Schneider-Nonarchimedean Functional Analysis 2

Nonarchimedean Functional Analysis
Peter Schneider
Version: 25.10.2005
1
This book grew out of a course which I gave during the winter term 1997/98
at the Universität Münster. The course covered the material which here is
presented in the first three chapters. The fourth more advanced chapter was
added to give the reader a rather complete tour through all the important aspects
of the theory of locally convex vector spaces over nonarchimedean fields. There
is one serious restriction, though, which seemed inevitable to me in the interest
of a clear presentation. In its deeper aspects the theory depends very much on
the field being spherically complete or not. To give a drastic example, if the field
is not spherically complete then there exist nonzero locally convex vector spaces
which do not have a single nonzero continuous linear form. Although much
progress has been made to overcome this problem a really nice and complete
theory which to a large extent is analogous to classical functional analysis can
only exist over spherically complete fields. I therefore allowed myself to restrict
to this case whenever a conceptual clarity resulted.
Although I hope that this text will also be useful to the experts as a reference
my own motivation for giving that course and writing this book was different.
I had the reader in mind who wants to use locally convex vector spaces in the
applications and needs a text to quickly grasp this theory. There are several
areas, mostly in number theory like p-adic modular forms and deformations of
Galois representations and in representation theory of p-adic reductive groups,
in which one can observe an increasing interest in methods from nonarchimedean
functional analysis. By the way, discretely valued fields like p-adic number fields
as they occur in these applications are spherically complete.
This is a textbook which is self-contained in the sense that it requires only some
basic knowledge in linear algebra and point set topology. Everything presented
is well known, nothing is new or original. Some of the material in the last chapter
appears in print for the first time, though. In the references I have listed all the
sources I have drawn upon. At the same time this list shows to the reader who
the protagonists are in this area of mathematics. I certainly do not belong to
this group.
Münster, May 2001 Peter Schneider
2
List of contents
Chap. I: Foundations
§1 Nonarchimedean fields
§2 Seminorms
§3 Normed vector spaces
§4 Locally convex vector spaces
§5 Constructions and examples
§6 Spaces of continuous linear maps
§7 Completeness
§8 Fréchet spaces
§9 The dual space
Chap. II: The structure of Banach spaces

§10 Structure theorems
§11 Non-reflexivity
Chap. III: Duality theory

§12 c-compact and compactoid submodules
§13 Polarity
§14 Admissible topologies
§15 Reflexivity
§16 Compact limits
Chap. IV: Nuclear maps and spaces

§17 Topological tensor products
§18 Completely continuous maps
§19 Nuclear spaces
§20 Nuclear maps
§21 Traces
§22 Fredholm theory
References
Index, Notations
3
Chap. I: Foundations
In this chapter we introduce the basic notions and constructions of nonar-

chimedean functional analysis. We begin in §1 with a brief but self-contained
review of nonarchimedean fields. The main objective of functional analysis is the
investigation of a certain class of topological vector spaces over a fixed nonar-
chimedean field K. This is the class of locally convex vector spaces. The more
traditional analytic point of view characterizes locally convex topologies as those
vector space topologies which can be defined by a family of (nonarchimedean)
seminorms. But the presence of the ring of integers o inside the field K allows for
an equivalent algebraic point of view. A locally convex topology on a K-vector
space V is a vector space topology defined by a class of o-submodules of V which
are required to generate V as a vector space. In §§2 and 4 we thoroughly discuss
these two concepts and their equivalence. Throughout the book we usually will
present the theory from both angles. But sometimes there will be a certain bias
towards the algebraic point of view.
The most basic methods to actually construct locally convex vector spaces along
with concrete examples are treated in §§3 and 5. In §6 we explain how the
notion of a bounded subset leads to a systematic method to equip the vector
space of continuous linear maps between two given locally convex vector spaces
with a natural class of locally convex topologies. The two most important ones
among them are the weak and the strong topology. The important concepts of
completeness and quasi-completeness are discussed in §7. The construction of
the completion of a locally convex vector space is one of the places where we find
an algebraic treatment preferable since conceptually simpler. Banach spaces as
already introduced in §3 are complete. They are included in the very important
class of Fréchet spaces. These are the complete locally convex vector spaces
whose topology is metrizable. Their importance partly derives from the validity
of the closed graph and open mapping theorems for linear maps between Fréchet
spaces. These basic results are established in §8 using Baire category theory. In
the final §9 of this chapter we begin the investigation of the continuous linear
dual of a locally convex vector space. Provided the field K is spherically complete
we establish the Hahn-Banach theorem about the existence of continuous linear
forms. This is then applied to obtain the first properties of the duality maps
into the various forms of the linear bidual. In this section we encounter for the
first time the phenomenon in nonarchimedean functional analysis that crucial
aspects of the theory depend on special properties of the nonarchimedean field
K. The ultimate reason for this difficulty is that K need not to be locally
compact. A satisfactory substitute for compact subsets in locally convex K-
vector spaces only exists if the field K is spherically complete. This will be
discussed systematically in §12 of the third chapter.
§1 Nonarchimedean fields
4
Let K be a field. A nonarchimedean absolute value on K is a function | | :
K −→ IR such that, for any a, b ∈ K we have
(i) |a| ≥ 0,
(ii) |a| = 0 if and only if a = 0,
(iii) |ab| = |a| · |b|,
(iv) |a + b| ≤ max(|a|, |b|).
The condition (iv) is called the strict triangle inequality. Because of (iii) the
map | | : K × −→ IR× + is a homomorphism of groups. In particular we have
|1| = | − 1| = 1. We always will assume in addition that | | is non-trivial, i.e.,
that
(v) there is an a0 ∈ K such that |a0 | =
6 0, 1.
It follows immediately that |n · 1| ≤ 1 for any n ∈ ZZ. Moreover, if |a| =
6 |b| for
some a, b ∈ K then the strict triangle inequality actually can be sharpened into
the equality
|a + b| = max(|a|, |b|) .
To see this we may assume that |a| < |b|. Then |a| < |b| = |b + a − a| ≤
max(|b+a|, |a|), hence |a| < |a+b| and therefore |b| ≤ |a+b| ≤ max(|a|, |b|) = |b|.
Via the distance function d(a, b) := |b − a| the set K is a metric and hence
topological space. The subsets
Bǫ (a) := {b ∈ K : |b − a| ≤ ǫ}
for any a ∈ K and any real number ǫ > 0 are called closed balls or simply balls
in K. They form a fundamental system of neighbourhoods of a in the metric
space K. Likewise the open balls
Bǫ− (a) := {b ∈ K : |b − a| < ǫ}
form a fundamental system of neighbourhoods of a in K. As we will see below

Bǫ (a) and Bǫ− (a) are both open and closed subsets of K. Talking about open
and closed balls therefore does not refer to a topological distinction but only to
the nature of the inequality sign in the definition.
We point out the following two simple facts.
1) If | |∞ denotes the usual archimedean absolute value on IR then, for any b ∈
Bǫ− (a), we have ||b| − |a||∞ = ||(b − a) + a| − |a||∞ ≤ |max(|b − a|, |a|) − |a||∞ < ǫ.
This means that the absolute value | | : K −→ IR is a continuous function.
2) For b0 ∈ Bǫ− (a0 ) and b1 ∈ Bǫ− (a1 ) we have b0 + b1 ∈ Bǫ− (a0 + a1 ) and
−
b0 b1 ∈ Bǫ·max(ǫ,|a 0 |,|a1 |)
(a0 a1 ). The latter follows from b0 b1 − a0 a1 = (b0 −
a0 )(b1 −a1 ) +(b0 −a0 )a1 +a0 (b1 −a1 ). This says that addition + : K ×K −→ K
and multiplication · : K × K −→ K are continuous maps.
5
Lemma 1.1:
i. Bǫ (a) is open and closed in K;
ii. if Bǫ (a) ∩ Bǫ (a′ ) 6= ∅ then Bǫ (a) = Bǫ (a′ );
iii. If B and B ′ are any two balls in K with B ∩ B ′ 6= ∅ then either B ⊆ B ′ or
B ′ ⊆ B;
iv. K is totally disconnected.
Proof: The assertions i. and ii. are immediate consequences of the strict triangle
inequality. The assertion iii. follows from ii. To see iv. let M ⊆ K be a
nonempty connected subset. Pick a point a ∈ M . By i. the intersection M ∩
Bǫ (a) is open and closed in M . It follows that M is contained in any ball around
a and therefore must be equal to {a}.
Clearly the assertions i.-iii. hold similarly for open balls. The assertion ii. says
that any point of a (open) ball can serve as its midpoint. On the other hand the
real number ǫ is not uniquely determined by the set Bǫ (a) and therefore cannot
be considered as the ”radius” of this ball.
Another consequence of the strict triangle inequality is the fact that a sequence
(an )n∈IN in K is a Cauchy sequence if and only if the consecutive distances
|an+1 − an | converge to zero if n goes to infinity.
Definition:
The field K is called nonarchimedean if it is equipped with a nonarchimedean
absolute value such that the corresponding metric space K is complete (i.e., every
Cauchy sequence in K converges).
From now on throughout the book K always denotes a nonarchimedean field

with absolute value | |.
Lemma 1.2:
i. o := {a ∈ K : |a| ≤ 1} is an integral domain with quotient field K;
ii. m := {a ∈ K : |a| < 1} is the unique maximal ideal of o;
iii. o× = o\m;
iv. every finitely generated ideal in o is principal.
Proof: The assertions i.-iii. again are simple consequences of the strict triangle
inequality. For iv. consider an ideal a ⊆ o generated by the finitely many ele-
ments a1 , . . . , am . Among the generators choose one, say a, of maximal absolute
value. Then a = oa.
6
The ring o is a valuation ring and is called the ring of integers of K. The field
o/m is called the residue class field of K.
The reader should convince himself that, for any a ∈ o and any ǫ ≤ 1, the ball
Bǫ (a) is an additive coset a + b for an appropriate ideal b ⊆ o.
Examples:
1) The completion Qp of Q with respect to the p-adic absolute value |a|p := p−r
if a = pr m
n such that m and n are coprime to the prime number p. The field Qp
is locally compact.
2) The p-adic absolute value | |p extends uniquely to any given finite field ex-
tension K of Qp . (Remember that there are plenty of such extensions since the
algebraic closure Qp is not finite over Q.) Any such K again is locally compact.
3) The completion Cp of Qp . This field is not locally compact since the set of
absolute values |Cp | is dense in IR+ (though countable).
4) The field of formal
P Laurent series C{{T }} in one variable over C with the
absolute value | n∈ZZ an T n | := e−min{n:an 6=0} . The ring of integers of this field
is the ring of formal power series C[[T ]] over C. Since C[[T ]] is the infinite disjoint
union of the open subsets a +T ·C[[T ]] with a running over the complex numbers
the field C{{T }} is not locally compact.
The above examples show that the topological properties of the field K can
be quite different. It therefore may come as no surprise that there is in fact
a stronger notion of completeness. To explain this we consider any decreasing
sequence B1 ⊇ B2 ⊇ T. . . of balls in K. If K happens to be locally compact
then the intersection n∈IN Bn , of course, is nonempty. For a general field K
there is the following additional condition which ensures the same. For any
nonempty subset A ⊆ K call d(A) := sup{|a − b| : a, b ∈ A} the diameter of A.
If we require in addition that the diameters d(Bn ) converge to zero if n goes to
infinity then choosing points an ∈ Bn we obtain a Cauchy sequence
T (an )n which
has to converge and whose limit has to lie in the intersection
T n∈IN Bn . But in
general, without any further condition, this intersection n∈IN Bn indeed can be
empty as the following construction shows.
Let the field be K = Cp . Fix any sequence (an )n in Cp which as a subset
is dense in Cp (e.g., one can take the algebraic closure Q of Q in Cp written
as a sequence). In addition fix a sequence (ǫn )n of real numbers such that
1 > ǫ1 > ǫ2 > . . . > 12 . Consider now the equivalence relation on Cp defined by
a ∼ b if |b − a| ≤ ǫ1 . The equivalence classes clearly are balls. Since the value
1
group |C× Q ×
p | = p is dense in IR+ their diameter is ǫ1 . Moreover there certainly is
more than one equivalence class. In particular, we may fix an equivalence class
B1 such that a1 6∈ B1 . Repeating this procedure with the equivalence relation
7
on B1 defined by a ∼ b if |b − a| ≤ ǫ2 we find a ball B2 ⊆ B1 of diameter ǫ2
2
such that a2 6∈ B2 . Continuing with this construction we inductively obtain a
decreasing sequence of balls B1 ⊇ B2 ⊇ . . . in Cp such that
d(Bn ) = ǫn and an 6∈ Bn
T
for every
T n ∈ IN. We claim that the intersection n∈IN Bn is empty. Otherwise
T b ∈ n∈IN Bn . We then have Bn = Bǫn (b) for any n ∈ IN and hence B1/2 (b) ⊆
let
n∈IN Bn . As a consequence none of the an can be contained in the nonempty
open subset B1/2 (b). This contradicts the density of the sequence (an )n .
Definition:
The field K is called spherically complete
T if for any decreasing sequence of balls
B1 ⊇ B2 ⊇ . . . in K the intersection n∈IN Bn is nonempty.
Any finite extension K of Qp is locally compact and hence spherically complete.

On the other hand the field Cp , by the above discussion, is not spherically
complete.
Lemma 1.3:
Let K be spherically complete and let (Bi )i∈I
T be any family of balls in K such
that Bi ∩ Bj 6= ∅ for any two i, j ∈ I; then i∈I Bi 6= ∅.
Proof: Choose a sequence (in )n∈IN of indices in I such that d(Bi1 ) ≥ d(Bi2 ) ≥ . . .
and such that for every index i ∈ I there is a natural number n such that d(Bi ) ≥
d(Bin ). It follows from Lemma 1.1.iii that then Bi1 ⊇ T Bi2 ⊇ . . . and
T that for
any i ∈ I there is an n ∈ IN such that Bi ⊇ Bin . Hence i∈I Bi = n∈IN Bin is
nonempty.
Another important class of nonarchimedean fields is formed by those for which

the value group |K × | is a discrete subset of IR×
+ . These fields are called discretely
valued. Examples of discretely valued fields K are finite extensions of Qp and the
field of Laurent series C{{T }}. The field Cp on the other hand is not discretely
valued.
Lemma 1.4:
The subgroup |K × | ⊆ IR×
+ either is dense or is discrete; in the latter case there
is a real number 0 < r < 1 such that |K × | = r ZZ .
Proof: Let us assume that |K × | is not dense in IR× ×
+ . Then log |K | is not
dense in IR. Set ρ := sup (log |K × | ∩ (−∞, 0)). We claim that ρ actually is the
maximum of this set. Otherwise there is a sequence ρ1 < ρ2 < . . . in log |K × |
8
which converges to ρ. But then ρi − ρi+1 is a sequence in log |K × | ∩ (−∞, 0)
converging to zero which implies that ρ = 0. In this case we find for any ǫ > 0
a σ ∈ log |K × | such that −ǫ < σ < 0. Consider now an arbitrary τ ∈ IR
and choose an integer m ∈ ZZ such that mσ ≤ τ < (m − 1)σ. It follows that
0 ≤ τ − mσ < −σ < ǫ and hence that log |K × | is dense in IR which is a
contradiction. This establishes the existence of this maximum and consequently
also the existence of r := max (|K × | ∩ (0, 1)). Given any s ∈ |K × | there is an
m ∈ ZZ such that r m+1 < s ≤ r m . We then have r < s/r m ≤ 1 which, by the
maximality of r, implies that s = r m . This shows that |K × | = r ZZ .
Lemma 1.5:
The ring of integers o of a discretely valued field K is a principal ideal domain.
Proof: Let a ⊆ o be an ideal. By the discreteness we find an a ∈ a such that
|a| = max{|b| : b ∈ a}. Then a = ao.
Lemma 1.6:
Any discretely valued field K is spherically complete.
Proof: Let B1 ⊇ B2 ⊇ . . . be any decreasing sequence of balls in K. Then d(Bn )
×
is a decreasing sequence of numbers in |KT | which, by the discreteness, either
becomes constant (so that the intersection n∈IN Bn even contains a ball) or con-
verges
T to zero (so that we know from our initial discussion that the intersection
n∈IN n is nonempty).
B
§2 Seminorms
Let V be a K-vector space throughout this section. A (nonarchimedean) semi-

norm q on V is a function q : V −→ IR such that
(i) q(av) = |a| · q(v) for any a ∈ K and v ∈ V ,
(ii) q(v + w) ≤ max(q(v), q(w)) for any v, w ∈ V .
Since in the following exclusively nonarchimedean seminorms will appear we
simply speak of seminorms. Note that as an immediate consequence of (i) and
(ii) one has:
- q(0) = |0| · q(0) = 0,
- q(v) = max(q(v), q(−v)) ≥ q(v − v) = q(0) = 0 for any v ∈ V ,
- |q(v) − q(w)|∞ ≤ q(v − w) for any v, w ∈ V .
Moreover, with the same proof as before, one has
- q(v + w) = max(q(v), q(w)) for any v, w ∈ V such that q(v) 6= q(w).
9
The vector space V in particular is an o-module so that we can speak about
o-submodules of V .
Definition:
A subset A ⊆ V is called convex if either A is empty or is of the form A = v+A0
for some vector v ∈ V and some o-submodule A0 ⊆ V .
Note that in the above definition the submodule A0 is uniquely determined by

the convex subset A. The following properties are immediately clear:
- If the convex subset A contains the zero vector then it is an o-submodule;
- if A is convex then v + A and b · A are convex for any v ∈ V and any b ∈ K;
- if A and B are convex then so, too, is A + B = {v + w : v ∈ A, w ∈ B};
- the image as well as the preimage under a K-linear map of a convex subset
again is convex.
Lemma 2.1:
Let (Ai )i∈I be a family of convex subsets in V ; we then have:
T
i. the intersection i∈I Ai is convex;
S any two i, j ∈ I there is a third k ∈ I such that Ai ∪ Aj ⊆ Ak then the

ii. if for
union i∈I Ai is convex.
Proof: i. We only need
T to consider the case where the intersection is nonempty.
Fix a vector v ∈ i∈I Ai . Then Ai = v T + Bi , for any Ti ∈ I, with some o-
submodule Bi ⊆ V . We therefore see that i∈I Ai = v + i∈I Bi is convex.
S
ii. Similarly we may assume that there is a vector v ∈ i∈I Ai . Put J :=
{i
S∈I :vS ∈ Ai }. By the assumption we are making in the assertion we have
i∈I Ai = i∈J Ai . For iS∈ J we may write
S Ai = v + Bi with some o-submodule
Bi ⊆ V . It follows
S that A
i∈I i = v + i∈J Bi . But again as a consequence of
our assumption i∈J Bi is, indeed, an o-submodule.
Definition:
A lattice L in V is an o-submodule which satisfies the condition that for any
vector v ∈ V there is a nonzero scalar a ∈ K × such that av ∈ L.
In fact, for a lattice L ⊆ V the natural map

∼
=
K ⊗ L −→ V
o
a⊗v 7−→ av
10
is a bijection. The surjectivity holds by definition. For the injectivity
Pn (which
holds for any o-submodule L ⊆ V ) consider any linear equation i=1 ai vi = 0
with the vectors vi lying in L. Choose a ∈ K × and P bi ∈ o such Pthat ai = abi
for any
P 1 ≤ i ≤ n. In K ⊗ o L we then obtain a
i i ⊗ vi = i a ⊗ bi v =
a ⊗ ( i bi v) = a ⊗ 0 = 0.
On the other hand a lattice in our sense does not need to be free as an o-
module. The preimage of a lattice under a K-linear map again is a lattice. As
the following argument shows the intersection L ∩ L′ of two lattices L, L′ ⊆ V
again is a lattice. Let v ∈ V and a, a′ ∈ K × such that av ∈ L and a′ v ∈ L′ .
If a 6∈ o then a−1 ∈ o and hence v = (a−1 )av ∈ a−1 L ⊆ L. We therefore may
assume that a, a′ ∈ o. Then aa′ v ∈ L ∩ L′ .
For any lattice L ⊆ V we define its gauge pL by
pL : V −→ IR
v 7−→ inf |a| .
v∈aL
We claim that pL is a seminorm on V . First of all, for any b ∈ K × and any

v ∈ V , we compute
pL (bv) = inf |a| = inf |a| = inf |ba| = |b| · inf |a| = |b| · pL (v) .
bv∈aL v∈b−1 aL v∈aL v∈aL
Secondly, the inequality pL (v + w) ≤ max(pL (v), pL (w)) is an immediate con-

sequence of the following observation: For a, b ∈ K such that |b| ≤ |a| we have
aL + bL = aL.
On the other hand for any given seminorm q on V we define the o-submodules
L(q) := {v ∈ V : q(v) ≤ 1} and L− (q) := {v ∈ V : q(v) < 1} .
We claim that L− (q) ⊆ L(q) are lattices in V . But, since we assumed the
absolute value | | to be non-trivial, we find an a ∈ K × such that |an | converges
to zero if n ∈ IN goes to infinity. This means that for any given vector v ∈ V we
find an n ∈ IN such that q(an v) = |an | · q(v) < 1.
Lemma 2.2:
i. For any lattice L ⊆ V we have L− (pL ) ⊆ L ⊆ L(pL );
ii. for any seminorm q on V we have co · pL(q) ≤ q ≤ pL(q) where co := sup |b|.
|b|<1
Proof: i. By construction we have pL (v) ≤ 1 for v ∈ L. On the other hand, if

pL (v) < 1 then v ∈ aL for some a ∈ K of absolute value < 1; hence v ∈ L.
ii. Let a ∈ K × ; then a vector v lies in aL(q) if and only if q(v) ≤ |a|. We
therefore have
pL(q) (v) = inf |a| .
q(v)≤|a|
11
This shows that pL(q) ≥ q. Moreover, if |b| < 1 then |b| · inf |a| < pL(q) (v).
q(v)≤|a|
It follows that there must be an a ∈ K such that q(v) ≤ |a| and |ba| < pL(q) (v).
The latter inequality means that v 6∈ baL(q) and hence that |b| · |a| < q(v). We
obtain co pL(q) (v) ≤ co |a| ≤ q(v).
§3 Normed vector spaces
In this section we study a particular class of seminorms on a K-vector space V .
Definition:
A seminorm q on V is called a norm if
(iii) q(v) = 0 implies that v = 0.
Moreover, a K-vector space equipped with a norm is called a normed K-vector
space.
It is the usual convention to denote norms by k k (and not by q). A normed

vector space (V, k k) will always be considered as a metric space with respect to
the metric d(v, w) := kv−wk. It is therefore in particular a Hausdorff topological
space. Extending the language of the first section we introduce the closed balls
(or simply balls)
Bǫ (v) := {w ∈ V : kw − vk ≤ ǫ}
and the open balls
Bǫ− (v) := {w ∈ V : kw − vk < ǫ}
for any v ∈ V and any ǫ > 0. For a fixed v and varying ǫ each of them form
a fundamental system of open neighbourhoods of v in V . It is immediately
clear that Bǫ (0) and Bǫ− (0) are lattices in V and that Bǫ (v) = v + Bǫ (0) and
Bǫ− (v) = v + Bǫ− (0) are convex subsets. As in the first section one shows:
1) Addition and scalar multiplication in V as well as the norm on V are con-
tinuous maps. (The continuity of the former two maps is usually expressed by
saying that a normed vector space is a topological vector space.)
2) (Open) balls are open and closed subsets.
3) If the intersection of two balls Bǫ (v) and Bǫ (w) is nonempty then Bǫ (v) =
Bǫ (w); a corresponding statement holds for open balls.
4) If B and B ′ are two (open) balls with nonempty intersection then B ⊆ B ′ or
B ′ ⊆ B.
Definition:
12
A normed K-vector space is called a K-Banach space if the corresponding met-
ric space is complete.
Examples:
1) Any finite dimensional vector space K n with the norm k(a1 , . . . , an )k :=
max |ai | is a K-Banach space.
1≤i≤n
2) Let X be any set; then
ℓ∞ (X) := all bounded functions φ : X → K
with pointwise addition and scalar multiplication and the norm
kφk∞ := sup |φ(x)|

x∈X
is a K-Banach space. The following vector subspaces are closed and therefore
Banach spaces in their own right:
- co (X) := {φ ∈ ℓ∞ (X) : for any ǫ > 0 there are at most finitely many x ∈
X such that |φ(x)| ≥ ǫ} (e.g., co (IN) is the space of all zero sequences in K);
- BC(X) := {φ ∈ ℓ∞ (X) : φ is continuous} provided X is a topological space.
3) Let X be any locally compact topological space; then
Cc (X) := {φ ∈ BC(X) : φ has compact support}
is a vector subspace of ℓ∞ (X) which in general is not closed (recall that the
support of a function φ is the closure of the subset {x ∈ X : φ(x) 6= 0}). Hence
Cc (X) is a normed vector space but in general not a Banach space.
Let (V, k k) and (W, k k) be two normed vector spaces. The continuous linear
operators form a vector subspace
L(V, W ) := {f ∈ HomK (V, W ) : f is continuous}
of HomK (V, W ).
Proposition 3.1:
For a K-linear map f : V −→ W the following assertions are equivalent:
i. f is continuous;
ii. there is a real number c ≥ 0 such that kf (v)k ≤ c · kvk for any v ∈ V .
13
Proof: Let us first assume that the second assertion holds true. Consider an
arbitrary sequence (vn )n∈IN in V converging to some vector v ∈ V . Then the
sequence vn − v converges to the zero vector and hence the norms kvn − vk
converge to zero. It follows from our assumption that the norms kf (vn ) − f (v)k
converge to zero as well. This implies that the sequence f (vn ) converges to f (v)
and shows that f is continuous.
We now assume vice versa that f is continuous. There is then an ǫ > 0 such that
f −1 (B1 (0)) ⊇ Bǫ (0). Since the absolute value | | is non-trivial we may assume ǫ
to be of the form ǫ = |a| for some a ∈ K. This means that kf (v)k ≤ 1 provided
kvk ≤ |a|. Let now v be an arbitrary nonzero vector in V and choose an integer
m ∈ ZZ such that |a|m+2 < kvk ≤ |a|m+1 . We compute
kf (v)k = |a|m · kf (a−m v)k ≤ |a|m < |a|−2 · kvk .
Corollary 3.2:
L(V, W ) is a normed K-vector space with respect to the norm
kf (v)k kf (v)k
kf k := sup{ : v ∈ V \{0}} = sup{ : v ∈ V such that 0 < kvk ≤ 1}.
kvk kvk
The above norm on L(V, W ) is called the operator norm. We warn the reader
that since the set of values kV k may be different from the set of absolute values
|K| we in general have
kf (v)k =
6 sup{kf (v)k : v ∈ V such that kvk = 1}.
Proposition 3.3:
If W is a Banach space so, too, is L(V, W ).
Proof: Let (fn )n∈IN be any Cauchy sequence in L(V, W ). Then, in particular,
kfn k is a Cauchy sequence in IR so that the limit lim kfn k exists. Moreover,
n→∞
because of
kfn+1 (v) − fn (v)k = k(fn+1 − fn )(v)k ≤ kfn+1 − fn k · kvk
fn (v), for any v ∈ V , is a Cauchy sequence in W . By assumption the limit

f (v) := lim fn (v) exists in W . It is obvious that
n→∞
f (av) = af (v) for any a ∈ K .
14
For v, v ′ ∈ V we compute
f (v) + f (v ′ ) = lim fn (v) + lim fn (v ′ ) = lim (fn (v) + fn (v ′ ))

n→∞ n→∞ n→∞
= lim fn (v + v ′ )
n→∞
= f (v + v ′ ) .
This means that v 7−→ f (v) is a K-linear map which we denote by f . Since
kf (v)k = lim kfn (v)k ≤ ( lim kfn k) · kvk

n→∞ n→∞
it follows from Prop. 3.1 that f is continuous, i.e., that f ∈ L(V, W ). Finally
the inequality
lim kfm (v)−fn (v)k
kf − fn k = sup{ k(f −f n )(v)k
kvk } = sup{ m→∞ kvk }
≤ sup kfm+1 − fm k
m≥n
shows that f indeed is the limit of the sequence (fn )n in L(V, W ).
Corollary 3.4:
V ′ := L(V, K) is a Banach space.
Definition:
V ′ is called the dual Banach space to V .
We list two further simple properties:

1) The linear map
L(V, W ) −→ L(W ′ , V ′ )
f 7−→ f ′ (ℓ) := ℓ ◦ f
is continuous satisfying kf ′ k ≤ kf k (observe that kℓ ◦ f k ≤ kℓk · kf k).
2) The linear map
V −→ V ′′
v 7−→ δv (ℓ) := ℓ(v)
is continuous satisfying kδv k ≤ kvk.
It unfortunately turns out that in the nonarchimedean world there are nonzero
normed vector spaces whose dual Banach space is zero, i.e., which do not possess
15
a single nonzero continuous linear form. But we will see later on that this
phenomenon does not occur if the field K is spherically complete. Meanwhile
we want to compute the dual Banach space in one basic case.
Example:
Let X be an arbitrary set and, for any x ∈ X, let 1x denote the function on X
defined by 1x (y) = 1 if y = x and = 0 otherwise; then the map
∼
=
co (X)′ −→ ℓ∞ (X)
ℓ 7−→ φℓ (x) := ℓ(1x )
is an isometric linear isomorphism.
We first have to discuss the notion of summability in K before we can establish

P
∞
this isometry. It follows from the strict triangle inequality that a series an
n=1
in K converges if and only if (an )n is a zero sequence; moreover, in this case one
P∞ P∞
has an = aσ(n) for any permutation σ of IN. Let now φ ∈ co (X) be an
n=1 n=1
arbitrary function. We claim that φ(x) 6= 0 for at most countably many x ∈ X.
1
By assumption theS set Xm := {x ∈ X : |φ(x)| ≥ m } is finite for any m ∈ IN.
Hence the union m Xm = {x ∈ X : |φ(x)| > 0} = {x ∈ X : φ(x) 6= 0} must be
countable. Having established this claim we find an injective map ι : IN −→ X
such that
- φ(x) = 0 for x 6∈ ι(IN), and
- (φ(ι(n))n∈IN is a zero sequence.
We obtain that
X ∞
X
φ(x) := φ(ι(n))
x∈X n=1
is a well defined element in K which does not depend on the choice of the map
ι.
Let us now look at the above example. The image map φℓ indeed lies in ℓ∞ (X)
since
kφℓ k∞ = sup |φℓ (x)| = sup |ℓ(1x )| ≤ kℓk .
x∈X x∈X
It is clear that the map ℓ 7−→ φℓ is linear. To see that it is isometric we

need to show the opposite inequality kℓk ≤ kφℓ k∞ . Fix a nonzero function
ψ ∈ co (X) and choose an injective map ι : IN −→ X such that ψ(x) = 0 for
x 6∈ ι(IN) and (ψ(ι(n))n∈IN is a zero sequence. We then have the convergent
16
P∞
series ψ = n=1 ψ(ι(n)) · 1ι(n) in co (X). Applying the continuous linear form ℓ
P∞
gives ℓ(ψ) = n=1 ψ(ι(n)) · ℓ(1ι(n) ) and hence
|ℓ(ψ)| supx∈X |ψ(x) · ℓ(1x )|

≤ ≤ sup |ℓ(1x )| = sup |φℓ (x)| = kφℓ k∞ .
kψk kψk x∈X x∈X
Since ψ was arbitrary it follows that kℓk ≤ kφℓ k∞ . This shows that our map is
isometric and a fortiori injective. For the surjectivity take any φ ∈ ℓ∞ (X). We
define a linear form ℓ ∈ co (X)′ through
X
ℓ(ψ) := ψ(x)φ(x) .
x∈X
P
Its continuity is a consequence of the inequality | x∈X ψ(x)φ(x)| ≤ kψk∞ ·
kφk∞ . We obviously have φℓ = φ.
§4 Locally convex vector spaces
Let (Lj )j∈J be a nonempty family of lattices in the K-vector space V such that
we have
(lc1) for any j ∈ J and any a ∈ K × there exists a k ∈ J such that Lk ⊆ aLj ,
and
(lc2) for any two i, j ∈ J there exists a k ∈ J such that Lk ⊆ Li ∩ Lj .
The second condition implies that the intersection of two convex subsets v + Li
and v ′ + Lj either is empty or contains a convex subset of the form w + Lk . This
means that the convex subsets v + Lj for v ∈ V and j ∈ J form the basis of a
topology on V which will be called the locally convex topology on V defined by
the family (Lj ). For any vector v ∈ V the convex subsets v + Lj , for j ∈ J, form
a fundamental system of open and closed neighbourhoods of v in this topology.
Definition:
A locally convex K-vector space is a K-vector space equipped with a locally convex
topology.
Lemma 4.1:
+
If V is locally convex then addition V × V −→ V and scalar multiplication K ×
·
V −→ V are continuous maps.
Proof: For the continuity of the addition we only need to observe that (v +Lj ) +
(w + Lj ) ⊆ (v + w) + Lj . For the continuity of the scalar multiplication consider
arbitrary elements a ∈ K, v ∈ V , and j ∈ J. Since Lj is a lattice we find a
17
scalar b ∈ K × such that bv ∈ Lj , and by (lc1) and (lc2) we find a k ∈ J such
that aLk + bLk ⊆ Lj . We then have (a + bo) · (v + Lk ) ⊆ av + Lj .
Since on a nonzero K-vector space the scalar multiplication cannot be continuous

for the discrete topology we see that the discrete topology is not locally convex.
In the following we want to discuss an alternative way to describe locally convex
topologies with the help of seminorms.
Let (qi )i∈I be a family of seminorms on the K-vector space V . The topology
on V defined by this family (qi )i∈I , by definition, is the coarsest topology on V
such that
- all qi : V −→ IR, for i ∈ I, are continuous, and
- all translation maps v + . : V −→ V , for v ∈ V , are continuous.
For any finitely many norms qi1 , . . . , qir in the given family and any real number
ǫ > 0 we set
V (qi1 , . . . , qir ; ǫ) := {v ∈ V : qi1 , . . . , qir (v) ≤ ǫ} .
Lemma 4.2:
V (qi1 , . . . , qir ; ǫ) is a lattice in V .
Proof: Since V (qi1 , . . . , qir ; ǫ) = V (qi1 ; ǫ) ∩ . . . ∩ V (qir ; ǫ) and since the intersec-
tion of two lattices again is a lattice it suffices to consider a single V (qi ; ǫ). It is
obviously an o-submodule. Choose an a ∈ K × such that |a| ≤ ǫ. Then V (qi ; ǫ)
contains the lattice aL(qi ) and therefore must also be a lattice.
Clearly the family of lattices V (qi1 , . . . , qir ; ǫ) in V has the properties (lc1) and
(lc2) and hence defines a locally convex topology on V .
Proposition 4.3:
The topology on V defined by the family of seminorms (qi )i∈I coincides with
the locally convex topology defined by the family of lattices {V (qi1 , . . . , qir ; ǫ) :
i1 , . . . , ir ∈ I, ǫ > 0}.
Proof: Let T , resp. T ′ , denote the topology defined by the seminorms, resp. by
the lattices. By the defining properties for T all the convex sets v + V (qi1 , . . . ,
qir ; ǫ) are open for T . This means that T is finer than T ′ . To obtain the
equality of the two topologies it remains to show that T ′ satisfies the two defining
properties for T . The translation maps are continuous in T ′ by Lemma 4.1. To
check the continuity of the seminorm qi in T ′ let (α, β) ⊆ IR be an open interval
and v0 ∈ qi−1 (α, β) be a vector. If qi (v0 ) > 0 we choose a 0 < ǫ < qi (v0 ). Because
18
of qi (v0 + v) = qi (v0 ) for v ∈ V (qi ; ǫ) we then have v0 + V (qi ; ǫ) ⊆ qi−1 (α, β).
If, on the other hand, qi (v0 ) = 0 then we choose a 0 < ǫ < β and obtain
α < 0 ≤ qi (v0 + v) ≤ qi (v) ≤ ǫ < β for v ∈ V (qi ; ǫ) which again means that
v0 + V (qi ; ǫ) ⊆ qi−1 (α, β).
We see in particular that the normed vector spaces of the previous section are
locally convex. The above result has the following converse.
Proposition 4.4:
A locally convex topology on V defined by the family of lattices (Lj )j∈J can also
be defined by the family of gauges (pLj )j∈J .
Proof: Let T ′ , resp. T , denote the topology defined by the lattices Lj , resp. by
the seminorms pj := pLj . Given an ǫ > 0 we fix an a ∈ K × such that |a| ≤ ǫ.
It follows from Lemma 2.2.i that aLj ⊆ V (pj ; ǫ). Using the condition (lc2) we
deduce that V (pj ; ǫ) is open for T ′ . This implies, by Prop. 4.3, that T ⊆ T ′ .
For the converse we fix a b ∈ K such that 0 < |b| < 1. Again from Lemma 2.2.i
we obtain that V (pj ; |b|) ⊆ Lj which means that Lj is open for T and hence
that T ′ ⊆ T .
These two results together show that the concept of a locally convex topology
is the same as the concept of a topology defined by a family of seminorms. We
finish this discussion with several useful observations belonging to this context.
For the rest of this section we let V be a locally convex K-vector space.
Lemma 4.5:
Let L be a lattice in V and q be a seminorm on V ; we then have:
i. The seminorm q is continuous if and only if the lattice L− (q), or equivalently
the lattice L(q), is open in V ;
ii. the lattice L is open in V if and only if its gauge pL is continuous.
Proof: i. Being the preimage under q of an open subset in IR≥0 the lattice L− (q)
is open if q is continuous. Furthermore, L(q) being a union of additive translates
of L− (q) is open as soon as L− (q) is open. Assuming finally that L(q) is open
let (α, β) ⊆ IR be an open interval and v0 ∈ q −1 (α, β) be a vector. At the end
of the proof of Prop. 4.3 we have seen that there is then an a ∈ K × such that
q −1 (α, β) contains the open neighbourhood v0 + aL(q) of v0 . This means that
q is continuous.
ii. As we have just seen if pL is continuous then L− (pL ) is open. But L− (pL ) ⊆ L
by Lemma 2.2.i so that L is open as well. If on the other hand L is open then,
again by Lemma 2.2.i, the lattice L(pL ) also is open. By assertion i., this
amounts to the continuity of pL .
19
Lemma 4.6:
Assume that the topology of V is defined by the family of lattices (Lj )j∈J , resp.
by
T the family
T of seminorms (qi )i∈I ; then the closure of {0} in V is the o-module
−1
j∈J Lj = i∈I qi (0); in particular, the following assertions are equivalent:
i. V is Hausdorff;
ii. for any nonzero vector v ∈ V there is a j ∈ J such that v 6∈ Lj ;
iii. for any nonzero vector v ∈ V there is an i ∈ I such that qi (v) 6= 0.
Proof: The lattices Lj are open and therefore closed. Hence we have {0} ⊆
T
j Lj . If the vector v is not in {0} we find a lattice Lk such that 0 6∈ v + Lk and
T
consequently v 6∈ Lk . This gives the equality {0} = j Lj . On the other hand,
by Prop. 4.3 the lattices V (qi1 , . . . , qir ; ǫ) form
T a−1fundamental
T system of neigh-
bourhoods of the zero vector. It follows that i qi (0) = i,ǫ V (qi1 , . . . , qir ; ǫ) =
T
j Lj . For the equivalence of the assertions i.-iii. one only has to observe in ad-
dition that as a consequence of the translation invariance of any locally convex
topology (Lemma 4.1) V is Hausdorff if and only if any nonzero vector can be
separated from the zero vector.
Remark 4.7:
Assume that the topology of V is defined by the family of seminorms (qi )i∈I .
For any finite subset F ⊆ I we may form the continuous seminorm qF :=
max qi . The family (qF )F is a defining family for the topology on V which has
i∈F
the additional property that the convex subsets v + V (qF ; ǫ) form a basis of the
topology.
Next we want to investigate the topological properties of convex subsets in V .
Lemma 4.8:
Let A ⊆ V be a convex subset; we then have:
i. The closure A of A is convex;
ii. if A is not open then its interior is empty;
iii. if A is open then it is also closed;
iv. if A is an open neighbourhood of the zero vector then A is a lattice.
Proof: We may assume that A is nonempty. By a translation we are furthermore
reduced to the case that A is an o-submodule. As a consequence of Lemma 4.1
the closure A also is an o-submodule and hence is convex. If A is open then, by
the definition of locally convex topologies, it must contain an open lattice and
therefore is a lattice as well; being the complement of a union of additive cosets
20
of A it is closed. Finally, if v is a vector in the interior of A then A must contain
v + L for some open lattice L ⊆ V ; being an o-module it then also contains L
and therefore has to be open.
The convex hull of a subset S ⊆ V is defined to be

\
Co(S) := {S ⊆ A ⊆ V : A is convex} .
By Lemma 2.1.i this is the smallest convex subset of V which contains S. Be-
cause of Lemma 4.8.i we have
Co(S) = Co(S) .
Lemma 4.9:
For any subset S ⊆ V we have:
i. If S is open then its convex hull Co(S) is open;
T
ii. Co(S) = {S ⊆ A ⊆ V : A is convex and closed}.
Proof: i. If S is empty then Co(S) is empty. Otherwise we may assume, by
translation, that S contains the zero vector so that Co(S) is an o-submodule.
Since S and hence Co(S) then contain an open lattice Co(S) is open. ii. It
follows from Lemma 4.8.i that Co(S) is convex and closed.
In a metric space and hence in a normed vector space it is clear what is meant
by a bounded subset. It is of utmost importance that this concept can also be
introduced in locally convex vector spaces.
Definition:
A subset B ⊆ V is called bounded if for any open lattice L ⊆ V there is an
a ∈ K such that B ⊆ aL.
It is almost immediate that any finite set is bounded, and that any finite union
of bounded subsets is bounded. We leave it to the reader to check the following:
Assume that the topology on V is defined by the family of seminorms (qi )i∈I .
Then a subset B ⊆ V is bounded if and only if sup qi (v) < ∞ for any i ∈ I.
v∈B
Lemma 4.10:
Let B ⊆ V be a bounded subset; then the closure of the o-submodule of V gen-
erated by B and a fortiori the convex hull Co(B) are bounded.
21
Proof: Let L ⊆ V be an open lattice and a ∈ K such that B ⊆ aL. Since aL is
a closed o-submodule it necessarily contains the closed o-submodule generated
by B.
As a first application of this concept of boundedness we will derive an intrinsic

characterization of those locally convex vector spaces which underlie a normed
vector space.
Proposition 4.11:
The topology of V can be defined by a single seminorm if and only if there exists
a bounded open lattice in V .
Proof: If q is a defining seminorm then L(q) is a bounded open lattice. Let, on
the other hand, Lo be a bounded open lattice and put q := pLo . According to
Lemma 4.5.ii the gauge q is continuous so that the lattices V (q; ǫ) are open in
V . Since Lo is bounded we find for any open lattice L ⊆ V a scalar aL ∈ K ×
such that Lo ⊆ aL L. Using Lemma 2.2.i it follows that V (q; (|aL | + 1)−1 ) ⊆ L.
This shows that q defines the topology of V .
Corollary 4.12:
Assume V to be Hausdorff; then the topology of V can be defined by a norm if
and only if there is a bounded open lattice in V .
Proof: This follows from Lemma 4.6 and Prop. 4.11.
Proposition 4.13:
The only locally convex and Hausdorff topology on a finite dimensional vector
space K n is the one defined by the norm k(a1 , . . . , an )k := max |ai |.
1≤i≤n
Proof: We will divide the argument into three steps. Step 1: The topology
defined by the norm k k is finer than any other locally convex topology on
K n . To see this let e1 , . . . , en denote the standard basis of K n and let q be an
arbitrary seminorm on K n . We then have
q(v) ≤ ( max q(ei )) · kvk

1≤i≤n
for any v ∈ V which amounts to our claim. Step 2: Any locally convex and
Hausdorff topology on K n can be weakened to a topology defined by a single
norm p. Let (qi )i∈I be a defining
T family of seminorms for the given topology. By
Lemma 4.6 we have {0} = i∈I qi−1 (0). Since each qi−1 (0) is a vector subspace
it follows from finite dimensionality that {0} = qi−1 1
(0) ∩ . . . ∩ qi−1 r
(0) for finitely
many appropriate i1 , . . . , ir ∈ I. Then p := max(qi1 , . . . , qir ) is a norm with the
22
required property. Step 3: It remains to show that, given an arbitrary norm p
id
on K n , the identity map (K n , p) −→(K n , k k) is continuous. According to Prop.
3.1 we have to find a c > 0 such that
kvk ≤ c · p(v) for any v ∈ K n .
This will be achieved by induction with respect to n. The case n = 1 is obvious

with c := p(1). Applying the induction hypothesis to the restriction p|K n−1
we obtain a constant c1 > 0 such that kvk ≤ c1 · p(v) for any v ∈ V :=
Ke1 ⊕ . . . ⊕ Ken−1 ⊆ K n . With (V, k k) also (V, p) is complete. It follows that
V is closed in (K n , p) which implies that
1 ≤ c2 := p(en )/ inf p(en − v) < ∞ .

v∈V
We set
c := max(c1 c2 , c2 /p(en )) > 0 .
Let now w ∈ K n be any vector and write w = v + ben with v ∈ V and b ∈ K.
Since c > c1 it suffices to consider those w for which b 6= 0. In this case we
compute
p(w) = |b| · p(b−1 v + en ) ≥ |b| · p(en ) · c−1 −1

2 = p(ben ) · c2
and hence
p(v) = p(w − ben ) ≤ max(p(w), p(ben )) ≤ c2 · p(w) .
Finally
kwk = max(kvk, |b|) ≤ max(c1 , p(en )−1 ) · max(c−1

1 kvk, |b|p(en ))
≤ cc−1
2 · max(p(v), p(ben )) ≤ c · p(w) .
§5 Constructions and examples
In this section we will discuss various general ways to construct locally convex
vector spaces. Some of them will be illustrated by concrete examples.
A. Subspaces
Let V be a locally convex vector space and let U ⊆ V be a vector subspace.

