Banach space convergence [closed]












0














Having $X$ , a Banach space. Show that ${x_n}$ converging to $x$ implies that for all functions $f$ contained in $X^ast$ (dual), $f(x_n)$ converges to $f(x)$.










share|cite|improve this question















closed as off-topic by Kavi Rama Murthy, Shailesh, Christopher, Martin Sleziak, Gibbs Nov 23 '18 at 17:57


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Kavi Rama Murthy, Shailesh, Christopher, Martin Sleziak, Gibbs

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









  • 1




    Sequential definition of continuity makes this entirely trivial. Note that even linearity of $f$ need not be explicitly used.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:24












  • See Wikipedia entry en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach_space
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:35
















0














Having $X$ , a Banach space. Show that ${x_n}$ converging to $x$ implies that for all functions $f$ contained in $X^ast$ (dual), $f(x_n)$ converges to $f(x)$.










share|cite|improve this question















closed as off-topic by Kavi Rama Murthy, Shailesh, Christopher, Martin Sleziak, Gibbs Nov 23 '18 at 17:57


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Kavi Rama Murthy, Shailesh, Christopher, Martin Sleziak, Gibbs

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









  • 1




    Sequential definition of continuity makes this entirely trivial. Note that even linearity of $f$ need not be explicitly used.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:24












  • See Wikipedia entry en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach_space
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:35














0












0








0


1





Having $X$ , a Banach space. Show that ${x_n}$ converging to $x$ implies that for all functions $f$ contained in $X^ast$ (dual), $f(x_n)$ converges to $f(x)$.










share|cite|improve this question















Having $X$ , a Banach space. Show that ${x_n}$ converging to $x$ implies that for all functions $f$ contained in $X^ast$ (dual), $f(x_n)$ converges to $f(x)$.







banach-spaces






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 23 '18 at 7:08









Robert Lewis

44.2k22963




44.2k22963










asked Nov 23 '18 at 6:59









mimimimi

175




175




closed as off-topic by Kavi Rama Murthy, Shailesh, Christopher, Martin Sleziak, Gibbs Nov 23 '18 at 17:57


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Kavi Rama Murthy, Shailesh, Christopher, Martin Sleziak, Gibbs

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




closed as off-topic by Kavi Rama Murthy, Shailesh, Christopher, Martin Sleziak, Gibbs Nov 23 '18 at 17:57


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Kavi Rama Murthy, Shailesh, Christopher, Martin Sleziak, Gibbs

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.








  • 1




    Sequential definition of continuity makes this entirely trivial. Note that even linearity of $f$ need not be explicitly used.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:24












  • See Wikipedia entry en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach_space
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:35














  • 1




    Sequential definition of continuity makes this entirely trivial. Note that even linearity of $f$ need not be explicitly used.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:24












  • See Wikipedia entry en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach_space
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:35








1




1




Sequential definition of continuity makes this entirely trivial. Note that even linearity of $f$ need not be explicitly used.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 23 '18 at 7:24






Sequential definition of continuity makes this entirely trivial. Note that even linearity of $f$ need not be explicitly used.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 23 '18 at 7:24














See Wikipedia entry en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach_space
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 23 '18 at 7:35




See Wikipedia entry en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach_space
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 23 '18 at 7:35










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1














Assuming $X^ast$ denotes the vector space of continuous linear functionals



$f:X to Bbb F, tag 1$



where $Bbb F = Bbb R$ or $Bbb F = Bbb C$ is the base field, then every $f in X^ast$ is bounded, viz,



$exists 0 < C_f in Bbb R, ; vert f(x) - f(y) vert le C_f vert x - y vert, ; forall x, y in X; tag 2$



then if



$x_n to x ; text{as} ; n to infty, tag 3$



given $0 < epsilon in Bbb R$ we have, for $n$ sufficiently large,



$vert x_n - x vert < epsilon; tag 4$



thus, for such $n$,



$vert f(x_n) - f(x) vert le C_f vert x_n - x vert < C_f epsilon; tag 5$



taking $epsilon$ small enough ensures $C_f epsilon$ is itself arbitrarily small, whence we see that (5), by definition, implies that



