Mathematics · Book 5 · Bachelor Year 3

University Mathematics — Year 3

University Mathematics — Year 3 · Bachelor Year 3

8Banach Spaces and the Fundamental Theorems

Functional analysis studies infinite-dimensional normed spaces through the operators and functionals living on them. Its founding discovery is that completeness, via Baire’s theorem, forces strong uniformity: pointwise bounded families of operators are norm-bounded (Banach–Steinhaus), continuous bijections have continuous inverses (open mapping), and graphs detect continuity (closed graph). The other pillar, Hahn–Banach, needs no completeness at all — only Zorn’s lemma — and guarantees that dual spaces are rich enough to see every vector. This chapter proves all four theorems and tests them on the classical sequence spaces ℓp\ell^p, on concrete dual computations, and on a genuinely surprising application: there exist continuous 2π2\pi-periodic functions whose Fourier series diverges at a point — resolving in the negative a question Year 2 left open.

Throughout, E,FE, F are normed spaces over K=RK = \R or C\C; Banach space means complete normed space.

8.1 Bounded operators; sequence spaces

Definition 8.1

L(E,F)\mathcal L(E, F) denotes the space of bounded (= continuous, Year 2) linear maps with the operator norm ∣∣∣T∣∣∣=sup⁡∥x∥≤1∥Tx∥\vertiii T = \sup_{\norm x \leq 1}\norm{Tx}; it is submultiplicative: ∣∣∣ST∣∣∣≤∣∣∣S∣∣∣ ∣∣∣T∣∣∣\vertiii{ST} \leq \vertiii S\,\vertiii T. The dual is E′=L(E,K)E' = \mathcal L(E, K).

Proposition 8.2

If FF is a Banach space, so is L(E,F)\mathcal L(E, F); in particular E′E' is always a Banach space.

Proof. Let (Tn)(T_n) be Cauchy for ∣∣∣⋅∣∣∣\vertiii\cdot. For each xx, ∥Tnx−Tmx∥≤∣∣∣Tn−Tm∣∣∣∥x∥\norm{T_nx - T_mx} \leq \vertiii{T_n - T_m}\norm x: (Tnx)(T_nx) is Cauchy in FF, convergent; call the limit TxTx. TT is linear (limits of linear identities); passing to the limit in ∥Tnx−Tmx∥≤ε∥x∥\norm{T_nx - T_mx} \leq \varepsilon\norm x (n,m≥Nn, m \geq N) gives ∥Tnx−Tx∥≤ε∥x∥\norm{T_nx - Tx} \leq \varepsilon\norm x: Tn→TT_n \to T in operator norm, and ∣∣∣T∣∣∣≤∣∣∣TN∣∣∣+ε<∞\vertiii T \leq \vertiii{T_N} + \varepsilon < \infty. ∎

Definition 8.3

The classical sequence spaces (over KK, indexed by N\N):

ℓp={x=(xn):∥x∥p=(∑n∣xn∣p)1/p<∞}(1≤p<∞),\ell^p = \Bigl\{x = (x_n) : \norm x_p = \Bigl(\sum_n \abs{x_n}^p\Bigr)^{1/p} < \infty\Bigr\}\quad (1 \leq p < \infty),
ℓ∞={x:∥x∥∞=sup⁡∣xn∣<∞},\ell^\infty = \{x : \norm x_\infty = \sup\abs{x_n} < \infty\},

and c0={x:xn→0}c_0 = \{x : x_n \to 0\} with ∥⋅∥∞\norm\cdot_\infty. That ∥⋅∥p\norm\cdot_p is a norm follows from the Minkowski inequality, proved in the discrete case exactly as in Chapter 12 (or by summing the finite-dimensional inequality of Year 2). All are Banach spaces, and c0c_0 is a closed subspace of ℓ∞\ell^\infty (Exercise 8.3).

Unit balls of the p-norms in the plane, nested as p grows from 1 (diamond) through 2 (disc) and 4 (superellipse) to ∈fty (square). Convexity of every ball is the Minkowski inequality; the corners at p = 1 and p = ∈fty are where strict convexity, uniqueness of best approximations, and the equality cases of  all degenerate at once.
Unit balls of the pp-norms in the plane, nested as pp grows from 11 (diamond) through 22 (disc) and 44 (superellipse) to ∞\infty (square). Convexity of every ball is the Minkowski inequality; the corners at p=1p = 1 and p=∞p = \infty are where strict convexity, uniqueness of best approximations, and the equality cases of Exercise 12.12 all degenerate at once.

Proposition 8.4 (Neumann series)

Let EE be Banach and T∈L(E)=L(E,E)T \in \mathcal L(E) = \mathcal L(E,E) with ∣∣∣T∣∣∣<1\vertiii T < 1. Then I−TI - T is invertible in L(E)\mathcal L(E), with (I−T)−1=∑n≥0Tn(I - T)^{-1} = \sum_{n\geq0}T^n (convergent in operator norm). Consequently the set of invertible operators is open, and inversion is continuous on it.

Proof. The series converges absolutely (∣∣∣Tn∣∣∣≤∣∣∣T∣∣∣n\vertiii{T^n} \leq \vertiii T^n, geometric) in the Banach L(E)\mathcal L(E) (Proposition 8.2; Exercise 7.1(b)). Telescoping, (I−T)∑n≤NTn=I−TN+1→I(I - T)\sum_{n \leq N}T^n = I - T^{N+1} \to I, and similarly on the other side. For openness: if SS is invertible and ∣∣∣H∣∣∣<1/∣∣∣S−1∣∣∣\vertiii{H} < 1/\vertiii{S^{-1}}, then S+H=S(I+S−1H)S + H = S(I + S^{-1}H) with ∣∣∣S−1H∣∣∣<1\vertiii{S^{-1}H} < 1: invertible. Continuity of inversion: the series expression gives ∣∣∣(S+H)−1−S−1∣∣∣=O(∣∣∣H∣∣∣)\vertiii{(S+H)^{-1} - S^{-1}} = O(\vertiii H) locally. ∎

Example 8.5 (A Volterra equation, solved by Neumann)

On E=C([0, 1])E = \mathcal C(\intcc01), consider the integral equation

u(x)=1+λ∫0xu(t)  ⁣dt,i.e.u=1+λTu,(Tu)(x)=∫0xu.u(x) = 1 + \lambda\int_0^xu(t)\,\dd t, \qquad\text{i.e.}\qquad u = \mathbf 1 + \lambda Tu, \quad (Tu)(x) = \int_0^xu .

Here ∣∣∣T∣∣∣≤1\vertiii T \leq 1, so for ∣λ∣<1\abs\lambda < 1 the Neumann series applies directly: u=(I−λT)−11=∑nλnTn1u = (I - \lambda T)^{-1}\mathbf 1 = \sum_n\lambda^nT^n\mathbf 1. Computing, Tn1=xnn!T^n\mathbf 1 = \frac{x^n}{n!}, so

u(x)=∑n≥0(λx)nn!=eλx,u(x) = \sum_{n\geq0}\frac{(\lambda x)^n}{n!} = \eu^{\lambda x} ,

as differentiation confirms. Better: ∣∣∣Tn∣∣∣≤1n!\vertiii{T^n} \leq \frac1{n!} (the iterated kernel shrinks factorially), so ∑λnTn\sum\lambda^nT^n converges for every λ\lambda — the operator I−λTI - \lambda T is invertible for all λ∈C\lambda \in \C, even though ∣∣∣λT∣∣∣≥1\vertiii{\lambda T} \geq 1 eventually: what matters is the spectral decay of the powers, not the first norm. Volterra operators have this factorial decay built in (Exercise 7.4(a) exploited exactly this), which is why initial value problems never suffer the resonance phenomena of boundary value problems (Chapter 15).

8.2 Hahn–Banach

Theorem 8.6 (Hahn–Banach, analytic form)

Let EE be a real vector space, p ⁣:E→Rp \colon E \to \R sublinear (p(x+y)≤p(x)+p(y)p(x + y) \leq p(x) + p(y) and p(tx)=tp(x)p(tx) = tp(x) for t≥0t \geq 0), F⊆EF \subseteq E a subspace and f ⁣:F→Rf \colon F \to \R linear with f≤pf \leq p on FF. Then ff extends to a linear f~ ⁣:E→R\tilde f \colon E \to \R with f~≤p\tilde f \leq p on EE.

Proof. One-step extension. Let x0∉Fx_0 \notin F; we extend ff to F⊕Rx0F \oplus \R x_0 by choosing α=f~(x0)\alpha = \tilde f(x_0) correctly: we need, for all y∈Fy \in F, t>0t > 0,

f(y)+tα≤p(y+tx0)andf(y)−tα≤p(y−tx0),f(y) + t\alpha \leq p(y + tx_0) \quad\text{and}\quad f(y) - t\alpha \leq p(y - tx_0),

which after dividing by tt (sublinearity) reduce to

sup⁡v∈F [f(v)−p(v−x0)]  ≤  α  ≤  inf⁡u∈F [p(u+x0)−f(u)].\sup_{v \in F}\ \bigl[f(v) - p(v - x_0)\bigr] \;\leq\; \alpha \;\leq\; \inf_{u \in F}\ \bigl[p(u + x_0) - f(u)\bigr].

Such α\alpha exists iff every left member is ≤\leq every right member: indeed f(v)+f(u)=f(u+v)≤p(u+v)≤p(u+x0)+p(v−x0)f(v) + f(u) = f(u + v) \leq p(u + v) \leq p(u + x_0) + p(v - x_0), i.e. f(v)−p(v−x0)≤p(u+x0)−f(u)f(v) - p(v - x_0) \leq p(u + x_0) - f(u).

Zorn. Order the extensions of ff dominated by pp (pairs: subspace, functional) by extension; a chain has the union as upper bound; a maximal element must be defined on all of EE, else the one-step extension contradicts maximality. ∎

Corollary 8.7

Let EE be a normed space (K=RK = \R or C\C).

  1. Every f∈F′f \in F' (FF a subspace) extends to f~∈E′\tilde f \in E' with ∥f~∥E′=∥f∥F′\norm{\tilde f}_{E'} = \norm f_{F'}.
  2. For every x≠0x \neq 0 there is f∈E′f \in E' with ∥f∥=1\norm f = 1 and f(x)=∥x∥f(x) = \norm x. In particular E′E' separates the points of EE, and ∥x∥=sup⁡∥f∥≤1∣f(x)∣\norm x = \sup_{\norm f \leq 1}\abs{f(x)}.
  3. For a closed subspace FF and x∉Fx \notin F, there is f∈E′f \in E' vanishing on FF with f(x)=d(x,F)f(x) = d(x, F) and ∥f∥≤1\norm f \leq 1.

Proof. (1) Real case: apply Theorem 8.6 with p(x)=∥f∥F′ ∥x∥p(x) = \norm f_{F'}\,\norm x (sublinear); the extension satisfies ±f~(x)=f~(±x)≤p(x)\pm\tilde f(x) = \tilde f(\pm x) \leq p(x), so ∥f~∥≤∥f∥\norm{\tilde f} \leq \norm f, and ≥\geq is restriction. Complex case: let u=Re⁡fu = \operatorname{Re}f, a real functional with ∣u∣≤∥f∥∥⋅∥\abs u \leq \norm f\norm\cdot; note f(x)=u(x)−i u(ix)f(x) = u(x) - \iu\,u(\iu x) (check on real and imaginary parts: Im⁡f(x)=−Re⁡f(ix)\operatorname{Im}f(x) = -\operatorname{Re}f(\iu x)). Extend uu real-linearly with the same bound, and set f~(x)=u~(x)−iu~(ix)\tilde f(x) = \tilde u(x) - \iu\tilde u(\iu x): C\C-linear (direct check on multiplication by i\iu), extends ff; norm: for given xx write f~(x)=reiθ\tilde f(x) = r\eu^{\iu\theta}, then ∣f~(x)∣=f~(e−iθx)=u~(e−iθx)≤∥f∥ ∥x∥\abs{\tilde f(x)} = \tilde f(\eu^{-\iu\theta}x) = \tilde u(\eu^{-\iu\theta}x) \leq \norm f\,\norm x.

(2) On F=KxF = Kx define f(tx)=t∥x∥f(tx) = t\norm x: norm 11 on FF; extend by (1). The duality formula: ≤\leq is clear, ≥\geq by this ff.