Then the subspace topology of U induced by V is locally convex defined by all
lattices L∩U where L runs over a defining family of lattices in V , or equivalently
by all restrictions q|U where q runs over a defining family of seminorms on V .
23
B. Quotient spaces
Let V be a locally convex vector space and let U ⊆ V be a vector subspace.

The quotient topology on V /U is locally convex defined by all lattices L + U
where L runs over a defining family of lattices in V . If one wants to describe
the quotient topology in terms of seminorms then one has to be a little careful.
We first recall that for any seminorm q on V one has the quotient seminorm
q(v + U ) := inf q(v + u) ;

u∈U
it satisfies
L− (q) + U = L− (q) .
Let now (qi )i∈I be a defining family of seminorms for the topology of V . Using
the above identity together with Remark 4.7 it follows that the quotient topology
on V /U is defined by the family of quotient seminorms (qF )F where F runs over
the finite subsets of I.
C. The finest locally convex topology
If V is any K-vector space then the family of all lattices in V , or equivalently the
family of all seminorms on V , defines a locally convex topology which obviously
is the finest such topology on V . If V is equipped with the finest locally convex
topology then any linear map from V into any other locally convex K-vector
space is continuous. Moreover, any vector subspace U ⊆ V is closed; in partic-
ular, V is Hausdorff. To see this choose vectors (vj )j∈J such that P(vjn+ U )j is
a basis of V /U ; then U is the intersection of the lattices Ln := j b ovj + U
where b ∈ K is a fixed scalar such that 0 < |b| < 1.
In particular, the uniquely determined locally convex and Hausdorff topology
on a finite dimensional vector space (Prop. 4.13) has to be the finest locally
convex one.
D. Initial topologies
Let V be a K-vector space. Assume we are given a family (Vh )h∈H of locally
convex K-vector spaces together with linear maps fh : V −→ Vh . The coarsest
topology on V for which all the maps fh are continuous is called the initial
topology on V with respect to the family (fh )h . It is locally convex defined by
all the lattices which are finite intersections of lattices in the family (fh−1 (Lhj ))h,j
where (Lhj )j is a defining family of lattices for the topology on Vh . Equivalently
it is defined by the seminorms (qhi ◦ fh )h,i where (qhi )i is a defining family of
seminorms for Vh .
24
Q
A special case of this construction is the following. Let V = h∈H Vh be the
direct product and let fh : V −→ Vh be the projection maps. The corresponding
initial topology on V is called the direct product topology. We recall that in this
situation V is Hausdorff if and only if all the Vh are Hausdorff.
Example 1:
Q
Let K IN := n∈IN K be the countable direct product of one dimensional K-
vector spaces. This is an example of a locally convex and Hausdorff vector
space whose topology cannot be defined by a single norm. Otherwise, by Cor.
4.12, there should be a bounded open lattice L ⊆ K IN . By the way the direct
product topology
Q Q is constructed we may assume that L is of the form L =
n∈F o × n∈IN\F K for some finite subset F ⊆ IN. But the absolute value
on K viewed as a continuous seminorm on K IN via the projection to a factor
corresponding to some n 6∈ F is not bounded on L.
Example 2:
Put X := Cp \ Qp and let Oalg (X) denote the Qp -vector space of all Qp -rational
functions in one variable all of whose poles lie in Qp . We will construct a
countable family of norms k k1/n , for n ∈ IN, on Oalg (X) in the following way.
For any n ∈ IN define
X(1/n) := {x ∈ X : |x| ≤ n and |x − a| ≥ 1/n for any a ∈ Qp } .
We leave it to the reader to check that these sets X(1/n) are infinite.
Claim: kRk1/n := sup |R(x)| < ∞ for any R ∈ Oalg (X).
x∈X(1/n)
Proof: Write
a0 + a1 T + . . . + ad T d
R= Qe with ai , bj ∈ Qp .
j=1 (T − bj )
We then have knumerator(R)k1/n ≤ nd · maxi (|ai |) and kdenominator(R)k1/n ≥

(1/n)e and hence kRk1/n ≤ nd+e · maxi (|ai |).
This means that k k1/n is a norm on Oalg (X). We define the Qp -Banach space
O1/n (X) to be the completion of the normed vector space (Oalg (X), k k1/n ).
Because of the inclusions X(1/n) ⊆ X(1/(n + 1)) the identity maps (Oalg (X),
k k1/(n+1) ) −→ (Oalg (X), k k1/n ) are continuous and induce therefore continuous
linear maps
O1/(n+1) (X) −→ O1/n (X) .
We define
O(X) := lim O1/n (X)
←−
n
25
to be the corresponding projective limit equipped with the initial topology with
respect to the projection maps. The space O(X) can be viewed as a space of
certain Cp -valued functions on X as follows.
S
Claim: X = n∈IN X(1/n) .
Proof: Let x ∈ X be point and choose n0 ∈ IN such that |x| ≤ n0 . We consider
the continuous function
Qp −→ IR>0
a 7−→ |x − a| .
We have |x − a| = |a| > |x| if |x| < |a|. The subset {a ∈ Qp : |a| ≤ |x|} on
the other hand is compact so that its image in IR>0 under the above function is
bounded. This function therefore is bounded below by 1/n1 for some n1 ∈ IN.
It follows that x ∈ X(1/n) for n := max(n0 , n1 ).
This result in particular means that, if F (Y, Cp ) denotes the vector space of all
Cp -valued functions on a set Y , then we have F (X, Cp ) = lim F (X(1/n), Cp ).
←−
n
The inclusion
(Oalg (X), k k1/n ) −→ BC(X(1/n), Cp )
is by definition an isometry. Since the space of bounded continuous Cp -valued

functions on the right hand side is a Banach space it extends to an isometry
O1/n (X) −→ BC(X(1/n), Cp )
which in the limit gives rise to a Qp -linear embedding
O(X) −→ lim BC(X(1/n), Cp ) −→ lim F (X(1/n), Cp ) = F (X, Cp )

←− ←−
n n
of O(X) into the space of all functions on X.

The space X = Cp \ Qp is called the p-adic upper half plane and the functions
in O(X) are called the rigid analytic or holomorphic functions on X.
E. Locally convex final topologies
Again let V be a K-vector space and (Vh )h∈H be a family of locally convex K-
vector spaces. But this time we assume given linear maps fh : Vh −→ V . Then
there is a unique finest locally convex topology on V for which all the maps fh
are continuous. It is called the locally convex final topology on V with respect
to the family (fh )h , and it is defined by the family of all lattices L ⊆ V such
that fh−1 (L) is open in Vh for every h ∈ H. In general this topology is strictly
coarser than the finest topology on V making all the fh continuous.
26
Lemma 5.1:
Assume that V carries the locally convex final topology with respect to a family
of linear maps fh : Vh −→ V ; we then have:
i. a K-linear map f : V −→ W into some other locally convex K-vector space
W is continuous if and only if all the maps f ◦ fh : Vh −→ W , for h ∈ H, are
continuous;
ii. a seminorm q on V is continuous if and only if the seminorm q ◦ fh on Vh
is continuous for any h ∈ H;
iii. assume that the topology on Vh is defined
P by the family of lattices (Lhj )j∈J(h)
and that, in addition, we have VP= h∈H fh (Vh ); then the topology on V is
defined by the family of lattices { h∈H fh (Lhj(h) ) : j(h) ∈ J(h)}.
Proof: i. The other implication being trivial we assume that the maps f ◦ fh are
continuous. To see that f is continuous it suffices to show that f −1 (M ) is open
in V for any open lattice M ⊆ W . By assumption (f ◦ fh )−1 (M ) is open in Vh .
Because of the obvious identity (f ◦ fh )−1 (M ) = fh−1 (f −1 (M )) this implies that
f −1 (M ) is open.
ii. Again one implication being trivial we assume that the q ◦ fh are continuous.
Using Lemma 4.5.i we see that on the one hand each L(q ◦ fh ) is open in Vh and
that on the other hand it suffices to show that L(q) is open in V . But this is
immediate from the identity fh−1 (L(q)) = L(q ◦ fh ).
iii. It is clear that the family of lattices in the assertion satisfies the conditions
(lc1) and (lc2) and therefore defines a locally convex topology T on V . Because
−1 P
of fh0 ( h∈H fh (Lhj(h) )) ⊇ Lh0 j(h0 ) this topology T is coarser than the locally
convex final topology. On the other hand, whenever L ⊆ V is an open lattice we
then P find, for any h ∈ H, a j(h) ∈ J(h) such that fh−1 (L) ⊇ Lhj(h) . It follows
that h∈H fh (Lhj(h) ) ⊆ L. This shows that the two topologies in fact are equal.
In the following we want to look more closely at two special cases of this con-
struction.
E1. The locally convex direct sum
Let (Vh )h∈H be aL fixed family of locally convex K-vector spaces. We form the
direct sum V := h∈H Vh and equip it with L the locally convex final topology
with respect to the inclusion maps Vh0 −→ h∈H Vh . This locally convex vector
space V is called the locally convex direct sum of the Vh .
Lemma 5.2:
L Q
i. The inclusion map h∈H Vh −→ h∈H Vh is continuous;
27
L ∼
= Q
ii. if the set H is finite then the identity map h∈H Vh −→ h∈H Vh is a topo-
logical isomorphism.
Proof:
Q i. By the definition of the direct product topology the inclusions Vh0 −→
h∈H Vh are continuous. The assertion therefore follows from Lemma 5.1.i.
ii. This follows from the definition of the direct product topology and Lemma
5.1.iii.
Lemma 5.3:
Let Uh ⊆ Vh , for any h ∈ H, be a vector subspace with the subspace topology;
we then have:
L
i. The locally convex direct sum
L topology L on h∈H Uh is the subspace topology
with respect to the inclusion h∈H Uh ⊆ h∈H Vh ;
L L
ii. the quotient vector space ( h∈H Vh )/( h∈H Uh ) is the locally convex direct
sum of the quotients Vh /Uh ;
L L
iii. if Uh is closed in Vh for any h ∈ H then h∈H Uh is closed in h∈H Vh .
L L
Proof: i. By Lemma 5.1.i the inclusion h Uh ⊆ h Vh is continuous. On L the
other hand, by Lemma 5.1.iii the locally Lconvex direct sum topology on h Uh
is defined by the lattices of the form h Mh where Mh is an open lattice in
′
Uh . Choose, for any h ∈ H, an open L lattice LhL⊆ Vh suchL that Uh ∩ L′h ⊆ Mh .
′
Putting Lh := Lh + Mh we have h Mh = ( h Uh ) ∩ ( h Lh ) which shows
that the left hand side is open in the subspace topology.
ii. According to the universal property of the quotient topology and Lemma
5.1.i the bijection
L L ∼ L
( h∈H Vh )/( h∈H Uh ) −→ h∈H Vh /Uh
P L P
( h vh ) +( h Uh ) 7−→ h (vh + Uh )
L hand, L be an open lattice in the left hand side

is continuous. Let, on the other
and denote its preimage in h Vh , resp. its image in the right hand side, by L,
resp. by M . Then Lh := L ∩ Vh is an open lattice in Vh and Lh := (Lh + Uh )/Uh
Lan open lattice in Vh /Uh . We therefore see that M contains the open lattice
is
h Lh and hence is open.
L
iii. By Lemma 5.1.i all the projection maps prh0 : h Vh −→ Vh0 are continuous.
The assertion therefore is a consequence of the identity
\ M
pr−1
h (Uh ) = Uh .
h∈H h∈H
In the proof of the first assertion of the above lemma we have used a simple
argument which will be used over and over again and which we therefore want
28
to point out explicitly: Let W be a locally convex vector space and let U ⊆ W
be a subspace; for any open lattice M ⊆ U one can find an open lattice L ⊆ V
such that M = U ∩ L.
Corollary 5.4:
L
If Vh is Hausdorff for any h ∈ H then h∈H Vh is Hausdorff.
Proof: Apply Lemma 5.3.iii to the subspaces Uh := {0} and use Lemma 4.6.
E2. The strict inductive limit
Let V be a K-vector space and let
V1 ⊆ V2 ⊆ . . . ⊆ V
S
be an increasing sequence of vector subspaces such that V = n∈IN Vn . We
moreover assume that each Vn is equipped with a locally convex topology Tn in
such a way that
Tn+1 |Vn = Tn for any n ∈ IN .
We equip V with the locally convex final topology T with respect to the in-
clusions Vn ⊆ V . In this situation V is called the strict inductive limit of the
Vn .
Proposition 5.5:
i. T |Vn = Tn for any n ∈ IN;
ii. if Vn is Hausdorff for any n ∈ IN then V is Hausdorff;
iii. if Vn is closed in Vn+1 for any n ∈ IN then Vn is closed in V for any n ∈ IN.
Proof: i. Fix an n ∈ IN and let Ln ⊆ Vn be an open lattice. Because of the
assumption that Tm+1 |Vm = Tm we inductively find open lattices Ln+mS ⊆ Vn+m
such that Ln+m = Vn+m ∩ Ln+m+1 for any m ≥ 0. Then L := m≥0 Ln+m
clearly is a lattice in V . Moreover, L is open in V since L ∩ Vn+m = Ln+m for
any m ≥ 0. In particular, Ln = Vn ∩ L which proves that Ln is open in the
subspace topology on Vn induced by V .
ii. Let v ∈ V be any nonzero vector. We have v ∈ Vm for some m ∈ IN. Since Vm
is assumed to be Hausdorff we find an open lattice Lm ⊆ Vm such that v 6∈ Lm .
The same inductive construction as under i. produces an open lattice L ⊆ V
such that Lm = Vm ∩ L and hence v 6∈ L. Using Lemma 4.6 we conclude that
V is Hausdorff.
iii. Fix an n ∈ IN and consider any vector v ∈ V \ Vn . We have v ∈ Vm for
some m > n. Since Vn is closed in Vm by assumption we find an open lattice
29
Lm ⊆ Vm such that (v + Lm ) ∩ Vn = ∅. Applying our inductive construction a
third time there is an open lattice L ⊆ V such that Lm = Vm ∩ L. It follows
that (v + L) ∩ Vn = ((v + L) ∩ Vm ) ∩ Vn = (v + Lm ) ∩ Vn = ∅.
Proposition 5.6:
Assume that Vn is closed in Vn+1 for any n ∈ IN; then a subset B ⊆ V is bounded
in V if and only if B ⊆ Vm for some m ∈ IN and B is bounded in Vm .
Proof: We first assume that B is bounded in Vm . If L ⊆ V is any open lattice
then Vm ∩ L is an open lattice in Vm and we find an a ∈ K such that B ⊆
a(Vm ∩ L) ⊆ aL.
Now let B ⊆ V be any bounded subset. Fix once and for all a scalar b ∈ K such
that 0 < |b| < 1. Arguing by contradiction we assume that B is not contained
in any Vn . We then find a sequence of natural numbers n1 < n2 < . . . and a
sequence (vk )k∈IN in B such that
(∗) vk ∈ Vnk+1 \ Vnk for any k ∈ IN .
Note that the sequence (bk vk )k in V also satisfies the property (∗). We derive a
contradiction in two steps.
Step 1: First we construct an open lattice L ⊆ V which does not contain any
of the vectors bk vk . We start by fixing an open lattice L1 ⊆ Vn1 and choosing
an open lattice L′2 ⊆ Vn2 such that L1 = Vn1 ∩ L′2 . With Vn1 also bv1 + Vn1 is
closed in Vn2 . Since bv1 + Vn1 does not contain the zero vector we find an open
lattice L′′2 ⊆ Vn2 such that L′′2 ⊆ L′2 and (bv1 + Vn1 ) ∩ L′′2 = ∅. The open lattice
L2 := L1 + L′′2 in Vn2 then satisfies
Vn1 ∩ L2 = L1 and bv1 6∈ L2 .
Repeating this construction we inductively obtain, for any k ∈ IN, an open lattice
Lk in Vnk satisfying
Vnk ∩ Lk+1 = Lk and bk vk 6∈ Lk+1 .

S
Then L := k∈IN Lk is an open lattice in V not containing any bk vk .
Step 2: We now show that given any open lattice L ⊆ V we have bk vk ∈ L for
any sufficiently big k ∈ IN. By Lemma 4.5.ii the gauge pL is continuous. Since
B is bounded there must be a sufficiently big c ∈ IN such that pL (vk ) < |b|−c
for any k ∈ IN. It follows, using Lemma 2.2.i, that bk vk ∈ L− (pL ) ⊆ L for any
k ≥ c.
Since these two steps are in contradiction to each other there must be an m ∈ IN
such that B ⊆ Vm . Let finally Lm ⊆ Vm be an open lattice. Because of
30
Prop. 5.5.i we find an open lattice L ⊆ V such that Vm ∩ L = Lm . The
subset B being bounded in V there is an a ∈ K such that B ⊆ aL. We obtain
B ⊆ Vm ∩ aL = a(Vm ∩ L) = aLm . This proves that B is bounded in Vm .
Example 3:
Let X be a locally compact topological space. In section 3 we had discussed as
an example the normed K-vector space (Cc (X), k k∞ ). In the following we will
construct another natural locally convex topology on Cc (X) which is finer than
the norm topology.
Consider, for any compact subset A ⊆ X, the vector subspace
CA (X) := {φ ∈ Cc (X) : φ|(X \ A) = 0} ;
equipped with the norm k k∞ this is a Banach space. It is clear that Cc (X) is
the union of all this subspaces CA (X). We consider on Cc (X) the locally convex
final topology with respect to the inclusions CA (X) ⊆ Cc (X). By Lemma
5.1.i the evaluation
T linear forms δx (φ) := φ(x) on Cc (X) are continuous. The
CA (X) = x6∈A ker(δx ) as subspaces of Cc (X) therefore are closed. In particular,
because of {0} = C∅ (X), the locally convex vector space Cc (X) is Hausdorff.
Let us assume in addition that X is σ-compact, i.e., that X has a countable
covering by compact subsets. We then find an increasing sequence of compact
subsets A1 ⊆ A2 ⊆ . . . ⊆ X such that X is covered by the interiors of the An .
In particular, any compact subset of X is already contained in some Am . Since
the inclusions CAn (X) ⊆ CAn+1 (X) are isometries it follows that Cc (X) is the
strict inductive limit of the increasing sequence of Banach spaces CAn (X). We
will see later that therefore this new locally convex topology on Cc (X) is (in
contrast to the norm topology) complete.
The space Cc (X) with this locally convex final topology is the starting point
of measure theory. The continuous linear forms on this space are called the
(K-valued) Radon measures on X.
§6 Spaces of continuous linear maps
In this section let V and W denote two locally convex K-vector spaces. Since
the addition and the scalar multiplication in W are continuous, by Lemma 4.1,
the continuous linear maps (or operators) from V into W form a vector subspace
L(V, W ) := {f ∈ HomK (V, W ) : f is continuous}
of the K-vector space HomK (V, W ) of all linear maps. We will discuss in this
section a general technique to equip the vector space L(V, W ) with a locally
31
convex topology. As it turns out there are various ways to do this but which
all follow the same pattern. The following notion will play a crucial role in this
discussion.
Definition:
A subset H ⊆ HomK (V, W ) is called equicontinuous if for any open lattice
M ⊆ W there is an open lattice L ⊆ V such that f (L) ⊆ M for every f ∈ H.
It is obvious that any equicontinuous subset already is contained in L(V, W ).
Proposition 6.1:
Suppose that the topology on V is defined by the family of seminorms (qi )i∈I ;
for a subset H ⊆ HomK (V, W ) the following assertions are equivalent:
i. H is equicontinuous;
ii. for any continuous seminorm p on W there is a continuous seminorm q on
V such that
p(f (v)) ≤ q(v) for any v ∈ V and f ∈ H ;
iii. for any continuous seminorm p on W there is a constant c > 0 and finitely
many i1 , . . . , ir ∈ I such that
p(f (v)) ≤ c · max(qi1 (v), . . . , qir (v)) for any v ∈ V and f ∈ H .
Proof: Let us first assume that H is equicontinuous. By definition we then have

an open lattice L ⊆ V such that f (L) ⊆ L(p) for any f ∈ H. According to
Prop’s 4.3 and 4.4 we find an ǫ > 0 and finitely many i1 , . . . , ir ∈ I such that
V (qi1 , . . . , qir ; ǫ) ⊆ L. We certainly may assume that 0 < ǫ = |b| < 1 for some
b ∈ K. Hence
p(f (v)) ≤ 1 for any f ∈ H, provided max(qi1 (v), . . . , qir (v)) ≤ |b| .
If max(qi1 (v), . . . , qir (v)) = 0 then max(qi1 (av), . . . , qir (av)) = 0 for any a ∈
K and therefore |a| · p(f (v)) = p(f (av)) ≤ 1 for any a ∈ K. This implies
p(f (v)) = 0. If, on the other hand, max(qi1 (v), . . . , qir (v)) > 0 then we may
choose an integer m such that |b|m+2 < max(qi1 (v), . . . , qir (v)) ≤ |b|m+1 . We
obtain p(f (v)) = |b|m · p(f (b−m v)) ≤ |b|m < |b|−2 · max(qi1 (v), . . . , qir (v)). This
means that the assertion iii. holds true with the constant c := |b|−2 . The
implication from iii. to ii. is trivial by putting q := c · max(qi1 , . . . , qir ) .
32
We finally assume that the assertion ii. holds true. Let M ⊆ W be an open
lattice. According to the Remark 4.7 we find an ǫ > 0 and a continuous semi-
norm p on W such that V (p; ǫ) ⊆ M . By assumption we have a corresponding
continuous seminorm q on V such that p(f (v)) ≤ q(v) for any f ∈ H. Then
f (V (q; ǫ)) ⊆ V (p; ǫ) ⊆ M for any f ∈ H.
Corollary 6.2:
Suppose that the topology on V is defined by the family of seminorms (qi )i∈I ;
for an arbitrary seminorm q on V the following assertions are equivalent:
i. q is continuous;
ii. there is a constant c > 0 and finitely many i1 , . . . , ir ∈ I such that
q(v) ≤ c · max(qi1 (v), . . . , qir (v)) for any v ∈ V .
Proof: Let W := V but equipped with the topology defined by the seminorm q.
id
The continuity of q then amounts to the continuity of the identity map V −→ W .
By Prop. 6.1 for H := {id} the latter is equivalent to the assertion ii.
If we use this corollary for the space W then it follows that in Prop. 6.1.iii the
continuous seminorm p on W only needs to run over a defining family for the
topology.
Corollary 6.3:
Let H ⊆ L(V, W ) be an equicontinuous subset and let p be a continuous semi-
norm on W ; then q(v) := supf ∈H p(f (v)) is a continuous seminorm on V .
The approach to define on L(V, W ) a certain family of locally convex topologies

is based on the following two parallel observations. Fix a bounded subset B ⊆ V .
1. For any open lattice M ⊆ W the subset
L(B, M ) := {f ∈ L(V, W ) : f (B) ⊆ M }
is a lattice in L(V, W ). It is clear that L(B, M ) is an o-submodule. If f ∈

L(V, W ) is any continuous linear map then, by the boundedness of B, there has
to be an a ∈ K × such that B ⊆ af −1 (M ). This means that f (B) ⊆ aM or
equivalently that a−1 f ∈ L(B, M ).
2. For any continuous seminorm p on W the formula
pB (f ) := sup p(f (v))

v∈B
33
defines a seminorm on L(V, W ). The only point to observe is that p ◦ f is a
continuous seminorm on V so that p(f (B)) is a bounded subset in IR≥0 . We
have the obvious identity
L(pB ) = L(B, L(p)) .
Let now B be a fixed family of bounded subsets of V . The locally convex topology
on L(V, W ) defined by the family of seminorms {pB : B ∈ B, p a continuous
seminorm on W } is called the B-topology. We write
LB (V, W ) := L(V, W ) equipped with the B-topology.
Lemma 6.4:
Assume that the family B is closed under finite unions; then the topology on
LB (V, W ) can be defined by the family of lattices {L(B, M ) : B ∈ B, M ⊆
W an open lattice}.
Proof: The family of lattices in question is nonempty and satisfies (lc1) and
(lc2). We have L− ((pM )B ) ⊆ L(B, L− (pM )) ⊆ L(B, M ) which shows that any
lattice L(B, M ) is open in LB (V, W ). Let on the other hand p1,B1 , . . . , pr,Br
be finitely many of the defining seminorms for the B-topology and let a ∈ K × .
Setting B := B1 ∪ . . . ∪ Br and M := a(L(p1 ) ∩ . . . ∩ L(pr )) we have L(B, M ) ⊆
V (p1,B1 , . . . , pr,Br ; |a|).
Starting from the family B we may, using Lemma 4.10, define the usually much
larger family Be of all those bounded subsets B ⊆ V for which there is an a ∈ K ×
and finitely many B1 , . . . , Bm ∈ B such that aB is contained in the closure of
the o-submodule generated by B1 ∪ . . . ∪ Bm . In particular, the family Be always
is closed under finite unions.
Lemma 6.5:
e
The B- and B-topologies on L(V, W ) coincide.
e
Proof: For trivial reasons the B-topology is finer than the B-topology. On the
other hand let M ⊆ W be an open lattice and B ∈ B. e Choose a ∈ K × and
B1 , . . . , Bm ∈ B such that aB is contained in the closure of the o-submodule
generated by B1 ∪ . . . ∪ Bm . Then a[L(B1 , M ) ∩ . . . ∩ L(Bm , M )] ⊆ L(B, M ).
Lemma 6.6:
S
If W is Hausdorff and if B∈B B generates a dense vector subspace in V then
LB (V, W ) is Hausdorff.
34
Proof: We check the condition ii. in Lemma 4.6. Let 0 6= f ∈ L(V, W ). By
assumption there is a B ∈ B and a vector v ∈ B such that f (v) 6= 0. Since,
moreover, W is assumed to be Hausdorff there is an open lattice M ⊆ W such
that f (v) 6∈ M . It follows that f 6∈ L(B, M ).
Examples:
1) Let B be the family of all one point subsets of V . The corresponding B-
topology is called the weak topology or the topology of pointwise convergence.
We write Ls (V, W ) := LB (V, W ). The weak topology in fact is the initial topol-
ogy with respect to the evaluation maps
L(V, W ) −→ W
f 7−→ f (v)
for v ∈ V .
2) Let B be the family of all bounded subsets in V . The corresponding B-
topology is called the strong topology or the topology of bounded convergence.
We write Lb (V, W ) := LB (V, W ).
If W is Hausdorff both locally convex vector spaces Ls (V, W ) and Lb (V, W ) are
Hausdorff.
Remark 6.7:
If V and W are normed vector spaces then the topology on Lb (V, W ) is defined
by the operator norm k k.
Proof: Let B denote the family of all bounded subsets in V and let Bo have
the unit ball B1 (0) in V as its single member. Since Be = B
fo it follows from
Lemma 6.5 that the topology on Lb (V, W ) is defined by the norm kf k′ :=
supkvk≤1 kf (v)k. We trivially have kf k′ ≤ kf k. Fix a b ∈ K such that 0 <
|b| < 1. For any 0 6= v ∈ B1 (0) we then find an integer m(v) ≥ 0 such that
|bm(v)+1 | < kvk ≤ |bm(v) |. We compute
kf (v)k kf (b−m(v) v)k kf (v)k

kf k = sup = sup −m(v)
= sup ≤ |b|−1 · kf k′
0<kvk≤1 kvk 0<kvk≤1 kb vk |b|<kvk≤1 kvk
and see that k k and k k′ define the same topology.
The reason for the fundamental role of equicontinuous subsets lies in the follow-
ing fact.
Lemma 6.8:
35
Every equicontinuous subset H ⊆ L(V, W ) is bounded in every B-topology.
Proof: Let L ⊆ LB (V, W ) be any open lattice. There is an open lattice M ⊆ W
and a B ∈ Be such that L ⊇ L(B, M ). Since H is equicontinuous we find an
open lattice L ⊆ V such that f (L) ⊆ M for any f ∈ H. Furthermore, there is
an a ∈ K × such that B ⊆ aL. Hence f (B) ⊆ aM for any f ∈ H which shows
that H ⊆ aL(B, M ) ⊆ aL.
There is the following analog of Lemma 4.10 for equicontinuous subsets. We

begin with a trivial observation.
Remark 6.9:
If H ⊆ L(V, W ) is equicontinuous then the o-submodule generated by H and in
particular Co(H) are equicontinuous.
Concerning the passage to the closure a stronger statement holds true. To

formulate it we introduce the K-vector space Map(V, W ) of all (possibly neither
continuous nor linear) maps from V into W equipped with the topology of
pointwise convergence. This is a locally convex vector space whose topology is
defined by the family of seminorms pv (f ) := p(f (v)) for any v ∈ V and any
continuous seminorm p on W .
Lemma 6.10:
If W is Hausdorff then, for any equicontinuous subset H ⊆ L(V, W ), the closure
H of H in Map(V, W ) is contained in L(V, W ) and is equicontinuous.
Proof: In a first step we show that the subspace of K-linear maps HomK (V, W )
is closed in Map(V, W ). The evaluation maps
Map(V, W ) −→ W
f 7−→ f (v) ,
for v ∈ V , are continuous. Since addition and scalar multiplication in V and in

W are continuous the linear maps
Map(V, W ) −→ W
f 7−→ f (av + a′ v ′ ) − af (v) − a′ f (v ′ ) ,
for a, a′ ∈ K and v, v ′ ∈ V , are continuous as well. Hence their kernels are

closed because of our assumption that W is Hausdorff. But HomK (V, W ) is the
intersection of all these kernels.
We therefore have H ⊆ HomK (V, W ) and it remains to show that H is equicon-
tinuous. Let M ⊆ W be an open lattice, and choose an open lattice L ⊆ V such
36
that f (L) ⊆ M for any f ∈ H. Consider now any f ∈ H. We claim that always
f (L) ⊆ M . To see this let v ∈ L. In Map(V, W ) we have, for any 0 < ǫ < 1, the
open lattice
V ((pM )v ; ǫ) = {f ∈ Map(V, W ) : pM (f (v)) ≤ ǫ} .
Since f lies in the closure of H there must exist an f ′ ∈ H such that f −

f ′ ∈ V ((pM )v ; ǫ). This amounts to pM (f (v) − f ′ (v)) ≤ ǫ < 1 which implies
f (v) − f ′ (v) ∈ M . Since f ′ (L) ⊆ M we obtain f (v) ∈ M .
Corollary 6.11:
Suppose that W is Hausdorff and that the B-topology is finer than the weak
topology; then the closure H in LB (V, W ) of any equicontinuous subset H ⊆
L(V, W ) is equicontinuous.
There are two important classes of locally convex vector spaces V for which
Lemma 6.8 can be sharpened to a characterization of the bounded subsets in
LB (V, W ). For the definition of the first class the starting point is the observation
that, by the definition of boundedness, a given open lattice L ⊆ V satisfies the
following property:
(bor) For any bounded subset B ⊆ V there is an a ∈ K such that B ⊆ aL .
Note, by the way, that any o-submodule of V which satisfies (bor) necessarily is
a lattice.
Definition:
A locally convex vector space V is called bornological if every lattice in V which
satisfies (bor) is open.
Proposition 6.12:
If V is bornological then a subset H ⊆ L(V, W ) is equicontinuous if and only if
it is bounded in Lb (V, W ).
Proof: The direct implication is a special case of Lemma 6.8. For the reverse
implication assume HT to be bounded in Lb (V, W ) and let M ⊆ W be an open
lattice. Define L := f ∈H f −1 (M ). If B ⊆ V is any bounded subset then, by
assumption, there is an a ∈ K × such that H ⊆ aL(B, M ) = L(B, aM ). This
means that f (B) ⊆ aM for any f ∈ H and hence that B ⊆ aL. In other
words the o-submodule L satisfies the condition (bor) and therefore must be
an open lattice by our assumption that V is bornological. It follows that H is
equicontinuous.
37
Proposition 6.13:
The following assertions are equivalent:
i. V is bornological;
ii. a seminorm q on V is continuous if and only if it is bounded on bounded
subsets;
iii. a K-linear map f : V −→ W into any other locally convex K-vector space
W is continuous if and only if it respects bounded subsets.
Proof: We first show the equivalence of i. and ii. Assume that V is bornolog-
ical. We have noted already earlier that a continuous seminorm is bounded
on bounded subsets. Let us therefore assume vice versa that q has this latter
property. For the continuity of q it suffices, by Lemma 4.5.i, to show that the
lattice L(q) is open. Since V is bornological it suffices moreover to check that
L(q) satisfies the condition (bor). So let B ⊆ V be bounded. There is then an
a ∈ K × such that q(v) ≤ |a| for any v ∈ B. But this amounts to B ⊆ aL(q).
We now assume that the assertion ii. holds and we have to conclude from
this that V is bornological. Let L ⊆ V be a lattice satisfying (bor). As a
consequence of Lemma 4.5.ii and our assumption it suffices to show that the
gauge pL is bounded on any bounded subset B ⊆ V . But using a scalar a ∈ K
such that B ⊆ aL we have pL (v) ≤ |a| for v ∈ B.
Next we establish the equivalence of i. and iii. Again we first assume that V is
bornological. It is trivial that a continuous linear map respects bounded subsets.
To show that f is continuous provided it has this latter property it suffices to
check that, given an open lattice M ⊆ W , its preimage f −1 (M ) satisfies the
condition (bor). If B ⊆ V is bounded then f (B), by assumption, is bounded in
W . Letting a ∈ K × be a scalar such that f (B) ⊆ aM we have B ⊆ af −1 (M ).
Finally we assume that iii. holds true. Let Λ denote the family of all lattices in
V which satisfy the condition (bor). It is immediate that Λ contains every open
lattice and satisfies (lc1) and (lc2). Hence Λ defines a locally convex topology T ′
on V which is finer than the given topology T . The two locally convex vector
spaces (V, T ) and (V, T ′ ) have the same bounded subsets. Hence iii. implies
id
that the identity map (V, T ) −→(V, T ′ ) is continuous. So T ′ = T which means
that V is bornological.
Examples:
1) If the topology on V is defined by a single seminorm (e.g., if V is a normed
vector space) then V is bornological.
Proof: According to Prop. 4.11 we have a bounded open lattice Lo ⊆ V . Let
L ⊆ V be any other lattice with the property (bor). Then there is an a ∈ K ×
such that Lo ⊆ aL. This shows that aL and consequently L is open.
38
2) Suppose that the topology on V is the locally convex final topology with
respect to a family of linear maps fh : Vh −→ V ; if all the Vh are bornological
then so, too, is V .
Proof: Let L ⊆ V be a lattice with the property (bor). To see that L is open
it suffices to check that each lattice fh−1 (L) in Vh has the property (bor). If
B ⊆ Vh is bounded then fh (B) is bounded in V so that there is a scalar a ∈ K ×
such that fh (B) ⊆ aL. Hence B ⊆ afh−1 (L).
3) Quotient spaces, locally convex direct sums, and strict inductive limits of
bornological vector spaces are bornological.
Proof: These are special cases of 2).
The following notion will be studied in more detail later. We give the definition
now since it provides another class of bornological vector spaces.
Definition:
A locally convex vector space V is called metrizable if its topology can be defined
by a metric.
Proposition 6.14:
Any metrizable vector space V is bornological.
Proof: We will check the assertion ii. in Prop. 6.13. Let q be a seminorm on V
which is bounded on bounded subsets and assume that q is not continuous. By
Lemma 4.5.i the latter means that L(q) is not open in V . On the other hand,
since V is metrizable we find a decreasing sequences (Ln )n∈IN of open lattices in
V which form a fundamental system of neighbourhoods of the zero vector. Let
a ∈ K be any scalar such that |a| > 1. Since a−n Ln 6⊆ L(q) there is a vector
vn ∈ Ln such that q(vn ) > |a|n . Hence the seminorm q is not bounded on the
sequence of vectors (vn )n . But by construction this sequence converges to the
zero vector and therefore is bounded. This is a contradiction.
We now come to the second class of locally convex vector spaces. Here the
starting point is the fact that any open lattice in V also is closed.
Definition:
A locally convex vector space V is called barrelled if every closed lattice in V is
open.
Proposition 6.15: (Banach-Steinhaus)
39
If V is barrelled then any bounded subset H ⊆ Ls (V, W ) is equicontinuous.
Proof: Let M ⊆ W be an open lattice and consider the o-submodule L :=
T −1
f ∈H f (M ) of V . We have to show that L is open. Since L obviously is
closed it suffices to check that L is a lattice. Let v ∈ V be any vector. By the
boundedness of H in Ls (V, W ) there is an a ∈ K × such that H ⊆ aL({v}, M ).
This implies that a−1 v ∈ L.
As with the above proposition we sometimes follow the convention to name

very basic results the same way their counterparts over the real or complex
field are named. This does not mean, e.g., that Prop. 6.15 was proved by
Banach-Steinhaus. But it helps a lot to remember the content of this result.
Later (in §12) we will see that over a spherically complete field the Banach-
Steinhaus theorem actually characterizes barrelled vector spaces.
Corollary 6.16:
Suppose that V is barrelled; then in LB (V, W ), for any B-topology which is finer
than the weak topology, the bounded subsets coincide with the equicontinuous
subsets.
Proof: This is Lemma 6.8 together with Prop. 6.15.
Examples:
S
1) If V has no countable covering V = n∈IN An by closed subsets An with
empty interior then V is barrelled.
Proof:S Let L ⊆ V be a closed lattice and fix an a ∈ K such that |a| > 1. Then
V = n∈IN an L. By assumption there must therefore exist an n ∈ IN such that
an L and consequently L has a nonempty interior. This means we find a vector
v ∈ L and an open lattice L′ ⊆ V such that v +L′ ⊆ L. But then L also contains
L′ and hence is open.
2) If V is metrizable and is complete with respect to a defining metric (e.g., V
is a Banach space) then V is barrelled.
Proof: By Baire’s theorem ([B-GT] Chap.IX §5.3 Thm.1) we are in the situation
of 1).
3) Suppose that the topology on V is the locally convex final topology with
respect to a family of linear maps fh : Vh −→ V ; if all the Vh are barrelled then
so, too, is V .
Proof: This is obvious.
4) Quotient spaces, locally convex direct sums, and strict inductive limits of
barrelled vector spaces are barrelled.
40
Proof: These are special cases of 3).
§7 Completeness
In this section we will discuss the concepts of completeness and completion for
a general locally convex K-vector space V . We recall that a directed set (I, ≤)
is a set I together with a partial order ≤ which has the additional property that
for any two elements i, j ∈ I there is a third element k ∈ I such that i ≤ k and
j ≤ k.
Definition:
a) A net (vi )i∈I in V is a family of vectors vi in V where the index set I is
directed;
b) a net (vi )i∈I is said to converge to the vector v ∈ V if for any open lattice
L ⊆ V there is an index i ∈ I such that vj − v ∈ L for any j ≥ i; we also say in
this case that this net is convergent;
c) a net (vi )i∈I is called a Cauchy net if for any open lattice L ⊆ V there is an
index i ∈ I such that vj − vk ∈ L for any j, k ≥ i;
d) a subset A ⊆ V is called complete if every Cauchy net in A converges to a
vector in A.
Remark 7.1:
i. Any (convergent, Cauchy) sequence is a (convergent, Cauchy) net;
ii. any convergent net is a Cauchy net;
iii. if V is Hausdorff then a net in V converges to at most one vector;
iv. any closed subset of a complete subset is also complete;
v. if V is Hausdorff then any complete subset of V is closed;
vi. suppose that the topology on V is defined by the family of seminorms (qj )j∈J ;
then a net (vi )i∈I in V converges to the vector v ∈ V if and only if (qj (vi −v))i∈I
converges to zero for any j ∈ J;
vii. let f : V −→ W be a continuous linear map between locally convex K-vector
spaces; if (vi )i∈I converges to v ∈ V , resp. is a Cauchy net, then (f (vi ))i∈I con-
verges to f (v), resp. is a Cauchy net.
Remark 7.2:
If V is metrizable then we have:
41
i. V is complete if and only if every Cauchy sequence in V is convergent;
ii. suppose that the topology on V can be defined by a translation invariant metric
d (i.e., d(v + w, v ′ + w) = d(v, v ′ ) for any v, v ′ , w ∈ V ); then V is complete if
and only if the metric space (V, d) is complete.
Proof: The second assertion is an immediate consequence of the first one and the
identity d(v, w) = d(v −w, 0). For the first assertion only the reverse implication
has to be considered. Let (vi )i∈I be a Cauchy net in V . Since V is metrizable
there is a decreasing sequence L1 ⊇ L2 ⊇ . . . of open lattices in V which form
a fundamental system of neighbourhoods of the zero vector. For any n ∈ IN we
choose an index in ∈ I such that vj −vk ∈ Ln for any j, k ≥ in . We certainly may
assume that i1 ≤ i2 ≤ . . . Write wn := vin ; then (wn )n is a Cauchy sequence. By
assumption it converges to a vector v ∈ V . We claim that the original Cauchy
net (vi )i also converges to v. Let L ⊆ V be any open lattice. It contains some
Lm , and we have vj − v ∈ {vj − wn }n≥m ⊆ Lm ⊆ L = L for j ≥ im .
In particular, any Banach space is complete.
Lemma 7.3:
Let Vo ⊆ V be a dense vector subspace; any continuous (w.r.t. the subspace
topology) linear map fo : Vo −→ W into a complete Hausdorff locally convex
K-vector space W extends uniquely to a continuous linear map f : V −→ W .
Proof: For the uniqueness part of the assertion we may assume that fo = 0. Then
f (V ) = f (Vo ) ⊆ fo (Vo ) = {0} = {0} which amounts to f = 0. For the existence
of f let Λ denote the set of all open lattices in V ; it is directed by the reverse of
the inclusion relation. We define f (v) for a given vector v ∈ V as follows. Since
Vo is dense in V there is, for any L ∈ Λ, a vector vL ∈ Vo such that vL −v ∈ L. By
construction the net (vL )L converges to v and therefore is a Cauchy net. Hence
(fo (vL ))L is a Cauchy net in W and converges, by assumption, to a vector
which we denote by f (v). We proceed in three steps. Step 1: The vector f (v)
′
does not depend on the choice of the net (vL )L . Let (vL )L be another choice.
′
The net (vL − vL )L then converges to the zero vector in Vo . The continuity
′
of fo implies that the net (fo (vL ) − fo (vL ))L converges to the zero vector in
W . This shows that v 7−→ f (v) is a well defined map on V which extends
fo . Step 2: The map f is K-linear. Let (vL )L and (wL )L be nets as above
converging to the vectors v and w, respectively. Given any two scalars a, b ∈ K
the net (fo (avL + bwL ))L = (afo (vL ) + bfo (wL ))L converges to af (v) + bf (w)
in W . On the other hand, the net (avL + bwL )L converges to av + bw. The
reindexed net (avcL + bwcL )L where c ∈ K × such that |c−1 | = max(|a|, |b|, 1)
has the property used above for the definition of f (av + bw). It follows that
af (v) + bf (w) = f (av + bw). Step 3: The map f is continuous. Let M ⊆ W
be an open lattice. By the continuity of fo there is an open lattice L′ ⊆ V such
that L′ ∩ Vo = fo−1 (M ). For any v ∈ L′ we can choose a net (vL )L as above
42
converging to v so that this net in fact lies in L′ ∩ Vo . Then (fo (vL ))L is a net
in M . Since M is closed it is complete. We obtain that f (v) ∈ M and hence
that f (L′ ) ⊆ M .
Remark 7.4:
Let Vo ⊆ V be a dense vector subspace equipped with the subspace topology; we

have:
i. Any continuous seminorm qo on Vo extends uniquely to a continuous semi-

norm q on V , and any continuous seminorm on V arises in this way;
ii. if Lo runs over all open lattices in Vo then the closure Lo in V runs over all
open lattices in V and satisfies Lo ∩ Vo = Lo .
Proof: i. Using the inequality |qo (v) − qo (w)|∞ ≤ qo (v − w) for any v, w ∈ Vo

the existence and uniqueness proof for q is entirely analogous to the argument
for Lemma 7.3. Moreover, any continuous seminorm on V , by uniqueness, is
the extension of its restriction to Vo . ii. If L is an open lattice in V then we
have, by the density of Vo , that L ⊆ L ∩ Vo . But since L is closed we also have
L ∩ Vo ⊆ L. It remains to remark that given Lo there is an open lattice L ⊆ V
such that L ∩ Vo = Lo .
Proposition 7.5:
For any locally convex K-vector space V there exists an up to a unique topo-
logical isomorphism unique complete Hausdorff locally convex K-vector space Vb
together with a continuous K-linear map cV : V −→ Vb such that the following
universal property holds true: For any continuous K-linear map f : V −→ W
into a complete Hausdorff locally convex K-vector space W there is a unique
continuous K-linear map fb : Vb −→ W such that f = fb ◦ cV . We moreover
have:
i. The image im(cV ) is dense in Vb ;
ii. the map cV induces a topological isomorphism between V /{0} with the quo-
tient topology and im(cV ) with the subspace topology.
Proof: The unicity statement immediately follows from the universal property.
For the existence proof we may assume V to be Hausdorff. Let again Λ denote
the set of all open lattices in V directed by the reverse of the inclusion relation.
As an o-module we define Vb as the projective limit
Vb := lim V /L
←−
L∈Λ
43
of the o-module quotients V /L. But V in fact is a K-vector space since multi-
plication by any a ∈ K × induces an automorphism of Λ. Since V is Hausdorff
the obvious K-linear map
cV : V −→ Vb
v 7−→ (v + L)L
c of Vb by
is injective. For any open lattice M ⊆ V we define the o-submodule M
c :=
M lim M/L .
←−
L∈Λ,L⊆M
An equivalent characterization is given by
c = {(vL + L)L ∈ Vb : vM ∈ M } .
M
This construction has the following straightforward properties:

c is a lattice in Vb .
1) M
2) We have c−1 c
V (M ) = M .
c is equal to {0}.
3) The intersection of all M
c is nonempty and satisfies (lc1) and (lc2).
4) The family of all lattices M
The property 4) allows us to equip Vb with the locally convex topology defined
by the family of all the lattices M c. Because of 3) this topology is Hausdorff,
and because of 2) the map cV induces a topological isomorphism between V and
im(cV ). Next we check that im(cV ) is dense in Vb ; in fact, the obvious formula
b for any vb = (vL + L)L ∈ Vb shows more generally that M is dense
vb − cV (vL ) ∈ L
in Mc.
The existence and uniqueness of the map f is now an immediate consequence
of Lemma 7.3. It remains to check that Vb is complete. Let (vbi )i∈I with vbi =
(vi,L +L)L be a Cauchy net in Vb . We then find, for any L ∈ Λ, an index i(L) ∈ I
b i.e., vj,L − vk,L ∈ L for any j, k ≥ i(L). It follows that
such that vbj − vbk ∈ L,
the vector vb := (vi(L),L + L)L ∈ Vb is well defined and satisfies vb − vbi ∈ L
b for any
i ≥ i(L) and any L. This means, of course, that the Cauchy net (vbi )i converges
to vb.
c is the closure in Vb of
In the above proof we have seen that the open lattice M
the open lattice M ⊆ V . We therefore obtain from Remark 7.4.ii that the M c
constitute all the open lattices in Vb .
Definition:
44
The locally convex vector space Vb is called the Hausdorf f completion of V .
If V already is Hausdorff we call Vb simply the completion of V and often identify