$f(x_n) to f(x) ; text{as} ; n to infty. tag 6$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • For a finite dimension of X , the reciprocal would be true right? Because of isomorphism
    – mimi
    Nov 27 '18 at 23:22










  • @mimi: in finite dimensions, yes.
    – Robert Lewis
    Nov 27 '18 at 23:25



















0














Look how you define the norm of $f$ for $f in V^*$: $$|f|_* = sup_{z neq 0} frac{lvert f(z) rvert}{|z|}.$$ In particular, for any fixed $x in X$, we see $$|f|_* ge frac{lvert f(x) rvert}{|x|} ,,,, implies ,,,,, lvert f(x) rvert le |f|_* |x|.$$ Now suppose that $x_n to x$ in $X$; that is, suppose that $|x_n - x| to 0$. What can you say about $lvert f(x_n) - f(x)rvert?$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I don't understand why the proof has to be so complicated. Isn't this simply continuity of $f$? By definition every element of the dual space is a continuous function.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:17








  • 1




    @KaviRamaMurthy: what is it you find so complicated about this proof? It seems the author has covered the essentials in a failry minimalist manner. Cheers!
    – Robert Lewis
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:22










  • I suppose it's fine to just assert that $f$ is continuous. I'm just giving a quantitative measure of continuity here. I don't see that this is particularly complicated; the whole argument concludes in roughly 6 lines.
    – User8128
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:22








  • 1




    @RobertLewis If $f$ is a continuous function on a topological space and $x_n to x$ then $f(x_n) to f(x)$. I don't understand what proof you are asking for. Am i really missing something here?
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:30






  • 1




    @RobertLewis The usual definition of the dual of a normed linear space is it is the set of all continuous linear functionals. I havent see any book where the definition of the dual space is given in terms of the operator norm.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:32




















2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1














Assuming $X^ast$ denotes the vector space of continuous linear functionals



$f:X to Bbb F, tag 1$



where $Bbb F = Bbb R$ or $Bbb F = Bbb C$ is the base field, then every $f in X^ast$ is bounded, viz,



$exists 0 < C_f in Bbb R, ; vert f(x) - f(y) vert le C_f vert x - y vert, ; forall x, y in X; tag 2$



then if



$x_n to x ; text{as} ; n to infty, tag 3$



given $0 < epsilon in Bbb R$ we have, for $n$ sufficiently large,



$vert x_n - x vert < epsilon; tag 4$



thus, for such $n$,



$vert f(x_n) - f(x) vert le C_f vert x_n - x vert < C_f epsilon; tag 5$



taking $epsilon$ small enough ensures $C_f epsilon$ is itself arbitrarily small, whence we see that (5), by definition, implies that



$f(x_n) to f(x) ; text{as} ; n to infty. tag 6$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • For a finite dimension of X , the reciprocal would be true right? Because of isomorphism
    – mimi
    Nov 27 '18 at 23:22










  • @mimi: in finite dimensions, yes.
    – Robert Lewis
    Nov 27 '18 at 23:25
















1














Assuming $X^ast$ denotes the vector space of continuous linear functionals



$f:X to Bbb F, tag 1$



where $Bbb F = Bbb R$ or $Bbb F = Bbb C$ is the base field, then every $f in X^ast$ is bounded, viz,



$exists 0 < C_f in Bbb R, ; vert f(x) - f(y) vert le C_f vert x - y vert, ; forall x, y in X; tag 2$



then if



$x_n to x ; text{as} ; n to infty, tag 3$



given $0 < epsilon in Bbb R$ we have, for $n$ sufficiently large,



$vert x_n - x vert < epsilon; tag 4$



thus, for such $n$,



$vert f(x_n) - f(x) vert le C_f vert x_n - x vert < C_f epsilon; tag 5$



taking $epsilon$ small enough ensures $C_f epsilon$ is itself arbitrarily small, whence we see that (5), by definition, implies that



