Graduate Texts in Mathematics 183

Editorial 80ard
S. Axler FW. Gehring K.A. Ribet

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Graduate Texts in Mathematics

TAKEunlZAIuNG. Introduction to 33 HIRSCH. Differential Topology.

Axiomatic Set Theory. 2nd ed. 34 SPITZER. Principles of Random Walk.
2 OXTOBY. Measure and Category. 2nd ed. 2nd ed.
3 SCHAEFER. Topological Vector Spaces. 35 ALEXANDER/WERMER. Several Complex
4 HILTON/STAMMBACH. A Course in Variables and Banach Algebras. 3rd ed.
Homological Algebra. 2nd ed. 36 KELLEy/NAMIOKA et al. Linear
5 MAC LANE. Categories for the Working Topological Spaces.
Mathematician. 2nd ed. 37 MONK. Mathematical Logic.
6 HUGHES/PIPER. Projective Planes. 38 GRAUERT/FIuTZSCHE. Several Complex
7 SERRE. A Course in Arithmetic. Variables.
8 TAKEUTIlZARING. Axiomatic Set Theory. 39 ARVESON. An Invitation to C*-Algebras.
9 HUMPHREYS. Introduction to Lie Algebras 40 KEMENy/SNELUKNAPP. Denumerable
and Representation Theory. Markov Chains. 2nd ed.
10 COHEN. A Course in Simple Homotopy 41 ApOSTOL. Modular Functions and
Theory. Dirichlet Series in Number Theory.
11 CONWAY. Functions of One Complex 2nd ed.
Variable I. 2nd ed. 42 SERRE. Linear Representations of Finite
12 BEALS. Advanced Mathematical Analysis. Groups.
13 ANDERSON/fuLLER. Rings and Categories 43 GILLMAN/JERISON. Rings of Continuous
of Modules. 2nd ed. Functions.
14 GOLUBITSKY/GUILLEMIN. Stable Mappings 44 KENDIG. Elementary Algebraic Geometry.
and Their Singularities. 45 LOEVE. Probability Theory I. 4th ed.
15 BERBERIAN. Lectures in Functional 46 LoEVE. Probability Theory II. 4th ed.
Analysis and Operator Theory. 47 MOISE. Geometric Topology in
16 WINTER. The Structure of Fields. Dimensions 2 and 3.
17 ROSENBLATT. Random Processes. 2nd ed. 48 SACHSlWu. General Relativity for
18 HALMOS. Measure Theory. Mathematicians.
19 HALMOS. A Hilbert Space Problem Book. 49 GRUENBERGIWEIR. Linear Geometry.
2nd ed. 2nd ed.
20 HUSEMOLLER. Fibre Bundles. 3rd ed. 50 EDWARDS. Fermat's Last Theorem.
21 HUMPHREYS. Linear Algebraic Groups. 51 KLINGENBERG. A Course in Differential
22 BARNESiMACK. An Algebraic Introduction Geometry.
to Mathematical Logic. 52 HARTSHORNE. Algebraic Geometry.
23 GREUB. Linear Algebra. 4th ed. 53 MANIN. A Course in Mathematical Logic.
24 HOLMES. Geometric Functional Analysis 54 GRAvER/WATKINS. Combinatorics with
and Its Applications. Emphasis on the Theory of Graphs.
25 HEwm/STRoMBERG. Real and Abstract 55 BROWN/PEARCY. Introduction to Operator
Analysis. Theory I: Elements of Functional
26 MANES. Algebraic Theories. Analysis.
27 KELLEY. General Topology. 56 MASSEY. Algebraic Topology: An
28 ZARISKIISAMUEL. Commutative Algebra. Introduction.
VoL!. 57 CROWELL!FOX. Introduction to Knot
29 ZARISKIISAMUEL. Commutative Algebra. Theory.
VoW. 58 KOBLITZ. p-adic Numbers, p-adic
30 JACOBSON. Lectures in Abstract Algebra l. Analysis, and Zeta-Functions. 2nd ed.
Basic Concepts. S9 LANG. Cyclotomic Fields.
31 JACOBSON. Lectures in Abstract Algebra 60 ARNOLD. Mathematical Methods in
II. Linear Algebra. Classical Mechanics. 2nd ed.
32 JACOBSON. Lectures in Abstract Algebra 61 WHITEHEAD. Elements of Homotopy
III. Theory of Fields and Galois Theory. Theory.

(continued after index)

Robert E. Megginson

An Introduction to
Banach Space Theory

Springer
Robert E. Megginson
Mathematics Department
3856 East Hall
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1109

Editorial Board
S. Axler F.W. Gehring K.A. Ribet
Mathematics Department Mathematics Department Mathematics Department
San Francisco State East Hali University of California
University University of Michigan at Berkeley
San Francisco, CA 94132 Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Berkeley, CA 94720-3840
USA USA USA

Mathematics Subject Classification (1991): 46-01, 46Bxx, 47Axx

library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Megginson, Robert E.
An introduction to Banach space theory / Robert E. Megginson
p. cm. - (Graduate texts in mathematics ; 183)
Includes bibliographical references (p. - ) and index.
ISBN 978-1-4612-6835-2 ISBN 978-1-4612-0603-3 (eBook)
DOIlO.I007/978-1-4612-0603-3
1. Banach spaces. 1. Title. Il. Series.
QA322.2.M44 1998
515'.732--dc21 97-52159

Printed on acid-free paper.

1998 Springer Science+Business Media New York

Originally published by Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.in 1998
Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover Ist edition 1998
AII rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written
permission of the publisher Springer Science+Business Media, LLC,
except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in
connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer soft-
ware, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden.
The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, etc., in this publication, even if the
former are not especiaIly identified, is not to be taken as a sign that such narnes, as understood by the
Trade Marks and Merchandise Marks Act, may accordingly be used freely by anyone.

Production managed by Steven Pisano; manufacturing supervised by Jacqui Ashri.

Photocomposed pages prepared from the author's LaTeX files.

987654321

ISBN 978-1-4612-6835-2
To my mother and father
and, of course, to Kathy
Contents

Preface ix

1 Basic Concepts 1
1.1 Preliminaries 1
1.2 Norms . . . . 8
1.3 First Properties of Normed Spaces 17
1.4 Linear Operators Between Normed Spaces 24
1.5 Baire Category . . . . . . . . . 35
1.6 Three Fundamental Theorems . 41
1. 7 Quotient Spaces . . . . . . . . 49
1.8 Direct Sums . . . . . . . . . . . 59
1.9 The Hahn-Banach Extension Theorems 70
1.10 Dual Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
1.11 The Second Dual and Reflexivity 97
1.12 Separability . . . . . . . . . . . 109
*1.13 Characterizations of Reflexivity . 115

2 The Weak and Weak* Topologies 137

2.1 Topology and Nets . . . . . . 138
2.2 Vector Topologies . . . . . . . . . 161
*2.3 Metrizable Vector Topologies . . 185
2.4 Topologies Induced by Families of Functions . 203

An asterisk preceding a section number indicates an optional section.

Vlll Contents

2.5 The Weak Topology . . . . . . 211

2.6 The Weak* Topology. . . . . . 223
2.7 The Bounded Weak* Topology 235
2.8 Weak Compactness. . . . . .. 245
*2.9 James's Weak Compactness Theorem. 256
2.10 Extreme Points . . . . . . . . . . . 264
*2.11 Support Points and Subrefiexivity 270

3 Linear Operators 283

3.1 Adjoint Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
3.2 Projections and Complemented Subspaces 295
3.3 Banach Algebras and Spectra 305
3.4 Compact Operators 319
3.5 Weakly Compact Operators 339

4 Schauder Bases 349

4.1 First Properties of Schauder Bases 350
4.2 Unconditional Bases 368
4.3 Equivalent Bases . 386
4.4 Bases and Duality 399
*4.5 James's Space J . 411

5 Rotundity and Smoothness 425

5.1 Rotundity................ 426
5.2 Uniform Rotundity . . . . . . . . . . . 441
5.3 Generalizations of Uniform Rotundity 459
5.4 Smoothness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
5.5 Uniform Smoothness . . . . . . . . . . 493
5.6 Generalizations of Uniform Smoothness 504

A Prereq uisi tes 517

B Metric Spaces 521

C The Spaces p and ~, l:S:p:S:oo 529

D Ultranets 541

References 547

List of Symbols 565

Index 569
Preface

A normed space is a real or complex vector space X along with a norm

function on the space; that is, a function 1111 from X into the nonnega-
tive reals such that if x, y E X and a is a scalar, then lIaxll = lalllxll,
Ilx + yll :s IIxll + lIyll, and Ilxll = 0 precisely when x = O. A Banach space
is then defined to be a normed space such that the metric given by the
formula d(x, y) = Ilx - yll is complete. In a sense, the study of Banach
spaces is as old as the study of the properties of the absolute value func-
tion on the real numbers. However, the general theory of normed spaces
and Banach spaces is a much more recent development. It was not until
1904 that Maurice Rene Frechet [80] suggested that it might be fruitful
to extend the notion of limit from specific situations commonly studied in
analysis to a more general setting. In his 1906 thesis [81], he developed
the notion of a general metric space and immediately embarked on the
study of real CIa, b], the vector space of all real-valued continuous func-
tions on a compact interval [a, b] of the real line with the metric given by
the formula d(f, g) = max{ If(t) - g(t)1 : t E [a, b] }. In this seminal work
on metric space theory, Frechet was already emphasizing the important role
played by the completeness of metrics such as that of CIa, b]. He was also
doing a bit of Banach space theory since his metric for CIa, b] is induced
by a norm, as will be seen in Example 1.2.10 of this book. By 1908, Er-
hard Schmidt [211] was using the modern notation Ilxll for the norm of an
element x of 2, but the formulation of the general definition of a normed
space had to wait a few more years.
Since the study of normed spaces for their own sake evolved rather than
arose fully formed, there is some room to disagree about who founded the
x Preface

field. Albert Bennett came close to giving the definition of a normed space
in a 1916 paper [23] on an extension of Newton's method for finding roots,
and in 1918 Frederic Riesz [195] based a generalization of the Fredholm
theory of integral equations on the defining axioms of a complete normed
space, though he did not use these axioms to study the general theory
of such spaces. According to Jean Dieudonne [64], Riesz had at this time
considered developing a general theory of complete normed spaces, but
never published anything in this direction. In a paper that appeared in
1921, Eduard Helly [102] proved what is now called Helly's theorem for
bounded linear functionals. Along the way, he developed some of the general
theory of normed spaces, but only in the context of norms on subs paces of
the vector space of all sequences of complex scalars.
The first undisputed efforts to develop the general theory of normed
spaces appeared independently in a paper by Hans Hahn [98] and in Stefan
Banach's thesis [10], both published in 1922. Both treatments considered
only complete normed spaces. Though the growth of the general theory pro-
ceeded through the 1920s, the real impetus for the development of modern
Banach space theory was the appearance in 1932 of Banach's book Theorie
des Operations Lineaires [13], which stood for years as the standard refer-
ence work in the field and is still profitable reading for the Banach space
specialist today.
Many important reference works in the field have appeared since Ba-
nach's book, including, among others, those by Mahlon Day [56] and by
Joram Lindenstrauss and Lior Tzafriri [156, 157J. While those works are
classical starting points for the graduate student wishing to do research
in Banach space theory, they can be formidable reading for the student
who has just completed a course in measure theory, found the theory of Lp
spaces fascinating, and would like to know more about Banach spaces in
general.
The purpose of this book is to bridge that gap. Specifically, this book
is for the student who has had enough analysis and measure theory to
know the basic properties of the Lp spaces, and is designed to prepare such
a student to read the type of work mentioned above as well as some of
the current research in Banach space theory. In one sense, that makes this
book a functional analysis text, and in fact many of the classical results
of functional analysis are in here. However, those results will be applied
almost exclusively to normed spaces in general and Banach spaces in par-
ticular, allowing a much more extensive development of that theory while
placing correspondingly less emphasis on other topics that would appear
in a traditional functional analysis text.
It should be made clear that this book is an introduction to the general
theory of Banach spaces, not a detailed survey of the structure of the
classical Banach spaces. Along the way, the reader will learn quite a bit
about the classical Banach spaces from their extensive use in the theory,
examples, and exercises. Those who find their appetite for those spaces
 Preface xi

whetted have an entire feast awaiting them in the volumes of Lindenstrauss

and Tzafriri.

Prerequisites
Appendix A contains a detailed list of the prerequisites for reading this
book. Actually, these prerequisites can be summarized very briefly: Any-
one who has studied the first third of Walter Rudin's Real and Complex
Analysis [202]' which is to say the first six chapters of that book, will be
able to read this book through, cover-to-cover, omitting nothing. Of course,
this implies that the reader has had the basic grounding in undergradu-
ate mathematics necessary to tackle Rudin's book, which should include a
first course in linear algebra. Though some knowledge of elementary topol-
ogy beyond the theory of metric spaces is assumed, the topology presented
near the beginning of Rudin's book is enough. In short, all of this book is
accessible to someone who has had a course in real and complex analysis
that includes the duality between the Lebesgue spaces Lp and Lq when
1 < p < 00 and p-l + q-l = 1, as well as the Riesz representation theorem
for bounded linear functionals on C(K) where K is a compact Hausdorff
space, and who has not slighted the usual prerequisites for such a course.
In fact, a large amount of this book is accessible at a much earlier stage
in a student's mathematical career. The real reason for the measure theory
prerequisite is to allow the reader to see applications of Banach space theory
to the Lp spaces and spaces of measures, not because the measure theory is
itself crucial to the development of the general Banach space theory in this
book. It is quite possible to use this book as the basis for an undergraduate
topics course in Banach space theory that concentrates on the metric theory
of finite-dimensional Banach spaces and the spaces fp and Co, for which
the only prerequisites are a first course in linear algebra, a first course in
real analysis without measure theory, and an introduction to metric spaces
without the more general theory of topological spaces. Appendix A explains
in detail how to do so. A list of the properties of metric spaces with which
a student in such a course should be familiar can be found in Appendix B.
Since the fp spaces are often treated in the main part of this book as special
Lp spaces, Appendix C contains a development of the fp spaces from more
basic principles for the reader not versed in the general theory of Lp spaces.

A Few Notes on the General Approach

The basic terminology and notation in this book are close to that used by
Rudin in [200], with some extensions that follow the notation of Linden-
strauss and Tzafriri from [156] and [157].
XII Preface

Though most of the results in this text are divided in the usual way
into lemmas, propositions, and theorems, a result that is really a theorem
occasionally masquerades as an example. For instance, the theorems of
Nikodym and Day that (Lp[O, 1])* = {O} when 0::; p < 1 appear as Exam-
ple 2.2.24, since such an Lp space is an example of a Hausdorff topological
vector space whose dual does not separate the points of the space.
The theory in this book is developed for normed spaces over both the
real and complex scalar fields. When a result holds for incomplete normed
spaces as well as Banach spaces, the result is usually stated and proved in
the more general form so that the reader will know where completeness is
truly essential. However, results that can be extended from Banach spaces
or arbitrary normed spaces to larger classes of topological vector spaces
usually do not get the more general treatment unless the extension has a
specific application to Banach space theory.
Any extensive treatment of the theory of normed spaces does require
the study of two vector topologies that are not in general even metrizable,
namely, the weak and weak* topologies. Much of the sequential topological
intuition developed in the study of normed spaces can be extended to non-
metrizable vector topologies through the use of nets, so nets playa major
role in many of the topological arguments given in this book. Since the
reader might not be familiar with these objects, an extensive development
of the theory of nets is given in the first section of Chapter 2.
This book is sprinkled liberally with examples, both to show the theory
at work and to illustrate why certain hypotheses in theorems are necessary.
This book is also sprinkled liberally with historical notes and citations
of original sources, with special attention given to mentioning dates within
the body of the text so that the reader can get a feeling for the time
frame within which the different parts of Banach space theory evolved. In
ascribing credit for various results, I relied both on my own reading of
the literature and on a number of other standard reference::> to point me to
the original sources. Among those standard references, I would particularly
like to mention the excellent "Notes and Remarks" sections of Dunford and
Schwartz's book Linear Operators, Part I [67], most of which are credited
to Bob Bartle in thc introduction to that work. Anyone interested in the
rich history of this subject should read those sections in their entirety. I
hasten to add that any error in attribution in the book you are holding is
entirely mine.
In many cases, no citation of a source is given for a definition or result,
especially when a result is very basic or a definition evolved in such a way
that it is difficult to decide who should receive credit for it, as is the case
for the definition of the norm function. It must be emphasized that in no
case does the lack of a citation imply any claim to priority on my part.
The exercises, of which there are over 450, have several purposes. One
obvious one is to provide the student with some practice in the use of the
results developed in the text, and a few quite frankly have no reason for
 Preface xiii

their existence beyond that. However, most do serve higher purposes. One
is to extend the theory presented in the text. For example, Banach limits
are defined and developed in Exercise 1.102. Another purpose of some of
the exercises is to provide supplementary examples and counterexamples.
Occasionally, an exercise presents an alternative development of a main
result. For example, in Exercise 1.76 the reader is guided through Hahn's
proof of the uniform boundedness principle, which is based on a gliding
hump argument and does not use the Baire category theorem in any form.
\\T!th the exception of a few extremely elementary facts presented in the
first section of Chapter 1, none of the results stated and used in the body
of the text have their proofs left as exercises. Very rarely, a portion of an
example begun in t,he body of the text is finished in the exercises.
One final comment on the general approach involves the transliteration
of Cyrillic names. I originally intended to use the modern scheme adopted
by Mathematical Revie?'lS in 1983. However, in the end I decided to write
these names as the authors themselves did in papers published in West-
ern languages, or as the names have commonly appeared in other sources.
For example, the modern MR transliteration scheme would require that
V. L. Smulian's last name be written as Shmul'yan. However, Smulian
wrote many papers in Western languages, several of which are cited in this
book, in which he gave his name the Czech diacritical transliteration that
appears in this sentence. No doubt he was just following the custom of
his time, but because of his own extensive use of the form Smulian I have
presented his name as he wrote it and would have recognized it.

Synopsis
Chapter 1 focuses on the metric theory of normed spaces. The first three
sections present fundamental definitions and examples, as well as the most
elementary properties of normed spaces such as the continuity of their
vector space operations. The fourth section contains a short development
of the most basic properties of bounded linear operators between normed
spaces, including properties of normed space isomorphisms, which are then
used to show that every finite-dimensional normed space is a Banach space.
The Baire category theorem for nonempty complete metric spaces is the
subject of Section 1.5. This section is, in a sense, optional, since none of
the results outside of optional sections of this book depend directly on it,
though some such results do depend on a weak form of the Baire category
theorem that will be mentioned in the next paragraph. However) this sec-
tion has not been marked optional, since a student far enough along in his
or her mathematical career to be reading this book should become familiar
with Baire category. This section is placed just before the section on the
open mapping theorem, closed graph theorem, and uniform boundedness
xiv Preface

principle for the benefit of the instructor wishing to substitute traditional

Baire category proofs of those results for the ones given here.
Since a course in functional analysis is not a prerequisite for this book,
the reader may not have seen the open mapping theorem, closed graph
theorem, and uniform bounded ness principle for Banach spaces. Section 1.6
is devoted to the development of those results. All three are based on a very
specific and easily proved form of the Baire category theorem, presented in
Section 1.3 as Theorem 1.3.14: Every closed, convex, absorbing subset of a
Banach space includes a neighborhood of the origin.
In Section 1.7, the properties of quotient spaces formed from normed
spaces are examined and the first isomorphism theorem for Banach spaces
is proved: If T is a bounded linear operator from a Banach space X onto a
Banach space Y, then Y and XI ker(T) are isomorphic as Banach spaces.
Following a section devoted to direct sums of normed spaces, Section 1.9
presents the vector space and normed space versions of the Hahn-Banach
extension theorem, along with their close relative, Helly's theorem for
bounded linear functionals. The same section contains a development of
Minkowski functionals and gives an example of how they are used to prove
versions of the Hahn-Banach separation theorem. Section 1.10 introduces
the dual space of a normed space, and has the characterizations up to
isometric isomorphism of the duals of direct sums, quotient spaces, and
subs paces of normed spaces. The next section discusses reflexivity and
includes Pettis's theorem about the reflexivity of a closed subspace of a
reflexive space and many of its consequences. Section 1.12, devoted to sep-
arability, includes the Banach-Mazur characterization of separable Banach
spaces as isomorphs of quotient spaces of 1, and ends with the characteri-
zation of separable normed spaces as the normed spaces that are compactly
generated so that the stage is set for the introduction of weakly compactly
generated normed spaces in Section 2.8. This completes the basic material
of Chapter l.
The last section of Chapter 1, Section 1.13, is optional in the sense that
none of the material in the rest of the book outside of other optional sections
depends on it. This section contains a number of useful characterizations
of reflexivity, including James's theorem. Some of the more basic of these
are usually obtained as corollaries of the Eberlein-Smulian theorem, but
are included here since they can be proved fairly easily without it. The
most important of these basic characterizations are repeated in Section 2.8
after the Eberlein-Smulian theorem is proved, so this section can be skipped
without fear of losing them. The heart of the section is a proof of the general
case of James's theorem: A Banach space is reflexive if each bounded linear
functional x* on the space has the property that the supremum of Ix* I on
the closed unit ball of the space is attained somewhere on that ball. The
proof given here is a detailed version of James's 1972 proof [117]. While
the development leading up to the proof could be abbreviated slightly by
delaying this section until the Eberlein-Smulian theorem is available, there
 Preface xv

are two reasons for my not doing so. The first is that I wish to emphasize
that the proof is really based only on the elementary metric theory of
Banach spaces, not on arguments involving weak compactness, and the best
way to do that is to give the proof before the weak topology has even been
defined (though I do cheat a bit by defining weak sequential convergence
without direct reference to the weak topology). The second is due to the
reputation that James's theorem has acquired as being formidably deep.
The proof is admittedly a bit intricate, but it is entirely elementary, not all
that long, and contains some very nice ideas. By placing the proof as early
as possible in this book, I hope to stress its elementary nature and dispel
a bit of the notion that it is inaccessible.
Chapter 2 deals with the weak topology of a normed space and the
weak* topology of its dual. The first section includes some topological pre-
liminaries, but is devoted primarily to a fairly extensive development of
the theory of nets, including characterizations of topological properties in
terms of the accumulation and convergence of certain nets. Even a student
with a solid first course in general topology may never have dealt with
nets, so several examples are given to illustrate both their similarities to
and differences from sequences. A motivation of the somewhat nonintuitive
definition of a subnet is given, along with examples. The section includes
a short discussion of topological groups, primarily to be able to obtain a
characterization of relative compactness in topological groups in terms of
the accumulation of nets that does not always hold in arbitrary topological
spaces. Ultranets are not discussed in this section, since they are not really
needed in the rest of this book, but a brief discussion of ultranets is given
in Appendix D for use by the instructor who wishes to show how ultranets
can be used to simplify certain compactness arguments.
Section 2.2 presents the basic properties of topological vector spaces and
locally convex spaces needed for a study of the weak and weak* topologies.
The section includes a brief introduction to the dual space of a topologi-
cal vector space, and presents the versions of the Hahn-Banach separation
theorem due to Mazur and Eidelheit as well as the consequences for locally
convex spaces of Mazur's separation theorem that parallel the consequences
for normed spaces of the normed space version of the Hahn-Banach exten-
sion theorem.
This is followed by a section on metrizable vector topologies. This section
is marked optional since the topologies of main interest in this book are
either induced by a norm or not compatible with any metric whatever. An
F -space is defined in this section to be a topological vector space whose
topology is compatible with a complete metric, without the requirement
that the metric be invariant. Included is Victor Klee's result that every
invariant metric inducing a topologically complete topology on a group is
in fact a complete metric, which has the straightforward consequence that
every F-space, as defined in this section, actually has its topology induced
by a complete invariant metric, and thereby answers a question of Banach.
xvi Preface

The versions of the open mapping theorem, closed graph theorem, and
uniform boundedness principle valid for F-spaces are given in this section.
Section 2.4 develops the properties of topologies induced by families
of functions, with special emphasis on the topology induced on a vector
space X by a subspace of the vector space of all linear functionals on X.
The study of the weak topology of a normed space begins in earnest
in Section 2.5. This section is devoted primarily to summarizing and ex-
tending the fundamental properties of this topology already developed in
more general settings earlier in this chapter, and exploring the connections
between the weak and norm topologies. Included is Mazur's theorem that
the closure and weak closure of a convex subset of a normed space are
the same. Weak sequential completeness, Schur's property, and the Radon-
Riesz property are studied briefly.
Section 2.6 introduces the weak* topology of the dual space of a normed
space. The main results of this section are the Banach-Alaoglu theorem and
Goldstine's theorem. This is followed by a section on the bounded weak*
topology of the dual space of a normed space, with the major result of this
section being the Krein-Smulian theorem on weakly* closed convex sets:
A convex subset C of the dual space X* of a Banach space X is weakly*
closed if and only if the intersection of C with every positive scalar multiple
of the closed unit ball of X* is weakly* closed.
Weak compactness is studied in Section 2.8. It was necessary to delay
this section until after Sections 2.6 and 2.7 so that several results about
the weak* topology would be available. The Eberlein-Smulian theorem is
obtained in this section, as is the result due to Krein and Smulian that the
closed convex hull of a weakly compact subset of a Banach space is itself
weakly compact. The corresponding theorem by Mazur on norm compact-
ness is also obtained, since it is an easy consequence of the same lemma
that contains the heart of the proof of the Krein-Smulian result. A brief
look is taken at weakly compactly generated normed spaces.
The goal of optional Section 2.9 is to obtain James's characterization
of weakly compact subsets of a Banach space in terms of the behavior of
bounded linear functionals. The section is relatively short since most of the
work needed to obtain this result was done in the lemmas used to prove
James's reflexivity theorem in Section 1.13.
The topic of Section 2.10 is extreme points of nonempty closed convex
subsets of Hausdorff topological vector spaces. The Krein-Milman theorem
is obtained, as is Milman's partial converse of that result.
Chapter 2 ends with an optional section on support points and subreflex-
ivity. Included are the Bishop-Phelps theorems on the density of support
points in the boundaries of closed convex subsets of Banach spaces and on
the sub reflexivity of every Banach space.
Chapter 3 contains a discussion of linear operators between normed
spaces far more extensive than the brief introduction presented in Sec-
tion 1.4. The first section of the chapter is devoted to adjoints of bounded
 Preface XVll

linear operators between normed spaces. The second focuses on projec-

tions and complemented subspaces, and includes Whitley's short proof of
Phillips's theorem that Co is not complemented in foo.
Section 3.3 develops the elementary theory of Banach algebras and spec-
tra, including the spectral radius formula, primarily to make this material
available for the discussion of compact operators in the next section but
also with an eye to the importance of this material in its own right.
Section 3.4 is about compact operators. Schauder's theorem relating the
compactness of a bounded linear operator to that of its adjoint is presented,
as is the characterization of operator compactness in terms of the bounded-
weak*-to-norm continuity of the adjoint. Riesz's analysis of the spectrum
of a compact operator is obtained, and the method used yields the result
for real Banach spaces as well as complex ones. The Fredholm alternative
is then obtained from this analysis. Much of the rest of the section is de-
voted to the approximation property, especially to Grothendieck's result
that shows that the classical definition of the approximation property in
terms of the approximability of compact operators by finite-rank operators
is equivalent to the common modern definition in terms of the uniform
approximability of the identity operator on compact sets by finite-rank op-
erators. The section ends with a brief study of the relationship between
Riesz's notion of operator compactness and Hilbert's property of complete
continuity, and their equivalence for a linear operator whose domain is
reflexive.
The final section of Chapter 3 is devoted to weakly compact operators.
Gantmacher's theorem is obtained, as well as the equivalence of the weak
compactness of a bounded linear operator to the weak*-to-weak continu-
ity of its adjoint. The Dunford-Pettis property is examined briefly in this
section.
The purpose of Chapter 4 is to investigate Schauder bases for Banach
spaces. The first section develops the elementary properties of Schauder
bases and presents several classical examples, including Schauder's basis
for C[O, 1] and the Haar basis for Lp[O, 1] when 1 S p < 00. Monotone
bases and the existence of basic sequences are covered, and the relationship
between Schauder bases and the approximation property is discussed.
Unconditional bases are investigated in Section 4.2. Results are presented
about equivalently renorming Banach spaces with unconditional bases to be
Banach algebras and Banach lattices. It is shown that neither the classical
Schauder basis for C[O, 1] nor the Haar basis for L 1 [0, 1] is unconditional.
Section 4.3 is devoted to the notion of equivalent bases and applications
to finding isomorphic copies of Banach spaces inside other Banach spaces.
Characterizations of the standard unit vector bases for Co and f) arc given.
Weakly unconditionally Cauchy series are examined, and the Orlic?-Pettis
theorem and Bessaga-Pelczynski selection principle are obtained.
The properties of the sequence of coordinate functionals for a Schauder
basis are taken up in Section 4.4, and shrinking and boundedly complete
xviii Preface

bases are studied. The final section of Chapter 4 is optional and is devoted
to an investigation of James's space J, which was the first example of a
nonreflexive Banach space isometrically isomorphic to its second dual.
Chapter 5 focuses on various forms of rotundity, also called strict con-
vexity, and smoothness. The first section of the chapter is devoted to char-
acterizations of rotundity, its fundamental properties, and examples, in-
cluding one due to Klee that shows that rotundity is not always inherited
by quotient spaces. The next section treats uniform rotundity, and includes
the Milman-Pettis theorem as well as Clarkson's theorem that the Lp spaces
such that 1 < p < 00 are uniformly rotund. Section 5.3 is devoted to gen-
eralizations of uniform rotundity, and discusses local uniform rotundity,
weak uniform rotundity, weak* uniform rotundity, weak local uniform ro-
tundity, strong rotundity, and midpoint local uniform rotundity, as well as
the relationships between these properties.
The second half of Chapter 5 deals with smoothness. Simple smoothness
is taken up in Section 5.4, in which the property is defined in terms of
the uniqueness of support hyperplanes for the closed unit ball at points
of the unit sphere and then characterized by the Gateaux differentiabil-
ity of the norm and in several other ways. The partial duality between
rotundity and smoothness is examined, and other important properties of
smoothness are developed. Uniform smoothness is the subject of the next
section, in which the property is defined using the modulus of smoothness
and characterized in terms of the uniform Frechet differentiability of the
norm. The complete duality between uniform smoothness and uniform ro-
tundity is proved. Frechet smoothness and uniform Gateaux smoothness
are examined in the final section of the chapter, and Smulian's results on
the duality between these properties and various generalizations of uniform
rotundity are obtained.
Appendix A includes an extended description of the prerequisites for
reading this book, along with a very detailed list of the changes that must
be made to the presentation in Chapter 1 if this book is to be used for
an undergraduate topics course in Banach space theory. Appendices B
and C are included to support such a topics course. They are, respectively,
a list of the properties of metric spaces that should be familiar to a student
in such a course and a development of fp spaces from basic principles of
analysis that does not depend on the theory of Lp spaces. Appendix D is a
discussion of ultranets that supplements the material on nets in Section 2.1.

Dependences
No material in any nonoptional section of this book depends on material
in any optional section, with the exception of a few exercises in which
the dependence is clearly indicated. Where an optional section depends on
 Preface XIX

other optional sections, that dependence is stated clearly at the beginning

of the section.
The material in the nonoptional sections of Chapters 1 through 3 is
meant to be taken up in the order presented, and each such section should
be considered to depend on every other nonoptional section that precedes it.
One important exception is that, as has already been mentioned, Section 1.5
can be omitted, since its results are used only in optional Section 2.3.
However, the reader unfamiliar with the Baire category theorem will not
want to skip this material.
All of the nonoptional sections of Chapters 1 and 2 should be covered
before taking up Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 also depends on the first two
sections of Chapter 3. If the small amount of material in Chapter 4 on the
approximation property is not to be skipped, then the development of that
property in Section 3.4 must also be covered.
Some results about adjoint operators from Section 3.1 are used in Ex-
ample 5.4.13. Except for this, Chapter 5 does not depend on the material
in Chapters 3 and 4.
Appendix A does not depend on any other part of this book, except where
it refers to changes that must be made to the presentation in Chapter 1 for
an undergraduate topics course. Appendices Band C do not use material
from any other portion of this book. Appendix D depends on Section 2.1
but on no other part of the book.

Acknowledgments
There are many who contributed valuable suggestions and various forms
of aid and encouragement to this project. Among those, I would particu-
larly like to mention Sheldon Axler, Mahlon Day, Alphonso DiPietro, Fred
Gehring, John LeDuc, Don Lewis, Tenney Peck, M. S. Ramanujan, Ira
Rosenholtz, Mark Smith, B. A. Taylor, and Jerry Uhl. I would also like
to express my appreciation for the support and editorial assistance I re-
ceived from Springer-Verlag, particularly from Ina Lindemann and Steve
Pisano. This book would hardly have been possible without the day-to-
day support of my wife Kathy, who did a wonderful job of insulating me
from the outside world during its writing and who did not hesitate to pass
stern judgment on some of my more convoluted prose. Finally, my special
thanks go to my friend and mentor Horacio Porta, who read an early ver-
sion of the manuscript and made some extremely valuable suggestions that
substantially improved the content and format of this book.

Ann Arbor ROBERT E. MEGGINSON

September, 1998
1
Basic Concepts

This chapter contains the basic definitions and initial results needed for a
study of Banach spaces. In particular, the material presented in the first
twelve sections of this chapter, with the exception of that of Section 1.5,
is used extensively throughout the rest of this book. Section 1.13, though
containing material that is very important in modern Banach space theory,
is optional in the sense that the few results and exercises in the rest of the
book that depend on this material are clearly marked as such.

1.1 Preliminaries
Here are some of the definitions, conventions, and notation used throughout
this book. Whenever a definition contains two or more different names for
the same object, the first is the one usually used here. The alternative names
are included because they are sometimes encountered in other sources.
The set of positive integers is denoted by N. The fields of real and complex
numbers are denoted by IR and C respectively. The symbol IF denotes a field
that can be either IR or C. The elements of IF are called scalars.
In a topological space, the closure of a set A, denoted by ::4, is the smallest
closed set that includes A, that is, the intersection of all closed sets that
include A. The interior of A, denoted by A 0, is the largest open subset
of A, that is, the union of all open subsets of A.
A vector space or linear space over IF is a set X of objects called vectors
along with an operation + from X x X into X called addition of vectors
2 1. Basic Concepts

and an operation' from IF x X into X called multiplication of vectors by

scalars satisfying these conditions:

(1) addition is commutative and associative;

(2) there is a zero vector 0 in X, sometimes called the origin of X, such
that x + 0 = x for each vector x;
(3) for each vector x there is a vector -x such that x + (-x) = 0;
(4) for all scalars a and (3 and all vectors x and y, a (x+y) = ax +a y,
(0: + (3) . x = a . x + (3. x, and a ((3. x) = (00(3) . x;
(5) for each vector x, 1 x = x.

The difference x - y of vectors x and y is the vector x + (-y). Scalars are

usually represented in this book by lowercase letters near the beginning of
the Greek alphabet and vectors by lowercase letters near the end of the
Roman alphabet, with one major exception being that nonnegative real
numbers are often denoted by the letters r, 5, and t. A product a x of
a scalar and a vector is usually abbreviated to ax. Though the symbol 0
is used for the zeros of both IF and X, the context should always make it
clear which is intended. In this book, a subspace of a vector space X always
means a vector subspace, that is, a subset of X that is itself a vector space
under the same operations. It is presumed that the reader is familiar with
linear independence, bases, and other elementary vector space concepts.
It is worth emphasizing that in this book the term "vector space" always
means a vector space over IR 01' C. The terms real vector space and complex
vector space are used when it is necessary to be specific about the scalar
field. Another important convention is that except where stated otherwise,
all vector spaces discussed within the same context are assumed to be over
the same field IF, but IF may be either IR or C. For example, suppose that
a theorem begins with the sentence "Let X be a normed space and Y a
Banach space" and that no field is mentioned anywhere in the theorem.
Normed spaces and Banach spaces, defined in the next section, are vector
spaces with some additional structure. Thus, it is implied that X and Y
are either both real or both complex.
Notational difficulties can arise when a subset of a vector space is linearly
independent, but a particular description of the set in an indexed form such
as {xc> : a E I} allows x a, and x"' to be equal when 001 '" 002. In every
instance in this book that such notation could cause a problem, the set
turns out to be countable, I and the difficulty is avoided by writing the set
as a finite list or a sequence. A finite list Xl,' .. ,Xno or a sequence (X n)
of elements iu a vector space is said to be linearly independent if the cor-
responding set {x 1, ... , Xno } or {X n : n EN} is linearly independent and
Xj '" Xk when j '" k.

1 In this bO'O'k, finite sets as well as cO'untably infinite O'nes are said to' be cO'untable.
 1.1 Preliminaries 3

Notice that the sequence in the preceding paragraph was assumed to be

indexed by N. Except where stated otherwise, sequences are indexed by the
positive integers in their natural order; in particular, the indexing starts
with 1 rather than O. This will be important when quantities related to the
terms of a sequence (x n ) are stated as functions of the index value n.
Suppose that X is a vector space, that x is an element of X, that A
and B are subsets of X, and that a is a scalar. Then

x+A = {x + y: YEA},
x- A= {x - y : YEA},
A+B = {y + z: YEA, z E B},
A- B = { Y - z : YEA, z E B },
aA = { ay : YEA}, and
-A = {-y: YEA}.
The set x + A is called the translate of A by x. Notice that A - B represents
the algebraic difference of the sets A and B. The set-theoretic difference
{ x : x E A, x f/- B} is denoted by A \ B.
Suppose that A is a subset of a vector space X. Then A is convex if
ty + (1 - t)z E A whenever y, z E A and 0 < t < 1. If aA ~ A whenever
lal ~ 1, then A is balanced. The set A is absorbing if, for each x in X,
there is a positive number Sx such that x E tA whenever t > Sx' The
following properties of these special types of sets are not difficult to prove;
see Exercises 1.1 and 1.3.
(1) Absorbing sets always contain O. So do nonempty balanced sets.
(2) If A is a balanced set, then aA = A whenever lal = 1, which in
particular implies that -A = A.
(3) Arbitrary unions and intersections of balanced sets are balanced.
(4) Arbitrary intersections of convex sets are convex.
(5) Translates and scalar multiples of convex sets are convex.
(6) The set A is convex if and only if sA+tA = (s+t)A whenever s, t > O.
The convex hull or convex span of A, denoted by co(A), is the smallest
convex set that includes A, that is, the intersection of all convex sets that
include A. It is not difficult to show that co(A) is the collection of all con-
vex combinations of clements of A, that is, all sums of the form 2::7=1 tJx J
such that n E N, Xl, ... , Xn E A, t 1 , ... , tn 2: 0, and 2::;'=1 tj = 1. See Ex-
ercise lA. If X has a topology, then the closed convex hull or closed convex
span of A, denoted by co(A), is the smallest closed convex set that in-
cludes A, that is, the intersection of all closed convex sets that include A.
The linear hull or linear span of A, denoted by (A), is the smallest subspace
of X that includes A, that is, the intersection of all subspaces of X that in-
clude A. Notice that (0) = {O}. If A is nonempty, then it is not difficult to
4 1. Basic Concepts

show that (A) is the collection of all linear combinations of elements of A,

that is, all sums of the form L7=l QjXj such that n E H, Xl, ... ,X n E A,
and Q1,"" Q n ElF. See Exercise 1.4. If X has a topology, then the closed
linear hull or closed linear span of A, denoted by [AJ, is the smallest closed
subspace of X that includes A, that is, the intersection of all closed sub-
spaces of X that include A. See Exercise 1.12 for an important observation
about co(A) and [A].
Two conventions are important for the interpretation of statements about
arbitrary unions and intersections, such as statements (3) and (4) in the
preceding paragraph. The first is that the union of an empty family of
sets is the empty set, while the second is that the intersection of an empty
family of sets is the universal set from which subsets are being taken. Both
"conventions" actually follow directly from rigorous applications of the def-
initions of arbitrary unions and intersections of sets; see, for example, [65].
However, some authors do prefer to leave intersections of empty families
undefined because of the confusion that occurs when it is not clear what
set is the universal set. The context will almost always prevent that prob-
lem from arising here; for example, in the preceding paragraph it is clear
that the universal set for the intersections in statements (3) and (4) is the
vector space X. Where confusion might otherwise occur, it will be made
clear what set is considered universal. In any case, every statement in this
book about a union or intersection of an arbitrary family of subsets of some
universal set is intended to apply also to the empty family, which should
be kept in mind when interpreting such a statement.
Let X and Y be vector spaces. A linear operator or linear function or
linear transformation from X into Y is a function T: X --+ Y such that the
following two conditions are satisfied whenever X, Xl, X2 E X and Q E IF":
(1) T(XI + X2) = T(xd + T(X2);
(2) T(ax) = aT(x).
If IF" is viewed as a one-dimensional vector space, then a linear operator
from X into IF" is called a linear functional or linear form on X. For linear
mappings only, the notation Tx is often used as an abbreviation for T(x).
The kernel or null space of a linear operator T, denoted by ker(T), is the
subspace T-l({O}) of X. That is, ker(T) = {x: X E X, Tx = OJ. Notice
that a linear operator T is one-to-one if and only if ker(T) = {OJ. The
rank of a linear operator is the dimension of its range. Thus, a finite-rank
linear operator is a linear operator with a finite-dimensional range. If S is
a linear operator from X into Y and T is a linear operator from Y into
a vector space Z, then the product or composite 2 T S of Sand T is the

20f course, the composite go f is defined for any functions f and g, linear or not,
such that the range of f lies in the domain of g, but in the nonlinear case it is customary
to insert the 0 symbol and not to use the term product, especially in situations in which
composites could be confused with pointwise products of scalar-valued functions.
 1.1 Preliminaries 5

linear operator from X into Z formed by letting TS(x) = T(S(x)) for

each x in X. Linear operators preserve some of the special properties of
sets mentioned above. The following are easy to show; see Exercise 1.11.
(1) Let A be a subset of the vector space X and let T be a linear operator
with domain X. If A is convex, or balanced, or a subspace, then T(A)
has the same property.
(2) Let B be a subset of the vector space Y and let T be a linear operator
with range in Y. If B is convex, or balanced, or absorbing, or a
subspace, then T-1(B) has the same property.
It is presumed that the reader is familiar with standard facts about lin-
ear operators, including the fact that the collection of all linear operators
from X into Y is a vector space with the vector space operations given by
the usual addition of functions and multiplication of functions by scalars.
This vector space of linear operators is denoted by L(X, Y). The vector
space L(X, IF) of all linear functionals on X is denoted by X#.
A metric space is a set M along with a metric or distance function
d: M x M ---+ lR such that the following three conditions are satisfied by
all x, y, and z in M:
(1) d(x, y) ;:::: 0, and d(x, y) =
if and only if x = y;
(2) d(x,y) = d(y,x);
(3) d(x, z) s: d(x, y) + dey, z) (the triangle inequality).
If x E M and r > 0, then the closed ball in M with center x and radius r
is {y : y E M, d(x, y) s:
r} and is denoted by B(x, r). The corresponding
open ball is {y : y E M, d(x, y) < r}. Appendix B has a list of some ele-
mentary metric space properties with which the reader should be familiar.
Suppose that M is a metric space with metric d and that A is a nonempty
subset of M. If B is another nonempty subset of M, then the distance
dCA, B) from A to B is inf{ d(x, y) : X E A, y E B}. For each x in M,
the distance d(x, A) from x to A is inf{ d(x, y) : yEA}. It is not hard to
show that Id(x, A) - dey, A)I s:
d(x, y) for all x and y in M, from which it
follows immediately that the function x f---+ d(x, A) is continuous on M. See
Exercise 1.13.
A preorder on a set A is a binary relation :5 on A satisfying the following
two conditions:
(1) a:5 a for each a in A;
(2) if a :5 band b :5 c, then a :5 c.
A set with a preorder is called a preordered set. Suppose that A is a pre-
ordered set. A chain in A is a subset C of A such that for all a and b
in C, either a :::S b or b :::S a. An upper bound for a subset B of4 is an
element 'u' of A such that b :5 u for each b in B. A maximal element in A is
an element m of A such that whenever m' E A and m :5 m', then m' :::S m.
6 1. Basic Concepts

The axiom of choice is going to be used frequently and fearlessly, often

in the following form.

