For an infinite dimensional Banach space, $X^*$ when given the weak* topology is of the first category in...
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
$X^*$ with its weak*-topology is of the first category in itself
1 answer
Let $X$ be an infinite dimensional Banach space. Why is $X^*$ of the first category in itself when given the weak* topology.
Very closely related to $X^*$ with its weak*-topology is of the first category in itself, but I can't follow all the steps.
The first step (hopefully) is to show that $B_n = {x^* : lVert x^* rVert leq n}$ is nowhere dense, i.e. its closure is has an empty interior.
Then $X = bigcup_n B_n$, so $X$ is meagre.
The answer claims that "It suffices to prove that $text{int}_{w∗}B_n=emptyset$", but don't we have to show that $text{int}_{w∗}overline{B_n}=emptyset$?
So I'm getting stuck trying to say anything about the closure of $B_n$.
banach-spaces baire-category weak-topology
marked as duplicate by user10354138, Lord Shark the Unknown, ArsenBerk, 5xum, s.harp 18 hours ago
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
$X^*$ with its weak*-topology is of the first category in itself
1 answer
Let $X$ be an infinite dimensional Banach space. Why is $X^*$ of the first category in itself when given the weak* topology.
Very closely related to $X^*$ with its weak*-topology is of the first category in itself, but I can't follow all the steps.
The first step (hopefully) is to show that $B_n = {x^* : lVert x^* rVert leq n}$ is nowhere dense, i.e. its closure is has an empty interior.
Then $X = bigcup_n B_n$, so $X$ is meagre.
The answer claims that "It suffices to prove that $text{int}_{w∗}B_n=emptyset$", but don't we have to show that $text{int}_{w∗}overline{B_n}=emptyset$?
So I'm getting stuck trying to say anything about the closure of $B_n$.
banach-spaces baire-category weak-topology
marked as duplicate by user10354138, Lord Shark the Unknown, ArsenBerk, 5xum, s.harp 18 hours ago
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
The answer given there is for Banach space.
– user10354138
yesterday
The linked answer doesn't explain why $B_n$ is weak* closed but the answer here does.
– reeeeee
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
$X^*$ with its weak*-topology is of the first category in itself
1 answer
Let $X$ be an infinite dimensional Banach space. Why is $X^*$ of the first category in itself when given the weak* topology.
Very closely related to $X^*$ with its weak*-topology is of the first category in itself, but I can't follow all the steps.
The first step (hopefully) is to show that $B_n = {x^* : lVert x^* rVert leq n}$ is nowhere dense, i.e. its closure is has an empty interior.
Then $X = bigcup_n B_n$, so $X$ is meagre.
The answer claims that "It suffices to prove that $text{int}_{w∗}B_n=emptyset$", but don't we have to show that $text{int}_{w∗}overline{B_n}=emptyset$?
So I'm getting stuck trying to say anything about the closure of $B_n$.
banach-spaces baire-category weak-topology
This question already has an answer here:
$X^*$ with its weak*-topology is of the first category in itself
1 answer
Let $X$ be an infinite dimensional Banach space. Why is $X^*$ of the first category in itself when given the weak* topology.
Very closely related to $X^*$ with its weak*-topology is of the first category in itself, but I can't follow all the steps.
The first step (hopefully) is to show that $B_n = {x^* : lVert x^* rVert leq n}$ is nowhere dense, i.e. its closure is has an empty interior.
Then $X = bigcup_n B_n$, so $X$ is meagre.
The answer claims that "It suffices to prove that $text{int}_{w∗}B_n=emptyset$", but don't we have to show that $text{int}_{w∗}overline{B_n}=emptyset$?
So I'm getting stuck trying to say anything about the closure of $B_n$.
This question already has an answer here:
$X^*$ with its weak*-topology is of the first category in itself
1 answer
banach-spaces baire-category weak-topology
banach-spaces baire-category weak-topology
edited yesterday
asked yesterday
reeeeee
85
85
marked as duplicate by user10354138, Lord Shark the Unknown, ArsenBerk, 5xum, s.harp 18 hours ago
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by user10354138, Lord Shark the Unknown, ArsenBerk, 5xum, s.harp 18 hours ago
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
The answer given there is for Banach space.