V with a vector subspace of Vb .
Corollary 7.6:
Suppose that V is Hausdorff; an o-submodule A ⊆ V is complete if and only if
the natural map A −→ lim A/(A ∩ L) where L runs over the open lattices in V
←−
is surjective (and hence bijective).
∼
=
Proof: Using the identifications A/(A∩L) −→(A+L)/L the map in the assertion
corresponds to the factorization
A −→ lim(A + L)/L ⊆ lim V /L = Vb

←− ←−
of the canonical map cV restricted to A. It therefore suffices to show that

lim(A + L)/L coincides with the closure of cV (A) in Vb . For vb = (vL + L)L ∈
←−
b shows that vb lies in the
lim(A + L)/L with vL ∈ A our formula vb − cV (vL ) ∈ L
←−
b = (wL + L)L be an element in the closure of
closure of A. Let, vice versa, w
A. For any L we then find a vL ∈ A such that w b i.e., such that
b − cV (vL ) ∈ L,
wL − vL ∈ L. Hence w b = (vL )L ∈ lim(A + L)/L.
←−
Corollary 7.7:
Suppose that W is Hausdorff and complete; for any B-topology the restriction
map
∼
=
LcV (B) (Vb , W ) −→ LB (V, W )
where cV (B) := {cV (B) : B ∈ B} is a topological isomorphism.
It is an immediate consequence of the definitions that an arbitrary direct product

of locally convex vector spaces is complete if and only if all the factors are
complete.
Lemma 7.8:
Let (Vh )h∈H be a familyLof Hausdorff locally convex vector spaces; the locally
convex direct sum V := h∈H Vh is complete if and only if Vh is complete for
every h ∈ H.
Proof: By Lemma 5.3.iii each Vh is closed in V . Hence if V is complete then
the Vh are complete as well. For the reverse implication we first of all note that
45
V is Hausdorff by Cor. 5.4. It therefore suffices to show that the canonical map
cV : V −→ Vb is surjective. For any
L family λ = (Lh )h∈H of open lattices Lh ⊆ Vh
we have the open lattice Lλ := h∈H Lh in V . According to Lemma 5.1.iii the
completion is the projective limit Vb = lim V /Lλ ; the map cV corresponds to the
←−
λ
obvious map
M M M
V = Vh = ( lim Vh /Lh ) −→ lim ( Vh /Lh ) = Vb .
←− ←−
h∈H h∈H Lh ⊆Vh λ=(Lh ) h∈H
P
Let now ( h vhλ + Lh )λ with vhλ ∈ Vh be a vector in the right hand side. Each
set of indices H(λ) := {h ∈ H : vhλ 6∈ Lh } is finite. We note that the coset
vhλ + Lh only depends on Lh and not on the family λ to which Lh belongs. S This
vector therefore lies in the left hand side if we can show that the union λ H(λ)
still is finite. If this union would be infinite there would have to exist a sequence
of pairwise different indices (hn )n∈IN and families λn = (Ln,h )h∈H such that
vhλnn 6∈ Ln,hn for every n ∈ IN. Consider in this case the family λ = (Lh )h with
Lh = Ln,hn for h = hn and Lh = Vh for h 6= h1 , h2 , . . . By construction the
corresponding set of indices H(λ) = {h1 , h2 , . . .} would be infinite which leads
to a contradiction.
Lemma 7.9:
Let V be the strict inductive limit of the vector subspaces V1 ⊆ V2 ⊆ . . .; if Vn
is complete for every n ∈ IN then V is complete, too.
Proof: Let (vi )i∈I be a Cauchy net. In a first step we show that there is an
m ∈ IN such that for any i ∈ I and any open lattice L ⊆ V there is a j ≥ i such
that vj ∈ Vm + L. Assume that, for any k ∈ IN, there is an open lattice Lk ⊆ V
and an i(k) ∈ I such that
vj 6∈ Vk + Lk for all j ≥ i(k) .
We certainly may assume that the L1 ⊇ L2 ⊇ . . . are decreasing. Consider the

open lattice [
L := Co( Vn ∩ Ln )
n∈IN
in V . We claim that L ⊆ Vk + Lk for any k ∈ IN. It suffices to show that

Vn ∩ Ln ⊆ Vk + Lk for any n and k. But if n ≤ k then Vn ⊆ Vk , and if n ≥ k
then Ln ⊆ Lk . It follows that Vk + L ⊆ Vk + Lk for any k ∈ IN. Choose now an
index i ∈ I such that vi1 − vi2 ∈ L for any i1 , i2 ≥ i. Letting k ∈ IN be such that
vi ∈ Vk we arrive at the contradiction that vj ∈ Vk + L ⊆ Vk + Lk for any j ≥ i.
Denoting by Λ, as usual, the set of all open lattices in V we introduce the set
I × Λ directed by the partial order (i, L) ≤ (j, M ) if i ≤ j and M ⊆ L. Fix a
46
natural number m with the property which we have established above. For any
pair (i, L) ∈ I × Λ we then have an index i′ (L) ≥ i and a vector v(i,L) ∈ Vm such
that v(i,L) − vi′ (L) ∈ L.
In the next step we show that (v(i,L) )(i,L)∈I×Λ in fact is a Cauchy net in Vm . Any
open lattice in Vm is of the form Vm ∩ L for some L ∈ Λ. Fix an i ∈ I such that
vk − vl ∈ L for any k, l ≥ i. Consider now any two pairs (k, M ), (l, N ) ≥ (i, L).
We have v(k,M ) − vk′ (M ) ∈ M and v(l,N) − vl′ (N) ∈ N . Since k ′ (M ) ≥ k ≥ i,
l′ (N ) ≥ l ≥ i, and M + N ⊆ L we obtain v(k,M ) − v(l,N) = (v(k,M ) − vk′ (M ) ) +
(vk′ (M ) − vl′ (N) ) + (vl′ (N) − v(l,N) ) ∈ M + L + N ⊆ L.
Since Vm by assumption is complete the Cauchy net (v(i,L) )(i,L) converges to
some vector v ∈ Vm . We conclude the proof by showing that the original Cauchy
net (vi )i in V converges to the same vector v. Let L ⊆ V be any open lattice.
We find a pair (k, M ) ∈ I × Λ such that
(1) v(l,N) − v ∈ L for any (l, N ) ≥ (k, M ), and
(2) vk1 − vk2 ∈ L for any k1 , k2 ≥ k.
As a special case of (1) we have v(k,M ∩L) − v ∈ L. Since, by construction,
v(k,M ∩L) − vk′ (M ∩L) ∈ M ∩ L it follows that vk′ (M ∩L) − v ∈ L. Using (2) we
finally obtain that vl − v ∈ L for any l ≥ k.
There is the following important weakening of the concept of completeness.
Definition:
A locally convex vector space V is called quasi-complete if every bounded closed
subset of V is complete.
Obviously every complete V is quasi-complete.
Lemma 7.10:
Every Cauchy sequence in V is contained in a bounded and closed subset.
Proof: Let B = {vn : n ∈ IN} be a Cauchy sequence in V . Then (q(vn ))n ,
for any continuous seminorm q on V , is a Cauchy sequence in IR and hence is
bounded. It follows that B is bounded and that its closure B is bounded and
closed.
Proposition 7.11:
If V is quasi-complete then we have:
i. Every Cauchy sequence in V is convergent;
47
ii. if V is metrizable then it is complete.
Proposition 7.12:
i. A closed vector subspace U of a quasi-complete locally convex vector space V
is quasi-complete (in the subspace topology);
Q
ii. the direct product V = h∈H Vh of a family of quasi-complete locally convex
vector spaces Vh is quasi-complete;
L
iii. the locally convex direct sum V = h∈H Vh of a family of quasi-complete
and Hausdorff locally convex vector spaces Vh is quasi-complete;
iv. the strict inductive limit V of an increasing sequence V1 ⊆ V2 ⊆ . . . of closed
and quasi-complete vector subspaces Vn is quasi-complete.
Proof: The assertion i. is obvious. The assertion iv. is a consequence of Prop.
5.6. For ii. and iii. let prh : V −→ Vh denote the projection maps. If B is a
Q L
bounded subset of V then B is contained in h prh (B), resp. in h prh (B).
In the situation of ii. this latter set obviously is complete as a direct product
of complete subsets. The same holds true in the situation of iii. once we estab-
lish the fact that prh (B) = 0 for all but finitely many h ∈ H. Reasoning by
contradiction let us assume that there is a sequence of pairwise different indices
(hn )n∈IN in H and a sequence of vectors (vn )n∈IN in B such that prhn (vn ) 6= 0
for any n ∈ IN. Fix a b ∈ K such that |b| > 1. Since Vhn is Hausdorff we find
an open lattice Lhn ⊆ Vhn suchLthat prhn (b−n vn ) 6∈ Lhn . Define Lh := Vh for
any h 6= h1 , h2 , . . . Then L := h Lh , by Lemma 5.1.iii, is an open lattice in
V . Since B is bounded we have B ⊆ bm L for some m ∈ IN. This leads to the
contradiction that prhn (vn ) ∈ bm Lhn ⊆ bn Lhn for all n ≥ m.
Proposition 7.13:
Suppose that W is Hausdorff and quasi-complete; if the B-topology is finer than
the weak topology then any equicontinuous closed subset H ⊆ LB (V, W ) is com-
plete.
Proof: In a first step we consider the case of the weak topology. By Lemma 6.8
the subset H is bounded in Ls (V, W ) and hence in Map(V, W ), and by Lemma
6.10 it is closed in Map(V, W ). It therefore suffices to show that Map(V, W )
is quasi-complete. Let (fi )i∈I be a Cauchy net in a bounded closed subset B
of Map(V, W ). Since the evaluation maps are continuous the subsets B(v) :=
{f (v) : f ∈ B} of W , for any v ∈ V , are bounded and closed. By our assump-
tions on W the Cauchy net (fi (v))i in B(v) converges to a uniquely determined
vector f (v) ∈ B(v) ⊆ W . This defines a map f ∈ Map(V, W ). By construction
the Cauchy net (fi )i converges to f . Since B was closed we in fact have f ∈ B.
We now turn to the general case. According to Lemma 6.10 the closure H of
H in Ls (V, W ) is equicontinuous. By the case treated above H therefore is a
48
complete subset of Ls (V, W ). Since H is closed in the B-topology it suffices
to show that H is complete in LB (V, W ) as well. We will in fact establish the
following more general assertion:
Let B′ and B be two families of bounded subsets of V such that the B′ -topology
is finer than the B-topology and the latter is finer than the weak topology; any
subset A ⊆ L(V, W ) which is complete for the B-topology also is complete for
the B′ -topology.
Let (fi )i∈I be a Cauchy net in A with respect to the B′ - and hence also with
respect to the B-topology. In the B-topology it converges, by assumption, to
some f ∈ A. To check that f is the limit in the B′ -topology as well let B ∈
B′ and M ⊆ W be an open lattice. There is an i ∈ I such that fj − fk ∈
L(B, M ), or equivalently fj ∈ fk + L(B, M ), for any j, k ≥ i. But L(B, M ) =
T
v∈B L({v}, M ) is closed in the weak and hence in the B-topology. It follows
that f ∈ fk + L(B, M ), or equivalently fk − f ∈ L(B, M ), for any k ≥ i.
Corollary 7.14:
If V is barrelled and W is Hausdorff and quasi-complete then LB (V, W ) is Haus-
dorff and quasi-complete for any B-topology which is finer than the weak topology.
Proof: Lemma 6.6, Cor. 6.16, and Prop. 7.13.
Corollary 7.15:
If V is bornological and W is Hausdorff and quasi-complete then Lb (V, W ) is
Hausdorff and quasi-complete.
Proof: Lemma 6.6, Prop. 6.12, and Prop. 7.13.
Proposition 7.16:
If V is bornological and W is Hausdorff and complete then Lb (V, W ) is Hausdorff
and complete.
Proof: By Lemma 6.6 the space Lb (V, W ) is Hausdorff. Let (fi )i∈I be a Cauchy
net in Lb (V, W ) and therefore in Ls (V, W ) ⊆ Map(V, W ). This latter vector
space visibly is Hausdorff and complete. Our net consequently has a point-
wise limit f ∈ Map(V, W ). In the proof of Lemma 6.10 we have seen that
HomK (V, W ) is closed in Map(V, W ). Hence f is K-linear. In order to show
that f indeed is the limit in Lb (V, W ) of our Cauchy net we need three interme-
diate assertions.
Claim 1: Let B ⊆ V be a bounded subset and M ⊆ W be an open lattice; there
is an i ∈ I such that (fk − f )(B) ⊆ M for any k ≥ i.
We certainly find an i ∈ I such that fj − fk ∈ L(B, M ) for any j, k ≥ i. Since
{g ∈ Map(V, W ) : g(B) ⊆ M } is closed our claim follows by the same argument
which we have used at the end of the proof of Prop. 7.13.
49
Claim 2: The map f respects sequences converging to the zero vector.
Let (vn )n∈IN be such a sequence in V and let M ⊆ W be an open lattice. By
Lemma 7.10 the subset B := {vn : n ∈ IN} is bounded. Applying our first
claim we find an i ∈ I such that fi (vn ) − f (vn ) ∈ M for any n ∈ IN. Since fi
is continuous the sequence (fi (vn ))n converges to the zero vector in W . This
means that there exists an m ∈ IN such that fi (vn ) ∈ M for any n ≥ m. It
follows that f (vn ) ∈ M for any n ≥ m.
Claim 3: The map respects bounded subsets.
Otherwise there exists a bounded subset B ⊆ V , an open lattice M ⊆ W ,
and a scalar a ∈ K with |a| > 1 such that f (B) 6⊆ an M for any n ∈ IN. In
other words, for any n ∈ IN there is a vector vn ∈ B such that a−n f (vn ) 6∈ M .
Since B is bounded we find, given an open lattice L ⊆ V , an m ∈ IN such that
B ⊆ am L. Because of a−n vn = (a−1 )n−m (a−m vn ) ∈ L for any n ≥ m we see
that the sequence (a−n vn )n in V converges to the zero vector. Applying our
second claim we arrive at a contradiction.
Returning to the main line of the proof we now apply the last claim and Prop.
6.13 to the K-linear map f and obtain that f is continuous. The first claim
then shows that the Cauchy net (fi )i converges to f in Lb (V, W ).
We finish this section by looking at the situation where W is arbitrary but V

is quasi-complete. But first we have to introduce the following construction of
general importance. Let A be any o-submodule in the locally convex K-vector
space V . We let VA denote the vector subspace of V generated by A. Since
A is a lattice in VA the gauge pA is defined as a seminorm on VA . We always
view VA as equipped with the locally convex topology defined by pA . Since A
⊆
is bounded in VA it is a necessary condition for the inclusion VA −→ V to be
continuous that A is bounded in V .
Lemma 7.17:
If B is a bounded o-submodule in V then we have:
⊆
i. The inclusion VB −→ V is continuous;
ii. if V is Hausdorff then (VB , pB ) is a normed vector space;
iii. if V is Hausdorff and B is complete then (VB , pB ) is a Banach space.
Proof: i. Let L ⊆ V be an open lattice. Since B is bounded there is an a ∈ K ×
such that B ⊆ aL and hence that a−1 B ⊆ VB ∩ L. This shows that VB ∩ L is
an open lattice in VB .
ii. Assume that v ∈ VB is a vector such that 0 = pB (v) = inf |a|. It follows
v∈aB
that Kv ⊆ L− (pB ) ⊆ B. By the boundedness of B this implies that Kv is
50
contained in any open lattice in V . Since V is Hausdorff we therefore must have
v = 0.
iii. Let (vn )n∈IN be a Cauchy sequence in VB . In particular, there is an m ∈ IN
such that vj − vk ∈ B for any j, k ≥ m. Fix a 0 6= a ∈ o such that avn ∈ B
for any n ≤ m. Then (avn )n is a Cauchy sequence in B ⊆ VB and hence, by
i., in B ⊆ V . By assumption this sequence (avn )n converges to some vector
v ∈ B ⊆ V . Fix a scalar c ∈ K such that 0 < |c| < 1. Since (avn )n is a Cauchy
sequence in VB there is an increasing sequence n1 < n2 < . . . of natural numbers
such that
pB (avj − avk ) ≤ |c|i+1 for any j, k ≥ ni and any i ∈ IN .
In particular,
avn1 + cB ⊇ avn2 + c2 B ⊇ . . . ⊇ avni + ci B ⊇ . . .
With B all the convex subsets avni + ci B are closed in V . T It follows that the
limit v in V of the sequence (avni )i lies in the intersection i avni + ci B. We
consequently have pB (v − avni ) ≤ |c|i for any i ∈ IN. This shows that the
sequence (avni )i converges to v already in VB . Our original Cauchy sequence
(vn )n therefore converges in VB to a−1 v.
Proposition 7.18:
Suppose that V is Hausdorff and quasi-complete; then Ls (V, W ) and LB (V, W ),
for any B-topology which is finer than the weak topology, have the same class of
bounded subsets.
Proof: Since the identity map LB (V, W ) −→ Ls (V, W ) is continuous any subset
bounded for the B-topology also is bounded for the weak topology. Let us
assume vice versa that H is a bounded subset in Ls (V, W ). To check that H is
bounded in LB (V, W ) as well let B ∈ B and let M ⊆ W be an open lattice. We
have to find an a ∈ K × such that H ⊆ aL(B, M ) = L(B, aM ). By Lemma 6.5
we may assume that B is a closed o-submodule of V . Since V is assumed to be
quasi-complete B then is complete so that, by Lemma 7.17.iii, VB is a Banach
space and hence is barrelled (Example 2 after Cor. 6.16). Consider now the
continuous linear map
α : Ls (V, W ) −→ Ls (VB , W )
f 7−→ f |VB .
By Cor. 6.16 the bounded subset α(H) ⊆ Ls (VB , W ) is equicontinuous. Since

the aB for 0 6= a ∈ o form a fundamental system of neighbourhoods of the zero
vector in VB this means that there is a 0 6= a ∈ o such that f (aB) ⊆ M for any
f ∈ H. In other words we have H ⊆ L(B, a−1 M ).
51
If we use an additional result which will be established later in the third chapter
we can deduce the following consequence.
Corollary 7.19:
If the field K is spherically complete then any Hausdorff, bornological, and quasi-
complete locally convex K-vector space V is barrelled.
Proof: According to Prop. 7.18 the locally convex vector spaces Ls (V, W ) and
Lb (V, W ), for any W , have the same class of bounded subsets. Since V is
bornological the bounded subsets in Lb (V, W ) coincide, by Prop. 6.12, with the
equicontinuous subsets. We obtain that the bounded subsets in Ls (V, W ), for
any W , are precisely the equicontinuous subsets. As we will prove in Prop. 13.9
this latter property characterizes, over a spherically complete field, the barrelled
spaces.
§8 Fréchet spaces
In this section we will study in greater detail the properties of metrizable locally
convex vector spaces.
Proposition 8.1:
For a Hausdorff locally convex K-vector space V the following assertions are
equivalent:
i. V is metrizable;
ii. the topology of V can be defined by a metric d which satisfies in addition
(strict triangle inequality) d(u, w) ≤ max(d(u, v), d(v, w)), and
(translation invariance) d(u + w, v + w) = d(u, v) for any u, v, w ∈ V ;
iii. the topology of V can be defined by a countable family of lattices;
iv. the topology of V can be defined by a countable family of seminorms.
Proof: The implications ii. ⇒ i. ⇒ iii. ⇒ iv. are clear. It remains to show that iv.
implies ii. Let (pn )n∈IN be a sequence of seminorms which define the topology of
V . By replacing pn by max(p1 , . . . , pn ) we may assume (compare Remark 4.7)
that p1 (v) ≤ p2 (v) ≤ . . . for any v ∈ V . We define
1 pn (v)
kvkF := sup n
·
n∈IN 2 1 + pn (v)
for v ∈ V . The following properties are almost immediate:

- kvkF ≥ 0 .
52
- kvkF = 0 if and only if v = 0 . Note that if v 6= 0 then, since V is Hausdorff,
there is an n ∈ IN such that pn (v) 6= 0.
- kv + wkF ≤ max(kvkF , kwkF ). Using the inequality a/(1 + a) ≤ b/(1 + b) for
any two real numbers 0 < a ≤ b we have
pn (v + w) max(pn (v), pn (w)) pn (v) pn (w)

≤ = max( , ).
1 + pn (v + w) 1 + max(pn (v), pn (w)) 1 + pn (v) 1 + pn (w)
We see that d(v, w) := kv − wkF is a translation invariant metric on V satisfying

the strict triangle inequality. We claim that d defines the topology of V . Because
of p1 ≤ p2 ≤ . . . the lattices
V (n) := {v ∈ V : pn (v) ≤ 2−n }
for n ∈ IN form a fundamental system of neighbourhoods of the zero vector.

Note that for any real number a ≥ 0 and any m ∈ IN one has a ≤ 2−(m−1)
provided a/(1 + a) ≤ 2−m . This implies that
{v ∈ V : kvkF ≤ 2−(2m+1) } ⊆ V (m) .
On the other hand, using that 2−n · pn (v)/(1 + pn (v)) ≤ 2−m for n ≥ m and
2−n · pn (v)/(1 + pn (v)) ≤ pm (v)/(1 + pm (v)) ≤ pm (v) for n ≤ m we obtain
V (m) ⊆ {v ∈ V : kvkF ≤ 2−m } .
Definition:
A locally convex K-vector space is called a K-F réchet space if it is metrizable
and complete.
Proposition 8.2:
Every Fréchet space is bornological and barrelled.
Proof: Prop. 6.14 and Example 2 after Cor. 6.16.
Proposition 8.3:
Let V be a Fréchet (resp. Banach) space, and let U ⊆ V be a closed vector
subspace; then V /U with the quotient topology is a Fréchet (resp. Banach) space
as well.
Proof: Since U is closed the quotient V /U is Hausdorff. It follows immediately
from §5.B that the quotient topology on V /U can be defined by a countable
family of seminorms (resp. a single norm). In particular, V /U is metrizable
53
by Prop. 8.1. It remains to show that V /U is complete. Let (vn )n∈IN be a
sequence in V such that (vn + U )n is a Cauchy sequence in V /U . Moreover,
let L1 ⊇ L2 ⊇ . . . be a descending sequence of open lattices in V which form
a fundamental system of neighbourhoods of the zero vector. By passing to a
subsequence we may assume that
vn+1 − vn ∈ Ln + U for any n ∈ IN .
Choose a wn+1 ∈ Ln such that vn+1 − vn − wn+1 ∈ U and define
v1′ := v1
v2′ := v1 + w2
..
.
vn′ := v1 + w2 + . . . + wn
..
.
′
Because of vn+1 − vn′ = wn+1 ∈ Ln the modified sequence (vn′ )n is a Cauchy
sequence in V and converges therefore to some vector v ∈ V . It follows that
(vn + U )n = (vn′ + U )n converges to v + U in V /U .
Continuous linear maps between Fréchet spaces have particularly nice properties
as we will see presently. If f : V −→ W is any linear map between two locally
convex K-vector spaces then the graph of f is defined to be the subset
Γ(f ) := {(v, f (v)) : v ∈ V }
of the direct product space V × W .
Remark 8.4:
If f is continuous and W is Hausdorff then the graph Γ(f ) is a closed subset of
V × W.
Proof: Since W is Hausdorff the diagonal ∆ ⊆ W × W is closed. But Γ(f ) =
(f × id)−1 (∆).
Proposition 8.5: (Closed graph theorem)

Let f : V −→ W be a linear map from a barrelled locally convex K-vector space
(e.g., a Fréchet space) V into a K-Fréchet space W ; if the graph Γ(f ) is closed
then the map f is continuous.
Proof: Let M ⊆ W be an open lattice. Since V is barrelled the closed lattice
f −1 (M ) in V is open. It therefore suffices to show that f −1 (M ) = f −1 (M ).
54
Let M = M1 ⊇ M2 ⊇ . . . be a descending sequence of open lattices in W which
form a fundamental system of neighbourhoods of the zero vector. Then
f −1 (M ) = f −1 (M1 ) ⊇ f −1 (M2 ) ⊇ . . .
is a descending sequence of open lattices in V . Consider now a vector v ∈

f −1 (M ). Inductively we find vectors vn ∈ f −1 (Mn ) such that
v − (v1 + . . . + vn ) ∈ f −1 (Mn+1 )
for any n ∈ IN. Put vn′ := v1 + . . . + vn . Because of f (vn+1

′
) − f (vn′ ) = f (vn+1 ) ∈
′
Mn+1 the sequence (f (vn ))n is a Cauchy sequence in M and converges therefore
to some vector w ∈ M . We claim that f (v) = w. Since the graph Γ(f ) is
closed it suffices to show that for arbitrary open lattices L ⊆ V and N ⊆ W the
intersection
Γ(f ) ∩ ((v + L) × (w + N )) 6= ∅
is nonempty. But there is an m ∈ IN such that
′
Mm+1 ⊆ N and f (vm )−w ∈N .
′
Since v − vm ∈ f −1 (Mm+1 ) ⊆ f −1 (Mm+1 ) + L there is a u ∈ f −1 (Mm+1 )
′ ′ ′
such that v − vm − u ∈ L. It follows that vm + u ∈ v + L and f (vm + u) =
′
f (vm ) + f (u) ∈ w + N + Mm+1 ⊆ w + N .
Proposition 8.6: (Open mapping theorem)

Suppose that V is a Fréchet space and that W is Hausdorff and barrelled; then
every surjective continuous linear map f : V −→ W is open.
Proof: Since W is Hausdorff the subspace ker(f ) is closed in V . By Prop.
8.3 the quotient V /ker(f ) is a Fréchet space, too. Moreover, the residue class
projection V −→ V /ker(f ) is open. It therefore suffices to show that the induced
continuous linear bijection V /ker(f ) −→ W is open. In other words, we may
assume that the map f is bijective. In this situation our assertion amounts to
the continuity of the inverse map f −1 . According to the closed graph theorem
Prop. 8.5 this can be checked by showing that the graph Γ(f −1 ) is closed in
W × V . But by Remark 8.4 the graph Γ(f ) is closed in V × W , and Γ(f −1 )
corresponds to Γ(f ) under the topological isomorphism
∼
=
W ×V −→ V × W
(w, v) 7−→ (v, w) .
Corollary 8.7:
55
Any continuous linear bijection between two K-Fréchet spaces is a topological
isomorphism.
The above results can be extended to linear maps between locally convex K-
vector spaces V and W of a more general type as follows.
Proposition 8.8:
Suppose that the topology of V is the locally convex final topology with respect
to a family of linear maps gh : Vh −→ V , for h ∈ H, from Fréchet spaces Vh
into V ; suppose also that there is a countable family (Wn )n∈IN of Fréchet spaces
Wn together
S with injective continuous linear maps in : Wn −→ W such that
W = n∈IN in (Wn ); we then have:
i. Any linear map f : V −→ W whose graph is closed is continuous;
ii. if V is Hausdorff then any surjective continuous linear map f : W −→ V is

open.
Proof: i. We have to check that the maps f ◦ gh are continuous. Moreover,

because of
Γ(f ◦ gh ) = (gh × id)−1 (Γ(f ))
the graphs Γ(f ◦ gh ) are closed. This reduces us to proving our assertion in the
case where V already is a Fréchet space. In this case we study the covering
[
V = f −1 (in (Wn ))
n∈IN
by freely using some notions and results from Baire’s category theory (compare
[B-GT] Chap.IX §5). Let I ⊆ IN denote the subset of all those natural numbers
n such that theSclosure of f −1 (in (Wn )) in V has a nonempty interior. The
complement of n∈I f −1 (in (Wn )) in V then is a meagre subset. By Baire’s
theorem V is a Baire space. This has two consequences of relevance here. First
of all I has to be nonempty. Secondly, S being the complement of a meagre
−1
subset in a Baire space the subspace n∈I f (in (Wn )) also is a Baire space.
It follows that there exists an m ∈ I such that the subspace f −1 (im (Wm )) has
no countable covering by closed subsets with empty interior. (We use here the
following observation: Let Y be a subspace of a topological space X; if A is
closed with empty interior in Y then its closure in X has empty interior, too.)
By Example 1 after Cor. 6.16 the vector subspace f −1 (im (Wm )) of V with the
subspace topology is barrelled.
56
Let fm denote the uniquely determined linear map which makes the diagram
fm
f −1 (im (Wm )) −→ Wm
 
⊆y y im
f
V −→ W
commutative. Its graph Γ(fm ) = (⊆ × im )−1 (Γ(f )) is closed. By the closed

graph theorem Prop. 8.5 the map fm therefore is continuous. On the other hand,
the vector subspace f −1 (im (Wm )), by construction, has nonempty interior and
hence is open and consequently a lattice in V . This implies that f −1 (im (Wm )) =
V . By Lemma 7.3 the map fm therefore extends uniquely to a continuous linear
map fm : V −→ Wm . By construction the two maps im ◦ fm and f coincide
on the dense subspace f −1 (im (Wm )). The continuity of im ◦ fm implies that
Γ(im ◦ fm ) = Γ(im ◦ fm ). Since Γ(im ◦ fm ) is contained in the closed graph Γ(f )
we obtain that Γ(im ◦ fm ) ⊆ Γ(f ). This shows that f = im ◦ fm and hence that
f is continuous.
ii. Set U := ker(f ). Since the residue class projection W −→ W/U is open it
suffices to show that the induced continuous linear map W/U −→ V is open.
We claim that W/U satisfies the same assumption as W . Define Un := i−1 n (U )
′
for any n ∈ IN. The induced linear maps in : Wn /Un −→ W/U are injective and
continuous. The assumption that V is Hausdorff implies that each Un is closed
in Wn . It therefore follows from
S Prop. 8.3 that each Wn /Un is a Fréchet space.
Obviously we have W/U = n i′n (Wn /Un ). Having established our claim we see
that it suffices to treat the case where the map f is bijective. In this case the
same argument as in the proof of the open mapping theorem Prop. 8.6 shows
that i. implies the continuity of the inverse map f −1 .
The following byproduct of the above proof sometimes is useful.
Corollary 8.9:
Suppose that V is a Fréchet space and that there is a countable family (Wn )n∈IN of
Sn together with injective continuous linear maps in : Wn −→ W
Fréchet spaces W
such that W = n∈IN in (Wn ); for any continuous linear map f : V −→ W there
is an m ∈ IN and a unique continuous linear map fm : V −→ Wm such that
f = im ◦ fm .
§9 The dual space
Let V be a locally convex K-vector space.
57
Definition:
V ′ := L(V, K) is called the dual space of V ; more precisely, we call VB′ :=
LB (V, K) the B-dual of V ; in particular, Vs′ := Ls (V, K) and Vb′ := Lb (V, K)
are called the weak and strong dual, respectively.
As special cases of earlier results we have the following facts.
Proposition 9.1:
i. VB′ is Hausdorff provided the B-topology is finer than the weak topology;
ii. if V is bornological then Vb′ is Hausdorff and complete;
iii. if V is barrelled then VB′ is Hausdorff and quasi-complete for all B-topologies
which are finer than the weak topology.
Proof: i. Lemma 6.6, ii. Prop. 7.16, iii. Cor. 7.14.
The fundamental question which arises of course is whether there are any non-
zero continuous linear forms on V . And indeed to obtain a positive answer we
have to assume that the field K is spherically complete.
Proposition 9.2: (Hahn-Banach)

Suppose that the field K is spherically complete, and let U be a K-vector space, q
a seminorm on U , and Uo ⊆ U a vector subspace; for any linear form ℓo : Uo −→
K such that |ℓo (v)| ≤ q(v) for any v ∈ Uo there is a linear form ℓ : U −→ K
such that ℓ|Uo = ℓo and |ℓ(v)| ≤ q(v) for any v ∈ U .
Proof: In a first step we fix a vector v1 ∈ U \Uo and we will extend ℓo to the
larger subspace U1 := Uo + Kv1 . Consider, for any v ∈ Uo , the subset
B(v) := {a ∈ K : |a − ℓo (v)| ≤ q(v − v1 )}
of K. For any two vectors v, v ′ ∈ Uo we have
|ℓo (v) − ℓo (v ′ )| ≤ |ℓo (v − v ′ )| ≤ q(v − v ′ ) ≤ max(q(v − v1 ), q(v ′ − v1 ))
and hence ℓo (v) ∈ B(v ′ ) or ℓo (v ′ ) ∈ B(v). This means that always
B(v) ∩ B(v ′ ) 6= ∅ .
If there is a vector v0 ∈ Uo such that q(v0 − v1 ) = 0 then B(v0 ) consists of one

point and hence \
B(v) = B(v0 ) = {ℓo (v0 )} .
v∈Uo
58
Otherwise each B(v) is a closed ball. Since K is assumed to be spherically
complete Lemma 1.3 then says that the intersection
\
B(v) 6= ∅
v∈Uo
is nonempty as well. We therefore find, in any case, a scalar

\
b∈ B(v) .
v∈Uo
We now extend ℓo to a linear form ℓ1 on U1 by ℓ1 (v1 ) := b. We have |ℓ1 | ≤ q|U1

since
|ℓ1 (v + av1 )| = |a| · |ℓo (a−1 v) + b| ≤ |a| · q(−a−1 v − v1 ) = q(v + av1 )
for any a ∈ K × .
In order to prove, in a second step, our assertion we consider the set of all pairs
(U1 , ℓ1 ) of vector subspaces Uo ⊆ U1 ⊆ U and linear forms ℓ1 : U1 −→ K such
that ℓ1 |Uo = ℓo and |ℓ1 (v)| ≤ q(v) for any v ∈ U1 . This set is inductively ordered
in an obvious way. By Zorn’s lemma it therefore contains a maximal element
e , ℓ). It is immediate from the first step that necessarily U
(U e = U.
Corollary 9.3:
Suppose that K is spherically complete and that V is Hausdorff; for any nonzero
vector vo ∈ V there is a continuous linear form ℓ : V −→ K such that ℓ(vo ) = 1.
Proof: Since V is Hausdorff there is a continuous seminorm q on V such that
q(vo ) > 0. By scaling we may assume that q(vo ) = 1. Applying Prop. 9.2 to
U := V, q, Uo := Kvo , and ℓo (avo ) := a we obtain a linear form ℓ : V −→ K
such that ℓ(vo ) = ℓo (vo ) = 1 and
|ℓ(v)| ≤ q(v) for any v ∈ V .
By Prop. 6.1 this latter inequality ensures the continuity of ℓ.
Corollary 9.4:
Suppose that K is spherically complete, and let Vo ⊆ V be a vector subspace
(with the subspace topology); every continuous linear form ℓo on Vo extends to
a continuous linear form ℓ on V , i.e., ℓ|Vo = ℓo .
Proof: By Prop. 6.1 there is a continuous seminorm q on Vo such that |ℓo (v)| ≤
q(v) for any v ∈ Vo . By the construction of the subspace topology we may
assume that q actually is the restriction of a continuous seminorm q on V . Now
apply Prop. 9.2.
59
Corollary 9.5:
Suppose that K is spherically complete and that V is Hausdorff; for any finite
dimensional vector subspace V0 ⊆ V there is a vector subspace V1 ⊆ V such that
the linear map
L ∼
=
V0 V1 −→ V
(v0 , v1 ) 7−→ v0 + v1
is a topological isomorphism (w.r.t. the direct sum of the subspace topologies on
the left hand side).
Proof: Since V0 is topological isomorphic to K n by Prop. 4.13 it is clear that
the Cor. 9.4 remains valid for continuous linear maps into V0 (instead of linear
forms). There exists therefore a continuous linear map f : V −→ V0 such that
f |V0 = id. We define V1 := ker(f ). The map in the assertion obviously is a
continuous bijection, and its inverse map
L
V −→ V0 V1
v 7−→ (f (v), v − f (v))
is continuous as well (observe Lemma 5.2.ii).
Corollary 9.6:
Suppose that K is spherically complete, and let A ⊆ V be a closed o-submodule;
for any vector vo ∈ V \A there is a continuous linear form ℓ on V such that
|ℓ(vo )| = 1 and |ℓ(v)| ≤ 1 for any v ∈ A.
Proof: Since A is closed there is an open lattice M ⊆ V such that
(vo + M ) ∩ A = ∅ .
The open lattice L := A + M then satisfies A ⊆ L and vo 6∈ L. According to

Lemma 4.5.ii the corresponding gauge pL is a continuous seminorm on V . Since
L− (pL ) ⊆ L by Lemma 2.2.ii we have pL (vo ) ≥ 1. Applying Prop. 9.2 we obtain
a linear form ℓ on V such that |ℓ(vo )| = 1 and |ℓ(v)| ≤ pL (v) for any v ∈ V . In
particular, |ℓ(v)| ≤ pL (v) ≤ 1 for any v ∈ A ⊆ L. Moreover, with pL also ℓ is
continuous.
Proposition 9.7:
Suppose that K is spherically complete and that V is Hausdorff; the linear map
δ:V −→ (Vs′ )′s
v 7−→ δv (ℓ) := ℓ(v)
is a continuous bijection.
60
Proof: Because of
δv−1 (o) = {ℓ ∈ V ′ : ℓ(v) ∈ o} = L({v}, o)
each linear form δv is continuous. Hence the map δ is well defined. It is contin-
uous since
δ −1 (L({ℓ}, o)) = ℓ−1 (o) .
It follows from Cor. 9.3 that δ is injective. For the surjectivity let d ∈ (Vs′ )′ be
a fixed continuous linear form on the weak dual Vs′ . Since d−1 (o) is open in Vs′
we find finitely many vectors v1 , . . . , vn ∈ V such that
L({v1 , . . . , vn }, o) ⊆ d−1 (o) .
We certainly may assume that

- v1 , . . . , vm are linearly independent and
P
m
- vj = aij vi for each m < j ≤ n with aij ∈ K .
i=1
Fix a scalar a ∈ K such that |a| = max(1, |a1m+1|, . . . , |amn |). We then have
L({v1 , . . . , vm }, a−1 o) ⊆ L({v1 , . . . , vn }, o) ⊆ d−1 (o) .
We consider, for any 1 ≤ i ≤ m, the vector subspace
Vi := Kv1 ⊕ . . . ⊕ Kvi−1 ⊕ Kvi+1 ⊕ . . . ⊕ Kvm
of V . Since V is Hausdorff each Vi (with the subspace topology) is topologically

isomorphic to K m−1 (Prop. 4.13). The Vi therefore are complete and hence
closed subspaces. By applying Cor. 9.3 to V /Vi we obtain, for each 1 ≤ i ≤ m,
a continuous linear form ℓi : V −→ K such that
ℓi (vi ) = 1 and ℓi (vj ) = 0 for 1 ≤ j 6= i ≤ m .
We define
m
X
v := d(ℓi )vi ,
i=1
and we claim that

