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 Nov 13 at 22:32
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 Nov 13 at 22:32
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
Nov 13 at 6:19
The linked answer doesn't explain why $B_n$ is weak* closed but the answer here does.
– reeeeee
Nov 13 at 11:09
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 Nov 13 at 6:23
asked Nov 13 at 6:14
reeeeee
85
85
marked as duplicate by user10354138, Lord Shark the Unknown, ArsenBerk, 5xum, s.harp Nov 13 at 22:32
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 Nov 13 at 22:32
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
Nov 13 at 6:19
The linked answer doesn't explain why $B_n$ is weak* closed but the answer here does.
– reeeeee
Nov 13 at 11:09
add a comment |
The answer given there is for Banach space.
– user10354138
Nov 13 at 6:19
The linked answer doesn't explain why $B_n$ is weak* closed but the answer here does.
– reeeeee
Nov 13 at 11:09
The answer given there is for Banach space.
– user10354138
Nov 13 at 6:19
The answer given there is for Banach space.
– user10354138
Nov 13 at 6:19
The linked answer doesn't explain why $B_n$ is weak* closed but the answer here does.
– reeeeee
Nov 13 at 11:09
The linked answer doesn't explain why $B_n$ is weak* closed but the answer here does.
– reeeeee
Nov 13 at 11:09
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
Nov 13 at 6:36
@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
Nov 13 at 6:37
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
Nov 13 at 6:42
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
Nov 13 at 6:36
@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
Nov 13 at 6:37
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
Nov 13 at 6:42
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
Nov 13 at 6:36
@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
Nov 13 at 6:37
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
Nov 13 at 6:42
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 Nov 13 at 6:36
answered Nov 13 at 6:22
Kavi Rama Murthy
40.7k31751
40.7k31751
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
Nov 13 at 6:36
@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
Nov 13 at 6:37
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
Nov 13 at 6:42
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
Nov 13 at 6:36
@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
Nov 13 at 6:37
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
Nov 13 at 6:42
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
Nov 13 at 6:36
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
Nov 13 at 6:36
@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
Nov 13 at 6:37
@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
Nov 13 at 6:37
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
Nov 13 at 6:42
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
Nov 13 at 6:42
add a comment |
The answer given there is for Banach space.
– user10354138
Nov 13 at 6:19
The linked answer doesn't explain why $B_n$ is weak* closed but the answer here does.
– reeeeee
Nov 13 at 11:09