Zorn's Lemma. (M. Zorn, 1935 [249]). A preordered set in which each
chain has an upper bound contains at least one maximal element.

A proof that Zorn's lemma is equivalent as an axiom of set theory to the

axiom of choice can be found in [65]. The hard part of that proof, involving
a "tower" argument to show that the axiom of choice implies Zorn's lemma,
can be replaced by a more recent and greatly simplified argument due to
Jonathan Lewin [152].
Zorn's lemma is sometimes stated only for partially ordered sets, that is,
preordered sets also having this property:
(3) if a :::: band b :::: a, then a = b.
As axioms of set theory, these two forms of Zorn's lemma are equivalent;
see Exercise 1.16.
The following is a typical application of Zorn's lemma.

1.1.1 Theorem. If X is a vector space and S is a linearly independent

subset of X, then X has a basis that includes S. In particular, every vector
space has a basis.
PROOF. Let the collection of all linearly independent subsets of X that
include S be denoted by 21. 3 Preorder the members of 21 by inclusion; that
is, define a preorder :::S on 21 by declaring that Al :::S A2 when Al <::; A 2
If ~ is a chain in 21, then S U {U{ c : C E ~}} is an upper bound for ~
in 21. By Zorn's lemma, the collection 21 must have a maximal element M.
If M were not a basis for X, then there would be an x in X \ (M), and
M U {x} would be a member of 21 with the property that M :::S M u {x}
but M U {x} i
M, a contradiction to the maximality of M.
The assertion that each vector space has a basis now follows, since each
vector space must have a basis that includes the linearly independent
~0.

Exercises
Unless stated otherwise, in each of these exercises X is a vector space, the ele-
ments x and yare vectors in X, the sets A, B, and C are subsets of X, and 0:
and (3 are scalars.

3The symbol Qt is the Fraktur letter A. Uppercase Fraktur letters Qt, '23, ([, ... will
often be used to denote certain types of sets, particularly those whose members are sets
or functions. See the List of Symbols for the list of Fraktur letters corresponding to the
uppercase Roman letters.
 1.1 Preliminaries 7

1.1 (a) Show that if A is an absorbing set or a nonempty balanced set, then
o E A.
(b) Show that if A is balanced, then aA =A whenever lal = 1.
(c) Suppose that Q3 is a collection of balanced subsets of X. Show that
u{ s :
S E Q3 } and n{
S : S E Q3 } are both balanced.
(d) Suppose that <!: is a collection of convex subsets of X. Show that
n{S : S E <!:} is convex.
(e) Show that if A is convex, then x +A and aA are convex.
1.2 (a) Show that the "addition" and "multiplication by scalars" defined for
sets obey the commutative and associative laws for vector spaces.
That is, show that A+ B = B +A, that A+ (B +C) = (A+B) +C,
and that a(j3A) = (aj3)A. Show also that (x + A) + (y + B)
(x+y)+(A+B).
(b) Show that alA + B) = aA + aBo
(c) Show that (a + j3)A ~ aA + j3A but that equality need not hold.
1.3 (a) Prove that A is convex if and only if sA + tA = (s + t)A for all
positive sand t. (Consider the special case in which s + t = 1.)
(b) Use (a) and Exercise 1.2 to prove that if A and B are convex, then
so is A + B.
1.4 Show that the convex hull of A is the collection of all convex combinations
of elements of A. Show that if A is nonempty, then the linear hull of A is
the collection of all linear combinations of elements of A.
1.5 Prove that if A and B are balanced, then so is A + B.
1.6 Suppose that A is balanced. Prove that A is absorbing if and only if the
following holds: For each x in X there is a positive number tx such that
x E txA.
1. 7 Identify all of the balanced subsets of IC. Do the same for ]R2.

1.8 The balanced hull bal(A) of A is the smallest balanced subset of X that
includes A. There is a simple expression for bal(A) as the union of a
certain collection of sets. Find it.
1.9 Prove that each convex absorbing subset of C includes a neighborhood
of o.
1.10 Is the conclusion of the preceding exercise true for nonconvex absorbing
subsets of C?
1.11 Let X and Y be vector spaces. Suppose that A ~ X, that B ~ Y, and
that T: X -> Y is a linear operator.
(a) Prove that if B is convex, or balanced, or absorbing, or a subspace,
then T- 1 (B) has that same property.
(b) Prove that if A is convex, or balanced, or a subspace, then T(A)
has that same property. Prove that if T maps X onto Y and A is
absorbing, then T(A) is absorbing.
8 1. Basic Concepts

1.12 Let X be the vector space JR2 with the topology whose only member
besides the entire space and the empty set is {(a,f3) : (3 > a 2 }. Find a
subspace A of X such that A is not convex (and therefore is not a subspace
of X), so that neither of the equations [A] = (A) and co(A) = co(A) holds.
(It will be shown in Sections 1.3 and 2.2 that both equations do hold for
every subset A of a topologized vector space under certain restrictions on
the topology, in particular when it comes from a norm.)
1.13 Let M be a metric space with metric d. Suppose that A is a nonempty
subset of M and that x and yare elements of M. Show that d(x, A) :::;
d(x, y) + d(y, A). Conclude that Id(x, A) - d(y, A)I :::; d(x, y).

1.14 Let e: be the collection of nonempty closed bounded subsets of a met-

ric space M. The Hausdorff distance dH(A, B) between two members
A and B of e: is defined as follows. Let peA, B) = sup{ d(x, B) : x E A},
and then let dH(A, B) = max{p(A, B), pCB, A)}. Prove that dH is a met-
ric on e:.
1.15 Prove that if S is a subset of a vector space X, then 5 has a subset B
such that B is a basis for (5). Use this to give another proof that every
vector space has a basis.
1.16 (a) Suppose that P is a preordered set. Define a binary relation ~ on P
by declaring that x ~ y when x :S y and y :S x. Prove that ~ is an
equivalence relation. Now let P/~ be the collection of equivalence
classes determined by~. For each x in P, let [x] represent the equiv-
alence class containing x. Declare that [x] :S [y] when x :S y. Show
that this unambiguously defines a relation on P / ~. Show that this
relation partially orders P / ~.
(b) Use (a) to derive the form of Zorn's lemma for preordered sets from
the form for partially ordered sets. Conclude that the two forms of
Zorn's lemma are equivalent as axioms of set theory.
1.17 Prove that the following principle is equivalent to Zorn's lemma as an
axiom of set theory.
Hausdorff's Maximal Principle. (F. Hausdorff, 1914 [101, p. 140]).
Every preordered set includes a chain that is not a proper subset of an-
other chain.

1.2 Norms
Suppose that X is a vector space. For each ordered pair (Xl, X2) of elements
of X, define (Xl, X2] to be {y : Y = (l-t)XI +tX2, 0 < t :::; 1 }. In particular,
this implies that (x, x] = {x} for each x in X. It is not difficult to check
that if (Xl, X2] = (Yl, Y2], then Xl = Yl and X2 = Y2; see Exercise 1.18.
Define an equivalence relation on the collection of all of these "half-open line
segments" in X by declaring that (Xl, X2] is equivalent to (Yl, Y2] whenever
there is a z in X such that Yl = Xl + z and Y2 = .T2 + z. That is, two of
 1.2 Norms 9

these segments are equivalent when one is a translate of the other. Let the
arrow ~ with head X2 and tail Xl be the equivalence class containing
(Xl, X2]' It is easy to see that the collection Xa of all such arrows is a vector
space over IF when given these operations:

----> )
a Xl,X2 = aXl,aX2

It is also easy to see that the map X 1--* 0,1 is a vector space isomorphism
from X onto Xa. Thus, the vectors of X can be regarded either as its
elements or as directed line segments in X that remain fundamentally un-
changed when translated. In fact, the familiar "arrow vectors" of calculus
are obtained by treating the vectors of ]R2 or ]R3 the second way.
The fundamental metric notion for vectors can be either distance or
length, depending on the way vectors are treated. If they are thought of as
points, then the distance between two vectors is a reasonable notion, while
the length of a vector would seem to be a concept best left undefined. On the
other hand, the length of a vector is an entirely natural concept if vectors
are considered to be arrows. The distance between two vectors would then
seem to be a more nebulous notion, though it might be reasonable to obtain
it, as is done with the arrow vectors of calculus, by joining the tails of the
two vectors and then measuring the length of one of the two "difference
vectors" between their heads.
The concept of a norm comes from thinking of vectors as arrows. A norm
on a vector space is a function that assigns to each vector a length. There
are some obvious properties that such a function should be required to
have. A nonzero vector should have positive length; the additive inverse of
a vector should have the same length as the original vector; half a vector
should have half the length of the full vector; a vector forming one side of
a triangle should not be longer than the sums of the lengths of the vectors
forming the other two sides; and so forth. These requirements are embodied
in the following definition.

1.2.1 Definition. Let X be a vector space. A norm on X is a real-valued

function II lion X such that the following conditions are satisfied by all
members x and y of X and each scalar a:
(1) Ilxll 2: 0, and Ilxll = 0 if and only if x = 0;
(2) Ilaxll = lalllxll;
(3) Ilx + yll ::; IIxll + Ilyll (the triangle inequality).
The ordered pair (X, 1111) is called a normed space or normed vector space
or normed linear space.

The term norm is commonly used for both the function of the preceding
definition and its values, so that Ilxll is read as "the norm of x." Another
10 1. Basic Concepts

common practice is to reserve the rigorous ordered-pair notation of the

definition for situations in which several different norms have been defined
on the same vector space, making it necessary to be able to distinguish be-
tween the resulting normed spaces. When there is no danger of confusion,
it is customary to use the same symbol, such as X, to denote the normed
space, the vector space underlying the normed space, and the set under-
lying the vector space. Corresponding shortcuts are often used in other
language referring to normed spaces, for example by saying that some ob-
ject is an element of a normed space rather than an element of the set
underlying the vector space underlying the normed space. Notice that this
is a straightforward extension of the common practice of having the same
symbol represent a vector space and the set underlying it, rather than using
a symbol such as X to denote the underlying set and then referring to the
vector space as an ordered triple (X, +, . ) formed from the set and the two
vector space operations.
The distance between two vectors x and y in a normed space X can be
defined just as it is for the arrow vectors of calculus; that is, the distance
between x and y is the length of the difference vector x - y. It is easy to
check that this does in fact give a metric on X.

1.2.2 Definition. Let X be a normed space. The metric induced by the

norTn of X is the metric d on X defined by the formula d(x, y) = Ilx - YII.
The norm topology of X is the topology obtained from this metric.

As will be seen in the next chapter, there are other natural topologies that
normed spaces possess besides their norm topologies. Henceforth, when-
ever reference is made to some topological property such as compactness or
convergence in a normed space without specifying the topology, the norm
topology is implied.
Suppose that X is a normed space and that B(x, r) is the closed ball
centered at a point x of X and having radius r. It follows easily from the
defini tion of the metric of X that B (x, r) = x + r B( 0, 1). A corresponding
relationship exists hetween open balls in X and the open ball with radius 1
centered at the origin. Because of this, and for other reasons that will
become apparent later in this book, the balls of radius 1 centered at the
origin playa special role in the theory of normed spaces and are therefore
given special names.

1.2.3 Definition. Let X be a normed space. The closed unit ball of X is

{x : x E X, I x I s: I} and is denoted by B x. The open unit ball of X is
{x : x E X, Ilxll < 1 }. The unit sphere of X is {x : X E X, Ilxll = I} and
is denoted by S x .

It is time for some examples.

 1.2 Norms 11

1.2.4 Example: IF. The prototype for all norms is the absolute value
function on IF. It is the norm implied whenever IF is treated as a normed
space without the norm being specified. Notice that this norm induces the
standard metric on IF.

1.2.5 Example: IFn. If n is a positive integer, then the vector space IF n of

all n-tuples of scalars is a normed space with the Euclidean norm given by
the formula

This normed space is called Euclidean n-space. By convention, Euclidean

O-space lFo is a zero-dimensional normed space with its Euclidean norm
(and, for that matter, only norm) defined by the formula 11011 = O. For
each nonnegative integer n, the Euclidean topology of IF n is the topology
induced by the Euclidean norm. Henceforth, whenever n is a nonnegative
integer and IF n (or, more specifically, ]Rn or en) is treated as a normed
space without the norm being specified, the Euclidean norm is implied.

1.2.6 Example: Lp(0., E, /1-), 1 :::; p :::; 00. Let /1- be a positive (that is,
nonnegative-extended-real-valued) measure on a cr-algebra E of subsets of
a set 0.. For each p such that 1 :::; P :::; 00, the Lebesgue space Lp(0., E, /1-)
is a normed space with the norm II lip given by letting

Ilfllp = {(llfI P
d/1-) lip if 1:::; p < 00;
inf{t:t>O,/1-({X:XE0., If(x)1 >t})=O} if p = 00.

For each p, the elements of Lp(0., E, /1-) are equivalence classes of either real-
or complex-valued functions, giving, respectively, real or complex normed
spaces. In the rare instances in which it is necessary to be specific about
the scalar field, the terms "real Lp(0., E, J.L)" and "complex Lp(fl., E, J.L)" are
used. A similar convention applies to the spaces defined in the following ex-
amples. For many ofthe Lebesgue spaces appearing in this book, the set fl. is
the interval [0,1], the cr-algebra E is the collection of Lebesgue-measurable
subsets of [0, 1], and the measure /1- is Lebesgue measure on [0,1]' in which
case Lp(0.,~, /1-) is abbreviated to Lp[O,l]. Other abbreviations such as
Lp[O,oo) have analogous meanings.

There is not universal agreement on whether the p in the notation for

Lp(fl., E, /1-) should be written as a subscript or superscript. Similarly, the
roles of subscripts and superscripts are often exchanged in the notations
for some of the other normed spaces defined later in this section.
12 1. Basic Concepts

1.2.7 Example: Coo. The collection of all bounded sequences of scalars is

clearly a vector space if the vector space operations are given by letting
(aj) + ({3j) = (aj + (3j) and a (aj) = (a aj). For each element (aj) of
this vector space, let

It is easy to check that 111100 is a norm. The resulting normed space is

called Coo (pronounced "little ell infinity"). A convention used for Ceo and
other spaces whose elements are sequences is that the phrase "a sequence
in the space" always means a sequence of elements of the space, never a
single element.

Suppose that J1 is the counting measure on the collection I: of all subsets

of N, that is, the measure given by letting J1(A) be the number of elements
in A. Then the measurable functions from N into IF are just the sequences of
scalars, and Lee (N, I:, J1) is R. oo . As with R.(X), the normed spaces of the next
two examples can be viewed as Lebesgue spaces by considering the counting
measures on the sets N, {I, ... , n} where n E N, and 0. See Appendix C for
an alternative derivation of these spaces that does not use measure theory.

1.2.8 Example: CP ' 1 :S p < 00. Let p be a real number such that p ?: 1.
The collection of all sequences (aj) of scalars for which L~llaj IP is finite
is a vector space with the vector space operations of the preceding example.
Let the norm II lip be defined on this vector space by the formula

The resulting normed space is called Cp (pronounced "little ell p").

1.2.9 Example: C;,1 :::; p :::; 00. Let p be such that 1 :::; p ::: 00 and let n
be a positive integer. Define a norm on the vector space lF n by letting

II(al, ... ,an)llp= {(tj=l laj IP ) lip if 1 :::; p < 00;

max{lall, .. , Ian I} if p = 00.

The resulting normed space is called R.; (pronounced "little ell p n"). Notice
that C2 is just Euclidean n-space. By convention, the space cg is Euclidean
O-space. It is also possible to represent cg as a Lebesgue space by using
the fact that there is exactly one scalar-valued function on the empty set,
namely, the function represented by 0 x IF; see [65, p. 11, Ex. 3]. It follows
that cg can be defined to be Lp( 0, {0}, J1), where of course J1(0) = O.
 1.2 Norms 13

1.2.10 Example: C(K). Let K be a compact Hausdorff space. Then the

collection of all scalar-valued continuous functions on K is a vector space
under the operations given by the usual addition of functions and multipli-
cation of functions by scalars. Notice that if K is empty, then this vector
space has the single element represented by K x IF; see the reference cited
in the preceding example. For each member 1 of this vector space, let

1111100 = {~ax{ If(x) I : x E K} if K =J 0;

if K = 0.

It is easy to check that this defines a norm on the vector space. The re-
sulting normed space is denoted by C(K). By analogy with Lp[O, l], the
abbreviation C[O, 1] represents C([O, 1]).

1.2.11 Example: rca(K). Let K be a compact Hausdorff space, and let

rca(K) be the normed space formed from the collection of all regular finite
scalar-valued Borel measures on K by defining the vector space operations
in the obvious way and by letting lllill be the total variation of Ii on K
whenever Ii is one of these measures. It follows easily from elementary
properties of total variation that rca(K) really is a normed space; see [67]
or [202] for details. Incidentally, the notation rca(K) comes from the fact
that the members of the space are regular count ably additive set functions.

It turns out that each of the norms in the preceding examples induces
a complete metric. For IF, this is a basic fact from analysis; for C(K),
this is just a special case of the fact that every uniformly Cauchy se-
quence of scalar-valued continuous functions on a topological space con-
verges uniformly to a continuous function; and for all of the other spaces
except rca(K), this follows from the completeness of the metrics of Lebesgue
spaces. The completeness of rca(K) is not difficult to prove from basic
principles, as is done in Exercise 1.28, and also follows from a result in
Section 1.10 about the completeness of dual spaces, as is mentioned in
the comments following Theorem 1.10.7. It is also not difficult to prove the
completeness of all of the spaces f.p and f.;, and therefore of all of the finite-
dimensional Euclidean spaces, without invoking the general fact that every
Lebesgue space is a complete metric space. See the proof of Theorem C.10
in Appendix C.
It is finally time for the definition of the objects that are the main focus
of this book.

1.2.12 Definition. A Banach norm or complete norm is a norm that

induces a complete metric. A normed space is a Banach space or B-space
or complete normed space if its norm is a Banach norm.

Each subspace of a normed space X is obviously a normed space with the

norm it inherits from X. Just as clearly, each closed subspace of a Banach
space is itself a Banach space with the inherited norm.
14 1. Basic Concepts

1.2.13 Example: Co. Let Co be the collection of all sequences of scalars

that converge to 0, with the same vector space operations and norm as loo.
Then Co is a Banach space since it is a closed subspace of loo.

1.2.14 Example: Lp(ll') and Hp, 1 ~ p ~ 00. Fix p such that 1 ~ p ~ 00.
Let 11' be the unit circle {z : z E C, Izl = I} in the complex plane, and let X
be the set of all complex-valued functions f on 11' with the property that
if g: [-Jr,Jr) -+ C is defined by letting g(t) = f(e it ), then 9 E Lp[-Jr,Jr).
As would be expected, two functions hand 12 in X are considered to be
the same if h (e it ) = 12 (e it ) for almost all t in [-Jr, Jr). Since Lp [-Jr, Jr) is
a Banach space, it is clear that X is also a Banach space with the obvious
vector space operations and the norm 1Illp given by letting

Ilfllp = {( ~ 1"
2Jr_"
If(eit)IP dt) lip

Ilglloo (where 9 is as above)

if 1

if p
~

=
P<

00.
00;

This Banach space is called Lp(ll'). Notice that Lp(ll') is essentially just
Lp[-Jr,Jr), except that [-Jr,Jr) has been identified with 1I' and Lebesgue
measure A has been replaced by normalized Lebesgue measure (2Jr)-1 A so
that the measure of 1I' is 1.
Suppose that f E Lp(1I'). For each integer n, the nth Fourier coeffi-
cient j( n) of f is defined by the formula

j(n) = ~
2Jr
lIT
-1\"
f(eit)e-int dt.

If n is an integer and (lj) is a sequence in Lp(ll') that converges to some f

in Lp(1I'), then IjJ(n) - j(n)1 ~ Ilfj - fill ~ Ilfj - flip -+ 0 as j -+ 00, and
so limj j)(n) = j(n). It follows that

{f : f E Lp(1I'), j(n) = 0 whenever n < O}

is a closed subspace of Lp(1I') and hence is itself a Banach space with

the norm inherited from Lp(1I'). This Banach space is called the Hardy
space Hp.
Actually, the space Hp is usually defined to be the class of all func-
tions analytic in the open unit disc of C and satisfying a certain condi-
tion, depending on p, that restricts their growth near the boundary of
that disc. It turns out that for each such function f there is a boundary
function iT: 1I' ---> C such that lim r _>1- f(re it ) = h(e it ) for almost all t
in [- Jr, Jr), and that the resulting collection of boundary functions is a su b-
space of Lp(1I'). It is common for Hp to be viewed as a subspace of Lp(1I') by
identifying each function satisfying the growth restriction with its bound-
ary function. That is how the definition given above of Hp as a subspace
of Lp(1I') is obtained. See [68] or [202] for details.
 1.2 Norms 15

The following vector space, with various norms, is useful for generating
counterexamples.

1.2.15 Example. The vector space of finitely nonzero sequences is the

collection of all sequences of scalars that have only finitely many nonzero
terms, with the obvious vector space operations. This vector space is clearly
a subspace of Co and of each space fp such that 1 ~ p ~ 00, and is, in fact,
dense in all of these except foo. See Exercise 1.24.

1.2.16 Definition. Let X be a vector space of sequences of scalars that

has the vector space of finitely nonzero sequences as a subspace. For each
positive integer n, the nth standard coordinate vector en of X is the element
of X that has 1 as its nth term and all other terms O. If X is the vector space
underlying a normed space and each of its standard coordinate vectors has
norm 1, then each standard coordinate vector is also called a standard unit
vector of X.

Since the collection of standard coordinate vectors is a basis for the

vector space of finitely nonzero sequences, it follows that every vector space
that has the vector space of finitely nonzero sequences as a subspace is
infinite-dimensional. In particular, the Banach spaces Co and fp such that
1 ~ p ~ 00 are all infinite-dimenSional. Similarly, the Banach spaces e[O, 1]
and Lp[O, 1] such that 1 ~ p ~ 00 are infinite-dimensional since each has
in it the linearly independent sequence (x n ), where xn(t) = t n whenever
n E Nand 0 ~ t :-s: 1.

Exercises
1.18 With all notation as in the first paragraph of this section, show that
if (Xl, X2] = (YI, Y2J, then Xl = YI and X2 = Y2. (This is easy when
Xl = X2 Suppose instead that Xl -=1= X2. It may help to show first that
[XI,X2] = [YI,Y2J, where [XI,X2] = {y: Y = (1- t)XI +tX2, 0 ~ t ~ I}.
To this end, notice that (XI,X2] and [Xl, X2] are both convex and that
[Xl, X2] has exactly one more point than does (Xl, X2]. In how many ways
can (Xl, X2] be augmented by one point so that the resulting set is convex?)
1.19 The definition of a norm contains some redundancies. Prove that an equiv-
alent definition is obtained by replacing (1) in that definition with
(1') IIxll -=1= 0 whenever X -=1= o.
1.20 A sphere in a metric space X is a set of the form {y : Y E X, d(x, y) = r},
where X E X and r > o.
(a) Prove that if X is a normed space, then every closed ball is the
closure of the corresponding open ball, every open ball is the interior
of the corresponding closed ball, and every sphere is the boundary
of the corresponding open and closed balls.
16 1. Basic Concepts

(b) Find a metric space X such that the three etmclusions of part (a)
all fail to hold for X.
1.21 Let X be a normed space. Prove that if (Bn) is a sequence of balls in X
such that Bn 2 Bn+1 for each n, then the centers of the balls form a
Cauchy sequence. Give an example to show that this result can fail if X
is only assumed to be a metric space.
1.22 The purpose of this exercise is to show that the Banach spaces of Examples
1.2.7, 1.2.8, and 1.2.9 can be obtained by subspace arguments beginning
with the Banach spaces Lp[O, 00).
(a) Show that 00 can be identified with a closed subspace of Loo[O, 00)
by identifying (OJ) with the function whose value on each interval
[j - 1, j) is OJ. Conclude that 00 is a Banach space.
(b) Use a similar argument to prove that p is a Banach space when
1:::; p < 00.

(c) For each p such that 1 :::; p :::; 00 and each nonnegative integer n,
identify ; with a closed subspace of p and conclude that e; is a
Banach space.
(d) Give analogous arguments for (a) and (b) based on the spaces Lp[O, 1]
instead of Lp [0, 00 ).
1.23 Let X be the vector space of all continuous functions from [O,IJ into IF.
For each p such that 1 :::; p :::; 00, let II lip be the norm that X inherits
from Lp[O, 1]. For which values of p is this a Banach norm?
1.24 Let X be the vector space of finitely nonzero sequences. Show that X is
a dense subspace of Co and of p when 1 :::; p < 00, but not of 00.
1.25 Let c be the collection of all convergent sequences of scalars with the vector
space operations and norm as given for 00. Show that c is a Banach space.
1.26 (a) In each of the spaces Co and p such that 1 :::; p :::; 00, identify the
linear hull ({ en : n EN}) of the collection of unit vectors.
(b) Do the same for [{ en : n E N }J.
(c) Do the same for co({ en: n EN}).
1.27 (a) Suppose that the unit sphere of 1 contains the sequence (x(n)
and the element x. Show that (x(n) converges to x if and only
if limn x;nl
= Xj for each positive integer j.
(b) Show that (a) fails if the requirement that IIxll = 1 is removed.
(c) Show that (a) fails if 1 is replaced by Co.
1.28 Suppose that E is a a-algebra of subsets of a set n. Let ca(n, E) be
the normed space formed from the collection of all finite scalar-valued
measures on E by using the obvious vector space operations and by letting
the norm of a measure be its total variation. It is not difficult to show that
ca(n, E) really is a normed space; see [202, pp. 116-119J for the details.
(a) Prove that ca(!!, E) is a Banach space.
 1.3 First Properties of Normed Spaces 17

(b) Now suppose that i.8 is the a-algebra of Borel subsets of a com-
pact Hausdorff space K. Prove that rca(K) is a closed subspace of
ca(K, i.8) and is therefore a Banach space.
1.29 Fix a positive real number p. A scalar-valued function f on [0,1] is said
to satisfy a Lipschitz condition of order p if there is a nonnegative real
number M such that If(s) - f(t)1 ~ Mis - W whenever s, t E [0,1]. The
collection of all such functions is denoted by Lip p.
(a) Show that Lipp is a subspace of the vector space of continuous
scalar-valued functions on [0,1]. Show that if p > 1, then Lipp
consists only of the constant scalar-valued functions on [0, 1].
(b) Define a function II II: Lip p -+ IR by the formula

I/(s) - f(t)1 }
Ilfll = If(O)1 + sup { Is _ W : s, t E [0,1]' s =I- t .

Prove that II II is a norm. For the rest of this exercise, Lip p is to be

treated as a normed space having this norm.
(c) Prove that Lipp is a Banach space.
(d) Let lipp be the collection of all f in Lipp such that

.
hm sup
{ If(s)
I - f(t)1
IP : s, t E [0,1], s =I- t, Is - tl ~ 8
} = O.
6~O+ S - t

Prove that lip p is a Banach space under the norm inherited from
Lipp.

1.3 First Properties of Normed Spaces

The first order of business is to obtain a few basic continuity results.

1.3.1 Proposition. Let X be a normed space. Then Illxll-llylll ~ Ilx-yll

whenever x, y E X. Thus, the function x f-+ I xii is continuous from X
into JR.
PROOF. If x, Y E X, then /lx/l ~ Ilx - yll + IIYII and Ilyll ~ Ily - xii + Ilxll =
Ilx - yll + Ilxll, so Illxll-IIYIII = max{ Ilxll-llyll, Ilyil-/lxll} ~ Ilx - YII
1.3.2 Proposition. Let X be a normed space.
(a) Addition of vectors is a continuous operation from X x X into X.
(b) Multiplication of vectors by scalars is a continuous operation from
IF x X into X.
PROOF. Suppose that 0:,0:0 ElF, that x,y,xo,Yo E X, that E > 0, and that
10: - 0:01 < E, Ilx - xoll < E, and Ily - Yoll < E. Then
II(x + y) - (xo + yo)11 ~ Ilx - xoll + Ily - Yoll < 2E
18 1. Basic Concepts

and

II00x - o:oxoll :::; II00x - O:oxll + II000x - o:oxoll

= 10: - o:olllxli + Io:ollix - xoll
< E(llxoll + E) + 10001E,
from which (a) and (b) follow.

1.3.3 Corollary. Let Xo be an element of a normed space X and let
0:0be a nonzero scalar. Then the maps x f-+ x + Xo and x f-+ O:oX are
homeomorphisms from X onto itself Consequently, if A is a subset of X
that is open, or closed, or compact, then Xo + A and o:oA also have that
property. If A and U are subsets of X and U is open, then A + U is open.
PROOF. The continuity of the vector space operations of X implies that
of the maps x f-+ x + Xo and x f-+ aox, as well as that of the respective
o
inverse maps x f-+ x + (-xo) and x f-+ a 1 x. The remark about translates
and nonzero scalar multiples of sets that are open, closed, or compact
now follows, since homeomorphisms preserve these properties. Finally, if A
and U are subsets of X and U is open, then A + U = U{ a + U : a E A},
a union of open sets.

1.3.4 Corollary. Let S be a topological space and X a normed space.

Then the collection of all continuous functions from S into X is a vector
space over IF' if sums and scalar multiples of functions are defined in the
usual way: (f + g)(s) = I(s) + g(s) and (a I)(s) = a I(s) for each sin S.
PROOF. If a is a scalar and 1 and 9 are continuous functions from S
into X, then the continuity of the vector space operations of X implies
that the maps s f-+ (I(s), g(s)) f-+ (f + g)(s) and s f-+ I(s) f-+ al(s) from S
into X are both continuous, that is, that 1 + 9 and al are continuous. The
verification of the vector space axioms is then easy. Notice that the zero of
this vector space is the map s f-+ 0 and that (- I) (s) = - (! (s)) for eaeh 1
in this vector space and each s in S.

Because of the continuity of the vector space operations, it is possible to

develop an interesting theory of series in normed spaces.

1.3.5 Definition. Suppose that (x n ) is a sequence in a normed space.

Then the series generated by (x n) is the sequence (2::~1 Xn):=l' For
each positive integer m, the mth term 2::'=1 xn of this sequence of sums
is the m th partial sum of the series. If the series converges, that is, if
limm 2::'=1 xn exists, then this limit is the sum of the series and is denoted
by 2:~=1 Xn or by 2:n x n

1.3.6 Example. Suppose that X is Cp , where 1 :::; p < 00, or co. Let (en)
be the sequence of standard unit vectors in X. It is easy to check that
 1.3 First Properties of Normed Spaces 19

(an) = En ane n whenever (an) E X. This result does not extend to too,
for if (an) is a member of too whose terms do not tend to 0, then the
sequence (E:=l anen):=l is not Cauchy and therefore cannot converge.

If a sequence (xn) in a normed space generates a convergent series, then

it is often said that En Xn is a convergent series or that En Xn converges,
even though En Xn is only the limit of the series and is not the series itself.
The term infinite sum is also used for both a convergent series and its limit.
Even when the series generated by the sequence (xn) might not converge,
the sequence of partial sums is often called the formal series Ln X n . To
complicate things just a bit more, the notation En Xn is also used occa-
sionally for the sum of a finite list Xl, ... ,Xm of objects. In any case, the
context should always prevent confusion.

1.3.7 Proposition. Let X and Y be normed spaces.

(a) If Ln Xn converges in X, then Xn -> O.
(b) If Ln Xn and Ln Yn both converge in X, then so does Ln (xn + Yn),
and Ln (xn + Yn) = 2:n Xn + 2:n Yn'
(c) If 2:n Xn converges in X and a is a scalar, then 2:n aXn converges,
and 2:n aXn = a 2:n Xn
(d) If 2:n Xn converges in X and T is a continuous linear operator from X
into Y, then 2:n TX n converges in Y, and 2:nTX n = T(2:nxn).
(e) If 2:n Xn is a finite or infinite sum in X, then II2:nxnll ~ 2:nllxnll.
PROOF. Part (a) follows immediately from the fact that if Ln Xn is a
convergent series in X, then each Xn besides the first is the difference of
two consecutive terms of the Cauchy sequence of partial sums of the series.
Notice next that if a is a scalar and both 2:n Xn and 2:n Yn converge in X,
then the continuity of the vector space operations implies that
m m m
~)aXn +Yn) = aLxn + LYn -> aLxn + LYn
n=l n=l n=l n n

as m -> 00, giving (b) and (c). A similar argument, with a replaced by T
and references to Yn omitted, proves (d). For (e), repeated applications of
the triangle inequality show that 112::=1 xnll ~ 2::=lllxnll for each finite
sum 2:::'=1 xn in X. If 2:n Xn is an infinite sum in X, then the continuity
of the map x ~ Ilxll assures that 112:::'=lxnll-> l12:nxnll as m -> 00, so
the desired inequality for infinite sums can be obtained by letting m tend
to infinity in the inequality 112::: 1 Xn I ~ 2:::'=lllxnII.
Of course, the converse of (a) is not in general true since the harmonic
series diverges. It should also be noted that the sum 2:nllxnll in (e) does
not have to be finite when 2:n Xn is a convergent infinite sum; otherwise,
20 1. Basic Concepts

there would be no need to develop a theory of absolutely and conditionally

convergent series in IF. A similar theory exists for arbitrary normed spaces,
and has as one of its basic results a very nice characterization of Banach
spaces among all normed spaces.

1.3.8 Definition. Let Ln Xn be a formal series in a normed space.

(a) The series Ln Xn is absolutely convergent if Lnllxnll converges.
(b) The series Ln Xn is unconditionally convergent if Ln x".(n) converges
for each permutation 'IT of N.
(c) The series Ln Xn is conditionally convergent if it is convergent but
not unconditionally convergent.

The notions of absolute and unconditional convergence are equivalent

in IF; see [140]. In fact, it was proved by A. Dvoretzky and C. A. Rogers [70]
in a 1950 paper that the equivalence of absolute and unconditional con-
vergence of series actually characterizes finite-dimensional normed spaces
among all normed spaces.

1.3.9 Theorem. A normed space X is a Banach space if and only if each

absolutely convergent series in X converges.
PROOF. Suppose that X is not a Banach space. Let (xn) be a nonconver-
gent Cauchy sequence in X. For each positive integer j, there is a positive
integer nj such that Ilxn - xmll ~ 2- j if n, m 2:: nj. It can be assumed that
nj+l > nj for each j. Since a limit for a subsequence of a Cauchy sequence
must be a limit for the entire sequence, the subsequence (x nj ) of (xn) has
no limit. Therefore, the series Lj(Xnj+l - Xn,} is not convergent, since
L~=l (x nJ + 1 xnJ = xnk+l - x n, for each positive integer k. However, this
-

series is absolutely convergent, since Ljllxnj+l - Xnj II ~ E j 2- j = 1.

Conversely, suppose that X is a Banach space and that Ln Xn is an
absolutely convergent series in X. If ml, m2 E Nand m2 > ml, then

from which it follows that the partial sums of Ln Xn form a Cauchy se-
quence and therefore that Ln Xn converges.

See Exercise 1.31 for some further observations about absolute and un-
conditional convergence of series in Banach spaces. The reader interested
in unconditional convergence should also see Propositions 4.2.1 and 4.2.3.
While the proofs of those two propositions rely only on material that has
already been covered, the results have been postponed until Section 4.2
since they are not needed before then.
 1.3 First Properties of Normed Spaces 21

If X is a vector space with a topology and A ~ X, then it need not be

true that [AJ = (A) or that co(A) = co(A); see Exercise 1.12. It is an easy
consequence of the next theorem that these equalities do hold if X is a
normed space. See also Exercise 1.33.

1.3.10 Theorem. Let X be a normed space.

(a) If S is a subspace of X, then S is a subspace of X.
(b) If C is a convex subset of X, then both C and Co are convex.
PROOF. Let S be a subspace of X. Suppose that x, yES and that a
is a scalar. Let (x n ) and (Yn) be sequences in S converging to x and y
respectively. Then (ax n + Yn) is a sequence in S converging to ax + y, and
so ax + yES. Since S is nonempty and contains the sum of each pair of its
elements as well as each scalar multiple of each of its elements, it follows
that S is a subspace of X.
Suppose that C is a convex subset of X and that 0 < t < 1. If x, Y E C,
then an argument similar to that just given shows that tx + (1 - t)y E C,
so C is convex. To see that Co is convex, notice first that tCO + (1 - t)CO
is open by Corollary 1.3.3. Since tc + (1 - t)CO ~ tC + (1 - t)C = C, it
follows that tCO + (1 - t) Co ~ Co, so Co is convex.

1.3.11 Corollary. Let A be a subset of a normed space. Then [AJ = (A)

and coCA) = coCA).
PROOF. Let X be the normed space. It follows from the theorem that (A)
is a closed subspace of X that includes A, so (A) :2 [AJ. Since [AJ is a
subspace of X that includes A, it is also true that (A) ~ [AJ. Therefore
(A) ~ [AJ since [AJ is closed, and so (A) = [AJ. The other equality is proved
similarly.

It is not in general true that balls in a vector space with a metric must
be convex; see Exercise 1.35. However, balls in a normed space always have
this property.

1.3.12 Proposition. Every ball in a normed space, whether open or closed,

is convex.
PROOF. Suppose that B is a ball in a normed space and that x and rare,
respectively, the center and radius of B. If y, z E Band 0 < t < 1, then

Iity + (1 - t)z - xii = Iity + (1 - t)z - tx - (1 - t)xll

s: tlly - xii + (1 - t)llz - xii
s: T,
whcre the last inequality is strict if B is open. Therefore ty + (1- t)z E B,
and so B is convex.
22 1. Basic Concepts

Balls centered at the origin of a normed space have some additional useful
features.

1.3.13 Proposition. Every ball centered at the origin of a normed space,

whether open or closed, is balanced and absorbing.
PROOF. Suppose that B is an open or closed ball centered at the origin of a
normed space X and that r is the radius of B. It is clear that B is balanced.
If x E X and t > r-Illxll, then IIt-Ixll = t-Illxll < r, so C1x E Band
therefore x E tB. Thus, the set B is absorbing.

One consequence of the preceding two propositions is that every neigh-

borhood of the origin in a normed space includes a closed, convex, absorbing
set since it includes a closed ball centered at the origin. The following par-
tial converse of this is a special version of a result called the Baire category
theorem, a more general form of which is given in Section 1.5. Notice that
this theorem is stated only for Banach spaces, not arbitrary normed spaces.
As is shown in Exercise 1.36, there are incomplete normed spaces having
closed, convex, absorbing subsets with empty interiors.

1.3.14 Theorem. Every closed, convex, absorbing subset of a Banach

space includes a neighborhood of the origin.
PROOF. Let e be a closed, convex, absorbing subset of a Banach space,
and let D = en (-e). It is enough to show that D includes a neighborhood
of the origin. If A is a nonempty subset of D, then
1 1 1 1 1 1
o E -A
2
+ -(-A) C -D + -(-D) =
2 -2 2
-D
2
+ -D
2
= D
'
where the la.''lt equality comes from the convexity of D. Thus, it is enough
to prove that DO i= 0, for then the neighborhood ~ DO + ~ (- DO) of the
origin must be included in D.
Suppose that D has empty interior. For each positive integer n, the set
nD is closed and has empty interior, and so X \ nD is an open set that
is dense in X. Let Bl be a closed ball in X \ D with radius no more
than 1. Since (X \ 2D) n B'l is a nonempty open set, there is a closed
ball B2 in Bl \ 2D with radius no more than 1/2. There is a closed ball B3
in B2 \ 3D with radius no more than 1/3. Continuing in the obvious way
yields a sequence (Bn) of closed balls such that these all hold for each
positive integer n: BnnnD = 0, the radius of Bn is no more than lin, and
Bn :2 Bm if n ::; m. It follows that the centers of the balls form a Cauchy
sequence whose limit x is in each of the balls and hence is in X \ nD
for each n. However, the set e is absorbing, so there is a positive real
number s such that if t > s, then x, -x E te and therefore x E tD.
It follows that x E nD for some positive integer n, a contradiction that
proves the theorem.
 1.3 First Properties of Normed Spaces 23

In the preceding proof, it is not really necessary to force the radii of the
balls to decrease to O. The fact that Bn :2 Bm whenever n ::; m is enough
to assure that their centers form a Cauchy sequence. See Exercise 1.21.

Exercises
1.30 Let K be a compact Hausdorff space and let X be a normed space. By
Corollary 1.3.4, the collection of all continuous functions from K into X
is a vector space when functions are added and multiplied by scalars in
the usual way. Define a norm on this vector space by the formula

IIflloo = {:ax{ Ilf(x)11 : x E K} if K i 0;

if K = 0.

The resulting normed space is denoted by C(K, X).

(a) Show that 111100 is in fact a norm on C(K, X).
(b) Show that if X is a Banach space, then so is C(K, X).
1.31 Lct I:n Xn be a formal series in a Banach space.
(a) Prove that if the series is absolutely convergent, then it is uncondi-
tionally convergent.
(b) Give an example to show that the converse of (a) need not hold.
(The space CO is a good place to look.)
1.32 Identify co( { en : n EN}) in 1. Exercises 1.26 (c) and 1.27 ( a) may help.

