0
$\begingroup$

I know that weak convergence is equivalent to strong convergence when the space has finite dimension, but $\ell^1(\mathbb{N})$ is not, so I have no idea where to begin.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a basic theorem due to Schur. See Rudin's FA for a proof. $\endgroup$ – Kavi Rama Murthy Aug 2 '20 at 23:50
  • $\begingroup$ [Maybe a stupid question] Doesn't weak convergence requires an inner product? How do you define an inner product in $\ell^1(\mathbb N)$? $\endgroup$ – Dmitry Aug 2 '20 at 23:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dmity Weak convergence replaces inner product with duality product. The real sequence $\langle y , x_n \rangle_{L^1,L^\infty}$ converges to the real number $\langle y , x \rangle_{L^1,L^\infty}$ for every $y \in L^\infty$ means that $x_n$ converges weakly to $x$. In the case of an inner product, it is the same definition, but the dual space is isomorphic to the space itself. $\endgroup$ – rubikscube09 Aug 2 '20 at 23:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that this is true for sequences, but fails quite badly for nets (in other words, the strong and weak topology do not coincide). $\endgroup$ – MaoWao Aug 3 '20 at 1:11
2
$\begingroup$

This is a bit involved. A proof can be found here: https://people.math.osu.edu/robertson.250/math857/schur.pdf. This proof uses the Vitali-Hahn-Saks theorem, a proof of which can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitali%E2%80%93Hahn%E2%80%93Saks_theorem.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd say this is a comment rather than an answer. $\endgroup$ – Leo Sera Aug 3 '20 at 0:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It does say to avoid answering questions in comments. So this should be an answer, not a comment. (But culturally on math.stackexchange lots of people put answers in comments.) $\endgroup$ – Stephen Montgomery-Smith Aug 3 '20 at 0:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StephenMontgomery-Smith I see your point but I disagree that this answers the OP question. They are asking for a hint on where to begin, not for links on which the problem is solved for them. $\endgroup$ – Leo Sera Aug 3 '20 at 1:08
  • $\begingroup$ @LeoSera Don't upvote it then. $\endgroup$ – Stephen Montgomery-Smith Aug 3 '20 at 1:19
1
$\begingroup$

Here is my attempt at a hint, but I haven't actually seen the proof, so maybe this won't work. Suppose there is a sequence that converges weakly to $0$, but not strongly to $0$. Then w.l.o.g. there is a sequence $x_n \rightharpoonup 0$ and $\|x_n\| \ge 1$. Now choose a subsequence as follows. Given $x_{n_1}, x_{n_2}, \dots, x_{n_k}$, we know that there exists $N_k > N_{k-1}$ such that the sums used to calculate the norms of these vectors is almost all concentrated on $[1,N_k]$. Next, the individual components of $x_n$ converge to $0$. So we can choose $x_{n_{k+1}}$ so that the sum used to calculate the norm is almost all concentrated on $[N_k+1,\infty)$.

Now choose $y \in \ell^\infty$ so that the components of $y$ on $[N_{k-1}+1,N_k]$ are the signs of the components of $x_{n_k}$. Then see that $\langle x_{n_k}, y\rangle \not\to 0$.

To make this into a proper proof, you are going to have to quantify what 'almost all concentrated on' means.

$\endgroup$

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.