Weak closure of unit sphere is unit ball - a question about the hypotheses.











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












A homework problem I recall from functional analysis was to prove that the weak closure of the unit sphere, $S$, in an infinite-dimensional real normed vector space is the unit ball, $B$.



Looking back at what I turned in, I argued as follows:



Note that $S$ would be weakly dense in $B$ if, for any nonempty (relatively) weakly open subset $Usubset B$, one has $Scap Uneqemptyset$. Let $U$ be such a subset and let $x_{0}in Usubset B$. Fixing $epsilon>0$ and $x^{*}in X^{*}$, one has by continuity, that the inverse image
$$V_{*}^{epsilon}:=(x^{*})^{-1}[(langle x^{*},x_{0}rangle-epsilon,langle x^{*},x_{0}rangle+epsilon)]$$
is weakly open, and hence, $Ucap V_{*}^{epsilon}$ is (relatively) weakly open in $B$, and contains $x_{0}$. As long as $x^{*}$ does not vanish identically, it's kernel has codimension $1$, so since $text{dim}(X)=infty$, one must have that $text{ker}(x^{*})$ is nontrivial. Then, finding a nonzero $xiintext{ker}(x^{*})$, one has
$$x_{0}+txiin S$$
for some $tinmathbb{R}$. Finally, this yields
$$|langle x^{*},x_{0}rangle-langle x^{*},x_{0}+txirangle|=|t|cdot|langle x^{*},xirangle|=0<epsilon$$
which means $x_{0}+txiin V_{*}^{epsilon}$.



Now, I have two questions:




  1. If we knew that $V_{*}^{epsilon}subset U$, we'd be done. Why can we assume this? (It seems in some of the proofs I've seen elsewhere, this is assumed WLOG)

  2. Why do we need $text{dim}(X)=infty$? We are using the fact that
    $$X/text{ker}(x^{*})congmathbb{R}$$
    so if the kernel were trivial, wouldn't this still be a contradiction as long as $text{dim}(X)geq 2$?










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    A homework problem I recall from functional analysis was to prove that the weak closure of the unit sphere, $S$, in an infinite-dimensional real normed vector space is the unit ball, $B$.



    Looking back at what I turned in, I argued as follows:



    Note that $S$ would be weakly dense in $B$ if, for any nonempty (relatively) weakly open subset $Usubset B$, one has $Scap Uneqemptyset$. Let $U$ be such a subset and let $x_{0}in Usubset B$. Fixing $epsilon>0$ and $x^{*}in X^{*}$, one has by continuity, that the inverse image
    $$V_{*}^{epsilon}:=(x^{*})^{-1}[(langle x^{*},x_{0}rangle-epsilon,langle x^{*},x_{0}rangle+epsilon)]$$
    is weakly open, and hence, $Ucap V_{*}^{epsilon}$ is (relatively) weakly open in $B$, and contains $x_{0}$. As long as $x^{*}$ does not vanish identically, it's kernel has codimension $1$, so since $text{dim}(X)=infty$, one must have that $text{ker}(x^{*})$ is nontrivial. Then, finding a nonzero $xiintext{ker}(x^{*})$, one has
    $$x_{0}+txiin S$$
    for some $tinmathbb{R}$. Finally, this yields
    $$|langle x^{*},x_{0}rangle-langle x^{*},x_{0}+txirangle|=|t|cdot|langle x^{*},xirangle|=0<epsilon$$
    which means $x_{0}+txiin V_{*}^{epsilon}$.



    Now, I have two questions:




    1. If we knew that $V_{*}^{epsilon}subset U$, we'd be done. Why can we assume this? (It seems in some of the proofs I've seen elsewhere, this is assumed WLOG)

    2. Why do we need $text{dim}(X)=infty$? We are using the fact that
      $$X/text{ker}(x^{*})congmathbb{R}$$
      so if the kernel were trivial, wouldn't this still be a contradiction as long as $text{dim}(X)geq 2$?










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      A homework problem I recall from functional analysis was to prove that the weak closure of the unit sphere, $S$, in an infinite-dimensional real normed vector space is the unit ball, $B$.