(3) On F⊕KxF \oplus Kx define f(y+tx)=t d(x,F)f(y + tx) = t\,d(x, F); then for t≠0t \neq 0, ∥y+tx∥=∣t∣ ∥x+y/t∥≥∣t∣ d(x,F)=∣f(y+tx)∣\norm{y + tx} = \abs t\,\norm{x + y/t} \geq \abs t\,d(x, F) = \abs{f(y + tx)}: ∥f∥≤1\norm f \leq 1 on the subspace; extend by (1). ∎

Remark 8.8

By (2), the canonical map J ⁣:E→E′′J \colon E \to E'', J(x)(f)=f(x)J(x)(f) = f(x), is an isometry (Exercise 8.10): every normed space sits inside its bidual. Spaces with JJ surjective are called reflexive; the weekend problem shows ℓp\ell^p (1<p<∞1 < p < \infty) is reflexive while ℓ1\ell^1 is not.

8.3 The Baire trilogy

Theorem 8.9 (Banach–Steinhaus, uniform boundedness)

Let EE be a Banach space, FF normed, and (Ti)i∈I⊆L(E,F)(T_i)_{i\in I} \subseteq \mathcal L(E, F) a family with sup⁡i∥Tix∥<∞\sup_i \norm{T_ix} < \infty for every x∈Ex \in E. Then sup⁡i∣∣∣Ti∣∣∣<∞\sup_i \vertiii{T_i} < \infty.

Proof. The sets Fn={x:sup⁡i∥Tix∥≤n}F_n = \{x : \sup_i\norm{T_ix} \leq n\} are closed (intersections of preimages of closed balls) and cover EE. Baire (Theorem 7.6) gives n0n_0 and a ball B(x0,r)⊆Fn0B(x_0, r) \subseteq F_{n_0}. For ∥z∥<r\norm z < r: ∥Tiz∥≤∥Ti(x0+z)∥+∥Tix0∥≤2n0\norm{T_iz} \leq \norm{T_i(x_0 + z)} + \norm{T_ix_0} \leq 2n_0, so ∣∣∣Ti∣∣∣≤2n0/r\vertiii{T_i} \leq 2n_0/r for every ii. ∎

Corollary 8.10

If EE is Banach and Tn∈L(E,F)T_n \in \mathcal L(E,F) converge pointwise (Tnx→TxT_nx \to Tx for each xx), then sup⁡n∣∣∣Tn∣∣∣<∞\sup_n \vertiii{T_n} < \infty, T∈L(E,F)T \in \mathcal L(E, F), and ∣∣∣T∣∣∣≤lim inf⁡∣∣∣Tn∣∣∣\vertiii T \leq \liminf \vertiii{T_n}.

Proof. Convergent sequences are bounded: pointwise boundedness; Banach–Steinhaus bounds the norms by some MM; then ∥Tx∥=lim⁡∥Tnx∥≤M∥x∥\norm{Tx} = \lim\norm{T_nx} \leq M\norm x (TT is linear as a pointwise limit), and the sharper bound by passing to lim inf⁡\liminf in ∥Tnx∥≤∣∣∣Tn∣∣∣∥x∥\norm{T_nx} \leq \vertiii{T_n}\norm x. ∎

Theorem 8.11 (Divergent Fourier series)

There exist continuous 2π2\pi-periodic functions ff whose Fourier series diverges at 00: sup⁡N∣SN(f)(0)∣=∞\sup_N\abs{S_N(f)(0)} = \infty. Indeed such ff form a dense subset of C(S1)\mathcal C(S^1).

Proof. Work in E=(C(S1),∥⋅∥∞)E = (\mathcal C(S^1), \norm\cdot_\infty), a Banach space, with the functionals ΛN(f)=SN(f)(0)=12π∫−ππf(t) DN(t)  ⁣dt\Lambda_N(f) = S_N(f)(0) = \frac1{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f(t)\,D_N(t)\,\dd t (Dirichlet kernel, Year 2). Each ΛN\Lambda_N is continuous with

∥ΛN∥=12π∫−ππ∣DN(t)∣  ⁣dt  =  LN.\norm{\Lambda_N} = \frac1{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi\abs{D_N(t)}\,\dd t \;=\; L_N .

(≤\leq is clear; ≥\geq: take ff continuous, ∥f∥∞≤1\norm f_\infty \leq 1, approximating sign⁡DN\operatorname{sign}D_N — the sign has finitely many jumps; smoothing each jump on an interval of length ε\varepsilon changes the integral by O(Nε)O(N\varepsilon).) The Lebesgue constants LNL_N tend to infinity:

LN=12π∫−ππ∣sin⁡((N+12)t)∣∣sin⁡(t/2)∣  ⁣dt≥2π∫0π∣sin⁡((N+12)t)∣t  ⁣dt=2π∫0(N+12)π∣sin⁡u∣u  ⁣duL_N = \frac1{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{\abs{\sin\bigl((N{+}\tfrac12)t\bigr)}}{\abs{\sin(t/2)}} \,\dd t \geq \frac{2}{\pi}\int_0^{\pi} \frac{\abs{\sin\bigl((N{+}\tfrac12)t\bigr)}}{t}\,\dd t = \frac{2}{\pi}\int_0^{(N+\frac12)\pi}\frac{\abs{\sin u}}{u}\,\dd u

(using ∣sin⁡(t/2)∣≤t/2\abs{\sin(t/2)} \leq t/2 on [0,π][0, \pi], then substituting u=(N+12)tu = (N + \tfrac12)t). Cutting into arches:

∫(k−1)πkπ∣sin⁡u∣u  ⁣du≥1kπ∫(k−1)πkπ∣sin⁡u∣  ⁣du=2kπ,soLN≥4π2∑k=1N1k→N→∞∞.\int_{(k-1)\pi}^{k\pi}\frac{\abs{\sin u}}u\,\dd u \geq \frac1{k\pi}\int_{(k-1)\pi}^{k\pi}\abs{\sin u}\,\dd u = \frac{2}{k\pi}, \qquad\text{so}\qquad L_N \geq \frac{4}{\pi^2}\sum_{k=1}^N\frac1k \xrightarrow[N\to\infty]{} \infty .

If every continuous ff had sup⁡N∣ΛN(f)∣<∞\sup_N \abs{\Lambda_N(f)} < \infty, Banach–Steinhaus would force sup⁡N∥ΛN∥<∞\sup_N\norm{\Lambda_N} < \infty: contradiction. So some ff — in fact a nonmeagre, dense set of ff (the complement of ⋃M{f:sup⁡N∣ΛNf∣≤M}\bigcup_M\{f: \sup_N\abs{\Lambda_Nf}\leq M\}, a countable union of closed sets which, having no interior by the above applied in any ball, is meagre) — has sup⁡N∣SNf(0)∣=∞\sup_N\abs{S_Nf(0)} = \infty. ∎

Theorem 8.12 (Open mapping)

Let E,FE, F be Banach spaces and T∈L(E,F)T \in \mathcal L(E, F) surjective. Then TT is open: T(BE(0,1))⊇BF(0,c)T(B_E(0,1)) \supseteq B_F(0, c) for some c>0c > 0. Consequently a bijective bounded operator between Banach spaces has a bounded inverse.

Proof. Write B=BE(0,1)B = B_E(0,1). Surjectivity gives F=⋃nT(nB)‾=⋃nn T(B)‾F = \bigcup_n \overline{T(nB)} = \bigcup_n n\,\overline{T(B)}; Baire (Theorem 7.6) gives interior to T(B)‾\overline{T(B)}: some BF(y0,4c)⊆T(B)‾B_F(y_0, 4c) \subseteq \overline{T(B)}. Re-center at 00: for ∥y∥<4c\norm y < 4c, both y0+yy_0 + y and y0y_0 are limits of images TukTu_k, TvkTv_k with uk,vk∈Bu_k, v_k \in B, so y=lim⁡T(uk−vk)y = \lim T(u_k - v_k) with uk−vk∈2Bu_k - v_k \in 2B: BF(0,4c)⊆T(2B)‾B_F(0, 4c) \subseteq \overline{T(2B)}, i.e. BF(0,2c)⊆T(B)‾B_F(0, 2c) \subseteq \overline{T(B)}.

Removing the closure (here completeness of EE enters): let ∥y∥<c\norm y < c. Pick x1∈12Bx_1 \in \frac12 B with ∥y−Tx1∥<c/2\norm{y - Tx_1} < c/2 (BF(0,2c)⊆T(B)‾B_F(0,2c) \subseteq \overline{T(B)} scaled by 12\frac12); inductively xk∈2−kBx_k \in 2^{-k}B with ∥y−T(x1+⋯+xk)∥<c 2−k\norm{y - T(x_1 + \dots + x_k)} < c\,2^{-k}. The series ∑xk\sum x_k converges absolutely in the Banach EE, to x∈Bx \in B (norm <∑2−k=1< \sum 2^{-k} = 1), and Tx=yTx = y by continuity: BF(0,c)⊆T(B)B_F(0, c) \subseteq T(B). Openness of TT on arbitrary opens follows by translation and scaling; for the corollary, openness of TT means T−1T^{-1} is continuous. ∎

Corollary 8.13 (Equivalent norms)

If a vector space is complete for two comparable norms (∥⋅∥a≤C∥⋅∥b\norm\cdot_a \leq C\norm\cdot_b), the norms are equivalent.

Proof. The identity (E,∥⋅∥b)→(E,∥⋅∥a)(E, \norm\cdot_b) \to (E, \norm\cdot_a) is bounded and bijective between Banach spaces: its inverse is bounded. ∎

Theorem 8.14 (Closed graph)

Let E,FE, F be Banach and T ⁣:E→FT \colon E \to F linear. If the graph Γ={(x,Tx)}\Gamma = \{(x, Tx)\} is closed in E×FE \times F (i.e. xn→xx_n \to x and Txn→yTx_n \to y imply y=Txy = Tx), then TT is bounded.

Proof. E×FE \times F with ∥(x,y)∥=∥x∥+∥y∥\norm{(x,y)} = \norm x + \norm y is Banach; Γ\Gamma, a closed subspace, is Banach. The projection πE ⁣:Γ→E\pi_E\colon \Gamma \to E is bounded and bijective, so its inverse x↦(x,Tx)x \mapsto (x, Tx) is bounded (Theorem 8.12): ∥Tx∥≤∥(x,Tx)∥≤C∥x∥\norm{Tx} \leq \norm{(x, Tx)} \leq C\norm x. ∎

Method 8.15

When to reach for which theorem. Hahn–Banach: to produce a functional with prescribed behavior (norming a vector, vanishing on a subspace, extending from a subspace) — no completeness needed. Banach–Steinhaus: to convert pointwise information into uniform bounds — typically to show a limit operation is continuous, or (contrapositive) to prove divergence for some element, as for Fourier series. Open mapping / closed graph: to get continuity for free from algebraic bijectivity or from a closure property of the graph — typical use: comparing two complete norms, or proving automatic continuity. All three Baire theorems require completeness of the source; counterexamples otherwise (Exercise 8.7).

8.4 Dual spaces, concretely

Theorem 8.16

Isometrically: (c0)′≅ℓ1(c_0)' \cong \ell^1 and (ℓ1)′≅ℓ∞(\ell^1)' \cong \ell^\infty, via the pairing ⟨x,y⟩=∑nxnyn\langle x, y\rangle = \sum_n x_ny_n.