1.33 This exercise shows that the order in which closures and hulls are taken
in Corollary 1.3.11 is important.
(a) Prove that if A is a subset of a normed space, then co(A) :;! co(A)
and [A] :;! (A).
(b) Show that if A is the collection of unit vectors in co, then the inclu-
sions in (a) are proper.
1.34 Suppose that 5 is a subspace of a normed space X. It is clear that S
need not be a subspace of X because S might be empty; consider {ot
in IF. It is true, however, that S is a subspace of X when S i 0. In
fact, a much stronger statement can then be made about S. What is that
statement?
1.35 Euclidean-space intuition might make it tempting to think that balls in
a vector space with a metric must be convex. To see that this is not so,
let X be the vector space ]R2 with the metric given by the formula

Show that d really is a metric on ]R2. Let B x be the closed unit ball
of X, that is, the set of all members of X no more than 1 unit from (0,0).
Sketch Bx. Notice that (1,0) and (0,1) are in Bx, but d,~) is not. Thus,
the ball B x is not convex.
24 1. Basic Concepts

1.36 Suppose that X is the vector space underlying 1, but equipped with
the 00 norm. Show that {(an) : (an) E X, Lnlanl :::; I} is a closed,
convex, absorbing subset of X whose interior is empty. (Notice that, by
Theorem 1.3.14, the normed space X cannot be a Banach space.)
1.37 Suppose that a vector space X has a nonempty subset B that is convex,
balanced, and has this strong absorbing property: For every nonzero x
in X, there is a positive Sx such that x E tB if t ~ Sx and x (j. tB if
o :::; t < sx. Show that there is a norm II liB on X for which B is the
closed unit ball.
1.38 Suppose that T is a linear operator from a Banach space X into a normed
space Y. Show that if T- 1 (By) is closed, then T is continuous at O.
(It can then be concluded from Theorem 1.4.2 that T is actually contin-
uous everywhere.)
1.39 The core of a subset A of a vector space X is the collection of all points y
in A with this property: For each x in X, there is a positive OX,y such that
y + tx E A whenever 0 :::; t < Ox,y. Prove that if X is a Banach space,
then the core of each closed convex subset of X is the interior of that set.

1.4 Linear Operators Between Normed Spaces

Linear operators between vector spaces were discussed briefly in Section 1.l.
The purpose of this section is to derive a few basic properties of linear
operators between normed spaces, with special emphasis on the continuous
ones.
Recall that a subset of a metric space is bounded if it is either empty or
included in some ball. (Making a special case of the empty set is necessary
only when the metric space is itself empty.) Each compact subset K of
a metric space is bounded, since the metric space is either empty or the
union of an increasing sequence of open balls which thus form an open
covering for K, forcing K to lie inside one of the balls. Also, every Cauchy
sequence in a metric space is bounded, since the sequence from some term
onward lies inside a ball of radius 1, and increasing the radius of that ball,
if necessary, causes it to engulf the rest of the terms.
It is easy to check that a subset A of a normed space is bounded if and
only if there is a nonnegative number M such that Ilxll :s: M for each x
in A.

1.4.1 Definition. Let X and Y be normed spaces. A linear operator T

from X into Y is bounded if T(B) is a bounded subset of Y whenever B
is a bounded subset of X. The collection of all bounded linear operators
from X into Y is denoted by B(X, Y), or by just B(X) if X = Y.

A function into a metric space is often called bounded when its range
is a bounded set. It is quite possible for a linear operator between normed
 1.4 Linear Operators Between Normed Spaces 25

spaces to be unbounded in this sense and yet bounded in the sense of

Definition 1.4.1, an example being the operator I: IR ....... IR that maps each
real number to itself. In fact, if X and Yare normed spaces, then the only
member of L(X, Y) with a bounded range is the operator with range {O},
for the range of each other member of L(X, Y) contains a nonzero vector
and all scalar multiples of that vector. Thus, the study of bounded-range
linear operators between normed spaces does not lead to a particularly rich
theory, and so the term bounded when applied to linear operators between
normed spaces always has the meaning given in Definition 1.4.1.
As was suggested earlier, the main emphasis in this section is on continu-
ous linear operators between normed spaces. The following theorem makes
clear the reason for introducing boundedness into this discussion.

1.4.2 Theorem. Let X and Y be normed spaces and let T: X ....... Y be a

linear operator. Then the following are equivalent.

(a) The operator T is continuous.

(b) The operator T is continuous at O.
(c) The operator T is uniformly continuous on X.
(d) The operator T is bounded.
(e) For some neighborhood U of 0 in X, the set T(U) is bounded in Y.
(f) There is a nonnegative real number M such that IITxl1 ::; Mllxll for
each x in X.
(g) The quantity sup{ IITxl1 : x E Bx } is finite.

PROOF. Suppose that T is continuous at O. If E > 0, then there is a positive 6

such that IITxl1 = IITx - TOil < E whenever x E X and Ilxli = Ilx - 011 < 6,
so IITxI-Tx211 = IIT(XI -x2)11 < E whenever Xl,X2 E X and IlxI-X211 < o.
Therefore T i;; uniformly continuous on X, which proves that (b) =? (c). It
is clear that (c) =? (a) =? (b), and so (a), (b), and (c) are equivalent.
If (b) holds, then there i;; an open ball V centered at 0such that IITxl1 < 1
whenever x E V. For each bounded subset B of X, there is a positive tB
such that B <;;; tB V, and so IITxl1 < tB if x E B. Thus, the operator T is
bounded, and so (b) =? (d). If (d) holds, then ;;0 doe;; (e), as can be seen
by letting U be the open unit ball of X, a bounded set. Suppose that (e)
holds. Let r be a positive number small enough that the clo;;ed ball Br of
radius r and center 0 is included in U, and let Mo = sup{ IITxl1 : x E B r }.
If x is a nonzero member of X, then rllxll-1x E B r , so IIT(rllxll-1x)11 <:::: Mo
and therefore IITxl1 <:::: r- 1Mollxll This last inequality also holds if x = 0,
so (e) =? (f). It is clear that (f) =? (g). Finally, suppose that (g) holds.
Let M = sup{ IITxl1 : x E Bx }. If E > 0 and x E EB x , then IITx - TOil =
IITxl1 ::; EM, which establishes the continuity ofT at o. Therefore (g) =? (b),
and so (b), (d), (e), (f), and (g) are equivalent.
26 1. Basic Concepts

It follows from the preceding theorem that the collection B(X, Y) of all
bounded linear operators from a normed space X into a normed space Y is
the same as the collection of all continuous linear operators from X into Y.
Convention dictates that a member of B(X, Y) be called bounded rather
than continuous, which also explains why the notation B(X, Y) is used for
this collection rather than something like CL(X, Y). While L(X, Y) is used
in this book to denote the vector space of all linear operators from X into Y,
be warned that many authors use L(X, Y) to denote the corresponding
space of bounded linear operators.
Let V be the vector space of all continuous functions from a normed
space X into a normed space Y with addition of functions and multiplica-
tion of functions by scalars defined in the usual way; see Corollary 1.3.4.
Then B(X, Y) is clearly a subspace of V, and so is itself a vector space. It
would be nice if B(X, Y) could somehow be made into a normed space. To
do that, some notion for the "length" or "size" of a member T of B(X, Y)
is needed. The quantity sup{ IITxl1 : x E Bx} mentioned in part (g) of
Theorem 1.4.2 is in a sense a measure of the size of T(Bx), and therefore
would seem to be a plausible candidate.

1.4.3 Definition. Let X and Y be normed spaces. For each T in B(X, Y),
the norm or opemtor norm IITII of T is the nonnegative real number
sup{ IITxl1 : x E Bx }. The opemtor norm on B(X, Y) is the map T I---> IITII.

1.4.4 Example. Let X and Y be normed spaces. The zero opemtor from X
into Y is the zero element of the vector space B(X, Y), that is, the operator
that maps each x in X to the zero element of Y. This operator clearly has
norm O. The identity opemtor on X is the member I of B(X) defined by the
formula Ix = x. Notice that 11111 = 1 as long as X # {O}. More generally, for
each scalar a the linear operator Ta on X given by the formula TaX = ax
is bounded, and has norm lal if X # {O}. Such operators are called scalar
opemtors.

1.4.5 Example. Let X be the vector space of finitely nonzero sequences

with the foo norm. Define a linear operator T: X --+ IF by the formula
T(a n ) = Ln an For each positive integer n, let Xn = L7=1 ej. Then
Xn E Bx and TX n = n for each n. It follows that the set T(Bx) is not
bounded, so neither is the operator T.

1.4.6 Example. Define a linear operator T: C[O, 1] --+ C[O, 1] by mapping

each f in C[O, 1] to its indefinite integral F given by the formula F(t) =
J~ f(s) ds. Then T is bounded, and IITII = 1. See Exercise 1.40.

Here are some useful characterizations of the operator norm that are
sometimes used for its definition.
 1.4 Linear Operators Between Normed Spaces 27

1.4.7 Proposition. Suppose that X and Y are normed spaces and that
T is a bounded linear operator from X into Y.
(a) IITII = sup{ IITxl1 : x E X, Ilxll < 1 }.
(b) If X i- {O}, then IITII = sup{ IITxl1 : x E Sx }.
(c) If x E X, then IITxl1 ~ IITIIllxll. Furthermore,
the number IITII is
the smallest nonnegative real number M such that IITxl1 ~ Mllxll
for each x in X.
PROOF. Define I: X -lR. by the formula I(x) = IITxll. Since I is continu-
ous, its supremum on the open unit ball of X is the same as its supremum
on the closure Bx of that ball, which gives (a). If x is a nonzero element
of B x , then IIxll-Ix E Sx and 1(llxll-Ix) = IIxll-I/(x) ;::: I(x). It follows
that the supremum of I on S x is the same as its supremum on B x when-
ever Xi- {O}, which gives (b). For (c), first notice that if 0 ::; M < IITII,
then there is an x in Bx such that IITxl1 > M ;::: Mllxll, so there is no
nonnegative real number M smaller than IITII such that IITxll ::; Mllxll for
each x in X. If x E X and x i- 0, then IIxll-IIlTxll = IIT(llxll-Ix) II ::;
IITII,
and so IITxll ~ IITllllxll. This last inequality is trivially true if x = 0, which
finishes the proof of (c).

So far, it has not been shown that the operator norm really is a norm.
It is time to remedy this oversight.

1.4.8 Theorem. Let X and Y be normed spaces. Then B(X, Y) is a

normed space under the operator norm. If Y is a Banach space, then so is
B(X, Y).
PROOF. Suppose that S, T E B(X, Y). It is clear that IITII ;::: O. If T i- 0,
then there is an Xo in X, necessarily nonzero, such that Txo i- 0, and so
T(lIxoll-lxo) i- O. It follows that T = 0 if and only if Tx = 0 for each x
in B x , that is, if and only if IITII = O. If a is a scalar, then

lIaTIl = sup{ IlaTxl1 : x E Bx} = lal sup{ IITxll : x E Bx} = lalllTII

If Xo E Bx, then

II(S + T)(xo) I ::; IISlIlIxoll + IITllllxoll ::; IIsll + IITII,

and so

liS + Til = sup{ II(S + T)(x)1I : x E Bx} ::; IIsll + IITII

Thus, the operator norm is a norm on B(X, Y).
Suppose that Y is a Banach space. Let (Tn) be a Cauchy sequence
in B(X, Y). If x E X, then
28 1. Basic Concepts

whenever n, mEN, from which it follows that the sequence (Tnx) is

Cauchy in Y and hence convergent. Define T: X ---> Y by the formula
Tx = limn Tnx. Because the vector space operations of Yare continu-
ous, the map T is linear. To see that T is bounded, first notice that the
boundedness of the Cauchy sequence (Tn) gives a nonnegative M such that
IITnl1 ::; M for each n, so that IITnxl1 ::; M for each x in Bx and each n.
Letting n tend to 00 shows that IITxl1 ::; M for each x in Bx, so T is
bounded. To see that IITn - Til ---> 0 as n ---> 00, let E be a positive num-
ber and let N f be a positive integer such that IITn - Tmll ::; E whenever
n,m ~ N f If x E Bx and n,m ~ N f , then IITnx - Tmxll ::; IITn -Tmll ::; E.
Keeping n fixed and letting m tend to 00 shows that IITnx - Txll ::; E
whenever x E Bx and n ~ N f Taking the supremum over all x in Bx then
shows that IITn - Til ::; E whenever n ~ N f It follows that limn Tn = T, so
B(X, Y) is complete.

Henceforth, whenever X and Y are normed spaces and B(X, Y) is also

treated as a normed space, the operator norm is assumed unless specifically
stated otherwise.
If X is a Banach space and Y is an incomplete normed space, then
B(X, Y) might not be a Banach space; see Exercise 1.41. In fact, it will
follow from Exercise 1.117 that as long as X and Yare normed spaces
and X i- {O}, the space B(X, Y) is a Banach space if and only if Y is a
Banach space. If X = {O}, then B(X, Y) contains only the zero operator
and is trivially a Banach space, even if Y is not.

1.4.9 Proposition. Let X and Y be normed spaces. If T E B(X, Y) and

(Tn) is a sequence in B(X, Y) such that Tn
---> T, then Tnx ---> Tx for each x
in X.
PROOF. For each x in X,

IITnx - Txll = II(Tn - T)(x)1I ::; IITn - Tllllxll ---> 0

as n ---> 00.

The converse of Proposition 1.4.9 is in general false, as should be ex-
pected. Convergence in B(X, Y) represents uniform convergence on the
closed unit ball of X, so it is not surprising that such convergence is not
always implied by pointwise convergence on X. See Exercise 1.44.
Suppose that X, Y, and Z are normed spaces and that S E B(X, Y) and
T E B(Y, Z). Then the product TS is in B(X, Z) since the composite of
continuous functions is continuous. It is too much to hope that liT SII would
have to equal IITIIIISII; for example, it is easy to find nonzero members S
and T of B(JR2 ) whose product is the zero operator. The following, at least,
can be said.
 1.4 Linear Operators Between Normed Spaces 29

1.4.10 Proposition. Let X, Y, and Z be normed spaces. If S E B(X, Y)

and T E B(Y, Z), then TS E B(X, Z) and IITSII ~ IITIlIiSIi.
PROOF. As has already been mentioned above, the operator TS is contin-
uous as the composite of two continuous functions. The continuity of T S
also follows from the fact that for each x in X,

IITS(x)1I = IIT(Sx)1I ~ IITlIlISxll ~ IITIlIISllllxll

This inequality also shows that IITSII ~ IITIlIiSII, since IITSII is the smallest
nonnegative real number M such that IITS(x)1I ~ Mllxll for each x in X .

As was shown in Example 1.4.5, there are normed spaces X and Y such
that some members of L(X, Y) are unbounded. Of course, this cannot hap-
pen when Y = {O}, for then L(X, Y) contains only the zero operator. This
observation, together with the following two theorems, completely settles
the question of which ordered pairs (X, Y) of normed spaces possess the
property that L(X, Y) has an unbounded member: this happens if and only
if X is infinite-dimensional and Y =I- {O}.

1.4.11 Theorem. Let X and Y be normed spaces such that X is infinite-

dimensional and Y =I- {O}. Then some linear operator from X into Y is
unbounded. In particular, every infinite-dimensional normed space has a
linear functional on it that is unbounded.
PROOF. Let (b n ) be a linearly independent sequence in Sx, let ~ be a
vector space basis for X that includes { bn : n EN}, and let y be a nonzero
member of Y. Define T!l!: 23 -+ Y by letting T!l!(b n ) = ny for each nand
letting T!l!(b) = 0 for every other member b of 23. Then T'B can be extended
to a member T of L(X, Y), and T is not bounded since T(Sx) is not a
bounded set.

1.4.12 Theorem. Let X and Y be normed spaces such that X is finite-

dimensional. Then every linear operator from X into Y is bounded.
PROOF. In this proof, the standard notation 1111 is used for all norms except
the special one about to be defined. Let V be the vector space underlying
the normed space X and let n be the dimension of V. Since the theorem
is trivial if n = 0, it can be assumed that n ~ 1. Let Xl, ... ,X n be a vector
space basis for V. Define a norm I Ion V by the formula

and let W be the normed space (V, I I). It follows immediately from the
definition of I I that a sequence (a~jlxl + ... + a}!lx n ) in W converges to
some member alxl + ... + anXn of W if and only if limj ag l = am when
m= l, ... ,n.
30 1. Basic Concepts

Claim: If Z is a normed space, then each member of L(W, Z) is bounded.

To see this, suppose that T E L(W, Z) and O:IXI + ... + O:nXn E W. Then

IIT(O:IXl + ... +O:nxn)11 ~ 100IlllTxlii + ... + 100nlllTxnll

~ (IITxlll + ... + IITxnll) . /O:IXl + ... + O:nXn/,

so T is bounded. This proves the claim.

Let I be the identity operator on V, viewed as a member of L(X, W).
Since every T in L(X, Y) can be written in the form Tw I where Tw is
just T viewed as a member of L(W, Y), the theorem will be proved once it
is shown that I is bounded. To this end, let (o:~j)Xl + ... + o:}!lxn ) be a
sequence in Sw. Then (o:~j)), ... , (o:}jl) are bounded sequences of scalars,
so there are scalars 0:1,"" O:n and an increasing sequence (jk) of positive
integers such that limk o:~k) = O:m when m = 1, ... ,n. It follows that

li~(a~jk)xl + ... + o:~k)xn) = alxI + ... + O:nXn

and that O:IXl + ... + O:nXn E Sw. Therefore every sequence in Sw has
a subsequence converging to a member of Sw, so Sw is compact. Since
I-I E L(W, X}, the function W t-+ III-lwll from W into IR is continuous
and so attains a positive minimum on the compact set Sw. If I were not
bounded, then there would be a sequence (Zj) in Bx such that /Iz j / ~ j
for each j. Letting Wj = /Izj/-lIzj for each j yields a sequence (Wj) in Sw
such that III-lwjll = /Izj/-lllzjll --> 0 as j --> 00, a contradiction. Thus,
the operator I must be bounded.

An important technique was used in the proof of the preceding theorem.

To prove that a linear operator T from X into Y must be continuous,
it was shown that there is a normed space W such that all the linear
operators from W into Y have this property, and that T can be factored
as the product of a continuous linear operator from X into Wand a linear
operator from W into Y. Variations of this technique with other properties
besides continuity have many applications in Banach space theory.

1.4.13 Definitions. Suppose that T is a linear operator from a normed

space X into a normed space Y. Then T is an isomorphism or normed
space isomorphism into Y if it is one-to-one and continuous and its inverse
mapping T- l is continuous on the range of T. The operator T is an iso-
metric isomorphism or linear isometry if IITxlI = Ilxll whenever x E X.
The space X is embedded in Y if there is an isomorphism from X into Y,
and is isometrically embedded in Y if there is an isometric isomorphism
from X into Y. The spaces X and Yare isomorphic if there is an iso-
morphism from X onto Y, and are isometrically isomorphic if there is an
isometric isomorphism from X onto Y. If X and Yare isomorphic, then
this is denoted by writing X ~ Y.
 1.4 Linear Operators Between Normed Spaces 31

Several points about the preceding definitions are worth emphasizing. In

this book an isomorphism T is a one-to-one linear mapping from a normed
space X into a normed space Y that is also a homeomorphism from X onto
the range of T. This differs from the usual convention that a mapping called
an isomorphism from an object A into an object B should be onto B, but
agrees with normed space custom. A normed space isomorphism T: X ~ Y
is essentially a mapping that provides a way of identifying both the vector
space structure and the topology of X with those of T(X). An isometric
isomorphism does this while also identifying the norms of X and T(X).

1.4.14 Proposition. Let T be a linear operator from a normed space X

into a normed space Y.
(a) The operator T is an isomorphism if and only if there are positive
constants sand t such that sllxll ~ IITxl1 ~ tllxll whenever x E X.
(b) If T is an isometric isomorphism, then T is an isomorphism.
(c) If X is a Banach space and T is an isomorphism, then T(X) is a
Banach space.
PROOF. The proposition is trivially true if X = {O}, so it can be assumed
that X =I- {O}. It follows that T and T- 1 are both nonzero whenever T
is an isomorphism, giving them both positive norms. For (a), notice that
if T is an isomorphism, then IITxll ::; IITllllxl1 and Ilxll = IIT-1(Tx)11 ::;
IIT-11I11Txll for each x in X, so letting s = IIT-111- 1 and t = IITII gives
the desired inequalities. Suppose conversely that there are positive real
numbers sand t such that sllxll ::; IITxl1 ::; tllxll for each x in X. Then
the second half of the inequality shows that T is bounded while the first
half shows that Tx =I- 0 whenever x =I- 0, that is, that T is one-to-one.
Since IIT-l(Tx)1I = IIxll ~ s-lllTxll for each x in X, the operator T- 1 is
bounded, so T is an isomorphism.
Part (b) follows immediately from (a). For (c), suppose that X is a
Banach space and T is an isomorphism. Let (Yn) be a Cauchy sequence
in T(X). Since there is a positive number s such that sllT-1ylI ::; Ilyll for
each y in T(X), it follows that (T-1Yn) is a Cauchy sequence in X and
so converges to some Xo. The continuity of T implies that (Yn) converges
to Txo, proving that T(X) is complete.

The significance of part (c) of the preceding proposition comes from the
fact that, in general, homeomorphisms between metric spaces do not have
to preserve completeness. See Exercise 1.42.
An easy application of Theorem 1.4.12 immediately produces a large
supply of isomorphic normed spaces.

1.4.15 Theorem. Let n be a nonnegative integer and let X and Y be

n-dimensional normed spaces over IF. Then every linear operator from X
onto Y is an isomorphism.
32 1. Basic Concepts

PROOF. Let T be a linear operator from X onto Y. Since X and Y have the
same finite dimension, the operator T is one-to-one. By Theorem 1.4.12,
both T and T- 1 are bounded.

1.4.16 Corollary. Let 71, be a nonnegative integer. Then all n-dimensional

normed spaces over IF are isomorphic to each other.
PROOF. Let X and Y be n-dimensional normed spaces over IF. It is a
standard fact from linear algebra that there is a linear operator from X
onto Y; recall that such an operator can be found by letting SJ3 x and SJ3 y
be vector space bases for X and Y respectively, letting f be any map from
SJ3x onto SJ3 y , and then letting T f be a linear extension of f to all of X. By
the theorem, each such linear operator is a normed space isomorphism.

1.4.17 Corollary. Every finite-dimensional vector space has exactly one

norm topology.
PROOF. Let X be a vector space of finite dimension n and let T be a
linear operator from X onto Euclidean n-space. It is easily checked that
the formula IlxiiT = IITxl1 defines a norm on X. If 11110 is any other norm
on X, then the identity operator on X, viewed as a linear operator from
(X, II liT ) onto (X, 11110), is an isomorphism, so the two norms induce the
same topology.

1.4.18 Corollary. For each nonnegative integer 71" the only norm topology
that IF" can have is its Euclidean topology.

Of course, the preceding two corollaries do not prevent a finite-dimen-

sional vector space from having many different norms, as Example 1.2.9
shows. However, the different norms must all induce the same topology.
The first of the following two corollaries is obtained by observing that
each normed space with finite dimension 71, must be isomorphic to Euclidean
n-space, a Banach space. The second then follows from the first, since each
complete subset of a metric space is closed in that space.

1.4.19 Corollary. Every finite-dimensional normed space is a Banach

space.

1.4.20 Corollary. Every finite-dimensional subspace of a normed space is

a closed subset of the space.

1.4.21 Corollary. Every finite-dimensional normed space has the Heine-

Borel property, that is, the property that all closed bounded subsets of the
space are compact.
PROOF. Let n be a nonnegative integer. Notice first that if n > 0, then
Euclidean n-space IF" has the Heine-Borel property, for if A is a closed
 1.4 Linear Operators Between Normed Spaces 33

bounded subset of IFn and ((a~j), ... , a~))) is a sequence in A, then the
bounded ness of each of the sequences (a~)) such that m = 1, ... , n as-
sures the existence of a subsequence (jk) of N and scalars al,"" an such
that (a~.)) --+ am for each m, which implies that (a~jkl, ... , a:~k)) --+
(aI, ... ,an)' It is trivially true that 1F0 has the Heine-Borel property.
Let X be a uormed space having finite dimension n and let T be an
isomorphism from X onto Euclidean n-space. If S is a closed bounded
subset of X, then T(S) is closed and bounded in IF n and therefore compact,
so S is itself compact.

A little more work shows that the Heine-Borel property actually charac-
terizes the finite-dimensional normed spaces among all normed spaces.

1.4.22 Lemma. If X is an infinite-dimensional normed space, then there

is a linearly independent sequence (xn) in Sx such that Ilx n - xmll ;::: 1
whenever n 1= m.
PROOF. The sequence (xn) is constructed inductively, beginning with an
arbitrary element Xl of S x. Suppose that n ;::: 2 and that linearly indepen-
dent elements Xl, ... , xn-l of Sx have been found such that Ilxj - xkll ;::: 1
if j, k :s: n - 1 and j =I- k. Let Y = (Xl,' .. ,Xn-l), a finite-dimensional sub-
space of X. The induction will be complete once a member Xn of Sx is found
such that d(xn' Y) = 1, for then Xl,." ,X n must be linearly independent
and Ilx n - xmll 2: 1 if m < n. Fix an element z of X\ Y and let t = d(z, Y),
a positive number since Y is closed. A subspace of a vector space remains
unchanged when multiplied by a nonzero scalar or translated by one of its
own elements, which in particular implies that C l Y = Y. It follows that
1 = Cld(z, Y) = d(Clz,t-lY) = d(Clz, Y). Let (Yj) be a sequence in Y
such that IIYj - C l zll --+ 1. Since (Yj) is a bounded sequence in Y and Y
has the Heine-Borel property, the sequence (Yj) has a subsequence (Yjk)
that converges to some Y in Y. Then Ily - clzll = limkllYjk - c1zll = 1
and d(y-C l z, Y) = d(y- C l z, Y- Y) = d(t- 1 z, Y) = 1. Let Xn = y_C 1 Z
to complete the induction and the proof.

1.4.23 Theorem. (F. Riesz, 1918 [195]). A normed space X is finite-

dimensional if and only if it has the Heine-Borel property, which happens
if and only if Sx is compact.
PROOF. If X is finite-dimensional, then it has the Heine-Borel property, so
the closed bounded set Sx is compact. If X is infinite-dimensional, then
the lemma produces a sequence in Sx with no convergent subsequence, so
Sx is not compact and X lacks the Heine-Borel property.

Exercises
1.40 Supply the details in Example l.4.6.
34 1. Basic Concepts

1.41 Suppose that Y is the vector space of finitely nonzero sequences, equipped
with the 1 norm. Show that B(l, Y) is not a Banach space.
1.42 Define d: RxR --> R by the formula d(x, y) = Itan- 1 (x)-tan- 1 (y)!. where
tan- 1 denotes the usual single-valued inverse tangent function from R
onto (-7r /2, 7r /2). Prove that d is an incomplete metric on R that induces
the usual topology of R. Conclude that it is possible for an incomplete
metric space to be homeomorphic to a complete one.
1.43 Suppose that T is a linear operator from a normed space X into a normed
space Y such that En TX n is a convergent series in Y whenever En Xn
is an absolutely convergent series in X. Prove that T is bounded.
1.44 For each positive integer j, define ej : Co --> IF by the formula ej(a n ) = aj.
Show that (ej) is a sequence in B(eo,lF) that does not converge to the
zero operator 0 of B(co,lF), even though limj ej(a n ) = O(an) whenever
(an) E Co.
1.45 Prove that no Banach space has a count ably infinite vector space basis.
(Suppose that X is a normed space with a countably infinite vector space
basis (b n ). For each positive integer n, let Yn = (b 1 , . , bn ). Select an Xl
in Yl such that Ilxlll = 1. Use an argument like that of Lemma 1.4.22 to
select an X2 in Y 2 such that d(X2, Yd = IIx2 - Xlii = 1/4. Select an X3
in Y3 such that d(X3, Y2) = IIx3 - X21! = 1/16. Continuing in this vein
yields a Cauchy sequence that cannot converge to anything in any Y n .)
1.46 Suppose that Y is a finite-dimensional normed space. Let T be a linear
operator from a normed space X onto Y, where X is not assumed to be
finite-dimensional and T is not assumed to be bounded. Prove that T is
an open mapping, that is, that T(U) is an open subset of Y whenever U
is an open subset of X. (Notice that it is enough to prove that T(Bx)
includes a neighborhood of 0.)
1.47 Let f be an unbounded linear functional on a normed space X. Prove
that if U is a nonempty open subset of X, then feU) = IF.
1.48 Let X and Y be normed spaces and let f: X --> Y be additive; that is,
let f(XI + X2) = f(xd + f(X2) whenever Xl,X2 EX.
(a) Prove that f(rx) = rf(x) for each rational number r and each X
in X.
(b) Prove that if X and Yare real normed spaces and f is continuous,
then f is linear.
(c) Show that the conclusion of (b) might not hold if X and Y are
complex normed spaces and f is continuous.
1.49 Let c be the Banach space of convergent sequences of scalars defined in
Exercise 1.25.
(a) Prove that c is isomorphic to co.
(b) Suppose that x E Seo ' Prove that there exist Xl and X2 in SeQ such
that Xl # X2 and X = ~(Xl + X2).
(c) Conclude from (b) that c is not isometrically isomorphic to eo.
 1.5 Baire Category 35

1.50 The purpose of this exercise is to show that, unlike finite-dimensional

vector spaces, infinite-dimensional vector spaces never have unique norm
topologies. Let (X, II II) be an infinite-dimensional normed space.
(a) Construct an unbounded one-to-one linear operator T from (X, II .1/)
onto itself.
(b) Let IIxllT = IITxl1 whenever x E X. Show that II liT is a norm, that
T is an isometric isomorphism from (X, II liT) onto (X, 11-11), and
that II liT is a Banach norm if and only if 111/ is a Banach norm.
(c) Show that the topologies induced by 1/.1/ and 1/. I/T are different.

1.51 Here is another proof of Corollary 1.4.18 that has a more geometric flavor.
Let n be a nonnegative integer. Let II I/o be a norm on lF n , let'! be the
topology induced by this norm, and let Uo and Uc be the open unit balls
for 1/. I/o and the Euclidean norm respectively. In the following, any term
preceded by "e-" refers to the Euclidean topology or norm. Do not use
Theorem 1.4.12 or any results based on it in your arguments. You may use
the fact that Euclidean n-space has the Heine-Borel property, since the
demonstration of that fact in the proof of Corollary l.4.21 is elementary.
(a) Using the fact that e-convergence implies coordinatewise conver-
gence when n ::::: 1, show that each e-convergent sequence in lF n is
'I-convergent to the e-limit. Conclude that every 'I-open subset oflF n
is e-open.
(b) Let C be an e-closed e-unbounded convex set in lF n that contains
the origin. Show that C includes a ray emanating from the origin,
that is, a set of the form {tx : t ::::: O} where x is a nonzero element
of lFn.
(c) Let C be an e-open e-unbounded convex set in lF n that contains the
origin. Show that C includes a ray emanating from the origin.
(d) Show that sUo ~ U e for some positive s. Conclude that every e-open
subset of lF n is 'I-open, and that'! must therefore be the Euclidean
topology. This concludes the proof of Corollary 1.4.18.
(e) Obtain Corollary l.4.16 from Corollary l.4.18. (Let T be a linear
operator from an n-dimensional normed space X onto lF n and define
a norm 1/. I/o on lF n by letting lIyl/o = I/T-1yl/. Use this norm to show
that X is isomorphic to Euclidean n-space.)

1.5 Baire Category

This section could have been marked optional, since the material developed
in it is used only in optional Section 2.3. Though it is useful to have some
form of the main result of this section, the Baire category theorem, to derive
the three fundamental theorems to be presented in the next section, a weak
form of the Baire category theorem already obtained as Theorem 1.3.14 is
enough to do that. However, the reader who is not already familiar with
36 1. Basic Concepts

Baire category should spend some time with this section, since Baire cate-
gory is an important component of the working analyst's toolkit.
It is often useful to be able to prove that a set is too large to be written
as a union of countably many other sets that are in some sense very small.
For example, facts about the real line that depend on its uncountability
are true because the real line is "large" enough that it cannot be written
as a union of countably many one-point "very small" sets. Similarly, many
results in measure theory are obtained from knowing that a set of nonzero
measure is too "large" to be a union of countably many "very small" sets
of measure zero.
The concept of Baire category, due to Louis Rene Baire, gives a topolog-
ical meaning to the notion of the size of a set. Baire's approach is based
on density. A subset A of a topological space X is considered to be very
small in Baire's sense if there is no nonempty open subset U of X such that
An U is dense in U, that is, if it has empty interior. Baire's large sets are
those that are not unions of countably many of these very small sets.

1.5.1 Definitions. Let X be a topological space. A subset of X is

(a) nowhere dense in X if its closure has empty interior;
(b) of the first category in X or meager in X if it is the union of a
countable collection of sets that are nowhere dense in X;
(c) of the second category in X or nonmeager in X if it is not of the first
category in X.
In particular, the set A is of the first or second category in itself if A has
that category as a subset of the topological space (A, 'I'A), where 'I'A is the
relative topology that A inherits from X.

1.5.2 Example. If a is any real number, then the set {a} is obviously of the
first category, in fact nowhere dense, in the real line, and is equally obviously
of the second category in itself. Since the set Q of rational numbers can be
written as the union of countably many singleton subsets of JR., it follows
that Q is of the first category in JR. while being at the same time dense in 1Ft.

Here are some simple but useful facts about Baire category, followed by
the main result of this section.

1.5.3 Proposition. Let X be a topological space.

(a) If a subset A of X is nowhere dense or of the first category in X,
then every subset of A has that same property.
(b) A subset of X is nowhere dense in X if and only if the interior of its
complement is dense in X.
(c) A subset of X is of the first category in X if and only if its comple-
ment is the intersection of a countable collection of sets each of whose
interiors is dense in X.
 1.5 Baire Category 37

(d) The union of a countable collection of sets each of the first category
in X is of the first category in X.
(e) If a subset of X is of the second category in X, then it is of the
second category in itself.
PROOF. Clearly, subsets of nowhere dense subsets of X are themselves
nowhere dense in X. It follows that if A is the union of a countable collec-
tion It of nowhere dense subsets of X and B ~ A, then B is the union of
the countable collection {B n C : CElt} of nowhere dense subsets of X,
which proves (a).
Now suppose that A is an arbitrary subset of X. Then (At = 0 if and
only if X \ A intersects every nonempty open subset of X, which happens
if and only if X \ A is dense in X. Since X \ A = (X \ A)O, this proves (b).
Part (c) then follows from a straightforward application of De Morgan's
laws.
Part (d) is obvious. For (e), notice that if A ~ X, then a subset of A
that is nowhere dense in A is nowhere dense in X, from which it follows
that if A is of the first category in itself, then it is also of the first category
inX.

1.5.4 The Baire Category Theorem. (L. R. Baire, 1899 [9]). Let X be
a nonempty complete metric space.
(a) If it is a countable collection of open subsets of X each of which is
dense in X, then n{ U : U E it} is dense in X.
(b) Every nonempty open subset of X is of the second category in X
and hence in itself. In particular, the entire space X is of the second
category in itself.
PROOF. For (a), suppose that it is a countable collection of dense open
subsets of X. It can be assumed that it =I- 0. Then the members of it can
be written as a sequence (Un), which might require that some member of it
be repeated infinitely often in the list. Let U be a nonempty open subset
of X. To prove (a), it is enough to show that Un (nn Un) =I- 0. Since U1 is
dense in X, there is a closed ball Bl of radius no more than 1 included in
Un U1 Now suppose that m 2 2 and that closed balls B 1 , . .. ,Bm - 1 have
been found such that these conditions are satisfied when 1 ::; j ::; m - 1:
(1) B j - 1 2 B j if j ;::: 2;
(2) B j ~ un U1 n .. n Uj
;

(3) the radius of B j is no more than j-l.

Let G m - 1 be the open ball with the same center and radius as B m - 1 .
Then the density of Um in X implies that there is a closed ball Bm of
radius no more than m- 1 included in G m - 1 n Urn. It follows by induction
that there is a sequence (Bn) of closed balls such that (1), (2), and (3) are
38 1. Basic Concepts

satisfied for each positive integer j. The centers of these closed balls form a
Cauchy sequence that converges to some x in X. This x must lie in each Bn
and therefore in U and each Un, which shows that Un (nn Un) -I- 0 and
proves (a).
For (b), notice that the complement of a nonempty open subset of X
obviously cannot be dense in X, and therefore, by (a), cannot be the in-
tersection of a countable collection of sets each of whose interiors is dense
in X. It follows from Proposition 1.5.3 (c) that every nonempty open subset
of X is of the second category in X, and therefore of the second category
in itself by Proposition 1.5.3 (e).

Of course, the metric space formed from the empty set with its only
possible metric is a complete metric space of the first category in itself.
Nonempty incomplete metric spaces can be of either the first or second
category in themselves. The rationals with the metric inherited from the
reals form an incomplete metric space of the first category in itself, while
the interval (0,1) in R with the metric inherited from R is an incomplete
metric space that is of the second category in itself by part (b) of the Baire
category theorem.
Suppose that P is a property defined for the elements of some nonempty
complete metric space X. It follows from the Baire category theorem that
one way to prove that some member of X has property P is to show that the
members of X lacking property P form a set of the first category in X. If
this can be done, then the collection of elements of X having property P is
a set of the second category in X whose complement is of the first category
in X, so it can even be said that in some sense the "typical" member of X
has property P. The following is a classical application of this idea.
From Newton's time through the early part of the nineteenth century,
most mathematicians assumed that a continuous real-valued function de-
fined on an interval in the real line must be differentiable over most of
its domain. In 1834, Bernhard Bolzano gave an example of a real-valued
function continuous on an interval though differentiable nowhere on that
interval, 4 but for almost a century afterward mathematicians treated such
functions as pathological. However, in 1931 Stefan Banach showed that,
in a sense, the vast majority of continuous scalar-valued functions whose
domain is a given interval in IR are not differentiable anywhere.

1.5.5 Theorem. (S. Banach, 1931 [12]). Let D+ be the collection of all
members f of C[O, 1] for which there is a point xf in [0,1) at which f has
a finite right-hand derivative. Then D+ is of the first category in C[O, 1].

4Weierstrass is usually given credit for finding the first everywhere continuous,
nowhere differentiable function, but his example was first presented in lectures in 1861
and in a paper to the Berlin Academy in 1872. See pages 577 and 627 of [38] for a
discussion of Bolzano's priority.
 1.5 Baire Category 39

FIGURE 1.1. A member of e[O, 1] with norm and large right-hand derivative.

PROOF. For each positive integer n, let Un be the collection of all mem-
bers f of e[O, 1] such that for each x in [0,1- n- l ],

sup { =
If(Y~ ~(x) I : x < Y < x + ~ } > n.

It will be shown that each Un is a dense open subset of e[O, 1]. To this end,
fix an no in N. Suppose that (fm) is a sequence in e[O, 1] \ Uno converging
to some fo in e[O,I]. To show that Uno is open, it is enough to show
that fo E e[O, 1] \ Uno. For each positive integer m, let Xm be an element
I
of [0,1 - noll such that (JTn(Y) - fm(xm))/(y - xm)1 ::;
no whenever
XTn < Y < XTn + nolo By thinning the sequence (fm) if necessary, it can be
assumed that there is an Xo in [0,1 - noll such that Xm ---+ Xo. If Y is such
that Xo < Y < Xo +nol, then for m large enough that XTn < Y < Xm +nol,

I
and so (Jo(Y) - fo(xo))/(y - xo)1 ::;
no It follows that fo E e[O, 1] \ Uno'
and therefore that Uno is open.
The proof that Uno is dense in e[O, 1] uses the Weierstrass approximation
theorem, which says that the polynomials are dense in e[O, 1]; see, for
example, [19] or [201]. If to and M are positive numbers, then Figure 1.1
shows how to construct a sawtooth function that is in e[O, 1], has norm to,
and has a right-hand derivative with absolute value greater than M at each
point of [0,1). Since each polynomial on [0,1] has a bounded right-hand
derivative on [0,1), it follows that if p is a polynomial on [0,1] and to> 0,
then a sawtooth function can be added to p to yield a member u of Uno
such that Ilu - pll= ::; . The set Uno is therefore dense in e[O, 1].
Thus, each Un is a dense open subset of e[O, 1], and so, by Proposi-
tion 1.5.3 (c), the set e[O, 1] \ (nn Un) is of the first category in e[O, 1].
Since a member of e[O, 1] with a finite right-hand derivative at some point
of [0, 1) cannot lie in every Un, the set of all members of e[O, 1] that are dif-
ferentiable from the right anywhere on [0, 1) is included in e[O, 1] \ ( nn
Un)
and therefore is of the first category in e[O, 1].
40 1. Basic Concepts

1.5.6 Corollary. Let D be the collection of all members f of C[O, 1] for

which there is a point x f in (0,1) at which f has a finite derivative. Then
D is of the first category in C[O, 1].

Since the Baire category theorem prevents the nonempty complete metric
space C[O, 1] from being the union of two sets of the first category in C[O, 1],
the next corollary follows immediately from the preceding one.

1.5.7 Corollary. The collection of all members of C[O,l] that are not
differentiable anywhere on (0, 1) is of the second category in C[O, 1].

Exercise 1.45 at the end of the preceding section asks for a proof that Ba-
nach spaces never have countably infinite vector space bases. The argument
outlined in that exercise involves the careful construction of a certain non-
convergent Cauchy sequence. The result can also be obtained very easily
from the Baire category theorem.

1.5.8 Theorem. No Banach space has a countably infinite vector space

basis.
PROOF. Suppose that X is a normed space with a count ably infinite vector
space basis {xn : n EN}. If U is an open subset of X and x E U, then
X = U~=l n( -x+U), and so X = (UI. It follows that no finite-dimensional
subspace of X includes a nonempty open subset of X.
For each positive integer n, let Fn = (Xl, ... ,xnl. Then each Fn is closed
by Corollary 1.4.20 and includes no nonempty open subset of X, and so is
nowhere dense in X. Since X = Un F n , the space X is of the first category
in itself and therefore is not complete.

Readers interested in the analogies and interplay between measure and

Baire category should become acquainted with J. C. Oxtoby's book [178].
R. P. Boas's monograph [31]' especially its Section 10, is another good
place to look for additional interesting applications of the Baire category
theorem.

