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 $B_n$.










share|cite|improve this 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















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 $B_n$.










share|cite|improve this 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













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 $B_n$.










share|cite|improve this question
















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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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


















  • 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










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 $z^{*}$].






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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


















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 $z^{*}$].






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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















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 $z^{*}$].






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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













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 $z^{*}$].






share|cite|improve this answer














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 $z^{*}$].







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








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


















  • 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



Popular posts from this blog

Aardman Animations

Are they similar matrix

“minimization” problem in Euclidean space related to orthonormal basis