Proof. We prove (c0)′≅ℓ1(c_0)' \cong \ell^1; the second identification is Exercise 8.5. To y∈ℓ1y \in \ell^1 associate Λy(x)=∑xnyn\Lambda_y(x) = \sum x_ny_n (x∈c0x \in c_0): absolutely convergent, with ∣Λy(x)∣≤∥x∥∞∥y∥1\abs{\Lambda_y(x)} \leq \norm x_\infty\norm y_1, so ∥Λy∥≤∥y∥1\norm{\Lambda_y} \leq \norm y_1. Conversely let Λ∈(c0)′\Lambda \in (c_0)'; set yn=Λ(en)y_n = \Lambda(e_n) (ene_n the unit sequences). For any NN, test x(N)=∑n≤Nsign⁡(yn‾) en∈c0x^{(N)} = \sum_{n \leq N} \operatorname{sign}(\overline{y_n})\,e_n \in c_0 (norm ≤1\leq 1; in the complex case use unimodular factors yˉn/∣yn∣\bar y_n/\abs {y_n}): Λ(x(N))=∑n≤N∣yn∣≤∥Λ∥\Lambda(x^{(N)}) = \sum_{n\leq N}\abs{y_n} \leq \norm\Lambda. So y∈ℓ1y \in \ell^1 with ∥y∥1≤∥Λ∥\norm y_1 \leq \norm\Lambda. Finally Λ=Λy\Lambda = \Lambda_y: both agree on the ene_n, hence on finite sequences, dense in c0c_0 (truncation: ∥x−∑n≤Nxnen∥∞=sup⁡n>N∣xn∣→0\norm{x - \sum_{n \leq N}x_ne_n}_\infty = \sup_{n > N}\abs{x_n} \to 0 precisely because xn→0x_n \to 0); continuous functionals agreeing on a dense set are equal. The correspondence is linear, bijective, and isometric (∥Λy∥=∥y∥1\norm{\Lambda_y} = \norm y_1 from the two inequalities). ∎

8.5 Exercises

Exercise 8.1 ★

Compute the operator norms: (a) the shifts S(x1,x2,… )=(0,x1,x2,… )S(x_1, x_2, \dots) = (0, x_1, x_2, \dots) and S∗(x1,x2,… )=(x2,x3,… )S^*(x_1, x_2, \dots) = (x_2, x_3, \dots) on ℓ2\ell^2; (b) the multiplication operator Max=(anxn)M_a x = (a_nx_n) on ℓ2\ell^2, for a∈ℓ∞a \in \ell^\infty; (c) the functional Λ(f)=∫01/2f−∫1/21f\Lambda(f) = \int_0^{1/2}f - \int_{1/2}^1f on C([0, 1])\mathcal C(\intcc01) — show ∥Λ∥=1\norm\Lambda = 1 and that the norm is not attained.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 8.1.

(a) ∥Sx∥2=∥x∥2\norm{Sx}_2 = \norm x_2: SS is an isometry, ∣∣∣S∣∣∣=1\vertiii S = 1. For the backward shift: ∥S∗x∥22=∑n≥2∣xn∣2≤∥x∥22\norm{S^*x}_2^2 = \sum_{n \geq 2}\abs{x_n}^2 \leq \norm x_2^2, with equality for x=e2x = e_2: ∣∣∣S∗∣∣∣=1\vertiii{S^*} = 1.

(b) ∥Max∥22=∑∣an∣2∣xn∣2≤∥a∥∞2∥x∥22\norm{M_ax}_2^2 = \sum\abs{a_n}^2\abs{x_n}^2 \leq \norm a_\infty^2\norm x_2^2; testing x=enx = e_n gives ∣∣∣Ma∣∣∣≥∣an∣\vertiii{M_a} \geq \abs{a_n} for every nn: ∣∣∣Ma∣∣∣=∥a∥∞\vertiii{M_a} = \norm a_\infty.

(c) ∣Λ(f)∣≤∫01∣f∣≤∥f∥∞\abs{\Lambda(f)} \leq \int_0^1\abs f \leq \norm f_\infty: ∥Λ∥≤1\norm\Lambda \leq 1. For ε>0\varepsilon > 0 let fεf_\varepsilon be 11 on [0,12−ε][0, \frac12 - \varepsilon], −1-1 on [12+ε,1][\frac12 + \varepsilon, 1], affine between: ∥fε∥∞=1\norm{f_\varepsilon}_\infty = 1 and Λ(fε)≥1−2ε\Lambda(f_\varepsilon) \geq 1 - 2\varepsilon: ∥Λ∥=1\norm\Lambda = 1. Not attained: Λ(f)=1\Lambda(f) = 1 with ∥f∥∞≤1\norm f_\infty \leq 1 forces ∫01/2f=12\int_0^{1/2}f = \frac12 and ∫1/21f=−12\int_{1/2}^1 f = -\frac12, i.e. (continuity, ∣f∣≤1\abs f \leq 1) f≡1f \equiv 1 on [0,12][0, \frac12] and f≡−1f \equiv -1 on [12,1][\frac12, 1]: contradiction at 12\frac12.

Exercise 8.2 ★

Let EE be Banach, T∈L(E)T \in \mathcal L(E) invertible, and SS with ∣∣∣S−T∣∣∣<1/∣∣∣T−1∣∣∣\vertiii{S - T} < 1/\vertiii{T^{-1}}. Show that SS is invertible and estimate ∣∣∣S−1−T−1∣∣∣\vertiii{S^{-1} - T^{-1}}. Application: if a linear system Tx=bTx = b is solvable with TT invertible, a sufficiently small perturbation of TT keeps it uniquely solvable, with a quantitative bound on the change of solution.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 8.2.

Write S=T(I−T−1(T−S))S = T\bigl(I - T^{-1}(T - S)\bigr) with ∣∣∣T−1(T−S)∣∣∣≤∣∣∣T−1∣∣∣ ∣∣∣T−S∣∣∣=θ<1\vertiii{T^{-1}(T-S)} \leq \vertiii{T^{-1}}\,\vertiii{T - S} = \theta < 1: by Proposition 8.4, SS is invertible with S−1=∑n≥0(T−1(T−S))nT−1S^{-1} = \sum_{n\geq0}\bigl(T^{-1}(T - S)\bigr)^nT^{-1}, whence

∣∣∣S−1−T−1∣∣∣≤∑n≥1θn ∣∣∣T−1∣∣∣=∣∣∣T−1∣∣∣2 ∣∣∣T−S∣∣∣1−θ.\vertiii{S^{-1} - T^{-1}} \leq \sum_{n\geq1}\theta^n\,\vertiii{T^{-1}} = \frac{\vertiii{T^{-1}}^2\,\vertiii{T - S}}{1 - \theta}.

For the linear system: xT=T−1bx_T = T^{-1}b and xS=S−1bx_S = S^{-1}b differ by at most that bound times ∥b∥\norm b — small perturbations of an invertible system remain uniquely solvable, with Lipschitz dependence of the solution on the operator.

Exercise 8.3 ★★

(a) Prove that ℓ1\ell^1, ℓ∞\ell^\infty and c0c_0 are Banach spaces, and that c0c_0 is the closure in ℓ∞\ell^\infty of the space of finite sequences. (b) Show ℓp⊆ℓq\ell^p \subseteq \ell^q with ∥⋅∥q≤∥⋅∥p\norm\cdot_q \leq \norm\cdot_p for 1≤p≤q≤∞1 \leq p \leq q \leq \infty, and that the inclusion is strict.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 8.3.

(a) ℓ1\ell^1: let (x(k))(x^{(k)}) be Cauchy. Each coordinate is Cauchy (∣xn(k)−xn(l)∣≤∥x(k)−x(l)∥1\abs{x^{(k)}_n - x^{(l)}_n} \leq \norm{x^{(k)} - x^{(l)}}_1): let xn=lim⁡kxn(k)x_n = \lim_kx^{(k)}_n. Given ε\varepsilon, for k,l≥Kk, l \geq K: ∑n≤N∣xn(k)−xn(l)∣≤ε\sum_{n \leq N}\abs{x^{(k)}_n - x^{(l)}_n} \leq \varepsilon for every NN; let l→∞l \to \infty, then N→∞N \to \infty: ∥x(k)−x∥1≤ε\norm{x^{(k)} - x}_1 \leq \varepsilon, and x=x(k)−(x(k)−x)∈ℓ1x = x^{(k)} - (x^{(k)} - x) \in \ell^1. ℓ∞\ell^\infty: Cauchy for ∥⋅∥∞\norm\cdot_\infty is uniformly Cauchy: converges uniformly to a bounded sequence. c0c_0 is closed in ℓ∞\ell^\infty: if x(k)→xx^{(k)} \to x uniformly with xn(k)→n0x^{(k)}_n \to_n 0, then ∣xn∣≤∥x−x(k)∥∞+∣xn(k)∣\abs{x_n} \leq \norm{x - x^{(k)}}_\infty + \abs{x^{(k)}_n} gives lim sup⁡n∣xn∣≤ε\limsup_n\abs{x_n} \leq \varepsilon: x∈c0x \in c_0; a closed subspace of a Banach space is Banach. Finite sequences: their closure contains every x∈c0x \in c_0 (truncations converge: sup⁡n>N∣xn∣→0\sup_{n>N}\abs{x_n} \to 0) and is contained in the closed c0c_0.

(b) By homogeneity assume ∥x∥p=1\norm x_p = 1: then ∣xn∣≤1\abs{x_n} \leq 1 for all nn, so ∣xn∣q≤∣xn∣p\abs{x_n}^q \leq \abs{x_n}^p and ∥x∥q≤1=∥x∥p\norm x_q \leq 1 = \norm x_p; for q=∞q = \infty, ∣xn∣≤∥x∥p\abs{x_n} \leq \norm x_p directly. Strictness: xn=n−αx_n = n^{-\alpha} with 1q<α≤1p\frac1q < \alpha \leq \frac1p lies in ℓq∖ℓp\ell^q \setminus \ell^p (Riemann series).

Exercise 8.4 ★★

Let F⊆EF \subseteq E be a closed subspace and x∉Fx \notin F. Using Corollary 8.7, prove the duality formula

d(x,F)=max⁡{∣f(x)∣:f∈E′, ∥f∥≤1, f↾F=0}d(x, F) = \max\bigl\{\abs{f(x)} : f \in E',\ \norm f \leq 1,\ f\restriction_F = 0\bigr\}

(note: a maximum). Deduce that F=⋂{ker⁡f:f∈E′, f↾F=0}F = \bigcap\{\ker f : f \in E',\ f\restriction_F = 0\}: closed subspaces are exactly the intersections of kernels of functionals.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 8.4.

(≤\leq) If ∥f∥≤1\norm f \leq 1 and f↾F=0f\restriction_F = 0: for every y∈Fy \in F, ∣f(x)∣=∣f(x−y)∣≤∥x−y∥\abs{f(x)} = \abs{f(x - y)} \leq \norm{x - y}; take the infimum. (≥\geq, attained) Corollary 8.7(3) produces ff with f↾F=0f\restriction_F = 0, ∥f∥≤1\norm f \leq 1, f(x)=d(x,F)f(x) = d(x, F): the supremum is a maximum. Consequence: F⊆⋂{ker⁡f:f↾F=0}F \subseteq \bigcap\{\ker f : f\restriction_F = 0\} trivially, and a point x∉Fx \notin F is excluded from the intersection by the functional above (f(x)=d(x,F)>0f(x) = d(x,F) > 0, FF being closed).

Exercise 8.5 ★★

Prove (ℓ1)′≅ℓ∞(\ell^1)' \cong \ell^\infty isometrically, following the scheme of Theorem 8.16 (finite sequences are dense in ℓ1\ell^1). Where does the argument break for (ℓ∞)′(\ell^\infty)'?

Solution

Solution of Exercise 8.5.

For y∈ℓ∞y \in \ell^\infty: ∣Λy(x)∣=∣∑xnyn∣≤∥y∥∞∥x∥1\abs{\Lambda_y(x)} = \abs{\sum x_ny_n} \leq \norm y_\infty\norm x_1, so ∥Λy∥≤∥y∥∞\norm{\Lambda_y} \leq \norm y_\infty; testing on ene_n: ∣yn∣=∣Λy(en)∣≤∥Λy∥\abs{y_n} = \abs{\Lambda_y(e_n)} \leq \norm{\Lambda_y}: equality. Conversely, given Λ∈(ℓ1)′\Lambda \in (\ell^1)', set yn=Λ(en)y_n = \Lambda(e_n): ∣yn∣≤∥Λ∥\abs{y_n} \leq \norm\Lambda, so y∈ℓ∞y \in \ell^\infty; Λ\Lambda and Λy\Lambda_y agree on finite sequences, which are dense in ℓ1\ell^1 (∥x−∑n≤Nxnen∥1=∑n>N∣xn∣→0\norm{x - \sum_{n\leq N}x_ne_n}_1 = \sum_{n>N}\abs{x_n} \to 0): Λ=Λy\Lambda = \Lambda_y. The map y↦Λyy \mapsto \Lambda_y is linear, isometric, onto. For (ℓ∞)′(\ell^\infty)' the same start produces a sequence yn=Λ(en)y_n = \Lambda(e_n), but finite sequences are not dense in ℓ∞\ell^\infty (the constant sequence 1\mathbf 1 is at distance 11 from all of them), so Λ\Lambda is not determined by the yny_n — and indeed (ℓ∞)′≠ℓ1(\ell^\infty)' \neq \ell^1 (Problem 8.1).