δv = d .
The vector space V = V0 ⊕U is the locally convex direct sum of V0 := Kv1 ⊕. . .⊕
Kvm and the simultaneous kernel U of the linear forms ℓ1 , . . . , ℓm . It follows that
the dual space V ′ = V0′ ⊕U ′ is the algebraic direct sum of the dual spaces V0′ and
61
U ′ . Moreover, V0′ = Kℓ1 ⊕ . . . ⊕ Kℓm and U ′ = {ℓ ∈ V ′ : ℓ(v1 ) = . . . ℓ(vm ) = 0} .
Because of
m
X
δv (ℓj ) = ℓj (v) = d(ℓi )ℓj (vi ) = d(ℓj )
i=1
we have
δv |V0′ = d|V0′ .
Consider on the other hand any ℓ ∈ U ′ . For any b ∈ K × we have
b−1 ℓ ∈ L({v1 , . . . , vm }, a−1 o) ⊆ d−1 (o) and hence d(ℓ) ∈ bo .
It follows that
d(ℓ) = 0 = ℓ(v) = δv (ℓ) .
This last result shows that over a spherically complete field K any Hausdorff
locally convex K-vector space V possesses ”sufficiently many” continuous linear
forms. But the map δ rarely is a topological isomorphism. We therefore intro-
duce the weak topology on V as the initial topology with respect to the map δ
into the locally convex vector space (Vs′ )′s . We write Vs for V equipped with the
weak topology. The weak topology on V obviously can be characterized as the
weakest topology for which all linear forms ℓ ∈ V ′ are continuous. In particular,
it is weaker than the given topology of V . The corresponding dual linear map
∼
=
(Vs )′s −→ Vs′
is a topological isomorphism. Over a spherically complete field Vs is Hausdorff

if V is.
The different B-topologies on V ′ lead to different ”bidual spaces”. For any
B-topology which is finer than the weak topology we have the inclusions
(Vs′ )′ ⊆ (VB′ )′ ⊆ (Vb′ )′ .
The linear map

δ:V −→ (VB′ )′
v 7−→ δv (ℓ) := ℓ(v)

is called a duality map.
Remark 9.8:
Suppose that K is spherically complete; the initial topology on V with respect to
the duality map δ : V −→ (Vb′ )′b is finer than the given topology of V .
62
Proof: Let L ⊆ V be an open lattice. Then the subset H := {ℓ ∈ V ′ : ℓ(L) ⊆ o}
of Vb′ is equicontinuous and hence bounded by Lemma 6.8. Fix a scalar a ∈ K
such that 0 < |a| < 1. We claim that
δ −1 (L(H, ao)) = {v ∈ V : ℓ(v) ∈ ao for any ℓ ∈ H}
is contained in L. For any vector v ∈ V \L we find, by Cor. 9.6, an ℓ ∈ V ′

such that ℓ(L) ⊆ o and |ℓ(v)| = 1. In other words, there is an ℓ ∈ H such that
ℓ(v) 6∈ ao.
Definition:
A Hausdorff locally convex K-vector space V is called
- semi-ref lexive if the duality map δ : V −→ (Vb′ )′ is bijective,
- ref lexive if the duality map δ : V −→ (Vb′ )′b is a topological isomorphism, and
- pseudo-ref lexive if the duality map δ : V −→ (Vb′ )′b induces a topological
isomorphism between V and im(δ).
Obviously a pseudo-reflexive space is reflexive if and only if it is semi-reflexive.
Lemma 9.9:
Suppose that K is spherically complete and that V is Hausdorff; if V is bornolog-
ical or barrelled then V is pseudo-reflexive.
Proof: By Cor. 9.3 the duality map δ is injective. Because of Remark 9.8 it
therefore remains to show that δ : V −→ (Vb′ )′b is continuous. Let H ⊆ Vb′ be
a bounded subset. Our assumption onTV guarantees that H is equicontinuous
(Prop. 6.12 or Cor. 6.16). Hence L := ℓ∈H ℓ−1 (o) is an open lattice in V . The
continuity of δ now is a consequence of the identity
δ −1 (L(H, o)) = {v ∈ V : ℓ(v) ∈ o for any ℓ ∈ H} = L .
We will investigate these notions in more detail in the third chapter. We finish
this section by determining how the passage to the dual space is behaved with
respect to direct products and locally convex direct sums.
Let (Vh )h∈H be a family of locally convex K-vector spaces. As a consequence of
the universal property of the locally convex direct sum (Lemma 5.1.i) the map
L Q ′
σ:( Vh )′ −→ Vh
h∈H h∈H
ℓ 7−→ (ℓ|Vh )h
63
is a well defined linear bijection.
Proposition 9.10:
The map σ induces topological isomorphisms
M ∼
=
Y
( Vh )′b −→ (Vh )′b
h∈H h∈H
and M Y
∼
=
( Vh )′s −→ (Vh )′s .
h∈H h∈H
Proof: First of all, because of Lemma 4.6 and Lemma 5.3 we may assume that
the Vh are Hausdorff. The argument for the weak topologies being
Qcompletely
analogous we only discuss the case of the strong topologies. In h (Vh )′b the
open lattices of the form
Y Y
L= Vh′ × L(Bh , o) ,
h∈H\I h∈I
where I ⊆ H is some finite subset and each Bh ⊆ Vh is a bounded o-submodule,

form a fundamental system
Lof neighbourhoods of the
L zero vector. It easily follows
from Lemma 5.1.iii that h∈I Bh is bounded in h∈H Vh . Hence
M
σ −1 (L) = L( Bh , o)
h∈I
L
is an open lattice in ( h Vh )′b .
L
On the other hand let B ⊆ h Vh be any bounded o-submodule. The projection
Bh of B in Vh is bounded in Vh . In the proof of Prop. 7.12 we have seen
L that
there is a finite subset I ⊆ H such that Bh = 0 for h 6∈ I. Hence B ⊆ h∈I Bh
and Y Y
σ(L(B, o)) ⊇ Vh′ × L(Bh , o) .
h∈H\I h∈I
Q ′
This shows that σ(L(B, o)) is an open lattice in h (Vh )b .
Next we consider the linear map

Q L
π:( Vh )′ −→ Vh′
h∈H h∈H
P
ℓ 7−→ ℓ|Vh .
h
64
Q
To see that π is well defined let ℓ : h Vh −→ K be a continuous linear form.
By the definition of the product topology there must exist a finite subset I ⊆ H
such that Y Y
Vh × {0} ⊆ ℓ−1 (o) .
h∈H\I h∈I
Since the left hand side is a vector subspace it follows that

Y Y
Vh × {0} ⊆ ker(ℓ)
h∈H\I h∈I
and hence that π(ℓ) indeed is a finite sum. The map π is bijective since an
inverse map is defined by
X X
ℓh 7−→ [(vh )h 7→ ℓh (vh )] .
h h
Proposition 9.11:
The map π induces a topological isomorphism
Y ∼
=
M
( Vh )′b −→ (Vh )′b .
h∈H h∈H
Proof: By Lemma 5.1.iii the open lattices of the form

M
L= L(Bh , o) ,
h∈H
where each Bh ⊆ Vh is a bounded o-submodule,

L form a fundamental system of
neighbourhoods of the zero vector in h (Vh )′b . It follows immediately Q
from the
description of
Q the product topology through defining seminorms that h Bh is
bounded in h Vh . Hence
Y
π −1 (L) = L( Bh , o)
h
Q
is an open lattice in ( Vh )′b .
h
Q
Let on the other hand B ⊆ h Vh be a bounded o-submodule. The projection
Bh of B in Vh is bounded in Vh . We see that
Y M
π(L(B, o)) ⊇ π(L( Bh , o)) = L(Bh , o)
h h
L ′
is an open lattice in h (Vh )b .
65
Chap. II: The structure of Banach spaces
This is a rather brief chapter in which we establish two general structural re-
sults about Banach spaces: One for arbitrary Banach spaces over a discretely
valued field K and another one for countably generated Banach spaces over an
arbitrary field K. In this book a Banach space is a complete locally convex
vector space whose topology can be defined by a norm. In other words the norm
is not considered to be part of the structure. Correspondingly the rich metric
theory of Banach spaces is outside the scope of this book. Some part of it is
present in the proofs of the two structure theorems, though. A surprising and at
first disappointing consequence is the fact that over a spherically complete field
K there are no infinite dimensional reflexive Banach spaces. This is probably
the main reason why many applications of nonarchimedean analysis focus on
different and more complicated classes of locally convex vector spaces.
§10 Structure theorems
As a basic example for a Banach space we had introduced in §3, for an arbitrary
set X, the Banach space
co (X) = all functions φ : X → K such that, for any

ǫ > 0, the set {x ∈ X : |φ(x)| ≥ ǫ} is finite
with the sup-norm

kφk∞ = sup |φ(x)| .
x∈X
This Banach space has the following universal property. Let α : X −→ V be

an arbitrary map from X into a Hausdorff and quasi-complete locally convex
K-vector space V such that the image im(α) is a bounded subset of V . We
claim that there is a unique continuous linear map fα : co (X) −→ V such that
fα (1x ) = α(x) for any x ∈ X .
Let I denote the set of all finite subsets of X directed by the inclusion relation.
For any function φ ∈ co (X) we consider the net (φi )i∈I in V which is defined by
X
φi := φ(x)α(x) .
x∈i
Let B denote the closure of the o-submodule of V generated by the image of α.

By the assumption on the map α and Lemma 4.10 the o-submodule B is bounded
and closed. Hence if L ⊆ V is an open lattice then there is an a ∈ K × such that
aB ⊆ L. Define i := {x ∈ X : |φ(x)| > |a|}. We then have φj − φk ∈ aB ⊆ L
66
for any j, k ≥ i. This shows that (φi )i is a Cauchy net in V . More precisely,
if c ∈ K is a scalar such that kφk∞ ≤ |c| then (φi )i is a Cauchy net in the
bounded and closed subset cB of V . Since V is assumed to be quasi-complete
this Cauchy net converges to a unique vector fα (φ) ∈ V . In this way we obtain
a linear map
fα : co (X) −→ V such that fα (1x ) = α(x) for any x ∈ X .
Any continuous seminorm q on V satisfies
q(fα (φ)) ≤ (sup q(v)) · kφk∞ .

v∈B
Hence fα is continuous (Prop. 6.1.iii). Finally, fα is uniquely determined by α

since the 1x , for x ∈ X, generate a vector subspace which is dense in co (X).
Proposition 10.1:
Suppose that the field K is discretely valued; every K-Banach space V is topo-
logically isomorphic to a K-Banach space co (X) for some set X.
Proof: Let k := o/m denote the residue class field of K. According to Lemma
1.4 we have |K × | = r ZZ for some real number 0 < r < 1. We may assume that
the defining norm k k on V has the additional property that
kV k ⊆ |K| .
The reason is that we always can replace a given defining norm k k′ by the norm
kvk := inf {s ∈ |K| : s ≥ kvk′ }
which, because of
r ≤ kvk′ /kvk ≤ 1 ,
defines the same topology.

Since m · B1 (0) ⊆ B1− (0) the o-module quotient
V := B1 (0)/B1− (0)
is a k-vector space. We fix a k-basis (v x )x∈X of V and vectors vx ∈ B1 (0) such

that vx = vx + B1− (0). We now apply the above universal property to the map
x 7→ vx into the bounded subset B1 (0) of V and we obtain a continuous linear
map
f : co (X) −→ V such that f (1x ) = vx for any x ∈ X .
67
This map, in fact, is an isometry. To see this we first check that the norm of
any finite linear combination of the vectors vx satisfies
ka1 vx1 + . . . + am vxm k = max(|a1 |, . . . , |am |) .
We may assume without loss of generality that a1 6= 0 and that |a1 | ≥ |ai | for
any 1 ≤ i ≤ m. By the linear independence of the vx the vector
a2 am
vx1 + vx2 + . . . + vx ∈ B1 (0)\B1− (0)
a1 a1 m
lies in B1 (0) but not in B1− (0). Hence
ka1 vx1 + . . . + am vxm k = |a1 |
as claimed. A continuity argument now shows that we have
kf (φ)k = kφk∞ for any φ ∈ co (X) .
As an isometry f in particular is injective and has a complete and hence closed

image. For the P surjectivity of f it therefore suffices to show that the vector
subspace Vo := x∈X Kvx is dense in V . Let v ∈ V be any nonzero vector.
Because of our additional hypothesis on the defining norm k k we find a scalar a ∈
K × such that kavk = 1. By the construction of Vo there exists a vector vo ∈ Vo
such that kav −vo k < 1. The vector a−1 vo ∈ Vo then satisfies kv −a−1 vo k < kvk.
Repeating this argument for the vector v − a−1 vo (instead of v) and using that
zero is the only accumulation point of kV k ⊆ |K| we inductively find, for any
ǫ > 0, a vector w ∈ Vo such that kv − wk < ǫ. Hence Vo is dense in V .
In the above proof we in fact have established the following variant of the asser-
tion.
Remark 10.2:
Suppose that K is discretely valued; every K-Banach space (V, k k) such that
kV k ⊆ |K| is isometrically isomorphic to a K-Banach space (co (X), k k∞ ) for
some set X.
Lemma 10:3:
Let X and Y be two sets; the K-Banach spaces co (X) and co (Y ) are topologically
isomorphic if and only if the sets X and Y have the same cardinality.
Proof: The other implication being trivial we assume that co (X) and co (Y ) are
topologically isomorphic. If one of the sets is finite then already for algebraic
68
reasons the other set has to be finite of the same cardinality. Let us there-
∼
=
fore assume that X and Y both are infinite, and let f : co (X) −→ co (Y ) be a
topological isomorphism. The sets
Yx := {y ∈ Y : f (1x )(y) 6= 0} for x ∈ X
are nonempty. On the other hand, we have seen in the Example at the end of
§3 that each Yx is finite or countable. Finally, for any y ∈ Y there is an x ∈ X
such that y ∈ Yx . If not all the f (1x ) would be contained in the complete and
hence closed vector subspace co (Y \{y}) ⊆ co (Y ). This would contradict the
surjectivity of f . It follows that
[
˙
|Y | ≤ | Yx | ≤ |IN| · |X| = |X|
x∈X
and by symmetry that |Y | = |X|.
Proposition 10.4:
Suppose that the K-Banach space V contains a dense vector subspace of count-
ably infinite dimension; then V is topologically isomorphic to co (IN).
Proof: Choose an ascending sequence of vector subspaces
{0} = V0 ⊆ V1 ⊆ . . . ⊆ Vn ⊆ . . .
in V such that
- dimK Vn = n for any n ∈ IN, and
S
- Vn is dense in V .
n∈IN
In addition we fix an increasing sequence of real numbers 0 < r = r1 < r2 <

. . . < rn < . . . < 1. We want to inductively construct a sequence of vectors
(vn )n∈IN in V with the following properties:
(a) {v1 , . . . , vn } is a K-basis of Vn for any n ∈ IN;
rn
(b) kvn + wk ≥ rn+1 kvn k for any w ∈ Vn−1 and any n ∈ IN.
Suppose the vectors v1 , . . . , vn−1 already are constructed. By Prop. 4.13 the
subspace Vn−1 is complete and hence closed in Vn . Fixing some v ∈ Vn \Vn−1
we therefore have inf{kv + wk : w ∈ Vn−1 } > 0. There consequently exists a
vector w′ ∈ Vn−1 such that
rn inf{kv + wk : w ∈ Vn−1 }
≤ ≤1.
rn+1 kv + w′ k
69
The vector vn := v + w′ by construction has the properties (a) and (b).
Let us have a closer look at the property (b). It follows immediately that
rn
kavn + wk ≥ kavn k for any a ∈ K and w ∈ Vn−1 .
rn+1
In fact, we have
rn
kavn + wk ≥ max(kavn k, kwk)
rn+1
for any a ∈ K and w ∈ Vn−1 . If kavn k = kwk this is a consequence of the previ-
ous inequality; if kavn k =
6 kwk this follows from kavn + wk = max(kavn k, kwk).
We inductively deduce from this latter inequality that
n
X ri
k ai vi k ≥ max( kai vi k : 1 ≤ i ≤ n) .
i=1
rn+1
Since r ≤ ri and rn+1 < 1 we finally obtain that

n
X
(c) k ai vi k ≥ r · max(ka1 v1 k, . . . , kan vn k)
i=1
for any a1 , . . . , an ∈ K and any n ∈ IN. We obviously can scale the vectors vn
without changing the properties (a) and (b) and hence (c). We therefore may
assume that
ǫ ≤ kvn k ≤ 1 for any n ∈ IN
and some ǫ > 0. The inequality (c) then implies that
n
X
(d) k ai vi k ≥ rǫ · max(|a1 |, . . . , |an |) .
i=1
Moreover, from the universal property of the Banach space co (IN) we obtain a
f : co (IN) −→ V such that f (1n ) = vn for any n ∈ IN .
By a continuity argument we deduce from (d) that
kf (φ)k ≥ rǫ · kφk∞ for any φ ∈ co (IN) .
This means that f induces a topological isomorphism between co (IN) and im(f ).
In particular, im(f ) is complete and hence closed in V . On the other hand
im(f ), by (a), is dense in V . Hence im(f ) = V .
70
A closed vector subspace U of a locally convex K-vector space V is called com-
plemented if there is another closed vector subspace U1 ⊆ V such that the linear
map
L ∼
=
U U1 −→ V
(v, v1 ) 7−→ v + v1
is a topological isomorphism (w.r.t. the direct sum of the subspace topologies
on the left hand side). To show that U is complemented amounts to finding a
continuous projector onto U , i.e., a continuous endomorphism P of V such that
P 2 = P and P (V ) = U (take U1 := ker(P )). We have seen in Cor. 9.5 that,
if K is spherically complete and V is Hausdorff, then every finite dimensional
subspace of V is complemented. As a consequence of the above structural results
we may strengthen this considerably for Banach spaces.
Proposition 10.5:
Let V be a K-Banach space and suppose that
(a) K is discretely valued or
(b) V contains a dense vector subspace of countable dimension;
then every closed vector subspace U ⊆ V is complemented.
Proof: By Prop. 8.3 the quotient V /U again is a Banach space which in case
(b) contains a vector subspace of countable dimension. It therefore follows from
Prop. 10.1 and Prop. 10.4 that in both cases there is a topological isomorphism
∼
=
g : V /U −→ co (X)
for some set X. In particular, if k k is a defining norm on V then there is a

constant c > 0 such that
kg(v + U )k∞ > c · inf kv + uk

u∈U
for any v ∈ V . This shows that, for any x ∈ X, we find a vector vx ∈ V such
that g(vx + U ) = 1x and kvx k ≤ c−1 . The universal property of co (X) therefore
gives a continuous linear map f : co (X) −→ V such that f (1x ) = vx for any
x ∈ X. The continuous linear map f ◦ g : V /U −→ V then is a section of the
pr
projection map V −→ V /U , and P := (idV − f ◦ g ◦ pr) is a continuous projector
onto U .
§11 Non-reflexivity
It follows from Prop. 6.14 and Lemma 9.9 that, over a spherically complete field
K, any K-Banach space is pseudo-reflexive.
71
Proposition 11.1:
Suppose that K is spherically complete and that V is a K-Banach space; then
V is reflexive if and only if it is finite dimensional.
Proof: Using Prop. 4.13 it is clear that any finite dimensional Banach space
is reflexive. Let us therefore assume that V is a reflexive K-Banach space. In
a first step we establish that every closed vector subspace U of V is reflexive
as well. Being closed U with the subspace topology again is a Banach space.
According to Prop. 8.3 the quotient V /U also is a Banach space. Consider the
sequence of dual Banach spaces (Cor. 3.4 and the subsequent property 1))
0 −→ (V /U )′ −→ V ′ −→ U ′ −→ 0 .
As a consequence of Cor. 9.4 this sequence is exact. Moreover, the open mapping
theorem Prop. 8.6 implies that the topology of U ′ as a dual Banach space
coincides with the quotient topology as a quotient of V ′ . Dualizing once more
we again obtain an exact sequence of Banach spaces
0 −→ U ′′ −→ V ′′ −→ (V /U )′′ −→ 0 .
In addition all the vertical duality maps in the commutative diagram
0 −→ U
 −→ V −→ V /U −→ 0
y y y
0 −→ U ′′ −→ V ′′ −→ (V /U )′′ −→ 0
are homeomorphisms onto the image. It follows that with V also U and V /U
are reflexive.
Let us assume now that V is not finite dimensional. By letting U ⊆ V be
the closure of some vector subspace of countably infinite dimension we obtain a
reflexive Banach space which according to Prop. 10.4 is topologically isomorphic
to co (IN). To arrive at a contradiction it remains to show that co (IN) is not
reflexive.
In the Example at the end of §3 we have computed the Banach space dual of
co (IN) as ℓ∞ (IN). On the other hand co (IN) is a complete and hence closed proper
subspace of ℓ∞ (IN). By Cor. 9.3 there exists therefore a continuous linear form
d 6= 0 on ℓ∞ (IN) such that d|co (IN) = 0. It is clear that this d cannot be in the
image of the duality map, and hence that co (IN) is not reflexive.
72
Chap. III: Duality theory
Assuming that the nonarchimedean field K is spherically complete we develop

in this chapter two concepts which are at the base of any deeper investigation
into locally convex vector spaces. As explained in §12 the role of compact and
precompact subsets is taken over by c-compact and compactoid o-submodules,
respectively, in a locally convex K-vector space. Roughly speaking these are
o-linear versions of the former topological properties. The concept of polarity
which we describe in §13 is the fundamental tool for duality theory. The for-
mation of the pseudo-polar passes from o-submodules in a given locally convex
K-vector space V to o-submodules in the continuous linear dual V ′ thereby al-
lowing for the transfer of information back and forth. It is a crucial technical
detail in the definition of the pseudo-polar to only consider those continuous
linear forms whose absolute value on the given o-submodule is strictly less than
one. Relaxing this condition to less than or equal to one would lead to the more
traditional notion of the ”polar”. In nonarchimedean functional analysis this
latter notion does not work so well and therefore is not treated in this book at
all. In §14 we introduce and study the class of admissible topologies on a given
locally convex vector space. These consist of those locally convex topologies
which give rise to the same continuous linear dual as the given topology. There
is a weakest and a finest such topology – the weak and the Mackey topology.
A particular feature of nonarchimedean functional analysis is the fact that all
admissible topologies have the same class of c-compact o-submodules. In §15
all we have accumulated so far comes together and leads to a complete charac-
terization of reflexive spaces. A locally convex vector space is called reflexive if
the duality map into its strong bidual is a topological isomorphism. In classical
functional analysis over the complex numbers the so called Montel spaces form
an important subclass of the class of all reflexive spaces. It is a consequence
of the above mentioned special feature that over a spherically complete nonar-
chimedean field every reflexive space already is a Montel space (if one gives this
term the obvious analogous meaning).
The most important method to construct reflexive spaces is via compact induc-
tive and projective limits of Banach spaces. This is explained in §16. The notion
of a compact map which has to be introduced for this is of a very fundamen-
tal nature and will be explored more systematically in the next chapter. We
conclude this section with an explicit example which illustrates the relevance of
compact limits in the applications.
Throughout this chapter the field K is assumed to be spherically complete, and

all occurring locally convex K-vector spaces are Hausdorff.
§12 c-compact and compactoid submodules
73
Since our field K in general is not locally compact the notion of compact subsets
does not play a significant role in the theory of locally convex K-vector spaces.
In fact, the reader may check that the field K necessarily is locally compact
as soon as there is a single (Hausdorff) locally convex K-vector spaces with a
nonzero compact o-submodule. On the other hand there is a certain similarity
between the notions ”compact” and ”spherically complete”. This leads to the
following definition. Let V be a locally convex K-vector space.
Definition:
An o-submodule A ⊆ V is called c-compact if, for any decreasingly filtered family
(Li )i∈I of open lattices Li ⊆ V , the canonical map
A −→
→ lim A/(Li ∩ A)
←−
i∈I
is surjective.
Lemma 12.1:
Let A ⊆ V be a c-compact o-submodule; we have:
i. A is complete and hence closed in V ;
ii. for any decreasingly filtered family (Ai )i∈I of closed o-submodules Ai ⊆ A
the canonical map
A −→→ lim A/Ai
←−
i∈I
is surjective;
iii. any closed o-submodule B ⊆ A is c-compact;
iv. for any continuous linear map f : V −→ W between locally convex K-vector
spaces the image f (A) is c-compact;
v. if A is contained in a vector subspace Vo ⊆ V then A is c-compact in Vo .
Proof: i. This follows from Cor. 7.6. ii. Let (Lj )j∈J denote the decreasingly
filtered family of all open lattices in V which contain some Ai . Consider the
homomorphism
f: lim A/Ai −→ lim A/(Lj ∩ A)

←− ←−
i∈I j∈J
(vi + Ai )i 7−→ (wj + (Lj ∩ A))j
where wj := vi provided Lj ⊇ Ai . By definition the canonical map from A into

the target of f is surjective. In particular f is surjective. It therefore suffices
to show that f is injective. For this we have to check that any given Ai is the
74
intersection of those Lj which contain Ai . Suppose that v 6∈ Ai . Since Ai is
closed we find some open lattice L ⊆ V such that (v + L) ∩ Ai = ∅. Hence v is
not contained in the open lattice Ai + L. Both iii. and iv. are easy consequences
of ii. The last assertion v. is immediate from the definition.
The analogy to the notion ”compact” becomes more apparent if we spell out the
assertion in Lemma 12.1.ii in more topological terms: The o-submodule A ⊆ V
is c-compact T if and only if for any family (Ci )i∈I of closed convex subsets Ci ⊆ A
such that i∈I Ci = ∅ there are finitely many indices i1 , . . . , im ∈ I such that
Ci1 ∩ . . . ∩ Cim = ∅.
Since open lattices strictly contained in K (viewed as a locally convex K-vector
space) are open or closed balls it follows immediately from Lemma 1.3 that K is
spherically complete if and only if K is c-compact. This example shows, by the
way, that c-compact o-submodules of a locally convex vector space in general
will not be bounded.
Proposition 12.2:
Let (Vh )h∈H be a family of locally convex K-vector Q spaces, and let Ah ⊆ Vh ,
Q any h ∈ H, be a c-compact o-submodule; then h∈H Ah is c-compact in
for
h∈H Vh .
Q
Proof: Let (Li )i∈I be a decreasingly filtered family of open lattices in h Vh ,
and let Y Y
((vh,i )h )i ∈ lim( Ah )/(Li ∩ Ah ) .
←−
i∈I h h
It is
Qconvenient in the following to think of each (vh,i )h as being an actual vector
in h Ah representing the above cosets. We have to exhibit a vector
Y
(vh )h ∈ Ah such that (vh − vh,i )h ∈ Li for any i ∈ I .
h
Consider the set P of all pairs (((xh,j )h )j∈JQ

, (Mj )j∈J ) where (Mj )j∈J is a de-
creasingly filtered family of open lattices in h Vh and
Y Y
((xh,j )h )j ∈ lim( Ah )/(Mj ∩ Ah ) .
←−
j∈J h h
The set P is inductively ordered by
(((x′h,j )h )j∈J1 , (Mj′ )j∈J1 ) ≤ (((xh,j )h )j∈J2 , (Mj )j∈J2 )
if J1 ⊆ J2 and Mj′ = Mj and (x′h,j )h = (xh,j )h for any j ∈ J1 . By Zorn’s

lemma P contains a maximal pair which is ≥ (((vh,i )h )i , (Li )i ). We therefore
may assume that this original pair already is maximal.
75
Let Lh,i denote the projection of Li to Vh ; then Lh,i is an open lattice in Vh .
Since Ah is c-compact there is a vector vh ∈ Q Ah such that vh − vh,i ∈ Lh,i for
any i ∈ I. We claim that this vector (vh )h in h Ah has the property we want.
For the rest of the proof we may fix an index i ∈ I and we have to show that
(vh − vh,i )h ∈ Li . By the definition of the product topology there is, for each
h ∈ H, an open lattice L′h,i ⊆ Vh such that L′h,i = Vh for all but finitely many
Q
h ∈ H and h L′h,i ⊆ Li .
For a fixed k ∈ H and any j ∈ I we have
Y Y Y
{vk − vk,j } × Vh ⊆ ({0} × Vh ) + Lj ⊆ (L′k,i × Vh ) + Lj
h6=k h6=k h6=k
Q
and hence (vh − vh,j )h ∈ (L′k,i × h6=k Vh ) + Lj . This means that
Y
[(vh )h + L′k,i × Vh ] ∩ [(vh,j )h + Lj ] 6= ∅ for any j ∈ I .
h6=k
The maximality of our pair then implies the existence of an index j(k) ∈ I such
that
Y Y
L′k,i × Vh = Lj(k) and (vh )h + L′k,i × Vh = (vh,j(k) )h + Lj(k) .
h6=k h6=k
Let now Ho ⊆ H be the finite subset of those indices h for which L′h,i 6= Vh .
Since our family (Li )i is decreasingly filtered the intersection
\
[(vh,i )h + Li ] ∩ [(vh,j(k) )h + Lj(k) ] 6= ∅
k∈Ho
is nonempty. But
T T ′
Q
k∈Ho [(vh,j(k) )h + Lj(k) ] = k∈Ho [(vh )h + Lk,i × h6=k Vh ]
Q
= (vh )h + h L′h,i
⊆ (vh )h + Li .
It follows that
[(vh,i )h + Li ] ∩ [(vh )h + Li ] 6= ∅
which amounts to (vh − vh,i )h ∈ Li .
Corollary 12.3:
If A and B are c-compact o-submodules of V then A + B is c-compact, too.
76
Proof: This easily follows from Prop. 12.2 and Lemma 12.1.iv.
The corresponding analog of the notion ”precompact” is defined as follows.
Definition:
An o-submodule A ⊆ V is called compactoid if for any open lattice L ⊆ V there
are finitely many vectors v1 , . . . , vm ∈ V such that
A ⊆ L + ov1 + . . . + ovm .
Lemma 12.4:
Let A ⊆ V be a compactoid o-submodule; we have:
i. A is bounded;
ii. the closure A of A is compactoid;
iii. every o-submodule B of A is compactoid;
iv. if B is another compactoid o-submodule of V then A + B is compactoid;
v. for any continuous linear map f : V −→ W between locally convex K-vector
spaces the image f (A) is compactoid.
Proof: For i. consider any open lattice L ⊆ V and let v1 , . . . , vm ∈ V be such
that A ⊆ L + ov1 + . . . + ovm . The lattice property of L ensures the existence
of a 0 6= a ∈ o such that av1 , . . . , avm ∈ L. Hence A ⊆ a−1 L. The arguments
for the assertion ii.-v. are even easier and are left to the reader.
In order to understand the relation between the notions ”c-compact” and ”com-
pactoid” we need two results from ring theory.
Definition:
An o-module M is called linearly compact if, for any decreasingly filtered family
(Mi )i∈I of o-submodules Mi ⊆ M , the canonical map
M −→
→ lim M/Mi
←−
i∈I
is surjective.
A basic example for a linearly compact o-module is the quotient module K/o.
We recall that an o-module M is called divisible if aM = M for any 0 6= a ∈ o.
77
Lemma 12.5:
Any linearly compact and divisible o-module M is injective.
Proof: It suffices ([McL] III.7.2) to establish the following: For any ideal a ⊆ o
and any homomorphism of o-modules f : a −→ M there is a homomorphism of
o-modules F : o −→ M such that F |a = f .
For any a ∈ a we define the o-submodule
Ma := {m ∈ M : am = 0}
of M . We have Ma ⊆ Mb if |b| ≤ |a|. Hence (Ma )a∈a is a decreasingly filtered
family. Next we construct an element (ma )a ∈ lim M/Ma . By the divisibility of
←−
a∈a
M we have, for any a ∈ a, an element ma ∈ M such that f (a) = ama . To check

that the ma form an element in the above projective limit let us suppose that
Ma ⊆ Mb . If |b| ≤ |a| then ba−1 ∈ o, hence
bma = ba−1 ama = ba−1 f (a) = f (b) = bmb
and therefore ma − mb ∈ Mb . If |a| ≤ |b| then, by a symmetric computation,
mb − ma ∈ Ma . But in this case we also have Mb ⊆ Ma and hence Ma = Mb .
This shows that in any case we have ma + Ma ⊆ mb + Mb .
Since M is linearly compact there must exist an element m ∈ M such that
m − ma ∈ Ma for any a ∈ a. This means that am = ama = f (a) for a ∈ a. The
homomorphism F : o −→ M defined by F (a) := am therefore satisfies F |a = f .
Lemma 12.6:
Let M be a submodule of a finitely generated o-module; for any a ∈ m the
submodule aM is contained in a finitely generated submodule of M .
Proof: If K is discretely valued then o, by Lemma 1.5, is a principal ideal
domain. Hence in this case M and consequently aM are finitely generated.
We therefore suppose in the following that |K × | is dense in IR×
+ (compare Lemma
1.4). By writing the finitely generated o-module which contains M as a quo-
tient of some free module on and by replacing M by its preimage under the
corresponding quotient map we may assume that M is contained in on . We now
proceed by induction with respect to n. Consider the exact columns
0 0 0
↓ ↓ ↓
n−1
a(M ∩ o ) ⊆ M ∩ on−1 ⊆ on−1
↓ ↓ ↓
aM ⊆ M ⊆ on
↓ ↓ ↓
aa ⊆ a ⊆ o
↓ ↓ ↓
0 0 0
78
where a := (M + on−1 )/on−1 ⊆ on /on−1 = o. The first column is exact since
a(M ∩ on−1 ) = aM ∩ on−1 . We may assume that n is minimal (for M ). Then
0 < r := supb∈a |b| ≤ 1. The density of the absolute value implies the existence
of c, d ∈ a such that |a| · r ≤ |c| < |d| < r ≤ 1. Put a′ := c/d. One easily checks
that |a| ≤ |a′ | < 1 and
aa ⊆ co ⊆ a′ a .
Let m ∈ a′ M be a preimage of c ∈ a. Applying the induction hypothesis to the

module a′ (M ∩on−1 ) we obtain a finitely generated submodule N ⊆ M ∩on−1 ⊆
M such that
a′ M ∩ on−1 = a′ (M ∩ on−1 ) ⊆ N .
It follows that
aM ⊆ N + om .
Proposition 12.7:
For any o-submodule A ⊆ V the following assertions are equivalent:
i. A is c-compact and bounded;
ii. A is compactoid and complete.
Proof: We first assume that i. holds true. According to Lemma 12.1.i the subset
A of V is complete. To establish that A is compactoid let L ⊆ V be an open
lattice. Using Zorn’s lemma we find a maximal subset T of elements in the
o-module M := (A + L)/L such that N := ⊕t∈T ot ⊆ M . That A is c-compact
implies that M and hence any submodule of M is linearly compact. We apply
this to the submodule N and obtain that the canonical map
∼
=
Y
( ⊕ ot) −→ lim ( ⊕ os) = ot
t∈T ←− s∈S
S⊆T t∈T
finite
is bijective. This shows that T ,in fact, is a finite set. By the maximality of T
we have om ∩ N 6= {0} for any m ∈ M \N . Hence the pair N ⊆ M has the
following property:
(∗) For any m ∈ M \N there is an a ∈ o such that 0 6= am ∈ N .
(One says that M is an essential extension of N .) For any t ∈ T we now fix a

vector vt ∈ A such that vt + L = t, and we consider the vector subspace
X
U := Kvt
t∈T
79
of V . The o-linear map
N −→ U/(U ∩ L)
P P
t at t 7−→ t at vt + (U ∩ L)
is well defined and injective. Since U , by Prop. 4.13, is topologically isomorphic

to some K n it follows from Prop. 12.2 that U is c-compact. Hence the o-module
U/(U ∩ L) is linearly compact and divisible. Lemma 12.5 then tells us that
U/(U ∩ L) is an injective o-module. The above map N −→ U/(U ∩ L) therefore
can be extended to a homomorphism of o-modules f : M −→ U/(U ∩ L) which,
because of (∗), necessarily is injective, too.
Concerning the structure of the o-module U/(U ∩ L) we claim that there are an
integer n ≥ 0, a scalar 0 6= a ∈ o, and an o-submodule Lo ⊆ K n such that
on ⊆ Lo ⊆ (a−1 o)n ⊆ K n and U/(U ∩ L) ∼

= K n /Lo .
To see this let Uo be a maximal vector subspace in U ∩ L and let n be the

dimension of U/Uo . Then Lo := (U ∩ L)/Uo is a bounded open lattice in U/Uo .
As such it contains a K-basis of U/Uo . If we use this basis to identify U/Uo with
K n we have on ⊆ Lo and, by boundedness, Lo ⊆ (a−1 o)n for some 0 6= a ∈ o.
Since A is bounded there is a 0 6= b ∈ o such that bA ⊆ L. This implies that

bM = {0} and a fortiori bf (M ) = {0}, i.e., that
f (M ) ⊆ b−1 (U ∩ L)/(U ∩ L) ∼
= b−1 Lo /Lo ⊆ ((ab)−1 o)n /Lo .
(ab)−1 ·
→ ((ab)−1 o)n /Lo the latter o-module is finitely
Because of the surjection on −→
generated. Hence f (M ) and therefore M is contained in a finitely generated
o-module and we may apply Lemma 12.6.
But instead of using Lemma 12.6 directly we first note that all of our discussion
is valid for an arbitrary open lattice in V . We therefore may fix a c ∈ K such that
0 < |c| < 1 and apply Lemma 12.6 to cL and M ′ := (A + cL)/cL. Pm As a result we
′
obtain finitely many vectors v1 , . . . , vm ∈ A such that cM ⊆ i=1 o(vi + cL).
This shows that
A ⊆ L + c−1 ov1 + . . . + c−1 ovm .
Let us now assume, vice versa, that ii. holds true. Then A is bounded by Lemma
12.4.i. That A is compactoid implies that the o-module A/(A ∩ L) = (A + L)/L,
for any open lattice L ⊆ V , is contained (up to isomorphism) in an o-module
of the form K n /Lo for some open lattice Lo ⊆ K n . Since K n is c-compact the
80
o-modules K n /Lo and hence A/(A ∩ L) are linearly compact. By an argument
entirely analogous to the proof of Prop. 12.2 we obtain:
The o-module A e := Q A/(A ∩ L) equipped with the product of the

L
discrete topologies has the property that for any decreasingly filtered
family (Aei )i∈I of closed o-submodules A
ei ⊆ Ae the canonical map
(+)
e −→
A e A
→ lim A/ ei
←−
i∈I
is surjective.
b := lim A/(A ∩ L) is a closed submodule of A.

The o-module A e Hence A
b satisfies
←−
L
a corresponding property (+). But the completeness of A, by Cor. 7.6 and its
∼
= b
proof, implies that the natural map A −→ A is a topological isomorphism. The
property (+) for Ab becomes, under this isomorphism, the statement that A is
c-compact.
The argument in the second half of the proof of the implication i.⇒ii. above
also shows the following.
Remark 12.8:
Let A ⊆ V be a compactoid o-submodule, and let a ∈ K such that |a| > 1 (resp.,
a = 1 if K is discretely valued); for any open lattice L ⊆ V there exist finitely
many vectors v1 , . . . , vm ∈ aA such that A ⊆ L + ov1 + . . . + ovm .
Example:
Let a ∈ K be such that 0 < |a| < 1. The o-submodule
A := {φ ∈ co (IN) : |φ(n)| ≤ |a|n for any n ∈ IN}
is bounded in the K-Banach space co (IN). One easily checks that the o-linear
bijection
Q ∼
=
o −→ A
n∈IN
(an )n 7−→ [n 7→ an an ]
is a homeomorphism w.r.t. the direct product topology on the left hand side
and the k k∞ -topology Q on A. By Prop. 12.2 the left hand side is c-compact
in the direct product n∈IN K. But according to Lemma 12.1.ii c-compactness
is an intrinsic property of a linearly topologized o-module. It follows that A is
c-compact and compactoid in co (IN).
81
Remark 12.9:
In Vs an o-submodule A is compactoid if and only if it is bounded.
Proof: The direct implication is a special case of Lemma 12.4.i. Let us therefore
assume that A is bounded, and let L ⊆ Vs be an open lattice. By the definition
of the weak topology there are finitely many continuous linear forms ℓ1 , . . . , ℓm
on V such that
L ⊇ U := ker(ℓ1 ) ∩ . . . ∩ ker(ℓm ) .
We may assume that the ℓ1 , . . . , ℓm are linearly independent. Consider the
continuous linear surjection
f : Vs −→→ Km
v 7−→ (ℓ1 (v), . . . , ℓm (v)) .
The image f (A) is bounded and hence f (A) ⊆ (ao)m for some a ∈ K. Choosing
vectors v1 , . . . , vm ∈ V such that {f (v1 ), . . . , f (vm )} is the standard basis of K m
we have
A ⊆ U + oav1 + . . . + oavm ⊆ L + oav1 + . . . + oavm .
Lemma 12.10:
Every equicontinuous and closed o-submodule A ⊆ Vs′ is c-compact.
Proof: According to Prop. 7.13 the subset A ⊆ Vs′ is complete, and according
to Lemma 6.8 it is bounded. Because of Prop. 12.7 it remains to check that A
is compactoid. For a given open lattice L ⊆ Vs′ we find finitely many linearly
independent vectors v1 , . . . , vm ∈ V such that L ⊇ {ℓ ∈ Vs′ : ℓ(v1 ) = . . . =
ℓ(vm ) = 0}. Consider the continuous linear map
f : Vs′ −→
→ Km
ℓ 7−→ (ℓ(v1 ), . . . , ℓ(vm )) .
It is surjective by Prop. 9.7. We therefore find ℓ1 , . . . , ℓm ∈ Vs′ such that

{f (ℓ1 ), . . . , f (ℓm )} is the standard basis of K m . As a consequence of the bound-
edness of A we have f (A) ⊆ (ao)m for some a ∈ K. It follows that
A ⊆ L + oaℓ1 + . . . + oaℓm .
§13 Polarity
Let V be a locally convex K-vector space. The following definition will enable
us to pass hence and forth between o-submodules of V and of the dual space V ′ .
82
Definition:
Let A ⊆ V be an o-submodule;
a) the o-submodule
Ap := {ℓ ∈ V ′ : |ℓ(v)| < 1 for any v ∈ A}
in V ′ is called the pseudo-polar of A;

b) the o-submodule
App := {v ∈ V : |ℓ(v)| < 1 for any ℓ ∈ Ap }
in V is called the pseudo-bipolar of A.
We obviously have A ⊆ App . Moreover, App ⊆ V = (Vs′ )′ (compare Prop. 9.7)

can be viewed as the pseudo-polar of Ap ⊆ Vs′ . In this section we will study the
question when the identity A = App holds true.
Lemma 13.1:
Let A ⊆ V be an o-submodule; we have:
i. If A ⊆ B ⊆ V is another o-submodule then B p ⊆ Ap ;
ii. Ap is closed in Vs′ ;
iii. if A is bounded in Vs then Ap is a lattice in V ′ ;
iv. if A ∈ B then Ap is an open lattice in the B-dual VB′ ;
v. if A is a lattice in V then Ap is bounded in Vs′ ;
vi. if A is an open lattice in V then Ap is c-compact in Vs′ .
Proof: The assertion i. is trivial. ii. Since m is closed in K the submodule
δv−1 (m)T= {ℓ ∈ V ′ : |ℓ(v)| < 1}, for any v ∈ V , is closed in Vs′ . Now observe that
Ap = v∈A δv−1 (m). iii. Let ℓ ∈ V ′ be given. Then ℓ−1 (m) is an open lattice
in Vs . We therefore find an a ∈ K × such that aA ⊆ ℓ−1 (m). It follows that
aℓ ∈ Ap . iv. According to the definition of the B-topology L(A, m) is an open
lattice in VB′ . It remains to note that L(A, m) = Ap . v. It suffices to show that,
given a vector v ∈ V , there is an a ∈ K × such that aAp ⊆ L({v}, o). Choose a
in such a way that av ∈ A. For any ℓ ∈ Ap we then have |aℓ(v)| = |ℓ(av)| < 1
and hence aℓ ∈ L({v}, o). vi. By definition Ap is equicontinuous, and by ii. it
is closed in Vs′ . Apply now Lemma 12.10.
At this point we need a strengthening of Cor. 9.6. This will be a consequence of

the following structural result which describes an open lattice L ⊆ V in terms
of its corresponding gauge pL .
83
Proposition 13.2:
Let L ⊆ V be an open lattice; then there is a subset T ⊆ V and a family (ℓt )t∈T
of linear forms on V with the following properties:
1. pL (t) 6= 0 for any t ∈ T ;
2. ℓt (at) = a for any a ∈ K and t ∈ T ;
3. ℓt (t′ ) = 0 for any two t 6= t′ in T ;
4. pL (v) = max |ℓt (v)| · pL (t) for any v ∈ V ;
t∈T
5. there is a disjoint decomposition T = T0 ∪˙ T1 such that
L = {v ∈ V : |ℓt (v)| · pL (t) ≤ 1 for t ∈ T0 and < 1 for t ∈ T1 } ;
6. L = {v ∈ V : ℓt (v) ∈ ℓt (L) for any t ∈ T }.

