Functional Analysis HW #2

Sangchul Lee

October 26, 2015

Contents

1 Some useful facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1 Some useful facts

Lemma 1.1. Let X be a Banach space, and define A(X ) by

A(X ) = {α ⊂ X : α is a subspace satisfying 0 < dim α < ∞}.

Then A(X ) is a directed set with the usual set-inclusion.

Proof. Only the possible non-trivial statement is that every two elements α, β ∈ A(X ) have an upper
bound. But this is also easy since α + β ∈ A(X ) is finite-dimensional and contains both α and β. 

Lemma 1.2. Let M be a closed proper subspace of the Banach space X and x 0 ∈ X \ M. Then
there exists ϕ ∈ X ∗ such that
(a) ϕ(y) = 0 for y ∈ M,
(b) ϕ(x 0 ) = dist(x 0, M) , and
(c) kϕk = 1.

Proof. It is easy to check that

dist(x, M) = inf k x − yk
y ∈M

1
is a sublinear functional on X and that dist(λ x, M) = |λ| dist(x, M) for all λ ∈ C. Now let
d = dist(x 0, M) and consider the linear functional ϕ0 : Cx 0 → C given by
ϕ0 (λ x 0 ) = λd.
Since |ϕ0 (λ x 0 )| = |λ|d = dist(λ x 0, M), we can follow the proof of Theorem 1.26 mutandis mutatis to
construct a linear functional ϕ that extends ϕ0 . Indeed, consider Re ϕ0 as a R-linear functional, extend
this to a R-linear functional ψ on X̃ (X considered as a R-normed space) dominated by the sublinear
functional dist(·, M), and define ϕ(x) = ψ(x) − iψ(ix). Then we notice that
• ϕ(x 0 ) = ϕ0 (x 0 ) = d.
• To show that kϕk ≤ 1, write ϕ(x) = reiθ and notice that
|ϕ(x)| = e−iθ ϕ(x) = ϕ(e−iθ x) = ψ(e−iθ x) ≤ dist(e−iθ x, M) = dist(x, M) ≤ k xk.

• The inequality above also shows that |ϕ(y)| ≤ dist(y, M) = 0 for y ∈ M.

• Finally, notice that for any y ∈ M, we have
|ϕ(x 0 − y)| d
kϕk ≥ = .
k x 0 − yk k x 0 − yk
Taking supremum over y ∈ M, it follows that kϕk ≥ 1.
This completes the proof. 

Proposition 1.3. If X is a Banach space and X ∗ is separable, then so is X .

Proof. Let {ϕ1, ϕ2, · · · } be a dense subset of X ∗ . For each n, choose x n ∈ X such that
|ϕ n (x n )|
≥ 21 kϕ n k
k xn k
Then we claim that the set D of all possible Q-linear combinations of {x 1, x 2, · · · } is dense in X . Since
D is countable, this will prove that X is separable as well.
To this end, we assume otherwise. Then the the closure M of D in X is not equal to X . Notice
also that M is in fact a closed subspace of X . Using this, choose any x 0 ∈ X \ M and pick ϕ ∈ X ∗ as
in Lemma 1.2. Clearly ϕ is not identically zero. Also we have
|ϕ(x n ) − ϕ n (x n )| |ϕ n (x n )|
kϕ − ϕ n k ≥ = ≥ 21 kϕ n k.
k xn k k xn k
Since {ϕ1, ϕ2, · · · } is dense in X ∗ , we can choose a subsequence (ϕ n j ) such that kϕ − ϕ n j k → 0. Then
the above inequality shows that ϕ = lim j→∞ ϕ n j = 0, a contradiction. This completes the proof. 

2
2 Solutions

Exercise 1.13. Prove that the relative w ∗ -topology on the unit ball X ∗ is metrizable if and only if X
is separable.