Exercise 8.6 ★★

Let E,F,GE, F, G be normed with EE Banach, and B ⁣:E×F→GB \colon E \times F \to G bilinear, continuous in each variable separately. Show that BB is (jointly) continuous: ∥B(x,y)∥≤C∥x∥∥y∥\norm{B(x,y)} \leq C\norm x\norm y. (Apply Banach–Steinhaus to the family (B(⋅,y))∥y∥≤1(B(\cdot, y))_{\norm y \leq 1}.)

Solution

Solution of Exercise 8.6.

For each fixed xx, y↦B(x,y)y \mapsto B(x, y) is continuous linear: sup⁡∥y∥≤1∥B(x,y)∥<∞\sup_{\norm y \leq 1}\norm{B(x,y)} < \infty. So the family {B(⋅,y):∥y∥≤1}⊆L(E,G)\{B(\cdot, y) : \norm y \leq 1\} \subseteq \mathcal L(E, G) (each member continuous, by continuity in xx) is pointwise bounded on the Banach space EE: Banach–Steinhaus (Theorem 8.9) yields CC with ∥B(x,y)∥≤C∥x∥\norm{B(x,y)} \leq C\norm x for all ∥y∥≤1\norm y \leq 1; homogeneity in yy finishes: ∥B(x,y)∥≤C∥x∥∥y∥\norm{B(x,y)} \leq C\norm x\norm y.

Exercise 8.7 ★★

(a) On E=C([0, 1])E = \mathcal C(\intcc01), compare ∥⋅∥∞\norm\cdot_\infty and ∥⋅∥1\norm\cdot_1: the identity (E,∥⋅∥∞)→(E,∥⋅∥1)(E, \norm\cdot_\infty) \to (E, \norm\cdot_1) is bounded and bijective but its inverse is unbounded. Which hypothesis of Corollary 8.13 fails? (b) Exhibit a discontinuous linear map from a dense subspace of ℓ2\ell^2 to KK (e.g. on finite sequences), and explain why this does not contradict the closed graph theorem.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 8.7.

(a) ∥f∥1≤∥f∥∞\norm f_1 \leq \norm f_\infty: the identity is bounded, and bijective. Its inverse is unbounded: fn(x)=xnf_n(x) = x^n has ∥fn∥1=1n+1→0\norm{f_n}_1 = \frac1{n+1} \to 0 but ∥fn∥∞=1\norm{f_n}_\infty = 1. No contradiction with Corollary 8.13: (C([0, 1]),∥⋅∥1)(\mathcal C(\intcc01), \norm\cdot_1) is not complete (Exercise 7.1); the corollary requires completeness on both sides.

(b) On the space E0E_0 of finite sequences (dense in ℓ2\ell^2), φ(x)=∑nn xn\varphi(x) = \sum_n n\,x_n is linear and unbounded (φ(en)=n\varphi(e_n) = n with ∥en∥2=1\norm{e_n}_2 = 1). The closed graph theorem does not apply: E0E_0 is not complete — and φ\varphi has no continuous extension to ℓ2\ell^2, illustrating that density without uniform continuity is powerless (Theorem 7.2).

Exercise 8.8 ★★★

(Hellinger–Toeplitz) Let T ⁣:ℓ2→ℓ2T \colon \ell^2 \to \ell^2 be linear (everywhere defined) and symmetric: ⟨Tx,y⟩=⟨x,Ty⟩\langle Tx, y\rangle = \langle x, Ty\rangle for all x,yx, y, where ⟨x,y⟩=∑xnyˉn\langle x, y \rangle = \sum x_n\bar y_n. Show that TT is bounded. (Closed graph: if xk→xx_k \to x and Txk→zTx_k \to z, test against arbitrary yy.) Moral: unbounded symmetric operators — the Hamiltonians of quantum mechanics — can never be defined on the whole space.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 8.8.

We verify the closed-graph hypothesis. Let xk→xx_k \to x and Txk→zTx_k \to z in ℓ2\ell^2. For every yy:

⟨z,y⟩=lim⁡k⟨Txk,y⟩=lim⁡k⟨xk,Ty⟩=⟨x,Ty⟩=⟨Tx,y⟩,\langle z, y\rangle = \lim_k\langle Tx_k, y\rangle = \lim_k \langle x_k, Ty\rangle = \langle x, Ty\rangle = \langle Tx, y\rangle,

using continuity of the inner product in each slot (Cauchy–Schwarz) and symmetry twice. So z−Txz - Tx is orthogonal to every yy, in particular to itself: z=Txz = Tx. The graph is closed and ℓ2\ell^2 is Banach: TT is bounded (Theorem 8.14). Hence a symmetric operator defined on all of ℓ2\ell^2 is automatically bounded; genuinely unbounded symmetric operators (position, momentum, Hamiltonians) must live on proper dense subspaces.

Exercise 8.9 ★★★

(Polya’s theorem on quadrature) For each nn, let Λn(f)=∑i=0nwi,nf(xi,n)\Lambda_n(f) = \sum_{i=0}^{n} w_{i,n}f(x_{i,n}) be a quadrature rule on C([0, 1])\mathcal C(\intcc01) (xi,n∈[0, 1]x_{i,n} \in \intcc01, wi,n∈Rw_{i,n} \in \R). Show that Λn(f)→∫01f\Lambda_n(f) \to \int_0^1f for every continuous ff if and only if: (i) Λn(P)→∫01P\Lambda_n(P) \to \int_0^1P for every polynomial PP, and (ii) sup⁡n∑i∣wi,n∣<∞\sup_n\sum_i\abs{w_{i,n}} < \infty. (Compute ∥Λn∥\norm{\Lambda_n}; use Banach–Steinhaus and Weierstrass.) Check that rules with positive weights exact on constants satisfy (ii) automatically.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 8.9.

First, ∥Λn∥=∑i∣wi,n∣\norm{\Lambda_n} = \sum_i\abs{w_{i,n}}: ≤\leq is the triangle inequality; ≥\geq by testing a piecewise linear ff with ∥f∥∞≤1\norm f_\infty \leq 1 and f(xi,n)=sign⁡(wi,n)f(x_{i,n}) = \operatorname{sign}(w_{i,n}) (interpolate linearly between the finitely many nodes; where nodes coincide the signs agree).

(⇒\Rightarrow) Pointwise convergence at every ff implies (i), and pointwise boundedness, so Banach–Steinhaus (Theorem 8.9) on the Banach C([0, 1])\mathcal C(\intcc01) gives (ii).

(⇐\Leftarrow) Let M=sup⁡n∥Λn∥+1M = \sup_n\norm{\Lambda_n} + 1. Given ff and ε\varepsilon, choose a polynomial PP with ∥f−P∥∞<ε/(2M)\norm{f - P}_\infty < \varepsilon/(2M) (Corollary 7.16); then

∣Λnf−∫01f∣≤∣Λn(f−P)∣+∣ΛnP−∫01P∣+∣∫01(P−f)∣≤ε+∣ΛnP−∫01P∣→ε.\Bigl|\Lambda_n f - \int_0^1 f\Bigr| \leq \abs{\Lambda_n(f - P)} + \Bigl|\Lambda_nP - \int_0^1P\Bigr| + \Bigl|\int_0^1(P - f)\Bigr| \leq \varepsilon + \Bigl|\Lambda_nP - \int_0^1P\Bigr| \to \varepsilon .

Positive weights, exactness on constants: ∑i∣wi,n∣=∑iwi,n=Λn(1)=∫011=1\sum_i\abs{w_{i,n}} = \sum_iw_{i,n} = \Lambda_n(\mathbf 1) = \int_0^1 1 = 1 for rules exact on constants — (ii) holds with constant 11.

Exercise 8.10 ★★

Show that J ⁣:E→E′′J \colon E \to E'', J(x)(f)=f(x)J(x)(f) = f(x), is a linear isometry (use Corollary 8.7(2)), and that it is surjective when dim⁡E<∞\dim E < \infty. Show also that if E′E' is separable then so is EE. (Pick xnx_n nearly norming a dense sequence of E′E' and show their closed span is EE, via Corollary 8.7(3).)

Solution

Solution of Exercise 8.10.

Linearity of JJ is formal; ∥J(x)∥=sup⁡∥f∥≤1∣f(x)∣=∥x∥\norm{J(x)} = \sup_{\norm f \leq 1}\abs{f(x)} = \norm x by Corollary 8.7(2). If dim⁡E=n\dim E = n: dim⁡E′=n\dim E' = n (a basis gives coordinate functionals), so dim⁡E′′=n\dim E'' = n, and the injective (isometric) JJ is onto. Separability: let (fn)(f_n) be dense in E′E' and choose ∥xn∥=1\norm{x_n} = 1 with ∣fn(xn)∣≥12∥fn∥\abs{f_n(x_n)} \geq \frac12\norm{f_n}. Let F=Vect⁡‾(xn)F = \overline{\operatorname{Vect}}(x_n); if F≠EF \neq E, take g∈E′g \in E', g≠0g \neq 0, vanishing on FF (Corollary 8.7(3)); choose fnk→gf_{n_k} \to g:

∥fnk−g∥≥∣(fnk−g)(xnk)∣=∣fnk(xnk)∣≥12∥fnk∥≥12(∥g∥−∥fnk−g∥),\norm{f_{n_k} - g} \geq \abs{(f_{n_k} - g)(x_{n_k})} = \abs{f_{n_k}(x_{n_k})} \geq \tfrac12\norm{f_{n_k}} \geq \tfrac12\bigl(\norm g - \norm{f_{n_k} - g}\bigr),

so ∥fnk−g∥≥13∥g∥>0\norm{f_{n_k} - g} \geq \frac13\norm g > 0: contradiction. Hence F=EF = E, and rational (or Q+iQ\Q + \iu\Q) combinations of the xnx_n form a countable dense set.

Exercise 8.11 ★★

(Quotient spaces) Let EE be a Banach space and F⊆EF \subseteq E a closed subspace. On E/FE/F define

∥xˉ∥  =  d(x,F)=inf⁡y∈F∥x−y∥.\norm{\bar x} \;=\; d(x, F) = \inf_{y\in F}\norm{x - y} .

(a) Show this is a well-defined norm on E/FE/F (where does closedness of FF enter?), and that the projection π ⁣:E→E/F\pi \colon E \to E/F has ∣∣∣π∣∣∣≤1\vertiii\pi \leq 1 and maps the open unit ball onto the open unit ball. (b) Show that E/FE/F is complete. (Use the series criterion of Exercise 7.1(b): given classes xˉk\bar x_k with ∑∥xˉk∥<∞\sum\norm{\bar x_k} < \infty, lift each to xk∈Ex_k \in E with ∥xk∥≤∥xˉk∥+2−k\norm{x_k} \leq \norm{\bar x_k} + 2^{-k} and sum in EE.) (c) Compute: for E=cE = c (convergent sequences) and F=c0F = c_0, show c/c0≅Kc/c_0 \cong K isometrically via xˉ↦lim⁡nxn\bar x \mapsto \lim_nx_n.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 8.11.

(a) Well defined: d(x,F)d(x, F) depends only on xˉ\bar x (translating xx by FF does not change the distance). Homogeneity and triangle inequality pass from ∥⋅∥\norm\cdot through the infimum. Separation needs closedness: ∥xˉ∥=0\norm{\bar x} = 0 means d(x,F)=0d(x, F) = 0, i.e. x∈Fˉ=Fx \in \bar F = F, i.e. xˉ=0\bar x = 0. ∣∣∣π∣∣∣≤1\vertiii\pi \leq 1: ∥xˉ∥≤∥x∥\norm{\bar x} \leq \norm x. Open ball onto open ball: if ∥xˉ∥<1\norm{\bar x} < 1, some representative has ∥x−y∥<1\norm{x - y} < 1; conversely π(BE(0,1))⊆BE/F(0,1)\pi(B_E(0,1)) \subseteq B_{E/F}(0,1) by the norm inequality — so π\pi is open, the model case of the open mapping theorem.