Exercises
1.52 Derive Theorem 1.3.14 from the Baire category theorem.
1.53 Prove that the union of finitely many nowhere dense subsets of a topo-
logical space must itself be nowhere dense in the space.
1.54 Prove that a topological space is of the first category in itself if and only if
it is the union of countably many closed sets each having empty interior.
1.55 Prove that if Xl and X 2 are topological spaces at least one of which is of
the first category in itself, then thc topological product Xl x X 2 is of the
first category in itself.
 1.6 Three Fundamental Theorems 41

1.56 The closure of a nowhere dense set is obviously nowhere dense. Must the
closure of a set of the first category in a topological space X be of the
first category in X?
1.57 Prove that the boundary of a closed subset of a topological space must
be nowhere dense in the space. Conclude that a subset of a topological
space is nowhere dense in that space if and only if it is a subset of the
boundary of some closed set.
1.58 A subset A of a topological space X is nearly open if there are subsets
Ml and M2 of the first category in X such that (A \ M 1 ) U M2 is open.
Prove that every Borel subset of a topological space is nearly open. (The
preceding exercise might be helpful.)
1.59 An element x of a subset A of a metric space is an isolated point of A if
there is a positive f such that no point of A besides x itself has distance
to x less than f. A subset of a metric space is perfect if it is closed and
has no isolated points. Prove that every nonempty perfect subset of a
complete metric space is uncountable. Use this to give a proof that the
reals are uncountable without using the usual diagonalization argument.
Prove in a similar way that the Cantor set is uncountable.
1.60 Prove that the rational numbers are not a G6 subset of the reals. (Recall
that a G6 set is a set that is the intersection of countably many open
sets.)
1.61 Suppose that f is any function from R into R Prove that the points of
continuity of f form a G6 subset of R. Conclude that no function from IR
into R is continuous precisely on the rationals. Is the same true for the
irrationals? (The preceding exercise may help.)
1.62 Show that the real line can be partitioned into two subsets, one of which
is of the first category in IR and the other of which has Lebesgue measure
zero. Thus, though the real line is large in both Baire's topological sense
and Lebesgue's measure-theoretic sense, it can be written as the disjoint
union of a topologically small set and a measure-theoretically small set.
1.63 Prove that every nonempty locally compact Hausdorff space is of the
second category in itself.

1.6 Three Fundamental Theorems

Much of the theory of Banach spaces is based on three related results,
called the open mapping theorem, uniform boundedness principle, and
closed graph theorem, whose conclusions do not hold for arbitrary normed
spaces. The purpose of this section is to obtain these fundamental theo-
rems. The general plan of attack is to derive each of them from a result
called Zabre'iko's lemma that is itself a straightforward consequence of The-
orem 1.3.14. Other interesting proofs of these three theorems can be found
42 1. Basic Concepts

in many analysis texts. See, for example, [67] and [200], as well as Sec-
tion 2.3 of this book, all of which contain more general versions of these
three results that are proved without using ZabreYko's lemma.

1.6.1 Definition. A seminorm or prenorm on a vector space X is a real-

valued function p on X such that the following conditions are satisfied by
all members x and y of X and each scalar a:
(1) p(ax) = lalp(x);
(2) p(x + y) :5 p(x) + p(y).
For example, if X and Yare normed spaces and T is a linear operator
from X into Y, then the function x t-+ IITxl1 from X into lR is easily seen
to be a seminorm on X, called the seminorm induced by T. Of course, a
norm is always a seminorm, and is in fact just the seminorm induced by
the identity operator on the space.
Suppose that p is a seminorm on a vector space X. Then p(O) = 0, since
p(O) = p(O 0) = 0 . p(O); notice that some of those zeros are scalars and
some are vectors. It then follows that p is nonnegative-real-valued rather
than just real-valued, since 0 = p(O) :5 p(x) + p(-x) = 2p(x) for each x
in X. A seminorm is therefore a function on a vector space that satisfies the
definition of a norm, except that the value of the seminorm of a nonzero
vector is allowed to be zero.

1.6.2 Definition. A function f from a normed space X into the non-

negative reals is countably subadditive if f(En Xn ) :5 En f(x n ) for each
convergent series En Xn in X.

For example, the norm of a normed space is always countably subadditive

by Proposition 1.3.7 (e). More generally, let p be a seminorm on a normed
space X. If p is continuous, then pis countably subadditive, as can be seen
by letting En Xn be a convergent series in X and letting m tend to infinity
in the inequality p(E~l x n ) :5 E:'=l p(x n ). Conversely, if p is countably
subadditive, then p must be continuous provided that X is a Banach space.
That is the content of ZabreYko's lemma.

1.6.3 Zabre'lko's Lemma. (P. P. ZabreYko, 1969 [246]). Every countably

subadditive seminorm on a Banach space is continuous.
PROOF. Let p be a countably subadditive seminorm on a Banach space X.
If P is continuous at 0 and x is an element of X, then the argument used in
the proof of Proposition 1.3.1, with the norm function replaced by p, shows
that Ip(x) - p(y)1 :::: p(x - y) = Ip(x - y) - p(O)1 whenever y E X, which
implies the continuity of p at x. Thus, Zabrelko's lemma will be proved
once it is shown that p is continuous at O.
 1.6 Three Fundamental Theorems 43

Let G = {x : x E X, p(x) < I}, the "open unit ball" for p. If t > 0,
then tG = {x : x E X, p(x) < t} by an application of property (1) in
Definition 1.6.1, and so x E tG whenever x E X and t > p(x). Thus, the
set G is absorbing. If x, y E G and 0 < t < 1, then

p(tx + (1 - t)y) ::; tp(x) + (1 - t)p(y) < 1,

so tx + (1 - t)y E G, which shows that G is convex. Therefore G is closed,

convex, and absorbing, and so by Theorem 1.3.14 includes an open ball U
centered at 0 with some positive radius E. If there is a positive real number s
such that p(x) < s whenever Ilxll < 10, then p(x) < t whenever t > 0 and
Ilxll < s-ltf, which would imply the continuity of p at O. Thus, the proof
will be complete once such an s is found.
Fix an x in X such that IIxll < E. Since x E U ~ G, there is an Xl in G
such that Ilx - xIII < 2- 1 f, Since
x- Xl E TIU ~ TIG = 2- l G,
there is an X2 in 2- 1 G such that Ilx - Xl - x211 < 2- 2 10. Similarly, there is
an X3 in 2- 2 G such that Ilx - Xl - X2 - x311 < 2- 3 E. Continuing in this way
yields a sequence (xn) such that Xn E 2- n + l G and Ilx - 2:::7=1 xjll < 2- n E
for each positive integer n. It follows that p(xn) < 2- n + l for each nand
that X = 2:::n Xn, and so the countable subadditivity of p implies that

p(X) = p( LXn) ::; LP(x n ) < 2.

n n

Letting s = 2 completes the proof.

The guaranteed continuity of their countably subadditive semi norms is
an important way in which Banach spaces differ from incomplete normed
spaces, for Zabrelko's lemma does not extend to all normed spaces. See
Exercise 1. 75.

1.6.4 Definition. A function J from a topological space X into a topolog-

ical space Y is an open mapping if J(U) is an open subset of Y whenever
U is an open subset of X.

It is a well-known result of elementary complex analysis that every non-

constant analytic function on a connected open subset of C is an open map-
ping. Unfortunately, that fact and the unrelated one about to be proved
here are both commonly called the open mapping theorem. The following
result is also known as the interior mapping principle.

1.6.5 The Open Mapping Theorem. (J. Schauder, 1930 [208]). Every
bounded linear operator from a Banach space onto a Banach space is an
open mapping.
44 1. Basic Concepts

PROOF. Let T be a bounded linear operator from a Banach space X onto

a Banach space Y. Suppose that the image under T of the open unit ball U
of X is open. Let V be an open subset of X. If x E V, then x + rU ~ V
for some positive r, and so T(V) includes the neighborhood Tx + rT(U)
of Tx. It follows that T(V) is open. Thus, the theorem will be proved once
it is shown that T(U) is open.
For each Y in Y, let p(y) = inf{ Ilxll : x E X, Tx = y}. If y E Y and a
is a nonzero scalar, then {x: x EX, Tx = ay} = {ax: x E X, Tx = y},
and so

p(ay) = inf{ Ilaxll : x E X, Tx = y}

= lal . inf{ Ilxll : x EX, Tx = y}
= lal p(y).
Since p(Oy) = 0 = IOlp(y) whenever y E Y, it follows that p(ay) = lalp(y)
for each scalar a and each y in Y. Now let 2:n Yn be a convergent series
in Y. The goal is to show that p(2: n Yn) ::; 2: n P(Yn), so 2:n P(Yn) can be
assumed to be finite. Fix a positive f. Let (x n ) be a sequence in X such
that TXn = Yn and Ilxnll < P(Yn) + 2- n f for each n. Then 2:nllxnll <
2:n P(Yn) + f, a finite number. Since X is a Banach space, the absolutely
convergent series 2:n Xn converges. Now T(2:n x n ) = 2:n TXn = 2:n Yn,
and so

p( LYn) ::; IlL xnll : ; L IIxnll < LP(Yn) +

n n n n
f.

Therefore P(2:n Yn) ::; 2:n P(Yn) since E is an arbitrary positive number,
and so p is countably subadditive. This also implies that P(YI + Y2) ::;
p(Yd + P(Y2) whenever Yl, Y2 E Y, as can be seen by letting Yn = 0 when
n 2: 3. Thus, the function P is a countably subadditive seminorm on Y, and
so is continuous by Zabrelko's lemma. Finally,

T(U) = {y : Y E Y, Tx = Y for some x in U} = {y: y E Y, p(y) < I},

so T(U) is open.

A one-to-one map from one topological space onto another is a homeo-
morphism if and only if it is both continuous and open. Combining this
with the preceding theorem immediately yields the following result.

1.6.6 Corollary. (S. Banach, 1929 [11]). Every one-to-one bounded linear
operator from a Banach space onto a Banach space is an isomorphism.

That is, if a one-to-one linear operator T from a Banach space onto a

Banach space is continuous, then T- 1 is also continuous. For that reason,
the preceding corollary is sometimes called the inverse mapping theorem.
 1.6 Three Fundamental Theorems 45

1.6.7 Definition. Two norms on the same vector space are equivalent if
they induce the same topology.

It follows from Corollary 1.6.6 that if 11111 and 11112 are two Banach
norms on the same vector space X and the identity operator, viewed as a
linear operator from (X, 11111) onto (X, 11112), is continuous, then a subset
of X is open with respect to one of the norms if and only if it is open with
respect to the other. Restating this in the language of Definition 1.6.7 gives
the following result.

1.6.8 Corollary. Suppose that 11111 and 11112 are two Banach norms on
a vector space X and that the identity map from (X, 11111) to (X, 11112) is
continuous. Then the two norms are equivalent.

A common way of applying Corollary 1.6.8 is by finding a nonnegative

number a such that IIxl12 :s allxlll whenever x E X and concluding that
there is also some nonnegative b such that Ilxlll ::; bllxl12 whenever x E X, or
equivalently that there is a c such that c ~ 1 and c-lllxlll::; Ilx112::; cllxlll
whenever x E X.
Incidentally, two Banach norms 11111 and 11112 on a vector space X need
not be equivalent just because there is some one-to-one bounded linear
operator that maps (X, 11111) onto (X, 11lb), even if the map is an isometric
isomorphism. See Exercise 1.50.
The following result is often called the Banach-Steinhaus theorem, since
a proof of it appeared in a 1927 paper by Stefan Banach and Hugo Stein-
haus [17]. The result in its full generality for Banach spaces was actually
first published in 1923 by T. H. Hildebrandt [104], though special forms of
it had previously appeared in a 1922 paper by Hans Hahn [98] as well as in
Banach's doctoral thesis [10], also published in 1922. In particular, Hahn's
proof of the result for the special case in which the family of mappings is a
sequence of bounded linear functionals can easily be modified to prove the
more general theorem stated here; see Exercise 1. 76.

1.6.9 The Uniform Boundedness Principle. (H. Hahn, 1922 [98];

S. Banach, 1922 [10]; T. H. Hildebrandt, 1923 [104]; S. Banach and H. Stein-
haus, 1927 [17]). Let ~ be a nonempty family of bounded linear operators
from a Banach space X into a normed space Y. If sup{ IITxl1 : T E ~} is
finite for each x in X, then sup{ IITII : T E ~} is finite.
PROOF. Let p(x) = sup{ IITxl1 : T E ~} for each x in X, and suppose that
p is finite-valued. Notice that p(Qx) = IQI p(x) for each x in X and each
scalar Q. If Ln Xn is a convergent series in X and T E ~, then

IIT(Lxn
n) II = IILTXnl1 : ; L
n n
IITxnl1 ::; LP(x
n
n ),
46 1. Basic Concepts

from which it follows that P(Ln x n ) :S Ln p(x n ). In particular, when-

ever Xl, X2 EX, letting Xn = 0 when n :::: 3 shows that P(X1 + X2) :S
P(X1) + P(X2), so P is a count ably subadditive seminorm on X. Therefore
P is continuous, so there is some positive 8 such that p(x) :S 1 whenever
Ilxll ::; 8. It follows that p(x) ::; 8- 1 whenever X E B x , and therefore that
IITxl1 :S 8- 1 whenever T E ~ and X E Ex, that is, that IITII ::; 6- 1 for each
T~~
A family ~ of linear operators from a normed space X into a normed
space Y is said to be pointwise bounded if, for each element x of X, the set
{Tx : T E ~} is bounded, and is said to be uniformly bounded if, for each
bounded subset B of X, the set U{T(B): T E~} is bounded. Notice that
pointwise bounded ness does not imply the boundedness of the individual
operators in the family, since every family consisting of one unbounded
operator is pointwise bounded. Of course, uniform boundedness does im-
ply the bounded ness of each member of the family. After only a moment's
thought about the special case of an empty family of operators, it follows
easily from the uniform bounded ness principle that pointwise boundedness
implies uniform boundedness provided each member of the family of oper-
ators is bounded and their common domain is a Banach space. This is the
origin of the name of the theorem.

1.6.10 Corollary. Let (Tn) be a sequence of bounded linear operators

from a Banach space X into a normed space Y such that limn Tnx exists
for each x in X. Define T: X - t Y by the formula Tx = limn Tnx. Then
T is a bounded linear operator from X into Y.
PROOF. The continuity of the vector space operations of Y and the linearity
of each Tn together imply the linearity of T. Since sup{ IITnxl1 : n EN} is
finite for each x in X, there is a nonnegative M such that II Tn I ::; M for
each n, and so IITnx11 :S M for each x in Bx and each n. It follows that
IITxl1 :S M for each x in Ex, and so T is bounded.

A linear operator from one Banach space into another is sometimes called
a closed mapping if it satisfies the hypotheses of the next theorem (but see
Exercise 1.74). For that reason, the following result is often called the closed
mapping theorem.

1.6.11 The Closed Graph Theorem. (S. Banach, 1932 [13]). Let T be
a linear operator from a Banach space X into a Banach space Y. Suppose
that whenever a sequence (x n ) in X converges to some x in X and (Txn)
converges to some y in Y, it follows that y = Tx. Then T is bounded.
PROOF. Let p(x) = IITxl1 for each x in X. It is enough to prove that
p is continuous, for then there would be a neighborhood U of 0 such
that the set p(U) is bounded, which would in turn imply that T(U) is
 1.6 Three Fundamental Theorems 47

bounded, and that would imply the continuity of T by Theorem 1.4.2.

Since p is a seminorm on X, an application of Zabrelko's lemma will fin-
ish the proof once it is shown that p is count ably subadditive. Let Ln Xn
be a convergent series in X. The proof will be finished once it is shown
that IIT(Ln xn)11 ~ LnllTxnll, so it may be assumed that LnllTxnll is
finite, which together with the completeness of Y implies that the abso-
lutely convergent series Ln TX n converges. Since L::'=l Xn -+ Ln Xn and
T(L::'=l xn) = L::'=l TXn -+ Ln TXn as m -+ 00, it follows from the
hypotheses of the theorem that Ln TX n = T(Ln xn). Therefore

IIT(2: Xn ) =
n
I II2: Txn l ~ 2:IITxnll,
n n
which shows that p is countably subadditive and finishes the proof.

It is customary to derive all three of the major theorems of this section

directly or indirectly from the Baire category theorem. This is exactly what
has been done here, since Theorem 1.3.14, a weak version of the Baire cate-
gory theorem, was used in the proof of Zabrelko's lemma. See Exercise 1.76
for a different derivation of the uniform boundedness principle that does
not use any form of the Baire category theorem. The argument, essen-
tially due to Hahn, is of a type called a gliding hump argument. The only
use of completeness in the argument is to assure that a certain absolutely
convergent series converges.

Exercises

1.64 Suppose that X is a Banach space and T: X -> loo is a linear operator.
For each n in N, let (Tx)n be the nth tenn of Tx and let fn be the linear
functional on X that maps x to (T:!:)n. Prove that T is bounded if and
only if each In is bounded.
1.65 Repeat the preceding exercise, replacing loo by 1.
1.66 Prove that if T is a bounded linear operator from a Banach space X onto
a Banach space Y, then whenever a sequence (Yn) converges to a limit Y
in Y, there is a sequence (x .. ) converging to an x in X such that Tx = Y
and TX n = Yn for each n.
1.61 Suppose that X and Y are metric spaces and that I is a function from X
into Y. Prove that the graph { (x,J(x) : x EX} of f is closed in X x Y
if and only if Y = f(x) whenever a sequence (x n ) converges to x in X and
(I(x .. ) converges to y in Y. (This is the source of the name of the closed
graph theorem. Suppose that X and Yare Banach spaces and that T is a
linear operator from X into Y. Then the closed graph theorem says that
T is bounded if its graph is closed in X x Y. In fact, the operator T is
bounded if and only if its graph is closed in X x Y. See the next exercise.)
48 1. Basic Concepts

1.68 Prove the following converse of the closed graph theQrem: If / is a contin-
uous function from a topological space X into a Hausdorff space Y, then
the graph of / is closed in X x Y.

1.69 Let X be a normed space and let X = B(X, JF). Suppose that (Xn) is
a sequence in X such that Ln n
x'x converges whenever x E X'. Show
that the mapping x f-7 Ln n
x'x is a bounded linear functional on X'.
1. 70 Suppose that 1 ::; P ::; 00 and that T is a linear operator from Lp [0, 1]
into itself with the property that if (fn) is a sequence in Lp[O, 1] that
converges almost everywhere to some / in Lp[O, 1], then (T/n) converges
almost everywhere to T/. Prove that T is bounded.

1.71 Suppose that X and Yare Banach spaces and that ;J is a family of
continuous functions from Y into a Hausdorff space such that whenever
Y1, Y2 E Y and Y1 "I Y2, there is an /YI,Y2 in ;J for which /YI,Y2(Y1) "I
/YI,Y2(Y2). Prove that if T is a linear operator from X into Y such that
/ 0 T is continuous for each / in ;J, then T is bounded.

1. 72 Derive Corollary 1.6.6 from the closed graph theorem.

1. 73 Obtain the uniform bounded ness principle directly from Theorem 1.3.14.
(With all notation as in the statement of the uniform boundedness prin-
ciple, let C = {x: x E X, IITxlI :S 1 for each T in ;J }.)
1. 74 The term closed mapping is used both for a linear operator between Ba-
nach spaces that satisfies the hypotheses of the closed graph theorem and
for a mapping from one topological space to another that always maps
closed sets onto closed sets. The two meanings are not equivalent for linear
operators between Banach spaces, as will be shown in this exercise.
(a) Suppose that X and Yare normed spaces and T is a linear operator
from X into Y that is neither one-to-one nor the zero operator. Find
a closed subset F of X such that T(F) is not closed in Y.
(b) Find a linear operator T that satisfies the hypotheses of the closed
graph theorem even though there is a closed subset F of the domain
of T such that T(F) is not closed in the range of T.

1. 75 The results of this section cannot in general be extended to incomplete

normed spaces. To see this, let X be the vector space of finitely nonzero
sequences equipped with the 1 norm. Let Y have the same underlying
vector space as X, but equipped with the 00 norm.
(a) Let / rrt ( (an)) = m am for each element (an) of X and each positive
integer m. Use the family {/m : mEN} to show that the uniform
boundedness principle does not extend to incomplete normed spaces.
(b) Show that the "identity" operator from X onto Y is a bounded
linear mapping that is not open.
(c) Use the "identity" operator from Y onto X to show that the closed
graph theorem does not extend to incomplete normed spaces.
(d) Show that the , norm is a countably subadditivc scminorm on Y
that is not continuous.
 1. 7 Quotient Spaces 49

1. 76 The purpose of this exercise is to produce a proof of the uniform bound-

edness principle without using Theorem 1.3.14 or any other form of the
Baire category theorem. To this end, suppose that ~ is a nonempty col-
lection of bounded linear operators from a Banach space X into a normed
space Y such that sup{ IITII : T E ~} = +00. The goal is to find an x
in X such that sup{ IITxl1 : T E ~} = +00.
(a) The proof is based on the existence of sequences (Tn) and (Xn) in
~ and X respectively such that the following two conditions are
satisfied for each positive integer n:

n-l
IITnxnll2 n+ E II TnXj II (or 21 ifn = 1);
j=1

Argue that the only obstacle to the inductive construction of the

sequences is the existence of an x with the desired property. The
existence of such a pair of sequences may therefore be assumed.
(b) Show that the series Z=n Xn converges to some x in X.
(c) Show that Z=;:n+lIITnXjll:S: 1 for each n.
(d) Show that IITnxl1 2 n - 1 for each n, so sup{ IITxl1 : T E J} = +00.
This proof is essentially from Hahn's 1922 paper [98, pp. 6-8]' though he
stated the result only for sequences of linear functionals. This is called a
gliding hump argument. The sequences (Tn) and (Xn) are chosen so that
Z=n Xn converges to some x in X and, for each n, the major contribution
to Tnx comes from Tnxn. If (IITnxjll);:l is considered to be a sequence
that depends on the parameter n, then the sequence has a "hump" in it at
the nth term. As n increases, this hump glides forward and has unbounded
height. (Incidentally, the argument can be simplified very slightly by re-
placing z=;,:;IITnxj II by IITn(Z=;':ll xj)11 in (a), but then it is not obvious
that IITnxn11 must be the dominant term of the sequence (IITnxjll);:l'
and therefore it is harder to see the hump.) Gliding hump arguments
of this form probably first appeared in work by Henri Lebesgue from
1905; see [149J and [150, pp. 86-88J. Hahn specifically stated in his pa-
per that the basic method for his proof was taken from a 1909 paper by
Lebesgue [151, p. 61J. See [64, pp. 138-142J for more on the history of
gliding hump arguments.

1.7 Quotient Spaces

Recall the following definition from linear algebra.

1.7.1 Definition. Let M be a subspace of a vector space X. The quotient

space or factor space X/M (read "X modulo M" or "X mod M") is the
vector space whose underlying set is the collection {x + M : x EX} of
50 1. Basic Concepts

all translates of M along with the vector space operations given by the
formulas
(x + M) + (y + M) = (x + y) + M
and
+ M) = (ex x) + M.
ex (x
For each x in X, the tran~late x + M is called the coset of M containing x.

With M and X as in this definition, it follows that two elements x + M

and x' + M of X I M are equal if and only if x - x' EM. Easy arguments
based on this show that the addition of elements and multiplication of
elements by scalars given in the definition are well-defined, that is, that if
ex E F and x, x', y, y' are elements of X such that x + 1'v! = x' + M and
y + M = y' + M, then (x + M) + (y + M) = (x' + M) + (y' + M) and
ex(x + M) = ex(x' + M). The fact that XIM with these operations is a
vector space then follows by routine verifications. Notice that the zero of
XIM is M, for which 0 + .M is usually written in this context, and that
-(x + M) = (-x) + M whenever x E X.
Since two cosets x + M and x' + M are equal if and only if x' - x E M,
and therefore if and only if x' Ex + M, it follows that x + M and x' + M
are either equal or disjoint. Thus, the sets that are the elements of XI M
partition X into equivalence clas~es, with two elements of X lying in the
same equivalence class if and only if their difference lies in M. For this
reason, the elements of XI M are sometimes treated as if they were just
those of X, except that two elements are considered to be the same when
they differ only by an element of M. Here is one familiar example of this
practice.

1. 7.2 Example. Suppose that J1 is a positive measure on a O"-algebra I: of

subset~ of a set O. Let X be the vector space of all J1-measurable scalar-
valued functions on 0 that are J1-integrable, and let M be the subspace of X
consisting of all members of X that are zero almost everywhere. Then the
vector space underlying L 1 (O,I:,J1) is actually XIM, though in practice
it is often treated as if it were X. Similar remarks apply to the spaces
Lp(O, I:, J1) such that 1 < p ::; 00.
The notation of Definition 1.7.1 suggests that the sum of two cosets is
just the algebraic sum of the two sets as defined in Section 1.1. It is easy
to verify that this is indeed so. It is abo easy to check that the product of
a scalar 0' with a coset x + M is just the product of 0' with the set x + M
as such products were defined in Section 1.1 provided ex is nonzero. There
is a trap waiting when ex = 0, since

0 +M = M in the sense of Definition 1. 7.1;

o(x+M ) = {
{O} in the seIlSe of Section 1.1.
 1. 7 Quotient Spaces 51

It is thus all right to treat the vector space operations of Definition 1. 7.1
as being the set operations of Section 1.1 as long as this one discrepancy
is kept in mind. The context should always prevent confusion about the
meaning of O(x + M).
Now suppose that M is a subspace of a normed space X. It is reasonable
to ask if the norm of X induces a norm on XI M in some natural way.
Such a norm clearly cannot come from the "formula" Ilx + Mil = Ilxll when
M =I- {O}, for y + M = 0+ M whenever y E M even if Ilyll =I- 11011. This is
one situation in which it is helpful to think first about distance and then
recover the norm from the notion of distance. There is a natural way to
define the distance between two cosets x + M and y + M, namely, the
way in which the distance between subsets of a metric space is defined in
Section 1.1:

d(x + M, y + M) = inf{ Ilv - wll : v E x + M, w E Y + M}. (1.1)

Also, the formula from Section 1.1 for the distance between a point and a
set in a metric space can be used to find the distance between an element x
of X and a member y + M of X/M:

d(x, y + M) = inf{ Ilx - wll : w Ey + M}.

It follows that d(x, y + M) = d(x + M, y + M) whenever x, y EX, since

{v - w : v E x + M, w EY + M} = {(x + zd - (y + Z2) : zl, Z2 EM}

= {x - (y + Z2 - Zl) : Zl, Z2 EM}
= {x - (y + z) : Z EM}
= {x - w: w E y + M}.

Notice that if x E M \ M, then 0 ~ d(x + M,O + M) = d(x, M) = 0, and

therefore d(x+M,O+M) = 0 even though x+M =I- O+M. It follows that if
the function d of (1.1) is to have any hope of being a metric on X / M, then
the set M \ M must be empty; that is, thc set M must be closed. Therefore,
for the rest of this paragraph it will be assumed that M is a closed subspace
of X. If the formula from (1.1) does now define a mctric on X/M (which
it does, as will be shown in the comments following Theorem 1.7.4), and
if this metric is induced by a norm, then that norm must measure the
distance from a coset to the origin of X / M.

1. 7.3 Definition. Let M be a closed subspace of a normed space X. The

quotient norm of X/M is given by the formula Ilx+MII = d(x+M,O+M).
With M and X as in the preceding definition, the quotient norm of a
coset x + M can also be interpreted to be the distance from the point x to
52 1. Basic Concepts

the set M, or as the distance from the origin of X to the set x + M, since
d(x, M) = d(x + M,O + M) = d(O, x + M). Therefore

Ilx + Mil = inf{ Ilx - zll : z EM} = inf{ Ilx + zll : z EM}
whenever x EX.

1. 7.4 Theorem. If M is a closed subspace of a normed space X, then the

quotient norm of X/Mis a norm.
PROOF. Suppose that x, y E X and that a is a scalar. Since M is closed,
it follows that d(x, M) = 0 if and only if x E M, that is, that Ilx + Mil = 0
if and only if x + M = 0 + M. If a I- 0, then

Ila(x + M)II = d(ax, M) = d(ax, aM) = lal d(x, M) = lallix + Mil,

and

110(x + M)II = 110 + Mil = 0 = 1011ix + Mil

To verify the triangle inequality, first observe that whenever Zl, Z2 E M,

II(x+M)+(y+M)11 = II(x+y)+MII
S Ilx + y + Zl + z211
s Ilx + zlll + Ily + z211
Taking appropriate infima shows that

II(x + M) + (y + M)II S Ilx + Mil + Ily + Mil

Thus, the quotient norm has all the properties required of a norm.

When X and M are as in the preceding theorem, the metric induced by

the quotient norm of X/M is given by the formula from (1.1), since

d(x + M,y + M) = + M,a + M)

d((x - y)
=11(x-y)+MII
= II(x+M) - (y+M)11
whenever x, y E X.
Henceforth, whenever a quotient space oj a n077ned space by one of its
closed subspaces is treated as a nOTTned space, a metric space, or a topolog-
ical space though no nOTTn, metric, or topology has been specified, it is the
quotient nOTTn, the metric induced by that nOTTn, or the topology induced by
that metric that is implied.

1.7.5 Example. In the Euclidean space ]R2, let M = {(a,;3) : a = a}.

Then ]R2 / M is the collection of all vertical lines in the plane, with the norm
 1. 7 Quotient Spaces 53

of each such line being its distance from the origin, that is, the absolute
value of its a-intercept. Some of the proofs in this section are based on
geometric ideas that are easier to visualize if this example is kept in mind.

1. 7.6 Proposition. Let M be a closed subspace of a normed space X.

(a) If x E X, then Ilxll ~ Ilx + Mil.
(b) If x E X and f > 0, then there is an x' in X such that x' +M = x+M
and Ilx'll < Ilx + Mil + f.
PROOF. Since Ilx-OII ~ d(x, M) = Ilx+MII for each x in X, part (a) holds.
For (b), suppose that x E X and f > O. Let y be an element of M such
that Ilx - yll < d(x, M) + f = Ilx + Mil + f. Then x - y is the desired x' .

With X and M as in the preceding proposition, suppose that x and yare

elements of X such that II(x-y)+MII < 8 for some positive 6. By part (b)
of the proposition, there is a y' in X such that (x - y') + M = (x - y) + M
and Ilx-y'll < 6. This observation is useful in the proof of the next theorem.

1. 7.7 Theorem. If M is a closed subspace of a Banach space X, then

XIM is also a Banach space.
PROOF. Suppose that (xn +M) is a Cauchy sequence in XIM. It is enough
to prove that some subsequence of (xn + M) has a limit, for then the entire
sequence will converge to the same limit. By thinning, it may be assumed
that II(xn - xn+d + Mil < 2- n for each n. By the remark preceding the
theorem, there is some x;
such that (Xl - X;) + M = (Xl - X2) + M
and Ilxl - x;1I < 2- 1 . Since x;
+ M = X2 + M, it may be assumed that
x; x;
= X2 There is some such that (X2 - x;)
+ M = (X2 - X3) + M and
IIx2 -x~1I < 2- 2. It may be assumed that x~ = X3. By an obvious induction
argument, it may be assumed that Ilx n - xn+lll < 2- n for each n. Then
the Cauchy sequence (xn) converges to some x in X. For each n,

II(xn + M) - (x + M)II = II(x n - x) + Mil::; Ilx n - xii,

and so Xn + M --> x + M as n --> 00.

Suppose now that M is a closed subspace of a normed space X not known
to be complete. It is natural to ask whether the completeness of X I M would
imply that of X. In general, the answer is no. A trivial counterexample is
obtained by letting X be any incomplete normed space, letting M = X,
and noting that XI M is complete even though X is not. It turns out,
though, that X would have to be complete if both XIM and M were so.

1. 7.8 Definition. Let P be a property defined for normed spaces. Suppose

that whenever X is a normed space with a closed subspace M such that
two of the spaces X, M, and XIM have the property, then the third must
also have it. Then P is a three-space property.
54 1. Basic Concepts

1. 7.9 Theorem. Completeness is a three-space property.

PROOF. Let M be a closed subspace of a normed space X. If X is complete,
then so are M and XIM. Therefore all that needs to be checked is that X
is complete if both M and XIM are.
Suppose that M and XIM are Banach spaces. Let (xn) be a Cauchy
sequence in X. Since II(xn - xm) + Mil::; Ilx n - xmll whenever m,n E N,
the sequence (xn + M) is Cauchy in XI M and so converges to some Y + M.
By Proposition 1.7.6 (b), there is for each positive integer n some Yn in X
suchthatYn+M= (xn-y)+M and IIYnl1 < II(x n -y)+MII+2- n . Then
limn Yn = 0, so (x n - Yn - y) is a Cauchy sequence in M and therefore has
a limit z in M. It follows that Xn (xn - Yn - y) + Yn + Y --+ z + Y as
n --+ 00, so X is complete.

When a set X has been partitioned into a collection Y of equivalence

classes, the function from X onto Y that maps each member of X to its
equivalence class is often called the projection from X onto Y. If X is a
normed space and the equivalence classes are the members of some quotient
space XIM such that M is a closed subspace of X, then it is customary
to call the projection from X onto XIM a quotient map, partly for the
ohviollS reason but also because of a relationship to topological quotient
maps that will be mentioned later.

1.7.10 Definition. Let M be a closed subspace of a normed space X.

Then the quotient map from X onto XI M is the function 7r defined by the
formula 7r(x) = x + M.

1.7.11 Lemma. If M is a closed subspace of a normed space X and 7r is

the quotient map from X onto XI M, then the image under 7r of the open
unit ball of X is the open unit ball of XIM.
PROOF. This proof uses both parts of Proposition 1.7.6. Let Ux and U XjM
be the open unit balls of X and X I M respectively. If x E Ux, then 117r( x) II =
Ilx + Mil::; Ilxll < 1, so 7r(Ux ) ~ UXjM If Y + ME UXjM , then there is a
Y' in Ux such that 7r(Y') = Y' +M = y+M. Therefore UXjM ~ 7r(Ux), so
7r(Ux ) = UXjM

1. 7.12 Proposition. Let M be a closed subspace of a normed space X.

Then the quotient map 7r from X onto XI M is a bounded linear operator
that is also an open mapping and has M as its kernel. If M of. X, then
117r11 = 1.
PROOF. The linearity of 7r follows immediately from the definition of the
vector space operations of X 1M, and the fact that ker( 7r) = M is almost as
immediate. By the lemma, the linear operator 7r maps the open unit ball
of X onto a bounded subset of XI M, which implies that 7r is bounded. It is
also clear from the lemma that 117r11 = 1 if XIM of. {M}, that is, if M of. X.
 1. 7 Quotient Spaces 55

Finally, let x be an element of an open subset V of X. To show that 7r is

an open mapping, it is enough to find a neighborhood W of 7r(x) such that
W ~ 7r(V). Let Ux be the open unit ball of X. Then x+rUx ~ V for some
positive r, so 7r(x) + r7r(Ux ) ~ 7r(V). Since 7r(Ux ) is the open unit ball
of X/ M, the neighborhood 7r(x) + n(Ux) of 7r(x) is an acceptable W .

Recall that a topological quotient map is a function f from a topological

space X onto a topological space Y such that a subset A of Y is open in Y
if and only if 1-1 (A) is open in X, and that if there is such a map f from X
onto Y, then the topology of Y is called the quotient topology induced by f.
Of course, a function from one topological space onto another that is both
continuous and an open mapping is a topological quotient map. It therefore
follows from Proposition 1.7.12 that the quotient map 7r from a normed
space X onto X/M, where M is a closed subspace of X, is a topological
quotient map, and the topology of X/M is the quotient topology induced
by 7r.
Another important class of topological quotient maps consists of the
bounded linear operators from one Banach space onto another. Each such
map actually is a topological quotient map since it is both continuous and
open. More generally, let T be a bounded linear operator from a Banach
space X into a Banach space Y such that the range of T is closed in Y.
Then T, viewed as an operator onto the Banach space T(X), is a topological
quotient map, so the norm topology that T(X) inherits from Y is also the
quotient topology induced by T.
An important feature of a closed-range bounded linear operator from
one Banach space into another is that its range is an isomorphic copy
of a certain quotient space of its domain. The next theorem is the main
ingredient needed to prove this.

1.7.13 Theorem. Suppose that X and Yare normed spaces and that
T is a linear operator from X into Y, not assumed to be bounded. Suppose
further that M is a closed subspace of X such that M ~ ker(T) and that 7r
is the quotient map from X onto X/M. Then there is a unique function 8
from X/M into Y such that T = 80 7r, that is, such that the following
diagram commutes.

This map 8 is linear and has the same range as T. The operator 8 is an
open mapping if and only if T is an open mapping, and is bounded if and
only if T is bounded. If T is bounded, then 11811 = IITII.
56 1. Basic Concepts

PROOF. Let 5(x + M) = Tx whenever x E X. If x + M = x' + M, then

x - x' E M ~ ker(T), and so Tx = TX'. Thus, there is no ambiguity in the
definition of 5. The linearity of 5 now follows immediately from that of T.
Notice that T = 50 7r, and that if 5': XI M --t Y is such that T = 5' 0 7r,
then 5 ' (x + M) = 5 ' (7r(x)) = Tx = 5(x + M) for each member x + M
of X I M. This proves the claimed existence and uniqueness of 5. Also,

{5(x + M) :x + ME XIM} = {5(7r(x)) : x EX} = {Tx: x EX},

so the ranges of 5 and T are the same.

If Ux and Ux / M are the open unit balls of X and XI M respectively,
then 7r(Ux) = U X / M by Lemma 1.7.11, and so

sup{ 115(x + M)II :x + ME UX / M } = sup{ 115(7r(x)) II: x E Ux }

= sup{ IITxll : x E Ux }.

It follows that 5 is bounded if and only if T is bounded, and that if 5

and T are bounded then the common value of the above suprema is the
norm of each.
Since the composite of two open mappings is an open mapping, it follows
that T is an open mapping whenever 5 is. Conversely, suppose that T is
an open mapping. If U is an open subset of XIM, then

an open set. This shows that 5 is an open mapping and completes the
proof.

The preceding theorem may have a familiar ring to it, for it is the normed-
space analog of an important result from abstract algebra: If N is a normal
subgroup of a group G and f is a group homomorphism from G into a
group H such that N c::: ker(f) , then there is a unique group homomor-
phism fa from the quotient group GIN into H such that f(g) = fo(gN)
for each 9 in G. This result is used to prove the first isomorphism theorem
for groups, which says that if f: G --t H is a group homomorphism, then
G/ker(f) and f(G) are isomorphic as groups. Theorem 1.7.13 can be used
to obtain an analogous result for Banach spaces.

1. 7.14 The First Isomorphism Theorem for Banach Spaces. Sup-

pose that X and Yare Banach spaces and that T E B(X, Y). 5uppose
further that the range of T is closed in Y. Then XI ker(T) ~ T(X).
PROOF. As the inverse image under T of the closed subspace {O} of Y,
the kernel of T is a closed subspace of X. Let 5: X/ker(T) --t Y be the
linear operator obtained from Theorem 1.7.13 by letting M = ker(T). Since
 1. 7 Quotient Spaces 57

T = S7r,

ker(S) = {x + ker(T) : x E X, S(7rx) = O}

= {x + ker(T) : x E ker(T) }
= {O + ker(T)}.
It follows that S is a one-to-one bounded linear operator from the Banach
space XI ker(T) onto the Banach space T(X), and therefore is an isomor-
phism by Corollary 1.6.6.

This section concludes with two applications of quotient maps. The first
gives a nice test for the continuity of a finite-rank linear operator between
normed spaces.

1.7.15 Theorem. Suppose that T is a finite-rank linear operator from a

normed space X into a normed space Y. Then T is bounded if and only if
its kernel is a closed subset of X.
PROOF. If T is bounded, then the kernel of T is closed since it is the
inverse image under T of the closed subset {O} of Y. Conversely, suppose
that ker(T) is closed. Let M = ker(T) and let S: XIM ~ Y be as in
Theorem 1.7.13. Then S(x + ker(T) = 0 exactly when Tx = 0, that
is, exactly when x E ker(T). Thus, the kernel of S is the one-element
set {ker(T)}, and so S is one-to-one. Since T(X), the range of S, is finite-
dimensional, the domain of the one-to-one linear operator S is also finite-
dimensional, and so S is bounded. By Theorem 1.7.13, the operator T must
also be bounded.

Incidentally, a much stronger statement can be made for nonzero linear

functionals. If f is a nonzero linear functional on a normed space X, then
the kernel of f is either closed in X or dense in X, depending on whether
or not f is bounded.

1.7.16 Proposition. Suppose that f is an unbounded linear functional

on a normed space X. Then the kernel of f is dense in X.
PROOF. If a is a nonzero element of a balanced subset B of IF and 13 is a
scalar such that 1131 ::; lal, then la- 1 f31 ::; 1, and so 13 = a- 1 f3a E B. It
follows that the only balanced unbounded subset of IF is IF itself. Since the
open unit ball Ux of X is balanced and f is an unbounded linear functional,
the set f(Ux) is a balanced unbounded subset of IF and so equals IF. If V is
an open ball in X, then V = x + rUx for some x in X and some positive r,
so f(V) = f(x + rUx) = f(x) + rf(Ux ) = IF, which implies that f takes
on the value zero somewhere on V. Thus, the kernel of f intersects every
open ball in X, and so is dense in X.
58 1. Basic Concepts

For the second application, suppose that M and N are closed subspaces
of a normed space X. It is easy to see that M + N is also a subspace of X.
However, the set M + N might not be closed; see Exercise 1.84. There is
one situation, however, in which it must be.

1. 7.17 Proposition. Let M and N be closed subspaces of a normed

space X. If either M or N is finite-dimensional, then M + N is a closed
subspace of X.
PROOF. Without loss of generality, assume that M is finite-dimensional.
Let 7r be the quotient map from X onto X/No By Corollary 1.4.20, the
finite-dimensional subspace 7r(M) of X/N is closed, so 7r-l(7r(M)) is a
closed subspace of X. It is easy to check that M + N = 7r- 1 (7r(M)).