Proof. Since (X ∗ )1 is compact Hausdorff by Banach-Alaoglu theorem, a simple application of Urysohn

metrization theorem shows that (X ∗ )1 is metrizable if and only if it is second-countable.
• Assume that (X ∗ )1 is second-countable. Then X ∗ = ∪n (X ∗ )n is also second-countable and
hence separable. This implies that X is separable, by Proposition 1.3.
• Assume that X is separable. Choose a dense subset D = { f 1, f 2, · · · } of X and a countable base
(Uk ) of the usual topology on C. Then we consider the set
Vn,k = {ϕ ∈ (X ∗ )1 : ϕ( f n ) ∈ Uk }.
Clearly {Vn, k }n, k ≥1 is a countable family of open sets. Now assume that (ψα )α ∈ A is a net in
(X ∗ )1 such that
lim ψα ( f n ) = ψ( f n ) for each n.
α∈A

(We remark that this information is completely determined by the collection {Vn, k }n, k ≥1 .) Then
by Proposition 1.21, this implies that (ψα ) w ∗ -converges to ψ. Thus {Vn,k }n, k ≥1 determines the
topology of (X ∗ )1 and hence (X ∗ )1 is second countable.
This completes the equivalence of two conditions. 

Exercise 1.14. Let N be a subsapce of X , x be in X , and set

d = inf{k x − yk : y ∈ N }.
If d > 0, then show that there exists ϕ in X ∗ such that ϕ(y) = 0 for y in N , ϕ(x) = 1, and
kϕk = 1/d .

Proof. Let M be the closure of N , which is a proper closed subspace of X . It is clear that we have
dist(x, M) = dist(x, N ) for any x ∈ X . Then choose ϕ as in Lemma 1.2 and divide it by d to obtain
the desired linear functional. 

Exercise 1.15. Show that if we define the function fˆ(ϕ) = ϕ( f ) for f ∈ X and ϕ ∈ X ∗ , then fˆ is
in X ∗∗ and the mapping f → fˆ is an isometric isomorphism of X onto X ∗∗ .

3
Proof. We know from linear algebra that the mapping f 7→ fˆ is linear. So it suffices to prove that this
mapping preserves norm. (In particular, this automatically guarantees that this mapping is injective.)
To this end, let f ∈ X . Then for any ϕ ∈ X ∗ with kϕk = 1,
| fˆ(ϕ)| = |ϕ( f )| ≤ kϕk k f k = k f k.

Taking supremum over kϕk = 1, we find that k fˆk ≤ k f k. Also, by Corollary 1.27, there exists ϕ with
kϕk = 1 such that ϕ( f ) = k f k. Thus we have
k fˆk ≥ | fˆ(ϕ)| = |ϕ( f )| = k f k.

Therefore the inequality is saturated and hence k fˆk = k f k. 

Exercise 1.16. Show that X is reflexive for X finite dimensional but that none of the spaces c0 (Z+ ) ,
l 1 (Z+ ) , l ∞ (Z+ ) , C([0, 1]) , and L 1 ([0, 1]) is reflexive.

Proof. (a) If X is finite-dimensional, then we know from linear algebra that dim X ∗∗ = dim X . Also,
from the previous exercise we know that X is naturally embedded into X ∗∗ . Therefore X and X ∗∗
is isometrically isomorphic and hence reflexive.
(b) Inseparability of c0 (Z+ ). We know that c0 (Z+ ) ∗∗ ' ` ∞ (Z+ ), which is much larger than c0 (Z+ ).
Thus c0 (Z+ ) is not reflexive.
(c) Inseparability of ` 1 (Z+ ). We know that ` 1 (Z+ ) is separable. If it is reflexive, then ` 1 (Z+ ) ∗∗ '
` 1 (Z+ ) must be also separable. But by Proposition 1.3, this implies that ` 1 (Z+ ) ∗ ' ` ∞ (Z+ ) is
separable, which is a contradiction. Therefore ` 1 (Z+ ) is not reflexive.
(d) Inseparability of C([0, 1]). Notice that for each x ∈ [0, 1], the Dirac-delta δ x : f 7→ f (x) is a
bounded linear functional on C([0, 1]):
|δ x ( f )| = | f (x)| ≤ k f k.
Moreover, for x , y we can find a separating function f ∈ C([0, 1]) such that k f k = 1, f (x) = 1
and f (y) = 0. This implies that
|δ x ( f ) − δ y ( f )|
kδ x − δ y k ≥ = 1.
kfk
Thus C([0, 1]) ∗ is inseparable and the same is true for C([0, 1]) ∗∗ . On the other hand, C([0, 1])
is separable by a simple application of Stone-Weierstrass theorem. Therefore C([0, 1]) is not
reflexive.
(e) Inseparability of L 1 ([0, 1]). We know that L 1 ([0, 1]) is separable. On the other hand, it is easy
to modify the argument for inseparability of ` ∞ (Z+ ) to show that L ∞ ([0, 1]) ' L 1 ([0, 1]) ∗ is
inseparable. Thus L 1 ([0, 1]) cannot be reflexive.