– user10354138
yesterday
The linked answer doesn't explain why $B_n$ is weak* closed but the answer here does.
– reeeeee
yesterday
add a comment |
The answer given there is for Banach space.
– user10354138
yesterday
The linked answer doesn't explain why $B_n$ is weak* closed but the answer here does.
– reeeeee
yesterday
The answer given there is for Banach space.
– user10354138
yesterday
The answer given there is for Banach space.
– user10354138
yesterday
The linked answer doesn't explain why $B_n$ is weak* closed but the answer here does.
– reeeeee
yesterday
The linked answer doesn't explain why $B_n$ is weak* closed but the answer here does.
– reeeeee
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
First note that $B_n equiv cap_{||x|leq 1}{x^{*}:|x^{*}(x)|leq 1}$ is closed in $w^{*}$ topology. Suppose if possible, $x^{*}$ is an interior point of $B_n$. Then there exist $n,x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n$ and $r_1,r_2,cdots,r_n$ such that $|y^{*}(x_i)-x^{*}(x_i)|<r_i,1leq ileq n$ implies $|y^{*}| leq n$. Take $y^{*}=x^{*}+z^{*}$ where $z^{*}(x_i)=0, 1leq ileq n$ and $|z^{*}| >|x^{*}|+n$ to get a contradiction. The existence of $z^{*}$ is an easy consequence of Hahn - Banach Theorem.
[Since $X$ is infinite dimensional there exists a vector $x$ which does not belong to $span {x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n}$. Let $M$ be the span of ${x,x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n}$ and define $f$ on $M$ by $f(m+ax)=a(n+|x^{*}|)|x|$ for $min M,a in mathbb R$ (or $mathbb C$ as the case may be). This is a continuous linear functional on $M$ with $|f| geq frac {|f(x)|} {|x|}=n+|x^{*}|$. Extend $f$ to a norm preserving functional on $X$ and call it $z^{*}$].
Thanks! I understand that $B_n$ has an empty interior, but how do we know that the closure of $B_n$ has a non-empty interior? I'm worried that taking the closure might give a much bigger subset, like how $mathbb{Q}$ has a non-empty interior, but its closure $mathbb{R}$ doesn't.
– reeeeee
yesterday
@reeeeee I just answered that question by editing my answer. $B_n$ is an intersection of weak* closed sets, hence it is already closed.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
yesterday
Thanks, it's starting to make more sense now. Having noted that $B_n$ is weak* closed, it is enough/equivalent to say that it can't contain any weak* open subsets, because weak* open subsets are norm-unbounded?
– reeeeee
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
First note that $B_n equiv cap_{||x|leq 1}{x^{*}:|x^{*}(x)|leq 1}$ is closed in $w^{*}$ topology. Suppose if possible, $x^{*}$ is an interior point of $B_n$. Then there exist $n,x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n$ and $r_1,r_2,cdots,r_n$ such that $|y^{*}(x_i)-x^{*}(x_i)|<r_i,1leq ileq n$ implies $|y^{*}| leq n$. Take $y^{*}=x^{*}+z^{*}$ where $z^{*}(x_i)=0, 1leq ileq n$ and $|z^{*}| >|x^{*}|+n$ to get a contradiction. The existence of $z^{*}$ is an easy consequence of Hahn - Banach Theorem.
[Since $X$ is infinite dimensional there exists a vector $x$ which does not belong to $span {x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n}$. Let $M$ be the span of ${x,x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n}$ and define $f$ on $M$ by $f(m+ax)=a(n+|x^{*}|)|x|$ for $min M,a in mathbb R$ (or $mathbb C$ as the case may be). This is a continuous linear functional on $M$ with $|f| geq frac {|f(x)|} {|x|}=n+|x^{*}|$. Extend $f$ to a norm preserving functional on $X$ and call it $z^{*}$].