(b) Let ∑k∥xˉk∥<∞\sum_k\norm{\bar x_k} < \infty and lift with ∥xk∥≤∥xˉk∥+2−k\norm{x_k} \leq \norm{\bar x_k} + 2^{-k}: then ∑∥xk∥<∞\sum\norm{x_k} < \infty, so s=∑kxks = \sum_kx_k converges in the Banach EE (Exercise 7.1(b)), and continuity of π\pi gives ∑kxˉk=sˉ\sum_k\bar x_k = \bar s: every absolutely convergent series of E/FE/F converges, which is equivalent to completeness (same exercise).

(c) The map λ(x)=lim⁡nxn\lambda(x) = \lim_nx_n is linear c→Kc \to K, vanishes exactly on c0c_0, so it induces a linear bijection c/c0→Kc/c_0 \to K. Isometry: d(x,c0)=∣λ(x)∣d(x, c_0) = \abs{\lambda(x)} — ≤\leq: subtract from xx the sequence x−λ(x)1∈c0x - \lambda(x)\mathbf 1 \in c_0, leaving λ(x)1\lambda(x)\mathbf 1 of norm ∣λ(x)∣\abs{\lambda(x)}; ≥\geq: for y∈c0y \in c_0, ∥x−y∥∞≥lim sup⁡n∣xn−yn∣=∣λ(x)∣\norm{x - y}_\infty \geq \limsup_n\abs{x_n - y_n} = \abs{\lambda(x)}.

Exercise 8.12 ★★

(Bounded projections and complemented subspaces) Let EE be a Banach space and P ⁣:E→EP \colon E \to E linear with P2=PP^2 = P (an algebraic projection), V=im⁡PV = \operatorname{im}P, W=ker⁡PW = \ker P. (a) Suppose PP is bounded. Show that VV and WW are closed and E=V⊕WE = V \oplus W with the decomposition x=Px+(x−Px)x = Px + (x - Px). (b) Conversely, suppose E=V⊕WE = V \oplus W with both V,WV, W closed, and let PP be the projection onto VV along WW. Show that PP is bounded. (Closed graph: if xn→xx_n \to x and Pxn→zPx_n \to z, then z∈Vz \in V, xn−Pxn→x−z∈Wx_n - Px_n \to x - z \in W, and uniqueness of the decomposition identifies z=Pxz = Px.) (c) Deduce the equivalence: a subspace VV admits a bounded projection iff it is closed and has a closed algebraic complement — and note (without proof) that closed subspaces without this property exist (c0c_0 inside ℓ∞\ell^\infty is the classical example): Hilbert spaces, where V⊥V^\perp always works (Chapter 13), are the exception, not the rule.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 8.12.

(a) W=ker⁡PW = \ker P is closed (preimage of 00 under a continuous map); V=im⁡P=ker⁡(I−P)V = \operatorname{im}P = \ker(I - P) (indeed Px=xPx = x iff x∈im⁡Px \in \operatorname{im}P, using P2=PP^2 = P), closed likewise. Every xx splits as Px+(x−Px)Px + (x - Px) with Px∈VPx \in V, x−Px∈Wx - Px \in W, and V∩W=0V \cap W = 0 (x=Px=0x = Px = 0): E=V⊕WE = V \oplus W.

(b) The graph argument: let xn→xx_n \to x and Pxn→zPx_n \to z. Then z∈Vz \in V (VV closed, Pxn∈VPx_n \in V) and xn−Pxn→x−z∈Wx_n - Px_n \to x - z \in W (WW closed). So x=z+(x−z)x = z + (x - z) with z∈Vz \in V, x−z∈Wx - z \in W; by uniqueness of the decomposition, z=Pxz = Px. The graph of PP is closed, EE is Banach: PP is bounded (Theorem 8.14).

(c) (a) and (b) together are the equivalence. In a Hilbert space every closed VV has the closed complement V⊥V^\perp (Chapter 13): every closed subspace is complemented. In general Banach spaces this fails — c0c_0 has no closed complement in ℓ∞\ell^\infty (Phillips’ theorem, beyond our tools) — so bounded projections are a privilege, and the closed graph theorem is exactly the bookkeeping that converts geometric splittings into bounded operators.

8.6 Problem: the duality of the ℓp\ell^p spaces

Problem 8.1

Weekend problem — (ℓp)′=ℓq(\ell^p)' = \ell^q, reflexivity, and the strangeness of ℓ∞\ell^\infty

Fix 1<p<∞1 < p < \infty and let qq be the conjugate exponent, 1p+1q=1\frac1p + \frac1q = 1. The pairing throughout is ⟨x,y⟩=∑nxnyn\langle x, y\rangle = \sum_n x_ny_n.

Part I — Hölder and Minkowski for sequences.

  1. (Young’s inequality) For a,b≥0a, b \geq 0 show ab≤app+bqqab \leq \frac{a^p}p + \frac{b^q}q, using concavity of log⁡\log or by studying t↦tpp+1q−tt \mapsto \frac{t^p}p + \frac1q - t.
  2. (Hölder) Deduce: ∣⟨x,y⟩∣≤∥x∥p∥y∥q\abs{\langle x, y\rangle} \leq \norm x_p\norm y_q for x∈ℓpx \in \ell^p, y∈ℓqy \in \ell^q; identify the equality case.
  3. (Minkowski) Deduce the triangle inequality for ∥⋅∥p\norm\cdot_p. (Write ∣xn+yn∣p≤∣xn∣ ∣xn+yn∣p−1+∣yn∣ ∣xn+yn∣p−1\abs{x_n + y_n}^p \leq \abs{x_n}\,\abs{x_n{+}y_n}^{p-1} + \abs{y_n}\,\abs{x_n{+}y_n}^{p-1} and apply Hölder to each term.)
  4. Prove that ℓp\ell^p is complete and that the finite sequences are dense in it.

Part II — The duality (ℓp)′=ℓq(\ell^p)' = \ell^q.

  1. For y∈ℓqy \in \ell^q, show that Λy(x)=⟨x,y⟩\Lambda_y(x) = \langle x, y\rangle defines Λy∈(ℓp)′\Lambda_y \in (\ell^p)' with ∥Λy∥≤∥y∥q\norm{\Lambda_y} \leq \norm y_q, and, testing on xn=∣yn∣q−1sign⁡(yn)x_n = \abs{y_n}^{q-1}\operatorname{sign}(y_n) (suitably truncated and normalized), that ∥Λy∥=∥y∥q\norm{\Lambda_y} = \norm y_q.
  2. Conversely, given Λ∈(ℓp)′\Lambda \in (\ell^p)', set yn=Λ(en)y_n = \Lambda(e_n); show y∈ℓqy \in \ell^q with ∥y∥q≤∥Λ∥\norm y_q \leq \norm\Lambda (test on truncations as in question 5 and let the truncation length grow), and conclude Λ=Λy\Lambda = \Lambda_y: the map y↦Λyy \mapsto \Lambda_y is an isometric isomorphism ℓq→(ℓp)′\ell^q \to (\ell^p)'.
  3. Deduce that ℓp\ell^p is reflexive for 1<p<∞1 < p < \infty: composing the two dualities, every element of (ℓp)′′(\ell^p)'' comes from ℓp\ell^p; verify carefully that the composite is the canonical JJ.

Part III — ℓ1\ell^1 and ℓ∞\ell^\infty are different animals.

  1. Show that ℓp\ell^p (1≤p<∞1 \leq p < \infty) and c0c_0 are separable, but ℓ∞\ell^\infty is not. (The uncountably many indicator sequences of subsets of N\N are pairwise at distance 11.)
  2. Deduce from Exercise 8.10 that (ℓ1)′≅ℓ∞(\ell^1)' \cong \ell^\infty but (ℓ∞)′≇ℓ1(\ell^\infty)' \not\cong \ell^1: ℓ1\ell^1 is not reflexive. (If (ℓ∞)′(\ell^\infty)' were ℓ1\ell^1, it would be separable, forcing ℓ∞\ell^\infty separable.)
  3. (A Banach limit, explicitly) On ℓR∞\ell^\infty_\R, let p(x)=lim sup⁡nx1+⋯+xnnp(x) = \limsup_n \frac{x_1 + \dots + x_n}{n}. Show that pp is sublinear, and that on the subspace cc of convergent sequences, LIM(x)=lim⁡x\mathrm{LIM}(x) = \lim x satisfies LIM≤p\mathrm{LIM} \leq p. Extend by Hahn–Banach to LIM ⁣:ℓR∞→R\mathrm{LIM} \colon \ell^\infty_\R \to \R and show: LIM\mathrm{LIM} is positive (x≥0⇒LIM(x)≥0x \geq 0 \Rightarrow \mathrm{LIM}(x) \geq 0), shift-invariant (LIM(x2,x3,… )=LIM(x)\mathrm{LIM}(x_2, x_3, \dots) = \mathrm{LIM}(x)), extends the limit, and satisfies lim inf⁡x≤LIM(x)≤lim sup⁡x\liminf x \leq \mathrm{LIM}(x)\leq \limsup x.
  4. Show that such a LIM\mathrm{LIM}, viewed in (ℓ∞)′(\ell^\infty)', is not of the form Λy\Lambda_y for any y∈ℓ1y \in \ell^1; conclude again (ℓ∞)′≠ℓ1(\ell^\infty)' \neq \ell^1. (Evaluate on the unit sequences ene_n, then on the constant sequence 11.)
  5. Evaluate LIM\mathrm{LIM} on (0,1,0,1,… )(0,1,0,1,\dots), and show that no shift-invariant multiplicative extension of the limit can exist (consider x=(0,1,0,1,… )x = (0,1,0,1,\dots) and x⋅Sxx\cdot Sx where SS is the shift).

Part IV — Epilogue: why reflexivity matters.

  1. Using Corollary 8.10 and question 6, show that every bounded sequence of ℓp\ell^p (1<p<∞1 < p < \infty) has a subsequence (x(k))(x^{(k)}) that converges weakly: Λ(x(k))\Lambda(x^{(k)}) converges for every Λ∈(ℓp)′\Lambda \in (\ell^p)'. (Diagonal extraction on the countably many coordinates; identify the weak limit in ℓp\ell^p using uniform boundedness of norms and Hölder.) Show by example (ene_n in ℓ1\ell^1, against well-chosen elements of ℓ∞\ell^\infty) that this fails in ℓ1\ell^1: weak compactness is a privilege of reflexive spaces.

Part V — The weak topology at work, and Schur’s surprise. Write x(k)⇀xx^{(k)} \rightharpoonup x in a normed space EE (weak convergence) when Λ(x(k))→Λ(x)\Lambda(x^{(k)}) \to \Lambda(x) for every Λ∈E′\Lambda \in E'.