Proof: The lattice L contains the vector subspace U := {v ∈ V : pL (v) = 0}.
Our assertion is an immediate consequence of the corresponding assertion for the
lattice L/U ⊆ V /U . We therefore may assume in the following that U = {0},
i.e., that pL is a norm.
The o-module quotient L(pL )/L− (pL ) is a vector space over the residue class
field k := o/m of K. We fix a subset T0 ⊆ L which maps bijectively onto a
k-basis of the k-vector subspace L/L− (pL ) in L(pL )/L− (pL ). In particular, we
have pL (t) = 1 for t ∈ T0 . The subset T0 has the property that
X
(∗) pL ( at t) = max pL (at t)
t∈T0
t∈T0
for any family (at )t∈T0 of elements at ∈ K such that all but finitely many at are
equal to zero. To see this fix a t0 ∈ T0 such that |at0 | = P
maxt |at |. If at0 = 0 the
identity (∗) is trivial. Otherwise the image of the vector t (at /at0 )t in L/L(pL )
is nonzero which means that
X at
pL ( t) = 1 ;
t
at0
it follows that
X X at
pL ( at t) = |at0 | · pL ( t) = max |at | = max pL (at t) .
t t
at0 t t
The subsets S ⊆ V \{0} which contain T0 and which satisfy (∗) are inductively
ordered with respect to inclusion. By Zorn’s lemma there exists a maximal such
subset T . We put T1 := T \T0 . Since pL is a norm it is immediate from (∗) that
84
the set T is K-linearly independent.
P In particular, the property 1. holds. On
the vector subspace Vo := s∈T Ks in V we have the linear forms
X
ℓt ( as s) := at
s∈T
for any t ∈ T . The identity (∗) implies

X X
|ℓt ( as s)| · pL (t) = pL (at t) ≤ pL ( as s) .
s s
By the Hahn-Banach theorem Prop. 9.2 each ℓt therefore extends to a linear

form ℓt on V such that
|ℓt (v)| · pL (t) ≤ pL (v) for any v ∈ V .
The properties 2. and 3. and the inequality
sup |ℓt (v)| · pL (t) ≤ pL (v) for any v ∈ V

t∈T
hold by construction. To complete the proof of property 4. we reason by con-

tradiction and assume that there is a vector v ∈ V such that
pL (v) > |ℓt (v)| · pL (t) for any t ∈ T .
In particular, pL (v) 6= 0, hence v 6= 0, and v 6∈ T . We claim that

X
(+) pL (v − as s) ≥ pL (v)
s∈T
P
for any s as s ∈ Vo . Otherwise the inequality
X X
|ℓt (v) − at | · pL (t) = |ℓt (v − as s)| · pL (t) ≤ pL (v − as s) < pL (v)
s s
implies
|at | · pL (t) ≤ max(|ℓt (v) − at |, |ℓt(v)|) · pL (t) < pL (v)
for any t ∈ T and leads consequently to the contradiction

X
pL (v) ≤ max(pL (v − as s), max |as | · pL (s)) < pL (v) .
s
s
85
We now use (+) to show that the subset T ∪ {v} satisfies (∗) which is impossible
P
by the maximality of T . Let w ∈ V be any vector of the form w = av + t∈T at t
with a, at ∈ K such that all but finitely many at are equal to zero. We distinguish
two cases. First we assume that
pL (av) ≥ |at | · pL (t) for any t ∈ T .
If a = 0 then at = 0 for any t ∈ T . If a 6= 0 then (+) implies

X at
pL (a−1 w) = pL (v + t) ≥ pL (v) .
t
a
We obtain
max(pL (av), max |at | · pL (t)) = pL (av) ≤ pL (w) ≤ max(pL (av), max pL (at t))
t t
and hence
pL (w) = max(pL (av), max pL (at t)) .
t
Secondly we assume that
pL (av) < max |at | · pL (t) .

t
We then have X
pL (av) < pL ( at t)
t
and therefore
X
pL (w) = max(pL (av), pL ( at t)) = max(pL (av), max pL (at t)) .
t
t
In both cases T ∪ {v} satisfies (∗) which by contradiction establishes the pro-
perty 4.
Next we verify the property 5. First let v ∈ L. Because of L ⊆ L(pL ) it follows
from 4. that
|ℓt (v)| · pL (t) ≤ 1 for any t ∈ T .
P
By the construction of the subset T0 there is a vector s∈T0 as s ∈ Vo such that
P P
pL (v − s∈T0 as s) < 1. For t ∈ T1 we then have ℓt (v) = ℓt (v − s∈T0 as s) and
hence
X X
|ℓt (v)| · pL (t) = |ℓt (v − as s)| · pL (t) ≤ pL (v − as s) < 1 .
s∈T0 s∈T0
86
Now let v be a vector in the right hand side of the identity in 5. Because of
4. we certainly have pL (v) ≤ 1. We claim that the subset S := {s ∈ T0 :
|ℓs (v)| · pL (s) = 1} is finite. If not
P we certainly would have v 6= 0 and (because
of 3.) v 6∈ T and for any vector t at t ∈ Vo there would be an s ∈ S such that
as = 0. Using 4. we would obtain
X
pL (v − at t) = max |ℓt (v) − at | · pL (t) ≥ 1 ≥ pL (v) .
t
t
But this is the inequality (+) above which we have shown to be in contradiction
to the maximality of T . The set S therefore must be finite. It then follows from
2.-4. that X
pL (v − ℓs (v) · s) < 1 ,
s∈S
or equivalently that
X
v− ℓs (v) · s ∈ L− (pL ) ⊆ L .
s∈S
P |ℓs (v)| = |ℓs (v)| · pL (s) = 1 and hence ℓs (v) ∈ o for

On the other hand, we have
s ∈ S. This shows that s∈S ℓs (v) · s ∈ L. Together we obtain that v ∈ L.
The property 6., finally, is an immediate consequence of 5.
Proposition 13.3:
Let A ⊆ V be a closed o-submodule; for any vector vo ∈ V \A there is a contin-
uous linear form ℓ on V such that ℓ(vo ) = 1 and |ℓ(v)| < 1 for any v ∈ A.
Proof: As in the proof of Cor. 9.6 we find an open lattice L ⊆ V such that
A ⊆ L and vo 6∈ L. We therefore may assume that A = L, in fact, is an open
lattice. Using the notations of Prop. 13.2 it follows from the property 6. in
Prop. 13.2 that
ℓs (vo ) 6∈ ℓs (L) for some s ∈ T .
We define
ℓ(v) := ℓs (vo )−1 · ℓs (v) .
This is a linear form on V such that
ℓ(vo ) = 1 and L ∩ ℓ−1 (1) = ∅ .
The image ℓ(L) is an o-submodule of K which does not contain 1. We therefore

have |ℓ(v)| < 1 for any v ∈ L. It remains to show that ℓ is continuous. Set
U := ker(ℓ). With vo + L also the subsets vo + L + U and then
[
a(vo + L + U )
a∈K ×
87
are open in V . Because of L ∩ (vo + U ) = ∅, or equivalently (vo + L) ∩ U = ∅,
this latter union is the complement of U in V . It follows that U is closed in
V and hence, by Prop. 4.13, that V /U is topologically isomorphic to K. This
clearly implies that ℓ is continuous.
Proposition 13.4:
For any o-submodule A ⊆ V its pseudo-bipolar App is equal to the closure of A
in V , i.e., App = A.
Proof: By Lemma 13.1.ii the pseudo-bipolar App is closed in Vs and therefore
in V . Hence we have A ⊆ App . Consider, on the other hand, a vector v ∈ V \A.
According to Prop. 13.3 we find an ℓ ∈ (A)p ⊆ Ap such that ℓ(v) = 1. Hence
v 6∈ App .
Corollary 13.5:
For an o-submodule A ⊆ V the following assertions are equivalent:
i. App = A;
ii. A is closed;
iii. for any vo ∈ V \A there exists a continuous linear form ℓ on V such that
|ℓ(vo )| ≥ 1 and |ℓ(v)| < 1 for any v ∈ A;
iv. for any vo ∈ V \A there exists a continuous seminorm q on V such that
vo 6∈ L− (q) and A ⊆ L− (q).
Proof: The equivalence of i. and ii., resp. of ii. and iii., is Prop. 13.4, resp.
Prop. 13.3. The assertion iv. follows trivially from iii. if we set q(v) := |ℓ(v)|.
Finally, we show that iv. implies ii. Let vo ∈ V \A and let q be as in iv. Then
vo + L− (q) is an open neighbourhood of vo which is disjoint from A.
Lemma 13.6:
For an o-submodule H ⊆ Vs′ the following assertions are equivalent:
ii. H ⊆ Lp for some open lattice L ⊆ V ;
iii. H p is an open lattice in V .
Proof: Suppose that i. holds true. Then there is an open lattice L ⊆ V such
that ℓ(L) ⊆ m for any ℓ ∈ H. This means that H ⊆ Lp as stated in ii. If
ii. holds true then L ⊆ Lpp ⊆ H p which shows that H p is an open lattice in
V = (Vs′ )′ as claimed in iii. If, finally, iii. holds true then, defining L := H p , we
have H ⊆ H pp = Lp which means that ℓ(L) ⊆ m for any ℓ ∈ H. Hence H is
equicontinuous.
88
Proposition 13.7:
Let B denote the family of all equicontinuous o-submodules in V ′ ; we have:
i. The family B consists of bounded subsets in Vs′ and is closed under finite
sums;
ii. the duality map
∼
=
δ : V −→ (Vs′ )′B
is a topological isomorphism.
Proof: The assertion i. is a special case of Lemma 6.8. In Prop. 9.7 we have
seen that the duality map δ is bijective. By construction the initial topology
on V with respect to the map δ in the assertion ii. is defined by the lattices
H p where H runs over all equicontinuous o-submodules in Vs′ . According to
Lemma 13.6 these H p are open lattices in V . Hence δ is continuous. If, vice
versa, L ⊆ V is an arbitrary open lattice then, again by Lemma 13.6, H := Lp
is an equicontinuous o-submodule in Vs′ . Since L = Lpp = H p by Prop. 13.4 it
follows that δ is a homeomorphism.
Corollary 13.8:
If V is barrelled then the duality map
∼
=
δ : V −→ (Vs′ )′b
is a topological isomorphism.
Proof: By the Banach-Steinhaus theorem Prop. 6.15 and Lemma 4.10 any boun-
ded subset in Vs′ generates an equicontinuous o-submodules. The B-topology in
Prop. 13.7 therefore is the strong topology.
As another application of polarity theory we can show, as promised earlier, that

the assertion of the Banach-Steinhaus theorem characterizes barrelled spaces.
Proposition 13.9:
i. V is barrelled;
ii. every bounded subset of Vs′ is equicontinuous;
iii. every bounded o-submodule of Vs′ is equicontinuous.
Prof: That i. implies ii. is the assertion of the Banach-Steinhaus theorem Prop.
6.15. The implication from ii. to iii. being trivial let us assume that iii. holds
true. Let L ⊆ V be a closed lattice. By Lemma 13.1.v, the pseudo-polar Lp
89
is bounded in Vs′ . It is therefore equicontinuous. Lemma 13.6 then says that
the pseudo-bipolar Lpp is an open lattice in V . But since L is closed we have
Lpp = L by Cor. 13.5. This proves that V is barrelled.
§14 Admissible topologies
Let V be a locally convex K-vector space. The aim of the duality theory is
to reconstruct as much information as possible about V from its dual spaces
VB′ . We have seen already (Prop. 9.7) that the abstract vector space V can be
reconstructed as the dual space of the weak dual Vs′ . For the given topology of
V this is not possible in general. In particular, Prop. 13.7 does not give this
since the equicontinuity of a subset of Vs′ cannot be characterized through the
topology of Vs′ alone. One reason for this difficulty is, of course, that different
topologies on V can lead to the same dual space V ′ . This motivates the following
definition.
Definition:
A locally convex topology T on V is called admissible if
L((V, T ), K) = V ′ .
By construction the weak topology on V is the coarsest admissible topology. On

the other hand, the family of pseudo-polars Ap where A runs over all c-compact
and bounded o-submodules in Vs′ is, by Lemma 13.1.iii, a family of lattices in V .
Since the sum of two c-compact and bounded o-submodules again is c-compact
(Cor. 12.3) and bounded this family of lattices Ap satisfies the conditions (lc1)
and (lc2) and defines therefore a locally convex topology on V which is called
the Mackey topology. We write Vc for V equipped with the Mackey topology.
Lemma 14.1:
The Mackey topology is the finest admissible topology on V .
Proof: Let T be any admissible topology on V . In the proof of Prop. 13.7 we
have seen that T is defined by the family of lattices H p where H ⊆ Vs′ runs over
all with respect to T equicontinuous o-submodules. According to Lemmata 6.8
and 6.10 the closure H of H still is equicontinuous and bounded. By Lemma
12.10 the closure H therefore is c-compact. Since (H)p = H p we see that T is
coarser than the Mackey topology.
It remains to show that the Mackey topology is admissible. If we apply the
above reasoning to the given topology of V we obtain that the Mackey topology
90
is finer than the given topology which implies that V ′ ⊆ (Vc )′ . For a given
ℓ ∈ (Vc )′ there exists a c-compact and bounded o-submodule A ⊆ Vs′ such that
ℓ(Ap ) ⊆ m. Applying Lemma 12.1.iv to the topological inclusion Vs′ ⊆ (Vc )′s we
obtain that A also is c-compact and hence closed in (Vc )′s . It now follows from
Cor. 13.5 that A = App in (Vc )′s . Since, by construction, ℓ is contained in the
pseudo-bipolar of A ⊆ (Vc )′s we conclude that ℓ ∈ A ⊆ V ′ . This shows that
V ′ = (Vc )′ .
Proposition 14.2:
Each of the following classes of subsets of V does not change if we replace the
given topology of V by any other admissible topology:
1. the class of all closed o-submodules;
2. the class of all c-compact o-submodules;
3. the class of all bounded subsets.
Proof: For the first class this is a consequence of Cor. 13.5. It then also follows
for the second class since the second class, through Lemma 12.1.ii, is charac-
terized within the first class by a completely algebraic condition. We finally
consider the third class. Let B denote the family of all closed equicontinuous
o-submodules of Vs′ . Since by Lemma 6.10 the closure of any equicontinuous
o-submodule in Vs′ again is equicontinuous it follows from Prop. 13.7 that the
duality map
∼
=
V −→(Vs′ )′B
is a topological isomorphism. If we compare this with the topological isomor-
phism
∼
=
Vs −→(Vs′ )′s
we are reduced to show that (Vs′ )′B and (Vs′ )′s have the same class of bounded
subsets. Since, by Prop. 7.13, any H ∈ B is complete in Vs′ this exactly is what
we have established in the proof of Prop. 7.18.
As an application of this result we have the following facts.
Proposition 14.3:
Let (Vh )h∈H beQa family of barrelled locally convex K-vector spaces; then the
direct product h∈H Vh is barrelled, too.
L ′
Proof:Q As we have noted in §9 before Prop. 9.11 we may identify h Vh
′
and
L ( h′ Vh ) asQabstract vector spaces. But the locally convex vector spaces
′
(V
h h s) and ( V )
h h s in general are different. According
Q to Prop. 9.7 and
Prop. 9.10 they at least have the same dual space h Vh . It therefore follows
91
Q ′
from
L Prop. 14.2 that every bounded subset B ⊆ ( h Vh )s also is bounded in
′
h (Vh )s . We have seen in the proof of Prop. 7.12.iii that in this latter situation
there are a finite subset I ⊆ H and bounded subsets Bh ⊆ (Vh )′s for h ∈ I such
that M
B⊆ Bh .
h∈I
Since Vh is barrelled the Banach-Steinhaus

L theorem Prop. 6.15 implies that each
Bh is equicontinuous. Hence h∈I BQ h and B are equicontinuous. This argument
′
shows that any boundedQ subset in ( h Vh )s is equicontinuous. Applying Prop.
13.9 we obtain that h Vh is barrelled.
A straightforward reduction argument shows that the above result remains true
even if the Vh are not necessarily Hausdorff.
Proposition 14.4:
If V is barrelled or bornological then the Mackey topology coincides with the
given topology of V .
Proof: Let A ⊆ Vs′ be a c-compact and bounded o-submodule. We have to
show that the lattice Ap ⊆ V is open. By Lemma 13.1.ii the pseudo-polar Ap is
closed in Vs = (Vs′ )′s and hence in V . If V is barrelled Ap consequently is open.
Let us therefore assume that V is bornological. We check that Ap satisfies the
condition (bor). If B ⊆ V is a bounded subset then, according to Prop. 14.2,
B also is bounded in Vc . Since, by definition, Ap is an open lattice in Vc there
exists an a ∈ K such that B ⊆ aAp .
Proposition 14.5:
Let A ⊆ V be a compactoid o-submodule; the given topology and the weak topology
of V induce the same topology on A.
Proof: Let L ⊆ V be an open lattice. We have to show that L ∩ A is open in
A with respect to the weak topology. Fix an a ∈ K such that 0 < |a| < 1. Let
(Bi )i∈I denote the family of all o-submodules of A which
- contain aL ∩ A and
- are open in A with respect to the weak topology.
Since aL ∩ A, by Prop. 14.2, is closed in A with respect to the weak topology
we have \
Bi = aL ∩ A
i∈I
(compare the argument at the end of the proof of Lemma 12.1.ii). We will show
that there is an index io ∈ I such that aBio ⊆ aL ∩ A. This is sufficient for our
92
assertion since then Bio ⊆ L ∩ A which implies that L ∩ A is open in A with
respect to the weak topology.
Since A is compactoid in V the quotient A/(aL ∩ A) is contained in an o-module
of the form om /N where (bo)m ⊆ N ⊆ om for some 0 6= b ∈ o. The family (Bi )i
m
T to a decreasingly filtered family (Ni )i of o-submodules N ⊆ Ni ⊆ o
corresponds
such that i Ni = N . We show that, given such a family, there is, for any a ∈ m,
an io ∈ I such that aNio ⊆ N . We proceed by induction with respect to m,
and, using Lemma 1.4, we distinguish two cases. First we assume that the value
group |K × | is dense in IR× 2
+ . Choose an c ∈ K such that |a| < |c | < 1. By the
induction hypothesis there exists an i1 ∈ I such that
c(Ni1 ∩ om−1 ) ⊆ N .
Let a and ai denote the image of N and Ni , respectively, in om /om−1 = o. We

have bo ⊆ a ⊆ ai , and (ai )i is a (with respect to inclusion) totally ordered family
of ideals in o. Consider the commutative exact diagram
m−1
0 −→ o −→ om −→ o −→ 0
fy gy hy
0 −→ lim om−1 /(Ni ∩ om−1 ) −→ lim om /Ni −→ lim o/ai
←− ←− ←−
where the vertical maps are the canonical ones. Since om−1 is c-compact the
map f is surjective. It follows that
ker(h) = (ker(g) + om−1 )/om−1
and hence that

\ \
ai = (( Ni ) + om−1 )/om−1 = (N + om−1 )/om−1 = a .
i i
We obtain that
0 < sup |a| = inf sup |ai |
i
and consequently that there is an i2 ∈ I such that sup |ai2 | < sup |c−1 a|. This
implies that ai2 ⊆ c−1 a or cai2 ⊆ a which amounts to
cNi2 ⊆ N + om−1 .
Choosing io ∈ I such that N ⊆ Nio ⊆ Ni1 ∩ Ni2 we deduce that
cNio ⊆ N + (Ni1 ∩ om−1 )
and therefore that
aNio ⊆ c2 Nio ⊆ cN + c(Ni1 ∩ om−1 ) ⊆ cN + N = N .
93
In the other case where K is discretely valued an analogous induction shows
that even Nio = N holds true for some io ∈ I.
§15 Reflexivity
In this section we will characterize the (semi-)reflexive spaces among all locally
convex K-vector spaces V .
Lemma 15.1:
Every closed lattice A ⊆ Vs′ is open in Vb′ .
Proof: By Lemma 13.1.v the pseudo-polar Ap is bounded in Vs = (Vs′ )′s . It
follows from Prop. 14.2 that Ap is bounded in V as well. Using again Lemma
13.1.iv we obtain that App is open in Vb′ . But we have App = A by Cor. 13.5.
Proposition 15.2:
If V is semi-reflexive then Vb′ is barrelled.
Proof: If V is semi-reflexive then we have V = (Vs′ )′ = (Vb′ )′ as abstract vector
spaces. This says that the strong topology on V ′ is an admissible topology for
Vs′ . Prop. 14.2 therefore implies that Vs′ and Vb′ have the same closed lattices.
We then obtain from Lemma 15.1 that any closed lattice in Vb′ is open.
Proposition 15.3:
i. V is semi-reflexive;
ii. every closed and bounded o-submodule of Vs is c-compact;
iii. every closed and bounded o-submodule of V is c-compact;
iv. Vs is quasi-complete;
v. V is quasi-complete, and every bounded o-submodule of V is compactoid.
Proof: i. ⇒ ii.: We have Vs = (Vs′ )′s = (Vb′ )′s . Let now A ⊆ Vs be a closed
and bounded o-submodule. Since Vb′ is barrelled by Prop. 15.2 we may apply
the Banach-Steinhaus theorem Prop. 6.15 and obtain that A viewed in (Vb′ )′
is equicontinuous. It then follows from Lemma 12.10 that A is c-compact in
(Vb′ )′s = Vs .
ii. ⇒ i.: Put W := Vs′ ; then W ′ = V . Because of Lemma 4.10 and Prop. 14.2
the pseudo-polars Ap where A runs over all closed and bounded o-submodules
of Vs form a defining family of open lattices for the strong topology on V ′ = W .
Since these A are c-compact by assumption we see that the strong topology on
94
W is coarser than the Mackey topology. Hence it follows from Lemma 14.1 that
the strong topology on W is admissible. This implies that (Vb′ )′ = W ′ = V .
ii. ⇔ iii.: This a consequence of Prop. 14.2.
ii. ⇒ iv.: Let B ⊆ Vs be a bounded closed subset. According to Lemma 4.10 the
closure A of the o-submodule generated by B is bounded in Vs . By assumption
A is c-compact. Lemma 12.1.i then implies that A and hence B are complete.
iv. ⇒ ii.: Let A ⊆ Vs be a closed and bounded o-submodule. From Remark 12.9
we know that A then is compactoid. But, by assumption, A also is complete. It
therefore follows from Prop. 12.7 that A is c-compact.
iii. ⇒ v.: By the same argument as for ii. ⇒ iv. we obtain that V is quasi-
complete. Let A ⊆ V be a bounded o-submodule. Then its closure A is a closed
and bounded and hence c-compact o-submodule of V . It again follows from
Prop. 12.7 that A and hence A are compactoid.
v. ⇒ iii.: Let A ⊆ V be a closed and bounded o-submodule. By assumption
A then is complete and compactoid which, by Prop. 12.7, implies that A is
c-compact.
Lemma 15.4:
If V is reflexive then Vb′ is reflexive and V is barrelled.
Proof: By assumption the duality map
∼
=
δV : V −→ (Vb′ )′b
and hence the dual map

∼
=
δV′ : ((Vb′ )′b )′b −→ Vb′
are topological isomorphisms. The latter map is the inverse of the duality map
δVb′ : Vb′ −→ ((Vb′ )′b )′b .
It follows that Vb′ is reflexive. Prop. 15.2 then implies that V = (Vb′ )′b is barrel-
led.
Proposition 15.5:
A locally convex vector space V is reflexive if and only if it is semi-reflexive and
barrelled.
Proof: The direct implication is a consequence of Lemma 15.4. For the reverse
implication we only need to recall that, by Lemma 9.9, a barrelled space is
pseudo-reflexive.
95
Proposition 15.6:
The strong dual Vb′ of a reflexive Fréchet space V is bornological.
Proof: Let (Ln )n∈IN be a countable family of open lattices in V which defines
the locally convex topology on V . The o-submodules Bn := Lpn in Vb′ are
equicontinuous and hence bounded (Lemma 6.8). Since Vb′ is barrelled by Prop.
15.2 it is straightforward from Lemma 13.6 that each bounded subset of Vb′ is
contained in some Bn .
We have to show that any lattice M ⊆ Vb′ which satisfies the condition (bor)
is open. Again since Vb′ is barrelled it suffices for this to find a closed lattice
N ⊆ M . For any n ∈ IN there S is, by assumption, an an ∈ K × such that
′
an Bn ⊆ M . Because of V = n Bn the o-submodule
X
N := an Bn
n∈IN
is a lattice contained in M . We claimPthat N is closed. Let us first see that, for

any r ∈ IN, the o-submodule Cr := n≤r an Bn is closed in Vs′ and hence also
in Vb′ . According to Lemma 13.1.vi each Bn is c-compact in Vs′ . The Cor. 12.3
then implies that Cr is c-compact as well. A fortiori Cr is closed. Consider now
any ℓ 6∈ N . For any r ∈ IN there is an open lattice Lr ⊆ Vb′ such that
(ℓ + Lr ) ∩ Cr = ∅ .
As we then also have (ℓ + Lr + Cr ) ∩ Cr = ∅ we may in fact assume that
Cr ⊆ Lr for any r ∈ IN .
T
The o-submodule L := r∈IN Lr satisfies
\ [ [\ [
(ℓ +L) ∩N = (ℓ +Lr ) ∩( Cn ) = ( (ℓ +Lr ) ∩Cn ) ⊆ (ℓ +Ln ) ∩Cn = ∅ .
r n n r n
It therefore remains to convince ourselves that L is an open lattice in Vb′ . As an

intersection of open lattices it certainly is closed. For any m ∈ V ′ there is an
s ∈ IN such that m ∈ Bs and consequently as m ∈ Cs ⊆ Lr for any r ≥ s. On
the other hand there exists a nonzero b ∈ o such that bas m ∈ Lr for any r < s.
We therefore have bas m ∈ L which shows that L is a closed lattice in Vb′ . Using
a third time that Vb′ is barrelled we conclude that L is open.
§16 Compact limits
We have seen in §11 that there are no interesting examples of reflexive Banach
spaces. We therefore finish this chapter by explaining how one can construct
96
reflexive spaces via certain projective and locally convex inductive limits. The
starting point is the following notion.
Definition:
A continuous linear map f : V −→ W between two locally convex K-vector
spaces V and W is called compact if there is an open lattice L ⊆ V such that
the closure of the image f (L) in W is bounded and c-compact.
If W is quasi-complete then, as a consequence of Prop. 12.7, the map f : V −→

W is compact if and only if f (L), for some open lattice L ⊆ V , is compactoid.
The basic fact for the purposes of this section is the subsequent lemma. We first
make a few rather obvious remarks.
Remark 16.1:
For any continuous linear map f : V −→ W between two locally convex K-vector
spaces we have:
i. The map f : Vs −→ Ws is continuous;
ii. the dual map f ′ : Wb′ −→ Vb′ given by f ′ (ℓ) := ℓ ◦ f is continuous.
Proof: i. Note that f −1 (ℓ−1 (o)) = (ℓ ◦ f )−1 (o) for any ℓ ∈ W ′ . ii. Here we note
that (f ′ )−1 (L(B, o)) = L(f (B), o) for any bounded subset B ⊆ V .
Remark 16.2:
For any locally convex K-vector space V the image of the duality map δ : V −→
(Vb′ )′s is dense.
Proof: If not there would exist, according to the Hahn-Banach theorem Cor. 9.3,
a nonzero continuous linear form ℓ on the right hand side such that ℓ ◦ δ = 0.
This would lead to a contradiction since, by Prop. 9.7, we have ((Vb′ )′s )′ = V ′ .
Remark 16.3:
Suppose that f : V −→ W is a compact map; if B ⊆ V is a bounded o-submodule
then f (B) is bounded and c-compact in W .
Proof: Let L ⊆ V be an open lattice such that f (L) is bounded and c-compact.
There is a scalar a ∈ K × such that B ⊆ aL. It follows that f (B) is contained
in af (L). Apply now Lemma 12.1.iii.
Lemma 16.4:
97
For any continuous linear map f : V −→ W between two K-Banach spaces V
and W the following assertions are equivalent:
i. f is compact;
ii. the dual map f ′ : Wb′ −→ Vb′ is compact;
iii. f ′′ ((Vb′ )′ ) ⊆ W .
Proof: We recall first of all that Vb′ and Wb′ are Banach spaces with respect to
the operator norm (Remark 6.7). Moreover, in the assertion iii. we view the
duality map δ : W −→ (Wb′ )′b , since W is pseudo-reflexive by Lemma 9.9, as an
inclusion. In fact, being complete W is a closed subspace of (Wb′ )′b .
We begin by establishing the implication from i. to ii. For any bounded o-
submodule B ⊆ V we have
(f ′ )−1 (L(B, m)) = L(f (B), m) = f (B)p .
By Remark 16.3 the right hand side contains the pseudo-polar of a bounded and
c-compact o-submodule of Ws . It follows that the map
f ′ : (Ws′ )c −→ Vb′
is continuous. Consider now the open lattice L := {ℓ ∈ Wb′ : kℓk < 1} in Wb′ . We
will show that f ′ (L) is bounded and c-compact in Vb′ . Using the continuity of
the above map and Lemma 12.1 it suffices for this to prove that L is contained
in a bounded and c-compact o-submodule of (Ws′ )c . Certainly L is contained
in the pseudo-polar M p of the unit ball M := {w ∈ W : kwk ≤ 1} of W . By
Lemma 13.1.v/.vi the pseudo-polar M p is bounded and c-compact in Ws′ . Prop.
14.2 then says that M p is bounded and c-compact in (Ws′ )c as well.
For the implication from ii. to iii. we start by noting that, by an analogous
argument as above, the map
f ′′ : ((Vb′ )′s )c −→ (Wb′ )′b
is continuous. It then follows from Remark 16.1.i that
f ′′ : (Vb′ )′s −→ ((Wb′ )′b )s
is continuous. Remark 16.2 therefore implies that the image of f ′′ is contained

in the closure of W in ((Wb′ )′b )s . But as noted at the beginning of the proof W
is closed in (Wb′ )′b and hence, by Prop. 14.2, in ((Wb′ )′b )s .
We finally come to the implication from iii. to i. By assumption the map f ′′
factorizes through a map f ′′ : (Vb′ )′ −→ W . For any w ∈ W we have
(f ′′ )−1 (w) = {λ ∈ (Vb′ )′ : f ′′ (λ)(ℓ) = ℓ(w) for any ℓ ∈ W ′ }
= {λ ∈ (Vb′ )′ : λ(ℓ ◦ f ) = ℓ(w) for any ℓ ∈ W ′ }
98
and hence
(f ′′ )−1 (ℓ−1 (o)) = L({ℓ ◦ f }, o)
for any ℓ ∈ W ′ . This shows that the map
f ′′ : (Vb′ )′s −→ Ws
is continuous. Consider now the open lattice L := {v ∈ V : kvk < 1} in V .

We want to show that f (L) is bounded and c-compact in W or equivalently,
by Prop. 14.2, in Ws . Similarly as above it suffices to exhibit a bounded and
c-compact o-submodule of (Vb′ )′s which contains the image of L under the duality
map. We take the pseudo-polar of the unit ball in Vb′ .
After these preparations we consider a projective system of the form

gn g1
. . . −→ Vn+1 −→ Vn −→ . . . −→ V2 −→ V1
with locally convex K-vector spaces Vn and continuous linear transition maps
gn : Vn+1 −→ Vn for any n ∈ IN. We equip the projective limit lim Vn with the
←−
n
initial topology with respect to the projection maps
pm : lim Vn −→ Vm
←−
n
(vn )n 7−→ vm
for m ∈ IN. Because of Remark 16.1.ii the strong duals form an inductive system
g′ g′
(V1 )′b −→(V
1 ′ ′ n ′
2 )b −→ . . . −→ (Vn )b −→(Vn+1 )b −→ . . .
of locally convex K-vector spaces. We equip the inductive limit lim(Vn )′b with the
−→
n
corresponding locally convex final topology. According to its universal property
the dual maps p′m induce a continuous linear map
P : lim(Vn )′b −→ (lim Vn )′b .

−→ ←−
n n
This map P always is surjective: By the Hahn-Banach theorem Cor. 9.4 any
continuous linear form ℓ on lim Vn extends to a continuous linear form ℓe on
←−
Q
V
n n . It follows from Prop. 9.11 that ℓe factorizes through the projection to
Vm × . . . × V1 for some m ∈ IN. We therefore have ℓ = ℓm ◦ pm with ℓm ∈ (Vm )′
defined by
e . . , 0, v, gm−1(v), . . . , g1 ◦ . . . ◦ gm−1 (v)) .

ℓm (v) := ℓ(.
99
The map P certainly is injective and hence bijective if the projection maps pm
have dense image. In particular, in this situation both sides of P are Hausdorff
spaces.
Proposition 16.5:
Suppose that, for any n ∈ IN, Vn is a Banach space, gn is compact, and pn has
dense image; we then have:
i. The map P is a topological isomorphism;
ii. lim Vn is a reflexive Fréchet space.
←−
n
Proof: Since lim Vn is a countable projective limit of normed vector spaces its
←−
topology is Hausdorff and can be defined by a countable Q
family of seminorms
and hence is metrizable by Prop. 8.1. The direct product n Vn Q
of the Banach
spaces Vn is complete. The closed vector subspace lim Vn of n Vn then is
←−
complete, too. We see that lim Vn is a Fréchet space and in particular (Prop.
←−
8.2) is barrelled and hence (Lemma 9.9) pseudo-reflexive. For the reflexivity it
remains to prove that the duality map δ is surjective onto ((lim Vn )′b )′ . Take any
←−
λ in this latter double dual. The linear forms p′′n (λ) ∈ ((Vn )′b )′ are compatible
with respect to the maps gn′′ . It therefore follows from Lemma 16.4 that for each
n ∈ IN there is a vector vn ∈ Vn such that
p′′n (λ)(ℓ) = ℓ(vn ) for any ℓ ∈ (Vn )′b .
We obviously have (vn )n ∈ lim Vn and δ((vn )n ) = λ.

←−
We already know from the preceding discussion that the map P is a continuous
bijection between Hausdorff spaces. It remains to consider an open lattice L ⊆
lim(Vn )′b and to show that P (L) is open. We first make the following observation.
−→
By the reflexivity assertion which we already have established the dual space of
the target of P is lim Vn . But also for the source of P we have
←−
(lim(Vn )′b )′ = lim((Vn )′b )′ = lim Vn ;

−→ ←− ←−
the first identity follows from the universal property of the locally convex final
topology whereas the second identity is a consequence of Lemma 16.4. This
implies that the topologies on the two sides of P are admissible relative to each
other. Using Prop. 14.2 we see that with L also P (L) is a closed lattice. But
according to Prop. 15.2 the target of P is barrelled. We see that P (L) indeed
is open.
100
The requirement in the above result that the Vn are Banach spaces is not a
serious restriction. To explain this we need the following general fact about a
compact map f : V −→ W . Let L ⊆ V be an open lattice such that B := f (L)
is bounded and c-compact. By Lemma 12.1.i the o-submodule B in particular
is bounded and complete. In this situation we have, according to Lemma 7.17,
⊆
the Banach space (WB , pB ) together with the continuous inclusion WB −→ W .
The map f obviously factorizes into
fe ⊆
V −→ WB −→ W
where fe is continuous because of
fe−1 ({w ∈ WB : pB (w) ≤ 1}) ⊇ fe−1 (B) ⊇ L .
If we apply this to our projective system assuming that the transition maps gn
are compact we obtain a commutative diagram of the form
gn+1 gn
. . . −→ Vn+2 −→ Vn+1 −→ Vn −→ . . .
x x x
⊆ ցe
gn+1 ⊆ ցe
gn ⊆
. . . −→ (Vn+2 )Bn+2 −→ (Vn+1 )Bn+1 −→ (Vn )Bn −→ . . .

hn+1 hn
In the limit this induces a topological isomorphism
lim Vn ∼
= lim(Vn )Bn .
←− ←−
n n
Since Bn+1 is an open lattice in (Vn+1 )Bn+1 and since hn (Bn+1 ) = e

gn (Bn+1 ) is
bounded and c-compact in (Vn )Bn by Lemma 12.1.iv the map hn is compact.
We finally replace each (Vn )Bn by
Wn := the closure of the image of gen ◦ pn+1 in (Vn )Bn
to obtain the projective system of Banach spaces with compact transition maps
hn |Wn+1
. . . −→ Wn+1 −→ Wn −→ . . . −→ W1
for which the images of the projection maps lim Wn −→ Wm have dense images
←−
n
and such that

lim Vn ∼
= lim(Vn )Bn = lim Wn .
←− ←− ←−
n n n
101
All in all, starting with an arbitrary projective system with compact transi-
tion maps we have constructed, without changing the projective limit, a new
projective system which satisfies all the additional requirements of Prop. 16.5.
Corollary 16.6:
For any projective system
. . . −→ Vn+1 −→ Vn −→ . . . −→ V1
of (Hausdorff) locally convex K-vector spaces with compact transition maps the
projective limit lim Vn is a reflexive Fréchet space.
←−
n
At the very end of the above discussion we have implicitly made use of the
following obvious consequences of Lemma 12.1 which we state for later reference.
Remark 16.7:
Let g : V −→ W be a compact map; we have:
i. If h : V1 −→ V and f : W −→ W1 are arbitrary continuous linear maps then
the map f ◦ g ◦ h : V1 −→ W1 is compact;
ii. if the image of g is contained in the closed vector subspace Wo ⊆ W then the
induced map g : V −→ Wo is compact.
We now turn to an analogous consideration of an inductive system

1i n i
V1 −→ V2 −→ . . . −→ Vn −→ Vn+1 −→ . . .
of locally convex K-vector spaces Vn and continuous linear transition maps in :

Vn −→ Vn+1 . Let lim Vn denote the inductive limit equipped with the locally
−→
n
convex final topology with respect to the natural maps jm : Vm −→ lim Vn . By
−→
n
Remark 16.1.ii the strong duals now form a projective system
i′ i′
. . . −→ (Vn+1 )′b −→(V
n ′ ′ 1 ′
n )b −→ . . . −→ (V2 )b −→(V1 )b
of locally convex vector spaces. We equip the projective limit lim(Vn )′b with
←−
n
the corresponding initial topology. Using Remark 16.1.ii it immediately follows
from the universal properties that the linear map
I : (lim Vn )′b −→ lim(Vn )′b
−→ ←−
n n
ℓ 7−→ (ℓ ◦ jn )n
102
is continuous and bijective.
Remark 16.8:
Let f : V −→ W be a compact map and let A ⊆ V be a c-compact o-submodule;
for any finitely many vectors v1 , . . . , vm ∈ V \A there is an open lattice L ⊆ V
such that f (v1 ), . . . , f (vm ) 6∈ f (A) + f (L) and f (L) is bounded and c-compact.
Proof: By Lemma 12.1.i/.iv the image f (A) is closed in W . Since f is injective
we have f (v1 ), . . . , f (vm ) 6∈ f (A). We therefore find an open lattice M ⊆ W
such that f (v1 ), . . . , f (vm ) 6∈ f (A) + M . Take for L any open lattice contained
in f −1 (M ) such that f (L) is bounded and c-compact. Since M is closed we have
f (L) ⊆ M .
Lemma 16.9:
Suppose that in is injective and compact for any n ∈ IN; we then have:
i. lim Vn is Hausdorff;
−→
n
ii. for any bounded subset B ⊆ lim Vn there are an m ∈ IN and a bounded subset
−→
n
Bm ⊆ Vm such that jm (Bm ) = B.

