1
$\begingroup$

in a book (Brezis' Functional Analysis book) I saw a proof for showing (strong-to-weak*) continuity of an operator

$$T : (E, \|\cdot\|) \to (E^*, \sigma(E^*,E))$$

where $E$ was a generic Banach space (not necessarily reflexive or separable), and $\sigma(E^*,E)$ is the weak-* topology.

The argument started with "We can argue with sequences (why?)" and then he proceeded to show that for any $x_n\to x$ we obtain $Tx_n \stackrel{*}{\rightharpoonup} T x $.

Why is that possible? In this generic case the weak-* topology does not even allow for metrization of the unit sphere, let alone the whole topology. The only idea I had is the following:

In order to prove that $T$ is continous, it suffices to look at the evaluation functionals on $(E^*, \sigma(E^*, E)$ of the form $\phi_x: E^*\to \mathbb R$ with $\phi_x(f) = \langle f, x\rangle$. Then $T$ is continous iff all $\phi_x \circ T$, for any $x\in E$ are continous as a mapping $(E,\|\cdot\|) \to (\mathbb R, \mathcal B(\mathbb R))$. And this is

$$\phi_x\circ T (y) = \langle Ty, x\rangle,$$

and continuity of this mapping is proven by showing that

$$ y_n \to y \Rightarrow \langle T y_n, x\rangle \to \langle T y, x\rangle ~ \forall x\in E \Leftrightarrow T y_n \stackrel{*}{\rightharpoonup} T y$$

Is this correct? If so, how does this fit together with the platitude "never try to prove continuity with sequences in a non-metrizable topology"?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

If $X$ is a sequential space then a function $f: X \to Y$ is continuous iff $f$ is sequentially continuous, also for non-sequential $Y$.

In your case the domain has the strong, metrisable topology, and so is sequential.

A proof for the first statement: let $f$ be sequentially continuous, and let $F$ be closed in $Y$; to show $f^{-1}[F]$ is closed in $X$ take a sequence $x_n \to x$ where all $x_n \in f^{-1}[F]$. By definition, all $f(x_n) \in F$, and by sequential continuity of $f$, $f(x_n) \to f(x)$, so $f(x) \in F$ (in all spaces closed implies sequentially closed) and so $x \in f^{-1}[F]$. So $f^{-1}[F]$ is sequentially closed and thus closed (as $X$ is assumed to be sequential and "sequentially closed implies closed for all subsets" is the definition of a sequential space). This shows that for continuity on a sequential space it suffices to check sequential continuity.

$\endgroup$

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.