1
$\begingroup$

There are two exercises about projective tensor products.

1) If either $X$ or $Y$ is finite dimensional, then the projective tensor product $X\otimes Y$ is complete.

2) If both $X$ and $Y$ are infinite dimensional, then $X\otimes Y$ is never complete. (As a result, $X\otimes Y\ne X\otimes_{\pi}Y$)

If both $X$ and $Y$ are finite dimensional, then $\dim X\otimes Y=(\dim X)(\dim Y)$ is finite, and hence the norm space $X\otimes Y$ is complete and is just $X\otimes_{\pi}Y$ itself.

But I can't make it for only just either of $X$ or $Y$ is finite dimensional.

Any idea?

Note that here both $X$ and $Y$ are Banach spaces, and the projective tensor product norm defined on $X\otimes Y$ is \begin{align*} \pi(u)=\inf\left\{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\|x_{i}\|\|y_{i}\|: u=\sum_{i=1}^{n}x_{i}\otimes y_{i}\right\}, \end{align*} where $u=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}x_{i}\otimes y_{i}$ is any representation of $u$ in $X\otimes Y$. The space $X\otimes_{\pi}Y$ is the completion of $X\otimes Y$ under this norm.

Maybe the first one can be dealt in this way:

I suspect that $(X\otimes Y)/Y\cong X$ where $Y$ is assumed to be finite dimensional, so $(X\otimes Y)/X$ is complete, as $X$ is also complete, then $X\otimes Y$ is complete by the three-space property of Banach spaces.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ How do you embed $Y$ into $X \otimes Y$? You need to fix some vector $x_0 \in X$. Either way, the last quotient cannot hold. Just by counting dimensions $dim(X \otimes Y)/Y = n m - m = n(m-1)$, where $dim(X) = n$ and $dim(Y) = m$. $\endgroup$ – Adrián González-Pérez Oct 21 '19 at 11:29
1
$\begingroup$

It is not necessarily true that $(X \otimes Y)/Y$ is isomorphic to $X$; it may help verify that even in the finite-dimensional case, the dimensions of these spaces do not match.

I think that the easiest approach for the case where $Y$ is finite dimensional is to note that if $Y$ has dimension $n$ (so that $Y$ is isomorphic to $\Bbb C^n$ under some norm), we have $$ X \otimes Y \cong X \otimes \Bbb C^n \cong \overbrace{X \oplus \cdots \oplus X}^{n \text{ times}}. $$ In the infinite-dimensional case, suppose that $\{x_i\} \subset X$ and $\{y_i\} \subset Y$ are linearly independent sequences with $\|x_i\| = \|y_i\| = 1$. It suffices to verify that the sequence defined by $$ z_n = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{2^i} x_i \otimes y_i $$ is Cauchy, but fails to converge in $X \otimes Y$ (since the infinite sum cannot be expressed as a finite sum of tensor products).

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Actually how to argue in contradiction that if the infinite sum is a finite sum of tensor products, then what will happen? $\endgroup$ – user284331 Oct 20 '19 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ And the expression that $X\otimes\mathbb{C}^{2}\cong X\oplus X$ is true in algebraic, to argue that it is also topological, I switch to arguing in the universal property of projective tensor product, is there any other simpler way? $\endgroup$ – user284331 Oct 20 '19 at 19:33
  • $\begingroup$ For your second comment, it suffices to note that the map $x \oplus y \mapsto x \otimes e_1 + y \otimes e_2$ (where $\{e_1,e_2\}$ is a basis of $\Bbb C^2$) is an isomorphism $\endgroup$ – Ben Grossmann Oct 20 '19 at 19:53
  • $\begingroup$ For your first comment, actually I don't see an easy elementary approach. In the back of my head, I was using the fact that we can we can identify $X \otimes Y$ with the finite-rank operators of $B(X^*,Y)$. $\endgroup$ – Ben Grossmann Oct 20 '19 at 19:58
  • $\begingroup$ So the infinite sum is not of finite rank since $(x_{i})$ is linearly independent. Okay, nice, but I never thought it is such no elementary. Initially I was thinking about to argue in contradiction by the argument of pure linear independence, but I realize that $(x_{n})$ and $(y_{n})$ are not bases. Anyway, thanks, mate. $\endgroup$ – user284331 Oct 20 '19 at 20:02

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.