Exercises
1.77 Prove that II(an)+eol! = lim sUPnlan I for each element (an)+eo ofioo/eo.
1.78 Let M = {f : f E e[O, 1], f(O) = O}, a closed subspace of e[O, 1]. Find
a simple expression for the quotient norm of e[O, 1]IM. What familiar
normed space is isometrically isomorphic to this quotient space?
1. 79 Give an example to show that the isomorphism guaranteed by the first
isomorphism theorem need not be an isometric isomorphism. Exercise 1.49
might help.
1.80 Display a bounded linear operator from a Banach space onto an incom-
plete normed space. What does this say about trying to extend the first
isomorphism theorem to incomplete normed spaces?
1.81 Suppose that T is a bounded finite-rank linear operator from a normed
space X into a normed space Y. Prove that XI ker(T) ~ T(X), whether
or not either X or Y is complete.
1.82 Show that the conclusion of Theorem 1.7.15 does not always hold for
linear operators not having finite rank. Exercise 1. 75 (c) may be helpful.
1.83 Prove that finite-dimensionality is a three-space property.
1.84 The purpose of this exercise is to show that the sum of two closed sub-
spaces of a Banach space need not be closed. Let M and N be the closed
subspaces of Co defined by the formulas

M = { (an) : (an) E Co, a Tn = mO Tn -l for each even m};

N = { (an) : (On) E Co, a Tn = 0 for each odd m}.

Show that M +N is a proper dense subspace of Co.

1.85 In Co, let Ml = {(On) : 01 = O} and M2 = {(an) : 01 = a2 = O}. Show
that calM! is not isomorphic to eo1M2 , even though M! is isometrically
isomorphic to M 2
 1.8 Direct Sums 59

1.86 The purpose of this exercise is to prove this theorem: Suppose that X
and Yare normed spaces and that M is a closed subspace of X such
that X/M is finite-dimensional. If T E B(M, Y), then there is a To in
B(X, Y) such that To agrees with T on M. That is, every bounded linear
operator with domain M has a bounded linear extension to X.
(a) Show that the theorem is true if the dimension of X/M is zero.
Now assume that the dimension of X/M is a positive integer n. Let
Xl + M, ... ,Xn + M be a basis for X/M and let Z = (Xl, ... ,x n ).
Show that for each X in X there is a unique m(x) in M and a unique
z(x) in Z such that X = m(x) + z(x).
(b) Show that the mappings x f-> m(x) and x f-> z(x) are bounded linear
operators from X onto M and Z respectively.
(c) Prove the theorem.

1.87 Find the second and third isomorphism theorems for groups in your fa-
vorite abstract algebra text; for example, see [106].
(a) State and prove a Banach-space analog of the second isomorphism
theorem. You might need to impose some conditions on the pertinent
subspaces beyond just requiring them to be closed.
(b) Do the same for the third isomorphism theorem.

1.8 Direct Sums

Recall that the vector space sum of the vector spaces Xl"'" Xn in a
nonempty finite ordered list is the vector space whose underlying set is the
Cartesian product Xl x ... X Xn and which has the vector space operations
given by the formulas

(Xl,'" ,Xn) + (YI, ... , Yn) = (Xl + YI,'" ,Xn + Yn)i

a (Xl, ... ,Xn) = (aXI, ... ,axn).

If Xl"'" Xn are normed spaces, then there is a way to norm their vector
space sum that is suggested by the norm of Euclidean n-space.

1.B.1 Definition. Let X I, ... , Xn be normed spaces with respective norms

11llx" ... , 11llxn The (external) direct sum or direct product of Xl, ... , Xn
is the normed space whose underlying vector space is the vector space sum
of Xl, ... ,Xn and whose norm is the direct sum norm given by the formula

This normed space is denoted by Xl EEl EEl X n .

60 1. Basic Concepts

The subscripts that appear on the norms of Xl, ... ,Xn in the preceding
definition were included only for clarity, and will usually be omitted when
there is no possibility of confusion.
Of course, it must be shown that the formula in Definition l.8.1 actually
does define a norm on the vector space sum of Xl, ... , X n . The triangle
inequality follows from the triangle inequality for the norm of Euclidean
n-space, for if (Xl, ... ,X n ), (Yl, ... ,Yn) E XIX .. X X n , then

I (Xl, ... ,Xn ) + (Yl, ... ,Yn) I = ( t IIXj + Yj 112) 1/2

< (t(IIXjll + IIYjll)2) 1/2

< (tIIXjI12r/2 + (tIIYjI12r/2

= II(Xl, ... , xn)11 + II(Yl, ... , Yn)ll

It is easy to check that the direct sum norm has the other properties re-
quired of a norm.
It should be mentioned that there is no universal agreement on the best
way to define the direct sum norm. For example, the norms defined by the
formulas
n
II(Xl, ... ,xn)lh = 2)Xjll
j=l
and

are often used instead of the norm given in Definition 1.8.1. Fortunately,
these three norms turn out to be equivalent; see Exercise 1.88. The reason
for choosing the particular norm used here is made clear in Section 1.10.
Just as the symbol L:7=1 aj is often used to represent the sum of scalars
001, ... ,an, there are compact "sigma" notations to represent the direct
sum of normed spaces Xl' ... ' X n . Unfortunately, there seem to be about
as many such notations in use as there are people to invent them. For
example, the notations L:ffio
n
Xj,
n
Be 2 Xj, and
(
L:n Xj
)
are all used,
J=l J=l J=l /0
where the 2 indicates in an obvious way the nature of the direct sum norm
and is sometimes omitted or replaced by "2 or just 2.
When a normed space direct sum has only one summand Xl, the no-
tation of Definition 1.8.1 does not distinguish between the summand Xl
and the direct sum X 1. This is no problem, for in this situation it is com-
mon practice to identify the direct sum with the summand. Since the map
 1.8 Direct Sums 61

x ~ (x) from the summand onto the direct sum is clearly an isometric
isomorphism, the convention is justified.
When (Xl, dd, . .. , (Xn , dn ) are metric spaces, there is a standard way
to define a product metric on Xl x ... X X n , namely, by the formula

see Definition B.50 in Appendix B. Furthermore, this metric induces the

usual product topology on XIX ... X X n . When Xl, ... , Xn are normed
spaces, the metric induced on Xl x ... X Xn by the direct sum norm is
precisely the product metric dp , which immediately yields the following
result.

1.8.2 Theorem. Let Xl"'" Xn be normed spaces. Then the product

metric induced on Xl x '" X Xn by the metrics of Xl,"" Xn is the same
as the metric induced by the direct sum norm, so the product topology of
Xl x X Xn is the same as the topology induced by the direct sum norm.

The next result says that the direct sum of normed spaces X I, ... , Xn
always includes isometrically isomorphic copies of the Xj's in the places
where one would most expect to find them.

1.8.3 Proposition. Let Xl, ... , Xn be normed spaces. For each integer j
such that 1 :s: j :s: n, let

Then each Xj is a closed subspace of Xl ffi ... ffi Xn that is isometrically

isomorphic to the corresponding X j .
PROOF. The map x f-7 (x, 0, ... ,0) is clearly an isometric isomorphism from
Xl onto X~. If ((x(kl,O, ... ,O)) is a sequence in Xf and (XI, ... ,X n ) is a
member of Xl ffi . ffiXn such that II (x(k\ 0, ... ,0) - (Xl, ... , Xn) II -> 0, then
it is easy to see that X2, ... , Xn are all zero, from which it follows that X~ is
closed in Xl ffi ... ffi X n . Analogous arguments work for the other Xl's .

The following two propositions give important "algebraic" properties of

direct sums. The first is a generalized commutative and associative law,
while the second serves as a cancellation law.

1.8.4 Proposition. Let Xl, .. . , Xn be normed spaces. If two direct sums

are each formed by permuting and associating the terms of Xl ffi .. ffi X n ,
then those two direct sums are isometrically isomorphic.
PROOF. It is enough to prove that a direct sum formed by permuting
and associating the terms of X I ffi ... ffi X n is isometrically isomorphic
62 1. Basic Concepts

to Xl ffi ... ffi Xn' An example will tell most of the story. Suppose for the
moment that n = 5, and consider the direct sum (X4ffi(X5ffiX2))ffiX3ffiXI
formed from Xl ffi X 2 ffi X3 ffi X 4 ffi X5 by permuting and associating its
terms. It is easy to check that the map

((X4,(X5,X2)),X3,XI) r---. (XI,X2,X3,X4,X5)

from (X4 ffi(X 5 ffiX2 )) ffiX3 ffiX I onto X I ffiX2 ffiX3ffiX4 ffiX 5 is an isometric
isomorphism. For any n and any direct sum Y formed by permuting and
associating the terms of Xl ffi ... ffi Xn, the obvious analog of the above
map is clearly an isometric isomorphism from Y onto Xl ffi ffi X n .

1.8.5 Proposition. Let Xl, .. ' ,Xn be normed spaces. Let {I, ... ,n} be
partitioned into two nonempty sets {jl,' .. , jp} and {k 1, ... , k q} and let

Xj" .. ,jp = {(Xl, ... ,Xn) : (Xl, ... ,X n ) E Xl ffi ffi X n ,

Xk" .. , Xk q are all zero}.

Then (Xl EI) .. 'ffiXn )/ Xj" .. ,jp is isometrically isomorphic to Xk, ffi ffiXkq .
PROOF. It is clear that Xj" ... ,jp is a subspace of Xl ffi ... ffi X n . If an
element (Zl, ... , Zn) of Xl ffi ffi Xn is the limit of a sequence of elements
of Xj" ... ,jp, then Zk j , ... ,Zk q must all be zero, so the subspace Xl! ,... ,jp is
closed. Thus, the quotient space (Xl ffi ... ffi Xn) / X j , ''''ljp can be formed.
Define T: (Xl ffi ffi Xn)/Xh, ... ,jp -> X k , ffi ffi Xk q by the formula
T((XI, .. " xn) +Xjj, ... ,jp) = (Xk 1 , , Xk q )' Since (Xl"'" Xn) +Xj" ... ,jp =
(Yl,"" Yn) + Xj".,jp if and only if Xkm = Yk m when m = 1, ... , q, the
map T is well-defined. It is easy to check that T is linear, one-to-one, and
onto X k , ffi .. ffi X kq . If (Xl, ... , Xn) + X]" .,jp E (Xl ffi .. ffi Xn) / X j , , ... ,]p'
then

II(Xl,''''Xn ) +Xj.,.,jpll
= d((O, ... , 0), (Xl, ... , Xn) + Xh,.jp)

= inf{ C~IIYmI12 r/ 2
: (YI, ... , Yn) E Xl ffi .. ffi Xu,

Yk , = Xk
"
... ,Ykq = Xk q }

= ctlllXkm 112) 1/2

= II(Xkl'""Xkq)11
= IIT((Xl, ... ,Xn)+Xj" .. ,jp)ll,

so T is the desired isometric isomorphism.

 1.8 Direct Sums 63

With all notation as in the statement of the preceding proposition, it is

easy to see that Xj" ... ,jp is isometrically isomorphic to X j, ffi ... ffi Xjp.
If spaces that are isometrically isomorphic are considered to be the same,
then the proposition says that
Xl ffi ... EB Xn
-------::--- = X k, ffi ... ffi X kq ,
X j , ffi ... EB Xjp

which is why the proposition can be called a cancellation law. This cancel-
lation law would be more appealing visually if the symbol 0 were used to
separate the terms of a direct sum, but that symbol is reserved for tensor
products. Because of their product-like behavior and their relationship to
Cartesian products, direct sums are sometimes called direct products, but
then so are tensor products. For this reason, the term direct product will
not be used in this book.
A metric space is called topologically complete if its metric is equivalent
to a complete metric, that is, if the topology of the space is induced by some
complete metric, even if the given metric is not complete. If Xl, ... ,Xn are
metric spaces, then the product topology of Xl x ... X Xn is topologically
complete if and only if each Xj is topologically complete; see, for exam-
ple, [65]. This suggests the following theorem, though it does not prove it.
As was shown in Exercise 1.42, it is quite possible for an incomplete metric
space to be topologically complete. 5

1.8.6 Theorem. Let Xl,'" ,Xn be normed spaces. Then Xl EB EB Xn

is a Banach space if and only if each Xj is a Banach space.

PROOF. Suppose that each Xj IS .

a Banach space. Let (( Xl"'"
(k)
Xn(k) ) )00
k=l
be a Cauchy sequence in Xl EEl ... EEl X n . Then the formula for the direct
sum norm assures that each of the sequences (x;k) such that j = 1, ... , n
is also Cauchy, and so there is an element (x I, ... , xn) of X I EB .. EB X n such
. (k) _ ._ ((k) (k) )
that hmk Xj - Xj when J - 1, ... , n. Thus, the sequence (Xl , ... , Xn )
converges to (Xl, ... ,x n ), and so Xl ffi EB Xn is a Banach space.
Conversely, suppose that Xl EB ... EB Xn is a Banach space. By Propo-
sition 1.8.3, there are closed, hence complete, subspaces X~, ... , X~ of
Xl EB .. ffi Xn that are isometrically isomorphic to Xl, ... ,Xn respectively,
which assures that each Xj is a Banach space.

Some notation is needed before proceeding. Suppose that V is a vector

space and that AI"'" An are subsets of V. Then the (algebraic) sum
of AI, ... ,An is {al + ... + an : aj E Aj for each j} and is denoted by

5 Actually, it is not possible for an incomplete normed space to be topologically com-

plete, as will be shown in Corollary 2.3.19. However, that fact, which first appeared
in a 1952 paper by Victor Klee [135], is much deeper than what is needed to prove
Theorem 1.8.6.
64 1. Basic Concepts

Al + ... + An or L7=1 A j . Notice that this is just the natural extension

of the notion of the sum of two subsets of a vector space. It is easy to see
that if AI, ... ,An are subspaces of V, then so is their sum. By convention,
the sum of an empty collection of subspaces of V is {O}.
Let X and Y be normed spaces and let the subsets { (x, 0) : x EX}
and {(O,y) : y E Y} of X lOB Y be denoted by X' and Y' respectively.
By Proposition 1.8.3, the sets X' and Y' are closed subs paces of X lOB Y
isometrically isomorphic to X and Y respectively. Notice that X' + Y' =
X lOB Y and that X' n Y' = {(O, O)}. In vector space terminology, the vector
space underlying X lOB Y would be called the algebraic internal direct sum of
its subspaces X' and Y'. More generally, a vector space X is said to be the
algebraic internal direct sum of its subspaces M 1 , ... ,Mn if Lk Mk = X
and M j n Lki"J Mk = {O} when j = 1, ... , n. The following is a useful
characterization of these objects.

1.8.7 Proposition. Suppose that X is a vector space and that MIl .. Mn 1

are subspaces of X. Then the following are equivalent.

(a) The space X is the algebraic internal direct sum of M I , ... , Mn.
(b) For every x in X, there are unique elements mi (x), ... , mn (x) of
M I ,, Mn respectively such that x = Lk mk(x).
PROOF. Suppose first that (a) holds. Since X = I:k Mk, there must be
elements ml, ... , mn of X such that mk E Mk for each k and x = I:k mk.
Suppose that m;, . .. ,m~ EX, that m~ E Mk for each k, and that x =
Lk m~. If 1 ::; j ::; n, then

mj - mj = 2)m~ - mk) E Mj n LMk = {a},

k#j k#j
so mj = mj. This shows that (a) =? (b).
Suppose conversely that (b) holds. It is immediate that 2:k Mk = X. If
1 ::; j ::; n and x E !vIj n Lk#j M k , then there are members ml, ... , mn of X
such that mk E Mk for each k and x = mj = Lk#j mk, which implies that
mj + I:k#j (-mk) = 0 = 0+ Lk#j 0 and therefore that mi = ... = mn = 0,
which in turn implies that x = O. Therefore M j n Lk#J Mk = {O} when
j = 1, ... ,n, so X is the algebraic internal direct sum of M I ,, Mn. This
proves that (b) =? (a).

The internal direct sums that are of the most importance in the theory
of normed spaces have an additional restriction on the subspaces used to
form them.

1.8.8 Definition. Suppose that M I , ... , Mn are closed subs paces of a

normed space X such that I:k Mk = X and M j n I:k#j Mk = {O} when
j = 1, ... , n. Then the normed space X is the (internal) direct sum of
M I , ,Mn-
 1.8 Direct Sums 65

That is, a normed space X is the internal direct sum of its subspaces
M I , ... ,Mn if and only if each of these subspaces is closed and X is their
algebraic internal direct sum.

1.8.9 Example. In e[O, 1], let Ml be the collection of all constant func-
tions, let M2 be the collection of all linear functions 1 such that 1(0) = 0,
and let M3 be the collection of all 1 such that 1(0) = 1(1) = o. It is easy to
check that M I , M 2 , and M3 are closed subspaces of e[O, 1] and that e[O, 1]
is the internal direct sum of the three.

Notice that the use of the words external and internal is optional when
referring to normed space direct sums. This means that a statement such
as "the normed space X is the direct sum of Y and Z" could be ambiguous.
Normally, the context does make it clear which type of direct sum is being
considered. Even when it does not, the two types of direct sums are so
closely related that problems usually do not arise. This relationship is the
subject of the next proposition.

1.8.10 Proposition.
(a) If XI, ... ,Xn are normed spaces and X =XIffiffiXn , then X has
closed subspaces X~ , ... ,X~ such that X is the internal direct sum of
X~ , ... ,X~ and each Xj is isometrically isomorphic to the corre-
sponding Xj.
(b) If X is a Banach space that is the internal direct sum of its closed
subspaces M I , ... , M n , then X ~ MI ffi ffi Mn
PROOF. For (a), let X~, ... ,X~ be as in Proposition 1.8.3. It is easy to check
that these closed subspaces of X do what is needed. For (b), suppose that
X is a Banach space that is the internal direct sum of its closed subs paces
M I , ... , Mn. Since each M j is a Banach space, so is MI ffi .. ffiMn . The map
T: MI ffi . ffiMn --> X given by the formula T(ml' ... , m n ) = ml + .. +mn
is clearly linear and onto X. By Corollary 1.4.18, the "1 and 2 norms on lF n
are equivalent, from which it follows that there is a positive constant c such
that

for each member (ml, ... , m n ) of Ml ffi ... ffi Mn Thus, the operator T
is bounded. If T(ml, .. ,mn ) = 0, then m] = ... = mn = 0 by Proposi-
tion 1.8.7. It follows that T is one-to-one. By Corollary 1.6.6, the operator T
is an isomorphism from MI EEl ffi Mn onto X.

Part (b) of the preceding proposition is not in general true for incomplete
normed spaces. See Exercise 1.95.
66 1. Basic Concepts

The notion of the direct sum of normed spaces leads in a very natural
way to the notion of the direct sum of linear operators between normed
spaces.

1.8.11 Definition. Suppose that Xl,." ,Xn and Y I , ... , Y n are normed
spaces and that T j is a linear operator from Xj into Yj when j = 1, ... , n.
Then the direct sum of T I , ... , Tn is the map
TI EB ... EB Tn: X I EB ... EB Xn ---> Y I EEl . EB Yn
defined by letting
TI EEl .. EEl Tn (Xl, ... , Xn) = (TIXI, ... ,Tnxn)
whenever (Xl, ... ,Xn ) E Xl ... X n .

It is easy to check that the map TI EB ... Tn of the preceding definition

is linear. As the next theorem indicates, special properties possessed by
each T j tend to be inherited by TI EEl .. EEl Tn.

1.8.12 Theorem. Suppose that XI"",Xn and YI, ... ,Yn are normed
spaces and that T j is a linear operator from Xj into Yj when j = 1, ... , n.
Then TI EB ... EB Tn is bounded if and only if each T j is bounded. 1
TI EB ... EEl Tn is bounded, then IITI EEl .. EEl Tn II = max{ IITIII, ... , IITn II}
Furthermore, the operator TI EEl . EB Tn is one-to-one, or onto, or an iso-
morphism, or an isometric isomorphism, if and only if T I , ... , Tn all have
that same property.
PROOF. Suppose that TI is unbounded. Then
sup{ IITI ... EEl Tn(XI,"" xn)11 : (Xl, ... , Xn) E BX1(f1"'(f1Xn }
~ SUp{ IITI EB EB Tn(Xb 0, ... ,0)11 : Xl E BX, }

= SUp{ IIT1xIII : Xl E BX, }

= +00,
so TI EB ... EEl Tn is unbounded. Similarly, the operator TI ... EEl Tn is un-
bounded whenever any T j is unbounded. Conversely, suppose that each T j
is bounded. For each member (Xl"'" xn) of Xl ... EEl X n ,
 1.8 Direct Sums 67

which implies that TI EB ... EB Tn is bounded and that IITI EB ... EB Tn II :::::
max{IITlll, ... , IITnll} Notice next that whenever Xl E B x"

IITI EB '" EB Tnll ;::: IITI EB EB Tn(XI, 0, ... ,0)11 = IITlxlll,

so IITI EB ... EB Tnll ;::: IITIII It follows similarly that liT! EB ... EB Tn II ;::: IITj II
when j = 2, ... , n, so liT! EB ... EB Tnll ;::: max{IITIiI,, IITnll}. Therefore
IITI EB EB Tn II = max{IITIII,, IITnll}
It is easy to see that TI EB .. EB Tn is one-to-one, or onto, or an isometric
isomorphism, if and only if each T j has the corresponding property. All
that remains to be proved is that TI e ... EB Tn is an isomorphism if and
only if each Tj is so. The failure of one of the Tj's to be one-to-one would
prohibit both TI EB ... EB Tn and that Tj from being isomorphisms, so it
can be assumed that each T j is one-to-one. Since TI EB ... EB Tn can be
viewed as an operator onto the normed space T(X I ) EB ... EB T(Xn)' no
harm comes from also assuming that each T j is onto the corresponding 1j.
It is then easy to see that (TI EB EB Tn)-l = T I- 1 EB EB T;:l, and so
(TI EB ... EB Tn)-l is bounded if and only if each T j- l is bounded. Thus,
the operator TI EB ... EB Tn is an isomorphism exactly when each Tj is an
isomorphism.

1.8.13 Corollary. Suppose that XI"",Xn and Y1"",Yn are normed

spaces. If Xj ~ 1j when j = 1, ... , n, then Xl EB EB Xn ~ YI EB'" EB Y n
If Xj is isometrically isomorphic to 1j when j = 1, ... , n, then Xl EB . 'Ef)Xn
is isometrically isomorphic to YI EB ... EB Y n .

As an application of the results of this section, it will now be shown

that a bounded linear operator from a subspace of a Banach space X into
a normed space Y can always be extended to a bounded linear operator
from X into Y if the subspace has the following property.

1.8.14 Definition. A subspace M of a normed space X is complemented

in X if it is closed in X and there is a closed subspace N of X such that
X is the internal direct sum of M and N, in which case the subspace N is
said to be complementary to M.

The study of complemented subspaces of Banach spaces will be taken up

in earnest in Section 3.2, where it will be shown that deciding whether or
not a closed subspace M of a Banach space X is complemented is equivalent
to deciding whether or not there is a bounded linear operator P mapping X
onto M such that P(Px) = Px for every X in X. An operator with the
properties just described is called a bounded projection from X onto M.
The following argument is based on the construction of such a projection.
Suppose that T is a bounded linear operator from a complemented sub-
space M of a Banach space X into a normed space Y. Let N be a subspace
68 1. Basic Concepts

complementary to M and let S: M EB N ----; X be defined by the formula

SCm, n) = m + n. By the proof of Proposition 1.8.10 (b), the map S is
an isomorphism from M EB N onto X, so S-1 is an isomorphism from X
onto MEBN. Notice that S-1m = (m,O) for each m in M. Let R(m, n) = m
for each member (m, n) of M ffi N. Since R is a bounded linear operator
from M ffi N onto M, the product RS- 1 is a bounded linear operator
from X onto M; call it P. Notice that Pm = m for each m in M (and
therefore P(Px) = Px for each x in X). It follows immediately that TP is
a bounded linear operator from X into Y that agrees with T on M.
More can be said if T is a bounded linear functional on a subspace M of
a normed space X. In that case, it turns out that T can always be extended
to a bounded linear functional on all of X, even if X is not a Banach space
and f.t1 is not complemented or, for that matter, even closed in X. If Te is
such an extension, then

IITel1 = sup{ IITexl1 : x E Ex} ~ sup{ IITml1 : m E EM} = IITII,

but it turns out that Te can even be selected so that IITel1 = IITII. That is
the content of the main result of the next section.

Exercises
1.88 Suppose that Xl, ... ,Xn are normed spaces and that 1 ::: p ::: 00. To
avoid an impending notational conflict, let the norm of be denoted e;
by II Ilf~ instead of II lip Show that the formula

defines a norm on the vector space sum of Xl, . .. , Xn equivalent to the

usual direct sum norm. Notice that this formula produces the usual direct
sum norm when p = 2.
1.89 Prove or disprove the following generalization of the preceding exercise:
If / . / is a norm on IF n , then the formula

must define a norm on the vector space sum of Xl, ... , Xn equivalent to
the usual direct sum norm.
1.90 Suppose that X is Cu or lp, where 1 ::: p ::: CX>. Prove that X 8 IF "" X.
Conclude that X EB Y "" X whenever Y is a finite-dimensional normed
space.
1.91 Suppose that X is Co or l", where 1 ::: p ::: 00. Prove that X eX"" X.
1.92 Prove that L1'[O, 1] EEl L1'[O, 1] "=' Lp[O, 1] when 1 ::: p::: 00. One way to do
this requires some knowledge of how to change variables in the Lebesgue
integral. See, for example, [202, pp_ 153-155].
 1.8 Direct Sums 69

1.93 (a) Suppose that X, Y, and Z are normed spaces such that Y ED Y ~ Y
and Z is the direct sum of X with a finite positive number of copies
of Y. Prove that Z ~ X ED Y.
(b) Suppose that X and Y are Banach spaces such that Y ED Y ~ Y
and X has a complemented subspace isomorphic to Y. Prove that
X ED Y ~ X, and therefore that every direct sum of X with a finite
number of copies of Y is isomorphic to X.

1.94 (a) Prove that 2 @2 is isometrically isomorphic to 2.

(b) Suppose that X is a normed space and that Y is the direct sum
of X with a finite positive number of copies of 2. Prove that Y is
isometrically isomorphic to X ED 2.
1.95 (a) Conclude from Exercise 1.84 that Proposition 1.8.10 (b) does not
always hold if "Banach space" is replaced by "normed space."
(b) Let Xl and X 2 be normed spaces such that Xj is the internal direct
sum of its closed subspaces M j and Nj when j = 1,2. Suppose
that MI and M2 are isometrically isomorphic, as are Nl and N 2.
Conclude from (a) that Xl and X 2 need not even be isomorphic.
(c) In part (b), suppose that Xl and X 2 are Banach spaces. Can you
then conclude that they are isomorphic? How about isometrically
isomorphic?
1.96 Suppose that the direct sum norm were defined to be any of the equiva-
lent norms of Exercise 1.88. Prove that if T 1 , . .. , Tn are bounded linear
operators, then the norm of their direct sum is still given by the formula
IITI ED ED Tnll = max{liTI II,, II Tnll}
1.97 In this exercise, no result from Section 1.4 about finite-dimensional vector
spaces may be used. (However, feel free to use Proposition 1.8.10. The
application of Corollary 1.4.18 in the proof of that proposition can be
replaced by an application of Cauchy'S inequality.) Let n be a positive
integer and let X be a normed space of dimension n. Prove that X is the
internal direct sum of n subspaces each isometrically isomorphic to IF. Use
this to prove that all n-dimensional Banach spaces over IF are isomorphic
to each other. (Notice that this is a weakened form of Corollary 1.4.16.)
1.98 Suppose that X and Yare Banach spaces and that there is a bounded
linear operator from X onto Y whose kernel is complemented in X. Prove
that X has a complemented subspace isomorphic to Y.

1.99 Let T be a bounded linear operator from a Banach space X into a finite-
dimensional normed space Y. The purpose of this exercise is to show that
'1' is, in a sense, the direct sum of a Banach space isomorphism and a zero
operator.
(a) Define a subspace M of X as follows. First show that XI ker(T)
and T(X) have the same finite dimension n. If T(X) = {OJ, then
let M = {OJ. If T(X) {OJ, then let Xl + ker(T), ... ,Xn + ker(T)
be a basis for XI ker(T) and let M = (Xl, ... , Xn). Show that in
the second case the vectors Xl, . . . ,X n are linearly independent, and
70 1. Basic Concepts

that in either case M is a closed subspace of X such that X is the

internal direct sum of M and ker(T).
(b) Let IBI be a basis for T(X). Show that there is a collection 1B2 of
linearly independent vectors in Y such that (1B1) n (1B2) = {O} and
IBI U 1B2 is a basis for Y. Let Z = (1B2). Show that Y is the internal
direct sum of T(X) and Z.
(c) Define T 1 : M --t T(X) by the formula Tl(m) = T(m). Show that
Tl is an isomorphism from M onto T(X).
(d) Define II: X --t M EEl ker(T) and 12 : T(X) EEl Z -+ Y by letting
II (m+k) = (m, k) whenever mE M and k E ker(T), and h(w, z) =
w + z whenever (w, z) E T(X) ffi Z. Conclude from the proof of
Proposition 1.8.10 (b) that hand h are isomorphisms from X onto
M ffi ker(T) and from T(X) ffi Z onto Y respectively.
(e) Let T2 be the zero operator from ker(T) into Z. Show that T =
h(Tl ffi T 2 )h. (If hand 12 are treated as ways of identifying X with
M EEl ker(T) and T(X) ffi Z with Y, then T "is" Tl ffi T2.)

1.9 The Hahn-Banach Extension Theorems

Suppose that X and Yare normed spaces and that M is a subspace of X.
It is often important to know whether a bounded linear operator from M
into Y can be extended to a bounded linear operator from all of X into Y.
When this is possible, it can also be important to know whether it can
be done without increasing the norm of the operator. There is no problem
doing so when Y is a Banach space and M is dense in X.

1.9.1 Theorem. Suppose that M is a dense subspace ofa normed space X,

that Y is a Banach space, and that To: M -+ Y is a bounded linear
operator. Then there is a unique continuous function T: X -+ Y that
agrees with To on M. This function T is a bounded linear operator, and
IITII = IIToll If To is an isomorphism or isometric isomorphism, then T has
that same property.

PROOF. If (xn) is a Cauchy sequence in M, then (Toxn) is a Cauchy se-

quence in Y since IIToxnl -TOxn211 S IITollllxnl -xn211 whenever nI, n2 EN,
so (Toxn) converges. Also, if (w n ) and (xn) are sequences in M that con-
verge to the same limit in X, then IITown - Toxnll S IITollllwn-- xnll ---> 0
as n --> 00, so limn ToWn = limn Toxn. Thus, a function T can be unam-
biguously defined on X by the formula T(x) = limn Toxn, where (x n ) is
any sequence in M that converges to x.
For each m in M, the constant sequence (m n ) with m as each term
converges to m, implying that T(m) = limn Tomn = Tom, so T and To
agree on M. If W,X E X, a E IF, and (w n ) and (xn) are sequences in M
 1.9 The Hahn-Banach Extension Theorems 71

converging to wand x respectively, then aWn + Xn --+ aw + x, so

T(aw + x) = lim
n
To (awn + Xn)
= a lim ToWn + lim Toxn
n n

= aT(w) + T(x).

It follows that T is linear. Since EM is dense in Ex, it is clear from the

definition of T that sup{ JlTxl1 : x E Ex } = sup{ JlTomJl : m E EM },
so T is bounded and has the same norm as To. The uniqueness assertion
follows from the fact that two continuous functions from one metric space
into another that agree on a dense subset of their domain must agree on
the whole domain.
Finally, suppose that To is an isomorphism. By Proposition 1.4.14 (a),
there are positive constants sand t such that s"m" :::; JlTomil :::; tJlm"
whenever m E M. Notice that To is an isometric isomorphism if and only
if this holds when s = t = 1. It is an easy consequence of the density of M
in X and the continuity of T that sJlx" :::; JlTxJl :::; t"x" whenever x E X.
It follows that T is an isomorphism, and is an isometric isomorphism if To
is an isometric isomorphism.

The requirement that Y be complete cannot be omitted, as is shown in

Exercise 1.100. Problems also arise ifthe requirement that M be dense in X
is removed. For example, it turns out that when Co is treated in the usual
way as a subspace of foc" the identity operator on Co cannot be extended
to a bounded linear operator from foo onto Co. See Corollary 3.2.21.
The main purpose of this section is to show that a bounded linear func-
tional on a subspace of a normed space can always be extended to a bounded
linear functional on the entire space without increasing its norm. The plan
is to prove this for real normed spaces, then pass from the real case to
the complex. To accomplish this, some preliminary facts about real-linear
functionals on complex vector spaces are needed.

1.9.2 Definition. Let X be a complex vector space. A real-linear func-

tional on X is a real-valued function f on X such that if x, y E X and
a E ~, then f(x + y) = f(x) + f(y) and f(ax) = af(x).

Of course, every complex vector space X is also a real vector space Xr

when multiplication of vectors by scalars is restricted to ~ x X. A real-
linear functional on X is just a linear functional in the usual sense on X r .
For the moment, a linear functional in the usual sense on X will be called
a complex-linear functional on X.
As usual, the real and imaginary parts of a complex number a will be
denoted by Re a and 1m a respectively.
72 1. Basic Concepts

1.9.3 Proposition. Let X be a complex vector space and let Xr be the

corresponding real vector space.
(a) If f is a complex-linear functional on X and u is the real part of f,
then u is a real-linear functional on X, and f(x) = u(x) - iu(ix)
whenever x EX.
(b) If u is a real-linear functional on X, then there is a unique complex-
linear functional f on X such that u is the real part of f. This
functional f is given by the formula from (a).
(c) Suppose that X is a complex normed space and that f is a complex-
linear functional on X with real part u. Then f is a bounded linear
functional on X if and only if u is a bounded linear functional on X r .
If f is bounded, then Ilfll = Ilull
PROOF. Let f be a complex-linear functional on X and let u be its real
part. Since a = Re(o:) - iRe(io:) for every complex number a, it follows
that

f(x) = Re(J(x)) - iRe(if(x)) = Re(J(x)) - iRe(J(ix)) = u(x) - iu(ix)

whenever x E X. If x, Y E X and 0: is a real scalar, Then

u(ax + y) = Re(af(x) + fey))

= Re(au(x) - iau(ix) + u(y) - iu(iy))
= au (x) + u(y),
so u is a real-linear functional on X. This proves (a).
For (b), let u be a real-linear functional on X. It follows from (a) that
the function f defined by the formula f(x) = u(x) - iu(ix) is the only
possible candidate for a complex-linear functional on X with real part u.
If x, Y E X and a is a complex scalar, then

f(ax + y) = u(o:x + y) - iu(iax + iy)

= u(Re(o:)x) + u(i Im(a)x) + u(y)
- iu(iRe(a)x)- iu(-Im(a)x) - iu(iy)
= Re(a)u(x) + Im(a)u(ix) + u(y)
- i Re(a)u(ix) + i Im(a)u(x) - iu(iy)
= au(x) - io:u(ix) + u(y) - iu(iy)
= af(x) + fey),
which shows that f is a complex-linear functional on X. This finishes the
proof of (b).
Finally, suppose that X is a complex normed space and that f is a
complex-linear functional on X with real part u. For each x in X, there is
 1.9 The Hahn-Banach Extension Theorems 73

a scalar O:x such that icl:xl = 1 and O:xf(x) is a nonnegative real number.
Notice that lu(x)1 :S If(x)1 = f(o:xx) = u(O:xx) whenever x EX. Therefore

sup{ lu(x)1 : x E EXr } :S sup{ If(x)1 : x E Ex}

= sup{ u(o:xx) : x E EXr }
:S sup{ lu(x)1 : x E EXr },

so sup{ lu(x)1 : x E Ex r sup{ If(x)1 : x E Ex}. Part (c) follows

}

immediately from this.

It is time for the main results of this section. There is a body of related
facts, collectively called the Hahn-Banach theorem, that includes Theo-
rems 1.9.5 and 1.9.6 and Proposition 1.9.15 from this section as well as
Theorems 2.2.19, 2.2.26, and 2.2.28 in the next chapter. The common theme
of all of them is that under certain conditions a vector space always has a
large enough supply of well-behaved linear functionals to accomplish cer-
tain tasks.

1.9.4 Definition. Let p be a real-valued function on a vector space X.

Then p is positive-homogeneous if p(tx) = tp(x) whenever t > 0 and x EX,
and is (finitely) subadditive if p(x + y) :S p(x) + p(y) whenever x, y E X.
If p has both properties, then it is said to be a sublinear functional.

Notice that every seminorm, and in particular every norm, is a sublinear

functional, as is every linear functional on a real vector space.

1.9.5 The Vector Space Version of the Hahn-Banach Extension

Theorem. (S. Banach, 1929 [11]). Suppose that p is a sublinear functional
on a real vector space X and that fa is a linear functional on a subspace Y
of X such that fa(Y) :S p(y) whenever y E Y. Then there is a linear
functional f on all of X such that the restriction of f to Y is fa and
f(x) <::: p(x) whenever x E X. That is, the linear functional fa can be
extended to a linear functional on X that is still dominated by p.
PROOF. The first step is to show that if Y is not all of X, then there is
a linear extension h of fa to a subspace of X larger than Y such that h
is still dominated by p. Suppose that Xl EX \ Y. Let YI = Y + ({xd), a
subspace of X that properly includes Y. Notice that if y + tXI = y' + t'XI
where y, y' E Y and t, t' E 1R, then (t - t')Xj = y' - Y E Y, and so t = t'
and y = y'. Thus, each member of YI can be expressed in the form y + tXI,
where y E Y and t E 1R, in exactly one way. Whenever Yl, Y2 E Y,

fo(yd + fO(Y2) = fa(YI + Y2)

:S P(YI - Xl + Y2 + xd
:S P(YI - xd + P(Y2 + xd,
74 1. Basic Concepts

and so

It follows that

sup{ 10(Y) - p(y - xt) : y E Y} ::; inf{p(y + xd - lo(y) : y E Y},

so there is a real number tl such that

sup{ 10(Y) - p(y - Xl) : y E Y} ::; tl ::; inf{p(y + Xl) - 10(Y) : y E Y}.
Let lI(y + txd = 10(Y) + t tl for each y in Y and each real number t.
It is easy to check that II is a linear functional on YI whose restriction
to Y is 10. It follows from the definition of tl that for each y in Y and each
positive t,

and
lI(y - txd = t(Jo(Cly) - h) ::; tp(Cly - Xl) = p(y - tXI),
so II (x) ::; p(x) whenever X E Y I .
The second step of the proof is to show that, in effect, the first step
can be repeated until a linear functional on all of X is obtained that is
dominated by p and whose restriction to Y is fo. Let 21 be the collection
of all linear functionals 9 such that the domain of 9 is a subspace of X
that includes Y, the restriction of 9 to Y is 10, and 9 is dominated by p.
Define a preorder j on 21 by declaring that 91 j 92 whenever 91 is the
restriction of 92 to a subspace of the domain of 92. It is easy to see that
each nonempty chain I! in 21 has an upper bound in 21; consider the linear
functional whose domain is the union Z of the domains of the members
of I! and which agrees at each point z of Z with every member of I! that
is defined at z. Of course, the empty chain has 10 as an upper bound. By
Zorn's lemma, the preordered set 21 has a maximal element I. The domain
of I must be all of X, for if it were not then the argument of the first step of
this proof, applied to f and its domain instead of to fo and Y, would yield
an II in 21 such that I j II but II ii I. This I does all that is required
~rt.

The next result is sometimes called the analytic form of the Hahn-Banach
theorem. It was first proved by Hahn [99] in 1927 for real normed spaces.
Banach [11] independently published the same result with the same proof
in 1929, but later became aware of Hahn's earlier paper and acknowledged
Hahn's priority. Bohnenblust and Sobczyk [32] gave the extension to com-
plex normed spaces in 1938. In the same year, Soukhomlinoff [227] inde-
pendently published the same result, and showed that it even holds for the
generalization of normed spaces for which the scalars are quaternions.
 1.9 The Hahn-Banach Extension Theorems 75

1.9.6 The Normed Space Version of the Hahn-Banach Extension

Theorem. (H. Hahn, 1927, and others; see above). Suppose that fa is
a bounded linear functional on a subspace Y of a normed space X. Then
there is a bounded linear functional f on all of X such that IIfll = Ilfoll and
the restriction of f to Y is fa. That is, the functional fa can be extended
to a bounded linear functional on X having the same norm.
PROOF. Suppose that X is a real normed space. Let p(x) = Ilfollllxli for
each x in X. Then p is a sublinear functional on X and fo(Y) ::; p(y) for
each Y in Y. By the vector space version of the Hahn-Banach extension
theorem, there is a linear functional f on X such that f agrees with fa
on Y and f(x) ::; Ilfollllxli for each x in X, and in fact If(x)1 ::; IIfollllxll
for each x in X since

- f(x) = f( -x) ::; Ilfollll-xil = Ilfollllxll

It follows that f is bounded and Ilfll ::; lifo II Since

Ilfll = sup{ If(x)1 : x E Bx } ~ sup{ If(y)1 : y E By} = Ilfoll,

the linear functionals fa and f have the same norm.
Now suppose that X is a complex normed space. Let Uo be the real
part of fa. By the argument just given for real normed spaces, there is a
bounded real-linear functional u on X that agrees with Uo on Y and has
the same norm as uo. Let f be the unique complex-linear functional on X
with real part u. Then the restriction of f to Y is the unique complex-linear
functional on Y with real part uo, that is, the restriction is fa. Finally, the
boundedness of u implies that of f, and IIfll = Ilull = Iluoll = Ilfoll
The bounded linear functional f guaranteed by the theorem is called a
Hahn-Banach extension of fa to X.
The preceding theorem says nothing about the uniqueness of a Hahn-
Banach extension. If fa is a bounded linear functional on a dense sub-
space Y of a normed space X, then Theorem 1.9.1 assures that there is
exactly one Hahn-Banach extension of fa to all of X. If Y is not dense
in X, then fa might have more than one Hahn-Banach extension to X, but
it also might not. See Exercise 1.105.

1.9.7 Corollary. Let Y be a closed subspace of a normed space X. Suppose

that x E X \ Y. Then there is a bounded linear functional f on X such
that Ilfll = 1, f(x) = d(x, Y), and Y <;;;; ker(f).
PROOF. Let fo(Y + ax) = a . d(x, Y) for each y in Y and each scalar a.
Then fo is a linear functional on Y + ({x}) such that fo (x) = d( x, Y) and
fo(Y) = 0 for each y in Y. Whenever y E Y and a =1= 0,

Ifo(Y + ax)1 = lal' d(x, Y) ::; lallix - (-a-ly)11 = Ily + axil,

76 1. Basic Concepts

so fa is bounded and Ilfoll :S 1. Also,

Ilfolllix - yll 2: Ifo(x - y)1 = d(x, Y)

whenever y E Y, and so

lifo I . d(x, Y) = lifo II . inf{ Ilx - yll : y E Y} 2: d(x, Y).