      Looking back at what I turned in, I argued as follows:



      Note that $S$ would be weakly dense in $B$ if, for any nonempty (relatively) weakly open subset $Usubset B$, one has $Scap Uneqemptyset$. Let $U$ be such a subset and let $x_{0}in Usubset B$. Fixing $epsilon>0$ and $x^{*}in X^{*}$, one has by continuity, that the inverse image
      $$V_{*}^{epsilon}:=(x^{*})^{-1}[(langle x^{*},x_{0}rangle-epsilon,langle x^{*},x_{0}rangle+epsilon)]$$
      is weakly open, and hence, $Ucap V_{*}^{epsilon}$ is (relatively) weakly open in $B$, and contains $x_{0}$. As long as $x^{*}$ does not vanish identically, it's kernel has codimension $1$, so since $text{dim}(X)=infty$, one must have that $text{ker}(x^{*})$ is nontrivial. Then, finding a nonzero $xiintext{ker}(x^{*})$, one has
      $$x_{0}+txiin S$$
      for some $tinmathbb{R}$. Finally, this yields
      $$|langle x^{*},x_{0}rangle-langle x^{*},x_{0}+txirangle|=|t|cdot|langle x^{*},xirangle|=0<epsilon$$
      which means $x_{0}+txiin V_{*}^{epsilon}$.



      Now, I have two questions:




      1. If we knew that $V_{*}^{epsilon}subset U$, we'd be done. Why can we assume this? (It seems in some of the proofs I've seen elsewhere, this is assumed WLOG)

      2. Why do we need $text{dim}(X)=infty$? We are using the fact that
        $$X/text{ker}(x^{*})congmathbb{R}$$
        so if the kernel were trivial, wouldn't this still be a contradiction as long as $text{dim}(X)geq 2$?










      share|cite|improve this question













      A homework problem I recall from functional analysis was to prove that the weak closure of the unit sphere, $S$, in an infinite-dimensional real normed vector space is the unit ball, $B$.



      Looking back at what I turned in, I argued as follows:



      Note that $S$ would be weakly dense in $B$ if, for any nonempty (relatively) weakly open subset $Usubset B$, one has $Scap Uneqemptyset$. Let $U$ be such a subset and let $x_{0}in Usubset B$. Fixing $epsilon>0$ and $x^{*}in X^{*}$, one has by continuity, that the inverse image
      $$V_{*}^{epsilon}:=(x^{*})^{-1}[(langle x^{*},x_{0}rangle-epsilon,langle x^{*},x_{0}rangle+epsilon)]$$
      is weakly open, and hence, $Ucap V_{*}^{epsilon}$ is (relatively) weakly open in $B$, and contains $x_{0}$. As long as $x^{*}$ does not vanish identically, it's kernel has codimension $1$, so since $text{dim}(X)=infty$, one must have that $text{ker}(x^{*})$ is nontrivial. Then, finding a nonzero $xiintext{ker}(x^{*})$, one has
      $$x_{0}+txiin S$$
      for some $tinmathbb{R}$. Finally, this yields
      $$|langle x^{*},x_{0}rangle-langle x^{*},x_{0}+txirangle|=|t|cdot|langle x^{*},xirangle|=0<epsilon$$
      which means $x_{0}+txiin V_{*}^{epsilon}$.



      Now, I have two questions:




      1. If we knew that $V_{*}^{epsilon}subset U$, we'd be done. Why can we assume this? (It seems in some of the proofs I've seen elsewhere, this is assumed WLOG)

      2. Why do we need $text{dim}(X)=infty$? We are using the fact that
        $$X/text{ker}(x^{*})congmathbb{R}$$
        so if the kernel were trivial, wouldn't this still be a contradiction as long as $text{dim}(X)geq 2$?







      functional-analysis






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 17 at 18:39









      JWP_HTX

      187112




      187112






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          Nevermind - I have answered my own questions.




          1. $V_{w}=Big{{} bigcap_{j=1}^{n} (x_{j}^{*})^{-1}[(a_{j},b_{j})] text{ }Big{|}text{ } x_{1}^{*},ldots, x_{n}^{*}in X^{*}Big{}}$ is a base for the weak topology on $X$. Thus, we may find some $Vin V_{w}$ so that $x_{0}in Vsubset U$, and in particular, this means that for some $epsilon>0$, we have that
            $$V_{epsilon}=Big{{}xin X text{ } Big{|}text{ } |langle x_{j}^{*},x_{0}-xrangle|<epsilon text{ for all } j=1,ldots,nBig{}}subset U$$


          2. The fact that $text{dim}(X)=infty$ is then required to find a nonzero $xiinbigcap_{j=1}^{n}text{ker}(x^{*}_{j})$, and then we may proceed as above.







          share|cite|improve this answer























            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3002672%2fweak-closure-of-unit-sphere-is-unit-ball-a-question-about-the-hypotheses%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Nevermind - I have answered my own questions.