Proof: Together with the transition maps in also the maps jm are injective. For
simplicity we view all these maps in the following as inclusions and omit them
(m)
from the notation. Moreover, for any subset X ⊆ Vm we let X denote the
closure of X in the topology of Vm .
i. Let 0 6= v ∈ lim Vn . We have to find an open lattice L ⊆ lim Vn such that
−→ −→
v 6∈ L. This will be done by an inductive construction. Suppose that v ∈ Vm .
Applying Remark 16.8 to the compact map im and A := {0} we obtain an open
(m+1) (m+1)
lattice Lm ⊆ Vm such that v 6∈ Lm and Lm is c-compact in Vm+1 . We
(m+1)
note at once that, by Lemma 12.1.iv, Lm also is c-compact in Vn for any
(m+1)
n ≥ m + 1. We now apply Remark 16.8 again to the map im+1 and A := Lm
(m+1) (m+2)
and obtain an open lattice Lm+1 ⊆ Vm+1 such that v 6∈ Lm + Lm+1 and
(m+2)
Lm+1 is c-compact in Vm+2 and hence in Vn for any n ≥ m + 2. By Cor. 12.3
(m+1) (m+2)
the sum Lm + Lm+1 is c-compact in Vn for any n ≥ m + 2. We next apply
(m+1) (m+2)
Remark 16.8 to im+2 and A := Lm + Lm+1 . Proceeding inductively in this
way we find open lattices Ln ⊆ Vn for any n ≥ m such that
X (n+1)
v 6∈ Ln .
n≥m
103
P
According to Lemma 5.1.iii the lattice L := n≥m Ln is open in lim Vn and
−→
does not contain the vector v.
ii. Reasoning by contradiction we assume that, for any n ∈ IN, either B 6⊆ Vn
or B ⊆ Vn but B is not bounded in Vn . We fix a scalar b ∈ K such that
0 < |b| < 1 and a vector 0 6= v1 ∈ B. Suppose that v1 ∈ Vm1 . By an inductive
procedure similar to the above one we construct an open lattice L ⊆ lim Vn
−→
having properties which will give rise to a contradiction.
We start by applying Remark 16.8 to the map im1 and A := {0} in order
(m1 +1) (m1 +1)
to obtain an open lattice Lm1 ⊆ Vm1 such that v1 6∈ Lm1 and Lm1 is
bounded and c-compact in Vm1 +1 . By our assumption on B the subset bB cannot
(m1 +1) (m1 +1)
be contained in Lm1 . Hence there is a vector v2 ∈ B such that bv2 6∈ Lm1 .
Suppose that v2 ∈ Vm2 for some m2 > m1 . We now apply Remark 16.8 to the
(m1 +1)
map im2 and A := Lm1 and find an open lattice Lm2 ⊆ Vm2 such that
(m1 +1) (m2 +1) (m2 +1)
v1 , bv2 6∈ Lm1 + Lm 2
and Lm2 is bounded and c-compact in Vm2 +1 .
Our assumption on B this time ensures that there is a vector v3 ∈ B such
(m1 +1) (m2 +1)
that b2 v3 6∈ Lm1 + Lm 2 . Supposing that v3 ∈ Vm3 for some m3 > m2
we next apply Remark 16.8 to im3 and so on. Inductively we obtain in this
way a sequence m1 < m2 < . . . in IN, open lattices Lmj ⊆ Vmj , and vectors
vj ∈ B ∩ Vmj such that
X (mj +1)
v1 , bv2 , b2 v3 , . . . 6∈ Lm j .
j
P
Then L := j Lmj is an open lattice in lim Vn which does not contain any
−→
member of the sequence (bj vj )j . But since B is bounded in lim Vn and 0 < |b| < 1
−→
this sequence converges to the zero vector in lim Vn . This is a contradiction.
−→
Proposition 16.10:
Suppose that
n i
V1 −→ . . . −→ Vn −→ Vn+1 −→ . . .
is an inductive system of (Hausdorff) locally convex K-vector spaces with injec-
tive and compact transition maps; we then have:
i. lim Vn is reflexive, bornological, and complete;
−→
n
ii. (lim Vn )′b is a Fréchet space;

−→
n
∼
=
iii. the map I : (lim Vn )′b −→ lim(Vn )′b is a topological isomorphism.
−→ ←−
n n
104
Proof: By the same construction as before Cor. 16.6 we have a commutative
diagram of the form
i
n in+1
. . . −→ Vn −→ Vn+1 −→ Vn+2 −→ . . .
x x x
⊆ ց ⊆ ց ⊆
. . . −→ (Vn )Bn −→ (Vn+1 )Bn+1 −→ (Vn+2 )Bn+2 −→ . . .
where the bottom row consists of Banach spaces with injective and compact
transition maps. In the inductive limit this induces a topological isomorphism
lim Vn ∼
= lim(Vn )Bn .
−→ −→
n n
Since passing to the strong dual spaces leads to a similar diagram we also have
a corresponding topological isomorphism
lim(Vn )′b ∼
= lim((Vn )Bn )′b .
←− ←−
n n
This shows that without loss of generality we may assume that the Vn are Banach
spaces.
By Example 2) after Prop. 6.13 and Example 3) after Cor. 6.16 we know that
lim Vn is bornological and barrelled. We know already from Lemma 16.9.i that
−→
lim Vn is Hausdorff. For the reflexivity it remains to show, by Prop. 15.3 and
−→
Prop. 15.5, that any closed and bounded o-submodule B ⊆ lim Vn is c-compact.
−→
According to Lemma 16.9.ii we find an m ∈ IN and a bounded o-submodule Bm
in Vm such that B = jm (Bm ). The closure of Bm+1 := im (Bm ) in Vm+1 is c-
compact by Remark 16.3. But Bm+1 being the preimage of B was already closed.
It follows that Bm+1 is c-compact in Vm+1 and a fortiori (Lemma 12.1.iv) that
B = jm+1 (Bm+1 ) is c-compact in lim Vn . This settles the reflexivity of lim Vn .
−→ −→
Consider again a bounded subset B ⊆ lim Vn . As a consequence of Lemma

−→
16.9.ii there are m, k ∈ IN such that
B ⊆ Bm,k := jm ({v ∈ Vm : kvk ≤ k}) .
This shows that the strong topology on (lim Vn )′ is defined by the countably
−→
many lattices L(Bm,k , o). The strong dual (lim Vn )′b therefore is metrizable by
−→
Prop. 8.1. But by Prop. 9.1.ii it also is complete since lim Vn is bornological.
−→
This proves the assertion ii. that (lim Vn )′b is a Fréchet space. By Lemma 16.4
−→
and Cor. 16.6 the target lim(Vn )′b of the map I is a Fréchet space as well. The
←−
105
bijection I therefore is a topological isomorphism as a consequence of the open
mapping theorem Cor. 8.7.
Finally, as a Fréchet space (lim Vn )′b is bornological (Prop. 6.14). Applying Prop.
−→
9.1.ii once more and using the reflexivity we obtain that lim Vn is complete.
−→
We finish this section by an example of an inductive limit of the type considered

in the above result.
Example:
Let K be an extension field of Qp which is spherically complete with respect to
an absolute value | | which extends the p-adic absolute value | |p on Qp . Fix
a point a ∈ Qp and a natural number m ∈ IN and consider the ball Bp−m (a)
around a in Qp . A function φ : Bp−m (a) −→ K is calledPanalytic if φ can be
expanded around a into a convergent power series F (T ) = n≥0 cn T n ∈ K[[T ]],
i.e., if F (x − a) converges to φ(x) for any x ∈ Bp−m (a). This notion has the
following basic properties (compare [Sch] §25):
1) The power series F (T ) converges on Bp−m (0) if and only if lim |cn |p−mn = 0.
n→∞
2) (Identity theorem) The power series F is uniquely determined by φ and a.
P aroundn any other point b ∈ Bp−m (a),

3) (Invariance property) φ can be expanded
i.e., there is a power series G(T ) = n≥0 dn T ∈ K[[T ]] such that G(x −
b) converges to φ(x) for any x ∈ Bp−m (b) = Bp−m (a); moreover, one has
max |cn |p−mn = max |dn |p−mn .
n≥0 n≥0
We see that
kφk := max |cn |p−mn
n≥0
is a well defined norm on the K-vector space O(Bp−m (a)) of all K-valued analytic
functions on the ball Bp−m (a). We leave it as an exercise to the reader to show
that O(Bp−m (a)) in fact is a Banach space.
A function φ : ZZp −→ K is called locally analytic if for any point a ∈ ZZp there
is an m ∈ IN such that φ|Bp−m (a) ∈ O(Bp−m (a)). Let C an (ZZp , K) denote the
K-vector space of all K-valued locally analytic functions on ZZp . In C an (ZZp , K)
we have the increasing sequence of vector subspaces V1 ⊆ V2 ⊆ . . . defined by
Vm := {φ ∈ C an (ZZp , K) : φ|Bp−m (a) ∈ O(Bp−m (a)) for any a ∈ ZZp } .
Since ZZp is compact we have

[
C an (ZZp , K) = Vm .
m∈IN
106
Moreover, for each m ∈ IN, the linear map
∼
= L
Vm −→ O(Bp−m (a))
a mod pm
P
φ 7−→ a φ|Bp−m (a)
is a bijection. Hence Vm with the norm
kφk := max m kφ|Bp−m (a)k

a mod p
is a Banach space. It is a straightforward consequence of the invariance property

that the inclusion maps Vm ֒→ Vm+1 are continuous. We equip C an (ZZp , K) with
the locally convex final topology with respect to the family of inclusion maps
Vm ֒→ C an (ZZp , K).
Claim: The inclusion maps Vm ֒→ Vm+1 are compact.

Proof: Because of Prop. 12.2 it suffices to show that the restriction map
O(Bp−m (a)) −→ O(Bp−(m+1) (a)) is compact. By a substitution of variables
this restriction map can be identified with the linear endomorphism
co (IN) −→ co (IN)
φ 7−→ [n 7→ pn−1 φ(n)] .
The image of the open lattice {φ ∈ co (IN) : kφk∞ ≤ 1} under this endomorphism
is the o-submodule
A := {φ ∈ co (IN) : |φ(n)| ≤ p−(n−1) for any n ∈ IN} .
In the Example after Remark 12.8 we have seen that A indeed is bounded and
c-compact.
Hence we may apply Prop. 16.10 and obtain that C an (ZZp , K) is a reflex-
ive, bornological, and complete Hausdorff locally convex K-vector space whose
strong dual is a Fréchet space.
107
Chap. IV: Nuclear maps and spaces
This final chapter is devoted to the study of a hierarchy of finiteness conditions

one can impose on a continuous linear map between two locally convex K-vector
spaces V and W . In increasing speciality these are the conditions of being
completely continuous, compact, nuclear and of finite rank. The whole theory
is intimately connected to the properties of the projective tensor product. We
therefore begin in §17 by introducing the inductive and projective tensor product
topologies. From §18 on it again will be a standing assumption that the field K is
spherically complete. The completely continuous maps are the maps which lie in
the closure of the finite rank operators with respect to the topology of bounded
convergence. Compact maps were already defined in §16. Any compact map
is completely continuous; the converse holds for maps between Banach spaces.
Finally, continuous linear maps which factorize through a compact map between
Banach spaces are called nuclear. The basic properties of these classes of maps
are presented in §§18 and 20. In between in §19 we discuss nuclear spaces. In
the second half of §20 these concepts are applied to the study of the continuous
linear dual of a projective tensor product.
The following differences between functional analysis over the complex numbers
and the nonarchimedean theory over a spherically complete field K should be
pointed out. First of all every locally convex K-vector space has the so called
approximation property meaning that the finite rank operators are dense in all
continuous linear maps with respect to the topology of compactoid convergence.
Secondly the so called injective tensor product topology coincides with the pro-
jective one. On the one hand this simplifies the theory of completely continuous
maps quite a bit. In particular, there is no difference between nuclear spaces
and Schwartz spaces. On the other hand it means that in contrast to classi-
cal functional analysis the nuclearity of a space cannot be characterized by its
behaviour with respect to the tensor product.
In §21 we construct the trace functional for nuclear maps and establish the
usual properties of a trace for it. The final §22 treats, as an application of
the results in this chapter, the theory of Fredholm maps. These are continuous
linear endomorphisms of a locally convex vector space whose kernel and cokernel
are finite dimensional. So they are quite the opposite of compact maps. The
relation between these two classes of maps consists in the fact that the sum of
a compact map and the identity map is Fredholm.
§17 Topological tensor products
Let U, V , and W be locally convex K-vector spaces. In this section we will

discuss a number of ways how to equip the tensor product V ⊗K W with a
locally convex topology.
108
A. The inductive tensor product topology
A bilinear map β : V × W −→ U is called separately continuous if the linear

maps
β(., wo ) : V −→ U
v 7−→ β(v, wo )
for any wo ∈ W and
β(vo , .) : W −→ U
w 7−→ β(vo , w)
for any vo ∈ V are continuous. There is a unique finest locally convex topology
on V ⊗K W - the inductive tensor product topology - such that the canonical
bilinear map
V × W −→ V ⊗K W
(v, w) 7−→ v⊗w
is separately continuous. It is the locally convex final topology with respect to
the family of linear maps . ⊗ wo : V −→ V ⊗K W , for any wo ∈ W , and vo ⊗ . :
W −→ V ⊗K W , for any vo ∈ V . We write V ⊗K,ι W for V ⊗K W equipped with
the inductive tensor product topology and call it the inductive tensor product
of V and W . For any separately continuous bilinear map β : V × W −→ U the
induced linear map
V ⊗K,ι W −→ U
v⊗w 7−→ β(v, w) ,
by construction, is continuous.
B. The projective tensor product topology
A bilinear map β : V × W −→ U is called (jointly) continuous if it is continuous

as a map between topological spaces (with the product topology on the left hand
side).
Lemma 17.1:
For a bilinear map β : V × W −→ U the following assertions are equivalent:
i. β is continuous;
ii. for any open lattice N ⊆ U there are open lattices L ⊆ V and M ⊆ W ,
respectively, such that β(L × M ) ⊆ N .
Proof: It is obvious that i. implies ii. Let us assume that ii. holds true. Let
vo ∈ V and wo ∈ W be vectors, let N ⊆ U be an open lattice, and let L and M
109
be as in ii. such that β(L × M ) ⊆ N . Choosing a 0 6= a ∈ o such that avo ∈ L
and awo ∈ M we have
β(vo + aL, wo + aM ) ⊆ β(vo , wo ) + β(vo , aM ) + β(aL, wo ) + β(L × M )
= β(vo , wo ) + β(avo , M ) + β(L, awo ) + β(L × M )
⊆ β(vo , wo ) + N .
Let L ⊆ V and M ⊆ W be lattices. It follows from Lemma 1.2.iv and [B-CA]

Chap.I §2.4 Prop.3(ii) that any torsionfree o-module is flat. The canonical map
L ⊗o M −→ V ⊗o W = V ⊗K W
therefore is injective and we may view L ⊗o M as a lattice in V ⊗K W .

The family of all lattices L ⊗o M in V ⊗K W where L and M run over the open
lattices in V and W , respectively, clearly satisfies the conditions (lc1) and (lc2)
and defines therefore a locally convex topology on V ⊗K W which is called the
projective tensor product topology. We write V ⊗K,π W for V ⊗K W equipped
with the projective tensor product topology and call it the projective tensor
product of V and W . It is obvious from Lemma 17.1. that the canonical bilinear
map
V × W −→ V ⊗K,π W
(v, w) 7−→ v⊗w
is continuous and that, for any continuous bilinear map β : V × W −→ U , the
induced linear map
V ⊗K,π W −→ U
v⊗w 7−→ β(v, w)
is continuous. In particular, the projective tensor product topology is the finest
locally convex topology on V ⊗K W which makes the canonical map V × W −→
V ⊗K W continuous. By construction the projective tensor product topology is
coarser than the inductive tensor product topology.
To understand this construction from the point of view of seminorms we consider
any two continuous seminorms p on V and q on W , respectively. The tensor
product seminorm p ⊗ q on V ⊗K W is defined by
r
X
p ⊗ q(u) := inf{ max p(vi ) · q(wi ) : u = vi ⊗ wi , vi ∈ V, wi ∈ W } .
1≤i≤r
i=1
Since obviously L(p) ⊗o L(q) ⊆ L(p ⊗ q) the lattice L(p ⊗ q) is open in V ⊗K,π
W which by Lemma 4.5.i means that the tensor product seminorm p ⊗ q is
continuous on V ⊗K,π W . In a simple way it is compatible with the formation
of gauge seminorms.
110
Lemma 17.2
Let L ⊆ V and M ⊆ W be open lattices; we then have pL ⊗ pM = pL⊗o M .
Proof: Consider first arbitrary vectors v ∈ V and w ∈ W and recall that
pL (v) · pM (w) = inf |a| · inf |b| and pL⊗o M (v ⊗ w) = inf |c| .
v∈aL w∈bM v⊗w∈cL⊗o M
If v ∈ aL and w ∈ bM then v ⊗ w ∈ abL ⊗o M so that pL⊗o M (v ⊗ w) ≤ |a| · |b|.

We see that
pL⊗o M (v ⊗ w) ≤ pL (v) · pM (w) .
For an arbitrary vector u ∈ V ⊗K W it follows that
P
pL ⊗ pM (u) = inf{max p(vi ) · q(wi ) : u = vi ⊗ wi }
i
P
≥ inf{max pL⊗o M (vi ⊗ wi ) : u = vi ⊗ wi }
i
≥ pL⊗o M (u) .
Pr
On the other hand, if u ∈ cL ⊗o M we write u = c · i=1 vi ⊗ wi with vi ∈ L
and wi ∈ M and obtain
pL ⊗ pM (u) ≤ |c| · max pL (vi ) · pM (wi ) ≤ |c| .

i
This shows that

pL ⊗ pM (u) ≤ pL⊗o M (u) .
This lemma (together with Prop. 4.4) shows that the projective tensor product
topology on V ⊗K W can equivalently be defined by the family of tensor product
seminorms p ⊗ q where p and q run through all continuous seminorms on V and
W , respectively.
All the finer information about projective tensor products is based upon the
following technical fact.
Lemma 17.3:
Suppose we are given finitely many vectors v1 , . . . , vm ∈ V and a constant 0 <
c ≤ 1 such that
(1) p(a1 v1 + . . . + am vm ) ≥ c · max |aj | · p(vj ) for any a1 , . . . , am ∈ K ;

1≤j≤m
we then have
p ⊗ q(v1 ⊗ w1 + . . . + vm ⊗ wm ) ≥ c · max p(vj ) · q(wj )

1≤j≤m
111
for any w1 , . . . , wm ∈ W .
Proof: Consider any identity v1 ⊗ w1 + . . . + vm ⊗ wm = v1′ ⊗ w1′ + . . . + vr′ ⊗ wr′ .
We have to show that
max p(vi′ ) · q(wi′ ) ≥ c · max p(vj ) · q(wj ) .

1≤i≤r 1≤j≤m
Let Wo ⊆ W be the finite dimensional vector subspace generated by the vectors

w1 , . . . , wm and w1′ , . . . , wr′ . We have seen in the proof of Prop. 10.4 (formula
(c) applied to the quotient space of Wo on which q becomes a norm) that, given
any constant 0 < d < 1, there is a basis e1 , . . . , en of Wo such that
(2) q(a1 e1 + . . . + an en ) ≥ d · max |ak | · q(ek ) for any a1 , . . . , an ∈ K .

1≤k≤n
Writing wj = aj1 e1 + . . . + ajn en and wi′ = bi1 e1 + . . . + bin en we have

n X
X m m
X r
X n X
X r
( ajk vj ) ⊗ ek = vj ⊗ wj = vi′ ⊗ wi′ = ( bik vi′ ) ⊗ ek
k=1 j=1 j=1 i=1 k=1 i=1
and hence
m
X r
X
(3) ajk vj = bik vi′ .
j=1 i=1
We now compute
(2)
max p(vi′ ) · q(wi′ ) ≥ d · max p(vi′ ) · |bik | · q(ek )
i i,k
P ′
≥ d · max p( i bik vi ) · q(ek )
k
(3) P
= d · max p( j ajk vj ) · q(ek )
k
(1)
≥ c · d · max |ajk | · p(vj ) · q(ek )
j,k
≥ c · d · max p(vj ) · q(wj ) .

j
Since d was arbitrary the assertion follows.
Proposition 17.4:
i. p ⊗ q(v ⊗ w) = p(v) · q(w) for any v ∈ V and w ∈ W ;
ii. p ⊗ q is a norm if and only if p and q are norms;
112
iii. suppose that Vo ⊆ V and Wo ⊆ W are vector subspaces; then
(p|Vo ) ⊗ (q|Wo ) = (p ⊗ q)|Vo ⊗K Wo .
Proof: i. Applying Lemma 17.3 to the vector v1 = v and the constant c = 1 we

obtain p ⊗ q(v ⊗ w) ≥ p(v) · q(w). The opposite inequality is trivial.
ii. It is immediate from i. that p and q are norms if p ⊗ q is one. Let us
therefore suppose, vice versa, that p and q are norms and let u ∈ V ⊗K W be
an arbitrary nonzero vector. Write u = v1 ⊗ w1 + . . . + vm ⊗ wm with linearly
independent vectors v1 , . . . , vm ∈ V . Since by Prop. 4.13 all norms on a finite
dimensional vector space are equivalent we find a constant 0 < c ≤ 1 such
that the assumption (1) in Lemma 17.3 is satisfied. It follows that p ⊗ q(u) ≥
c · max p(vj ) · q(wj ) > 0.
j
iii. Abbreviate po := p|Vo and qo := q|Wo and let u ∈ Vo ⊗K Wo . For trivial

reasons we have p⊗q(u) ≤ po ⊗qo (u). To establish equality we then may assume
that Vo is finite dimensional. We again use the construction in the proof of Prop.
10.4 to find, given any constant 0 < d < 1, a basis f1 , . . . , fn of Vo such that
p(a1 f1 + . . . + an fn ) ≥ d · max |ak | · p(fk ) for any a1 , . . . , an ∈ K .

1≤k≤n
Writing u = f1 ⊗ w1 + . . . + fn ⊗ wn with wk ∈ Wo we now deduce from Lemma

17.3 that
p ⊗ q(u) ≥ d · max p(fk ) · q(wk ) = d · max po (fk ) · qo (wk ) ≥ d · po ⊗ qo (u) .

k k
Since d < 1 was arbitrary it follows that p ⊗ q(u) ≥ po ⊗ qo (u).
Corollary 17.5:
i. With V and W also V ⊗K,ι W and V ⊗K,π W are Hausdorff;
ii. if Vo ⊆ V and Wo ⊆ W are vector subspaces equipped with the subspace
topology then the projective tensor product topology on Vo ⊗K Wo coincides with
the subspace topology induced from V ⊗K,π W ;
iii. given any vector vo ∈ V , resp. wo ∈ W , not in the closure of {0} the
linear maps vo ⊗ . : W → V ⊗K,ι W and vo ⊗ . : W → V ⊗K,π W , resp.
. ⊗ wo : V → V ⊗K,ι W and . ⊗ wo : V → V ⊗K,π W , are homeomorphisms onto
their image.
Proof: The assertion ii. is an immediate consequence of Prop. 17.4.iii. To see
i. suppose that V and W are Hausdorff and let u ∈ V ⊗K,π W be a nonzero
vector. We find finite dimensional vector subspaces Vo ⊆ V and Wo ⊆ W
such that u ∈ Vo ⊗K Wo and continuous seminorms p on V and q on W such
113
that p|Vo and q|Wo are norms. It then follows from Prop. 17.4.ii and iii that
p ⊗ q|Vo ⊗K Wo is a norm so that p ⊗ q(u) 6= 0. According to Lemma 4.6 this
shows that V ⊗K,π W and a fortiori V ⊗K,ι W are Hausdorff. For iii. it suffices,
by symmetry, to consider the maps . ⊗ wo . Moreover, it suffices to treat the case
of the projective tensor product. By Prop. 17.4.i the tensor product seminorm
p ⊗ q on V ⊗K W pulls back via . ⊗ wo to the seminorm q(wo ) · p on V . If
q(wo ) 6= 0 the latter is equivalent to p. But our assumption on wo guarantees,
by Lemma 4.6, that there exists at least one continuous seminorm q on W such
that q(wo ) 6= 0.
We remark that, as a consequence of their universal properties, both tensor

products V ⊗K,ι W and V ⊗K,π W obviously are functorial: Given any continuous
linear maps f : V1 −→ V2 and g : W1 −→ W2 the tensor product maps f ⊗ g :
V1 ⊗K,ι W1 −→ V2 ⊗K,ι W2 and f ⊗g : V1 ⊗K,π W1 −→ V2 ⊗K,π W2 are continuous.
There is one important situation in which the inductive and the projective tensor
product topology coincide.
Proposition 17.6:
If V and W are Fréchet spaces then V ⊗K,ι W = V ⊗K,π W .
Proof: By the universal properties it suffices to show that any separately con-
tinuous bilinear map β : V × W −→ U into any third locally convex K-vector
space U already is continuous. Suppose therefore that β is separately continu-
ous but not continuous. By Lemma 17.1 and the metrizability of V and W the
latter means that we find an open lattice N ⊆ U and a sequence (vn , wn )n∈IN
in V × W converging to zero such that β(vn , wn ) 6∈ N for any n ∈ IN. We now
look at the set of linear maps H := {β(., wn ) : n ∈ IN} ⊆ L(V, U ). Since β is
separately continuous and (wn )n as a sequence converging to zero is bounded
in W (Lemma 7.10) this set H is bounded in Ls (V, U ). Because V as a Fréchet
space is barrelled the Banach-Steinhaus theorem Prop. 6.15 then tells us that H
is equicontinuous. Hence there is an open lattice L ⊆ V such that β(L, wn ) ⊆ N
for any n ∈ IN. The sequence (vn )n converging to zero we find, on the other hand,
an n0 ∈ IN such that vn ∈ L for any n ≥ n0 . This leads to the contradiction
that β(vn , wn ) ∈ N for any n ≥ n0 .
Let V ⊗b K,π W denote the Hausdorff completion of the projective tensor product
V ⊗K,π W . If the topologies on V and W can be defined by countably many
lattices then the same holds true, by construction, for V ⊗K,π W and then,
by Remark 7.4.ii, for V ⊗b K,π W . Hence Prop. 8.1 implies that the completed
projective tensor product V ⊗b K,π W of two Fréchet spaces V and W again is a
Fréchet space. On the other hand it follows directly from Prop. 17.4.ii that
V⊗b K,π W for two Banach spaces V and W again is a Banach space.
114
If the field K is spherically complete there is a remarkable formula for the tensor
product of two gauge seminorms in terms of linear forms. To put this into
perspective we first make the following simple observations. For convenience we
use the notion of the pseudo-polar even though the locally convex vector spaces
under consideration are not assumed to be Hausdorff.
Remark 17.7:
i. For any seminorm p on V the pseudo-polar of the lattice L− (p) satisfies
L− (p)p = {ℓ ∈ V ′ : |ℓ(v)| ≤ p(v) f or any v ∈ V };
ii. if K is spherically complete the gauge seminorm of any open lattice L ⊆ V

satisfies
pL (v) = sup{|ℓ(v)| : ℓ ∈ L− (pL )p } for any v ∈ V .
Proof: i. For ℓ in the right hand side and v ∈ L− (p) we have |ℓ(v)| ≤ p(v) < 1.
Suppose, vice versa, that |ℓ(vo )| < 1 provided p(vo ) < 1. If p(v) < |ℓ(v)| for
some v ∈ V we put vo := ℓ(v)−1 v obtaining p(vo ) < 1. This leads to the
contradiction that |1| = |ℓ(vo )| < 1. ii. It follows from i. that |ℓ(v)| ≤ pL (v)
for any ℓ ∈ L− (pL )p . On the other hand consider any fixed vector v ∈ V and
choose any a ∈ K such that |a| ≤ pL (v). By the Hahn-Banach theorem Prop.
9.2 we find a linear form ℓ ∈ V ′ such that ℓ(v) = a and |ℓ(vo )| ≤ pL (vo ) for
any vo ∈ V . The latter means, by i., that ℓ ∈ L− (pL )p . We conclude that
sup{|ℓ(v)| : ℓ ∈ L− (pL )p } ≥ sup{|a| : |a| ≤ pL (v)} = pL (v).
Using Lemma 17.2 we obtain from Remark 17.7.ii, provided K is spherically

complete, the formula
pL ⊗ pM (u) = sup{|λ(u)| : λ ∈ L− (pL ⊗ pM )p } for any u ∈ V ⊗K,π W .
It will turn out that the pseudo-polar on the right hand side can be replaced
by a much smaller o-module. It is immediate from Lemma 17.1 that for any
two linear forms ℓ ∈ V ′ and m ∈ W ′ the tensor product linear form ℓ ⊗ m on
V ⊗K W characterized by ℓ ⊗ m(v ⊗ w) = ℓ(v) · m(w) is continuous for the
projective tensor product topology. We always view the resulting map
V ′ ⊗K W ′ −→ (V ⊗K,π W )′
as an inclusion.
Proposition 17.8:
115
Suppose that K is spherically complete and let L ⊆ V and M ⊆ W be open
lattices; we then have
pL ⊗ pM (u) = sup{|ℓ ⊗ m(u)| : ℓ ∈ L− (pL )p , m ∈ L− (pM )p }
for any u ∈ V ⊗K W .
Proof: We abbreviate
P the right hand side of the asserted identity by ǫL,M (u).
Whenever u = i vi ⊗ wi we have
P
ǫL,M (u) = sup{| i ℓ(vi ) · m(wi )| : ℓ ∈ L− (pL )p , m ∈ L− (pM )p }
≤ max sup{|ℓ(vi )| · |m(wi )| : ℓ ∈ L− (pL )p , m ∈ L− (pM )p }

i
≤ max pL (vi ) · pM (wi )

i
where the last inequality comes from Remark 17.7.i. This shows that ǫL,M (u) ≤
pL ⊗ pM (u).
To establish the reverse inequality we choose finite dimensional vector subspaces
Vo ⊆ V and Wo ⊆ W such that u ∈ Vo ⊗K Wo . We also choose (by the
construction in the proof of Prop. 10.4), given any c ∈ K such that 0 < |c| < 1,
bases e1 , . . . , er of Vo and f1 , . . . , fs of Wo such that
pL (a1 e1 + . . . + ar er ) ≥ |c| · max |ai | · pL (ei ) and

i
pM (b1 f1 + . . . + bs fs ) ≥ |c| · max |bj | · pM (fj )
j
P
for any ai , bj ∈ K. Write u = i,j aij ei ⊗ fj . By renumbering we may assume
that
|a11 | · pL (e1 ) · pM (f1 ) = max |aij | · pL (ei ) · pM (fj ) ≥ pL ⊗ pM (u) .

i,j
Now choose a, bP∈ K such that |a| ≤ pL (e1 ) and P |b| ≤ pM (f1 ) and define the
linear forms ℓo ( i ai ei ) := a1 ac on Vo and mo ( j bj fj ) := b1 bc on Wo . Since
X X
|ℓo ( ai ei )| = |a1 ac| ≤ |c| · |a1 | · pL (e1 ) ≤ pL ( ai ei )
i i
and similarly |mo | ≤ pM |Wo we may apply the Hahn-Banach theorem Prop. 9.2
to extend ℓo , resp. mo , to a linear form ℓ ∈ L− (pL )p , resp. m ∈ L− (pM )p . We
have
|ℓ ⊗ m(u)| = |a11 | · |abc2 | .
If the valuation of K is dense then by varying a, b, c it follows that
ǫL,M (u) ≥ |a11 | · pL (e1 ) · pM (f1 ) ≥ pL ⊗ pM (u) .
116
If the valuation of K is discrete then the above argument in fact goes through
with c = 1 (apply Remark 10.2 to the quotient space of Vo , resp. Wo , on which
pL , resp. pM , becomes a norm) and a and b can be chosen in such a way that
|a| = pL (e1 ) and |b| = pM (f1 ). We therefore obtain ǫL,M (u) ≥ pL ⊗ pM (u) in
this case as well.
This result has the following technical consequence which will be used later on.
Corollary 17.9:
Suppose that K is spherically complete and that the families of lattices (Li )i∈I
and (Mj )j∈J define the locally convex topologies on V and W , respectively; then
the locally convex topology on V ⊗K,π W is defined by the family of seminorms
ǫi,j (u) := sup{|ℓ ⊗ m(u)| : ℓ ∈ Lpi , m ∈ Mjp } for i ∈ I, j ∈ J .
Proof: According to Prop. 4.4 the projective tensor product topology is defined
by the seminorms pLi ⊗ pMj for i ∈ I and j ∈ J. Fix a scalar a ∈ K such that
|a| > 1. By Lemma 2.2.i we have L− (pLi ) ⊆ Li ⊆ L− (paLi ) and similarly for
Mj . It now follows from Prop. 17.8 that
paLi ⊗ paMj ≤ ǫi,j ≤ pLi ⊗ pMj .
On a conceptual level we have the following consequence for the structure of

equicontinuous subsets in the dual of the projective tensor product.
Proposition 17.10:
Suppose that K is spherically complete; for a subset H ⊆ (V ⊗K,π W )′ the
following assertions are equivalent:
ii. there are open lattices Lo ⊆ V and Mo ⊆ W such that H is contained in the
closure of Lpo ⊗o Mop in (V ⊗K,π W )′s .
Proof: By dividing out the closures of {0} we may assume that V and W and
hence, by Cor. 17.5.i, also V ⊗K,π W are Hausdorff. It is clear from the proof
of Lemma 17.1 that Lpo ⊗o Mop is equicontinuous. According to Cor. 6.11 this
property is preserved by passing to the weak closure. This settles the implication
from ii. to i. Let us therefore assume, vice versa, that H is equicontinuous, By
Lemma 13.6 there is an open lattice N ⊆ V ⊗K,π W such that H ⊆ N p and
by the construction of the projective tensor product topology we may assume
117
that N is of the form N = L(pL ⊗ pM ) for appropriate open lattices L ⊆ V and
M ⊆ W . Put Lo := L− (pL ) and Mo := L− (pM ). Prop. 17.8 implies that
L(pL ⊗ pM ) = {u ∈ V ⊗K,π W : |ℓ ⊗ m(u)| ≤ 1 for any ℓ ∈ Lpo , m ∈ Mop } .
It follows in particular that
(Lpo ⊗o Mop )p ⊆ L(pL ⊗ pM ) = N
and hence that

H ⊆ N p ⊆ (Lpo ⊗o Mop )pp .
It remains to apply Prop. 13.4 to identify the pseudo-polar on the right hand
side with the weak closure.
Example:
Let X be any compact topological space and let V be a complete Hausdorff
locally convex K-vector space. We put
C(X, V ) := K-vector space of all V -valued continuous functions on X .
If L runs through all open lattices in V then the
C(X, L) := {φ ∈ C(X, V ) : φ(X) ⊆ L}
constitute a family of lattices in C(X, V ) which satisfies the conditions (lc1) and
(lc2). We equip C(X, V ) with the corresponding locally convex topology. It can
alternatively be defined by the seminorms
pX (φ) := sup p(φ(x))

x∈X
where p runs through all continuous seminorms on V . It is obvious that with V

also C(X, V ) is Hausdorff.
1) C(X, V ) is complete.
Proof: Let (φi )i∈I be a Cauchy net in C(X, V ). Then (φi (x))i , for any x ∈ X, is
a Cauchy net in V and hence converges to a unique vector φ(x) ∈ V . Given any
open lattice L ⊆ V we find an i ∈ I such that φj − φk ∈ C(X, L) for j, k ≥ i.
Hence φj (x) − φk (x) ∈ L and, in the limit, φ(x) ∈ φk (x) + L for any k ≥ i and
any x ∈ X. It easily follows that φ is continuous and that φ − φk ∈ C(X, L) for
k ≥ i.
Clearly the linear map
Θ : C(X, K) ⊗K V −→ C(X, V )
Pr Pr
i=1 ψi ⊗ vi 7−→ [x 7→ i=1 ψi (x) · vi ]
118
is injective with image all functions whose image is contained in a finite dimen-
sional vector subspace of V .
2) Θ(C(X, K) ⊗K V ) is dense in C(X, V ).
Proof: Let φ ∈ C(X, V ) and let L ⊆ V be an open lattice. Since X is compact
and V /L is discrete the image φ(X) meets only finitely many cosets of L in V .
. .
This means that we find a finite disjoint open covering X = U1 ∪ . . . ∪ Um such
that
φ(Uj ) ⊆ φ(xj ) + L for some (or any) xj ∈ Uj .
Let χj ∈ C(X, K) denote the characteristic function of the open and closed
subset Uj . Then
m
X
φ − Θ( χj ⊗ φ(xj )) ∈ C(X, L) .
i=1
3) If K is spherically complete then the topology induced via Θ by C(X, V ) on

C(X, K) ⊗K V is the projective tensor product topology.
Proof: Let k k = pC(X,o) denote the sup-norm on the Banach space C(X, K).
For any x ∈ X let δx ∈ C(X, K)′ denote the Dirac measure δx (ψ) := ψ(x). The
pseudo-polar L− (k k)p is the closure in C(X, K)′s of the o-submodule generated
by the δx for x ∈ X. Let L ⊆ V be any open lattice. Using Prop. 17.8 and
Remark 17.7.ii we compute
P P
k k ⊗ pL ( i ψi ⊗ vi ) = sup{| i δ(ψi ) · ℓ(vi )| : δ ∈ L− (k k)p , ℓ ∈ L− (pL )p }
P
= sup{| i ψi (x) · ℓ(vi )| : x ∈ X, ℓ ∈ L− (pL )p }
P
= sup{|ℓ(Θ( i ψi ⊗ vi )(x))| : x ∈ X, ℓ ∈ L− (pL )p }
P
= sup pL (Θ( i ψi ⊗ vi )(x))
x∈X
P
= (pL )X (Θ( i ψi ⊗ vi )) .
Using Lemma 7.3 we altogether obtain, assuming always that K is spherically

complete, that Θ extends to an isomorphism of locally convex K-vector spaces
= ∼
b K,π V −→
C(X, K) ⊗ C(X, V ) .
In particular, if Y is a second compact topological space we have
= ∼
b K,π C(Y, V ) −→
C(X, K) ⊗ C(X, C(Y, V )) .
119
It is a general fact from topology ([B-GT] Chap.X §3.4 Cor.2) that
C(X, C(Y, V )) ∼
= C(X × Y, V ) .
The map ψ ⊗ φ 7−→ [(x, y) 7→ ψ(x) · φ(y)] therefore extends to an isomorphism

of locally convex K-vector spaces
= ∼
b K,π C(Y, V ) −→
C(X, K) ⊗ C(X × Y, V ) .
By using the one-point compactification one immediately deduces the isomor-

phism of K-Banach spaces
= ∼
b K,π co (Y ) −→
co (X) ⊗ co (X × Y )
for any two (discrete) sets X and Y .
§18 Completely continuous maps
For the rest of this chapter we again assume that the field K is spherically
complete and that all occurring locally convex K-vector spaces are Hausdorff.
For any two locally convex K-vector spaces V and W the linear map
T : V ′ ⊗K W −→ L(V, W )
Pr Pr
i=1 ℓi ⊗ wi 7−→ [v 7→ i=1 ℓi (v) · wi ]
obviously is injective. Its image is the subspace of all finite rank operators, i.e., of
those continuous linear maps f : V −→ W for which f (V ) is finite dimensional.
We let
CC(V, W ) := closure of T (V ′ ⊗K W ) in Lb (V, W )
viewed as a locally convex vector subspace of Lb (V, W ). The f ∈ CC(V, W ) are
called completely continuous maps.
Let g : Vo −→ V and h : W −→ Wo be continuous linear maps between locally
convex K-vector spaces. Clearly for any finite rank operator f ∈ L(V, W ) the
composite h◦f ◦g is of finite rank, too. On the other hand, if Bo ⊆ Vo is bounded
then g(Bo ) is bounded as well so that L(g(Bo), M ) ◦ g ⊆ L(Bo , M ) for any open
lattice M ⊆ W . Equally obvious is the fact that h ◦ L(B, h−1 (Mo )) ⊆ L(B, Mo )
for any bounded set B ⊆ V and any open lattice Mo ⊆ Wo . This shows that
the maps
.◦g h◦.
Lb (V, W ) −→ Lb (Vo , W ) and Lb (V, W ) −→ Lb (V, Wo )
120
are continuous. Both these facts together imply that
h ◦ CC(V, W ) ◦ g ⊆ CC(Vo , Wo ) .
Lemma 18.1:
The map T : Vb′ ⊗K,π W −→ Lb (V, W ) is a homeomorphism onto its image.
Proof: Let B ⊆ V run over all bounded o-submodules. Then the pseudo-polars
B p ⊆ V ′ form a defining family of open lattices for the locally convex topology
on Vb′ . Let M ⊆ W run over all open lattices. By Cor. 17.9 the locally convex
topology on Vb′ ⊗K,π W is defined by the seminorms
X X
ǫ(B,M ) ( ℓi ⊗ wi ) := sup{| λ(ℓi ) · m(wi )| : λ ∈ (B p )p , m ∈ L− (pM )p } .
i i
We have to understand the iterated pseudo-polar (B p )p ⊆ (Vb′ )′s . It contains the

image B e of B under the duality map V −→ (V ′ )′s . It is straightforward to see,
b
making the identification ((Vb′ )′s )′s = (Vb′ )s , that we have B e p = B p . Using Prop.
e pp is the closure of B
13.4 it follows that (B p )p = B e in (V ′ )′ . In other words, via
b s
the duality map B is dense in (B p )p ⊆ (Vb′ )′s . The definition of ǫ(B,M ) therefore
simplifies to
P P
ǫ(B,M ) ( i ℓi ⊗ wi ) = sup{| i ℓi (v) · m(wi )| : v ∈ B, m ∈ L− (pM )p }
P
= sup{|m( i ℓi (v) · wi )| : v ∈ B, m ∈ L− (pM )p }
which by Remark 17.7.ii is equal to

X X
sup pM (T ( ℓi ⊗ wi )(v)) = (pM )B (T ( ℓi ⊗ wi )) .
v∈B i i
It remains to recall that by the construction of the strong topology on Lb (V, W )

the (pM )B form a defining family of seminorms.
Proposition 18.2:
If Lb (V, W ) is complete then T extends to an isomorphism of locally convex
K-vector spaces
∼
=
Vb′ ⊗
b K,π W −→ CC(V, W ) .
Proof: In view of Lemma 7.3 this is an immediate consequence of Lemma 18.1.
121
We remark that according to Prop. 7.16 the assumption in the above proposition
is satisfied if V is bornological and W is complete.
Lemma 18.3:
For any f ∈ CC(V, W ) and any bounded o-submodule B ⊆ V the image f (B) is
compactoid.
Proof: Let M ⊆ W be an open lattice and let (fi )i∈I be a net of finite rank
operators converging to f in Lb (V, W ). We find a j ∈ I such that
(f − fi )(B) ⊆ M for any i ≥ j .
Since a finite rank operator obviously has the asserted property we also find
finitely many w1 , . . . , wm ∈ W such that
fj (B) ⊆ ow1 + . . . owm + M .
It follows that
f (B) ⊆ (f − fj )(B) + fj (B) ⊆ ow1 + . . . + owm + M .
This proves that f (M ) is compactoid.
We will see that the property in this lemma in fact characterizes completely
continuous operators. For this we first have to establish the so called approxi-
mation property. If B denotes the family of all compactoid o-submodules in V
we put
Lc (V, W ) := LB (V, W ) .
Proposition 18.4: (Approximation property)

T (V ′ ⊗K W ) is dense in Lc (V, W ).
Proof: We first reduce the assertion to the case V = W . Consider an arbitrary
f ◦.
f ∈ L(V, W ). The map Lc (V, V ) −→ Lc (V, W ) obviously is continuous and maps
T (V ′ ⊗K V ) into T (V ′ ⊗K W ). If the former is dense then the closure of the latter
contains the image of the map and hence in particular the element f . Exactly
the same argument shows that it suffices in fact to prove that the identity map
idV on V lies in the closure of T (V ′ ⊗K V ) in Lc (V, V ). This means we have
to establish the following: Given any compactoid o-submodule A ⊆ V and any
open lattice L ⊆ V there is a finite rank operator f ∈ T (V ′ ⊗K V ) such that
idV − f ∈ L(A, L). We proceed by going through several cases of increasing
generality.
122
Case 1: V is a Banach space isomorphic to co (IN).
We recall that co (IN) is the Banach space of all zero sequences (an )n∈IN in K
with the norm k(an )n k∞ = max |an |. Consider, for any m ∈ IN, the finite rank
n
operator
fm : co (IN) −→ co (IN)
(an )n 7−→ (a1 , . . . , am , 0, . . .) .
Its operator norm is ≤ 1. Hence there is an open lattice M ⊆ L such that

fm (M ) ⊆ L for any m ∈ IN. Moreover, the sequence (fm )m clearly converges
pointwise to the identity map. The o-submodule A being compactoid we find
finitely many vectors v1 , . . . , vr ∈ co (IN) such that
A ⊆ ov1 + . . . + ovr + M .
Choose now an mo ∈ IN such that
vi − fm (vi ) ∈ L for any m ≥ mo and 1 ≤ i ≤ r .
Then idco (IN) − fm ∈ L(A, L) for any m ≥ mo .

Case 2: V is an arbitrary Banach space.
Fix an a ∈ K such that 0 < |a| < 1. Since A is compactoid there is, for any
n ∈ IN, a finite dimensional vector subspace Un ⊆ V such that
A ⊆ Un + B|a|n (0) .
P
Then A is contained in the closure U of n Un and is compactoid in U . The
Banach space U either is finite dimensional or, by Prop. 10.4, is isomorphic to
co (IN) in which case we may apply Case 1 to it. We obtain a finite rank operator
g ∈ T (U ′ ⊗K U ) such that idU − g ∈ L(A, U ∩ L). As a consequence of the
Hahn-Banach theorem Cor. 9.4 the map g extends to a finite rank operator
f ∈ T (V ′ ⊗K V ) ( with the same image) which then of course satisfies idV − f ∈
L(A, L).
Case 3: V is a normed vector space.
The completion Vb of V is a Banach space and A can be viewed as a compactoid

o-submodule of Vb (Lemma 12.4.v). Applying Case 2 we obtain a finite rank
operator fb ∈ T (Vb ′ ⊗K Vb ) such that idVb − fb ∈ L(A, L)
b where L
b denotes the
closure of L in Vb . Write
fb |V = ℓ1 w1 + . . . + ℓr wr with ℓi ∈ V ′ and wi ∈ Vb
123
and choose an a ∈ K × such that |ℓi (v)| ≤ |a| for any v ∈ A and any 1 ≤ i ≤ r.
b The finite
For each 1 ≤ i ≤ r there is a vector vi ∈ V such that vi − wi ∈ a−1 L.
rank operator f := ℓ1 v1 + . . . + ℓr vr on V then satisfies
f (v) = ℓ1 (v)(v1 − w1 ) + . . . + ℓr (v)(vr − wr ) + fb(v)
∈ b + L)
(a(a−1 L) b ∩V =L
b∩V =L
for any v ∈ A where the last identity follows from Remark 7.4.ii.
Case 4: V is arbitrary.
T
Put U := a∈K × aL and W := V /U . Equipped with the locally convex topology
defined by the family of lattices (aL/U )a∈K × the vector space W is normed
(w.r.t. the gauge of L/U ). The canonical surjection τ : V −→ → W is continuous
so that τ (A) is compactoid in W (Lemma 12.4.v). Applying Case 3 we find a
finite rank operator f ∈ T (W ′ ⊗K W ) such that idW − f ∈ L(τ (A), L/U ). By
lifting a basis of the image of f to V one easily constructs a finite rank operator
f ∈ T (V ′ ⊗K V ) such that τ ◦ f = f ◦ τ . For v ∈ A we compute
τ (v − f (v)) = τ (v) − f (τ (v)) ∈ L/U and hence v − f (v) ∈ L .
Corollary 18.5:
For f ∈ L(V, W ) the following assertions are equivalent:
i. f is completely continuous;
ii. f (B) is compactoid for any bounded o-submodule B ⊆ V .
Proof: We have seen the implication from i. to ii. already in Lemma 18.3. Let
us therefore assume that ii. holds true. Given a bounded o-submodule B ⊆ V
and an open lattice M ⊆ W we have to find a finite rank operator g ∈ L(V, W )
such that (f − g)(B) ⊆ M . But f (B), by assumption, is compactoid. By the
approximation property we therefore find a finite rank operator ge : W −→ W
such that
idW − e
g ∈ L(f (B), M ) , i.e., (idW − ge)(f (B)) ⊆ M .
g ◦ f then has the wanted properties.

