0
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be a complex Banach space and let $x,y\in X$ be non-zero. Suppose that

$\|x+ty\|\geq \|x\|$ for all $t\in \mathbb{R}$. Let $\phi: \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ be defined by $\phi(t) := \|x+ty\|$. It is easy to see that $\phi$ attains minimum $t=0$. Consequently, the subdifferenetial of $\phi$ at $0$ (written as $\partial \phi(0)$) contains $0$.

From this can we conclude the following:

$\exists$ $x^*\in X^*$ such that $\|x^*\|=1$ with $x^*(x)=\|x\|$ and $Re~x^*(y)=0$.

I am a beginner in functional analysis and a detailed answer will be of great help.

Edit: Actually, in real case, the result can be obtained by a straighforward application of Hahn-Banach Theorem, by defining a functional $f: span\{x,y\}\to \mathbb{R}$ by $f(\alpha x+\beta y)= \alpha\|x\|$. However, in case of complex Banach spaces, we cannot use $span \{x,y\}$.

Thanks in advance

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, definitely @Theobendit $\endgroup$
    – pmun
    Mar 30 at 6:43
  • $\begingroup$ Well, there goes my suggestion! $\endgroup$ Mar 30 at 6:53
  • $\begingroup$ Are you saying about the current edit I made? @TheoBendit $\endgroup$
    – pmun
    Mar 30 at 6:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually, we need to modify $span\{x,y\}$ or think of any other ways! Thank you @TheoBendit for your kind reply and time. $\endgroup$
    – pmun
    Mar 30 at 6:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Essentially, it's much the same. Define $\phi$ over the span of $y$; it has a minimum at $0$, so the $0$ functional on $\operatorname{span}\{y\}$ is a subgradient on this space. Define the sublinear function $f(h)$ by the directional derivative of the norm function at $x$ in direction $h$. Extend this sublinear function to all of $X$, and the properties should fall out. $\endgroup$ Mar 30 at 7:11
1
$\begingroup$

The following is a proof in the real case, as requested in the comments.

Let $Y = \operatorname{span}\{y\}$ and define $$\phi : Y \to \Bbb{R} : z \mapsto \|x + z\|.$$ Then $\phi$ is convex. Note that $\phi$ attains a minimum at $0$, hence the $\mathbf{0}$ functional in $Y^*$ minorises $\phi$. That is, $$\mathbf{0}(z) = 0 \le \phi(z),$$ for all $z \in Y$. Let $$f : X \to \Bbb{R} : h \mapsto \lim_{t \to 0^+} \frac{\|x + th\| - \|x\|}{t}.$$ That is, $f(h)$ is the directional derivative of $\|\cdot\|$ at $x$, in direction $h$. In particular, this means that $f$ is sublinear. Further, clearly $f(h) \ge 0$ for $h \in \operatorname{span} Y$.

Using Hahn-Banach theorem, we can extend $\mathbf{0}$ to a linear functional $x^* \in X$ such that $x^*(h) \le f(h)$ for all $h \in X$. I claim that $x^*$ satisfies the conditions we want.

Note that $x^*(y) = 0$ for $z \in Y$, since $x^*(z) = \mathbf{0}(z) = z$ for all $z \in Y$. We also have, $$x^*(x) \le f(x) = \lim_{t \to 0^+} \frac{\|x + tx\| - \|x\|}{t} = \lim_{t \to 0 +}\frac{t\|x\|}{t} = \|x\|$$ and $$x^*(-x) \le f(-x) = \lim_{t \to 0^+} \frac{\|x - tx\| - \|x\|}{t} = \lim_{t \to 0 +}\frac{(1 - t - 1)\|x\|}{t} = -\|x\|,$$ where we restrict our attention to $t \in (0, 1]$. Together, we get $$x^*(x) = \|x\|,$$ as required.

Note that this implies $\|x^*\| \ge 1$. We also have, for $z \in X$, $$x^*(z) \le f(z) = \lim_{t \to 0^+} \frac{\|x + tz\| - \|x\|}{t} \le \lim_{t \to 0^+} \frac{\|x\| + t\|z\| - \|x\|}{t} = \|z\|,$$ thus $\|x^*\| = 1$ as required.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you so much @Theobendit. I will let you know, once I verify it. $\endgroup$
    – pmun
    Mar 30 at 7:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It might be useful to recall that one-sided derivatives of convex functions do exist (see math.stackexchange.com/questions/1816383/…), so $f$ is indeed well-defined. $\endgroup$ Mar 30 at 7:43
  • $\begingroup$ @SeverinSchraven Thanks! We need even more though: that $f$ is sublinear, and I was sort of taking it for granted that the reader would know this. Alternatively, one could use the Hahn-Banach separation theorem to separate the line $Y \times \{0\}$ from the interior of the epigraph of $\|\, \cdot + x\|$. $\endgroup$ Mar 30 at 7:46
  • $\begingroup$ You are right, I missed that. The positive homogenity is easy to show, but the subaddivitivity I cannot prove on the spot. $\endgroup$ Mar 30 at 8:42
  • $\begingroup$ It follows from the convexity of the function (positive homogeneity holds for general functions). Note that$$f(h_1 + h_2)=2f\left(\frac{h_1+h_2}{2}\right)=2\lim_{t\to0^+}\frac{\phi\left(\tfrac{h_1+h_2}{2}\right)-\phi(0)}{t}\le2\lim_{t\to0^+}\frac{\frac{\phi(th_1)+\phi(th_2)}{2}-\phi(0)}{t}=f(h_1)\\+f(h_2).$$ $\endgroup$ Mar 30 at 9:51

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.