8
$\begingroup$

I cant manage to figure this out, for instance $L^{1}[0,1]$ has $L^{\infty}[0,1]$ as dual and $C[0,1]$ (a sub space of $L^{1}[0,1]$ have the signed measures of bdd. varitaion as dual. I cant mange to prove anything regarding cardinality realtions between the measures and $L^{\infty}[0,1]$ tho. Intuitively it feels like we have more measures.

Hints?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ @avid19 how does one convince themself of this fact? $\endgroup$
    – user123124
    Dec 10, 2015 at 7:27
  • $\begingroup$ @avid19 What? No infinite dual is larger than the dual of $\Bbb R[X]$? $\endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Dec 10, 2015 at 7:27
  • $\begingroup$ @HagenvonEitzen I should have been more precise. $\endgroup$
    – user223391
    Dec 10, 2015 at 7:29
  • $\begingroup$ Can you state the question more precisely? The particular case of $L^1[0,1]$ and $C[0,1]$ is simple enough (they are both separable so their duals have cardinality $2^{\aleph_0}$, and in fact $L^\infty[0,1]$ canonically embeds in the space of measures via $f\mapsto fd\mu$ where $\mu$ is Lebesgue measure), but it is unclear what general question you're asking. $\endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 10, 2015 at 7:57
  • $\begingroup$ @EricWofsey The general question arose from an exersice, show that for $\ell^{1} \supset Y = \{ x ; lim n^{2}x_{n} $is bdd$ \} $ any linear functional has atmost one extension to $\ell^{1}$. Then I took the dual $(\ell^{\infty} )$ picked an element and show we get different values if we tamper with it. But for that argument to work I need that $\ell^{\infty} $ is a whole dual on $Y$ aswell or a subset of the whole dual atleast. $\endgroup$
    – user123124
    Dec 10, 2015 at 8:17

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
18
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be a Banach space and let $Y \subset X$ be a subspace. When you compare the duals, two important situations appear:

  1. $Y$ is a closed subspace of $X$ (and is consequently equipped with the same norm).
  2. $Y$ is a dense, proper subspace of $X$, but is a Banach space with respect to stronger norm.

What happens?

  1. In this case, we get $Y^* \subset X^*$ in the following sense (Here, $Y^*$ are the linear functionals on $Y$ which are continuous w.r.t. the norm in $X$):

    Let $y^* \in Y^*$ be given. Then, $y^*$ is a continuous map on a subspace of $X$, and we can extend it by Hahn-Banach to a functional in $X^*$ (with the same norm). If $Y$ is a proper subspace, then this extension is not unique. Thus, $X^*$ is larger than $Y^*$.

  2. In this case, we have $X^* \subset Y^*$ in the following sense (Here, $Y^*$ are the linear functionals, which are continuous w.r.t. the stronger norm of $Y$).

    Since $\|y\|_X \le C \, \|y\|_Y$, we get for $x^* \in X^*$: $$|x^*(y)| \le \|x^*\|_{X^*} \, \| y \|_X \le C \, \|x^*\|_{X^*} \, \|y\|_Y.$$ Hence, $x^* \in Y^*$. Moreover, if we have to different functionals in $X^*$, there values on $Y$ differ (since $Y$ is dense in $X$). Thus, $Y^*$ is larger than $Y^*$.

Examples

  1. Let me give some examples for the first case.

    1. $\mathbb{R}^n$ can be treated as a subspace of $\mathbb{R}^m$ for $n \le m$ (identify $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ with $(x_1, \ldots, x_n, 0,\ldots,0) \in \mathbb{R}^m$). Then, $\mathbb{R}^n \subset \mathbb{R}^m$ and we get the same inclusion for the dual spaces.
    2. $C([0,1]) \subset L^\infty(0,1)$. The dual of $C([0,1])$ are regular, signed Borel measures. The dual of $L^\infty(0,1)$ consists of less regular (thus more) measures (namely finitely additive measures). This situation is also a little bit delicate: The dirac $\delta_{1/2}$ lives in the dual of $C([0,1])$, but cannot be applied to arbitrary functions in $L^\infty(0,1)$. However, we can extend it by Hahn-Banach to a finitely additive measure in the dual of $L^\infty(0,1)$ which coincides with $\delta_{1/2}$ on the subspace $C([0,1])$.

  2. Examples for the second case:

    1. You already had a good example: $C([0,1])$ is a dense subspace of $L^1(0,1)$. Note that each function $f$ in $L^\infty(0,1)$ induces a measure via $\mu_f(A) = \int_A f \, \mathrm{d}x$.
    2. $H_0^1(0,1) \subset L^2(0,1)$ and the converse embedding holds for the duals.
$\endgroup$
6
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ In case (1) you really shouldn't say $Y^*\subset X^*$, especially since $Y$ might not be complemented in $X$. What you should say is there is a surjection $X^*\to Y^*$. It is also worth mentioning that in both cases, you are just dualizing the (continuous linear) inclusion map $Y\to X$ to get a map $X^*\to Y^*$, which happens to be surjective in case (1) and injective in case (2). $\endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 10, 2015 at 8:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Eric Wofsay whats does " dualizing a map" mean? $\endgroup$
    – user123124
    Dec 10, 2015 at 11:50
  • $\begingroup$ @User1: Taking the adjoint. $\endgroup$
    – gerw
    Dec 10, 2015 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ @EricWofsey Whats the difference between surjection of inclusion map and the subset relation? $\endgroup$
    – user123124
    Dec 11, 2015 at 5:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am suspicous about the case 1. Hanh Banach does not provide a unique extension of function $y^*\in Y^*$ to $X^*$ . But it is easy to check that, $X^*\subset Y^*.$ in all cases. $\endgroup$
    – Guy Fsone
    Mar 23, 2019 at 14:50

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.