  1. Complete the census: show (c0)′≅ℓ1(c_0)' \cong \ell^1 isometrically, by the scheme of questions 5–6 (what replaces the test sequences?). Assemble the chain c0→ℓ1→ℓ∞→…c_0 \to \ell^1 \to \ell^\infty \to \dots of successive duals and mark where reflexivity fails.
  2. Show that every weakly convergent sequence of a Banach space is bounded: view the x(k)x^{(k)} through the canonical embedding JJ as functionals on E′E' and apply Banach–Steinhaus (Theorem 8.9) — on which Banach space, and why is completeness available there?
  3. Show that in ℓp\ell^p, 1<p<∞1 < p < \infty: x(k)⇀xx^{(k)} \rightharpoonup x iff sup⁡k∥x(k)∥p<∞\sup_k\norm{x^{(k)}}_p < \infty and xn(k)→xnx^{(k)}_n \to x_n for every coordinate nn (one direction uses Banach–Steinhaus through the canonical embedding; for the other, approximate y∈ℓqy \in \ell^q by finite sequences). Deduce ek⇀0e_k \rightharpoonup 0 in ℓ2\ell^2 while ∥ek∥2=1\norm{e_k}_2 = 1: weak limits can lose mass.
  4. Show that the norm is weakly lower semicontinuous: x(k)⇀xx^{(k)} \rightharpoonup x implies ∥x∥≤lim inf⁡k ∥x(k)∥\norm x \leq \liminf_k\,\norm{x^{(k)}} (pick a norming functional for xx, Corollary 8.7).
  5. (Radon–Riesz in ℓ2\ell^2) Show that in ℓ2\ell^2, weak convergence together with convergence of norms implies norm convergence (expand ∥x(k)−x∥22\norm{x^{(k)} - x}_2^2). Give a counterexample to the same statement without the norm hypothesis.
  6. (Schur, step 1) Let x(k)⇀0x^{(k)} \rightharpoonup 0 in ℓ1\ell^1 and suppose, for contradiction, ∥x(k)∥1≥δ>0\norm{x^{(k)}}_1 \geq \delta > 0 along a subsequence. Show first that xn(k)→0x^{(k)}_n \to 0 for each nn (which functionals?), then construct recursively indices k1<k2<⋯k_1 < k_2 < \cdots and integers 0=N0<N1<N2<⋯0 = N_0 < N_1 < N_2 < \cdots such that the mass of x(kj)x^{(k_j)} concentrates on the block Bj=(Nj−1, Nj]B_j = \intoc{N_{j-1}}{N_j}:

    ∑n∈Bj∣xn(kj)∣≥∥x(kj)∥1−δ10.\sum_{n \in B_j}\bigl|x^{(k_j)}_n\bigr| \geq \norm{x^{(k_j)}}_1 - \frac\delta{10} .
  7. (Schur, step 2) Define y∈ℓ∞y \in \ell^\infty by yn=sign⁡(xn(kj))y_n = \operatorname{sign}\bigl(x^{(k_j)}_n\bigr) for n∈Bjn \in B_j. Show ⟨x(kj),y⟩≥∥x(kj)∥1−2δ10≥8δ10\langle x^{(k_j)}, y\rangle \geq \norm{x^{(k_j)}}_1 - \frac{2\delta}{10} \geq \frac{8\delta}{10} and derive a contradiction with x(k)⇀0x^{(k)} \rightharpoonup 0. Conclude Schur’s theorem: in ℓ1\ell^1, weakly convergent sequences converge in norm.
  8. Deduce that (ek)(e_k) has no weakly convergent subsequence in ℓ1\ell^1 (its only candidate limit is 00, coordinatewise — then apply Schur), recovering question 13’s failure of weak compactness; and resolve the apparent paradox: in ℓ1\ell^1 weak and norm convergence of sequences coincide, yet the weak and norm topologies differ and bounded sets still fail to be weakly sequentially compact — no contradiction, only the failure of reflexivity.
  9. (Synthesis table) For E∈{c0, ℓ1, ℓp (1<p<∞), ℓ∞}E \in \{c_0,\ \ell^1,\ \ell^p\ (1{<}p{<}\infty),\ \ell^\infty\}, tabulate: the dual; separability; reflexivity; whether bounded sequences admit weakly convergent subsequences; and one signature property of each space, justified in one line from this problem.

Part VI — Complements: nearest points, averaged convergence, the value of a Banach limit.

  1. (Nearest points: a dividend of reflexivity) Let FF be a closed subspace of ℓp\ell^p (1<p<∞1 < p < \infty) and x∈ℓpx \in \ell^p. Show that d=dist⁡(x,F)d = \operatorname{dist}(x, F) is attained: extract from a minimizing sequence a weakly convergent subsequence (question 13), keep the weak limit inside FF by building, via Hahn–Banach, a functional vanishing on FF but not at a point outside it, and conclude with question 17. Then show the privilege is not universal: in c0c_0, for Λ(x)=∑n2−nxn\Lambda(x) = \sum_n2^{-n}x_n, prove ∥Λ∥=1\norm\Lambda = 1 is not attained on the unit ball, establish the distance formula dist⁡(x,ker⁡Λ)=∣Λ(x)∣\operatorname{dist}(x, \ker\Lambda) = \abs{\Lambda(x)}, and deduce that no x∉ker⁡Λx \notin \ker\Lambda has a nearest point in the closed hyperplane ker⁡Λ\ker\Lambda.
  2. (Banach–Saks in ℓ2\ell^2) Let x(k)⇀0x^{(k)} \rightharpoonup 0 in ℓR2\ell^2_{\R} with ∥x(k)∥2≤C\norm{x^{(k)}}_2 \leq C. Construct a subsequence (yj)(y_j) with ∣⟨yi,yj⟩∣≤1j\abs{\langle y_i, y_j\rangle} \leq \frac1j for all i<ji < j, and deduce

    ∥y1+⋯+ymm∥22≤C2+2m⟶0:\Bigl\lVert\frac{y_1 + \dots + y_m}m\Bigr\rVert_2^2 \leq \frac{C^2 + 2}m \longrightarrow 0 :

    after extraction, the Cesàro means converge in norm. Check on (ek)(e_k), whose means have norm 1m\frac1{\sqrt m}: weak convergence, useless for the sequence itself (question 16), becomes norm convergence for averages.

  3. (The value of a Banach limit) Let LL be any Banach limit (question 10) and Amx=1m(x+Sx+⋯+Sm−1x)A_mx = \frac1m(x + Sx + \dots + S^{m-1}x). Show L(Amx)=L(x)L(A_mx) = L(x) and lim inf⁡Amx≤L(x)≤lim sup⁡Amx\liminf A_mx \leq L(x) \leq \limsup A_mx; deduce that all Banach limits agree on periodic sequences, with value the mean over a period — 13\frac13 on (1,0,0,1,0,0,… )(1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, \dots), consistent with question 12’s 12\frac12. Then show agreement fails in general: for the block sequence xx equal to 11 on (3j−1, 3j]\intoc{3^{j-1}}{3^j} for even jj and 00 elsewhere, show that the Cesàro means oscillate between ≤13\leq \frac13 and ≥23\geq \frac23, and build two Banach limits L±L_\pm with L−(x)≤13<23≤L+(x)L_-(x) \leq \frac13 < \frac23 \leq L_+(x) (extend from c⊕Rxc \oplus \R x with the extreme admissible values ±\pm: check that Λ(y+tx)=lim⁡y+t p(x)\Lambda(y + tx) = \lim y + t\,p(x) is dominated by the sublinear pp of question 10).
Solution

Solution of Problem 8.1.

1. For a,b>0a, b > 0: by concavity of log⁡\log, log⁡(app+bqq)≥1plog⁡ap+1qlog⁡bq=log⁡(ab)\log\bigl(\tfrac{a^p}p + \tfrac{b^q}q\bigr) \geq \tfrac1p\log a^p + \tfrac1q\log b^q = \log(ab); exponentiate. (If ab=0ab = 0 the inequality is trivial.) Equality iff ap=bqa^p = b^q.

2. We may assume ∥x∥p=∥y∥q=1\norm x_p = \norm y_q = 1 (homogeneity; zero cases trivial). Then

∣⟨x,y⟩∣≤∑n∣xn∣∣yn∣≤∑n(∣xn∣pp+∣yn∣qq)=1p+1q=1=∥x∥p∥y∥q.\abs{\langle x, y\rangle} \leq \sum_n\abs{x_n}\abs{y_n} \leq \sum_n\Bigl(\frac{\abs{x_n}^p}p + \frac{\abs{y_n}^q}q\Bigr) = \frac1p + \frac1q = 1 = \norm x_p\norm y_q .

Equality requires ∣xn∣p=∣yn∣q\abs{x_n}^p = \abs{y_n}^q for all nn (Young’s equality case) and alignment of the phases of xnynx_ny_n.

3. ∣xn+yn∣p≤(∣xn∣+∣yn∣)∣xn+yn∣p−1\abs{x_n + y_n}^p \leq \bigl(\abs{x_n} + \abs{y_n}\bigr)\abs{x_n + y_n}^{p-1}; summing and applying Hölder (pp against qq, noting (p−1)q=p(p - 1)q = p):

∥x+y∥pp≤(∥x∥p+∥y∥p) (∑n∣xn+yn∣p)1/q=(∥x∥p+∥y∥p) ∥x+y∥pp/q;\norm{x + y}_p^p \leq \bigl(\norm x_p + \norm y_p\bigr)\,\Bigl(\sum_n\abs{x_n + y_n}^{p}\Bigr)^{1/q} = \bigl(\norm x_p + \norm y_p\bigr)\,\norm{x+y}_p^{p/q};

if ∥x+y∥p≠0\norm{x + y}_p \neq 0 (else trivial), divide by ∥x+y∥pp/q\norm{x+y}_p^{p/q} and use p−pq=1p - \frac pq = 1. (Finiteness of ∥x+y∥p\norm{x+y}_p first: ∣xn+yn∣p≤2p(∣xn∣p+∣yn∣p)\abs{x_n+y_n}^p \leq 2^p(\abs{x_n}^p + \abs{y_n}^p).)

4. Completeness: as for ℓ1\ell^1 (Exercise 8.3), coordinatewise limits plus the uniform tail bound ∑n≤N∣xn(k)−xn(l)∣p≤εp\sum_{n\leq N}\abs{x^{(k)}_n - x^{(l)}_n}^p \leq \varepsilon^p, letting ll then NN tend to infinity. Density of finite sequences: ∥x−∑n≤Nxnen∥pp=∑n>N∣xn∣p→0\norm{x - \sum_{n\leq N}x_ne_n}_p^p = \sum_{n > N}\abs{x_n}^p \to 0.

5. Hölder gives ∣Λy(x)∣≤∥x∥p∥y∥q\abs{\Lambda_y(x)} \leq \norm x_p\norm y_q: ∥Λy∥≤∥y∥q\norm{\Lambda_y} \leq \norm y_q. Testing: let xn(N)=∣yn∣q−1sign⁡‾(yn)x^{(N)}_n = \abs{y_n}^{q-1}\overline{\operatorname{sign}}(y_n) for n≤Nn \leq N, 00 beyond (with sign⁡\operatorname{sign} the unimodular phase, so that xnyn=∣yn∣qx_ny_n = \abs{y_n}^q). Then Λy(x(N))=∑n≤N∣yn∣q\Lambda_y(x^{(N)}) = \sum_{n\leq N}\abs{y_n}^q and ∥x(N)∥p=(∑n≤N∣yn∣q)1/p\norm{x^{(N)}}_p = \bigl(\sum_{n\leq N}\abs{y_n}^{q}\bigr)^{1/p} (as (q−1)p=q(q-1)p = q), so

∥Λy∥≥(∑n≤N∣yn∣q)1−1/p→N→∞∥y∥q.\norm{\Lambda_y} \geq \Bigl(\sum_{n\leq N}\abs{y_n}^q\Bigr)^{1 - 1/p} \xrightarrow[N\to\infty]{} \norm y_q .

6. Set yn=Λ(en)y_n = \Lambda(e_n). With the same test vectors, ∑n≤N∣yn∣q=Λ(x(N))≤∥Λ∥ (∑n≤N∣yn∣q)1/p\sum_{n \leq N}\abs{y_n}^q = \Lambda(x^{(N)}) \leq \norm\Lambda\,\bigl(\sum_{n\leq N}\abs{y_n}^q\bigr)^{1/p}, whence (∑n≤N∣yn∣q)1/q≤∥Λ∥\bigl(\sum_{n\leq N}\abs{y_n}^q\bigr)^{1/q} \leq \norm\Lambda for every NN: y∈ℓqy \in \ell^q, ∥y∥q≤∥Λ∥\norm y_q \leq \norm\Lambda. The functionals Λ\Lambda and Λy\Lambda_y agree on the dense finite sequences (question 4): Λ=Λy\Lambda = \Lambda_y. With question 5, y↦Λyy \mapsto \Lambda_y is an isometric isomorphism ℓq≅(ℓp)′\ell^q \cong (\ell^p)'.

7. Let ξ∈(ℓp)′′\xi \in (\ell^p)''. Composing with the isometry ℓq≅(ℓp)′\ell^q \cong (\ell^p)' of question 6, ξ\xi defines an element of (ℓq)′(\ell^q)', which (question 6 with p,qp, q swapped) is Λz\Lambda_z for a unique z∈ℓpz \in \ell^p: for every y∈ℓqy \in \ell^q, ξ(Λy)=∑nznyn\xi(\Lambda_y) = \sum_nz_ny_n. On the other hand J(z)(Λy)=Λy(z)=∑nynznJ(z)(\Lambda_y) = \Lambda_y(z) = \sum_ny_nz_n: the same value. Since every element of (ℓp)′(\ell^p)' is some Λy\Lambda_y, ξ=J(z)\xi = J(z): JJ is onto — ℓp\ell^p is reflexive.