$f(x_n) to f(x) ; text{as} ; n to infty. tag 6$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • For a finite dimension of X , the reciprocal would be true right? Because of isomorphism
    – mimi
    Nov 27 '18 at 23:22










  • @mimi: in finite dimensions, yes.
    – Robert Lewis
    Nov 27 '18 at 23:25














1












1








1






Assuming $X^ast$ denotes the vector space of continuous linear functionals



$f:X to Bbb F, tag 1$



where $Bbb F = Bbb R$ or $Bbb F = Bbb C$ is the base field, then every $f in X^ast$ is bounded, viz,



$exists 0 < C_f in Bbb R, ; vert f(x) - f(y) vert le C_f vert x - y vert, ; forall x, y in X; tag 2$



then if



$x_n to x ; text{as} ; n to infty, tag 3$



given $0 < epsilon in Bbb R$ we have, for $n$ sufficiently large,



$vert x_n - x vert < epsilon; tag 4$



thus, for such $n$,



$vert f(x_n) - f(x) vert le C_f vert x_n - x vert < C_f epsilon; tag 5$



taking $epsilon$ small enough ensures $C_f epsilon$ is itself arbitrarily small, whence we see that (5), by definition, implies that



$f(x_n) to f(x) ; text{as} ; n to infty. tag 6$






share|cite|improve this answer












Assuming $X^ast$ denotes the vector space of continuous linear functionals



$f:X to Bbb F, tag 1$



where $Bbb F = Bbb R$ or $Bbb F = Bbb C$ is the base field, then every $f in X^ast$ is bounded, viz,



$exists 0 < C_f in Bbb R, ; vert f(x) - f(y) vert le C_f vert x - y vert, ; forall x, y in X; tag 2$



then if



$x_n to x ; text{as} ; n to infty, tag 3$



given $0 < epsilon in Bbb R$ we have, for $n$ sufficiently large,



$vert x_n - x vert < epsilon; tag 4$



thus, for such $n$,



$vert f(x_n) - f(x) vert le C_f vert x_n - x vert < C_f epsilon; tag 5$



taking $epsilon$ small enough ensures $C_f epsilon$ is itself arbitrarily small, whence we see that (5), by definition, implies that



$f(x_n) to f(x) ; text{as} ; n to infty. tag 6$







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 23 '18 at 7:19









Robert LewisRobert Lewis

44.2k22963




44.2k22963












  • For a finite dimension of X , the reciprocal would be true right? Because of isomorphism
    – mimi
    Nov 27 '18 at 23:22










  • @mimi: in finite dimensions, yes.
    – Robert Lewis
    Nov 27 '18 at 23:25


















  • For a finite dimension of X , the reciprocal would be true right? Because of isomorphism
    – mimi
    Nov 27 '18 at 23:22










  • @mimi: in finite dimensions, yes.
    – Robert Lewis
    Nov 27 '18 at 23:25
















For a finite dimension of X , the reciprocal would be true right? Because of isomorphism
– mimi
Nov 27 '18 at 23:22




For a finite dimension of X , the reciprocal would be true right? Because of isomorphism
– mimi
Nov 27 '18 at 23:22












@mimi: in finite dimensions, yes.
– Robert Lewis
Nov 27 '18 at 23:25




@mimi: in finite dimensions, yes.
– Robert Lewis
Nov 27 '18 at 23:25











0














Look how you define the norm of $f$ for $f in V^*$: $$|f|_* = sup_{z neq 0} frac{lvert f(z) rvert}{|z|}.$$ In particular, for any fixed $x in X$, we see $$|f|_* ge frac{lvert f(x) rvert}{|x|} ,,,, implies ,,,,, lvert f(x) rvert le |f|_* |x|.$$ Now suppose that $x_n to x$ in $X$; that is, suppose that $|x_n - x| to 0$. What can you say about $lvert f(x_n) - f(x)rvert?$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I don't understand why the proof has to be so complicated. Isn't this simply continuity of $f$? By definition every element of the dual space is a continuous function.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:17