Thanks! I understand that $B_n$ has an empty interior, but how do we know that the closure of $B_n$ has a non-empty interior? I'm worried that taking the closure might give a much bigger subset, like how $mathbb{Q}$ has a non-empty interior, but its closure $mathbb{R}$ doesn't.
– reeeeee
yesterday
@reeeeee I just answered that question by editing my answer. $B_n$ is an intersection of weak* closed sets, hence it is already closed.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
yesterday
Thanks, it's starting to make more sense now. Having noted that $B_n$ is weak* closed, it is enough/equivalent to say that it can't contain any weak* open subsets, because weak* open subsets are norm-unbounded?
– reeeeee
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
First note that $B_n equiv cap_{||x|leq 1}{x^{*}:|x^{*}(x)|leq 1}$ is closed in $w^{*}$ topology. Suppose if possible, $x^{*}$ is an interior point of $B_n$. Then there exist $n,x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n$ and $r_1,r_2,cdots,r_n$ such that $|y^{*}(x_i)-x^{*}(x_i)|<r_i,1leq ileq n$ implies $|y^{*}| leq n$. Take $y^{*}=x^{*}+z^{*}$ where $z^{*}(x_i)=0, 1leq ileq n$ and $|z^{*}| >|x^{*}|+n$ to get a contradiction. The existence of $z^{*}$ is an easy consequence of Hahn - Banach Theorem.
[Since $X$ is infinite dimensional there exists a vector $x$ which does not belong to $span {x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n}$. Let $M$ be the span of ${x,x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n}$ and define $f$ on $M$ by $f(m+ax)=a(n+|x^{*}|)|x|$ for $min M,a in mathbb R$ (or $mathbb C$ as the case may be). This is a continuous linear functional on $M$ with $|f| geq frac {|f(x)|} {|x|}=n+|x^{*}|$. Extend $f$ to a norm preserving functional on $X$ and call it $z^{*}$].
Thanks! I understand that $B_n$ has an empty interior, but how do we know that the closure of $B_n$ has a non-empty interior? I'm worried that taking the closure might give a much bigger subset, like how $mathbb{Q}$ has a non-empty interior, but its closure $mathbb{R}$ doesn't.
– reeeeee
yesterday
@reeeeee I just answered that question by editing my answer. $B_n$ is an intersection of weak* closed sets, hence it is already closed.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
yesterday
Thanks, it's starting to make more sense now. Having noted that $B_n$ is weak* closed, it is enough/equivalent to say that it can't contain any weak* open subsets, because weak* open subsets are norm-unbounded?
– reeeeee
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
First note that $B_n equiv cap_{||x|leq 1}{x^{*}:|x^{*}(x)|leq 1}$ is closed in $w^{*}$ topology. Suppose if possible, $x^{*}$ is an interior point of $B_n$. Then there exist $n,x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n$ and $r_1,r_2,cdots,r_n$ such that $|y^{*}(x_i)-x^{*}(x_i)|<r_i,1leq ileq n$ implies $|y^{*}| leq n$. Take $y^{*}=x^{*}+z^{*}$ where $z^{*}(x_i)=0, 1leq ileq n$ and $|z^{*}| >|x^{*}|+n$ to get a contradiction. The existence of $z^{*}$ is an easy consequence of Hahn - Banach Theorem.
[Since $X$ is infinite dimensional there exists a vector $x$ which does not belong to $span {x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n}$. Let $M$ be the span of ${x,x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n}$ and define $f$ on $M$ by $f(m+ax)=a(n+|x^{*}|)|x|$ for $min M,a in mathbb R$ (or $mathbb C$ as the case may be). This is a continuous linear functional on $M$ with $|f| geq frac {|f(x)|} {|x|}=n+|x^{*}|$. Extend $f$ to a norm preserving functional on $X$ and call it $z^{*}$].
