10
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to understand a claim I heard in class. To be concrete, suppose $X$ is a compact, hausdorff topological space, and let $C(X)$ be the space of continuous functions on $X$ with the supremum norm.

Now let $M(X)$ be the space of finite signed borel measures on $X$; $M(X)$ is isomorphic to $C(X)^*$; let's give $M(X)$ the topology of weak* convergence.

My question: what is the dual of $M(X)$ in the weak* topology? To be precise (or just to be redundant) I'm asking what the topological dual of $M(X)$ is, given that it has the topology of weak* convergence.

Clearly $M(X)^*$ in the total-variation-norm-topology is not just $C(X)$ (under the embedding $C(X) \rightarrow C(X)^{**}$), but the weak* topology on $M(X)$ is different; shouldn't the dual be different as well? Is it, in fact, merely $C(X)$ where the action is given by integration?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes, that dual is $C(X)$ again. Maybe you need to think about weak topologies in general a bit. $\endgroup$ – GEdgar Feb 6 '13 at 20:00
  • $\begingroup$ @GEdgar Ok, that's what I wanted to hear. Having thought about it, it seems like given such a continuous functional $l$ on $M(X)$ that I should define a continuous function $\phi(x) = l(\delta_x)$, where $\delta_x$ is the unit mass at $x \in X$. This is continuous by the continuity of $l$. The missing piece for me now is whether every $\mu \in M(X)$ is the weak* limit of finite linear combinations of $\delta$-masses. This is probably the result of some separability argument, however. $\endgroup$ – A Blumenthal Feb 6 '13 at 20:21
13
$\begingroup$

Let $E$ be a locally convex space with topological dual $E'$. Equip $E'$ with the weak*-topology.

Every continuous linear functional $\varphi \colon E' \to \mathbb C$ is of the form $f \mapsto f(e)$ for some $e \in E$, so $(E',\text{weak*})' = E$. In particular, the dual space of $M(X)$ with the weak*-topology is $C(X)$ again.

Since $\varphi$ is continuous, the set $U = \left\{f \in E' \mid \lvert \varphi(f) \rvert \lt 1\right\}$ is an open neighborhood of $0$. Thus, recalling how the basis of neighborhoods at a point in $(E',\text{weak*})$ is defined, there exist $e_1,\dots,e_n \in E$ and $\varepsilon \gt 0$ such that $V = \left\{f \in E' \mid \max\left\{\lvert f(e_i)\rvert \mid i = 1,\dots,n\right\} \lt \varepsilon\right\}$ is contained in $U$. Let $\varphi_i(f) = f(e_i)$.

From $V \subseteq U$ it follows that $\ker{\varphi} \supseteq \bigcap_{i=1}^n \ker{\varphi_i}$ and from linear algebra (see here) we deduce that $\varphi = \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i \varphi_i$ for some $\lambda_i \in \mathbb{C}$. In other words, $$ \varphi(f) = \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i \varphi_i(f) = \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i f(e_i)= f\left(\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i e_i \right)$$ and we've shown that $\varphi$ is evaluation at $e = \lambda_1 e_1 + \cdots + \lambda_n e_n \in E$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ That's more general than I suspected. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – A Blumenthal Feb 6 '13 at 22:02
  • $\begingroup$ You're welcome. You might be interested in this thread as well. $\endgroup$ – Martin Feb 13 '13 at 12:28

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.