs to use the compactness of $B$. But I don't see how:

Let $B\subset Y$ be absolutely convex and $\sigma(Y,X)$-compact. $$ ^oB=\{x\in X\mid |\langle x ,y\rangle|\leq 1,\ \hbox{for all}\ y\in B\}. $$ For $x\in X$, by the definition of "absorbing", how can I find $t>0$ such that $$ \lambda x\in\ ^oB $$ for all $|\lambda|\leq t$?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ But you first need to define the topology. Do you know what conditions a family $\mathscr{F}$ of sets needs to satisfy in order for a vector space topology to exist for which $\mathscr{F}$ is a neighbourhood base of $0$? $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Oct 29 '15 at 14:22
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I think you are saying something related to the theorem quoted in this question? $\endgroup$ – Jack Oct 29 '15 at 14:31
  • $\begingroup$ If you are going to include a snippet of a book, how about mentioning the book? $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Oct 29 '15 at 14:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Thomas Andrews: I wish I could. The materials are from some notes which are rather condensed and terse. $\endgroup$ – Jack Oct 29 '15 at 14:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, it's related to that question. You might also be interested in this answer to a vaguely related question. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Oct 29 '15 at 14:41
4
+100
$\begingroup$

Let's take a look at some properties of polars. If we have a dual pairing $\langle\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,\rangle \colon X \times Y \to \mathbb{K}$, where $\mathbb{K}$ can be either of $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$, we define the polar of a set $A \subset Y$ as

$${}^{\Large\circ}A := \bigl\{ x \in X : \bigl(\forall y\in A\bigr)\bigl(\lvert \langle x,y\rangle\rvert \leqslant 1\bigr)\bigr\}.$$

Writing $\lambda_y = \langle\,\cdot\,,y\rangle$ for $y\in Y$ and $\overline{\mathbb{D}} = \{ z \in \mathbb{K} : \lvert z\rvert \leqslant 1\}$, we can also write

$${}^{\Large\circ}A = \bigcap_{y\in A} \lambda_y^{-1}\bigl(\overline{\mathbb{D}}\bigr).\tag{1}$$

Since the $\lambda_y$ are linear and $\sigma(X,Y)$-continuous, it follows immediately from $(1)$ that ${}^{\Large\circ}A$ is absolutely convex and $\sigma(X,Y)$-closed.

Next, we have the inclusion-reversion property, $A \subset B \implies {}^{\Large\circ}B \subset {}^{\Large\circ}A$. For subsets of a specific type ($\sigma(Y,X)$-closed and absolutely convex) we have an equivalence, but generally we have only a one-directional implication. Also, directly from $(1)$ we have ${}^{\Large\circ}(A\cup B) = {}^{\Large\circ}A \cap {}^{\Large\circ}B$.

And polars have a simple scaling behaviour, for all $\alpha \neq 0$ we have ${}^{\Large\circ}(\alpha\cdot A) = \alpha^{-1}\cdot({}^{\Large\circ}A) = \lvert\alpha\rvert^{-1}\cdot({}^{\Large\circ}A)$.

Finally, $x\in X$ is absorbed by ${}^{\Large\circ}A$ if and only if $\{ \langle x,y\rangle : y \in A\}$ is bounded in $\mathbb{K}$, or, put in different words, $x$ is bounded on $A$ (more correctly, $\mu_x = \langle x,\,\cdot\,\rangle$ is bounded on $A$). Namely, for $s\neq 0$ we have

$$sx \in {}^{\Large\circ}A \iff \bigl(\forall y \in A\bigr)\bigl(\lvert\langle sx,y\rangle\rvert \leqslant 1\bigr) \iff \bigl(\forall y\in A\bigr)\bigl(\lvert\langle x,y\rangle\rvert \leqslant \lvert s\rvert^{-1}\bigr).$$

Hence ${}^{\Large\circ}A$ is absorbing if and only if $A$ is $\sigma(Y,X)$-bounded.

Now let us consider $\mathcal{K}(Y) = \{ B \subset Y : B \text{ is absolutely convex and } \sigma(Y,X)\text{-compact}\}$ and the family $\mathcal{B} = \{ {}^{\Large\circ}B : B \in \mathcal{K}(Y)\}$ of its polars.

Since every $\sigma(Y,X)$-compact set is $\sigma(Y,X)$-bounded, $\mathcal{B}$ consists of ($\sigma(X,Y)$-closed) absolutely convex absorbing sets. Hence the first bullet point.

Further, the family $\mathcal{K}(Y)$ is scaling-invariant - $B \in \mathcal{K}(Y) \iff t\cdot B \in \mathcal{K}(Y)$ for every $t > 0$ - and thus the family $\mathcal{B}$ is also scaling-invariant. Since the members of $\mathcal{B}$ are also convex, for every $V\in \mathcal{B}$ we have $\frac{1}{2}V + \frac{1}{2}V = V$, hence the second bullet point.

For the last bullet point, we know that ${}^{\Large\circ}A \cap {}^{\Large\circ}B = {}^{\Large\circ}(A\cup B)$, and if we had $A \cup B \in \mathcal{K}(Y)$ for $A,B\in \mathcal{K}(Y)$, that would settle it. But the union of two convex sets need not be convex (the union of two balanced sets is again balanced, and the union of two $\sigma(Y,X)$-compact sets is again $\sigma(Y,X)$-compact, so it's only convexity that can throw a spanner here), so we need something else.

We need an absolutely convex $\sigma(Y,X)$-compact set that contains $A\cup B$. If $A = \varnothing$, we have ${}^{\Large\circ}A = X = {}^{\large\circ}\{0\}$, so we can assume that neither of $A$ and $B$ is empty. Then we have $A\cup B \subset A + B$, since every nonempty balanced set contains $0$. And the sum of two balanced resp. convex sets is again balanced resp. convex, so $A+ B$ is absolutely convex. And the sum of two $\sigma(Y,X)$-compact sets is $\sigma(Y,X)$-compact, since addition is $\sigma(Y,X)$-continuous. Thus, for nonempty $A,B \in \mathcal{K}(Y)$ we have ${}^{\Large\circ}(A + B) \subset {}^{\Large\circ}A \cap {}^{\Large\circ}B$, which gives us the third bullet point.

Thus there is a unique vector space topology $\tau(X,Y)$ (the Mackey topology) on $X$ for which $\mathcal{B}$ is a neighbourhood base of $0$. This vector space topology is Hausdorff, since it is finer than $\sigma(X,Y)$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for the detailed answer! $\endgroup$ – Jack Nov 1 '15 at 20:54
  • $\begingroup$ What is the definition for "$A$ is $\sigma(Y,X)$-bounded" you are assuming in the answer? $\endgroup$ – Jack Nov 2 '15 at 21:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The definition is that for every ($\sigma(Y,X)$-)neighbourhood $U$ of $0$ in $Y$, there is a $\delta > 0$ such that $\delta\cdot A \subset U$. It's the general definition of boundedness in topological vector spaces. By definition of $\sigma(Y,X)$, it is equivalent to require that for every $x\in X$ the set $\{\langle x,y\rangle : y \in A\}$ is bounded in $\mathbb{C}$. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Nov 2 '15 at 21:57

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.