4
 ∞ is a sequence in X ∗ such that {ϕ ( f )} ∞
Exercise 1.21. If X is a Banach space and {ϕ n }n=1 n n=1
is a Cauchy sequence for each f in X , then limn→∞ ϕ n exists in the w ∗ -topology. Moreover, the
corresponding result for nets is false.

Proof. Assume that (ϕ n ) ⊂ X ∗ is pointwise Cauchy. Then (ϕ n ) converges pointwise. Let us denote
the limit by
ϕ( f ) := lim ϕ n ( f ), f ∈ X.
n→∞

Then ϕ is a linear functional on X . Moreover, since every Cauchy sequence is bounded, (ϕ n ) is

pointwise bounded. Then by the uniform boundedness principle, (ϕ n ) is uniformly bounded and hence
ϕ is bounded as well. This proves the w ∗ -convergence.
If the ‘Cauchy sequence’ is replaced by ‘Cauchy net’, this argument breaks down since Cauchy net
need not be necessarily bounded. Indeed, for any infinite-dimensional Banach space there exists an
unbounded linear functional, then the next problem gives a counter-example. 

Exercise 1.22. Show that if X is a Banach space and ϕ is a (not necessarily continuous) linear
functional on X , then there exists a net {ϕα }α ∈ A in X ∗ such that limα ∈ A ϕα ( f ) = ϕ( f ) for f ∈ X .

Proof. Let ϕ be any linear functional on X . As in Lemma 1.1, Define A = A(X ) by the family of
non-trivial, finite-dimensional subspaces of X .
Now for each α ∈ A, notice that ϕ|α is bounded on α. Thus by the Hahn-Banach theorem we can
choose a bounded linear functional Φα that extend the restriction ϕ|α to all of X .
For each f ∈ X , we can pick α0 = C f ∈ A such that for any α0 ⊆ α we have Φα ( f ) = ϕ( f ).
This tells us that Φα ( f ) → ϕ( f ) for each f ∈ X . Therefore the net {Φα }α ∈ A satisfies the desired
condition. 

Exercise 1.24. Show that a subspace M of the Banach space X is norm closed if and only if it is
w -closed. Show that the unit sphere in X is w -closed if and only if X is finite dimensional.*

Proof. (1) Assume first that M is w-closed. Then clearly M is norm-closed. Indeed, whenever the net
{ f α } ⊂ M converges to some f in X , we have f α * f as well. This forces that f ∈ M, thus M is
norm-closed as claimed.
(2) Now assume that M is norm-closed. If M = X , there is nothing to prove. So we assume that
M , X . Then for each f ∈ X \ M we pick ϕ f ∈ X ∗ according to Lemma 1.2. Then it is easy to check