Since d(x, Y) > 0, it follows that Ilfoll 2: 1, and so Ilfoll = 1. To finish, let f
be any Hahn-Banach extension of fa to X.

Letting Y = {O} in the preceding corollary yields the first of the following
two results. The second then follows from the first by replacing x by x - y.

1.9.8 Corollary. If x is a nonzero element of a normed space X, then there

is a bounded linear functional f on X such that Ilfll = 1 and f(x) = Ilxll.

1.9.9 Corollary. If x and yare different elements of a nOTmed space X,

then there is a bounded linear functional f on X such that f(x) =J fey).

The historical roots of the Hahn-Banach extension theorems can be found

in efforts to obtain simultaneous solutions for systems of linear equations.
To see the connection, consider what must be done to solve a system
of m linear equations in n unknowns. Given a collection of m elements
( a 1(1) , ... , an a 1 , ... , an('In) 0 f IF'n an d a co11
(I) , ... , 'In) ectlOn 0 f m sca1ars
Cl, ... ,Cm , it is necessary to find an element (131, ... , f3n) of 1F n such that

aij ) f31 + .. +a~) i3n = Cj when j = 1, ... , m. It is a standard fact from linear
algebra that there is a one-to-one correspondence between (IF'n)# and IF'n
such that for each f in (IF'n) # and the corresponding element (131, ... , f3n)
of IF''',

h
wenever (al, ... ,a n ) E IF' n . L e t x) -- ( a1, h
(j) ... ,a n(j)) wen]. -- 1, ... ,m.
Then the problem of finding a solution to the given system becomes that
of finding a linear functional Ion IF'n such that f(x)) = Cj for each j.
Now suppose that Y is a subspace of a normed space X and that fa is
a bounded linear functional on Y. For each y in Y, let c y = 10(Y). The
normed space version of the Hahn-Banach extension theorem says that
there is a bounded linear functional I on X with the same norm as fo such
that fey) = c y for each y in Y. In a sense, a system of linear equations has
been solved. Of course, this system is infinite if Y =J {O}.
It is not surprising that the Hahn-Banach extension theorems have im-
portant applications to solving systems of linear equations. The following
one is due to Hahn himself.
 1.9 The Hahn-Banach Extension Theorems 77

1.9.10 Theorem. (H. Hahn, 1927 [99]). Suppose that X is a normed space.
Let A be a non empty subset of X and let { Cx : x E A} be a corresponding
collection of scalars. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) There is a bounded linear functional I on X such that I(x) = Cx for
each x in A.
(b) There is a nonnegative real number M such that

for each linear combination O!lXl + ... + O!nXn of elements of A, that

is, for each element of (A).
If (b) holds, then I can be chosen in (a) so that 11/11 ::; M.
PROOF. Suppose that (b) holds. For each member x of (A), first express x
as a linear combination O!lX1 + ... + O!nXn of members of A, then let

If a member of (A) is expressed in two different ways 0!1X1 + ... + O!nXn

and f3lY1 + ... + f3mYm as a linear combination of members of A, then

t
I3=1 O!jCXj - f
3=1
f3jCYj I ::; Milt
3=1
O!jXj - f
3=1
f3jyjll = 0,

so O!lexl +. "+O!ncxn = f31CYl + .. +f3mCym' Therefore 10 is an unambigu-

ously defined scalar-valued function on (A). It is also clear that 10 is linear.
The inequality in (b) assures that 10 is bounded and that 11/011 ::; M, so
every Hahn-Banach extension I of 10 to X satisfies (a) and has norm no
more than M.
Conversely, suppose that (a) holds. Then for each linear combination
0!1X1 + ... + O!nXn of elements of A,

100lC x ! + ... + O!ncxn I = 1/(0!1X1 + ... + O!nxn)1

::; 1I/IIII0!1 x 1+ ... + O!nxnll
Let M = 11/11 to obtain (b).

It is possible to exchange the roles of the elements of X and of the
bounded linear functionals on X in the preceding theorem, though only
finite collections of bounded linear functionals can be considered and the
norm of the object found in (a) must be enlarged a bit. The resulting fact,
called Helly's theorem, can be treated as a straightforward consequence of
the normed space version of the Hahn-Banach extension theorem, though it
actually predates it by a few years. The following useful result from linear
algebra is needed for the proof of Helly's theorem given below.
78 1. Basic Concepts

1.9.11 Lemma. Suppose that I and h, ... , In are linear functionals on

the same vector space. Then I is a linear combination of h, ... , In if and
only if kerCh) n ... n ker(fn) ~ ker(f).
PROOF. The "only if" portion is obvious. For the converse, proceed by
induction on n. Let Pk be the proposition that if I and h,, hare
linear functionals on the same vector space and n~=l ker(fJ) ~ ker(f),
then I must be a linear combination of h,, Ik.
To prove PI, suppose that I and h are linear functionals on a vector
space V such that kerCh) <;::; ker(f). The desired conclusion is obvious if I
is the zero functional, so it can be assumed that I is nonzero and thus that
h is also nonzero. The following standard fact from linear algebra is now
needed: If 9 is a nonzero linear functional on V, then ker(g) is a maximal
proper subspace of V; see, for example, [105]. It follows that kerCh) =
ker(f). Let x be a member of V \ ker(f) and let h = 1- (J(x)/h(x))k
Then the linear functional h is zero on ker(f) and is zero at x, and so is
zero on V since V = ({x} U ker(f)). It follows that I = (J(x)/h(x))h,
which proves Pl.
Suppose that k ~ 2 and that Pj is true when j = 1, ... , k - 1. Let I
and h, ... ,h satisfy the hypotheses of P k . If 9 and gl, ... ,gk-l are the
restrictions of I and h,, h-l respectively to the vector space ker(fk),
then n~:t ker(gj) <;::; ker(g), so by P k - l there are scalars al, ... ,ak-l such
that 9 = 2::~:t ajgj. It follows that kerCh) <;::; ker(f - 2::7:t ajIj), so by PI
there is a scalar ak such that 1- 2::7=;
ajIj = akh This proves Pk and
finishes the induction.

1.9.12 ReIly's Theorem. (E. ReIly, 1921 [102]). Suppose that X is a

normed space. Let h, ... , In be a nonempty finite collection of bounded
linear functionals on X and let CI, ... , Cn be a corresponding collection of
scalars. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) There is an Xo in X such that Ij(xo) = Cj when j = 1, ... ,n.
(b) There is a nonnegative real number M such that

for each linear combination adl + ... + anfn of h, ... , In, that is,
for each element of ({h, .. , in}).
ff (b) holds and E > 0, then Xo can be chosen in (a) so that Ilxo II 0<:: M + E.
PROOF. If (a) holds, then whenever al,"" an E IF,

icl'lCI + ... + ancnl = I(adl + ... + a,Jn)(xo)1

0<:: Iladl + ... + anInllllxOII
Let M = Ilxall to obtain (b).
 1.9 The Hahn-Banach Extension Theorems 79

Conversely, suppose that (b) holds and that E > 0. If each Cj is zero,
then both (a) and the remark following (b) hold when Xo = 0, so it can
be assumed that some Cj is nonzero. It follows from the inequality in (b)
that some fj is nonzero, so it can be assumed, after rearranging the iJ's
if necessary, that there is an integer m for which h, ... ,fm is a maximal
linearly independent subcollection of h, ... , f n' Thus, for each k such that
(k) (k) _ ",m (k)
k = 1, ... ,n there are scalars 0: 1 , ... , O:m such that fk - u j = l O:j fj.
Suppose that it were known that (b) implies (a) and the remark fol-
lowing (b) under the additional assumption that the linear functionals
h, ... ,fn are linearly independent. In the current situation in which only
h, ... , fm are known to be linearly independent, it would still follow that
there is an Xo in X such that Ilxoll ::; M + E and iJ(xo) = Cj when
j = 1, ... ,m, which implies that fk(XO) = 2::;:1 o:}k)Cj for each k. It would
then follow that

that is, that h(xo) = Ck, when k = 1, ... ,n. Thus, it can be assumed that
h, .. , fn are linearly independent.
For each x in X, let T(x) = (hx, ... , fnx). Then T is a linear operator
from X into Fn. Suppose for the moment that n 2': 2. For each k such that
n
k = 1, ... , n, Lemma 1.9.11 implies that j # ker(fJ) %ker(h), so there
is a Yk in X such that fk(Yk) = 1 and fJ(Yk) = 0 when j =1= k. It follows
that T(X) includes the standard basis for Fn, so T maps X onto Fn. If
n = 1, then T obviously maps X onto Fn. In any case, there is a Yo in X
such that (hyo, ... , fnYo) = (C1,"" cn). Since Yo tf- n7=1
ker(fJ), it follows
from Corollary 1.9.7 that there is a bounded linear functional f on X such
that Ilfll = 1, f(yo) = d(yo, n7=1ker(fJ)), and n7=1
ker(Jj) S;;; ker(J).
Another application of Lemma 1.9.11 yields scalars (31, ... ,!3n such that
f = 2:7=1 (3jiJ. Therefore

so there is a Zo in n7=1
ker(iJ) such that IIYo - Zo I ::; M + E. It follows
that Yo - Zo is an Xo that docs what is needed in (a) and in the remark
following (b).

Though Helly's theorem is a much weakened analog of Theorem 1.9.10,

it is the best that can be done without placing additional restrictions on X.
See Exercises 1.119 and 1.134.
In addition to the extension theorems, there is another type of Hahn-
Banach theorem called a separation theorem. The theme of such a theorem
80 1. Basic Concepts

is that given two nonempty convex subsets 0 1 and O2 of a vector space X

that are not too badly intermingled, it is possible to find a well-behaved
nonzero real-linear functional f on X such that

sup{ f(x) : x E 0 1 } ::; inf{ f(x) : x E 0 2 },

where under certain conditions it is even possible to assert that the in-
equality is strict. In a sense, the functional f separates 0 1 from C 2 , since
f(Od and f(02) are disjoint or nearly so. Such separation theorems are
based on a very close relationship that exists between nonnegative sublinear
functionals and convex absorbing sets.

1.9.13 Definition. Let A be an absorbing subset of a vector space X. For

each x in X, let PA(X) = inf{ t : t > 0, x E tA}. Then PA is the Minkowski
functional or gauge functional of A.

With X, A, and PA as in the preceding definition, let x be a nonzero

member of X. Very roughly speaking, the number PA(X) is the ratio of
the distance from the origin to x and the distance from the origin to the
outermost edge of A in the direction of x, where that second distance might
be infinite.

1.9.14 Proposition. Suppose that X is a vector space.

(a) Let PA be the Minkowski functional of an absorbing subset A of X.
(1) The function PA is finite-valued, nonnegative, and positive-ho-
mogeneous, and A c:;;; {x: x EX, PA(X) ::; 1}.
(2) If A is a convex set, then PA is a sublinear functional on X, and
{x: x E X, PA(X) < I} c:;;; A.
(3) If A is both convex and balanced, then PA is a seminorm on X.
(b) Let P be a nonnegative-real-valued positive-homogeneous function
on X and let Ap = { x : x EX, p( x) < 1 }.
(1) The set Ap is absorbing, and P is the Minkowski functional
of Ap.
(2) If P is a sublinear functional, then Ap is a convex set.
(3) If P is a seminorm, then Ap is both convex and balanced.
PROOF. Let PA be the Minkowski functional of an absorbing subset A
of X. It follows immediately from the definition of an absorbing set that
{t : t > 0, x E tA} is nonempty whenever x E X, so PA is nonnegative-
real-valued. If x E X and to > 0, then

to{t : t > 0, x E tA} = {s : s > 0, tox E sA},

so toPA(X) = PA(tOX). The function PA is therefore positive-homogeneous.
It is clear that A c:;;; {x : x E X, PA(X) ::; I}. Now suppose that A is
 1.9 The Hahn-Banach Extension Theorems 81

convex. If XI,X2 EX, tl, t2 > 0, Xl E tlA, and X2 E t2A, then Xl + X2 E

t1A+t2A = (tl +t2)A, so PA(XI +X2) ::; tl +b. Taking appropriate infima
shows that PA(XI + X2) ::; PA(xd + PA(X2), so PA is a sublinear functional.
If PA(X) < 1, then there is a t such that 0 < t < 1 and rlx E A, so
X = t(r l x)+(l-t)O E A. Therefore {x: X E X, PA(X) < I} <;;; A. Suppose
next that A is both convex and balanced, that a is a scalar, that X E X,
and that t > O. Then t-Iax E A if and only if Cllalx E A, so ax E tA if
and only if lalx EtA. It follows that PA(ax) = PA(lalx) = lalpA(x) (after
a moment's thought about the special case in which a = 0), so PA is a
seminorm.
Now let P be a nonnegative-real-valued positive-homogeneous function
on X and let Ap = {x : x E X, p(x) < 1 }. If x E X and t > p(x), then
p(Clx) < 1, so x E tAp- The set Ap is therefore absorbing. For each x
in X,
inf{t: t > 0, x E tAp} = inf{t: t > 0, p(t-IX) < 1}
= inf{ t : t > 0, p(x) < t}
= p(x),
so P is the Minkowski functional of Ap. Now suppose that P is a sublinear
functional. If x, y E Ap and 0 < t < 1, then
p(tx + (1- t)y) :::; tp(x) + (1 - t)p(y) < 1,
so tx + (1 - t)y E Ap. Thus, the set Ap is convex. Finally, suppose that P
is a seminorm. Then Ap is convex because P is a sublinear functional. If a
is a scalar such that 0 < lal ::; 1, then
aAp = {x: x E X, p(a-Ix) < I} = {x: x E X, p(x) < lal} <;;; Ap.
Since Ap is absorbing, it is also true that OAp = {O} <;;; A p, and so Ap is
balanced.

In particular, a real-valued function on a vector space is a nonnegative

sublinear functional if and only if it is the Minkowski functional of a con-
vex absorbing subset of the space. (However, it does not follow that an
absorbing set is convex when its Minkowski functional is sublinear. See
Exercise 1.108 (b).)
The following result is an example of how Minkowski functionals and
the vector space version of the Hahn-Banach extension theorem are used
to obtain separation theorems. Far better and more general results of this
type will be obtained in Section 2.2, but this proposition will do all of the
separating that needs to be done in this first chapter.

1.9.15 Proposition. If C is a nonempty convex set in a normed space X

and Xo is a point in X such that d(xo, C) > 0, then there is a bounded
linear functional f on X such that Ref(xo) > sup{Ref(x): x E C}.
82 1. Basic Concepts

PROOF. Since every bounded real-linear functional on a complex normed

space is the real part of a bounded complex-linear functional on the space,
it can be assumed that X is a real normed space. Let V be the open ball
centered at 0 with radius 2- l d(xo, C) and let Yo be an element of C. It is
easy to check that -Yo + (C + V) is open, convex, and contains 0 and that
d(xo - Yo, -Yo + (C + V)) = d(xo, C + V) > O. If f is a bounded linear
functional on X such that f(xo -Yo) > sup{ f(x) : x E -Yo+( C+ V) }, then
f(xo) > sup{ f(x) : x E C + V} 2: sup{ f(x) : x E C}, so no generality is
lost by assuming that C is an open convex set that contains O. Notice that
this implies that C is absorbing.
Let Pc be the Minkowski functional of C, a sublinear functional on X.
Since d(xo, C) > 0, there is an So such that 0 < So < 1 and SoXo ~ C.
Since SoXo cannot be a convex combination of 0 and another element of C,
it follows that sXo ~ C whenever S 2: So, so Xo ~ tC whenever 0 < t ::; SOl.
Thus,

pc(xo) 2: SOl> 1 2: sup{pc(x) : x E C}.

Let fo(txo) = tpc(xo) whenever t E lit Then fa is a linear functional

on ({xo}) that is dominated by Pc, since fo(txo) = pc(txo) when t > 0
and fo (txo) ::; 0 ::; Pc( txo) when t ::; O. By the vector space version of the
Hahn-Banach extension theorem, there is a linear functional f on X that
agrees with fo on ({xo}) and is dominated by Pc on X. Now C includes
an open ball U centered at 0, and for each x in U,

If(x)l = max{J(x), f( -x)} ::; max{pc(x),pc( -x)} ::; 1.

It follows that f is bounded. Finally,

f(xo) = pc(xo) > sup{pc(x) : x E C} 2: sup{ f(x) : x E C},

which finishes the proof.

Exercises
1.100 Let X be any Banach space with a proper dense subspace Y; for example,
the space X could be Co and Y could be the subspace of X consisting of the
finitely nonzero sequences. Show that the identity operator on Y cannot
be extended to a continuous function from X into Y.
1.101 Let X and Y be uOfmed spaces and let T be a bounded finite-rank linear
operator from a subspace W of X into Y. Prove that T can be extended
to a bounded linear operator on all of X with the same range as T.
1.102 For this exercise, let the scalar field be lFt Recall that a sequence of scalars
(an) is Cesaro summable to a scalar a or that a is the (C, i)-limit of (an)
if limn ((al + ... + an)/n) exists and equals a; see, for example, [19].
 1.9 The Hahn-Banach Extension Theorems 83

(a) Prove that there is a bounded linear functional L on 00 such that

for each member (an) of 00,

L( an ) <
_ 11msup
a1 + ... + an
n n

and L(a n ) is the (C, I)-limit of (an) if it has one. (The functional L
is called a Banach limit function on 00, and the "limits" that L
assigns to the members of = are said to form a system of Banach
limits.)
(b) Prove that

. f an < 11mln
11m1n . f a1 + ... + an
n - n n
:::; L(an )
. cq + ... + an
:::; hmsup------
n n
:::; lim sup an
n

for each member (an) of 00. Conclude from this that the notion of
Banach limit is a generalization of the notion of (C, I)-limit, which
is in turn a generalization of the usual notion of limit. Show that
each generalization is proper, that is, that no two of the notions are
equivalent.
(c) Prove that L(an ) = L(ak+1, ak+2, ... ) for each member (an) of =
and each positive integer k, that is, that L is shift-invariant. There-
fore Banach limits of bounded sequences, like regular limits, depend
only on the tails of the sequences and not on their leading terms.
(d) Of the three notions of limit discussed in (b), for which ones is it
true that each subsequence of a convergent bounded sequence must
converge to the limit of the entire sequence?
(e) Show that the linear functional L found in part (a) is not unique,
that is, that there is more than one system of Banach limits for 00.
1.103 Suppose that (jn) is a bounded sequence of bounded linear functionals on
a real normed space X. Show that there is a bounded linear functional f
on X such that liminfn fn(x) :::; f(x) :::; limsuPn fn(x) whenever x E X.
Conclude from this that if limn fn(x) exists whenever x E X, then the
formula f(x) = limn fn(x) defines a bounded linear functional on X.
(Compare Corollary 1.6.10.)
1.104 Let Y be a subspace of a nOfmed space X and let 2l be the collection of
all bounded linear functionals f on X such that Y ~ ker(f). Prove that
17 = n{ker(j): f E 2l}.

1.105 Let X be the vector space IR2 and let Y be the subspace of X consisting of
all (a, (3) such that f3 = o. Define fa: Y - t lR by the formula fo(a, 0) = a.
Notice that fa is a bounded linear functional on Y with respect to any
norm given to X.
84 1. Basic Concepts

(a) Suppose that X is given the Euclidean norm. Show that fo has a
unique Hahn-Banach extension to X.
(b) Suppose that X is given the norm that makes it into fi. Show that
fo has an infinite number of different Hahn-Banach extensions to X.
1.106 Let X be a normed space and let W be a finite-dimensional subspace of
B(X, IF). Suppose that F is a linear functional on B(X, IF). Show that
there is an Xo in X such that F(w) = w(xo) for every w in W. If F is
bounded and E > 0, show that Xo can be chosen so that IIxoll :s; IIFII + E.
1.107 Which of the properties positive-homogeneity, subadditivity, and sublin-
earity guarantee that if a real-valued function p on a vector space has that
property, then p(O) = O?
1.108 (a) Prove that every norm is the Minkowski functional of the closed unit
ball of the corresponding normed space.
(b) Find a nonconvex absorbing subset of some vector space such that
the Minkowski functional of the set is a norm.
1.109 Let X be a normed space. If t E lR and f is a nonzero bounded linear
functional on X, then the subset of X defined by the formula

H(f,t) = {x: x E X, Ref(x) S t}

is called a closed half9pace. Show that if X i= {O}, then each closed convex
subset of X is the intersection of some collection of closed halfspaces.
(Don't forget special cases.) What can be said when X = {O}?
1.110 Suppose that C is a nonempty convex subset of a normed space X and
that Xo is an element of X \ C such that d(xo, C) = O. Proposition 1.9.15
might lead one to conjecture that there must be some nonzero bounded
linear functional f on X such that Re f(xol ~ sup{ Re f(x) : X E C}.
Find a counterexample. (One can be constructed using a proper dense
subspace of a normed space.)

1.10 Dual Spaces

The term dual space is often used in linear algebra to refer to the vector
space X# of all linear functionals on a vector space X. In the theory of
normed spaces, the vector spaces being studied often have norm topologies
on them, and the unbounded linear functionals on these spaces are usually
not nearly as important as the bounded ones. For that reason, it is cus-
tomary in this context to reserve the term dual space for the space of all
bounded linear functionals on a normed space.

1.10.1 Definition. (H. Hahn, 1927 [99]). Let X be a normed space. The
(continuous) dual space of X or dual of X or conjugate space of X is the
normed space B(X, IF) of all bounded linear functionals on X with the
operator norm. This space is denoted by X*.
 1.10 Dual Spaces 85

To avoid confusion, the vector space X# of all linear functionals on a

normed space X is called the algebraic dual space of X. Notice that when
X is a finite-dimensional normed space, the vector space underlying X* is
just X#, for in this case Theorem 1.4.12 implies that every linear func-
tional on X is bounded. However, infinite-dimensional normed spaces al-
ways have linear functionals on them that are unbounded, as was shown in
Theorem 1.4.11.

1.10.2 Example. Let (O,~, f..l) be a a-finite positive measure space. Fix p
such that 1 :S p < 00 and let Lp denote Lp(O,~,f..l). Let q be conjugate
to p; that is, let q = 00 if p = 1 and let q be such that p-l + q-l = 1
otherwise. If x* is a bounded linear functional on Lp, then an argument
involving the Radon-Nikodym theorem yields a g in Lq such that

x*(f) = 10 fgdf..l (1.2)

whenever f E Lp. Conversely, for each g in L q , Holder's inequality assures

that (1.2) defines a bounded linear functional x* on Lp. Moreover, if an x*
in L; and a g in Lq are related by (1.2), then Ilx*11 = Ilgliq. See [202]'
for example, for the detailed arguments. If T: Lq ---* L; is defined by the
formula T(g) = x*, where x* is given by (1.2), then it follows that T is
an isometric isomorphism from Lq onto L;. Because of this, it is common
practice to identify Lq with L; and say that Lq is the dual of Lp.

In the preceding example, the requirement that the measure space be

a-finite is not necessary as long as p is not 1; it can be shown that L;
can still be identified in the above way with L q . If the measure space is
not a-finite, then it can happen that Li is not Loo in the above sense.
See pp. 286--288 and 387 of [67] for a discussion of the non-a-finite case,
including some special conditions under which Li must still be Loo.
There is a natural way to identify L':x, with a normed space ba(O, E l , f..ll)
whose underlying set consists of all the bounded finitely additive scalar-
valued set functions with domain ~l' where (0, ~l' f..ld is a measure space
related to (O,~, f..l). See [67] for details_

1.10.3 Example. Suppose that f..l is the counting measure on the collec-
tion ~ of all subsets of N and that 1 :S p < 00_ Let q be conjugate to p.
Since R.p is Lp(N, ~, f..l), it follows from the preceding example that R.; can be
identified with R.q . If the element x* of R.; corresponds to the element (;3n)
of R.q , then the action of x* on an element (an) of R.p is given by the formula

Though the dual space of R.oo cannot be characterized so easily as a space of

sequences, it can be identified in a natural way with a normed space whose
86 1. Basic Concepts

underlying set consists of all the bounded finitely additive scalar-valued set
functions on the subsets of N. See [58] for an excellent discussion of ~.

1.10.4 Example. The dual space of Co is 1 in exactly the same sense that
the dual space of p is q when 1 :'S p < 00 and q is conjugate to p. That is,
there is an isometric isomorphism T from 1 onto Co such that if (f3n) E 1,
then T(f3n) is the linear functional x' on Co given by the formula

(1.3)
n

Unlike the preceding example, this is not just a special case of Exam-
ple 1.10.2 since Co is not a Lebesgue space in any natural sense. However,
it is not difficult to prove directly.
If (f3n) E 1, then 2:nlc~nf3nl :'S 11(f3n)111 II(an)lloo for each (an) in Co,
from which it follows that (1.3) defines a member x* of Co for which Ilx' II :'S
11(/3,,)111. It is then easy to check that the function T: 1 --+ Co that maps
each (f3n) in i1 to the x' defined by (1.3) is a linear operator such that
IIT(f3n) II :'S IIU1n)lll whenever ((3n) E 1, and this operator is one-to-one
since T((3n) # 0 when (f3n) # o.
Now suppose that x* is an arbitrary element of co. For each standard
unit vector en of Co, let f3n = x' en and let In be a scalar such that hn I = 1
and l(3nl = In(3n Then

for each m. The sequence ((3n) is therefore in iI, and 11((3n)lh :'S IIx'll For
each member (an) of Co,

x* (an) = x (L ane,,) L anx* en L O'.n(3n,

= =
n n n

so x* and ((3n) satisfy (1.3) whenever (an) E Co. Since T(f3n) = x, the
operator T maps 1 onto Co.
Finally, suppose that ((3n) is an arbitrary member of l\. Let x = T((3n).
By the argument of the preceding paragraph, there is a member (f3~) of 1
such that T(f3~) = x* and 11((3~)lh :'S Ilx*ll. Since T is one-to-one, it follows
that ((3~) = (!3n) and therefore that 11(!3n)lll :'S IIT(!3n)ll. Since it has al-
ready been shown that IIT(!3n)11 :'S 1I(!3n)lll, the operator T is an isometric
isomorphism, which finishes the proof.

1.10.5 Example. Suppose that n is a positive integer and that 1 :'S p < 00.
Let q be conjugate to p. If Jl is the counting measure on the collection L:
of all subsets of {l, ... ,n}, then i~ is Lp({l, ... ,n},L:,p,), and so (f!~)*
can be identified with f!~ by the method of Example 1.10.2. Notice that if
 1.10 Dual Spaces 87

({3l, ... ,(3n) is in f~ and x* is the linear functional that it represents, then
the action of x* on f; is given by the formula
n

x*(al,"" an) = 2:: aj{3j.

j=l

The dual space of f;;' can be identified with f'1 in the same way. A proof
of this, using an argument similar to that of Example 1.10.4, is given in
Appendix C; see Theorem C.13. This will also follow from some of the
results of the next section, as will be shown in the comments following
Theorem 1.11. 9.

For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that if 1 ::; p ::; DO and
q is conjugate to p, then (fg)' and f~ are both zero-dimensional, so (fg)'
can be identified with ~ in a very obvious and trivial way.

1.10.6 Example. Let K be a compact Hausdorff space. The Riesz repre-

sentation theorem says that C(K)* is isometrically isomorphic to rca(K). If
x* is a bounded linear functional on C(K) and J-L is the measure in rca(K)
identified with x*, then the action of x* on C(K) is given by the formula

x*(f) = L f dJ-L.

See [67] or [202] for details. It turns out that rca(K) and C(K)* both have
natural partial orders, and that the isometric isomorphism of the Riesz
representation theorem is order preserving in the sense that if xi and xi
are elements of C(K)* and J-Ll and J-L2 are the respective elements of rca(K)
with which xi and x:i are identified, then xi :; x; if and only if J-Ll :; J-L2.
See Exercise 1.121.

Recall that if X is a normed space and Y is a Banach space, then B(X, Y)

is a Banach space; see Theorem 1.4.8. Letting Y = F in this result produces
the first theorem of this section.

1.10.7 Theorem. If X is a normed space, then X* iii a Banach space.

Because of this, one way to show that a normed space is a Banach space
is to show that it is the dual of some other normed space. For example,
if K is a compact Hausdorff space, then rca(K) is a Banach space since it
is isometrically isomorphic to the dual of C(K). See the remarks following
Example 1.2.11.
One of the main reasons for proving the Hahn-Banach extension theorems
before discussing duality is to obtain Corollary 1.9.9, which says that if x
and yare different elements of a normed space X, then there is an x*
88 1. Basic Concepts

in X' such that x'x i= x'y. That is, the dual space of X is large enough
to separate the points of X. Of course, this implies that X* i= {O} when
X i= {O}. As will be seen in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, there are large vector
spaces with metric topologies possessing many of the properties of norm
topologies, even though the spaces have no continuous linear functionals
on them besides the zero functional.
The other corollaries of the normed space version of the Hahn-Banach
extension theorem also have applications to the theory of dual spaces, as
is shown by the proof of the following result.

1.10.8 Theorem. A normed space is finite-dimensional if and only if its

dual space is finite-dimensional.
PROOF. Let X be a normed space. If X is finite-dimensional, then it is a
standard fact from linear algebra that X#, which in this case is the same
as X' by Theorem 1.4.12, has the same finite dimension as X.
Now suppose instead that X is infinite-dimensional. Let (x n ) be a lin-
early independent sequence in X. For each nonnegative integer n, let Fn =
({ x j : j :.:; n }); notice in particular that Fo = {O}. Then for each n, the
subspace Fn of X is finite-dimensional and therefore closed, and Fn does

not contain x n +!. By Corollary 1.9.7, there is a sequence (x~) of elements
of X' such that X~Xj = when j < n, but x~xn is nonzero for each n.
If 2:7=1 D:jX; is a linear combination of the terms of (x~) that equals 0,
then applying this linear combination to Xl, ... ,Xk in that order shows that
D:1 = ... = D:k = 0, from which it follows that (x~) is a linearly independent
sequence in X'. The space X' is therefore infinite-dimensional.

Corollary 1.9.8 is another consequence of the Hahn-Banach extension

theorems that is useful in the study of dual spaces. The proof of the next
theorem is based on it.

1.10.9 Theorem. Suppose that X is an element of a normed space X.

Then

IIxll = sup{ Ix'xi : x' E Bx- }.

Furthermore, this supremum is attained at some point of Bx-.
PROOF. If X = 0, then the formula for Ilxll is trivially true and the supre-
mum is attained at every point of Bx . It may therefore be assumed that
X =I- O. Since Ix'xl :.:; IIx' 1IIIxil :.:; IIxll whenever x* E Bx" it follows that
Ilxll 2: sup{ IX'xl : x' E Bx> }. By Corollary 1.9.8, there is an Xo in X*
such that Ilxoll = 1 and xox x
= Ilxll, and so Ilxll = sup{ IX'xl : E Bx- },
with the supremum being attained at xo'
The fact that the supremum is attained in the formula of the preceding
theorem leads naturally to the question of when the supremum is attained
 1.10 Dual Spaces 89

in the formula for the norm of a bounded linear functional x* on a normed

space X:

Ilx*11 = sup{ Ix*xl : x E Bx }.

If X is finite-dimensional, then the compactness of Bx and the continuity

of Ix* I together insure that this supremum is attained, and so it is said that
all the elements of X* are norm-attaining functionals. If X is not finite-
dimensional, then X* still contains many norm-attaining functionals for the
following reason. If x E Sx, then Corollary 1.9.8 produces an x* in X* such
that Ix*xl = Ilx*11 = 1, so this x* is norm-attaining. It may be, however,
that X* contains functionals that are not norm-attaining. James's theorem,
proved in Section 1.13, gives a very useful characterization of the Banach
spaces X such that each element of X* is a norm-attaining functional.

1.10.10 Example. Let x* be the element of c~ represented by the element

(2-n) of 1. Then Ilx*11 = 1. If (an) is any element of BCD' then

Ix*(an)1 = II: Tnanl ::; I: Tnlanl < I: Tn = 1,

n n n

so x* is not norm-attaining. See also Exercise 1.114.

Suppose that X and Yare normed spaces and that y* E Y*, x EX,
T E B(X, Y), and S E B(Y*, X*). The statement y*Tx = Sy*x can have
only one meaning, but that meaning might take a few moments to unravel
since the order in which the operations are to be performed differs on the
two sides of the equation. The use of parentheses helps, but can still lead to
expressions that are visually confusing. For this reason, the notation (x, f)
is sometimes used for Ix when I is a linear functional on X and x E X.
The statement y*Tx = Sy*x then becomes (Tx,y*) = (x,Sy*), which is
easier to grasp. This device is useful in the following result.

1.10.11 Proposition. Let X and Y be normed spaces.

(a) If T E L(X, Y), then T is bounded if and only if

sup{ I(Tx,Y*)I; x E Bx, y* E By.}

is finite. If T is bounded, then its norm equals this supremum.

(b) If T E L(X, YO), then T is bounded if and only if

sup{ l(y,Tx)l: x E Bx, y E By}

is finite. If T is bounded, then its norm equals this supremum.

90 1. Basic Concepts

PROOF. For (a), suppose that T E L(X, V). Theorem 1.10.9 implies that
IITxl1 = sup{ I(Tx,y*)I: y* E By.} whenever x E X, so

sup{ IITxl1 : x E Bx} = sup{ sup{ I(Tx, Y*)I : y* E By. } : x E Bx }

= sup{ I(Tx,y*)I: x E B x , y* E By.}.

Part (a) follows from this. For (b), suppose that T E L(X, Y*). Then
IITxl1 = sup{ I(y, Tx)1 : y E By} whenever x E X, so

sup{ IITxl1 : x E Bx } = sup{ sup{ I(y, Tx)1 : y E By} : x E Bx }

= sup{ l(y,Tx)l: x E Bx, y E By},

from which (b) follows.

If two normed spaces X and Yare isometrically isomorphic, then they
are in a sense identical as normed spaces and so should have identical
duals. More properly, the spaces X* and y* should also be isometrically
isomorphic. A few moments' thought shows how a proof of this might go.
Let T be an isometric isomorphism from X onto Y and let XT = Tx for
each x in X; that is, let XT be the element of Y identified with x. Then
each y* in Y* can be thought of as a bounded linear functional y:;'. on X
by letting y:;'.x = Y*XT for each x in X. The map T*: Y* -+ X* given
by the formula T*y* = y:;'. should be the desired isometric isomorphism
from y* onto X* . This idea, and its extension from isometric isomorphisms
to isomorphisms, is behind the proof of the next theorem.

1.10.12 Theorem. Suppose that X and Yare normed spaces such that
there is an isomorphism T from X onto Y. Then the map T*: Y* -+ X*
given by the formula T* (y*) = y*T, where y*T is the usual product of y*
and T, is an isomorphism from y* onto X*, and IIT* II = IITII. If T is an
isometric isomorphism, then so is T*.
PROOF. it is clear that T*(y*) E X* whenever y* E Y*, and equally clear
that T* is linear. Notice that (Tx, y*) = (x, T*y') whenever x E X and
y* E Y*. By Proposition 1.10.11 (a),

IITII = sup{ I(Tx, Y*)I : x E Bx, y* E By. }

= sup{ I(x, T*y*)1 : x E B x , y* E By. },

so Proposition 1.10.11 (b) implies that T* is bounded and that IIT* II = IITII.
If y* E Y* and T*y* = 0, then y*y = (T(T~ly), y*) = (T~ly, T*y*) = 0
whenever y E Y, so y* = O. It follows that T* is one-to-one. If x* is
a member of X*, then x*x = (Tx,x*T~l) = (x,T*(x*T~l whenever
x E X, so T*(x*T~l) = x*. Thus, the operator T* maps Y* onto X*.
Since T* is a one-to-one bounded linear operator from one Banach space
onto another, it is an isomorphism by Corollary 1.6.6.
 1.10 Dual Spaces 91

Finally, suppose that T is an isometric isomorphism. Then for each mem-

ber y* of Y*,

IIT*y*11 = sup{ l(x,T*y*)I: x E Bx}

= sup{ I(Tx,y*)I: x E Bx}
= sup{ l(y,y*)1 : y E By}
= Ily*ll,
so T* is also an isometric isomorphism.

The map T* defined in the preceding theorem is called the adjoint of T
and is very important in the study of linear operators. As will be seen in
Section 3.1, every bounded linear operator T from a normed space X into
a normed space Y has a bounded linear adjoint T* defined as in Theo-
rem 1.10.12, and T* is an isomorphism (respectively, an isometric isomor-
phism) from Y* onto X* if and only if T is an isomorphism (respectively,
an isometric isomorphism) from X onto Y. However, it is not true that X
and Y must even be isomorphic when there is some isometric isomorphism
from X* onto Y*. See Exercises 1.111 and 1.112.
The rest of this section is devoted to finding representations of the dual
spaces of subspaces, quotient spaces, and direct sums of normed spaces.
The representation of the dual of a direct sum given in the next theo-
rem is a straightforward generalization of the way in which the dual of
n-dimensional Euclidean space ~ is ~; see Example 1.10.5.

1.10.13 Theorem. Let Xl"'" Xn be normed spaces. Then there is an

isometric isomorphism that identifies (Xl EB ... EB Xn)* with Xi EEl ... EB X~
such that if the element y* of (Xl EB 'EBXn )* is identified with the element
(xi, ... ,x~) of Xi EB ... EB X~, then
n

Y*(XI,""Xn) = LxjXj
j=l

PROOF. For each member (xi, ... ,x~) of Xi EB EBX~, let T(xi, ... ,x~)
be the linear functional on Xl EB ... EB Xn given by the formula
n

((xl, ... ,xn),T(xi,,x~) = LxjXj.

j=l

Then T is the desired isometric isomorphism from Xi EB ... EB X~ onto

(X I EB ... EB Xn)*. There is some checking to be done.
If (xi, ... ,x~) E Xi EB .. EBX~, then it is clear that T(xi, ... ,x~) really is
a linear functional on Xl EB EB X n , and since Cauchy's inequality implies
92 1. Basic Concepts

that
n
1(X1, ... ,xn),T(xr, , x;,)) I ~ L Ilxillllxjll
j=l

whenever (Xl, ... , Xn) E Xl @ ... @ X n , the functional T(xr, ... , x~) is in
(Xl EB .. EBXn)* and has norm no more than II (xr, ... , x~) II It follows that
T is a linear operator from X; EB ... EB X~ into (Xl EB ... EB Xn)* such that
IIT(xi, . .. , x~)11 ::: II (xi, ... , x~) II whenever (xi, .. , x~) E Xi EB ... EB X~.
Now suppose that y* E (Xl EB . EBXn )*. For each j such that j = 1, ... , n,
it is clear that the function x; on Xj defined by the formula x;(x) =
y*(O, ... ,O,x,O, ... ,O), where x is the lh component of the n-tuple, is
a member of X;. Then T( xi, ... , x~) = y*, which shows that T maps
Xi EB EB X~ onto (Xl EB EB Xn)*
Suppose that (xi, .. , x~) E X; EB ... EB X~. All that remains is to
prove that IIT(xi, ... ,x~)11 = II(xi, .. ,x;JII, so it can be assumed that
(xi, ... , x~) i- 0. It is enough to prove that

so it can be assumed that II (xi, ... , x;,) II = 1 since

It has already been shown that IIT(xi, ... ,x~)II::: lI(xi, .. ,x~)11 = 1, and
so it is enough to show that IIT(xi, ... , x~) II ::::: 1. For each j such that j =
1, ... , n, let (y)kl)k=l be a sequence in BXj such that limklx;yyl I = Ilxj II;
because there is for each j and each k a scalar o:jk) such that Io:;k) I = 1 and
xj(o:jklyyl) = IxjyYll, it can be 3.'l5umed that x;yyl 2:: 0 for each j and
each k and so that limk xjyyl = Ilx; II for each j. Let xjkl = Ilx.; IIYJkl for
each j and each k. Then II (X\k l, ... , x~kl) II ::: II (xi, ... ,x~) II = 1 for each k,
and 50
n
1 = L IIxill2
j=l

= I 1m
k
L x-x-
n
. J
(k)
J
j=l

-I
-
( (kl (k)) , T( Xl''
1m Xl , ... , Xn
Xn*))
k

which is the inequality needed to finish the proof.

 1.10 Dual Spaces 93

As was mentioned in Section 1.8, there are a number of different for-

mulas used to define the norm of a direct sum X I ttl ... ttl Xn of normed
spaces that produce norms equivalent to the one given by the formula of
Definition 1.8.1. The problem with using one of these other formulas is that
Theorem 1.10.13 might not hold as stated, for using that formula to define
the norms of both Xl ttl .. ttl Xn and X; ttl ... ttl X~ might not result in
(Xl ttl ... ttl Xn)* being isometrically isomorphic to X; ttl .,. ttl X~ in the
sense of the theorem. See Exercise 1.116.
Some facts about annihilators are needed before the duals of subs paces
and quotient spaces can be discussed.

1.10.14 Definition. Let X be a normed space and let A and B be subsets

of X and X* respectively. Define A-L and -LB (pronounced "A perp" and
"perp B") by the formulas

A-L = {x* : x* E X*, x*x =0 for each x in A};

-LB = {x: x E X, x*x =0 for each x* in B}.

Then A-L is the annihilator of A in X*, while -LB is the annihilator of B

in X.

The sets A-L and 1-B are usually called the annihilators of A and B
respectively, with the qualifying phrases "in X*" and "in X" dropped. In
theory, this could cause confusion when referring to annihilators of subsets
of dual spaces. Since the dual X* of a normed space X is itself a normed
space, both -LB and B-L are defined for each subset B of X*, and both have
the right to be called the annihilator of B. In practice, the context usually
prevents confusion. Where a misunderstanding might occur, the space in
which the annihilator is being taken should be made explicit, either by
adding the qualifying phrase or by using the left-hand or right-hand "perp"
notation.

1.10.15 Proposition. Let X be a normed space and let A and B be

subsets of X and X* respectively.
(a) The sets A1- and -LB are closed subspaces of X* and X respectively.
(b) 1-(A1-) = [AJ.
(c) If A is a subspace of X, then -L(A1-) = A.
PROOF. Since 1-B = n{ ker(x*) : x* E B}, it follows that -LB is a closed
subspace of X. Now 0 E A-L, and if ct is a scalar and x*, y* E A-L, then
ctx*+y* E A1-, so A-L is a subspace of X*. Furthermore, if(z~) is a sequence
in A 1- converging to some z* in X*, then z* E A -L, so the subspace A 1- is
closed. This proves (a).
For (b), first notice that 1-(A-L) is a closed subspace of X that includes A,
so [A] t;;; 1-(A1-). Now suppose that Xo E X \ [AJ. By Corollary l.9.7,
94 1. Basic Concepts

there is an x~ in X such that x(jxo =I- 0 and [AJ ~ ker(x(j). It follows

that Xo rt. .L(A.L), since x(j E A.L and x(jxo =I- 0, so [AJ ;2 .L(A.L). This
finishes the proof of (b). Since [AJ = (A) whenever A ~ X, part (c) follows
immediately.

