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:
- 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)
- 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
add a comment |
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:
- 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)
- 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
add a comment |
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:
- 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)
- 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
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:
- 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)
- 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
functional-analysis
asked Nov 17 at 18:39
JWP_HTX
187112
187112
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Nevermind - I have answered my own questions.
$V_{w}=Big{{} bigcap_{j=1}^{n} (x_{j}^{*})^{-1}[(a_{j},b_{j})] text{ }Big{|}text{ } x_{1}^{*},ldots, x_{n}^{*}in X^{*}Big{}}$ 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
$$V_{epsilon}=Big{{}xin X text{ } Big{|}text{ } |langle x_{j}^{*},x_{0}-xrangle|<epsilon text{ for all } j=1,ldots,nBig{}}subset U$$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.
add a comment |
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.
$V_{w}=Big{{} bigcap_{j=1}^{n} (x_{j}^{*})^{-1}[(a_{j},b_{j})] text{ }Big{|}text{ } x_{1}^{*},ldots, x_{n}^{*}in X^{*}Big{}}$ 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
$$V_{epsilon}=Big{{}xin X text{ } Big{|}text{ } |langle x_{j}^{*},x_{0}-xrangle|<epsilon text{ for all } j=1,ldots,nBig{}}subset U$$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.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Nevermind - I have answered my own questions.
$V_{w}=Big{{} bigcap_{j=1}^{n} (x_{j}^{*})^{-1}[(a_{j},b_{j})] text{ }Big{|}text{ } x_{1}^{*},ldots, x_{n}^{*}in X^{*}Big{}}$ 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
$$V_{epsilon}=Big{{}xin X text{ } Big{|}text{ } |langle x_{j}^{*},x_{0}-xrangle|<epsilon text{ for all } j=1,ldots,nBig{}}subset U$$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.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Nevermind - I have answered my own questions.
$V_{w}=Big{{} bigcap_{j=1}^{n} (x_{j}^{*})^{-1}[(a_{j},b_{j})] text{ }Big{|}text{ } x_{1}^{*},ldots, x_{n}^{*}in X^{*}Big{}}$ 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
$$V_{epsilon}=Big{{}xin X text{ } Big{|}text{ } |langle x_{j}^{*},x_{0}-xrangle|<epsilon text{ for all } j=1,ldots,nBig{}}subset U$$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.
Nevermind - I have answered my own questions.
$V_{w}=Big{{} bigcap_{j=1}^{n} (x_{j}^{*})^{-1}[(a_{j},b_{j})] text{ }Big{|}text{ } x_{1}^{*},ldots, x_{n}^{*}in X^{*}Big{}}$ 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
$$V_{epsilon}=Big{{}xin X text{ } Big{|}text{ } |langle x_{j}^{*},x_{0}-xrangle|<epsilon text{ for all } j=1,ldots,nBig{}}subset U$$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.
edited Nov 18 at 19:32
answered Nov 17 at 23:25
JWP_HTX
187112
187112
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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