2
$\begingroup$

Let $E_i$ be a normed vector space (EDIT: Assume $E_2$ is complete), $\langle\;\cdot\;,\;\cdot\;\rangle$ be a duality pairing between $E_1$ and $E_2$ with $$\left|\langle x_1,x_2\rangle\right|\le\left\|x_1\right\|_{E_1}\left\|x_2\right\|_{E_2}\tag1,$$ $\sigma(E_2,E_1)$ denote the topology on $E_2$ generated by the seminorms $$p_{x_1}(x_2):=\left|\langle x_1,x_2\rangle\right|\;\;\;\text{for }(x_1,x_2)\in E_1\times E_2$$ and $\mathcal F\subseteq E_2$ be relatively $\sigma(E_2,E_1)$-compact.

Assume$^1$ $$\left\|x_2\right\|_{E_2}=\sup_{\left\|x_1\right\|_{E_1}\le1}p_{x_1}(x_2)\;\;\;\text{for all }x_2\in E_2\tag2.$$

Are we able to conclude that $\mathcal F$ is norm bounded, i.e. $\sup_{x_2\in\mathcal F}\left\|x_2\right\|_{E_2}<\infty$?

By $(2)$ and the Banach-Steinhaus theorem, it would be sufficient to show that $$\sup_{x_2\in\mathcal F}p_{x_1}(x_2)<\infty\tag3.$$ Can we show this?


$^1$ Do we actually explicitly need to assume this or is $(2)$ guaranteed to hold in the present setting?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps look up the hypotheses for Banach-Steinhaus. $\endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Dec 21 '20 at 9:39
  • $\begingroup$ @GEdgar What do you mean? The Banach-Steinhaus theorem is: If $X$ is a Banach space, $Y$ a normed vector space and $\mathcal F$ a family of bounded linear operators from $X$ to $Y$ with $\sup_{A\in\mathcal F}\left\|Ax\right\|<\infty$ for all $x\in X$, then $\sup_{A\in\mathcal F}\left\|A\right\|<\infty$. $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Dec 21 '20 at 9:47
  • $\begingroup$ OK. Note that your question is for "normed vector space" and not "Banach space". $\endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Dec 21 '20 at 9:51
  • $\begingroup$ @GEdgar Yeah, you're right. We need to assume that $E_2$ is complete. $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Dec 21 '20 at 9:55
  • $\begingroup$ @0xbadf00d Hello! $E_1$ needs to be complete, not $E_2$. $\endgroup$
    – dem0nakos
    Dec 21 '20 at 11:15
1
+50
$\begingroup$

If you assume that $$\tag{1} ||x_2||_{E_2}=\sup_{||x_1||_{E_1}\leq 1}p_{x_1}(x_2)\ \text{ for all } x_2\in E_2$$ and $\mathcal{F}\subseteqq E_2$ is an $\sigma(E_2,E_1)-$compact subset of $E_2$ then indeed $\mathcal{F}$ is bounded with respect to the $||.||_2$ norm. This follows from the uniform boundedness theorem applied to the space $E_1$ ( here we need to assume that $E_1$ is a Banach space instead of only being a normed space ). Indeed, consider the linear functionals $f_{x_2}:E_1\to \mathbb{R}$ where $$f_{x_2}(x_1)=\langle x_1,x_2 \rangle$$ for every $x_2 \in \mathcal{F}$. Then, by the assumption $$\tag{2}|\langle x_1,x_2\rangle|\leq ||x_1||_{E_1}\cdot ||x_2||_{E_2}$$ $f_{x_2}$'s are continuous. Now, since $\mathcal{F}$ is $\sigma(E_2,E_1)-$compact it follows that for fixed $x_1\in E_1$ the set $\{f_{x_2}(x_1):\, x_2\in \mathcal{F}\}$ is a bounded subset of $\mathbb{R}$. Hence, by the uniform boundedness theorem it follows that $$\sup_{x_2\in \mathcal{F}}||f_{x_2}||<\infty$$ But, by $(1)$, $||f_{x_2}||=\sup_{||x_1||\leq 1}p_{x_1}(x_2)=||x_2||$. Hence, $\sup_{x_2\in \mathcal{F}}||x_2||<\infty$.