8. Finite sequences with rational (real and imaginary) entries are countable and dense in ℓp\ell^p (p<∞p < \infty) and in c0c_0. In ℓ∞\ell^\infty: the family {1A:A⊆N}\{\mathbf 1_A : A \subseteq \N\} is uncountable with ∥1A−1B∥∞=1\norm{\mathbf 1_A - \mathbf 1_B}_\infty = 1 for A≠BA \neq B; the balls B(1A,12)B(\mathbf 1_A, \frac12) are pairwise disjoint, and a dense set must meet each: no countable dense set exists.

9. If ℓ1\ell^1 were reflexive, then (ℓ∞)′≅((ℓ1)′)′=J(ℓ1)(\ell^\infty)' \cong ((\ell^1)')' = J(\ell^1) would be separable (isometric image of the separable ℓ1\ell^1); by Exercise 8.10, the separability of the dual (ℓ∞)′(\ell^\infty)' would force ℓ∞\ell^\infty separable — contradicting question 8. So ℓ1\ell^1 is not reflexive (and (ℓ∞)′(\ell^\infty)' is strictly larger than ℓ1\ell^1, as question 11 makes concrete).

10. Homogeneity of pp is clear; subadditivity: averages are linear, and lim sup⁡(un+vn)≤lim sup⁡un+lim sup⁡vn\limsup(u_n + v_n) \leq \limsup u_n + \limsup v_n. On cc: the Cesàro means of a convergent sequence converge to its limit, so p(x)=lim⁡x=LIM(x)p(x) = \lim x = \mathrm{LIM}(x) there; in particular LIM≤p\mathrm{LIM} \leq p on cc. Hahn–Banach (Theorem 8.6) extends LIM\mathrm{LIM} to ℓR∞\ell^\infty_\R with LIM≤p\mathrm{LIM} \leq p globally. Positivity: for x≥0x \geq 0, −LIM(x)=LIM(−x)≤p(−x)=lim sup⁡avg(−x)≤0-\mathrm{LIM}(x) = \mathrm{LIM}(-x) \leq p(-x) = \limsup\text{avg}(-x) \leq 0. Shift-invariance: the averages of x−Sxx - Sx telescope to x1−xn+1n→0\frac{x_1 - x_{n+1}}n \to 0, so p(±(x−Sx))=0p(\pm(x - Sx)) = 0 and LIM(x−Sx)=0\mathrm{LIM}(x - Sx) = 0. Bounds: LIM(x)≤p(x)≤lim sup⁡x\mathrm{LIM}(x) \leq p(x) \leq \limsup x (averages lag behind sups), and applying this to −x-x gives the lower bound.

11. en∈c0e_n \in c_0, so LIM(en)=0\mathrm{LIM}(e_n) = 0 for all nn. If LIM=Λy\mathrm{LIM} = \Lambda_y with y∈ℓ1y \in \ell^1, then yn=Λy(en)=0y_n = \Lambda_y(e_n) = 0 for all nn: Λy=0\Lambda_y = 0; but LIM(1)=1\mathrm{LIM}(\mathbf 1) = 1. So LIM∈(ℓ∞)′∖{Λy:y∈ℓ1}\mathrm{LIM} \in (\ell^\infty)' \setminus \{\Lambda_y : y \in \ell^1\}: (ℓ∞)′≠ℓ1(\ell^\infty)' \neq \ell^1, again.

12. For x=(0,1,0,1,… )x = (0,1,0,1,\dots): x+Sx=1x + Sx = \mathbf 1, so 2 LIM(x)=LIM(x)+LIM(Sx)=12\,\mathrm{LIM}(x) = \mathrm{LIM}(x) + \mathrm{LIM}(Sx) = 1: LIM(x)=12\mathrm{LIM}(x) = \frac12. If φ\varphi were a shift-invariant multiplicative extension of the limit: x⋅Sx=0x\cdot Sx = 0 gives φ(x)φ(Sx)=φ(x)2=0\varphi(x)\varphi(Sx) = \varphi(x)^2 = 0, so φ(x)=0\varphi(x) = 0; but φ(x)+φ(Sx)=φ(1)=1\varphi(x) + \varphi(Sx) = \varphi(\mathbf 1) = 1 gives 2φ(x)=12\varphi(x) = 1: contradiction. Averaging and multiplication cannot coexist.

13. Let ∥x(k)∥p≤M\norm{x^{(k)}}_p \leq M. Coordinates are bounded by MM: a diagonal extraction gives a subsequence (still written x(k)x^{(k)}) with xn(k)→xnx^{(k)}_n \to x_n for every nn. Then x∈ℓpx \in \ell^p: ∑n≤N∣xn∣p=lim⁡k∑n≤N∣xn(k)∣p≤Mp\sum_{n\leq N}\abs{x_n}^p = \lim_k\sum_{n\leq N}\abs{x^{(k)}_n}^p \leq M^p for all NN. Weak convergence: for y∈ℓqy \in \ell^q and NN arbitrary,

∣Λy(x(k)−x)∣≤∣∑n≤N(xn(k)−xn)yn∣+2M(∑n>N∣yn∣q)1/q,\abs{\Lambda_y(x^{(k)} - x)} \leq \Bigl|\sum_{n \leq N}(x^{(k)}_n - x_n)y_n\Bigr| + 2M\Bigl(\sum_{n>N}\abs{y_n}^q\Bigr)^{1/q},

where the first term tends to 00 as k→∞k \to \infty (finitely many coordinates) and the second is small for NN large (Hölder on the tail): Λy(x(k))→Λy(x)\Lambda_y(x^{(k)}) \to \Lambda_y(x) for every yy — weak convergence, since every functional is a Λy\Lambda_y (question 6). In ℓ1\ell^1 this fails: consider (en)(e_n), bounded. Any subsequence (enk)(e_{n_k}) converges coordinatewise to 00, so its only weak limit candidate is 00; but testing against y∈ℓ∞y \in \ell^\infty defined by ynk=(−1)ky_{n_k} = (-1)^k (and 00 elsewhere), Λy(enk)=(−1)k\Lambda_y(e_{n_k}) = (-1)^k diverges. No weakly convergent subsequence: weak sequential compactness of balls characterizes the reflexive world.

14. For y∈ℓ1y \in \ell^1, Λy(x)=∑xnyn\Lambda_y(x) = \sum x_ny_n is defined on c0c_0 with ∣Λy(x)∣≤∥x∥∞∥y∥1\abs{\Lambda_y(x)} \leq \norm x_\infty\norm y_1, and testing on x(N)=(sign⁡y1,…,sign⁡yN,0,… )∈c0x^{(N)} = (\operatorname{sign}y_1, \dots, \operatorname{sign}y_N, 0, \dots) \in c_0 gives Λy(x(N))=∑n≤N∣yn∣→∥y∥1\Lambda_y(x^{(N)}) = \sum_{n\leq N}\abs{y_n} \to \norm y_1: ∥Λy∥=∥y∥1\norm{\Lambda_y} = \norm y_1. Conversely, for Λ∈(c0)′\Lambda \in (c_0)' put yn=Λ(en)y_n = \Lambda(e_n); the same tests give ∑n≤N∣yn∣=Λ(x(N))≤∥Λ∥\sum_{n \leq N}\abs{y_n} = \Lambda(x^{(N)}) \leq \norm\Lambda, so y∈ℓ1y \in \ell^1, and Λ=Λy\Lambda = \Lambda_y on the dense finite sequences, hence everywhere. The chain of duals: (c0)′=ℓ1(c_0)' = \ell^1, (ℓ1)′=ℓ∞(\ell^1)' = \ell^\infty (Exercise 8.10), (ℓ∞)′⊋ℓ1(\ell^\infty)' \supsetneq \ell^1 (questions 9–11): reflexivity fails at the very first step — c0′′=ℓ∞≠c0c_0'' = \ell^\infty \neq c_0 — and never recovers.

15. Jx(k)∈E′′=(E′)′J x^{(k)} \in E'' = (E')' is a family of bounded functionals on the Banach space E′E' (duals are complete, Proposition 8.2); for each Λ∈E′\Lambda \in E', the sequence Jx(k)(Λ)=Λ(x(k))Jx^{(k)}(\Lambda) = \Lambda(x^{(k)}) converges, hence is bounded. Banach–Steinhaus on E′E' gives sup⁡k∥Jx(k)∥<∞\sup_k\norm{Jx^{(k)}} < \infty, and JJ is isometric (Remark 8.8): sup⁡k∥x(k)∥<∞\sup_k\norm{x^{(k)}} < \infty.

16. (⇒\Rightarrow) Boundedness is question 15; coordinates are the functionals Λen\Lambda_{e_n}. (⇐\Leftarrow) Let M=sup⁡k∥x(k)∥pM = \sup_k\norm{x^{(k)}}_p, y∈ℓqy \in \ell^q, ε>0\varepsilon > 0; choose NN with (∑n>N∣yn∣q)1/q<ε\bigl(\sum_{n>N}\abs{y_n}^q\bigr)^{1/q} < \varepsilon. Then

∣Λy(x(k)−x)∣≤∑n≤N∣xn(k)−xn∣ ∣yn∣+∥x(k)−x∥p ε≤∑n≤N∣xn(k)−xn∣∣yn∣+(M+∥x∥p) ε,\abs{\Lambda_y(x^{(k)} - x)} \leq \sum_{n\leq N}\abs{x^{(k)}_n - x_n}\,\abs{y_n} + \norm{x^{(k)} - x}_p\,\varepsilon \leq \sum_{n\leq N}\abs{x^{(k)}_n - x_n}\abs{y_n} + (M + \norm x_p)\,\varepsilon,

and the finite sum tends to 00: lim sup⁡≤(M+∥x∥p)ε\limsup \leq (M + \norm x_p)\varepsilon for every ε\varepsilon. (That x∈ℓpx \in \ell^p with ∥x∥p≤M\norm x_p \leq M follows from Fatou-style finite-section bounds: ∑n≤N∣xn∣p=lim⁡k∑n≤N∣xn(k)∣p≤Mp\sum_{n \leq N}\abs{x_n}^p = \lim_k\sum_{n\leq N}\abs{x^{(k)}_n}^p \leq M^p.) For eke_k in ℓ2\ell^2: bounded, coordinatewise →0\to 0, so ek⇀0e_k \rightharpoonup 0, yet ∥ek∥=1\norm{e_k} = 1: the unit of mass escapes to infinite index, invisible to every fixed functional.

17. Take Λ\Lambda with ∥Λ∥=1\norm\Lambda = 1 and Λ(x)=∥x∥\Lambda(x) = \norm x (Corollary 8.7). Then ∥x∥=lim⁡Λ(x(k))≤lim inf⁡∥Λ∥ ∥x(k)∥=lim inf⁡∥x(k)∥\norm x = \lim\Lambda(x^{(k)}) \leq \liminf\norm\Lambda\,\norm{x^{(k)}} = \liminf\norm{x^{(k)}}. (With ek⇀0e_k \rightharpoonup 0: 0≤lim inf⁡10 \leq \liminf 1, and the inequality can be strict.)

18. In ℓ2\ell^2, ∥x(k)−x∥22=∥x(k)∥22−2Re⁡⟨x(k),x⟩+∥x∥22\norm{x^{(k)} - x}_2^2 = \norm{x^{(k)}}_2^2 - 2\operatorname{Re}\langle x^{(k)}, x\rangle + \norm x_2^2 (real case: −2⟨x(k),x⟩-2\langle x^{(k)}, x\rangle). Weak convergence applied to the functional Λx\Lambda_x gives ⟨x(k),x⟩→∥x∥22\langle x^{(k)}, x\rangle \to \norm x_2^2, and the norms converge by hypothesis: the right side tends to ∥x∥2−2∥x∥2+∥x∥2=0\norm x^2 - 2\norm x^2 + \norm x^2 = 0. Counterexample without norm convergence: ek⇀0e_k \rightharpoonup 0, ∥ek−0∥=1↛0\norm{e_k - 0} = 1 \not\to 0.