The composite g := e
Proposition 18.6:
If V is semi-reflexive then CC(V, W ) = Lb (V, W ) = Lc (V, W ).
Proof: According to Prop. 15.3 in a semi-reflexive V any closed bounded
o-submodule is c-compact and by Prop. 12.7 therefore compactoid. Hence
124
(Lemma 12.4.iii) any bounded o-submodule of V is compactoid and conse-
quently Lc (V, W ) = Lb (V, W ). The approximation property of Prop. 18.4
then implies that CC(V, W ) = Lc (V, W ).
Remark 18.7:
If W is semi-reflexive then CC(V, W ) = Lb (V, W ).
Proof: Let f ∈ L(V, W ) and let B ⊆ V be a bounded o-submodule. Then f (B)
is bounded in W . Since W is semi-reflexive it follows by the same argument as
in the proof of Prop. 18.6 that f (B) is compactoid. Hence f ∈ CC(V, W ) by
Cor. 18.5.
Corollary 18.8:
If V is bornological and W is complete and if either V or W is semi-reflexive
b K,π W ∼
then Vb′ ⊗ = Lb (V, W ).
Proof: Apply Prop. 18.2, Prop. 18.6, and Remark 18.7.
In §16 we had introduced the notion of a compact map: f ∈ L(V, W ) is compact

if there is an open lattice L ⊆ V such that the closure f (L) is bounded and
c-compact in W . We note that, by Prop. 12.7, f (L) then in particular is
compactoid. We let
C(V, W ) := {f ∈ L(V, W ) : f is compact} .
It is an easy consequence of Cor. 12.3 and Lemma 12.1.iii that C(V, W ) is a

vector subspace of L(V, W ). Since the field K is c-compact we have
T (V ′ ⊗K W ) ⊆ C(V, W ) .
We recall from Remark 16.7 that
h ◦ C(V, W ) ◦ g ⊆ C(Vo , Wo )
for any two continuous linear maps between locally convex K-vector spaces
g : Vo −→ V and h : W −→ Wo .
It was also remarked in §16 that if W is quasi-complete then f ∈ L(V, W )
is compact if and only if there is an open lattice L ⊆ V such that f (L) is
compactoid.
Lemma 18.9:
C(V, W ) ⊆ CC(V, W ).
125
Proof: Apply Remark 16.3, Prop. 12.7, and Cor. 18.5.
Remark 18.10:
i. If V is a Banach space and W is quasi-complete then C(V, W ) = CC(V, W );
ii. if V is a Banach space and W is semi-reflexive then C(V, W ) = L(V, W ).
Proof: i. This is immediate from the fact that a Banach space contains a
bounded open lattice. ii. According to Prop. 15.3 the semi-reflexive vector
space W is quasi-complete. The assertion therefore follows from i. and Remark
18.7.
Proposition 18.11:
If V is a Banach space and W is complete then
b K,π W ∼
Vb′ ⊗ = C(V, W ) = CC(V, W ) .
Proof: As a Banach space V is bornological. We therefore may apply Prop. 18.2

and Remark 18.10.i.
Lemma 18.12:
Suppose that f : V0 −→ W0 and g : V1 −→ W1 are continuous linear maps
b K,π V1 −→
between K-Banach spaces; if f and g are compact then f ⊗ g : V0 ⊗
b
W0 ⊗K,π W1 is compact.
Proof: Since the tensor product of two finite rank operators again is a finite
rank operator we have the commutative diagram
(V0′ ⊗K W0 ) × (V1′ ⊗K W1 ) b K,π V1 )′ ⊗K (W0 ⊗

−→ (V0 ⊗ b K,π W1 )
 
T × Ty yT
⊗
Lb (V0 , W0 ) × Lb (V1 , W1 ) −→ Lb (V0 ⊗ b K,π W1 ) .
b K,π V1 , W0 ⊗
By assumption (f, g) lies in the closure of the image of the left vertical arrow.
If we show that the lower horizontal arrow is continuous then it follows that
b K,π V1 , W0 ⊗
f ⊗ g lies in the closure CC(V0 ⊗ b K,π W1 ) of the image of the right
vertical arrow. Hence f ⊗ g is compact by Prop. 18.11. In order to establish the
asserted continuity we compute the operator norm (compare §3) of the tensor
product map. Note that all spaces involved are Banach spaces. For simplicity
126
we will use k k to denote all occurring norms. Letting u run over all vectors in
V0 ⊗K V1 and using Prop. 17.4.i we have
P P
kf ⊗ gk = sup kuk−1 · inf{k i f (vi0 ) ⊗ g(vi1 )k : u = i vi0 ⊗ vi1 }
u6=0
P
≤ sup kuk−1 · inf{max kf (vi0 ) ⊗ g(vi1 )k : u = i vi0 ⊗ vi1 }
u6=0 i
P
= sup kuk−1 · inf{max kf (vi0 )k · kg(vi1 )k : u = i vi0 ⊗ vi1 }
u6=0 i
P
≤ kf k · kgk · sup kuk−1 · inf{max kvi0 k · kvi1 k : u = i vi0 ⊗ vi1 }
u6=0 i
= kf k · kgk · sup kuk−1 · kuk

u6=0
= kf k · kgk .
We therefore may apply Lemma 17.1 to conclude that the bilinear map in ques-
tion is continuous.
§19 Nuclear spaces
At this point we introduce a tool which provides a systematic means of studying

a general locally convex K-vector space through auxiliary Banach spaces. Before
Lemma 7.17 we had introduced, for any o-submodule A ⊆ V , the vector subspace
VA of V generated by A and equipped with the locally convex topology defined
by the gauge pA of A ⊆ VA (or equivalently by the family of lattices bA for
⊆
b ∈ K × ). The inclusion map VA −→ V is continuous if and only if A is bounded.
Let
Vc
A := Hausdorff completion of VA .
This is a K-Banach space with respect to the continuous extension of pA which

we again denote by pA . If A is bounded and closed and V is quasi-complete
then VA = VcA.
Suppose now that A = L is an open lattice in V . The identity map on V then

can be viewed as a continuous map V −→ VL and hence gives rise to a canonical
continuous linear map with dense image
V −→ Vc
L .
The kernel of this latter map is equal to
ker(pL ) := {v ∈ V : pL (v) = 0} = {v ∈ V : Kv ⊆ L} .
The family of K-Banach spaces (Vc

L )L has the following universal property: Let
f : V −→ W be a continuous linear map into some K-Banach space W . If
127
L ⊆ V denotes the preimage of ”the” unit ball in W then, by the universal
property of the completion (Prop. 7.5), f extends to a continuous linear map
fL : Vc
L −→ W such that the triangle
c
~? VL AA
~~ AAfL
~ AA
~~ AA
~ f
V /W
is commutative. Note that, as a locally convex vector space, Vc L is uniquely

determined by f ; a different choice of unit ball in W leads to a different but
equivalent norm on the same vector space Vc L.
Whenever M ⊆ L is a second open lattice then the identity map on V can be

viewed as a continuous linear map VM −→ VL . By the universal property of the
completion it extends to a canonical continuous linear map
d
V c
M −→ VL .
Definition:
A locally convex K-vector space V is called nuclear if for any open lattice L ⊆ V
there exists another open lattice M ⊆ L such that the canonical map V d M −→ VL
c
is compact.
Clearly any finite dimensional V is nuclear. On the other hand, if V is a nuclear

Banach space then the identity map on V is compact. Hence some open lattice in
V is c-compact. We claim that this forces V to be finite dimensional. Otherwise
it would contain, according to Prop. 10.4, a closed vector subspace topologically
isomorphic to co (IN). It would follow that the unit ball B1 (0) in co (IN) is c-
compact and a fortiori that the k-vector space B1 (0)/B1− (0) is linearly compact.
But this is easily seen to contradict the fact that this vector space is of countably
infinite dimension.
Remark 19.1:
Vs , for any locally convex K-vector space V , is nuclear.
d
Proof: This immediately follows from the fact that (Vs )L is finite dimensional
for any open lattice L ⊆ Vs .
We now are able to understand the deeper reason for the validity of Remark
12.9.
128
Proposition 19.2:
Suppose that V is nuclear; then an o-submodule B ⊆ V is compactoid if and
only if it is bounded.
Proof: We know from Lemma 12.4.i that, quite generally, compactoid submod-
ules are bounded. Let us assume therefore that B is bounded. Fix an open
lattice L ⊆ V and choose an open lattice M ⊆ L such that the canonical map
d
V c
M −→ VL is compact. It then follows from Lemma 18.3 that the image of
B in the normed vector space (V /ker(pL ), pL ) is compactoid. Hence there exist
v1 , . . . , vm ∈ V such that B ⊆ ov1 +. . .+ovm +L+ker(pL ) = ov1 +. . .+ovm +L.
Since L was fixed but arbitrary this proves that B is compactoid.
Corollary 19.3:
i. If V is quasi-complete and nuclear then it is semi-reflexive;
ii. any nuclear Fréchet space V is reflexive.
Proof: i. Let B ⊆ V be any closed and bounded o-submodule. Since V is
quasi-complete B is complete. Moreover, by Prop. 19.2, B also is compactoid.
It then follows from Prop. 12.7 that B is c-compact. This implies, according to
Prop. 15.3, that V is semi-reflexive. ii. As a Fréchet space V is complete and
barrelled. Hence it is semi-reflexive (by i.) and barrelled. According to Prop.
15.5 this means that V is reflexive.
Proposition 19.4:
If V is nuclear then we have:
i. Any vector subspace U ⊆ V with the subspace topology is nuclear;
ii. V /U , for any closed vector subspace U ⊆ V , is nuclear with respect to the
quotient topology.
Proof: i. Let Lo ⊆ U be an open lattice. We find an open lattice L ⊆ V such
that Lo = U ∩ L and then, by the nuclearity of V , another open lattice M ⊆ L
d
such that the canonical map V c
M −→ VL is compact. Define Mo := U ∩ M . The
inclusion U ⊆ V induces isometries Ud d d c
Mo ֒→ VM and ULo ֒→ VL . The canonical
map Ud d
Mo −→ ULo therefore can be viewed as the restriction of the compact
canonical map Vd c
M −→ VL and as such is compact as well by Remark 16.7.ii.
ii. Let L1 ⊆ V /U be an open lattice. If L ⊆ V denotes the preimage of L1

we find an open lattice M ⊆ L such that the canonical map V d c
M −→ VL is
compact. Let M1 ⊆ V /U be the image of M . One checks that pM1 , resp. pL1 ,
is the quotient seminorm of pL , resp. pM . Using Prop. 8.3 it follows that the
Banach space (V /Ud)M , resp. (V /U
d)L , is a quotient of the Banach space Vd M,
1 1
resp. Vc d d
L . Hence the canonical map (V /U )M1 −→ (V /U )L1 can be viewed as a
129
quotient map of the compact canonical map Vd c
M −→ VL . But it is immediate
from Lemma 12.1.iv that quotient maps of compact maps are compact.
Before we continue giving more permanence properties we provide the following

theoretical criterion.
Proposition 19.5:
i. V is nuclear;
ii. C(V, W ) = L(V, W ) for any K-Banach space W .
Proof: To see the implication from i. to ii. let f ∈ L(V, W ). By the universal
property of the family of Banach spaces (Vc L )L we find an open lattice L ⊆ V
such that f can be factorized into V −→ Vc L −→ W . But by the nuclearity of
V we find another open lattice M ⊆ L such that the canonical map V d
M −→ VL
c
is compact. Hence f factorizes into V −→ V d c
M −→ VL −→ W where the map
in the middle is compact. By Remark 16.7.i the map f then is compact as well.
For the reverse implication let L ⊆ V be an open lattice. By assumption the
canonical map V −→ Vc L is compact. Hence there is an open lattice M ⊆ L such
that the closure of the image of M in VcL is bounded and c-compact. It means
of course that the canonical map VM −→ Vc
d L is compact. Since L was arbitrary
this shows that V is nuclear.
We also need the following technical observation which elaborates on the Exam-
ple after Remark 12.8.
Remark 19.6:
Let W be a Banach space with defining norm k k, and let (An )n∈IN be a sequence
of bounded and c-compact o-submodules in W such that lim sup kAn k = 0; then
n→∞
P
the closed o-submodule n An is bounded and c-compact.
Proof: By the assumption that lim sup kAn k = 0 we have the well defined
n→∞
o-linear map Q
An −→ W
n∈IN
P
(wn )n 7−→ n wn
which is continuous with respect to the direct product topology on the
Q left hand
side. The image clearly is bounded. By Prop. 12.2 the o-module n An is c-
compact in the sense of Lemma 12.1.ii. But this property obviously is inherited
by the image under any continuous o-linear map.
130
Proposition 19.7:
Let (Vi )i∈I be a family of nuclear locally convex K-vector spaces; we then have:
Q
i. i∈I Vi is nuclear;
L
ii. if I is countable then i∈I Vi is nuclear.
Proof: We first treat the locallyLconvex direct sum and we use the criterion in
Prop. 19.5. Let therefore f : i∈I Vi −→ W be any continuous linear map
into a K-Banach space W and denote by fi the restriction of f to the summand
Vi . Then each fi is compact so that we find an open lattice Li ⊆ Vi such
that Ai := fi (Li )Lis bounded and c-compact
L in W . According to Lemma 5.1.iii
the lattice L := i∈I Li is open in i∈I Vi . We certainly can arrange for the
family (Ai )i to satisfy the assumption in Remark 19.6 so that f (L) is bounded
and c-compact. This proves that the map f is compact.
In the direct product case we again use Prop. 19.5. In addition we observe
(compare the reasoning before Prop. 9.11) that any continuous linear map into
a Banach space factorizes over finitely many factors of the direct product. This
reduces us to the case of a finite index set I. But then the direct product
coincides with the locally convex direct sum (Lemma 5.2.ii) which was treated
already.
Corollary 19.8:
Any strict inductive limit of nuclear locally convex K-vector spaces is nuclear.
Proof: This follows from Prop. 19.4.ii and Prop. 19.7.ii since strict inductive
limits are quotients of countable locally convex direct sums.
Proposition 19.9:
Any compact projective or inductive limit of locally convex K-vector spaces (in
the sense of Cor. 16.6 and Prop. 16.10, respectively) is nuclear.
Proof: Consider first the case where V is the projective limit (with the initial
topology) of a sequence of locally convex K-vector spaces
gn
. . . −→ Vn+1 −→ Vn −→ . . . −→ V1
where all the transition maps are compact. As we have discussed before Cor.
16.6 we also may assume that each gn has dense image. Using Prop. 19.5 we
consider any continuous linear map f : V −→ W into a K-Banach space W .
It factorizes into V −→ Vn −→ W for some n ∈ IN and hence into V −→
gn
Vn+1 −→ Vn −→ W . It follows that f is compact.
131
In the other case V is the inductive limit (with the final topology) of a sequence
of locally convex K-vector spaces
ni
V1 −→ . . . −→ Vn −→ Vn+1 −→ . . .
where all transition maps are injective and compact. Let again f : V −→ W be
any continuous linear map into a K-Banach space W and put fn := f |Vn . Since
fn = fn+1 ◦ in each fn is compact. The argument in the proof of Prop. 19.7.ii
shows that the map X M
fn : Vn −→ W
n n
P L
is compact. But n fn is equal to the projection from n Vn onto V followed
by f . Hence f is compact.
Lemma 19.10:
Let L and M be open lattices in the not necessarily Hausdorff locally convex
K-vector spaces V and W , respectively; we then have:
b K,π W = Vb ⊗
i. V ⊗ c;
b K,π W
ii. (V ⊗K,π W )d c b K,π W

L⊗o M = VL ⊗
dM.
Proof: i. Using Lemma 4.6 it is clear that the canonical bijection

∼
=
V ⊗K,π W/({0} ⊗K W + V ⊗K {0}) −→ V /{0} ⊗K,π W/{0}
is an isomorphism of locally convex K-vector spaces. Since the right hand side
is Hausdorff by Cor. 17.5.i we have
{0} ⊆ {0} ⊗K W + V ⊗K {0}
where on the left the closure of {0} in V ⊗K,π W is meant, of course. The
reverse inclusion is a direct consequence of the continuity of the tensor product
map V × W −→ V ⊗K,π W . We therefore have
∼
=
(V ⊗K,π W )/{0} −→ V /{0} ⊗K,π W/{0}
and consequently
= ∼
b K,π W −→
V ⊗ b K,π W/{0} .
V /{0} ⊗
Hence we may assume that V and W are Hausdorff. The continuity of the
tensor product map Vb × Wc −→ Vb ⊗K,π Wc implies that V ⊗K,π W is dense in
Vb ⊗K,π W
c . On the other hand, by Cor. 17.5.ii, the topology on V ⊗K,π W is
the subspace topology from Vb ⊗K,π W
c . Hence both tensor products must have
the same completion.
132
ii. We recall that VL , resp. WM , is the vector space V , resp. W , with the
topology defined by the family of lattices (aL)a∈K × , resp. (aM )a∈K × . Hence
VL ⊗K,π WM is V ⊗K W with the topology defined by the family of lattices
(aL ⊗o M )a∈K × . But this is exactly the locally convex K-vector space V ⊗K,π
W )L⊗o M . In other words we have
VL ⊗K,π WM = (V ⊗K,π M )L⊗o M .
It remains to pass to the completions in this identity and to apply the first
assertion.
Proposition 19.11:
With V and W also V ⊗K,π W is nuclear.
Proof: Let N ⊆ V ⊗K,π W be an open lattice. By the construction of the
projective tensor product topology we find open lattices L ⊆ V and M ⊆ W
such that L ⊗o M ⊆ N . The nuclearity of V and W then implies the existence
of open lattices Lo ⊆ L and Mo ⊆ M such that the canonical maps Vd c
Lo −→ VL
and Wd d
Mo −→ WM are compact. According to Lemma 18.12 and Lemma 19.10.ii
the tensor product of these two maps is compact as well and is the canonical
map
(V ⊗K,π W )Ld
o ⊗o Mo
−→ (V ⊗K,π W )dL⊗o M .
We therefore have found an open lattice No := Lo ⊗o Mo ⊆ N such that the

canonical map (V ⊗K,π W )d c
No −→ (V ⊗K,π W )N is compact.
§20 Nuclear maps
We now introduce a relative version of nuclearity.
Definition:
A continuous linear map f : V −→ W between two locally convex K-vector
f1
spaces V and W is called nuclear if it has a factorization V −→ V1 −→ W1 −→
W into continuous linear maps of which f1 : V1 −→ W1 is a compact map
between K-Banach spaces.
We let
N (V, W ) := {f ∈ L(V, W ) : f is nuclear} .
Since, by Prop. 12.2, a direct sum of two compact maps between Banach spaces
is a compact map between Banach spaces it is clear that N (V, W ) is a vector
subspace of L(V, W ). We also have
T (V ′ ⊗K W ) ⊆ N (V, W ) ⊆ C(V, W ) .
133
For a finite rank operator f one can take f1 to be the identity map on the image
of f ; this shows the first inclusion. The second one is an immediate consequence
of Remark 16.7.i. It follows directly from the definition that
h ◦ N (V, W ) ◦ g ⊆ N (Vo , Wo )
for any two continuous linear maps between locally convex K-vector spaces
g : Vo −→ V and h : W −→ Wo .
There is a more intrinsic characterization of nuclear maps. At the beginning
of the previous section we had introduced the family of Banach spaces (VcL )L ,
for L running over the open lattices in V , which is universal for continuous
linear maps from V into K-Banach spaces. On the other hand, let us look at
the family of normed vector spaces (WB )B for B running over all bounded o-
submodules of W such that WB is complete and hence a Banach space. It is
universal for continuous linear maps from K-Banach spaces into W : Suppose
that g : U −→ W is such a map. If we take for B the image under g of a
bounded open lattice in U then g factorizes into
U −→
→ WB −→ W .
In addition, the first surjective map from U onto WB is open. It therefore follows
from Prop. 8.3 that WB is a Banach space.
f1
If we apply these two universal properties to a factorization V −→ V1 −→ W1 −→
W of the nuclear map f where f1 is a compact map between K-Banach spaces
fe
then we obtain a new factorization V −→ Vc e
L −→ WB −→ W with f again being
compact by Remark 16.7.i. This proves the following criterion.
Remark 20.1:
The map f ∈ L(V, W ) is nuclear if and only if there is an open lattice L ⊆ V and
a bounded o-submodule B ⊆ W for which WB is complete such that f factorizes
through a compact map VcL −→ WB .
Lemma 20.2:
i. If W is a Banach space then N (V, W ) = C(V, W ) for any locally convex
K-vector space V ;
ii. if V and W are Banach spaces then N (V, W ) = CC(V, W );
iii. if V is nuclear and W is a Banach space then N (V, W ) = L(V, W );
iv. if W is nuclear then CC(V, W ) = L(V, W ) for any locally convex K-vector
space V .
134
Proof: i. Let f ∈ C(V, W ). There is an open lattice L ⊆ V such that the closure
of f (L) in W is bounded and c-compact. If M ⊆ W is any open lattice then
we find a b ∈ K × such that f (L) ⊆ bM or equivalently b−1 L ⊆ f −1 (M ). This
shows that f extends to a continuous linear map Vc L −→ W which, of course,
also is compact. Hence f is nuclear. ii. Combine i. and Remark 18.10.i. iii.
Combine i. and Prop. 19.5. iv. Let f ∈ L(V, W ). The image f (B) of any
bounded o-submodule B ⊆ V is bounded in the nuclear space W and hence
is compactoid by Prop. 19.2. According to Cor. 18.5 this means that f is
completely continuous.
Lemma 20.3:
∼
=
Restricting a linear map induces a bijection N (Vb , W ) −→ N (V, W ).
Proof: By the density of V in its completion Vb the map in question is in-
jective. For the surjectivity let f : V −→ W be any nuclear map and let
f1
V −→ V1 −→ W1 −→ W be a factorization of f such that f1 is a compact
map between Banach spaces. By the universal property of the completion
the first map extends to a continuous linear map Vb −→ V1 . The composite
f1
Vb −→ V1 −→ W1 −→ W then is a nuclear map which restricts to f .
Proposition 20.4:
The locally convex K-vector space V is nuclear if and only if its completion Vb
is nuclear.
Proof: This follows from Prop. 19.5, Lemma 20.2.i, and Lemma 20.3.
If we combine this last result with Prop. 19.11 then we see that the completed
projective tensor product V ⊗b K,π W of two nuclear spaces V and W is nuclear.
Lemma 20.5:
If V is metrizable then there exists for any bounded o-submodule A ⊆ V another
bounded o-submodule A ⊆ B ⊆ V such that the topologies induced on A by V
and by VB coincide.
Proof: Let L1 ⊃ . . . ⊃ Ln ⊃ . . . for n ∈ IN be a decreasing sequence of open
lattices in V which define the locally convex topology. Since A is bounded there
is, for any n ∈ IN, a bn ∈ K such that A ⊆ bn Ln . We choose a sequence (cn )n∈IN
in K × such that lim |bn /cn | = 0 and |cn | ≥ |bn | for any n ∈ IN. Then
n→∞
\
B := cn Ln
n∈IN
135
is a bounded o-submodule containing A. To see that B has the asserted property
we have to find, for any given a ∈ K × , an open lattice L ⊆ V such that
A ∩ L ⊆ aB. Letting n(a) ∈ IN be such that |bn /cn | ≤ |a| for n ≥ n(a) we have
A ⊆ bn Ln ⊆ acn Ln for n ≥ n(a) .
Choose now an m ∈ IN such that Lm ⊆ ac1 L1 ∩ . . . ∩ acn(a) Ln(a) . Then

\
A ∩ Lm ⊆ acn Ln = aB .
n∈IN
Lemma 20.6:
If V is metrizable and W is a Banach space then N (Vb′ , W ) = CC(Vb′ , W ); if V
also is reflexive then N (Vb′ , W ) = L(Vb′ , W ).
Proof: Fix a bounded open lattice N ⊆ W and let f ∈ CC(Vb′ , W ). By the
continuity of f we find a closed bounded o-submodule A ⊆ V such that Ap ⊆
f −1 (N ). According to Lemma 20.5 there is another bounded o-submodule A ⊆
B ⊆ V such that for any a ∈ K × there is an open lattice L ⊆ V with A∩L ⊆ aB.
We claim that the image f (M ) of the open lattice M := B p in Vb′ is compactoid
in W . By passing to the pseudo-polars we have
a−1 · B p = (aB)p ⊆ (A ∩ L)p .
By computing in Vs′ , making the identification Vs ∼

= (Vs′ )′s , and using Prop. 13.4
the right hand side becomes
(A ∩ L)p = (App ∩ Lpp )p = (Ap + Lp )pp .
By Lemma 13.1 the pseudo-polar Lp , resp. Ap , is c-compact, resp. closed, in

Vs′ . As a quotient of Lp the submodule (Lp + Ap )/Ap of the linearly topologized
Hausdorff o-module Vs′ /Ap therefore is c-compact in the sense that it has the
property of Lemma 12.1.ii. A straightforward adaption of the proof of Cor. 7.6
implies then that this submodule is closed. Hence Ap + Lp is closed in Vs′ and
applying Prop. 13.4 once more we obtain
M = B p ⊆ a(A ∩ L)p = a(Ap + Lp )pp = aAp + aLp
and consequently
f (M ) ⊆ aN + af (Lp) .
But Lp is equicontinuous and hence bounded in Vb′ and f is completely contin-
uous. According to Cor. 18.5 the image f (Lp ) is compactoid which means in
particular that there are vectors w1 , . . . , wm ∈ W such that
f (Lp ) ⊆ ow1 + . . . + owm + N .
136
It follows that
f (M ) ⊆ oaw1 + . . . + oawm + aN .
Since a ∈ K × was arbitrary this shows that f (M ) is compactoid and hence

that f is compact. Applying finally Lemma 20.2.i we obtain that f is nuclear
as claimed. If V is reflexive then, by Lemma 15.4, the strong dual Vb′ also is
reflexive. The second assertion therefore is a consequence of the first and Prop.
18.6.
Proposition 20.7:
For a Fréchet space V the following assertions are equivalent:
i. V is reflexive;
ii. Vb′ is nuclear.
Proof: Suppose first that V is reflexive. By Lemma 20.6 we have N (Vb′ , W ) =
C(Vb′ , W ) = L(Vb′ , W ) for any K-Banach space W . Hence Prop. 19.5 implies
that Vb′ is nuclear. Now let us assume, vice versa, that Vb′ is nuclear. To see
that V is reflexive it suffices to check, by Prop. 15.3 and Prop. 15.5 (since V is
complete and barrelled), that any bounded o-submodule B ⊆ V is compactoid.
Fix an element a ∈ K such that 0 < |a| < 1. Let L ⊆ V be any open lattice.
The pseudo-polar B p , resp. (aL)p , is an open lattice, resp. an equicontinuous
and hence bounded o-submodule, in Vb′ . It follows from Prop. 19.2 that (aL)p
is compactoid. Hence we find finitely many linear forms ℓ1 , . . . , ℓm ∈ V ′ such
that (aL)p ⊆ oℓ1 + . . . + oℓm + B p . Using Prop. 13.4 we deduce that
Bo := {v ∈ B : |ℓi (v)| < 1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ m} ⊆ (aL)pp = aL .
Since B is bounded we find a nonzero b ∈ o such that bB ⊆ Bo . Hence
B/Bo −→ (b−1 o/m)m
v 7−→ (ℓ1 (v), . . . , ℓm (v))
is an embedding of o-modules where the target is a finitely generated o-module.

In this situation Lemma 12.6 tells us that there are vectors v1 , . . . , vr ∈ B such
that
aB ⊆ ov1 + . . . + ovr + Bo
and hence
B ⊆ oa−1 v1 + . . . + oa−1 vr + a−1 Bo ⊆ oa−1 v1 + . . . + oa−1 vr + L .
Since L was arbitrary this shows that B is compactoid.
137
We note that by Cor. 19.3.ii any nuclear Fréchet space is reflexive and therefore
has a strong dual which is nuclear, too. The Lemma 20.6 has the following dual
counterpart. It could, in fact, be deduced from Lemma 20.6 with the help of
duality considerations. Instead we will give a straightforward direct argument.
Lemma 20.8:
If V is a Banach space and W is a Fréchet space then N (V, W ) = CC(V, W ); if
W also is reflexive then N (V, W ) = L(V, W ).
Proof: Fix a bounded open lattice L ⊆ V and let f ∈ CC(V, W ). Then f (L) is
compactoid. Since W is complete the closure A of f (L) in W is a bounded and
c-compact o-submodule. According to Lemma 20.5 there is another bounded
o-submodule A ⊆ B ⊆ W such that the topologies induced by W and by WB
on A coincide. Hence A is also bounded and c-compact in WB . By replacing
B by its closure we may in fact assume that B is complete so that WB is a
Banach space. The obvious factorization V −→ WB −→ W then shows that f
is nuclear. The second assertion follows by taking Remark 18.10.ii into account.
The following result together with Prop. 20.7 will enable us to understand the
bounded subsets in the completed projective tensor product V ⊗ b K,π W of two
Fréchet spaces V and W provided V is reflexive.
Proposition 20.9:
If V is a reflexive Fréchet space and W is complete then
b K,π W
V ⊗ −→ Lb (Vb′ , W )
v⊗w 7−→ [ℓ 7→ ℓ(v) · w]
is an isomorphism of locally convex K-vector spaces.

Proof: According to Prop. 15.6 the strong dual Vb′ is bornological. It also is
reflexive by Lemma 15.4. Hence we may apply Cor. 18.8 and we obtain that
b K,π W ∼
V ⊗ b K,π W ∼
= (Vb′ )′b ⊗ = Lb (Vb′ , W )
where the first map comes from the duality map for V and the second one is
induced by the map T from §18. Their composite obviously is given by the
asserted formula.
We also need the following technical observation.
Remark 20.10:
138
Suppose that W is a metrizable locally convex K-vector space and let (Bn )n∈IN be
a sequence of bounded o-submodules
P in W ; then there exists a sequence (an )n∈IN
×
in K such that B := n∈IN an Bn is a bounded o-submodule.
Proof: Let L1 ⊃ . . . ⊃ Ln ⊃ . . . for n ∈ IN be a decreasing sequence of open
lattices in W which define the locally convex topology. For each n ∈ IN we fix
an an ∈ K × such that an Bn ⊆ Ln . Then
X X
an Bn ⊆ Ln ⊆ Lm for any m ∈ IN .
n≥m n≥m
P
Since n<m an Bn is bounded it follows that there exists, for any m ∈ IN, a
bm ∈ K such that B ⊆ bm Lm . This proves that B is bounded.
Proposition 20.11:
Suppose that V and W are Fréchet spaces and that V is reflexive; for any bounded
o-submodule A ⊆ V ⊗ b K,π W there are bounded o-submodules B ⊆ V and C ⊆ W
such that A is contained in the closure of B ⊗o C in V ⊗ b K,π W .
Proof: We will proceed in several steps. At first we apply Prop. 20.9 and view
A as a bounded o-submodule in Lb (Vb′ , W ).
Step 1: We show the existence of an open lattice L ⊆ Vb′ and of a closed bounded
o-submodule H ⊆ W such that A lies in the image of the injective map
L((Vb′ )bL , WH ) −→ L(Vb′ , W )

g 7−→ ι◦g◦τ
where τ : Vb′ −→ (Vb′ )bL and ι : WH −→ W denote the canonical maps.

As we saw at the beginning of the proof of Prop. 15.6 the strong dual Vb′
possesses a sequence (Gn )n∈IN of bounded o-submodules with the property that
any bounded subset of Vb′ is contained in some Gn . We put
X
Hn := f (Gn ) .
f ∈A
If p is a continuous seminorm on W then pGn (f ) = sup p(f (ℓ)) is a continuous

ℓ∈Gn
seminorm on Lb (Vb′ , W ). Since A is bounded the seminorm pGn is bounded on
A which implies that p is bounded on Hn . We see that each Hn is a bounded
o-submodule in PW . According to Remark 20.10 there is a sequence (an )n∈IN in
×
K such that n an Hn is a bounded S o-submodule. We let H denote its closure.
It follows from the identity V ′ = n Gn that f (Vb′ ) ⊆ WH for any f ∈ A. More
precisely f −1 (H), for f ∈ A, is a closed lattice in Vb′ . But the reflexivity of V
139
implies that Vb′ is barrelled (Prop. 15.2). Hence f −1 (H) is an open lattice which
means that any f ∈ A factorizes through a continuous linear map
fe : Vb′ −→ WH .
Let Ae := {fe : f ∈ A} ⊆ L(V ′ , WH ). We claim that A e is bounded in Ls (V ′ , WH ).

b b
Consider, for any ℓ ∈ V ′ , the open lattice L({ℓ}, H) in Ls (Vb′ , WH ). There
is an n ∈ IN such that ℓ ∈ Gn . Then fe(ℓ) ∈ Hn ⊆ a−1 n H or equivalently
e −1
A ⊆ an L({ℓ}, H). It now follows from the Banach-Steinhaus theorem Prop.
6.15 that Ae is equicontinuous, i.e., that there is an open lattice L ⊆ V ′ such
b
that fe(L) ⊆ H for any fe ∈ A.
e Clearly any such fe extends to a continuous linear
map
fb : (V ′ )bL −→ WH .
b
We finally obtain that A is the image under the asserted map of the o-submodule
b := {fb : f ∈ A} ⊆ L((V ′ )bL , WH ). Note that A
A b by construction is equicontinu-
b
ous. Also note that WH is a Banach space by Lemma 7.17.iii since H is closed
and hence complete.
Step 2: According to Prop. 20.7 the strong dual Vb′ is nuclear. Hence there is
another lattice M ⊆ L ⊆ Vb′ such that the canonical map θ : (Vb′ )c ′b
M −→ (Vb )L
is compact. Introducing also the canonical map σ : Vb′ −→ (Vb′ )c
M the injective
map in Step 1 becomes the composite of the injective maps
L((Vb′ )bL , WH ) −→ C((Vb′ )c ′

M , WH ) −→ L(Vb , W )
g 7−→ g◦θ 7−→ ι ◦ (g ◦ θ) ◦ σ .
In order to pass back to the completed tensor product we use the commutative
diagram
∼
((Vb′ )c −→ C((Vb′ )c
′ b =
M )b ⊗ K,π WH M , WH )
 
(δ −1 ◦ σ ′ ) ⊗ ι y y ι◦.◦σ
∼
=
b K,π W
V ⊗ −→ Lb (Vb′ , W )
∼
=
where δ : V −→(Vb′ )′b denotes the duality isomorphism (and where we recall
Remark 16.1.ii for the continuity of σ ′ ). The upper horizontal isomorphism
comes from Prop. 18.11. If Ao ⊆ ((Vb′ )c ′ b
M )b ⊗ K,π WH denotes the o-submodule
which corresponds to Ab ◦ θ under the upper horizontal map then we have
A = [(δ −1 ◦ σ ′ ) ⊗ ι](Ao ) .
140
For any fb ∈ A
b we consider the analogous commutative diagram
∼
((Vb′ )c ′b
−→ C((Vb′ )c ′b
′ b =
M )b ⊗ K,π (Vb )L M , (Vb )L )
 
id ⊗ fb y y fb ◦ .
∼
((Vb′ )c C((Vb′ )c
′ b =
M )b ⊗ K,π WH −→ M , WH ) .
If θo in the upper left corner denotes the element corresponding to θ then the
element (id ⊗ fb )(θo ) in the lower left corner corresponds to fb ◦ θ. Hence we
have Ao = {(id ⊗ fb )(θo ) : fb ∈ A}
b and
A = {[(δ −1 ◦ σ ′ ) ⊗ (ι ◦ fb )](θo ) : fb ∈ A}
b .
b ⊆ Lb ((V ′ )bL , W ) is equicontinuous.

b also the o-submodule {ι ◦ fb : fb ∈ A}
With A b
Step 3: To simplify the notation we reformulate the situation we have arrived

at as follows. We have constructed Banach spaces V0 and V1 , an element θ0 ∈
b K,π V1 , a continuous linear map g : V0 −→ V and an equicontinuous and
V0 ⊗
hence bounded o-submodule A ⊆ Lb (V1 , W ) such that
A = {g ⊗ f (θ0 ) : f ∈ A} .
At this point we observe that the statement of our Prop. 20.11 holds true, for
rather trivial reasons, for any two Banach spaces: By the construction of the
tensor product norm any ball in V0 ⊗ b K,π V1 is contained in the closure of the
tensor product (over o) of appropriate balls in V0 and V1 . We therefore find
bounded o-submodules B0 ⊆ V0 and B1 ⊆ V1 such that θ0 lies in P the closure of
B0 ⊗o B1 . It follows that A is contained in the closure of g(B0 )⊗o ( f ∈A f (B1 )).
The o-submodule B := g(B0 ) ⊆ V clearly is bounded. So it remains to check
that the o-submodule X
C := f (B1 )
f ∈A
is bounded in W . But this follows by the same argument which we used in Step
1 to see that the Hn are bounded.
This last result is important for the investigation of the dual space (V ⊗K,π W )′
of the projective tensor product of two locally convex K-vector spaces V and
W . By the very construction of the projective tensor product topology this dual
space (V ⊗K,π W )′ , as a K-vector space, is naturally isomorphic to
B(V × W ) := K-vector space of all continuous

bilinear forms V × W −→ K .
141
We claim that the map
B(V × W ) −→ L(V, Wb′ )

(1)
β 7−→ fβ (v)(w) := β(v, w)
is well defined. It is clear that each fβ (v) is a continuous linear form on W .

For the continuity of the map v 7−→ fβ (v), for any fixed β, we have to show
that, given a bounded o-submodule C ⊆ W , the o-submodule {v ∈ V : fβ (v) ∈
L(C, o)} = {v ∈ V : β(v, C) ⊆ o} is an open lattice in V . Since β is continuous
there are open lattices L ⊆ V and M ⊆ W such that β(L, M ) ⊆ o. Furthermore
we find an a ∈ K × such that C ⊆ aM . Then
β(a−1 L, C) = β(L, a−1 C) ⊆ β(L, M ) ⊆ o
which means that the o-submodule in question contains a−1 L and therefore,
indeed, is an open lattice. Obviously the map (1) is K-linear and injective. We
usually write it in the form
(V ⊗K,π W )′ −→ L(V, Wb′ )

(2)
β 7−→ fβ (v)(w) := β(v ⊗ w) .
It then fits into the commutative diagram
(2)
(V ⊗K,π W )′ / L(V, W ′ )
b
gOOO q q8
OOO qq
⊗
OOO
OO q qqqqT
q
V ′ ⊗K Wb′
where ⊗ is the tensor product map for linear forms (compare the paragraph
before Prop. 17.8) and T is the map introduced at the beginning of §18.
Suppose now that f : V −→ Wb′ is a continuous linear map and define the
bilinear form
β : V × W −→ K
(v, w) 7−→ f (v)(w) .
For each v ∈ V we have β(v, .) = f (v) which is a continuous linear form on W .
If we fix a w ∈ W , on the other hand, then β(., w)−1 (o) = f −1 (L({w}, o)) is
an open lattice in V . This proves that β is separately continuous. Using Prop.
17.6 we therefore have the following fact.
Remark 20.12:
If V and W are Fréchet spaces then (2) is a bijection.
142
On both sides of (2) we have the strong topology. If B ⊆ V and C ⊆ W are
bounded o-submodules then the open lattice L(B, L(C, o)) in the right hand
side corresponds to the open lattice L(B ⊗o C, o) in the left hand side. Hence
we may and will view (2) as a continuous linear map
(V ⊗K,π W )′b −→ Lb (V, Wb′ ) .
If V and W are Fréchet spaces and if in addition V is reflexive then Prop.

20.11 implies that the open lattices L(B ⊗o C, o) define the strong topology
on (V ⊗ b K,π W )′ . Under these assumptions (2) therefore is an isomorphism of
locally convex K-vector spaces
=∼
(V ⊗K,π W )′b = (V ⊗
b K,π W )′b −→ Lb (V, Wb′ ) .
But the map T also induces an isomorphism of locally convex K-vector spaces
∼=
Vb′ ⊗
b K,π Wb′ −→ Lb (V, Wb′ )
in this situation. This follows from Cor. 18.8 since V and W as Fréchet spaces
are bornological so that, in particular, Wb′ is complete and since V is reflexive.
Hence we have the following result.
Proposition 20.13:
If V and W are Fréchet spaces and V is reflexive then the tensor product of
linear forms induces an isomorphism of locally convex K-vector spaces
∼=
Vb′ ⊗
b K,π Wb′ −→(V b K,π W )′b = (V ⊗K,π W )′b .
⊗
Corollary 20.14:
b K,π W is a reflexive Fréchet space.
With V and W also V ⊗
b K,π Wb′
Proof: By Prop. 20.7 the strong duals Vb′ and Wb′ are nuclear. Hence Vb′ ⊗
is nuclear by Prop. 19.11 and Prop. 20.4. The Prop. 20.13 then implies that
(V ⊗ b K,π W )′b is nuclear. Using Prop. 20.7 again we conclude that V ⊗ b K,π W
is reflexive.
Finally it is possible to strengthen Prop. 17.10. The above discussion has shown
⊗
that we cannot expect the tensor product map Vb′ ⊗K,π Wb′ −→(V ⊗K,π W )′b
to be continuous in general. But we can make use of the following observation.
143
Given any open lattices L ⊆ V and M ⊆ W we have the natural injective
(Vc d
b K,π W
L ⊗
′ b K,π W )′b .
M )b −→ (V ⊗
As we have remarked in its proof the statement of Prop. 20.11 remains true for
any two Banach spaces. Hence the corresponding version of (2) is an isomor-
phism of Banach spaces
′ ∼=
(Vc d
b K,π W
L ⊗
c d ′
M )b −→ Lb (VL , (WM )b ) .
By Prop. 18.2 we have
(Vc ′ b
L )b ⊗
d ′ ∼ = c d ′ c d ′
K,π (WM )b −→ CC(VL , (WM )b ) ⊆ Lb (VL , (WM )b ) .
Altogether this shows that the tensor product of linear forms does induce an
injective continuous linear map
(Vc ′ b
L )b ⊗
d ′ ⊗ b K,π W )′b .
K,π (WM )b −→ (V ⊗
Remark 20.15:
∼
′ =
For any open lattice L ⊆ V we have (Vc ′
L )b →(Vb )Lp .
Proof: By Remark 16.1.ii the dual of the canonical map τ : V −→ Vc

L is an
injective continuous linear map
τ ′ : (Vc ′ ′
L )b −→ Vb .
A continuous linear form ℓ on V extends continuously to Vc L if and only if

aL ⊆ ℓ−1 (m) for some a ∈ K × . This is equivalent to the condition that aℓ ∈ Lp .
The image of τ ′ therefore is (Vb′ )Lp . Note that Lp is equicontinuous and hence
bounded in Vb′ . (Although this indirectly comes out of the present argument we
also know already from Prop. 7.13, Lemma 13.1.ii, and Lemma 7.17.iii that Lp is
complete and that therefore (Vb′ )Lp is a Banach space.) If L b denotes the closure
of the image of L in Vc b c ′
L then the open lattice L(L, m) in (VL )b corresponds under
τ ′ to the open lattice Lp in (Vb′ )Lp . It follows that τ ′ induces an isomorphism
∼
′ =
of Banach spaces (Vc ′
L )b →(Vb )Lp .
As a consequence of Cor. 13.5 an o-submodule A ⊆ V ′ is of the form A = Lp for

some open lattice L ⊆ V if and only if it is equicontinuous and weakly closed,
i.e., closed in Vs′ . In view of these remarks we may rephrase our above discussion
by stating that, for any equicontinuous and weakly closed o-submodules A ⊆ V ′
144
and B ⊆ W ′ , the tensor product of linear forms induces an injective continuous
linear map
⊗
(Vb′ )A ⊗
b K,π (Wb′ )B −→ b K,π W )′b .
(V ⊗
Proposition 20.16: (Kernel theorem)

Suppose that V is nuclear; for any equicontinuous subset H ⊆ (V ⊗ b K,π W )′
there exist equicontinuous and weakly closed o-submodules A ⊆ V ′ and B ⊆ W ′
b K,π (Wb′ )B .
such that H is the image of a bounded subset in (Vb′ )A ⊗
Proof: Since H is equicontinuous we find open lattices L1 ⊆ V and M ⊆ W
d
such that H is the image of an equicontinuous subset G ⊆ (VL1 ⊗
d
b K,π W ′
M ) . We
choose another open lattice L ⊆ L1 such that the canonical map θ : Vc
L −→ VL1
d
is compact. Consider now the commutative diagram
∼
=
d
(VL1 ⊗
d
b K,π W ′
M )b
d d ′
/ L (V
b L1 , (WM )b )
R R
R R
R R .◦θ
R)
∼
=
(θ⊗id)′
(Vc ′ b
L )b ⊗
d ′
K,π (WM )b
/ CC(Vc , (W
L
d ′
M )b )
⊗ llll
ll
ll ⊆
lll
lu ll ∼

=
(Vc b K,π W
L ⊗
dM )b
′ / L (Vc , (W
b L
d ′
M )b ) .
It shows that the canonical map (θ⊗id)′ : (Vd L1 ⊗

d
b K,π W ′ c b K,π W
M )b −→ (VL ⊗
d ′
M )b
factorizes through (Vc ′ b
L )b ⊗
d ′
K,π (WM )b . The image of G in this latter vector space
is bounded and is mapped onto H. It remains to put A := Lp and B := M p
and to use Remark 20.15.
Corollary 20.17:
Suppose that V is nuclear; we then have
[
(V ⊗K,π W )′ = (V ⊗
b K,π W )′ = (Vb′ )A ⊗
b K,π (Wb′ )B
A,B
where A and B run over all equicontinuous and weakly closed o-submodules in
V ′ and W ′ , respectively.
§21 Traces
145
Let V be any locally convex K-vector space. There is the obvious linear form
tr : V ′ ⊗K V −→ K
ℓ⊗v 7−→ ℓ(v)
which, if we view an element in the left hand side as a finite rank operator f on
V , is the usual matrix trace of f . This means that tr(f ) is the matrix trace of
the restriction of f to any finite dimensional vector subspace of V which contains
the image of f . The two basic properties of the matrix trace are:
(a) tr(f ◦ g) = tr(g ◦ f ) for any finite rank operator f : V −→ W into another
(locally convex) K-vector space W and any g ∈ L(W, V );
(b) tr(f ′ ) = tr(f ) for any finite rank operator f on V where f ′ denotes the
dual (or transpose) finite rank operator on the dual space V ′ .
Suppose now that V is a Banach space. Let L ⊆ V be a bounded open lattice.

