0
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to prove next propisition:

Let $X$ be a Banach space in either of the norms $||\cdot||_{1}$ or $||\cdot||_{2}.$ Suppose that $||\cdot||_{1}\leq C||\cdot||_{2}$ for some $C>0.$ Prove that there is a $D$ with $||\cdot||_{2}\leq D||\cdot||_{1}.$

I was trying to prove that $X$ is Banach space respect both norm to use inverse mapping theorem (a consequence of Open Map Theorem) applied to identity map and get the desire inequality, until I realized that $X$ could be complete respect $||\cdot||_{2}$ but not necessarily with respect to the other.

I'm stuck proving this. Any kind of help is thanked in advanced.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The problem states that $X$ is a Banach space with both norms, so you can apply the open mapping theorem. $\endgroup$ – Aweygan Dec 11 '17 at 9:04
  • $\begingroup$ What I understand is that $X$ is Banach space, for example, with respect $||\cdot||_{1},$ but not necessarily with respect the other. Isn't it? .I think is necessary to check each case separate @Aweygan. $\endgroup$ – Squird37 Dec 11 '17 at 9:48
  • $\begingroup$ I see what you mean. But the way you are understanding the statement makes it false. Consider the space $\ell^1$ with it's usual norm for $\|\cdot\|_2$ and the $2$-norm for $\|\cdot\|_1$. Then the identity map is bounded (with norm $1$), but it is also compact, hence not (boundedly) invertible. $\endgroup$ – Aweygan Dec 11 '17 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ I've been thinking in your counterexample, but I don't get it clear. The identity map is bounded because of the inequality and is bijective, so It has a continuous inverse. Now, if $X=\ell^1$ then the identity is not compact, because $\ell^1$ has infinite dimension. How do you conclude that the inverse (identity) is not bounded? $\endgroup$ – Squird37 Dec 12 '17 at 23:23
  • $\begingroup$ So I decided to summarize my thoughts in an answer that I hope explains my thoughts more clearly. Please take a look and let me know if you have any more questions. $\endgroup$ – Aweygan Dec 15 '17 at 18:48
1
$\begingroup$

So there are two (or three) ways of viewing this problem: Assuming that $X$ is complete in both the $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ norms, or with one of the norms. But only one of these is correct.

If we consider the first case, that is where $X$ is complete with both $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$, and $\|\cdot\|_1\leq C\|\cdot\|_2$ for some $C>0$, then the two norms are equivalent. Indeed, this means the identity map $I:(X,\|\cdot\|_2)\to(X,\|\cdot\|_1)$ is bounded and bijective, hence the result follows from the open mapping theorem.

The second case is incorrect. Indeed, consider the case $X=\ell^1$, with $\|x\|_1=\sum_k|x(k)|$ (with which $X$ is Banach) and $\|x\|_2=\left(\sum_k|x(k)|^2\right)^{1/2}$ (with which $X$ is not Banach). Then we have $\|\cdot\|_2\leq\|\cdot\|_1$, but if we consider the sequence $(x_n)$ in $\ell_1$ defined by $$x_n(k)=\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{1}{j}e_j(k),$$ (where $e_j(k)=\delta_{jk}$ are the coordinate functions) then we have $$\|x_n\|_2=\left(\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{1}{k^2}\right)^{1/2}\leq\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{6}}$$ for all $n$, while $$\|x_n\|_1=\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{1}{k}\to\infty$$ ass $n\to\infty$. This means precisely that there is no $D>0$ such that $\|\cdot\|_1\leq D\|\cdot\|_2$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Amazing @Aweygan! Thanks so much for such answer! $\endgroup$ – Squird37 Dec 19 '17 at 8:08
  • $\begingroup$ You're welcome, glad to help! $\endgroup$ – Aweygan Dec 19 '17 at 14:36
0
$\begingroup$

So what you have by the. Condition is that the identity map is continuous. Now since with respect to both norm, the space is Banach , the identity map is open so, the inverse identity map, which is again the identity map from $(X,||.||_{2})$ to $(X,||.||_{1})$ is continous. Now the result follows because continuity and an operator being bounded is the same thing. This is sometimes known as two-norm lemma.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks to answer @Riju. When $X$ is Banach with both norms is enough to follow your argument, but what happend when $X$ is Banach only in one of them? $\endgroup$ – Squird37 Dec 11 '17 at 9:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See if both the norms are equivalent then this means that the identity map is a linear homeomorphism and completenes is preserved under linear homeomorphism, so any way if one is banach then the condition to hold in your question, the other has to be Banach. I hope you understand what I want to say $\endgroup$ – Riju Dec 11 '17 at 10:43
  • $\begingroup$ I think I get your point, but I would like then to find a counterexample when $X$ is Banach only in one norm. Any suggestions? $\endgroup$ – Squird37 Dec 12 '17 at 23:34

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.