19. Coordinate convergence: apply the functionals Λen∈(ℓ1)′=ℓ∞\Lambda_{e_n} \in (\ell^1)' = \ell^\infty (y=eny = e_n). Construction: having chosen kj−1,Nj−1k_{j-1}, N_{j-1}, pick kj>kj−1k_j > k_{j-1} so large that ∑n≤Nj−1∣xn(kj)∣<δ20\sum_{n \leq N_{j-1}}\abs{x^{(k_j)}_n} < \frac\delta{20} (finitely many coordinates, each →0\to 0), then Nj>Nj−1N_j > N_{j-1} so large that the tail satisfies ∑n>Nj∣xn(kj)∣<δ20\sum_{n > N_j}\abs{x^{(k_j)}_n} < \frac\delta{20} (convergence of the series defining ∥x(kj)∥1\norm{x^{(k_j)}}_1). The block Bj=(Nj−1, Nj]B_j = \intoc{N_{j-1}}{N_j} then carries all but δ10\frac\delta{10} of the mass of x(kj)x^{(k_j)}.

20. With yy as defined (∣yn∣≤1\abs{y_n} \leq 1 everywhere):

⟨x(kj),y⟩=∑n∈Bj∣xn(kj)∣+∑n∉Bjxn(kj)yn≥(∥x(kj)∥1−δ10)−δ10≥δ−2δ10=4δ5>0,\langle x^{(k_j)}, y\rangle = \sum_{n \in B_j}\abs{x^{(k_j)}_n} + \sum_{n \notin B_j}x^{(k_j)}_ny_n \geq \Bigl(\norm{x^{(k_j)}}_1 - \frac\delta{10}\Bigr) - \frac\delta{10} \geq \delta - \frac{2\delta}{10} = \frac{4\delta}5 > 0,

the middle inequality because the mass off the block is at most δ10\frac\delta{10} (question 19). But y∈ℓ∞=(ℓ1)′y \in \ell^\infty = (\ell^1)' and x(k)⇀0x^{(k)} \rightharpoonup 0 force ⟨x(kj),y⟩→0\langle x^{(k_j)}, y\rangle \to 0: contradiction. Hence weakly null sequences of ℓ1\ell^1 are norm-null, and by translation weakly convergent ones converge in norm: Schur’s theorem.

21. A weakly convergent subsequence of (ek)(e_k) would have limit 00 (coordinates), hence by Schur ∥ekj∥1→0\norm{e_{k_j}}_1 \to 0 — but the norms are 11. So no weakly convergent subsequence exists, as found by hand in question 13. No paradox: Schur says sequences cannot distinguish the weak from the norm topology in ℓ1\ell^1 (the topologies themselves do differ — weak neighborhoods are never norm-bounded), and weak sequential compactness of the unit ball is a different, stronger property, equivalent to reflexivity (Eberlein–Šmulian, beyond our tools; the failure, at least, we have proved).

22. The census.

EEE′E'sep.refl.weak seq. cpt. balls
c0c_0ℓ1\ell^1yesnono (e1+…+eke_1{+}\dots{+}e_k)
ℓ1\ell^1ℓ∞\ell^\inftyyesnono (eke_k, q. 21)
ℓp\ell^pℓq\ell^qyesyesyes (q. 13)
ℓ∞\ell^\infty⊋ℓ1\supsetneq\ell^1nonono

Signatures: c0c_0 — its bidual is ℓ∞\ell^\infty: the first non-reflexive step (question 14); ℓ1\ell^1 — Schur’s property (question 20); ℓp\ell^p — reflexivity and weak compactness (questions 7, 13); ℓ∞\ell^\infty — non-separability and Banach limits: functionals no sequence can represent (questions 8, 10–11). One family of spaces, four different worlds.

23. Let (fk)⊆F(f_k) \subseteq F with ∥x−fk∥→d\norm{x - f_k} \to d. Then ∥fk∥≤∥x∥+sup⁡k∥x−fk∥\norm{f_k} \leq \norm x + \sup_k\norm{x - f_k}: bounded, so by question 13 a subsequence fkj⇀ff_{k_j} \rightharpoonup f. If f∉Ff \notin F, then δ=dist⁡(f,F)>0\delta = \operatorname{dist}(f, F) > 0 (FF closed); on F⊕RfF \oplus \R f the linear form λ(g+tf)=t\lambda(g + tf) = t satisfies ∣λ(u)∣≤∥u∥/δ\abs{\lambda(u)} \leq \norm u/\delta (because ∥g+tf∥≥∣t∣ δ\norm{g + tf} \geq \abs t\,\delta), and Hahn–Banach extends it to Λ∈(ℓp)′\Lambda \in (\ell^p)' with Λ↾F=0\Lambda\restriction_F = 0, Λ(f)=1\Lambda(f) = 1; but then 0=Λ(fkj)→Λ(f)=10 = \Lambda(f_{k_j}) \to \Lambda(f) = 1: contradiction. So f∈Ff \in F, and x−fkj⇀x−fx - f_{k_j} \rightharpoonup x - f gives, by question 17,

d≤∥x−f∥≤lim inf⁡j ∥x−fkj∥=d:d \leq \norm{x - f} \leq \liminf_j\,\norm{x - f_{k_j}} = d :

the distance is attained at ff. In c0c_0: ∣Λ(x)∣≤∑n2−n∣xn∣<∥x∥∞\abs{\Lambda(x)} \leq \sum_n2^{-n}\abs{x_n} < \norm x_\infty for every x≠0x \neq 0 (a nonzero null sequence cannot satisfy ∣xn∣=∥x∥∞\abs{x_n} = \norm x_\infty for all nn), while the truncated ones (1,…,1,0,… )(1, \dots, 1, 0, \dots) give Λ=1−2−N→1\Lambda = 1 - 2^{-N} \to 1: so ∥Λ∥=1\norm\Lambda = 1, never attained. Distance formula: for f∈ker⁡Λf \in \ker\Lambda, ∣Λ(x)∣=∣Λ(x−f)∣≤∥x−f∥\abs{\Lambda(x)} = \abs{\Lambda(x - f)} \leq \norm{x - f}, so dist⁡(x,ker⁡Λ)≥∣Λ(x)∣\operatorname{dist}(x, \ker\Lambda) \geq \abs{\Lambda(x)}; conversely, for uu in the unit ball with Λ(u)≥1−ε\Lambda(u) \geq 1 - \varepsilon, the vector f=x−Λ(x)Λ(u)uf = x - \frac{\Lambda(x)}{\Lambda(u)}u lies in ker⁡Λ\ker\Lambda with ∥x−f∥≤∣Λ(x)∣1−ε\norm{x - f} \leq \frac{\abs{\Lambda(x)}}{1 - \varepsilon}: equality. If some f∈ker⁡Λf \in \ker\Lambda attained it, z=x−fz = x - f would satisfy ∣Λ(z)∣=∣Λ(x)∣=∥z∥≠0\abs{\Lambda(z)} = \abs{\Lambda(x)} = \norm z \neq 0, so Λ\Lambda would attain its norm at z/∥z∥z/\norm z: impossible. A closed hyperplane of c0c_0 with no nearest points anywhere — reflexivity was not decorative.

24. Set y1=x(1)y_1 = x^{(1)}. Given y1,…,yjy_1, \dots, y_j, each map k↦⟨yi,x(k)⟩k \mapsto \langle y_i, x^{(k)}\rangle tends to 00 (yi∈ℓ2=(ℓ2)′y_i \in \ell^2 = (\ell^2)'), so there is kj+1k_{j+1} beyond the previous index with ∣⟨yi,x(kj+1)⟩∣≤1j+1\abs{\langle y_i, x^{(k_{j+1})}\rangle} \leq \frac1{j+1} for i=1,…,ji = 1, \dots, j; call the choice yj+1y_{j+1}. Then

∥∑j=1myj∥22=∑j=1m∥yj∥22+2∑j=2m∑i<j⟨yi,yj⟩≤mC2+2∑j=2mj−1j≤mC2+2m,\Bigl\lVert\sum_{j=1}^my_j\Bigr\rVert_2^2 = \sum_{j=1}^m\norm{y_j}_2^2 + 2\sum_{j=2}^m\sum_{i<j}\langle y_i, y_j\rangle \leq mC^2 + 2\sum_{j=2}^m\frac{j-1}j \leq mC^2 + 2m,

and dividing by m2m^2: ∥1m∑jyj∥22≤C2+2m→0\norm{\frac1m\sum_jy_j}_2^2 \leq \frac{C^2 + 2}m \to 0. (For a weak limit x≠0x \neq 0, apply this to x(k)−xx^{(k)} - x.) On the orthonormal (ek)(e_k) no extraction is even needed: ∥1m(e1+⋯+em)∥2=mm=1m\norm{\frac1m(e_1 + \dots + e_m)}_2 = \frac{\sqrt m}m = \frac1{\sqrt m}. Averages convert weak convergence into norm convergence: the Banach–Saks property of ℓ2\ell^2.

25. Amx=1m∑i=0m−1SixA_mx = \frac1m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}S^ix, so linearity and shift-invariance give L(Amx)=L(x)L(A_mx) = L(x). For any bounded uu and ε>0\varepsilon > 0, pick NN with un≤lim sup⁡u+εu_n \leq \limsup u + \varepsilon for n≥Nn \geq N; positivity applied to (lim sup⁡u+ε)1−SNu≥0(\limsup u + \varepsilon)\mathbf 1 - S^Nu \geq 0 and L(SNu)=L(u)L(S^Nu) = L(u) give L(u)≤lim sup⁡u+εL(u) \leq \limsup u + \varepsilon, and symmetrically L(u)≥lim inf⁡u−εL(u) \geq \liminf u - \varepsilon: hence lim inf⁡Amx≤L(x)≤lim sup⁡Amx\liminf A_mx \leq L(x) \leq \limsup A_mx for every mm. If xx is TT-periodic, ATxA_Tx is the constant sequence equal to the period mean μ\mu: L(x)=μL(x) = \mu for every Banach limit — 13\frac13 on (1,0,0,… )(1,0,0,\dots), 12\frac12 on (0,1,0,1,… )(0,1,0,1,\dots) as in question 12. For the block sequence: at N=3jN = 3^j with jj even the last block is all ones, so the Cesàro mean is ≥3j−3j−13j=23\geq \frac{3^j - 3^{j-1}}{3^j} = \frac23; at N=3jN = 3^j with jj odd all the ones sit in (0, 3j−1]\intoc0 {3^{j-1}}, so the mean is ≤13\leq \frac13. Hence p(x)≥23p(x) \geq \frac23 and −p(−x)=lim inf⁡nx1+⋯+xnn≤13-p(-x) = \liminf_n\frac{x_1 + \dots + x_n}n \leq \frac13. On M=c⊕RxM = c \oplus \R x define Λ+(y+tx)=lim⁡y+t p(x)\Lambda_+(y + tx) = \lim y + t\,p(x). Domination by pp: for t>0t > 0, sublinearity gives p(tx)≤p(y+tx)+p(−y)p(tx) \leq p(y + tx) + p(-y), i.e. p(y+tx)≥t p(x)+lim⁡yp(y + tx) \geq t\,p(x) + \lim y (note p(±y)=±lim⁡yp(\pm y) = \pm\lim y for y∈cy \in c: Cesàro means of a convergent sequence converge to its limit); for t=−s<0t = -s < 0, p(y)≤p(y−sx)+p(sx)p(y) \leq p(y - sx) + p(sx) gives p(y−sx)≥lim⁡y−s p(x)p(y - sx) \geq \lim y - s\,p(x); for t=0t = 0 there is equality. So Λ+≤p\Lambda_+ \leq p on MM, and Hahn–Banach extends it to L+≤pL_+ \leq p on ℓR∞\ell^\infty_\R, which is a Banach limit exactly as in question 10 (domination by pp yields positivity, shift-invariance, and the value lim⁡\lim on cc), with L+(x)=p(x)≥23L_+(x) = p(x) \geq \frac23. The same computation with Λ−(y+tx)=lim⁡y−t p(−x)\Lambda_-(y + tx) = \lim y - t\,p(-x) (using p(−sx)≤p(y−sx)+p(−y)p(-sx) \leq p(y - sx) + p(-y) for the case t=−s<0t = -s < 0) yields a Banach limit L−L_- with L−(x)=−p(−x)≤13L_-(x) = -p(-x) \leq \frac13. Two Banach limits, one sequence, two values: outside the periodic (and, more generally, almost convergent) world, a Banach limit is a genuine choice.

Terms defined in this chapter

See all 395 terms in the glossary