            1. $V_{w}=Big{{} bigcap_{j=1}^{n} (x_{j}^{*})^{-1}[(a_{j},b_{j})] text{ }Big{|}text{ } x_{1}^{*},ldots, x_{n}^{*}in X^{*}Big{}}$ is a base for the weak topology on $X$. Thus, we may find some $Vin V_{w}$ so that $x_{0}in Vsubset U$, and in particular, this means that for some $epsilon>0$, we have that
              $$V_{epsilon}=Big{{}xin X text{ } Big{|}text{ } |langle x_{j}^{*},x_{0}-xrangle|<epsilon text{ for all } j=1,ldots,nBig{}}subset U$$


            2. The fact that $text{dim}(X)=infty$ is then required to find a nonzero $xiinbigcap_{j=1}^{n}text{ker}(x^{*}_{j})$, and then we may proceed as above.







            share|cite|improve this answer



























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Nevermind - I have answered my own questions.




              1. $V_{w}=Big{{} bigcap_{j=1}^{n} (x_{j}^{*})^{-1}[(a_{j},b_{j})] text{ }Big{|}text{ } x_{1}^{*},ldots, x_{n}^{*}in X^{*}Big{}}$ is a base for the weak topology on $X$. Thus, we may find some $Vin V_{w}$ so that $x_{0}in Vsubset U$, and in particular, this means that for some $epsilon>0$, we have that
                $$V_{epsilon}=Big{{}xin X text{ } Big{|}text{ } |langle x_{j}^{*},x_{0}-xrangle|<epsilon text{ for all } j=1,ldots,nBig{}}subset U$$


              2. The fact that $text{dim}(X)=infty$ is then required to find a nonzero $xiinbigcap_{j=1}^{n}text{ker}(x^{*}_{j})$, and then we may proceed as above.







              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                0
                down vote










                up vote
                0
                down vote









                Nevermind - I have answered my own questions.




                1. $V_{w}=Big{{} bigcap_{j=1}^{n} (x_{j}^{*})^{-1}[(a_{j},b_{j})] text{ }Big{|}text{ } x_{1}^{*},ldots, x_{n}^{*}in X^{*}Big{}}$ is a base for the weak topology on $X$. Thus, we may find some $Vin V_{w}$ so that $x_{0}in Vsubset U$, and in particular, this means that for some $epsilon>0$, we have that
                  $$V_{epsilon}=Big{{}xin X text{ } Big{|}text{ } |langle x_{j}^{*},x_{0}-xrangle|<epsilon text{ for all } j=1,ldots,nBig{}}subset U$$


                2. The fact that $text{dim}(X)=infty$ is then required to find a nonzero $xiinbigcap_{j=1}^{n}text{ker}(x^{*}_{j})$, and then we may proceed as above.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                Nevermind - I have answered my own questions.




                1. $V_{w}=Big{{} bigcap_{j=1}^{n} (x_{j}^{*})^{-1}[(a_{j},b_{j})] text{ }Big{|}text{ } x_{1}^{*},ldots, x_{n}^{*}in X^{*}Big{}}$ is a base for the weak topology on $X$. Thus, we may find some $Vin V_{w}$ so that $x_{0}in Vsubset U$, and in particular, this means that for some $epsilon>0$, we have that
                  $$V_{epsilon}=Big{{}xin X text{ } Big{|}text{ } |langle x_{j}^{*},x_{0}-xrangle|<epsilon text{ for all } j=1,ldots,nBig{}}subset U$$


                2. The fact that $text{dim}(X)=infty$ is then required to find a nonzero $xiinbigcap_{j=1}^{n}text{ker}(x^{*}_{j})$, and then we may proceed as above.








                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Nov 18 at 19:32

























                answered Nov 17 at 23:25









                JWP_HTX

                187112




                187112






























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded



















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3002672%2fweak-closure-of-unit-sphere-is-unit-ball-a-question-about-the-hypotheses%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Quarter-circle Tiles

                    build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

                    Mont Emei