5
that
\
M= ker ϕ f .
f ∈X \M

This follows by noticing that for each f ∈ X \ M, we have both M ⊆ ker ϕ f and f < ker ϕ f . But since
each kernel is the inverse image of the closed set {0}, it is w-closed. Therefore the intersection of all
{ker ϕ f } f ∈X \M is again w-closed.
(3) Assume that d = dim X < ∞. Then so is X ∗ and we have dim X ∗ = d. Let {ϕ1, · · · , ϕ d } be a
dual basis of X ∗ . Since X is finite-dimensional, ϕ1, · · · , ϕ d are (norm-)continuous. Now consider
k f k 0 := |ϕ1 ( f )| + · · · + |ϕ d ( f )|.
We make several observations:
• This defines another norm on X . Indeed, the only non-trivial part is the non-degeneracy of k · k 0.
But k f k 0 = 0 implies that any linear combination of ϕ1 ( f ), · · · , ϕ d ( f ) is 0, hence f = 0 as well.
• Any two norm on a finite-dimensional normed space are equivalent. In particular, k · k and k · k 0
are equivalent.
• The w-topology on X is induced by the norm. Indeed, if a net { f α } w-converges to f ∈ X then
k f α − f k 0 = |ϕ1 ( f α ) − ϕ1 ( f )| + · · · + |ϕ d ( f α ) − ϕ d ( f )|
also converges to 0, hence f α → f in norm.
Therefore the unit sphere in X is w-closed.
(4) Assume that dim X = ∞. As in Lemma 1.1, let A = A(X ∗ ) be the family of non-trivial,
finite-dimensional subspaces of X ∗ .
For each α ∈ A, notice that ϕ ∈α ker ϕ , {0}. Otherwise, if we choose a basis {ϕ1, · · · , ϕ d } of α
T
then the linear map f 7→ (ϕ1 ( f ), · · · , ϕ d ( f )) must be injective X → Cd , which is impossible since
dim X = ∞.
Using the previous observation, for each α ∈ A we pick f α ∈ X such that k f α k = 1 and ϕ( f α ) = 0
for all ϕ ∈ α. Then we claim that { f α }α ∈ A converges weakly to 0. Indeed, for any ϕ ∈ X ∗ there exists
α0 ∈ A such that ϕ ∈ α (Pick arbitrary α0 if ϕ = 0 or let α0 = Cϕ). Then for any α0 ⊆ α, we have
ϕ( f α ) = 0.
This proves that limα ∈ A ϕ( f α ) = 0 for each ϕ ∈ X ∗ and hence the claim. Therefore the unit sphere in
X is not w-closed. 

Exercise 1.25. Show that if X is a Banach space, then X is w ∗ -dense in X ∗∗ .

Proof. This statement is known as Goldstine’s theorem.

6
(Step 1: choice of directed set) Define A by
A = {(S, δ) : ∅ , S ⊂ X ∗ is linearly independent and finite, δ > 0}
and equip A with the partial ordering ≤ given by
(S, δ) ≤ (S 0, δ 0 ) if and only if S ⊆ S0 and δ ≥ δ 0.
It is straightforward to see that A is a directed set. (An easy way to see this is to recognize A as a
product of two directed sets.)

(Step 2: construction of approximating net) Now fix f ∗∗ ∈ (X ∗∗ )1 and we construct a net { f α }α ∈ A

as follows: Let α = ({ϕ1, · · · , ϕ d }, δ) be arbitrary. Then Φ : X → Cd defined by
Φ( f ) = (ϕ1 ( f ), · · · , ϕ d ( f ))
is a surjective linear map onto Cd . Using this fact, choose any gα ∈ Φ−1 ( f ∗∗ (ϕ1 ), · · · , f ∗∗ (ϕ d )) and
finally pick f α such that
f α ∈ ((1 − δ)gα + ker Φ) ∩ (X )1 .
Assume that this construction is possible (which we will prove). Then for any 0 , ϕ ∈ X ∗ and ε > 0,
we can choose α0 = ({ϕ}, ε/(1 + | f ∗∗ (ϕ)|)) ∈ A such that for any α0 ≤ α = (S, δ) ∈ A,
|ϕ( f α ) − f ∗∗ (ϕ)| = |(1 − δ) f ∗∗ (ϕ) − f ∗∗ (ϕ)|
= δ| f ∗∗ (ϕ)|
< ε.
This shows that our net { f α }α ∈ A w ∗ -converges to f ∗∗ as desired.

(Step 3: justification) Here are some technical details that justifies this construction:
• If Φ is not surjective, then using the inner product structure of Cd we can pick 0 , (α1, · · · , α d ) ∈
Φ(X ) ⊥ . This implies ᾱ1 ϕ1 + · · · ᾱ d ϕ d ≡ 0 on X , contradicting to the linear independence.
• We need to show that ((1 − δ)gα + ker Φ) ∩ (X )1 is non-empty for any δ > 0. Assume that this is
impossible. This implies that dist(0, 1 − δ)gα + ker Φ) ≥ 1 and hence
1
dist(gα, ker Φ) ≥ 1−δ > 1.
On the other hand, using Lemma 1.2, we can choose ψ ∈ X ∗ such that
ψ≡0 on ker Φ, ψ(gα ) = dist(gα, ker Φ), kψk = 1.
The first condition shows that ϕ ∈ span{ϕ1, · · · , ϕ d }. Thus
dist(gα, ker Φ) = |ψ(gα )| = | f ∗∗ (ψ)| ≤ kψk k f ∗∗ k ≤ 1,

7
a contradiction! Therefore we can always choose such f α .