Now if you dont have that $(1)$ holds necessarily then the conclusion it is not true in general. An example is the following: Consider $E_1=E_2=\ell_2$ and for every $x,y\in \ell_2$ the duality pairing $\langle\;\cdot\;,\;\cdot\;\rangle_{\ell_2'} :\ell_2 \times \ell_2\to \mathbb{R}$ given by $$\langle x,y\rangle_{\ell_2'}=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n}x_n y_n$$ $(2)$ follows by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Now, let $\mathcal{F}=\{ne_n:\, n\in \mathbb{N}\}\cup \{0\}$ where $e_n$ is the standard basis of $\ell_2$. Obviously, $\mathcal{F}$ is not bounded in $\ell_2$. Now for every $x\in \ell_2$ let $f_x:\ell_2\to \mathbb{R}$ given by $$f_x(y)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n}x_ny_n$$ Then, the topology $\sigma(E_2,E_1)$ is the coarsest topology for which the functionals $f_x$'s are continuous. We claim that $\mathcal{F}$ is compact with respect to $\sigma(E_2,E_1)$. First observe that $$\tag{3} f_x(\mathcal{F})=\{x_n:\, n\in \mathbb{N}\}\cup\{0\}$$ for every $x=(x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}\in \ell_2$. Since, $x_n\to 0$ it follows that $f_x(\mathcal{F})$ is a compact subset of $\mathbb{R}$. Let $(W_i)_{i\in I}$ be an $\sigma(E_2,E_1)$-open cover of $\mathcal{F}$. Let $i_0$ such that $0\in W_{i_0}$. There is an $\epsilon>0$ and a finite set $\{x_1,...,x_m\}$ such that $0\in W'\subseteq W_{i_0}$ where $$W'=\{y\in E_2:\, |f_{x_i}(y)|<\epsilon,\,\ i=1,...,m\}$$ By the description of $(3)$, if we fix an $N$ such that $|x_i(n)|<\epsilon$ for every $i=1,...,m$ and $n\geq N$ we obtain the inclusion $$\{ne_n:\ n\geq N\}\cup\{0\}\subseteq W'$$ Since, the finite set $\{ne_n:\, 1\leq n\leq N\}$ can be covered by finitely many $W_i$'s it follows that $\mathcal{F}$ can be covered by finitely many $W_i$'s. Hence, $\mathcal{F}$ is an $\sigma(E_2,E_2)-$compact subset of $E_2$ which is unbounded in the $||.||_{\ell_2}$ norm.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. Please note that I'm only assuming that $\mathcal F$ is relatively $\sigma(E_2,E_1)$-compact. Does the claim still hold? And aren't we able to show that any duality pairing which satisfies $(1)$ in the question also satisfies $(2)$ in the question (which is $(1)$ in your post)? $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Dec 24 '20 at 8:09
  • $\begingroup$ @0xbadf00d If $\mathcal{F}$ is relatively compact then you apply the same argument to the set $\overline{\mathcal{F}}$ and you conclude that $\overline{\mathcal{F}}$ is bounded. Hence, $\mathcal{F}$ must be bounded as a subset of $\overline{\mathcal{F}}$. For a general duality pairing we cant conclude that your $(2)$ holds even if satisfies $(1)$. In the example that i provided, the duality pairing $\langle\;\cdot\;,\;\cdot\;\rangle_{\ell_2'}$ cannot satisfy your $(2)$ condition since the set $\mathcal{F}=\{ne_n:\, n\in \mathbb{N}\}\cup \{0\}$ is compact but not norm bounded in $\ell_2$. $\endgroup$
    – dem0nakos
    Dec 24 '20 at 9:03
  • $\begingroup$ What am I missing? Let $x_2\in E_2$ and $c:=\sup_{\|x_1\|_{E_1}\le1}p_{x_2}(x_1)$. By $(1)$ (in my question), $c\le\left\|x_2\right\|_{E_2}$. Now assume $x_2\ne 0$. Then, since $\langle\;\cdot\;,\;\cdot\;\rangle$ is a duality pairing, there is a $x_1\in E_1$ with $\|x_1\|_{E_1}=1$ and $\langle x,y\rangle\ne0$. Thus, $\|x_2\|_{E_2}\le c$. $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Dec 24 '20 at 9:10
  • $\begingroup$ @0xbadf00d Can you elaborate more on how from $||x_1||_{E_1}=1$ and $\langle x, y\rangle \neq 0$ we obtain $||x_2||_{E_2}\leq c$? $\endgroup$
    – dem0nakos
    Dec 24 '20 at 9:15
  • $\begingroup$ I was a little bit too hasty. I was trying to mimic the prove of $$\left\|x\right\|_E=\sup_{\|\varphi\|_{E'}\le1}|\varphi(x)|\;\;\;\text{for all }x\in E$$ for every normed space $E$, which is an immediate consequence of the Hahn-Banach theorem and in turn yields that $$\langle x,\varphi\rangle:=\varphi(x)\;\;\;\text{for }(x,\varphi)\in E\times E'$$ is a duality pairing between $E$ and $E'$. $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Dec 24 '20 at 10:14

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.