First note that $B_n equiv cap_{||x|leq 1}{x^{*}:|x^{*}(x)|leq 1}$ is closed in $w^{*}$ topology. Suppose if possible, $x^{*}$ is an interior point of $B_n$. Then there exist $n,x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n$ and $r_1,r_2,cdots,r_n$ such that $|y^{*}(x_i)-x^{*}(x_i)|<r_i,1leq ileq n$ implies $|y^{*}| leq n$. Take $y^{*}=x^{*}+z^{*}$ where $z^{*}(x_i)=0, 1leq ileq n$ and $|z^{*}| >|x^{*}|+n$ to get a contradiction. The existence of $z^{*}$ is an easy consequence of Hahn - Banach Theorem.
[Since $X$ is infinite dimensional there exists a vector $x$ which does not belong to $span {x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n}$. Let $M$ be the span of ${x,x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n}$ and define $f$ on $M$ by $f(m+ax)=a(n+|x^{*}|)|x|$ for $min M,a in mathbb R$ (or $mathbb C$ as the case may be). This is a continuous linear functional on $M$ with $|f| geq frac {|f(x)|} {|x|}=n+|x^{*}|$. Extend $f$ to a norm preserving functional on $X$ and call it $z^{*}$].
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Kavi Rama Murthy
38.6k31747
38.6k31747
Thanks! I understand that $B_n$ has an empty interior, but how do we know that the closure of $B_n$ has a non-empty interior? I'm worried that taking the closure might give a much bigger subset, like how $mathbb{Q}$ has a non-empty interior, but its closure $mathbb{R}$ doesn't.
– reeeeee
yesterday
@reeeeee I just answered that question by editing my answer. $B_n$ is an intersection of weak* closed sets, hence it is already closed.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
yesterday
Thanks, it's starting to make more sense now. Having noted that $B_n$ is weak* closed, it is enough/equivalent to say that it can't contain any weak* open subsets, because weak* open subsets are norm-unbounded?
– reeeeee
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks! I understand that $B_n$ has an empty interior, but how do we know that the closure of $B_n$ has a non-empty interior? I'm worried that taking the closure might give a much bigger subset, like how $mathbb{Q}$ has a non-empty interior, but its closure $mathbb{R}$ doesn't.
– reeeeee
yesterday
@reeeeee I just answered that question by editing my answer. $B_n$ is an intersection of weak* closed sets, hence it is already closed.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
yesterday
Thanks, it's starting to make more sense now. Having noted that $B_n$ is weak* closed, it is enough/equivalent to say that it can't contain any weak* open subsets, because weak* open subsets are norm-unbounded?
– reeeeee
yesterday
Thanks! I understand that $B_n$ has an empty interior, but how do we know that the closure of $B_n$ has a non-empty interior? I'm worried that taking the closure might give a much bigger subset, like how $mathbb{Q}$ has a non-empty interior, but its closure $mathbb{R}$ doesn't.
– reeeeee
yesterday
Thanks! I understand that $B_n$ has an empty interior, but how do we know that the closure of $B_n$ has a non-empty interior? I'm worried that taking the closure might give a much bigger subset, like how $mathbb{Q}$ has a non-empty interior, but its closure $mathbb{R}$ doesn't.
– reeeeee
yesterday
@reeeeee I just answered that question by editing my answer. $B_n$ is an intersection of weak* closed sets, hence it is already closed.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
yesterday
@reeeeee I just answered that question by editing my answer. $B_n$ is an intersection of weak* closed sets, hence it is already closed.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
yesterday
Thanks, it's starting to make more sense now. Having noted that $B_n$ is weak* closed, it is enough/equivalent to say that it can't contain any weak* open subsets, because weak* open subsets are norm-unbounded?
– reeeeee
yesterday
Thanks, it's starting to make more sense now. Having noted that $B_n$ is weak* closed, it is enough/equivalent to say that it can't contain any weak* open subsets, because weak* open subsets are norm-unbounded?
– reeeeee
yesterday
add a comment |
The answer given there is for Banach space.
– user10354138
yesterday
The linked answer doesn't explain why $B_n$ is weak* closed but the answer here does.
– reeeeee
yesterday