See Exercise 1.120 for some observations about (.LB).L when B is a sub-
set of the dual space of a normed space. Characterizations of (.LB).L anal-
ogous to those obtained in the above proposition for .L(A.L) will be given
in Proposition 2.6.6.
Suppose that M is a subspace of a normed space X. The restriction of an
x* in X* to M always results in an element of M*. Moreover, if m* E M*,
then the normed space version of the Hahn-Banach extension theorem al-
lows m* to be extended to an element x;". of X*, and the restriction of x;".
to M is m*. Thus, the elements of M* are just the restrictions of the ele-
ments of X* to M, so in one sense M* can be identified with X*. Notice
however that different elements of X* might agree on M, so elements of M*
should really be considered to be equivalence classes of elements of X* , with
two elements of X' considered equivalent if they agree on M. A moments'
thought shows that the resulting equivalence classes are exactly the cosets
x' + M.L that form the elements of X* / M.L. The following result is now
not too surprising.

1.10.16 Theorem. Let M be a subspace of a normed space X. Then there

is an isometric isomorphism that identifies M* with X* / M.L such that if
an element of M* is identified with the element x* + M.L of X* / M.L, then
the action of x* +M.L on M is given by the formula (x* +M.L)(m) = x*m.
PROOF. Let (T(x* + M.L))(m) = x*m whenever x* + M.L E X* /M.L and
m EM; that is, let T: X* / M.L --> M* be the function that maps each
member x* + M.L of X* /M.L to the restriction of x* to M. The goal is
to show that T is an isometric isomorphism from X* / M.L onto M*. Since
two elements xi + M.L and x; + M.L of X* / M.L are equal if and only if xi
and x; agree on M, there is no ambiguity in the definition of T. It is clear
that T is linear. If m* E M* and x;". is a Hahn-Banach extension of m*
to X, then T(x;". + M.L) = m", so T maps X* /M.L onto M*.
Suppose that x* + M.L E X*/M.L and that m* = T(x* + M.L). Since
m" has a Hahn-Banach extension x;". to X and x;". + M.L = x* + M.L,
it can be assumed that Ilx*11 = Ilm*ll. If y* E M.L, then m* and x* + y*
agree on M, so
IIm*1I = sup{ I(x* + y*)(m)1 : m E B M }

:::; sup{ I(x" + y*)(x)1 : x E Bx }

= IIx* +Y*II
It follows that
IIm*11 :::; inf{ Ilx + Y*II : y* E M.L} = II x" + M.LII :::; Ilx*11 = Ilm*ll,
 1.10 Dual Spaces 95

so IIT(x* + M-.l)11 = Ilm*11 = Ilx* + M-.lII. Thus, the map T is an isometric

isomorphism from X* j M -.l onto M*.

Now suppose that M is a closed subspace of a normed space X. Since M*

can be identified in a natural way with a normed space derived from X*,
namely X* jM-.l, it is reasonable to ask if (XjM)* can also be identified
with some normed space related to X*. A logical first step in finding such
an identification is to see how the elements of X* operate on those of X j M
through the formula x*(x + M) = x*x. However, this formula does not
always define x*(x + M) uniquely. If Xl and X2 are different elements of X
such that Xl -X2 EM, and x* is an element of X* that separates Xl from X2
in the sense of Corollary 1.9.9, then Xl + M = X2 + M but X'Xl -I- X*X2.
A bit of reflection reveals that the formula x* (x + M) = x* X uniquely
defines x*(x+M) for all elements x+M of XjM precisely when x* E Mi..
This suggests the following theorem, which is essentially just a corollary of
Theorem 1.7.13.

1.10.17 Theorem. Let M be a closed subspace of a normed space X.

Then there is an isometric isomorphism that identifies (X j M) * with M i.
such that if an element of (X j M)* is identified with the element x* of M i. ,
then the action of x* on XjM is given by the formula x*(x + M) = x*x.
PROOF. Let 7r: X -+ XjM be the quotient map and let T(y*) = Y*7r for
each y* in (XjM)*. It is clear that T is a linear operator from (XjM)*
into Mi.. If x* E M-.l, then M ~ ker(x*), so Theorem 1.7.13 yields a
unique y* in (XjM)* such that x' = Y*7r, and the same theorem guarantees
that II Y*II = II x'll This is just another way to say that T is one-to-one
and onto M-.l and that Ily'll = IITy*11 for each y* in (XjM)*, so T is an
isometric isomorphism from (XjM)' onto Mi.. Notice that if y* E (XjM)*
and x' = Ty*, then y*(x+M) = (Ty*)(x) = x'x whenever x+M E XjM,
as required.

Exercises
1.111 Let c be the Banach space of all convergent sequences of scalars defined
in Exercise 1.25. Prove that c' is isometrically isomorphic to 1' Notice
from Exercise 1.49 that c and Co are not isometrically isomorphic, even
though their dual spaces are.
1.112 Let Y be a dense subspace of a normed space X. Prove that X' and Y'
are isometrically isomorphic. Use this to give an example of two normed
spaces X and Y such that X' and Y' are isometrically isomorphic, even
though X and Yare not even isomorphic.
1.113 Suppose that X is a complex normed space and that x EX'. Prove that
x is a norm-attaining complex-linear functional if and only if its real part
is a norm-attaining real-linear functional.
96 1. Basic Concepts

1.114 Characterize the elements of Co that are norm-attaining. Conclude that

the norm-attaining functionals form a dense subset of Co. (This conclu-
sion is a special case of the Bishop-Phelps subrefiexivity theorem of Sec-
tion 2.11.)

1.115 (a) Either prove that every element of t'i is a norm-attaining functional
or display one that is not.
(b) Repeat (a) with t'i replaced by t'~.

1.116 (a) Let the direct sum Xl EB ... EB Xn of normed spaces Xl, ... , Xn be
given one of the norms of Exercise 1.88. Denote this norm by II lip,
Find a norm on X~EB" 'EBX; that makes the map T: XiEB" 'EBX; - t
(Xl EB .. EB Xn)* in the proof of Theorem 1.10.13 into an isometric
isomorphism.
(b) Suppose that the norm II 111 had been used instead of 11112 for the
norm of all direct sums of normed spaces. Let X be the real Banach
space JR. Show that (X EB X EB X)* is not isometrically isomorphic
to X* EB X' EB X*. (Notice that this requires more than just showing
that the mapping T defined in the proof of Theorem 1.10.13 is not
an isometric isomorphism.)
1.117 Let X and Y be normed spaces.
(a) Suppose that x* E X' and y E Y. Define Tx',y: X - t Y by the
formula Tx"Y(x) = (xx)y. Prove that Tx',y E B(X, Y) and that
IITx',yll ~ Ilx*IIIIYII
(b) Suppose that Y =1= {a}. Prove that B(X, Y) has a closed subspace
isometrically isomorphic to X*.
(c) Suppose that X =1= {o}. Prove that B(X, Y) has a closed subspace
isometrically isomorphic to Y.
(d) Suppose that X =1= {a} and Y is not a Banach space. Prove that
B(X, Y) is not a Banach space. (See the comments following Theo-
rem 1.4.8.)
1.118 Let X and Y be normed spaces. Prove that B(X, YO) is isometrically
isomorphic to B(Y, X*).
1.119 Exchanging the roles of X and X' in Theorem 1.9.10 results in the fol-
lowing statement, which will be called statement 1.9.10*:
Suppose that X is a normed space. Let A be a nonempty subset of X*
and let {c x ' : x" E A} be a corresponding collection of scalars. Then the
following are equivalent.
(1) There is an Xo in X such that x'xo = Cx " for each x* in A.
(2) There is a nonnegative real number M such that

for each linear combination nlxi + ... + nnX~ of elements of A.

If (2) holds, then Xo can be chosen in (1) so that Ilxoll ::: M.
 1.11 The Second Dual and Reflexivity 97

Helly's theorem is of course a weakened version of statement 1.9.10*.

The purpose of this exercise is to show that statement 1.9.10* is in gen-
eral false, and that in fact Helly's theorem is the best result that can
be obtained in this direction, even for Banach spaces, without putting
additional restrictions on X. See also Exercise 1.134.
(a) Find a Banach space X, a countable subset A of X*, and a cor-
responding collection of scalars satisfying (2) but not (1) in state-
ment 1.9.10. (It can be done with co.) Thus, the requirement in
Helly's theorem that the collection of functionals be finite cannot in
general be relaxed.
(b) Find a Banach space X, a nonempty finite subset A of X, and
a corresponding collection of scalars satisfying (2) for some M but
for which Ilxoll > M whenever Xo satisfies (1). Thus, the to in the
conclusion of Helly's theorem is in general necessary.
1.120 Let X be a normed space and let B be a subset of X'.
(a) Prove that ~(B~) S;; (~B)~.
For the rest of this exercise, let X = Co and let B be the subset of X* that
corresponds to the set {(an) : (an) E t\, En an = O} when Co and 1
are identified in the usual way.
(b) Show that ~(B~) = B.
(c) Show that (~B).l = X*. Thus, the inclusion in (a) may be proper,
even when B is a closed subspace of X*.
1.121 Let K be a compact Hausdorff space and let T: rca(K) -- C(K)* be the
isometric isomorphism of Example 1.10.6.
(a) A linear functional F on C(K) is said to be positive if F(f) 2': 0
whenever f is nonnegative-real-valued. Define a relation on C(K)*
by declaring that xi :::S X2 whenever X2 - xi is positive. Show that
this relation is a partial order.
(b) Define a relation on rca(K) by declaring that J.l1 :::S J.l2 whenever
/12 - fl 1 is nonnegative-real-valued. Show that this relation is a partial
order.
(c) Suppose that /11, /12 E rca( K). Prove that /11 :::S J.l2 if and only if
T/11 :::S T/12.

1.11 The Second Dual and Reflexivity

1.11.1 Definition. Let X be a normed space. The second dual or double
dual or bidual of X is the dual space (X*) * of X* and is denoted by X**.
Similarly, the third dual of X is (X**)* and is denoted by X*** or X(3).
The nth dual x(n) of X is then defined inductively to be (x(n-l)*.

1.11.2 Example. Since Co is isometrically isomorphic to t\ and fi is iso-

metrically isomorphic to f=, it follows from Theorem 1.10.12 that is coo
98 1. Basic Concepts

isometrically isomorphic to Coo. Similarly, if 1 < p < 00 then C;* is isomet-

rically isomorphic to Cp These isometric isomorphisms are usually treated
as identifications by saying that c~* is Coo and that C;* is Cp if 1 < p < 00.
However, see the warning note that ends this section.

Let Xo be an element of a normed space X and let Q(xo) be the map

from X* into the scalar field given by the formula (Q(xo))(x*) = x*xo. It is
easy to check that Q(xo) is a linear functional on X'. By Theorem 1.10.9,

sup{ I(Q(xo))(x*)I: x* E H x } = sup{ Ix'xol: x* E B x } = Ilxoll,

so Q(xo) E X** and IIQ(xo)11 = Ilxoll. If Q(x) is defined similarly for each x
in X, then the resulting mapping Q: X --+ X** is clearly linear and so is
an isometric isomorphism. Furthermore, the subspace Q(X) of the Banach
space X** is closed if and only if it is complete, which happens if and only
if X is complete. All of this is summarized in the following proposition.

1.11.3 Proposition. Let X be a normed space and let (Q(x)) (x*) = x'x
whenever x E X and x* E X*. Then Q(x) E X'* whenever x E X,
and Q is an isometric isomorphism from X into X**. Furthermore, the
subspace Q(X) of X** is closed if and only if X is a Banach space.

1. 11.4 Definition. The map Q in the preceding proposition is called the

natural map or canonical embedding map from X into X**.

Recall that if S is a metric space and C is a complete metric space that

includes a dense suhset isometric to S, then C is called a completion of S.
As is shown by the proof of the next theorem, the natural map from a
normed space into its second dual can be used to complete an incomplete
normed space to a Banach space. This theorem also says, roughly speaking,
that such a completion is unique and has the same dual space as the original
normed space.

1.11.5 Theorem. Let X be a normed space. Then there is a Banach

space Y and an isometric isomorphism T: X --+ Y such that T(X) is dense
in Y. Furthermore, the space X' is isometrically isomorphic to Y*. If Z is
another Banach space such that there is an isometric isomorphism from X
onto a dense subset of Z, then Z is isometrically isomorphic to Y.
PROOF. Let Q be the natural map from X into X" and let Y = Q(X).
Since X" is a Banach space, so is its closed subspace Y, and so Q is
an isometric isomorphism from X onto a dense subspace of the Banach
space Y.
Define S: Y* --+ X* by the formula S(y*) = y*Q; that is, let (x, S(y')) =
(Qx, yO) whenever x E X and y* E Y*. It is clear that S is linear. If
x' E X*, then the bounded linear functional x'Q-l on Q(X) has a bounded
 1.11 The Second Dual and Reflexivity 99

linear extension y* to Y, and Sy' = x'. Thus, the operator S maps Y*

onto X'. If y* E Y*, then it follows from the continuity of y' and the
density of Q(Bx) in By that

Ily*11 = sup{ I(Qx,y*)I: x E Bx} = sup{ l(x,Sy*)I: x E Bx} = IISy'II,

so S is an isometric isomorphism from y* onto X*.
Finally, suppose that R is an isometric isomorphism from X onto a dense
subspace of a Banach space Z. Then RQ-l is an isometric isomorphism
from the dense subspace Q(X) of Y into Z, and so by Theorem 1.9.1 can
be extended to an isometric isomorphism Ro from Y into Z. Since Ro (Y)
is a Banach space that includes the dense subspace R(X) of Z, it follows
that Ra(Y) = Z, which completes the proof.

There are other ways to prove that every incomplete normed space can
be completed to a Banach space. See Exercise 1.123 for a proof that requires
quite a bit more work than that of Theorem 1.11.5, but has the advantage
that it could have been given almost as soon as Banach spaces and isometric
isomorphisms had been defined.
Suppose that X is a finite-dimensional normed space. It is a standard
fact from linear algebra that the space of all linear functionals on X has the
same finite dimension as X itself. Since each of these linear functionals is
bounded, the spaces X and X* have the same dimension, so the dimension
of x(n) equals that of X for each positive integer n. Since the natural
map Q from X into X** is one-to-one, its range has the same dimension
as X, which implies that Q actually maps X onto X**.

1.11.6 Definition. (H. Hahn, 1927 [99]). A normed space X is reflexive if

the natural map from X into X** is onto X**.

Actually, Hahn called such spaces regular. The more descriptive term
reflexive was coined by Edgar R. Lorch [158] in 1939.

1.11.7 Theorem. Every reflexive normed space is a Banach space.

PROOF. Every reflexive normed space is isomorphic to a Banach space,
namely, its own second dual, and so is itself a Banach space.

Some authors call an incomplete normed space reflexive if its completion

is reflexive in the sense of Definition 1.11.6. The term prerefiexive is also
used for such a space.

1.11.8 Proposition. Every normed space isomorphic to a reflexive normed

space is itself reflexive.
PROOF. Let T be an isomorphism from a reflexive normed space X onto a
normed space Y, and let T*(y*) = y*T and T"(x") = x*'T* for each y*
100 1. Basic Concepts

in Y* and each x" in X**. By Theorem 1.10.12, the maps T* and T**
are isomorphisms from Y* and X** onto X* and Y" respectively. Let Qx
and Qy be the natural maps from X and Y into X** and Y** respec-
tively. Fix an element y*' of Y** and let x be the element of X for which
T**Qxx = y**. If y* E Y*, then

(y*, y**) = (y*, T**Qxx) = (T*y*, Qxx) = (x, T*y*) = (Tx, y*),

so y** = Qy (Tx). Thus, the map Qy is onto Y**.

Actually, a Banach space is reflexive whenever it is the image of a reflexive
normed space under any bounded linear map whatever, whether or not the
map is an isomorphism. That fact appears below as Corollary 1.11.22, but
Proposition 1.11.8 is used in it~ proof.
The discussion preceding the definition of reflexivity proves the following
result.

1.11.9 Theorem. Every finite-dimensional normed space is reflexive.

Let n be a positive integer. As an application of Theorem 1.11.9, here is

a proof that (i~)* can be identified with i'1 as claimed in Example 1.10.5.
Let i~ be identified with (il)* as in that example, with T: ~ -> (i'1)*
being the identifying isometric isomorphism. Then
n

((a1, ... , an), T(Pl, ... ,Pn) = L ajpj

j=1

whenever (a1, ... ,a r ,) E i'1 and (Pl, ... ,Pn) E i~. By Theorem 1.10.12,
the map T* given by the formula T*(x**) = x**T is an isometric isomor-
phism from (i'1)** onto (i~)*. Since i1 is reflexive, the natural map Q
from i1 into (il)** is onto (i1)**' so T*Q is an isometric isomorphism
from f onto (~)*. Whenever (aI, ... ,an) E i'1 and (PI, ... ,Pn) E i~,

((PI, ... , Pn), T*Q( aI, ... , an)) = (T(P1, ... , Pn), Q( aI, ... , an))
= ((a1, ... ,an ),T(P1, ... ,Pn)
n

so T*Q identifies il with (i~)* in the desired way.

Notice that all the preceding argument really says is that since i~
"is" (i1)* and il "is" (il)**' it follows that il "is" (~)*. The role of
the isometric isomorphisms Q, T, and T* is to make the uses of the word
"is" precise.
 1.11 The Second Dual and Reflexivity 101

1.11.10 Theorem. Suppose that 1 < p < 00. If (D,E,J.L) is a positive

measure space, then Lp(D, E, J.L) is reflexive. In particular, the space fp is
reflexive.
PROOF. Let q be conjugate to p, and let Lp = Lp(D, E, J.L) and Lq =
Lq(D, E, J.L). Let Tq: Lq ~ L; and Tp: Lp ~ L~ be the usual isomet-
ric isomorphisms as in Example 1.10.2; see also the paragraph following
that example. Let Q be the natural map from Lp into L;*. Suppose that
x** E L;*. Then x**Tq E L~, so there is an f in Lp such that x'*Tq = Tp(f).
If x* E L;, then there is a gin Lq such that x* = Tq(g), so

x**(x*) = x**Tq(g) = (Tp(f)) (g) = in gf d{L = (Tq(g)) (f) = x'(f) .

It follows that x** = Q f, so Q is onto L;*.

With (D, E, J.L) as in the preceding theorem, it will be seen in Exam-
ple 1.11.24 that L1 (D, E, J.L) is reflexive if and only if it is finite-dimensional,
and similarly for Lcx,(D, E,J.L).
It is time to give an example of a nonreflexive Banach space. The follow-
ing result is a useful tool for doing so.

1.11.11 Proposition. Let X be a reflexive normed space. Then every

member of X' is norm-attaining.
PROOF. Let x* be a member of X'. By Theorem 1.10.9, there is an x"
in Bx" such that Ix"x*1 = Ilx*ll. If Q: X ~ X" is the natural map, then
there is an x in Bx such that Qx = x'*, and so Ilx*11 = Ix'*x"1 = Ix*xl .

1.11.12 Example. By Example 1.10.10, the dual of Co has a member that

is not norm-attaining, so Co is not reflexive.

For Banach spaces, the converse of Proposition 1.11.11 is true. That

is, if a Banach space X has the property that every member of X* is
norm-attaining, then X is necessarily reflexive. This result, called James's
theorem, is proved in Section 1.13.
Just as the dual space of a subspace of a normed space can be char-
acterized in terms of the annihilator of that subspace, it is possible to
characterize the second dual of the subspace in terms of its second order
annihilator.

1.11.13 Definition. Suppose that A is a subset of a normed space X. The

sets A .Ll , A 1...1..1, . .. are defined inductively to be the respective subsets
(A 1.. )1.. , (A 1..1.. ) 1.. , ... of the respective normed spaces X** , X*** , ... and are
called the annihilators of the second, third, ... order of A, respectively. The
abbreviation A1..(3) is sometimes used for A1..1..1.., with a similar convention
for annihilators of higher order.
102 l. Basic Concepts

1.11.14 Proposition. Let M be a subspace of a normed space X. Then

there is an isometric isomorphism that identifies M** with M.1.1 such that
if an element of M** is identified with the element m.1.l of M.1.1 and M*
is identified with X* /M.1 as in Theorem 1.10.16, then the action of m.l.1
on M* is given by the formula m.1.1 (x* + M.1) = m.l.1 x* .
PROOF. With X*, M.l, and M.1.1 playing the respective roles of X, M,
and M.1 in Theorem 1.10.17, let S be the isometric isomorphism from M.1.1
onto (X* / M.1)* produced by that theorem, so that
(x* + M\ Sm.11.) = m.11. x *

whenever m1.1. E M 1.1. and x* + M 1. E X* / M 1.. Let T be the isometric

isomorphism from X* /M.1 onto M* of Theorem 1.10.16, so that

(rn,T(x* + M.1)) = x*m

whenever x* + M.1 E X* / M.1 and m EM, and let T* be the resulting

isometric isomorphism from M** onto (X* /M.l)* guaranteed by Theo-
rem 1.10.12. Then (T*)-lS is the desired isometric isomorphism from M.l.l
onto M**. Indeed, if m1..1 E M.11. and x* + M.1 E X* / M.1, then
(T(x* + M1.), (T*)-lSm.1.1) = (x* + M\ T*(T*)-lSm.1.1)
= (x* + M.1, Sm1.1.)
= m.1.1 x *,

as required.

As is suggested by the preceding proposition and Theorem 1.10.16, there
is a close relationship between the higher order duals of a subspace of
a normed space and the higher order annihilators of the subspace. See
Exercise 1.127.
When two normed spaces are isometrically isomorphic in some natural
way, it is common practice to treat the spaces as if they were the same space
with two different sets of labels for its elements, and then substitute one
of the spaces and its elements' labels for the other space and its elements'
labels in some expression or argument. Given this "substitution principle,"
Proposition 1.11.14 becomes rather obvious. When M is a subspace of a
normed space X, Theorems 1.10.17 and 1.10.16 provide natural ways to
identify M1..1 with (X* /M.1)* and X' /M1. with M*, so that M.1.1 can be
treated as the dual space of M* , with the action of the elements of M 1.1. on
those of M* given by the formula that shows how the elements of M 1.1. act
on those of X* / M.1. The proof of Proposition 1.11.14 amounts to nothing
more than combining the appropriate isometric isomorphisms in the correct
order to make this argument rigorous.
This substitution principle is often used without comment in the lit-
erature to shorten an argument by suppressing portions of the argument
 1.11 The Second Dual and Reflexivity 103

that amount only to pushing around identification maps in a fairly obvious

way. This becomes especially helpful when a host of such identifying maps
would be required, as is not uncommon with certain types of arguments in
Banach space theory. The best attitude to take toward an argument using
this substitution principle is that it is actually just a sketch of an argument
whose details can be readily filled in by the concerned reader with the help
of the following observations.
1. Most of the important properties that normed spaces can have, such
as completeness and reflexivity, are preserved by isometric isomor-
phisms.
2. There are specific results saying that when a normed space is de-
fined by some particular expression involving other normed spaces,
and some of the normed spaces in the expression are replaced by
others isometrically isomorphic to those replaced, then the result-
ing normed space is isometrically isomorphic to the original one. See
Corollary 1.8.13 for an example of such a result.
3. When an isometric isomorphism T from a normed space X onto a
normed space Y is treated as a natural way to identify the two
spaces, the isometric isomorphisms T*: Y* -> X*, T**: X** -> Y** ,
T***: Y*** -> X***, and so forth formed by repeated applications of
Theorem 1.10.12 can be considered natural identifications of the cor-
responding duals, second duals, and higher-order duals of X and Y.
4. With T, X, and Y as in the preceding item, any linear operator L
from Y into a normed space Z can be treated as a linear opera-
tor from X into Z by identifying L with LT. The operator LT is
bounded, open, one-to-one, onto Z, an isomorphism, or an isometric
isomorphism if and only if L has that same property, which further
justifies the identification. Analogous remarks can be made for any
operator with domain X or Y or range in X or Y by preceding or
following that operator with T or T- 1 .
This substitution principle is sometimes extended to normed spaces that
are only isomorphic rather than isometrically isomorphic. In any case, care
should be taken not to use the principle in situations to which it does
not apply. For example, the principle does not hold for denominators of
quotient spaces, since it is quite possible for a Banach space X to have
two isometrically isomorphic closed subspaces Y and Z such that XjY
and XjZ are not even isomorphic. See Exercise 1.85.
Suppose that M is a subspace of a normed space X and that M** is
identified with Ml.l. as in Proposition 1.11.14. Let QM and Qx be the
natural maps from M and X respectively into their second duals. Then M
is reflexive if and only if QM(M) = Ml.l.. It is a simple but remarkably
useful fact that this statement remains true if Q M is replaced by Q x and
104 1. Basic Concepts

M 1-1- is given its usual meaning as a subspace of X**. One of the most
important theorems about reflexive spaces follows almost immediately.

1.11.15 Lemma. Let M be a subspace of a normed space X and let Q

be the natural map from X into X**. Then M is reflexive if and only if
Q(M) = M1-1-.
PROOF. This proof uses the substitution principle discussed above. Let M*
and M** be identified with X* / M 1- and M.l1- respectively in the usual
ways. Suppose first that M is reflexive. Let m.l1- be an element of M1-1-
and let m** be rn1-1- viewed as a member of N[**. Then there is an m in M
such that for each x* in X*,

so Qm = m1-.l. This shows that Q(M) d M1-1-. The reverse inclusion is

easy to check, so Q(M) = M.l.l.
Now suppose conversely that Q(M) = M1-1-. Let m** be an element
of M*' and let m1-.l be the corresponding element of M .l.l. Then there is
an m in M such that Qm = m.l1-, so for each member x' + M 1- of M*,

It follows that the natural map from Minto M** is onto M*', so M is
reflexive.

1.11.16 Theorem. (B. J. Pettis, 1938 [181]). Every closed subspace of a

reflexive normed space is reflexive.
PROOF. Let M be a closed subspace of a reflexive normed space X and
let Q be the natural map from X onto X**. It is clear that x E .l (M 1- )
if and only if Qx E M1-.l, so Q(.l(M1-)) = M1-1-. But .l(M1-) = M by
Proposition 1.10.15 (c), so an appeal to the lemma completes the proof.

1.11.17 Corollary. (B. J. Pettis, 1938 [181]). If X is a Banach space, then

X is reflexive if and only if X* is reflexive.
PROOF. Suppose that X is reflexive. Let Qx and Qx- be the natural maps
from X and X* into X** and X*** respectively. Let x'** be an element
of X***. If x'* E X" and x = Q)/ x**, then

x - ("'Q
(x " ,x ***\1-- (Q xX,X ***) - (x,x **'Q) x **),
x,x

so x*" = Qx- (x'Qx). Since Qx- is onto X***, the space X* is reflexive.
Conversely, suppose that X* is reflexive. Then both X** and its closed
subspace Qx(X) are reflexive, so X is reflexive since it is isomorphic
to Qx(X).
 1.11 The Second Dual and Reflexivity 105

1.11.18 Corollary. If X is a reflexive normed space and M is a closed

subspace of X, then XjM is reflexive.
PROOF. The space Mol is reflexive since it is a closed subspace of the
reflexive space X*. Since (XjM)* ~ Mol, the space (XjM)* is reflexive.
As a Banach space with a reflexive dual, the space X j M is reflexive.

1.11.19 Corollary. Reflexivity is a three-space property.

PROOF. Let M be a closed subspace of a normed space X such that both M
and XjM are reflexive. It suffices to prove that X is reflexive. Let Q be the
natural map from X into X** and let x** be a member of X**. It suffices to
prove that x** E Q(X). Let T be the usual isometric isomorphism from MJ...
onto (XjM)*. Since x**T- 1 E (XjM)** and XjM is teflexive, there is an
x + M in Xj M such that whenever mol E Mol,
(mol,x**) = (Tmol,x**T-I) = (x + M,Tmol) = {x, mol) = (mol, Qx).
It follows that x** - Qx E Molol. By Lemma 1.11.15, there is an m in M
such that Qm = XU - Qx, so Q(m + x) = x**.

1.11.20 Corollary. Suppose that XI, ... , Xn are normed spaces and that
X = Xl EEl EEl X n . Then X is reflexive if and only if each Xj is reflexive.
PROOF. It can clearly be assumed that n 2:: 2, and in fact that X =
Xl EEl X 2 ; an induction argument based on the fact that Xl ... Xn ~
(Xl EEl EEl X n - l ) EEl Xn when n 2:: 3 then gives the general case. Let M =
{(XI'O) : Xl E Xl}' a closed subspace of X isometrically isomorphic to Xl
by Proposition 1.8.3. The quotient space Xj M is isometrically isomorphic
to X 2 by Proposition 1.8.5, so it is enough to prove that X is reflexive if
and only if both M and X j M are reflexive. This follows from the preceding
theorem and corollaries.

1.11.21 Corollary. If a Banach space X is the internal direct sum of its

closed subspaces M I , ... , M n , then X is reflexive if and only if each M j is
reflexive.
PROOF. Just notice that X ~ MI EEl EEl Mn by Proposition 1.8.10 (b),
then apply Corollary 1.11.20.

1.11.22 Corollary. Let X be a reflexive normed space and Y a Banach

space. If there is a bounded linear operator from X onto Y, then Y is
reflexive.
PROOF. Suppose that T is a bounded linear operator from X onto Y. Then
Y ~ Xjker(T), and Xjker(T) is reflexive by Corollary 1.11.18.

Many Banach spaces can be shown to be nonreflexive by beginning with

the nonreflexive space Co and repeatedly applying Theorem 1.11.16 and its
corollaries.
106 1. Basic Concepts

1.11.23 Example. Since R1 and Roo are isometrically isomorphic to Co

and co'respectively, neither is reflexive. Another proof that Roo is not re-
flexive comes from noticing that it has Co as a nonreflexive closed subspace.

1.11.24 Example. Suppose that (0,2:, f.L) is a positive measure space and
that 1 ::; p ::; 00. If Lp(O, 2:, j1) is infinite-dimensional, then Rp is isometri-
cally embedded in itj see Exercise 1.129. It follows immediately from the
nonreflexivity of Rl that L 1 (0,2:,j1) is reflexive if and only if it is finite-
dimensional, and similarly for L oo UJ,2:,f.L) because of the nonreflexivity
of Roo. In particular, the spaces LdO, 1] and Loo[O, 1] are not reflexive.

1.11.25 Example. Suppose that K is a compact Hausdorff space contain-

ing an infinite number of points. Let (xn) be a sequence of distinct points
in K. For each n, let bn be the Borel measure on K such that bn(A) = 1
if Xn E A and bn(A) = 0 otherwise. Define a map T: Rl ---> rca(K) by
the formula T(a n) = L:n anb". Then T can be shown to embed Rl iso-
metrically into rca(K)j see Exercise 1.125. Since rca(K) has a nonreflexive
closed subspace, it is not reflexive. Since C(K)* is isometrically isomorphic
to rca(K), the space C(K) is also not reflexive.
The argument just given is ultimately based on Proposition 1.11.11, since
that result was used to show that Co is not reflexive and therefore that the
space Rl isometrically isomorphic to Co is not reflexive. The nonreflexivity
of C(K) can also be obtained directly from Proposition 1.11.11. Let (xn)
and (b n ) be as above. Since K is compact, there is an Xf in K such that
each neighborhood of Xf contains infinitely many terms of (xn). It can be
assumed that Xf = Xl. Let f.L = -2- 1 b1 + L:~=2 2- n bn . It is easy to check
that 11f.L11 = 1, from which it follows that IJK f df.L1 :S 1 whenever f E BC(K)
It will now be shown that this last inequality is always strict. Suppose to
the contrary that there is an fo in BCCK) such that IJK fo df.L1 = 1. There
is a scalar a such that 1001 = 1 and J K afo dj1 = IJKfodf.Ll, so it can be
assumed that JK fo df.L = 1. Since Ifo(x)1 :S 1 for each X in K, and

it follows that fO(Xl) = -1 and fo(xn) = +1 if n ::0: 2. But this cannot be,
since it would imply that there is a neighborhood of Xl on which the real
part of fo is negative and in which there are infinitely many points at which
fo takes on the value 1. Thus, if f E BC(K) , it must be that IJK f dill < 1,
so 11, viewed as a member of C(K)', is not norm-attaining. The space C(K)
is therefore not reflexive, and so the space rca(K) isomorphic to C(K)* is
also not reflexive.

This section ends with a word of caution about the definition of reflex-
ivity. Since the natural map from a normed space into its second dual is
 1.11 The Second Dual and Reflexivity 107

an isometric isomorphism, it is often useful to think of the space as being

identified with a subspace of its second dual. Having done this, it is tempt-
ing to define a normed space X to be reflexive if "X = X**," and in fact
this definition appears in print in more than one place. There is nothing
objectionable about this if it is understood that "X = X**" means that
the natural map, not just some map, is an isometric isomorphism from X
onto X**. Stefan Banach himself inadvertently created a research problem
by being imprecise in this very situation.
The prototype of all Banach space textbooks is Banach's own TheoTie des
Operations Lineaires [13], published in 1932. The following result appears
on page 189 of that book, reproduced here in translation using modern
terminology.
Theorem 13. Given a separable Banach space E such that every
sequence of elements of E that is bounded in norm has a subsequence
weakly convergent to an element of E, the space E is isometrically
isomorphic to the space E** (the dual of E*).
Though some of these terms have yet to be defined here, their meanings
are not important at the moment. An examination of Banach's proof of
this theorem shows that the isometric isomorphism he had in mind is the
natural map from E into E**, so the conclusion of Banach's theorem is
that E must be reflexive. In a note on that theorem given on page 243 of
Banach's book, he made the following statement.
The converse of Theorem 12, p. 189, is obviously false, but it is not
known if it is the same for the converse of Theorem 13, p. 189, that
is, if isometric isomorphism of the separable Banach space E and the
space E** implies, yes or no, the existence in every bounded sequence
of elements of E a subsequence weakly convergent to an element of E.
Though Banach did not insist that the isometric isomorphism be the natu-
ral map, that is probably what he meant. Nevertheless, those who took up
Banach's implied challenge to prove or disprove the converse of his Theo-
rem 13 first had to figure out whether the converse is supposed to contain
this additional hypothesis. This led naturally to the question of whether
or not it really makes any difference. That is, if there is some isometric
isomorphism from a separable Banach space E onto E** , must E be reflex-
ive? R. C. James [110] finally settled this last question in the negative in a
1951 paper by constructing a nonreflexive separable Banach space J such
that there is an isometric isomorphism from J onto J**. This space was
also used to settle several other long-standing open questions in Banach
space theory, as will be seen in Section 4.5. Incidentally, in Section 1.13,
and again in Section 2.8, it will be shown that the converse of Banach's
Theorem 13 is true if the isometric isomorphism is required to be the nat-
ural map, and in fact that the property that every bounded sequence has a
weakly convergent subsequence actually characterizes the reflexive spaces
108 1. Basic Concepts

among all normed spaces. The converse of Banach's Theorem 13 is there-

fore false as Banach stated it, with J being a counterexample. It pays to
be careful about the definition of reflexivity.

Exercises

1.122 Give a proof of Theorem 1.10.8 based on Proposition 1.11.3.

1.123 Let X be an incomplete normed space. Supply the details for the following
proof that X can be completed to a Banach space.
(a) It is a standard fact that if S is an incomplete metric space, then
there is an isometry from S onto a dense subset of some complete
metric space; see, for example, [65] or [172]. Let T be an isometry
from X onto a dense subset of a complete metric space Y. It is
enough to give Y a vector space structure and a Banach norm such
that T is a linear mapping and the metric of Y is induced by that
norm.
(b) Define an addition of elements of Y and a multiplication of elements
of Y by scalars as follows. Whenever y, z E Y and a E IF, let (w n )
and (Xn) be sequences in X such that T(wn ) --> y and T(xn) --> z,
then let y + z = limn T(wn + Xn) and ay = limn T(awn ). These
operations are unambiguously defined.
(c) The set Y is a vector space over IF with the operations defined in (b).
(d) The map T is a linear operator from X into Y.
(e) Let d be the metric of Y. If Yl, Y2, Z E Y, then d(Yl + Z, Y2 + z) =
d(Yl, Y2); in particular, d(Yl - Y2, 0) = d(Yl, Y2).
(f) Define 11lly: Y --> lR by the formula lIylly = d(y, 0). Then 11lly is a
norm on Y such that the metric induced by 11lly is d, so 11lly is a
Banach norm.
1.124 Use Proposition 1.11.11 to prove that 1[0,1] is not reflexive.
1.125 Prove that the map T in Example 1.11.25 embeds I!l isometrically into
rca(K).
1.126 Criticize the following "proof" that 2[0,1] is reflexive: Since the dual of
2[0,1] is 2[0,1], it immediately follows that (2[0,1])** = 2[0,1], so
2[0,lJ is reflexive.
1.127 Let M be a subspace of a normed space X.
(a) For each positive integer n, find a normed space expressed in terms of
Ml.(n) to which the nth dual M(n) of M is isometrically isomorphic.
(b) Suppose that M is closed. For each positive integer n, find a normed
space expressed in terms of Ml.(n) to which (XIM)(n) is isometri-
cally isomorphic.
1.128 Suppose that M is a subspace of a Banach space X and that both M
and Ml. are reflexive. Prove that X is reflexive.
 1.12 Separability 109

1.129 Suppose that (o,~, p,) is a positive measure space, that 1 ~ P ~ 00, and
that Lp(O,~, p,) is infinite-dimensional.
(a) Prove that there is a sequence of disjoint members of ~ each having
nonzero measure, and that if p ::/= 00, then the sets can be selected
so that each has finite measure.
(b) Prove that f.p is isometrically embedded in Lp(O,~, p,).
1.130 Complete the discussion begun in Example 1.11.25 by examining the re-
flexivity or nonreflexivity of C(K) and rca(K) when K is a compact
Hausdorff space with a finite number of points.
1.131 Let X and Y be Banach spaces. Prove that if X is reflexive, then X"", Y
if and only if X' "'" y'. Prove the corresponding statement for isometric
isomorphisms. Compare this to the result of Exercise 1.111.
1.132 Let X be a Banach space. Show that the kernels ofthe finite-rank bounded
linear operators with domain X are either all reflexive or all nonreflexive.
1.133 Prove or disprove: If X is a reflexive normed space and Y is a normed
space such that there is a bounded linear operator from X onto Y, then
the completion of Y must be reflexive.
1.134 Let X be a normed space and let statement 1.9.10' be as in Exercise 1.119.
Prove that statement 1.9.10* is true for X if and only if X is reflexive.
In particular, show that if X is not reflexive then there is a subset A
of X' and a corresponding collection of scalars satisfying (2) but not (1)
in statement 1.9.10'.

1.12 Separability
Recall that a topological space is separable if it has a countable dense
subset. In this section some of the special properties of separable normed
spaces are explored. The first order of business is to determine which of the
most commonly encountered normed spaces are separable. For this purpose,
the following result is useful.

1.12.1 Proposition.

(a) If A is a countable subset of a normed space, then [AJ is separable.

(b) If a metric space X has an uncountable subset B such that d( x, y) 2: f
for some positive f and each pair of distinct elements x and y of B,
then X is not separable.
PROOF. For (a), it can be assumed that A =I- 0. Since a dense subset
of (A) is also a dense subset of [AJ, it is enough to prove that (A) is
separable. Let lQo be the rationals (if IF = JR) or the complex numbers
with rational real and imaginary parts (if IF = C). Let S be the subset
of (A) consisting of all linear combinations of elements of A formed using
110 1. Basic Concepts

only scalar coefficients from Qo. It is easy to check that S is countable.

Suppose that Xl, ... ,X m E A and D:l," . ,D:m E IF. For each j such that
j = 1, ... , m there is a sequence (D:j.n)~l in Qo converging to D:j, and it
follows from the continuity of the vector space operations that the sequence
(D:l,nXl + ... + D:m,nXm);;"=l in S converges to D:IXI + ... + D:mX m . Thus,
the countable set S is dense in (A), which proves (a).
For (b), just notice that X has an uncountable collection of nonempty
disjoint opcn subsets, namely, the open balls with radius E/2 and center
in B. Since no countable subset of X can intersect each of these open sets,
the space X is not separable.

1.12.2 Example. The classical Weierstrass approximation theorem says

that the polynomials are dense in C[O, 1]; see, for example, [19] or [201]. For
each nonnegative integer n, let in be the member of e[O, 1] given by the
formulas io(t) = 1 and in(t) = t n if n i= 0. It follows from the Weierstrass
approximation theorem that [{ in: n = 0,1,2, ... }] = e[O, 1], so e[O, 1] is
separable.

1.12.3 Example. If 1 ~ P < 00, then Lp[O, 1] is separable. One countable

dense subset is the collection of all functions of the form

rn=O

such that n is a nonnegative integer, each Tm is rational (if IF = JR) or

complex with rational real and imaginary parts (if IF = C), and I[a,b) is
the indicator function of the interval [a, b); see, for example, [242]. Another
countable dense subset is found by recalling that the continuous functions
on [0,1] are dense in Lp[O, 1]; see, for example, [202]. If D is a countable
subset of e[O, 1] dense in e[O, 1] with its usual norm, then D is easily seen
to be dense in e[O, 1] with the Lp[O, 1] norm, and so D is dense in Lp[O, 1].
The separability of Lp[O, 1] thus follows from that of e[O, 1].

1.12.4 Example. The space Loo[O, 1] is not separable. To see this, suppose

functions of intervals of the form [0, t], where

that B is the collection of all functions with domain [0,1] that are indicator
~ t ~ 1. Then B is an
uncountable subset of Loo[O, 1] such that II! - gll= = 1 whenever! and 9
are different members of B.

1.12.5 Example. For each t in [0, 1], let Dt be the Borel measure on [0, 1]
such that Ot(A) = 1 if tEA and Ot(A) = otherwise. Then {Dt : t E [0,1] }
is an uncountable subset of rca[O, 1]. Since IIOtl - Dt211 = 2 if tl f= t2, the
space rca[O, 1] is not separable.

1.12.6 Example. The space Co is separable, sincc Co = [{ en: n EN}].

 1.12 Separability 111

1.12.7 Example. If 1 S; p < 00, then Rp = [{en: n EN}] and so

is separable. However, the space ROC) is not separable. To see this, let B
be the subset of ROC) consisting of all sequences whose terms are from the
set {O, I}. Then B is uncountable and II(an ) - (;3n)IIOC) = 1 if (an) and (;3n)
are different members of B.