  • 1




    @KaviRamaMurthy: what is it you find so complicated about this proof? It seems the author has covered the essentials in a failry minimalist manner. Cheers!
    – Robert Lewis
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:22










  • I suppose it's fine to just assert that $f$ is continuous. I'm just giving a quantitative measure of continuity here. I don't see that this is particularly complicated; the whole argument concludes in roughly 6 lines.
    – User8128
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:22








  • 1




    @RobertLewis If $f$ is a continuous function on a topological space and $x_n to x$ then $f(x_n) to f(x)$. I don't understand what proof you are asking for. Am i really missing something here?
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:30






  • 1




    @RobertLewis The usual definition of the dual of a normed linear space is it is the set of all continuous linear functionals. I havent see any book where the definition of the dual space is given in terms of the operator norm.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:32


















0














Look how you define the norm of $f$ for $f in V^*$: $$|f|_* = sup_{z neq 0} frac{lvert f(z) rvert}{|z|}.$$ In particular, for any fixed $x in X$, we see $$|f|_* ge frac{lvert f(x) rvert}{|x|} ,,,, implies ,,,,, lvert f(x) rvert le |f|_* |x|.$$ Now suppose that $x_n to x$ in $X$; that is, suppose that $|x_n - x| to 0$. What can you say about $lvert f(x_n) - f(x)rvert?$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I don't understand why the proof has to be so complicated. Isn't this simply continuity of $f$? By definition every element of the dual space is a continuous function.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:17








  • 1




    @KaviRamaMurthy: what is it you find so complicated about this proof? It seems the author has covered the essentials in a failry minimalist manner. Cheers!
    – Robert Lewis
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:22










  • I suppose it's fine to just assert that $f$ is continuous. I'm just giving a quantitative measure of continuity here. I don't see that this is particularly complicated; the whole argument concludes in roughly 6 lines.
    – User8128
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:22








  • 1




    @RobertLewis If $f$ is a continuous function on a topological space and $x_n to x$ then $f(x_n) to f(x)$. I don't understand what proof you are asking for. Am i really missing something here?
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:30






  • 1




    @RobertLewis The usual definition of the dual of a normed linear space is it is the set of all continuous linear functionals. I havent see any book where the definition of the dual space is given in terms of the operator norm.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:32
















0












0








0






Look how you define the norm of $f$ for $f in V^*$: $$|f|_* = sup_{z neq 0} frac{lvert f(z) rvert}{|z|}.$$ In particular, for any fixed $x in X$, we see $$|f|_* ge frac{lvert f(x) rvert}{|x|} ,,,, implies ,,,,, lvert f(x) rvert le |f|_* |x|.$$ Now suppose that $x_n to x$ in $X$; that is, suppose that $|x_n - x| to 0$. What can you say about $lvert f(x_n) - f(x)rvert?$






share|cite|improve this answer












Look how you define the norm of $f$ for $f in V^*$: $$|f|_* = sup_{z neq 0} frac{lvert f(z) rvert}{|z|}.$$ In particular, for any fixed $x in X$, we see $$|f|_* ge frac{lvert f(x) rvert}{|x|} ,,,, implies ,,,,, lvert f(x) rvert le |f|_* |x|.$$ Now suppose that $x_n to x$ in $X$; that is, suppose that $|x_n - x| to 0$. What can you say about $lvert f(x_n) - f(x)rvert?$







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 23 '18 at 7:15









User8128User8128

10.7k1522




10.7k1522












  • I don't understand why the proof has to be so complicated. Isn't this simply continuity of $f$? By definition every element of the dual space is a continuous function.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:17








