How to show that a Banach space $X$ is reflexive if and only if its dual $X'$ is reflexive?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ First show that if $X'$ is reflexive then $X''$ is reflexive. Then what can you say about $\hat X$? $\endgroup$
    – matt
    Jun 1, 2012 at 6:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @matt: what's $\hat{X}$? $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Jun 1, 2012 at 6:27
  • $\begingroup$ @t.b. $\hat X$ is canonical embedding of $X$ in $X''$. Sorry I should mentioned this. $\endgroup$
    – matt
    Jun 1, 2012 at 6:30

4 Answers 4


I'm assuming that you have two Theorems at your disposal, easily proven:

Theorem 1: If a Banach space $X$ is reflexive then its dual space $X'$ is reflexive.

Theorem 2: A closed subspace of a reflexive Banach space is reflexive.

Claim: Let $X$ be a Banach space. If $X'$ is reflexive then $X$ is reflexive.

Proof: Suppose $X'$ is reflexive. By Theorem 1 it follows that $X''$ is reflexive. If we consider the Canonical mapping $J : X \to X''$ it follows that $J(X)$ is a subspace of $X''$. Since $X \cong J(X)$ and $X$ is a Banach space, then $J(X)$ is a Banach space and hence closed. By Theorem 2 we can conclude that $J(X)$ is reflexive. But since $X \cong J(X)$ conclude that $X$ is reflexive.

Moreover a consequence of this is that a Banach space is reflexive if and only if its dual space is reflexive.

  • $\begingroup$ Why is $J(X) =X$? $\endgroup$
    – D1X
    Jun 26, 2016 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ @D1X because $J$ is an isometric injection, so $X$ is isomorphic to its image under $J$. $\endgroup$ Dec 4, 2016 at 21:45

It can be shown directly:

Let $J : X \to X^{**}$ and $J_*: X^* \to X^{***}$ be the canonical injections. Suppose by contradiction that $JX \subsetneq X^{**}$; using Hahn-Banach theorem, there exists $\zeta \in X^{***}$ such that $\zeta \neq 0$ and $\zeta \equiv 0$ on $JX$.

Because $X^*$ is reflexive, there exists $\theta \in X^*$ such that $\zeta = J_*\theta$. For all $x \in X$:

$$0= \langle \zeta,Jx \rangle= \langle J_*\theta,Jx \rangle = \langle Jx,\theta \rangle= \langle \theta,x \rangle$$

You deduce that $\theta=0$ and therefore $\zeta=0$: a contradiction.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Seirios, $\zeta \in X^{***}$ and $Jx \in X^{**}$, so how exactly can an inner product $\langle \zeta ,Jx \rangle $ be defined? Secondly, there is no assumption of inner products defined on $X, X^{**}$ , etc. $X$ is merely a Banach space by hypothesis. Indeed, if an inner product were defined on $X$, then we would immediately have that $X$ is reflexive, as every Hilbert space is reflexive. $\endgroup$
    – Marc Nye
    Oct 4, 2013 at 1:18
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ is not an inner product, but a duality bracket, that is: $\langle \zeta,x \rangle$ is the evaluation of $\zeta \in X^*$ at $x \in X$. Isn't a usual notation? $\endgroup$
    – Seirios
    Oct 4, 2013 at 7:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a nice proof. At the beginning shouldn’t you be saying canonical injection instead of surjection? Subjectivity is what you proved here. $\endgroup$
    – gen
    Jun 5, 2018 at 10:05

Really a Banach space $X$ is reflexive if and only if $X'$ is reflexive.