Then L(L, o) is an open lattice in the dual Banach space Vb′ . Since obviously
tr(L(L, o) ⊗o L) ⊆ o
it follows from Lemma 17.1 that the linear form
tr : Vb′ ⊗K,π V −→ K
is continuous for the projective tensor product topology. Hence it extends to a

continuous linear form
tr : Vb′ ⊗
b K,π V −→ K .
By Prop. 18.11 we may view the completed tensor product as the space N (V, V )
of nuclear maps on V . We will continue to call the resulting linear form
tr : N (V, V ) −→ K
the trace of a nuclear map on V . Let W be another K-Banach space. Using

the operator norm on the Banach space Lb (V, W ) as described in §3 it is easy
to check that the maps
Lb (V, W ) × Lb (W, V ) −→ Lb (V, V ) and Lb (V, V ) −→ Lb (V ′ , V ′ )

(f, g) 7−→ f ◦g f 7−→ f′
are continuous. Moreover, we know already from Lemma 16.4 that the transpose
respects nuclear maps. By a limit argument the properties (a) and (b) therefore
continue to hold. We have:
(a’) tr(f ◦ g) = tr(g ◦ f ) for any f ∈ N (V, W ) and any g ∈ L(W, V );
(b’) tr(f ′ ) = tr(f ) for any f ∈ N (V, V ).
146
It is clear that the continuity property of tr with respect to the projective tensor
product topology will not hold for any larger class of locally convex K-vector
spaces. But we will show in this section that the trace can always be extended
to the space N (V, V ) of nuclear maps on V .
With V again arbitrary let (L, B) be a pair consisting of an open lattice L ⊆ V
and a bounded o-submodule B ⊆ V such that VB is complete; let τL : V −→ Vc L
and ιB : VB −→ V denote the canonical maps. Then
N (Vc
L , VB ) −→ N (V, V )
f 7−→ ιB ◦ f ◦ τL
is an inclusion of K-vector spaces. As a consequence of Remark 20.1 we in fact
have that
(∗) N (V, V ) = lim N (Vc

L , VB )
−→
(L,B)
is the algebraic inductive limit where (L, B) runs over all such pairs. We observe
that B is a bounded open lattice in VB and that L(τL ◦ ιB (B), o) is an open
lattice in Vc
L . Hence the above continuity argument based on Lemma 17.1 works
here and shows that the linear form
trL,B : (Vc ′
L )b ⊗K VB −→ K
ℓ⊗v 7−→ ℓ ◦ τL ◦ ιB (v)
is continuous for the projective tensor product topology. It therefore extends to
a continuous linear form
trL,B : N (Vc ∼ c ′ b K,π VB −→ K .

L , VB ) = (VL )b ⊗
d
Let us consider a second pair (M, C) with M ⊆ L and B ⊆ C; let τM,L : VM −→
Vc
L and ιB,C : VB −→ VC denote the canonical maps. We compute
′
trM,C (τM,L ◦ ιB,C (ℓ ⊗ v))
′
= trM,C (τM,L (ℓ) ⊗ ιB,C (v)) = trM,C ((ℓ ◦ τM,L ) ⊗ ιB,C (v))
= ℓ ◦ τM,L ◦ τM ◦ ιC ◦ ιB,C (v) = ℓ ◦ τL ◦ ιB (v)
= trL,B (ℓ ⊗ v)
which means that the diagram
′
τM,L ⊗ιB,C
(Vc ′
L )b ⊗K VB
d
/ (V ′
M )b ⊗K VC
KK
KK rr
KK r rr
trL,B KKK r
rr trM,C
K% ry r
K
147
is commutative. Moreover, by the functoriality of the projective tensor product,
the horizontal arrow is continuous for the projective tensor product topologies.
By a limit argument we then obtain the commutative diagram
N (Vc
L , VB )
d
/ N (V
M , VC )
II t
II t
II tt
trL,B II ttttrM,C
I$ tz tt
K
where the horizontal arrow is given by f 7−→ ιB,C ◦ f ◦ τM,L . We therefore may
pass to the algebraic inductive limit and, using (∗), we arrive at a well defined
trace linear form
tr : N (V, V ) −→ K .
Proposition 21.1:
i. tr(f ), for any finite rank operator f on V , is the matrix trace of f ;
ii. tr(f ◦ g) = tr(g ◦ f ) for any f ∈ N (V, W ) and any g ∈ L(W, V );
iii. tr(f ′ ) = tr(f ) for any f ∈ N (V, V ).
Proof: i. By the definition of trL,B the diagram
′
τL ⊗ιB
(Vc ′
L ) ⊗K VB
/ V ′ ⊗K V
KK ww
KK ww
KK ww
trL,B KKK ww tr
K% w{ w
K
is commutative.
ii. We fix a factorization
τL c fe ιB
V −→ VL −→ WB −→ W
of f with fe a nuclear map between Banach spaces and we write fe as the uniform
limit of a sequence (fn )n∈IN of finite rank operators fn : Vc
L −→ WB .
In a first step we furthermore factorize g ◦ ιB into
g1 C ι
WB −→ VC −→ V
148
where C := g(B). We compute
tr(g ◦ f ) = trL,C (g1 ◦ fe ) = trL,C ( lim g1 ◦ fn )

n→∞
= lim trL,C (g1 ◦ fn ) = lim tr(ιC ◦ g1 ◦ fn ◦ τL )

n→∞ n→∞
= lim tr(g ◦ ιB ◦ fn ◦ τL ) .
n→∞
In a second step we factorize τL ◦ g into

τ M d g0 c
W −→ WM −→ VL
where M := g −1 (L) and we compute
tr(f ◦ g) = trM,B (fe ◦ g0 ) = trM,B ( lim fn ◦ g0 )

n→∞
= lim trM,B (fn ◦ g0 ) = lim tr(ιB ◦ fn ◦ g0 ◦ τM )

n→∞ n→∞
= lim tr(ιB ◦ fn ◦ τL ◦ g) .
n→∞
It remains to notice that, by (a), we have
tr(g ◦ (ιB ◦ fn ◦ τL )) = tr((ιB ◦ fn ◦ τL ) ◦ g) .
iii. First of all we recall from Remark 16.1.ii and Lemma 16.4 that f ′ is well
defined and nuclear. As above we start with a factorization
τL c fe ιB
V −→ VL −→ VB −→ V
and a sequence of finite rank operators fn : Vc e

L −→ WB converging to f . Then
the sequence (fn′ )n converges to fe ′ . Using (b) we have
tr(f ) = trL,B (fe ) = lim trL,B (fn ) = lim tr(ιB ◦ fn ◦ τL )

n→∞ n→∞
= lim tr(τL′ ◦ fn′ ◦ ι′B ) .

n→∞
Because of Remark 20.15 the dual sequence reads
ι′B fe ′ ιLp
Vb′ −→ (VB )′b −→ (Vb′ )Lp −→ Vb′ .
It is straightforward to see that the map ι′B factorizes into
τB p
(Vb′ )d
σ
Vb′ −→ ′
B p −→ (VB )b .
149
We therefore obtain
tr(f ′ ) = trBp ,Lp (fe ′ ◦ σ) = lim tr(ιLp ◦ fn′ ◦ σ ◦ τBp )

n→∞
= lim tr(τL′ ◦ fn′ ◦ ι′B ) .

n→∞
§22 Fredholm theory
For any locally convex K-vector space V the space L(V, V ) of continuous linear
endomorphisms of V is an algebra with respect to the composition of maps. The
automorphisms of the locally convex vector space V are the invertible elements
in this algebra. In this section we will study the following more general class of
maps.
Definition:
A map f ∈ L(V, V ) is called F redholm if the kernel and the cokernel of f are
finite dimensional.
In the following we will use the algebraic notations ker(f ), im(f ), and coker(f )
to denote the kernel, image, and cokernel of a linear map f .
If f ∈ L(V, V ) is a Fredholm map then the nonnegative integer
ind(f ) := dimK ker(f ) − dimK coker(f )
is called the index of f . Its subsequent basic property is an exercise in linear

algebra.
Lemma 22.1:
If f, g ∈ L(V, V ) are Fredholm maps then f ◦ g is a Fredholm map and
ind(f ◦ g) = ind(f ) + ind(g) .
Proof: This is an immediate consequence of the two exact sequences

g
0 −→ ker(g) −→ ker(f ◦ g) −→ im(g) ∩ ker(f ) −→ 0
and
f
0 −→ ker(f )/ker(f ) ∩ im(g) −→ coker(g) −→ im(f )/im(f ◦ g) −→ 0 .
150
Lemma 22.2:
If f ∈ L(V, V ) is a Fredholm map on a Fréchet space V then the vector subspace
im(f ) is closed in V .
Proof: By lifting a basis of coker(f ) to V we find a finite dimensional subspace
U ⊆ V such that im(f ) ⊕ U = V . Consider the linear map
h: V /ker(f ) ⊕ U −→ V
(v + ker(f ), u) 7−→ f (v) + u .
It is a continuous linear bijection between Fréchet spaces (Prop. 8.3) and as

such is, by the open mapping theorem Cor. 8.7, a topological isomorphism.
Since im(f ) coincides with the kernel of h−1 followed by the projection onto the
summand U we conclude that im(f ) is closed.
Proposition 22.3:
Suppose that f ∈ L(V, V ) is a Fredholm map on a Fréchet space V ; then there
exists another Fredholm map g ∈ L(V, V ) such that idV − f ◦ g and idV − g ◦ f
are finite rank operators.
Proof: We choose closed vector subspaces U0 , U1 ⊆ V such that
ker(f ) ⊕ U0 = V and im(f ) ⊕ U1 = V .
That the first choice is possible was established in Cor. 9.5. According to
Lemma 22.2 the vector subspace im(f ) is closed in V . Hence the restriction
f1 : U0 −→ im(f ) of f is a continuous linear bijection between Fréchet spaces and
therefore is, by the open mapping theorem Cor. 8.7, a topological isomorphism.
We now define the continuous linear map g ∈ L(V, V ) by g|im(f ) := f1−1 and
g|U1 := 0. Since ker(g) = U1 and im(g) = U0 we see that g is a Fredholm map.
Moreover, g ◦ f , resp. f ◦ g, is the identity on U0 , resp. on im(f ), and is zero on
ker(f ), resp. on U1 . Hence idV − g ◦ f and idV − f ◦ g are finite rank operators.
This result has an interesting consequence. Recall from Remark 16.7.i that the
vector subspace C(V, V ) of compact operators is a two-sided ideal in L(V, V ).
We therefore may form the quotient algebra L(V, V )/C(V, V ). Since finite rank
operators are compact the above proposition implies that on a Fréchet space V
the coset of a Fredholm map is an invertible element in this quotient algebra.
Much of this section is devoted to the question whether the converse is true. For
this we first of all have to analyze maps of the form idV + g with g ∈ C(V, V ).
Lemma 22.4:
For any g ∈ C(V, V ) the kernel of idV + g is finite dimensional.
151
Proof: Put U := ker(idV + g). Since g is compact there is an open lattice L ⊆ V
such that the closure g(L) is bounded and c-compact. Because of U ∩ L =
−g(U ∩ L) it follows that U ∩ L is bounded and c-compact in V . But then
U ∩ L is a bounded and c-compact open lattice in U (Lemma 12.1.v). This
implies, by Cor. 4.12, that U is normed and also that U is nuclear. According
to Prop. 20.4 the completion of U therefore is a nuclear Banach space which
necessarily is finite dimensional as we have seen in §19.
Lemma 22.5:
Let f : V −→ W be an injective but not surjective continuous linear map with
dense image between two infinite dimensional K-Banach spaces V and W ; then
there exists an infinite dimensional closed vector subspace U ⊆ V such that the
map f |U : U −→ W is compact.
Proof: We choose defining norms, both denoted by k k, on V and W . We also
fix a c ∈ K such that 0 < |c| < 1. Let us begin with the following preliminary
observation. Let Vo ⊆ V be a closed vector subspace such that V /Vo is finite
dimensional. Since the image f (V /Vo ) = f (V )/f (Vo ) then is a finite dimensional
vector subspace of W/f (Vo ) which is not closed it follows from Prop. 4.13 that
the quotient W/f (Vo ) is not Hausdorff. The image f (Vo ) therefore is not closed
∼
in W which implies that the bijection Vo −→ f (Vo ) cannot be a homeomorphism.
In view of Prop. 3.1 this means that
kf (v)k
inf{ : v ∈ Vo \ {0}} = 0 .
kvk
Hence, for any ǫ > 0, there is a vector
(∗) vo ∈ Vo such that |c| ≤ kvo k ≤ 1 and kf (vo )k ≤ ǫ .
In order to prove our assertion we construct inductively a sequence (vn )n∈IN of

vectors in V such that, for any n ∈ IN, we have
(1n ) |c| ≤ kvn k ≤ 1,
(2n ) kf (vn )k ≤ |c|n ,
(3n ) ka1 v1 + . . . + an vn k = max |ai | · kvi k for any a1 , . . . , an ∈ K.
1≤i≤n
Suppose that v1 , . . . , vn are constructed already. Using the Hahn-Banach theo-

rem Prop. 9.2 we find continuous linear forms ℓ1 , . . . , ℓn on V such that
(∗∗) kℓi k = kvi k−1 and ℓi (vj ) = δij .
Applying our initial observation (∗) to the vector subspace Vo := ker(ℓ1 ) ∩ . . . ∩

ker(ℓn ) we obtain a vector vn+1 ∈ Vo such that (1n+1 ) and (2n+1 ) hold true. In
152
order to establish (3n+1 ) let a1 , . . . , an+1 ∈ K. We only need to consider the
case where kan+1 vn+1 k = ka1 v1 + . . . + an vn k. Then, by (∗∗),
ka1 v1 + . . . + an+1 vn+1 k ≥ kvi k · |ℓi (a1 v1 + . . . + an+1 vn+1 )| = |ai | · kvi k
for any 1 ≤ i ≤ n and hence, in particular,
ka1 v1 +. . .+an+1 vn+1 k ≥ max |ai |·kvi k = ka1 v1 +. . .+an vn k = |an+1 |·kvn+1 k .
1≤i≤n
Both inequalities together amount to (3n+1 ).

Having constructed the sequence (vn )n we deduce from (1n ) and (3n ) that the
linear map
co (IN) −→ V
P
(an )n 7−→ n∈IN an vn
is a homeomorphism onto its image. P Let U ⊆ V denote this image which in

particular is closed and has L := { n an vn : |an | ≤ 1 and lim |an | = 0} as a
n→∞
bounded open lattice. On the other hand we deduce from (2n ) that the map
Q
o −→ W
n∈IN
P
(bn )n 7−→ n bn f (vn )
is continuous for the product topology on the left hand side and that therefore
its image is a c-compact o-submodule in W (compare the Example after Remark
12.8). We see that f (L) is contained in a c-compact o-submodule. Hence f |U
is compact.
We alsoVnneed the exterior powers of a K-Banach space V . Its n-fold exterior

power V is a quotient of the n-fold tensor product V ⊗K . . .⊗K V . We always
equip it with the quotient topology of the projective tensor
Vn product topology.
If k k is a defining norm on V then the topology on V is defined by the
seminorm
r
X
(k) (k) (k)
kuk(n) := inf{ max kv1 k ·...· kvn(k) k :u= v1 ∧ . . . ∧ vn(k) , vi ∈V} .
1≤k≤r
k=1
Vn Vn Vn
The n-fold exterior power f of a map f ∈ L(V, V ) lies in L( V, V ).
Lemma 22.6:
Let V be a K-Banach space with defining norm k k; we then have:
153
Vn
i. k k(n) is a norm on V for any n ∈ IN;
Vn
ii. for any g ∈ C(V, V ) the sequence of operator norms (k gk(n) )n∈IN tends to
zero.
n
VnWe have to show that the kernel N (V ) of the natural map V ⊗K . .n.⊗K
Proof: i.
V −→ V is closed. We consider therefore any sequence (un )n∈IN in N (V )
which converges to some vector u in the normed vector space V ⊗K . . .⊗K V . Let
U ⊆ V be a finite dimensional vector subspace such that u ∈ U ⊗K . . . ⊗K U .
According to the Hahn-Banach theorem Cor. 9.5 the inclusion map U ⊆ V
has a continuous linear section s : V −→ U . Then ((s ⊗ . . . ⊗ s)(un ))n is a
sequence in N n (U ) converging to (s ⊗ . . . ⊗ s)(u) = u. But N n (U ) is closed
in the finite dimensional normed vector space U ⊗K . . . ⊗K U . It follows that
u ∈ N n (U ) ⊆ N n (V ).
ii. We may assume that the defining norm k k on V is the gauge of some bounded
open lattice. It then has the property that
for any v ∈ V and any ǫ > 0 there is an a ∈ K × such that

(1)
kvk ≤ |a| ≤ kvk + ǫ .
We first establish a certain technical estimate. Suppose given some vector sub-
space W ⊆ V of finite dimension ℓ and introduce the seminorm
|v|W := inf kv + wk
w∈W
on V . We claim that
Y Y
(2) kv1 ∧ . . . ∧ vn k(n) ≤ max{ |vi |W · kvi k : J ⊆ {1, . . . , n}, |J| ≤ ℓ}
i6∈J i∈J
for any v1 , . . . , vn ∈ V . Given any ǫ > 0 we find, for any 1 ≤ i ≤ n, a wi ∈ W

such that vei := vi − wi ∈ vi + W satisfies kvei k ≤ |vi |W + ǫ. Then
kwi k ≤ max(kvi k, kvei k) ≤ kvi k + ǫ
and hence
kv1 ∧ . . . ∧ vn k(n) = k(ve1 + w1 ) ∧ . . . ∧ (f
vn + wn )k(n)
V V
≤ max k( i6∈J vei ) ∧ ( i∈J wi )k(n)
J
V V
= max k( i6∈J vei ) ∧ ( i∈J wi )k(n)
|J|≤ℓ
Q Q
≤ max i6∈J kvei k · i∈J kwi k
|J|≤ℓ
Q Q
≤ max i6∈J (|vi |W + ǫ) · i∈J (kvi k + ǫ) .
|J|≤ℓ
154
Letting ǫ tend to zero gives the above claim.
We now choose a c ∈ K × such that |c| ≥ max(1, kgk) and we let L := L(k k).
Since the map g is compact the image g(L) is compactoid so that there is a finite
dimensional vector subspace W ⊆ V such that
g(L) ⊆ W + c−1 L .
To check that in this situation we have
(3) |g(v)|W ≤ |c|−1 · kvk for any v ∈ V
we choose, by (1), an a ∈ K × such that kvk ≤ |a| ≤ kvk + ǫ. Then a−1 v ∈ L

so that g(a−1 v) = w + c−1 u with w ∈ W and u ∈ L. It follows that g(v) =
aw + ac−1 u and |g(v)|W ≤ kac−1 uk ≤ |ac−1 | ≤ |c|−1 · kvk + |c|−1 · ǫ.
Combining (2) and (3) we obtain
Q Q
kg(v1 ) ∧ . . . ∧ g(vn )k(n) ≤ max i6∈J |g(vi )|W · i∈J kg(vi )k
|J|≤ℓ
Qn
≤ (max |c|−(n−|J|) · kgk|J| ) · i=1 kvi k
|J|≤ℓ
Qn
≤ |c|2ℓ−n · i=1 kvi k
for any v1 , . . . , vn ∈ V where ℓ := dimK W . It follows that

n
^
k gk(n) ≤ |c|2ℓ−n .
In order not to always have to repeat the same assumption let us fix in the
following a compact map g : V −→ V and put f := idV + g. We note that, for
any n ∈ IN, the map f n is of the same form f n = idV + gn with
X
n−1
n

gn := ( g i ) ◦ g ∈ C(V, V ) .
i+1
i=0
For this reason certain claims in the following about any f n can be established
by only considering the case n = 1. Example given, we obtain from Lemma
22.4 that ker(f n ) is finite dimensional for any n ∈ IN. These kernels form an
ascending chain
ker(f ) ⊆ . . . ⊆ ker(f n ) ⊆ ker(f n+1 ) ⊆ . . .
Similarly the images form a descending chain
im(f ) ⊇ . . . ⊇ im(f n ) ⊇ im(f n+1 ) ⊇ . . .
155
Lemma 22.7:
If V is a Banach space then we have:
i. im(f n ) is closed in V for any n ∈ IN;
ii. there is an m ∈ IN such that ker(f n ) = ker(f m ) and im(f n ) = im(f m ) for
any n ≥ m.
Proof: i. It suffices to consider the case n = 1. We also may suppose that V is
infinite dimensional. The kernel of f being finite dimensional by Lemma 22.4
we find, according to Cor. 9.5, an infinite dimensional closed vector subspace
Vo ⊆ V such that V is the topological direct sum
V = ker(f ) ⊕ Vo .
On the other hand let W ⊆ V denote the closure of the image of f . Then
fo : Vo −→ W
v 7−→ v + g(v)
is an injective continuous linear map with dense image. Let L ⊆ V be a bounded

open lattice. Then g(L) is c-compact in V . Suppose that U ⊆ Vo is a closed
vector subspace such that f |U is compact. Then f (L ∩ U ) is c-compact as well.
We have
L ∩ U ⊆ f (L ∩ U ) + g(L) .
The right hand side is c-compact by Cor. 12.3. It follows from Lemma 12.1 that
L ∩ U is a c-compact and bounded open lattice in the Banach space U . We have
seen in the proof of Lemma 22.4 that this forces U to be finite dimensional. We
therefore may apply Lemma 22.5 and conclude that fo is bijective which means
that im(f ) = W is closed.
ii. Suppose that there is a vector v ∈ ker(f n ) \ ker(f n−1 ). Then the vectors
v, f (v), . . . , f n−1 (v) are linearly independent which means that
v ∧ f (v) ∧ . . . ∧ f n−1 (v) 6= 0 .
But on the other hand we compute

Vn
k g(v ∧ f (v) ∧ . . . ∧ f n−1 (v))k(n)
= k(f (v) − v) ∧ (f 2 (v) − f (v)) ∧ . . . ∧ (f n (v) − f n−1 (v))k(n)
= kv ∧ f (v) ∧ . . . ∧ f n−1 (v)k(n) .
For big n this forces, according to Lemma 22.6., the vector v∧f (v)∧. . .∧f n−1 (v)
to vanish. This proves the first half of our assertion.
156
By applying this first half to the dual map f ′ (recall from Lemma 16.4 that with
g also g ′ is compact) we obtain that the sequence of vector spaces (V /im(f n ))′ =
ker((f n )′ ) becomes constant. The Hahn-Banach theorem Cor. 9.3 together with
the assertion i. then implies the second half of the assertion ii.
Proposition 22.8: (Riesz decomposition)

i. im(f ) is closed in V ;
ii. there is an m ∈ IN such that ker(f n ) = ker(f m ) and im(f n ) = im(f m ) for
any n ≥ m;
iii. V is the locally convex direct sum V = im(f m ) ⊕ ker(f m );
∼
=
iv. f : im(f m ) −→ im(f m ) is an isomorphism of locally convex vector spaces;
v. f |ker(f m ) is nilpotent;
∼
=
vi. f induces an isomorphism of locally convex vector spaces V /ker(f ) −→ im(f ).
Proof: The assertion v. is trivial. The assertion vi. is a consequence of iii., iv.,
and Lemma 22.4. Next we convince ourselves that, assuming ii., the assertions
iii. and iv. at least hold algebraically.
Suppose that v ∈ im(f m )∩ker(f m ). If v = f m (w) then w ∈ ker(f 2m ) = ker(f m )
which implies that v = f m (w) = 0. Hence the map in iv. is injective. By
ii. it also is surjective. Using ii. again we find, for any v ∈ V , a vector
w ∈ V such that f m (v) = f 2m (w). Then u := v − f m (w) ∈ ker(f m ) and
v = f m (w) + u ∈ im(f m ) + ker(f m ). This shows that V = im(f m ) ⊕ ker(f m )
algebraically.
The vector subspaces ker(f n ) in V , by Lemma 22.4, are finite dimensional and
hence closed. If V is a Banach space the assertions i. and ii. are true by
Lemma 22.7. All vector spaces in the other assertions, which we know to hold
true algebraically, then are Banach spaces. Hence the open mapping theorem
Cor. 8.7 implies that these other assertions hold true topologically as well. This
establishes fully all assertions in the case of a Banach space V .
Let now V be general and let L ⊆ V be an open lattice such that the closure
B := g(L) is bounded and c-compact. The canonical map ι : VB −→ V is
compact and there is a continuous linear map ge : V −→ VB such that g = ι ◦ ge.
The composite gB := ge ◦ ι is a compact map on the Banach space VB , and we
have the commutative diagram:
g
V /V
{{=
ι {{
e
g {{ e
g
{{
VB gB / VB
157
If we put fB := idVB + gB then also the diagrams
f f
V /V and VO /V
O
e
g e
g ι ι
fB fB
VB / VB VB / VB
are commutative. Hence ge(ker(f n )) ⊆ ker(fBn ) and ι(ker(fBn )) ⊆ ker(f n ) for any
n ∈ IN. Since g, resp. gB , is invertible on ker(f n ), resp. on ker(fBn ), we see that
∼
=
ge in fact induces bijections ker(f n ) → ker(fBn ) for any n ∈ IN. The first half of
the assertion ii. therefore follows from Lemma 22.7.ii applied to the map fB .
To get the other half of the assertion ii. we note that the above diagram restricts,
for any m ∈ IN, to the commutative diagram:
f
im(f m ) / im(f m )
e
g e
g
fB

im(fBm ) / im(f m )
B
We also have
ι(fBm (VB )) = f m (ι(VB )) ⊆ f m (V ) .
We choose m in such a way that Lemma 22.7 and hence the assertion iv. holds
true for fB . Then
h := idV − ι ◦ fB−1 ◦ e
g : im(f m ) −→ im(f m )
is a well defined continuous linear map. We have
h ◦ f = f − ι ◦ fB−1 ◦ ge ◦ f = f − ι ◦ ge = f − g = idV
and
f ◦ h = (idV + g) ◦ h = h + g ◦ h
= idV − ι ◦ fB−1 ◦ ge + g − g ◦ ι ◦ fB−1 ◦ e

g
= idV − ι ◦ fB−1 ◦ ge + ι ◦ ge − ι ◦ ge ◦ ι ◦ fB−1 ◦ ge
g + gB ◦ fB−1 ◦ ge − ge)
= idV − ι ◦ (fB−1 ◦ e
= idV − ι ◦ (fB ◦ fB−1 ◦ ge − ge)
= idV .
158
This shows that h is a continuous inverse for the upper horizontal arrow in the
last diagram and therefore proves the assertion iv. and the second half of the
assertion ii. The assertion iii. also follows since
(hm ◦ f m , idV − hm ◦ f m ) : V −→ im(f m ) ⊕ ker(f m )
+
is a continuous linear inverse of the continuous bijection im(f m )⊕ker(f m ) −→ V .
But then im(f ) is of the form im(f ) = im(f m ) ⊕ U for some vector subspace U
of the finite dimensional (Lemma 22.4) vector space ker(f m ). This proves that
im(f ) is closed.
Corollary 22.9:
For any compact map g ∈ C(V, V ) the map idV + g is Fredholm of index zero.
Proof: This follows immediately from Lemma 22.4 and Prop. 22.8. The latter
in particular says that the kernel and cokernel of idV + g are isomorphic to the
kernel and cokernel of a linear map on a vector space ker((idV + g)m ). But
according to the former this vector space is finite dimensional.
Corollary 22.10: (Fredholm alternative)

For any compact map g ∈ C(V, V ) the following assertions are equivalent:
i. idV + g is injective;
ii. idV + g is surjective;
iii. idV + g is an automorphism of V .
Corollary 22.11:
If V is a Fréchet space then an f ∈ L(V, V ) is Fredholm if and only if its image
in L(V, V )/C(V, V ) is invertible.
Proof: We have discussed already that as a consequence of Prop. 22.3 any
Fredholm map has an invertible image in the quotient algebra. Suppose now,
vice versa, that the image of f is invertible. This means that there is a map
h ∈ L(V, V ) such that idV −f ◦h and idV −h◦f are compact maps. It then follows
from Cor. 22.9 that f ◦ h and h ◦ f are Fredholm maps. Since ker(f ) ⊆ ker(h ◦ f )
and im(f ◦ h) ⊆ im(f ) this implies that f is Fredholm.
159
References
Literature cited in the text:

[B-CA] Bourbaki N., Commutative Algebra, Hermann 1972
[B-GT] Bourbaki N., General Topology, Chap. 1-4, 5-10, Springer 1989
[McL] MacLane S., Homology, Springer 1975
[Sch] Schikhof W., Ultrametric Calculus, Cambridge Univ. Press 1984
Non-archimedean literature:
Caenepeel S., Schikhof W., Two elementary proofs of Katsaras’ theorem on p-
adic compactoids, in Proc. Conf. on p-adic analysis Hengelhoef 1986, pp.41-44
Carpentier J.-P., Semi-normes et ensembles convexes dans un espace vectoriel
sur un corps valué ultramétrique, Sém. Choquet 1964/65, exp. 7
de Grande-de Kimpe N., c-compactness in locally K-convex spaces, Indagationes
Math. 33, 176-180 (1971)
de Grande-de Kimpe N., On spaces of operators between locally K-convex
spaces, Indagationes Math. 34, 113-129 (1972)
de Grande-de Kimpe N., On the Grothendieck approximation property in non-
archimedian analysis, Nieuw Arch. Wisk. 20 (3), 242-245 (1972)
de Grande-de Kimpe N., Non-archimedean nuclearity, Groupe d’étude d’Analyse
ultramétrique 1981/82, fasc. 3, no. J4
de Grande-de Kimpe N., Kakol J., Perez-Garcia C., Schikhof W., p-adic locally
convex inductive limits, in p-adic functional analysis, Proc. Nijmegen 1996 (Eds.
Schikhof, Perez-Garcia, Kakol), pp.159-222, Marcel Dekker 1997
de Grande-de Kimpe N., Martinez-Maurica J., Fredholm Theory for p-Adic
Locally Convex Spaces, Ann. Mat. pura appl. 160, 223-234 (1991)
Gilsdorf T., Kakol J., On some non-archimedean closed graph theorems, in p-
adic functional analysis, Proc. Nijmegen 1996 (Eds. Schikhof, Perez-Garcia,
Kakol), pp.153-158, Marcel Dekker 1997
Gruson L., Théorie de Fredholm p-adique, Bull. Soc. Math. France 94, 67-95
(1966)
Gruson L., van der Put M., Banach spaces, in Table Ronde Anal. non archim.,
Bull. Soc. Math. France, Mémoire 39-40, pp.55-100 (1974)
Martinez-Maurica J., Pellon T., Perez-Garcia C., Some Characterizations of
p-Adic Semi-Fredholm Operators, Ann. Mat. pura appl. 156, 243-251 (1990)
Monna A.F., Sur les espaces normés non-archimédiens IV, Indagationes Math.
19, 468-476 (1957)
160
Monna A.F., Analyse non-archimédienne, Springer 1970
Morita Y., A p-Adic Theory of Hyperfunctions I, Publ. RIMS (Kyoto Univ.)
17, 1-24 (1981)
Schikhof W., Locally convex spaces over nonspherically complete valued fields
I,II, Bull. Soc. Math. Belg. 38, 187-207, 208-224 (1986)
Schikhof W., On p-adic compact operators, Report 8911, Nijmegen 1989
Serre J.-P., Endomorphismes complètement continus des espaces de Banach p-
adiques, Publ. Math. IHES 12, 69-85 (1962)
Springer T., Une notion de compacité dans la théorie des espaces vectoriels
topologiques, Indagationes Math. 27, 182-189 (1965)
van der Put M., Reflexive non-archimedean Banach spaces, Indagationes Math.
32, 341-352 (1970)
van der Put M., van Tiel J., Espaces nucléaires non archimédiens, Indagationes
Math. 29, 556- 561 (1967)
van Rooij A., Non-Archimedean Functional Analysis, Marcel Dekker 1978
van Tiel J., Espaces localement K-convexes I-III, Indagationes Math. 27, 249-
258,259-272,273-289 (1965)
van Tiel J., Une note sur les applications complétement continues, Indagationes
Math. 27, 772-776 (1965)
van Tiel J., Ensembles pseudo-polaires dans les espaces localement K- convexes,
Indagationes Math. 28, 369-373 (1966)
Other literature:
Bourbaki N., Topological Vector Spaces, Chap. 1-5, Springer 1987
Grothendieck A., Produits tensoriels topologiques et espaces nucléaires, Memoirs
AMS 16, AMS 1955
Komatsu H., Projective and injective limits of weakly compact sequences of
locally convex spaces, J. Math. Soc. Japan 19, 366-383 (1967)
Köthe G., Topological Vector Spaces II, Springer 1979
Matlis E., Injective modules over Prufer rings, Nagoya Math. J. 15, 57-69 (1959)
Murphy G.J., C ∗ -algebras and operator theory, Academic Press 1990
Schaefer H.H., Topological vector spaces, Macmillan 1966
161
Index
admissible topology
approximation property
ball (open, closed)
Banach space
Banach-Steinhaus theorem
barrelled
B-dual of V
bidual space
(bor)
bornological
bounded subset
B-topology
c-compact
closed graph theorem
compact map
compactoid
complemented vector subspace
complete
completely continuous map
convex
convex hull
direct product topology
duality map
dual space
equicontinuous subset
finest locally convex topology
finite rank operator
Fréchet space
Fredholm alternative
162
Fredholm map
gauge
Hahn-Banach theorem
Hausdorff completion
index
inductive tensor product
inductive tensor product topology
initial topology
jointly continuous bilinear map
kernel theorem
lattice
(lc1) (lc2)
linearly compact
locally analytic function
locally convex direct sum
locally convex final topology
locally convex topology
locally convex vector space
Mackey topology
metrizable
net (Cauchy, convergent)
nonarchimedean absolute value
nonarchimedean field
norm
normed vector space
nuclear map
nuclear space
open mapping theorem
p-adic upper half plane
projective tensor product
projective tensor product topology
163
pseudo-bipolar
pseudo-polar
pseudo-reflexive
quasi-complete
Radon measure
reflexive
residue class field
Riesz decomposition
ring of integers
seminorm
semi-reflexive
separately continuous bilinear map
spherically complete
strict inductive limit
strict triangle inequality
strong dual
strong topology
summability
tensor product seminorm
topology of bounded convergence
topology of pointwise convergence
trace
weak dual
weakly closed
weak topology
weak topology on V
164
Notations
|| nonarchimedean absolute value,

kk nonarchimedean norm,
K nonarchimedean field,
Qp field of p-adic numbers,
Cp completion of an algebraic closure of Qp ,
Bǫ (a), Bǫ−(a) (open) balls in the field,
Bǫ (v), Bǫ−(v) (open) balls in a Banach space,
pL gauge seminorm,
ker(pL ) null space of pL ,
L(q), L− (q) lattices of a seminorm,
V (qi1 , . . . , qir ; ǫ) zero neighbourhoods,
Co(S) convex hull,
VA seminormed space associated with an o-submodule A,
Vc
A Hausdorff completion of VA ,
ℓ∞ (X) Banach space of bounded functions,

co (X) Banach space of generalized zero sequences,
BC(X) Banach space of bounded continuous functions,
Cc (X) vector space of continuous functions with compact support,
C(X, V ) vector space of vector valued continuous functions,
Vb Hausdorff completion,
c
M lattice in Hausdorff completion,
L(V, W ) vector space of continuous linear maps,

L(B, M ) lattice in L(V, W ),
pB seminorm on L(V, W ),
LB (V, W ) L(V, W ) with B-topology,
Lb (V, W ) L(V, W ) with topology of bounded convergence,
Lc (V, W ) L(V, W ) with topology of compactoid convergence,
Ls (V, W ) L(V, W ) with topology of pointwise convergence,
165
V′ dual space,
VB′ B-dual,
Vb′ strong dual,
Vs′ weak dual,
f′ dual or transpose map,
δ duality map,
Ap pseudo-polar,
App pseudo-bipolar
Vc Mackey topology
Vs weak topology
C(V, W ) compact maps,

CC(V, W ) completely continuous maps,
N (V, W ) nuclear maps,
p⊗q tensor product seminorm,

V ⊗K,ι W inductive tensor product,
V ⊗K,π W projective tensor product,
b K,π W
V ⊗ completed projective tensor product,
B(V × W ) vector space of bilinear forms,
tr trace linear form for nuclear maps,

ind(f ) index of a Fredholm map,
166

Schneider-Nonarchimedean Functional Analysis 2

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Schneider-Nonarchimedean Functional Analysis 2

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Nonarchimedean Functional Analysis

Münster, May 2001 Peter Schneider

Chap. II: The structure of Banach spaces

Chap. III: Duality theory

Chap. IV: Nuclear maps and spaces

In this chapter we introduce the basic notions and constructions of nonar-

Bǫ− (a) := {b ∈ K : |b − a| < ǫ}

form a fundamental system of neighbourhoods of a in K. As we will see below

From now on throughout the book K always denotes a nonarchimedean field

Any finite extension K of Qp is locally compact and hence spherically complete.

Another important class of nonarchimedean fields is formed by those for which

Let V be a K-vector space throughout this section. A (nonarchimedean) semi-

Note that in the above definition the submodule A0 is uniquely determined by

S any two i, j ∈ I there is a third k ∈ I such that Ai ∪ Aj ⊆ Ak then the

In fact, for a lattice L ⊆ V the natural map

We claim that pL is a seminorm on V . First of all, for any b ∈ K × and any

Secondly, the inequality pL (v + w) ≤ max(pL (v), pL (w)) is an immediate con-

L(q) := {v ∈ V : q(v) ≤ 1} and L− (q) := {v ∈ V : q(v) < 1} .

Proof: i. By construction we have pL (v) ≤ 1 for v ∈ L. On the other hand, if

§3 Normed vector spaces

In this section we study a particular class of seminorms on a K-vector space V .

It is the usual convention to denote norms by k k (and not by q). A normed

2) Let X be any set; then

ℓ∞ (X) := all bounded functions φ : X → K

with pointwise addition and scalar multiplication and the norm

kφk∞ := sup |φ(x)|

Cc (X) := {φ ∈ BC(X) : φ has compact support}

L(V, W ) := {f ∈ HomK (V, W ) : f is continuous}

kf (v)k = |a|m · kf (a−m v)k ≤ |a|m < |a|−2 · kvk .

kfn+1 (v) − fn (v)k = k(fn+1 − fn )(v)k ≤ kfn+1 − fn k · kvk

fn (v), for any v ∈ V , is a Cauchy sequence in W . By assumption the limit

f (av) = af (v) for any a ∈ K .

f (v) + f (v ′ ) = lim fn (v) + lim fn (v ′ ) = lim (fn (v) + fn (v ′ ))

kf (v)k = lim kfn (v)k ≤ ( lim kfn k) · kvk

shows that f indeed is the limit of the sequence (fn )n in L(V, W ).

We list two further simple properties:

ℓ 7−→ φℓ (x) := ℓ(1x )

is an isometric linear isomorphism.

We first have to discuss the notion of summability in K before we can establish

It is clear that the map ℓ 7−→ φℓ is linear. To see that it is isometric we

|ℓ(ψ)| supx∈X |ψ(x) · ℓ(1x )|

§4 Locally convex vector spaces

Since on a nonzero K-vector space the scalar multiplication cannot be continuous

V (qi1 , . . . , qir ; ǫ) := {v ∈ V : qi1 , . . . , qir (v) ≤ ǫ} .

Next we want to investigate the topological properties of convex subsets in V .

The convex hull of a subset S ⊆ V is defined to be

As a first application of this concept of boundedness we will derive an intrinsic

q(v) ≤ ( max q(ei )) · kvk

kvk ≤ c · p(v) for any v ∈ K n .

This will be achieved by induction with respect to n. The case n = 1 is obvious

1 ≤ c2 := p(en )/ inf p(en − v) < ∞ .

p(w) = |b| · p(b−1 v + en ) ≥ |b| · p(en ) · c−1 −1

p(v) = p(w − ben ) ≤ max(p(w), p(ben )) ≤ c2 · p(w) .

kwk = max(kvk, |b|) ≤ max(c1 , p(en )−1 ) · max(c−1

§5 Constructions and examples

Let V be a locally convex vector space and let U ⊆ V be a vector subspace.

Let V be a locally convex vector space and let U ⊆ V be a vector subspace.

q(v + U ) := inf q(v + u) ;

C. The finest locally convex topology

X(1/n) := {x ∈ X : |x| ≤ n and |x − a| ≥ 1/n for any a ∈ Qp } .

We then have knumerator(R)k1/n ≤ nd · maxi (|ai |) and kdenominator(R)k1/n ≥

is by definition an isometry. Since the space of bounded continuous Cp -valued

O1/n (X) −→ BC(X(1/n), Cp )