  • 1




    @KaviRamaMurthy: what is it you find so complicated about this proof? It seems the author has covered the essentials in a failry minimalist manner. Cheers!
    – Robert Lewis
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:22










  • I suppose it's fine to just assert that $f$ is continuous. I'm just giving a quantitative measure of continuity here. I don't see that this is particularly complicated; the whole argument concludes in roughly 6 lines.
    – User8128
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:22








  • 1




    @RobertLewis If $f$ is a continuous function on a topological space and $x_n to x$ then $f(x_n) to f(x)$. I don't understand what proof you are asking for. Am i really missing something here?
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:30






  • 1




    @RobertLewis The usual definition of the dual of a normed linear space is it is the set of all continuous linear functionals. I havent see any book where the definition of the dual space is given in terms of the operator norm.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:32




















  • I don't understand why the proof has to be so complicated. Isn't this simply continuity of $f$? By definition every element of the dual space is a continuous function.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:17








  • 1




    @KaviRamaMurthy: what is it you find so complicated about this proof? It seems the author has covered the essentials in a failry minimalist manner. Cheers!
    – Robert Lewis
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:22










  • I suppose it's fine to just assert that $f$ is continuous. I'm just giving a quantitative measure of continuity here. I don't see that this is particularly complicated; the whole argument concludes in roughly 6 lines.
    – User8128
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:22








  • 1




    @RobertLewis If $f$ is a continuous function on a topological space and $x_n to x$ then $f(x_n) to f(x)$. I don't understand what proof you are asking for. Am i really missing something here?
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:30






  • 1




    @RobertLewis The usual definition of the dual of a normed linear space is it is the set of all continuous linear functionals. I havent see any book where the definition of the dual space is given in terms of the operator norm.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:32


















I don't understand why the proof has to be so complicated. Isn't this simply continuity of $f$? By definition every element of the dual space is a continuous function.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 23 '18 at 7:17






I don't understand why the proof has to be so complicated. Isn't this simply continuity of $f$? By definition every element of the dual space is a continuous function.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 23 '18 at 7:17






1




1




@KaviRamaMurthy: what is it you find so complicated about this proof? It seems the author has covered the essentials in a failry minimalist manner. Cheers!
– Robert Lewis
Nov 23 '18 at 7:22




@KaviRamaMurthy: what is it you find so complicated about this proof? It seems the author has covered the essentials in a failry minimalist manner. Cheers!
– Robert Lewis
Nov 23 '18 at 7:22












I suppose it's fine to just assert that $f$ is continuous. I'm just giving a quantitative measure of continuity here. I don't see that this is particularly complicated; the whole argument concludes in roughly 6 lines.
– User8128
Nov 23 '18 at 7:22






I suppose it's fine to just assert that $f$ is continuous. I'm just giving a quantitative measure of continuity here. I don't see that this is particularly complicated; the whole argument concludes in roughly 6 lines.
– User8128
Nov 23 '18 at 7:22






1




1




@RobertLewis If $f$ is a continuous function on a topological space and $x_n to x$ then $f(x_n) to f(x)$. I don't understand what proof you are asking for. Am i really missing something here?
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 23 '18 at 7:30




@RobertLewis If $f$ is a continuous function on a topological space and $x_n to x$ then $f(x_n) to f(x)$. I don't understand what proof you are asking for. Am i really missing something here?
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 23 '18 at 7:30




1




1




@RobertLewis The usual definition of the dual of a normed linear space is it is the set of all continuous linear functionals. I havent see any book where the definition of the dual space is given in terms of the operator norm.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 23 '18 at 7:32






@RobertLewis The usual definition of the dual of a normed linear space is it is the set of all continuous linear functionals. I havent see any book where the definition of the dual space is given in terms of the operator norm.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 23 '18 at 7:32





Popular posts from this blog

Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?