$$X\textrm{ is reflexive}\Longrightarrow X'\textrm{ is reflexive.}\tag{1}$$

Proof. By Banach-Alaoglu-Bourbaki theorem the closed ball $B_{X'}$ is closed w.r.t. the weak-* topology $\sigma(X',X)$. By the reflexivity of $X$ we have $\sigma(X',X'')=\sigma(X',X).$ So $B_{X'}$ is closed w.r.t. the weak topology $\sigma(X',X),$ that is $X'$ is reflexive.$\square$

$$X'\textrm{ is reflexive}\Longrightarrow X\textrm{ is reflexive.}\tag{2}$$

Proof. By hypothesis and by (1) we get that $X''$ is reflexive, and therefore even its closed vector subspace $J(X)$ is reflexive. But the canonical injection $J:X\to X''$ is an isometry so $X$ is reflexive.$\square$

  • 13
    $\begingroup$ Appealing to Alaoglu is a bit of an overkill: if $X$ is reflexive then the canonical map $\iota_{X}\colon X \to X^{\ast\ast}$ is an isomorphism. Hence $\iota_{X^\ast} = ((\iota_{X})^{\ast})^{-1} = ((\iota_{X})^{-1})^\ast$ is an isomorphism. $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Jun 1, 2012 at 7:00
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Theo, I haven't thought this argument, it is simpler than the one I have wrote. Thank you. $\endgroup$
    – agt
    Jun 1, 2012 at 7:08
  • $\begingroup$ @t.b. could you expand that thought? I don't understand your argument. $\endgroup$
    – Parakee
    Nov 9, 2012 at 3:21
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ @Parakee: 1. Let $\iota_X\colon X \to X^{\ast\ast}$ and $\iota_{X^\ast}\colon X^\ast \to X^{\ast\ast\ast}$ be the canonical inclusions. Then we have that $(\iota_X)^\ast \circ (\iota_{X^\ast}) = \operatorname{id}_{X^\ast}$ by a direct verification. 2. If an operator is invertible then so is its adjoint $(\iota_X)^\ast$. 3. If an operator $S$ is right inverse to an invertible operator $T$ then $S$ is itself invertible and equal to the inverse: $S = T^{-1}$. 4. Apply this to $T = (\iota_X)^\ast$ and $S = \iota_{X^\ast}$. $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Nov 29, 2012 at 14:41

Here's a different, more geometric approach that comes from Folland's book, exercise 5.24

Let $\widehat X$, $\widehat{X^*}$ be the natural images of $X$ and $X^*$ in $X^{**}$ and $X^{***}$.

Define $\widehat X^0 = \{F\in X^{***}: F(\widehat x) = 0 \text{ for all } \widehat x \in \widehat X\}$

1) It isn't hard to show that $\widehat{X^*} \bigcap \widehat X^0 = \{0\}$.

2) Furthermore, $\widehat{X^*} + \widehat X^0 = X^{***}$. To show this, let $f\in X^{***}$, and define $l \in X^*$ by $l(x) = f(\widehat x)$ for all $x\in X$.

Then $f(\phi) = \widehat l(\phi) + [f(\phi) - \widehat l(\phi)]$.

Clearly $\widehat l \in \widehat{X^*}$, and we claim $f - \widehat l \in \widehat X^0$. Let $\widehat x \in \widehat X$. Then $f(\widehat x) - \widehat l ( \widehat x) = f(\widehat x) - \widehat x (l) = f(\widehat x) - l(x) = 0$

Now that 1) and 2) are verified, we prove the claim:

If $X$ is reflexive, then $\widehat X^0 = \{0\}$, and so $X^{***} = \widehat{X^*}$, so $X^*$ is reflexive.

If $X^*$ is reflexive, then $X^{***} = \widehat{X^*}$, so $\widehat X^0 = \{0\}$. Since $\widehat X$ is a closed subspace of $X^{**}$ (on assumption $X$ is Banach), if $\widehat X$ were a proper subspace of $X^{**}$, we would be able to use Hahn-Banach to construct an $F \in X^{***}$ such that $F$ is zero on $\widehat X$ and has ||F|| = 1. This, however, would contradict $\widehat X^0 = \{0\}$. So we conclude $\widehat X = X^{**}$.


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.