1.12.8 Example. Every finite-dimensional normed space is the closed lin-

ear hull of a finite subset of the space and so is separable.

Most of the results about refiexivity in the preceding section have their
analogs for separability, and in fact more general results are often true.

1.12.9 Proposition. Let X be a normed space.

(a) If X is separable and f is a continuous map from X into a topological
space S, then the range of f is a separable subset of S; in particular,
every normed space isomorphic to X is separable.
(b) If X is separable, then each subset of X, and in particular each
subspace of X, is separable.
(c) If A is a separable subset of X, then A, coCA), coCA), (A), and [AJ
are all separable.
(d) If X is separable, then its completion is also separable.
(e) If X is separable and M is a closed subspace of X, then XjM is
separable.
(f) If X is the external or internal direct sum of the normed spaces
Xl, ... , X n , then X is separable if and only if each Xj is separable.
PROOF. If X were any topological space with a countable dense subset D
and f were a continuous map from X into a topological space S, then it
would follow that f(X) = f(D) ~ f(D), and so f(X) would have the
countable dense subset feD). This gives (a). Similarly, part (b) is just a
special case of the more general fact that each subset of a separable metric
space is separable.
For (c), let DA be a countable dense subset of a separable subset A of X_
Then [DAJ is separable by Proposition 1.12.1 (a). Since A ~ DA ~ [D A],
each of the sets listed in the conclusion of (c) is a subset of [D AJ and so is
separable_ Part (d) now follows immediately from (a) and (c).
For (e), suppose that X has a countable dense subset D and that M is
a closed subspace of X. Let DX/M = {d + M : d ED}. Since

II(x + M) - (d + M)II :s Ilx - dll

whenever x + M E XjM and d + M E D X / M , it follows that DX/M is a
countable dense subset of XjM, proving (e).
For (f), suppose that X is the external or internal direct sum of the
normed spaces Xl, ... , X n . If X is separable, then each Xj is separable since
112 1. Basic Concepts

it is either a subspace of X or isomorphic to a subspace of X. Conversely,

suppose that each Xj is separable. For each j, let D j be a countable dense
subset of Xj' If X = Xl E9 ... E9 X n , then it is clear from the form of
the direct sum norm that the countable set DI x ... x Dn is dense in X.
Suppose that X is the internal direct sum of Xl"'" X n . If Xj E Xj when
j = 1, ... , n, then for each j there is a sequence (dj.m)':;;~=l in D j such that
limm dj,m = Xj, and so limm(dl,m + ... + dn,m) = Xl + ... + Xn. It follows
that DI + ... + Dn is a countable dense subset of X, which finishes the
proof of (f).

1.12.10 Corollary. Separability is a three-space property.

PROOF. Suppose that M is a closed subspace of a normed space X such
that both M and X/M are separable. Let DM and D' be countable subsets
of M and X respectively such that DM is dense in M and {x+M : xED'}
is dense in X/M. Suppose that Xo E X and I: > O. Then there is an Xl in D'
such that d(xo - xI,M) = II(xo + M) - (Xl + M)II < 1:/2, and so there is
an m in M such that II(xo -Xl) -mil < t/2. There is an X2 in DM such that
Ilm-x211 < t/2, and so Ilxa-(X1 +x2)11 = II(xo-xd-X211 < t.1t follows that
the countable set D' + D M is dense in X, and so X is separable. The rest
of the proof follows from parts (b) and (e) of the preceding proposition.

1.12.11 Theorem. Let X be a normed space. If X* is separable, then X

is separable.
PROOF. Let {X;, : n EN} be a countable dense subset of X'. For each n,
let Xn be an element of Ex such that Ix~xnl ::;:. ~llx~ll. If x' E X' and
x' 1- 0, then there is an n such that Ilx' - x~ II < ~ Ilx' II, from which it
follows that Ilx~11 ::;:. Ilx'II-llx' - x~1I > ~llx'll > 0 and that
Ix'xnl ::;:. Ix~xnl-I(x' - x~)(xn)1
::;:. Ix~xnl - Ilx' - x~11
> ~llx~ll- ~llx*11
> ~llx~11 - ~llx~11
> O.
Thus, the annihilator of {X n : n EN} contains only the zero element of X' ,
and so

An appeal to Proposition 1.12.1 (a) establishes the separability of X.

The converse of the preceding theorem is false. For example, the space f.J
is separable, but its dual space is isometrically isomorphic to the nonsep-
arable space f.oo and so is not separable. The following, at least, can be
said.
 1.12 Separability 113

1.12.12 Corollary. Let X be a reflexive normed space. Then X is sepa-

rable if and only if X* is separable.
PROOF. The "if" portion comes from the preceding theorem. For the "only
if" portion, suppose that X is separable. Then X** is separable since it is
isometrically isomorphic to X, so X* is separable.

Notice that the corollary gives new proofs of the nonreflexivity of the
spaces L1[0, 1], 1, and e[O,l], and therefore of Loo[O, 1J , Roc)) rca[O,l],
and co.
Suppose that M is a closed subspace of 1. Proposition 1.12.9 (e) guar-
antees that dM is separable. It may be somewhat surprising that, up to
isomorphism, such quotients of 1 are the only separable Banach spaces.

1.12.13 Lemma. (S. Banach and S. Mazur, 1933 [16]). Let X be a separa-
ble Banach space. Then there is a bounded linear operator from 1 onto X.
PROOF. Let {Xn : n EN} be a countable dense subset of B x. If (an) E 1,
then L:n anXn is absolutely convergent and therefore convergent, so the
formula T(a n ) = L: n anXn defines a map T from 1 into X. It is clear that
T is linear. Since IIT(an)11 ::; L:nlanl = lI(an)111 whenever (an) E 1, the
operator T is bounded.
All that remains is to show that T is onto X. Suppose that x E Ex.
It is enough to prove that x E T(l)' Select n1 so that Ilx - xn,ll < 1/2.
Select n2 so that n2 > n1 and 112(x - Xn,) - xn2 11 < 1/2, that is, so that
Ilx - x n , - 2- 1xn2 11 < r2.
Select n3 so that n3 > n2 and 1122(x - X n, - 2- 1 x n2 ) - xnJ < 1/2, that
is, so that
Ilx - Xn, - 2- 1x n - 2- 2xn3 11 < 2- 3 .
Continuing in the obvious way yields a subsequence (xnJ of (xn) such
that x = L: j 2 1 - j x n ]. Let (an) be the element of 1 obtained by letting
a nj = 2 1 - j for each j and letting an = 0 whenever there is no j such that
n = nj. Then T(a n ) = x, so x E T(l)'

1.12.14 Theorem. (S. Banach and S. Mazur, 1933 [16]). For every sep-
arable Banach space X, there is a closed subspace Mx of 1!1 such that
X~dMx.

PROOF. Let T be a bounded linear operator from 1 onto X and let Mx =

ker(T). Then I/Mx ~ X by the first isomorphism theorem for Banach
spaces.

The final result of this section provides a characterization of separable

normed spaces among all normed spaces that is occasionally useful and will
have a specific application in the proof of Proposition 3.4.7.
114 1. Basic Concepts

1.12.15 Theorem. A normed space X is separable if and only if there is

a compact subset K of X such that X = [K].
PROOF. If X has a compact subset K such that X = [KJ, then K itself
has a countable dense subset A, which implies that X is separable since
X = [K] = [A]. Suppose conversely that X is separable. It can be assumed
that X -I- {O}. There is a sequence (xn) of nonzero members of X such that

X = {xn : n EN} = [{xn : n EN} ],

which implies that

This last set whose closed linear hull is being taken consists of the terms
and limit of a convergent sequence in X, and so is compact.

A normed space that is the closed linear hull of one of its compact subsets
is said to be compactly generated. The preceding theorem just says that a
normed space is compactly generated if and only if it is separable.

Exercises
1.135 Prove that every separable infinite-dimensional normed space has a lin-
early independent countable dense subset.
1.136 Prove that a normed space is separable if and only if its unit sphere is
separable.
1.137 Let M be a subspace of a normed space X. Prove that if M and M.l. are
both separable, then X is separable.
1.138 (a) Show that no subspace of Co is isomorphic to 1.
(b) Show that no quotient space of Co is isomorphic to 1.
1.139 Let X be the subspace of 1 consisting of the sequences in 1 that sum
to o. Is X separable? Explain.
1.140 Give an example of a one-to-one bounded linear operator from a nonsep-
arable normed space onto a separable normed space.
1.141 Here is a companion result for Lemma 1.12.13. Suppose that X is a Banach
space and that T is a bounded linear operator from X onto 1.
(a) Let (en) be the sequence of standard unit vectors in 1. Prove that
there is a bounded sequence (Xn) in X such that TXn = en for
each n.
(b) Conclude that X has a subspace isomorphic to e1
1.142 Let K be a compact Hausdorff space. Prove that rca(K} is separable if
and only if K is countable.
 *1.13 Characterizations of Reflexivity 115

1.143 Suppose that (0, E, p,) is a positive measure space. Prove that Loo(O, E, p,)
is separable if and only if it is finite-dimensional.
1.144 Let X be a normed space and let Z be a separable subspace of X'.
Prove that there is a separable closed subspace Y of X such that Z is
isometrically isomorphic to a subspace of Y.
1.145 The evidence accumulated so far might lead one to conjecture that all
reflexive normed spaces are separable. Give a counterexample. (Consider
counting measures on uncountable sets.)

*1.13 Characterizations of Reflexivity

The purpose of this section is to obtain some characterizations of reflexive
normed spaces among all normed spaces and among all Banach spaces. The
culmination of these efforts will be James's theorem, a very beautiful and
enormously useful result that is one of the major theorems of Banach space
theory.
Several of the proofs that are about to be given are much easier, at least
notationally, if done only for real normed spaces. Fortunately, the case for
complex normed spaces usually follows immediately from this next result.

1.13.1 Proposition. Let X be a complex normed space and let Xr be the

real normed space obtained from X by restricting multiplication of vectors
by scalars to R x X. Then X is reflexive if and only if Xr is reflexive.
PROOF. For each x* in (X*)r, let Tx' = Rex*. It is an easy conse-
quence of Proposition 1.9.3 that T is an isometric isomorphism from (X*)r
onto (Xr)*. By Theorem 1.10.12, the map T*: (Xr)** -+ ((X*)rr given
by the formula T*(u**) = u**T is an isometric isomorphism from (Xr)**
onto (( X')r ) *. Since two linear functionals on a complex vector space are
equal if and only if their real parts agree on the space, it is easy to see
that each of statements 1, 2, 3, and 4 below is equivalent to the statement
following it.
1. The space X is reflexive.
2. For each element x** of X** there is an element x of X such that
Re(x, x*) = Re(x*, x**) whenever x* E X*.
3. For each element w* of ((X*)rr there is an element x of Xr such
that (x, Tx*) = (x*, w*) whenever x* E (X*)r-
4. For each element u** of (Xr )** there is an element x of Xr such that
(x, Tx*) = (x*, T*u**) = (Tx*, u**) whenever x* E (X*)r.
5. The space Xr is reflexive.
The equivalence of statements 1 and 5 yields the conclusion of the propo-
ili~.
116 1. Basic Concepts

The portion of this section extending from here through Example 1.13.7
is devoted primarily to obtaining several closely related characterizations
of reflexivity, one of which is in terms of the following type of convergence.

1.13.2 Definition. Let x be an element and (xn) a sequence in a normed

space X. Then (xn) converges weakly to x if xx n ---+ xx whenever X* E X*.

It will be shown in Chapter 2 that every normed space has a topology 'I
such that a sequence in the space converges weakly to an element of the
space if and only if the sequence converges to that element with respect
to 'I. For the moment, the statement that a sequence converges weakly to
a certain limit should not be taken to imply anything more than is stated
in Definition 1.13.2. Notice that if a sequence (xn) in a normed space X
converges weakly to elements x and y of X, then x*x = limn xx n = x*y
for each X* in X*, and so x = y by Corollary 1.9.9. That is, no sequence
in a normed space has more than one "weak limit." Notice also that the
convergence of a sequence in a normed space in the usual sense implies
the weak convergence of that sequence to the same limit. Incidentally, the
converse is not true. The sequence (en) of standard unit vectors in 2 is
obviously weakly convergent to 0 and equally obviously not convergent
to anything with respect to the norm topology since the sequence is not
Cauchy.
The following lemma will be superseded by Theorems 1.13.5 and 1.13.6,
in which it will be shown that statements (a), (b), and (c) of this lemma
are actually equivalent.

1.13.3 Lemma. Let X be a normed space. Then (a) => (b) => (c) in the
following collection of statements.
(a) The space X is reflexive.
(b) Every bounded sequence in X has a weakly convergent subsequence.
(c) Whenever (en) is a sequence of nonempty closed bounded convex sets
in X such that Cn ;2 Cn+l for each n, it follows that nn C n =I- 0.
PROOF. Suppose that (b) holds. Let (en) be a sequence of nonempty closed
bounded convex subsets of X such that C 1 ;2 C 2 ;2 .... For each positive
integer n, let Xn be an element of en, and let x be the limit of a weakly
convergent subsequence (x nk ) of (xn). If x fI. em for some m, then by
Proposition 1.9.15 there is an x* in X* such that

Re x*x > sup{ Rex*y : y E C m } ;:::: limRex*xnk = Rex*x,

k

a contradiction. Therefore x E nn en, which shows that (b) => (c).

Now suppose that it has been proved that (a) =?- (b) when X is separable.
For the general case, let X be reflexive and let (xn) be a bounded sequence
in X. Let Y = [{ Xn : n EN} 1, a separable reflexive subspace of X. Then
 *1.13 Characterizations of Reflexivity 117

there is a subsequence (X nk ) of (xn) and an x in Y such that y*xnk -+ y*x

whenever y* E Y*. Since the restriction of each member of X* to Y is
in Y, it follows that (x nk ) converges weakly to x in X. Therefore all that
is left to be proved is that (a) =} (b) when X is separable.
Let X be a separable reflexive normed space and let {y~ : n EN} be
a countable dense subset of X*. Suppose that (xn) is a bounded sequence
in X. By diagonalization, a subsequence (x nk ) of (xn) can be found such
that limk yjxnk exists for each j. If X* E X* and j, k, lEN, then

IX*Xnk - X*Xn, I s: Iyjx nk - yjxn, I + I(x* - yj)(Xnk - xn,)1

s: Iyjx nk - yjxnll + Ilx* - yjll sup{llxn - xmll : n, mEN}.

This and the density of {y~ : n EN} in X* together imply that the se-
quence (x*xnk) is Cauchy and hence convergent whenever x E X*. The
map X* ~ limk x*xnk is clearly a linear functional on X', and this func-
s:
tional is in X** since Ilimk xx nk I IIx' II sup{ Ilx n II : n EN} for each x*
in X'. The reflexivity of X yields an x in X such that limk x*xnk = x*x
whenever x* E X*, so (x nk ) is a weakly convergent subsequence of (xn).
Therefore (a) =} (b) when X is separable, which finishes the proof.

Most of the theorems of this section are ultimately derived from the
following result.

1.13.4 Theorem. (R. C. James, 1964 [112, 114]). Let X be a Banach

space. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The space X is not reflexive.
(b) For each () such that 0 < () < 1 there is a sequence (x~) in Sx' and a
s:
sequence (xn) in Sx such that Rex~xj 2: () if n j and Rex~xj = 0
if n > j.
(c) For some () such that 0 < () < 1 there is a sequence (x~) in Sx' and
a sequence (xn) in Sx as in (b).
PROOF. It may be assumed that X is a real Banach space, since the case
for complex scalars follows from that for real scalars by Proposition 1.13.1.
Suppose that (c) holds. For each positive integer n, let

Notice that each en lies in Ex and so is bounded. Suppose that x E e no

for some no. If > 0, then there is a nonnegative integer mE and a y
in co( {xno "'" x no+m ,}) such that Ilx - yll < , so Ix~xl = Ix~(x - y)1 <
whenever n > no + mE' Therefore limn x~x = O. Since x;'ox] 2: () when
j 2: no, it follows that x;'oz 2: () whenever Z E co({xno,Xno+l, ... }), so
x~ox 2: (). In particular, if x E nn en, then x~x 2: () for each n even though
118 1. Basic Concepts

limn x~x = 0, a contradiction that shows that nn en

= 0. It follows from
the preceding lemma that X cannot be reflexive, so (c) =} (a).
James attributes the following proof that (a) =} (b) to Mahlon Day.
Suppose that (a) holds, that is, that X is not reflexive. Fix a (} in (0,1).
Let Q be the natural map from X into X**. Since Q(X) is a closed proper
subspace of X**, there is a member x**+ Q(X) of X** /Q(X) such that

(} < Ilx**+Q(X)11 = d(x**,Q(X) < 1.

By Proposition 1.7.6, it may be assumed that (} < IIx** I < 1. It will now
be shown that there are sequences (x~) in Ex- and (x n ) in Ex such that
X~Xj = (} if n <::: j, X~Xj = 0 if n > j, and x**x~ = (} for every n, from which
it immediately follows that (b) holds. Let xi in Ex- be such that x**xi = (}.
Since (} <::: IIx**llllxill < Ilxill, there is an Xl in Ex such that xixi = (}. The
rest of the sequence is constructed inductively. Suppose that Xl, .. ,Xn-l
and xi, ... ,X~_l have been chosen to satisfy the required conditions. Let
M = (} /d(x**, Q(X). Notice that 0 < M < 1. If aI, ... ,a n -1 are scalars,
then

M Ilx** + ~ ajQxj 112: M . d(x**, Q(X) = (}.

Let Cn = (} and let Cl = ... = Cn-l = O. Then for each linear combination
alQx1 + .. : + a n -1Qx n -1 + anx'* of QXl,'" ,QXn-l, x**,

By Helly's theorem, there is for each positive E a y; in X* such that

(1) Ily;11 <::: M +E;
(2) (QXj)(Y;) = Cj = 0 when j = 1, ... ,n -1; and
(3) x**y; = Cn = e.
Let x~ = y; for a positive E small enough that Ilx~1I <::: 1. Then x'*x~ = e
and X~Xj = 0 when j = 1, ... , n - 1, so to finish the induction all that
is needed is an Xn in Ex such that xjxn = (} when j = 1, ... , n. Let
aI, ... ,an be scalars. Then

tajel =
I
J=l
ItajX*'x;1 <:::
J=l
IIX**lllltajx;ll,
1'=1

so another application of Helly's theorem produces an appropriate Xn. This

completes the induction step and shows that (a) =} (b). It is obvious that
(b) =} (c), so the proof is finished.

Theorem l.13.4 is sometimes called James's sequential characterization

of reflexivity. A number of other useful characterizations of reflexivity follow
almost immediately from it, as will now be seen.
 *1.13 Characterizations of Reflexivity 119

It is a corollary of Theorem 1.13.4 and its proof that (c) => (a) in
Lemma 1.13.3. To see this, suppose that X is a normed space that sat-
isfies part (c) of that lemma; that is, for which nnCn =1= 0 whenever
(Cn ) is a sequence of non empty closed bounded convex subsets of X such
that Cn 2 C n + 1 for each n. The goal is to prove that X is reflexive, so
by Proposition 1.13.1 it may be assumed that IF = JR. as in the proof
of Theorem 1.13.4. Let (Yn) be a Cauchy sequence in X and let Dn =
co{ Yj : j ::::: n} for each n. Then for each positive E there is a positive inte-
ger n, such that Dn lies in a closed ball of radius E when n ::::: n,. It follows
that nn Dn has exactly one element Yo and that Yn -- Yo. The space X is
therefore a Banach space. If X were not reflexive, then part (c) of Theo-
rem 1.13.4 would hold, and a peek at the first paragraph of the proof of
that theorem shows that X would have a sequence (Cn ) of nonempty closed
bounded convex subsets such that Cn 2 Cn+l for each nand nnC n = 0.
This contradiction proves that X is reflexive.
Since (c) => (a) in Lemma 1.13.3, statements (a), (b), and (c) in that
lemma are actually equivalent. This is the content of the next two theorems.

1.13.5 Theorem. A normed space is reflexive if and only if each of its

bounded sequences has a weakly convergent subsequence.

1.13.6 Theorem. (V. L. Smulian, 1939 [223]). A normed space X is re-

flexive if and only if nn
C n =1= 0 whenever (Cn ) is a sequence of nonempty
closed bounded convex subsets of X such that G n ;;2 G n + 1 for each n.

1.13.7 Example. Let llJ) be the closed unit disc in the complex plane and
let A(llJ)) be the disc algebra, that is, the subspace of G(llJ)) consisting of the
members of C(llJ)) analytic in the open unit disc. Since the uniform limit
of a sequence of functions analytic in the open unit disc is analytic in that
disc, it follows that A(llJ)) is a closed subspace of G(IID) and so is a Banach
space.
For each positive integer n, define Xn in A(IID) by the formula xn(z) = zn,
and let Gn = co({X n ,X n +1, ... }). If x is in CO({X1,X2, ... }), then IIxll oo = 1
since x(l) = 1 and Ix(z)1 :S 1 for each z in llJ). It follows that Gn S;; SA(HlI)
for each n.
If n E N and x E co( {x n , Xn+l' ... } ), then x and its first n - 1 derivatives
all have value 0 when z = O. Now if (Yj) is a sequence in A(llJ)) and Y is an
element of A(IID) such that IIYj - Ylloo --> 0, then a standard result about
the uniform convergence of analytic functions assures that yj(O) -- y'(O),
yj'(O) -+ yl/(O), yj"(O) __ y'I/(O), and so forth. It follows that if n E Nand
x E Cn, then x and its first n - 1 derivatives all have value 0 when z = O.
Suppose that x E nn Gn . Then x and its derivatives of all orders have
value 0 when z = 0, so a moment's thought about the power series ex-
pansion for x about 0 shows that x = 0, even though Ilxll= = 1. This
contradiction shows that nn C n = 0, so A(IID) is not reflexive.
120 1. Basic Concepts

By Theorem 1.11.16, if a normed space is reflexive then it passes that

property on to each of its closed subspaces. Conversely, if each closed sub-
space of a normed space X is reflexive, then X is obviously reflexive as a
closed subspace of itself. It turns out, however, that it is only necessary to
check all of the separable closed subs paces of X for reflexivity in order to
conclude that X is reflexive. That is, reflexivity is a property for normed
spaces that is separably determined.

1.13.8 Theorem. A normed space is reflexive if and only if each of its

separable closed subspaces is reflexive.
PROOF. Suppose that the normed space X is not reflexive. It is enough to
find a separable closed subspace of X that is not reflexive. Let (xn) be a
bounded sequence in X with no weakly convergent subsequence, and let
Y = [{ Xn : n EN}]. Since the restriction of each member of X* to Y is
in Y*, a subsequence of (xn) converging weakly in Y would also converge
weakly in X, so (xn) has no subsequence converging weakly in Y. Therefore
Y is the desired nonreflexive separable closed subspace of X.

Theorem l.13.6 is especially interesting because it gives a purely intrinsic

test for reflexivity; that is, it requires knowledge only of the behavior of
objects in X and no knowledge at all of X or X**. This next result is also
of that type.

1.13.9 Theorem. (R. C. James, 1964 [114]). Let X be a Banach space.

Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The space X is not reflexive.
(b) For each 8 such that 0 < 8 < 1 there is a sequence (xn) in Sx such
that d( co( {Xl,' .. ,Xn }), CO( {Xn+l, Xn+2, ... })) ~ 8 for each n.
e e
(c) For some such that 0 < < 1 there is a sequence (xn) in Sx as
in (b).
PROOF. Suppose that (a) holds. Fix a e in (0,1) and let (x~) and (xn)
be as in Theorem l.13.4 (b). If n E N, y E CO({Xl"" ,xn}), and z E
co( {Xn+l, Xn +2, ... }), then Ily - zll ~ Re X~+l (z - y) ~ e, and so

d(CO({Xl,'" ,x n }),co({x n +l,X n +2,.. })) :2: 8.

This shows that (a) ==} (b). It is clear that (b) ==} (c).
Finally, suppose that 8 and (xn) are as in (c). For each positive integer n,
let en= co( {Xn+l' Xn+2""})' a subset of Bx Suppose that X E nn en.
Then there is an m in N and a y in co( {Xl"'" xm}) such that Ilx-yll < 8j2,
as well as a z in cO({X m +l,X m +2, ... }) such that Ilx - zll < ej2, which
implies that e s: s: e.
Iiy - zll Ily - xII + Ilx - zll < This contradiction shows
that nn en = 0, so X is not reflexive. This proves that (c) ==} (a).
 *1.13 Characterizations of Reflexivity 121

The preceding theorem could have been stated with the convex hulls
replaced by closed convex hulls, since the distance between two nonempty
subsets of a metric space is the same as the distance between their closures.
Suppose that X is a Banach space. By Proposition 1.11.11, if X is reflex-
ive then each member of X* is norm-attaining. The converse is also true
and is known as James's theorem. This result has a long and interesting
history, most of it associated with the name of Robert C. James.
Stanislaw Mazur [163J was the first to ask if a Banach space must be
reflexive when all members of its dual space are norm-attaining. Though
Mazur's paper appeared in 1933, the first substantial progress toward an-
swering his question was not made until 1950, when James [108J showed
that if a separable Banach space X has a Schauder basis, a certain type of
sequence that will be discussed in Chapter 4, then X is reflexive if each Ba-
nach space Y isomorphic to X has the property that each element of Y is
norm-attaining. In the same year Victor Klee [132J used an argument based
on Theorem 1.13.6 to improve James's result by removing the requirements
that X have a Schauder basis and be separable. Incidentally, Klee's paper
contains a number of interesting characterizations of reflexivity that will
not be covered here. Most of the paper is accessible after reading Chapters
1 and 2 of this book.
In 1957, James [111J showed that a separable Banach space is reflexive if
each member of its dual space is norm-attaining. Though the same result
for nonseparable Banach spaces would not appear for another seven years,
the impact of James's 1957 result on Banach space theory was immediate
and substantial. It is often possible to prove from this result that a Banach
space is reflexive by showing that all of its separable closed subs paces are
reflcxivc. For example, it can be shown in this way that a Banach space is
reflexive whenever each of its nonempty closed convex subsets has a point
nearest the origin; see Exercise 1.153. It is not at all a coincidence that the
branch of approximation theory called Banach space nearest point theory,
dealing with points of sets in Banach spaces nearest other sets or points,
began to grow rapidly at about this time. The interested reader might want
to look at Section 4 of the 1958 paper by Ky Fan and Irving Glicksberg [77J
on spheres in normed spaces for another good example of an argument in
which James's 1957 result is used to prove that a possibly nonseparable
Banach space is reflexive.
James [112J finally completed his quest by showing in a 1964 paper that
the separability hypothesis in his 1957 result is unnecessary. In fact, in an-
other 1964 paper James [115J proved a stronger result called James's weak
compactness theorem, or often just James's theorem since the reflexivity
theorem that also goes by that name turns out to be a special case of the
weak compactness theorem. It would not be easy to state James's weak
compactness theorem in its full generality here, since the language needed
to do so is not developed until Chapter 2. However, it is already possible to
state the following version of it. Though the class of sets in the hypotheses
122 1. Basic Concepts

is smaller than in the general version, this version is still strong enough to
imply the reflexivity theorem. See Exercise 1.154.
Let C be a closed convex subset of a Banach space X. Suppose that
whenever x* E X*, the supremum of Ix* I on C is actually attained
by Ix*1 somewhere on C. Then every sequence in C has a weakly
convergent subsequence.
The general form of James's weak compactness theorem will be derived in
Section 2.9.
James's 1964 proof of his reflexivity theorem is based on Theorem 1.13.4
and is somewhat intricate. The proof given here is a greatly simplified one,
also by James [117], that appeared in 1972. The plan of attack is to prove
James's theorem for separable Banach spaces, then obtain the general case
from that. The following technical lemma is needed for the separable case.
This lemma is stated and proved in a bit more generality than is actually
needed in this section, for the only immediate application will be to the
case in which the set A mentioned in the lemma is the closed unit ball of
the space. However, the more general result is no more difficult to prove,
and will have an important application in Section 2.9.

1.13.10 Lemma. (R. C. James, 1972 [ll7]). Let A be a nonempty subset

of the closed unit ball of a normed space X. Suppose that ({3n) is a sequence
of positive numbers with sum 1, that 0 < () < 1, and that (x~) is a sequence
in Ex' such that sup{ Ix*xl : x E A} 2 () whenever x* E co( {x~ : n EN}).
Then there is an a such that () ::; a ::; 1 and a sequence (Y~) in Ex' such
that
(a) Y~ E co( {x; : j 2 n}) for each positive integer n;
(b) sup{ 12::~1 {3jyjxl : x E A} = a; and
(c) sup{ 12::7=1 {3jyjxl : x E A} < a(1 - ()2::~n+1 (3j) for each positive
integer n.
PROOF. This proof consists of the construction by induction of the se-
quence (Y~) and a sequence (an) of scalars converging to a, followed by
the verification of some good-sized inequalities. Here are the steps.
1. For notational convenience, let Ix*IA = sup{ Ix*xl : x E A} whenever
x* E X*. It is easy to check that 11 A is a continuous semi norm on X'
such that Ix*IA ::; Ilx*11 for each x* in X*. Let (En) be a sequence of
positive reals converging to 0 such that

f DO {3k E k 00

k=l 2:: j =k+l {3J LJ=k (3J

. < 1 - B.

A sequence (y~) in X* will be constructed inductively such that for

each positive integer n,
Y~ E co({x;: j 2 n}) ~ Bx>
 *1.13 Characterizations of Reflexivity 123

and

where

an = inf{ 1~,8jY; + (f.,8j)y*1 :y* E co({x;: j::::: n})}.

)=1 J=n A
(1.5)

The sums to n - 1 in (1.4) and (1.5) are to be considered to be the

zero element of X* when n = 1.
2. To start the induction, notice that

a1 = inf { ly*1 A : y* E co( {x; : j ::::: 1 }) } 2: () > 0,

so there is a yi in co( {xi : j ::::: I}) such that

that is, such that (1.4) is satisfied when n = 1.

3. Suppose that n 2: 2 and that yi, ... ,y~-1 have been found. If y* E
co( {xi : j 2: n }), then

where the sum to n - 2 is to be considered to be the zero element

of X' if n = 2. The object inside the rightmost pair of parentheses
is a convex combination of two members of co( {xi : j 2: n - I})
and so lies in co( {xi ; j ::::: n - I}). It follows that the set whose
infimum determines an is a subset of the one whose infimum deter-
mines a n -1, so an-l <:::: an- Therefore an > 0, and so a y~ can be
found in co( {xi; j 2: n}) satisfying (1.4). This finishes the induction.
4. For each positive integer n, the set whose infimum determines an is
easily seen to be bounded from above by 1. Since

the sequence (on) converges to some 0 such that () <:::: a <:::: 1.

124 1. Basic Concepts

5. For each positive integer n,

so letting n tend to infinity shows that 0: = 12::;:1 !'3jy;IA'

6. All that is left is to show that 0: and (Y~) satisfy part (c) of the
conclusion of the lemma. Fix a positive integer n. If n ::::: 2, then

It !'3jY;IA
= I2::~:!'3j (;!'3jY; + (~!'3j)Y~) + 2::~:tj ;!'3jy;IA

giving an upper bound for 12::7=1 !'3jy;IA in terms of 12::7':; !'3jy;IA'

If n ::::: 3, then 12::7':; !'3jy;1 Ais bounded from above by an analogous
expression involving 12::7':~ !'3jy;IA' and so forth. Therefore if n ::::: 2,
then

<

< (J~~j) (~{ 2::~::;~ ~~!k !'3j }+ ~:I;j)

< C~~j) ~(2::::;~ ~7!k!'3J,
 *1.13 Characterizations of Reflexivity 125

with the appropriate intermediate inequalities omitted if n is smalL

This same inequality also holds if n = 1 (with all intermediate in-
equalities omitted, of course) because it just reduces to the inequality
fJdYilA < !310:1(1 + Ed Since O:k ::; 0: for each k,

which is the inequality needed in (c).

1.13.11 Theorem. (R. C. James, 1957 [111], 1972 [117]). Let X be a
separable Banach space. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The space X is not reflexive.
(b) If 0 < e < 1, then there is a sequence (x~) in Ex. such that
limnx~x = 0 for each x in X and d(O,co({x~: n EN})) 2': e.
e
(c) If 0 < < 1 and (!3n) is a sequence of positive numbers with sum 1,
then there is an 0: such that e ::; 0: ::; 1 and a sequence (y;') in Ex.
sllch that
(1) limn y;'x = 0 for each x in X;
(2) 112:;:1 !3jYj II = 0:; and
(3) 112:7=1 !3jYj II < 0:(1 - e2:~n+l !3j) for each positive integer n.
(d) There is a z* in X* that is not a norm-attaining functiona1.
PROOF. To see that (a) ~ (b), suppose that X is not reflexive and that
o < e < 1. Let Q be the natural map from X into X** and let x** be an
element of X** such that

e < d(x**,Q(X)) = Ilx**+Q(X)II::; Ilx**II::; 1.

Let {x n : n EN} be a countable dense subset of X. The immediate goal
is to construct a sequence (x~) in X* such that, for each n,

(i) Ilx~ II ::; 1;

(ii) x**x~ = e; and
(iii) X~Xj = 0 whenever j ::; n.
It will then be shown that (x~) satisfies the conclusion of (b).
126 1. Basic Concepts

Let M = Ojd(x",Q(X). Notice that 0 < M < 1. For the remainder of

this paragraph, let n be a fixed positive integer. If ll:l, ... ,ll:n are scalars,
then

Let Cj = 0 when j = 1, ... , n and let Cn+1 = O. Then for each linear
combination ll:lQXI + ... + ll:nQxn + Qn+lX'* of QXI,"" QXn' x'*,

By Helly's theorem, there is for each positive E a V; in X* such that

(iv) Ilv;II::;M+E;
(v) (QXj)(V;) = Cj = 0 when j = 1, ... ,n; and
(vi) x"y; = Cn+l = O.
Letting x~ = Y; for a suitably small E yields an x~ satisfying (i), (ii),
and (iii).
If x* E cor { x~ : n EN}), then the validity of (ii) for each n implies that
Ilx' II 2: Ix**x* I = 0, and so
d(O,co({X~: n EN})) 2: O.

Suppose that Xo E X and kEN. If n E N, then

Since limn X~Xk = 0 and {x j : j EN} is dense in X, it follows that

limn x~xo = O. This finishes the proof that (a) =? (b).
Suppose now that (b) holds and that 0 is a real number and ((3n) a
sequence of positive real numbers such that 0 < 0 < 1 and Ln (3n = 1.
Let (x~) be a sequence as in the conclusion of (b) and let (y~) be the
sequence in Ex' and Q the scalar such that 0 ::; Q ::; 1 guaranteed when
Lemma 1.13.10 is applied with A equal to Ex. Then (y~) and Q do all
that is required of them in (c). In particular, if x E X thcn the facts that
y~ E cor {xj : j 2: n}) for each n and limn x~x = 0 together imply that
limn y~x = O. Therefore (b) =? (c).
Suppose that (c) holds. Let 0 be any scalar and ((3n) any sequence of
positive scalars such that 0 < 0 < 1 and Ln (3n = 1. Let Q and (y~) be as
in (c) and let z* "" L';.I(3JYj. Then Ilz*11 = Q. It will be shown that z'
is not norm-attaining. Let x be an element of Ex and let n be a positive
 *1.13 Characterizations of Reflexivity 127

integer such that Iyjxl < a() whenever j > n. Then

Iz*xl = If
1=1
{Jjy;XI

S; I~ {JjY;XI ~f-~jIY;XI
< lit 1=1
(JjY; II + a() f
J=n+1
{Jj

< a (1 -() f:j=n+1

(Jj) + a() f
j=n+l
(Jj

=a
= Ilz*lI,
so z* does not attain its norm at x. This proves that (c) => (d).
Finally, Proposition 1.11.11 assures that each bounded linear functional
on a reflexive normed space is norm-attaining, so (d) => (a).

Thus, a separable Banach space X is reflexive if and only if each x* in X*

is a norm-attaining functional. To get the same result for arbitrary Banach
spaces, some temporary notation is needed.
Let X be a real normed space and let (x~) be a bounded sequence in X*.
Let
L(x~) = {x* : x* E X*, x'x S; limsupx~x whenever x EX}
n

and

V(x~) = {(y~): (y~) is a sequence in X*, each y~ E co({X~,X~+1' ... })}.

This notation is needed only for the next few results and does not ap-
ply outside this section, with the only exception being that the nota-
tion for L(x~) will be temporarily reinstated in Section 2.9. Notice that
(x~) E V(x~), that each member of V(x~) is a sequence in the closed ball
centered at 0 of radius sup{ Ilx~ II : n EN}, and that V(y~) ~ V(x~) and
L(y~) ~ L(x~) whenever (y~) E V(x~). Notice also that if x' E L(x~),
then Ilx*11 S; sup{ Ilx~11 : n EN} since IX'xl S; sup{ Ilx~11 : n EN }llxll for
each x in X, and lim infn x~x ::; x'x whenever x E X since lim infn x~x =
-limsuPn x~( -x).

1.13.12 Lemma. Let X be a real normed space and let (x~) be a bounded
sequence in X*. Then L(x~) is nonempty.
PROOF. Let p(x) = limsuPn x;,x for each x in X. Then p is a sublinear
functional on X. Let Y' be the zero functional on the subspace {O} of X.
128 1. Basic Concepts

Then y*(O) = p(O), so the vector space version of the Hahn-Banach ex-
tension theorem implies that y* has a linear extension x* to X such that
x*x ::::: p(x) whenever x E X. Since Ix*xl : : : sup{ Ilx~1I : n E N}llxll when-
ever x EX, the linear functional x* is bounded, and so x* E L( x~).

The following technical lemma is the heart of the proof of James's the-
orem for arbitrary Banach spaces. Notice its similarity to Lemma 1.13.10.
As with Lemma 1.13.10, it is proved in a bit more generality than is needed
in this section, but the extra generality will be required in Section 2.9.

1.13.13 Lemma. (R. C. James, 1972 [117]). Let A be a nonempty balanced

subset of the closed unit ball of a real normed space X. Suppose that ({3n)
is a sequence of positive numbers with sum 1, that 0 < () < 1, and that (x~)
is a sequence in Bx. such that sup{ I(x* - w*)(x)1 : x E A} 2: () whenever
x* E co( {x~ : n EN}) and w* E L(x~). Then there is an a such that
() ::::: a ::::: 2 and a sequence (y~) in B x * such that whenever w' E L(y~),
(a) sup{ 12::;:1 {3j(Y; - w')(x)1 : x E A} = a; and
(b) sup{ 12::7=1 {3j(Y; - w*)(x)1 : x E A} < a(l - () 2::;:n+1 (3j) for each
positive integer n.
PROOF. This proof consists primarily of the verification of a collection
of eight claims, the first six of which appear in an induction argument.
Lemma 1.13.12 and the remarks immediately preceding it are used exten-
sively along the way.
As in the proof of Lemma 1.13.10, let Ix"' A = sup{ IX'xl : x E A}
whenever x* E X". Then 11 A is a continuous seminorrn on X, and Ix' IA :::::
I x' I for each x' in X'. Let (En) be a sequence of positive reals converging
to 0 such that

The first order of business is to use induction to obtain a sequence (aj)

of scalars and sequences (yj); (Oxi), ex;), ex;), ... ; (1z;), ez;), (Szj), ...
in X' such that (Ox;) lies in B x * and, for each positive integer n,
(1) Y~ and the sequences (nz;) and (nxi) lie in Bx-;
(2) (nz;) E v(n-Ix));
(3) (nx;) is a subsequence of (nz));
(4) Yn E co ({n-I' x n , n-1
Xn+l,
' n-1 x *
n +2 , ... }) ;
(5) e::::: an ::::: 2; and
(6) a n -1 ::::: an if n 2: 2.
To start the induction, let (Ox;) = (xi). Now suppose that mEN and,
if m ?:: 2, that an, Y~, (nz)), and (nxj) have been chosen to satisfy (1)
 *1.13 Characterizations of Reflexivity 129

through (6) when n = 1, ... , m - 1. In what follows, a sum from 1 to some

upper limit N is to be considered to be 0 if N <:.:: O.
Claim 1: If (vi) E v(m-I x;), then (vi) lies in Bx-. To prove this, it is
enough to show that (m-Ix;) lies in B x -, which follows immediately from
the definition of (Ox;) if m = 1 or from the induction hypothesis if m ~ 2.
CIaIm 2'. If Y* E co ({m-l x *m , m-l xm+l'
> * m-l x=+2'
* ... }) an d (Vj*) E
v(m-I x;), then the formula

Sm(Y*, (vj)) = { IY: (3jyj + (f (3j)Y* - w*1 :w E L(vi) }

J=l J=m A

defines a nonempty subset of [a, 2], so the following formula defines a num-
ber in [a, 2]:

Q: m = inf{ sUPSm(Y*, (vi)) :

Y* E co( {m-l x ;", m-lX;"+I, ... }), (vi) E v(m-l x;) }.

T.Losee thOIS, fi xay * mco

. ({m-l x=, Vj In v(m-l Xj*) .
* m-l x m* +l , .. }) and a (*)'
Then y* E Bx- since (m-Ix;) lies in B x " and L(vi) ~ Ex> by Claim 1.
Furthermore, if m 2: 2 then Y;, ... ,Y';,,-I E Ex- by the induction hypoth-
esis. It is an easy consequence of all this that if w* E L( vi), then

Since L( vi) i= 0, Claim 2 follows.

Claim 3: If m 2: 2, then v(m-2x ;) :? V(=-lx;). For this, just notice
that if m 2: 2, then (m-Ix;) is a subsequence of the element (m-Izi)
of v(m-2xi), which implies that m-lx; E co({m-2 x ;, m-2x ;+l' ... }) fur
each j, that is, that (m-Ix;) E v(m-2 x ;).
Claim 4: If m > 2 and x* E co( {m-I x;", m-lx;"+l' m-Ix~'+2' ... }),
then

f3m-l * + L:;:m (3j *

",00 (3 Ym-l
L...j=m-l j
"'= (3 x
L...j=m-l j
E co ({ m-2 x m
* -
1,
m-2 x *m ' m-2 xm+l'....
* })

To see this, first notice that (m-Ix;) E V(=-2 X ; ) by Claim 3, and so

m-lx; E co( {m-2 xk : k 2: m - I}) when j 2: m. It follows that x* E
co( { m-2 Xk : k 2: m - 1 }). Since Y';,,-l E co( {m-2 xk : k 2: m - I}) by
the induction hypothesis, every convex combination of Y';,,-l and x* is in
co( { m-2 xk : k 2: m - 1 }), which proves Claim 4.
Claim 5: If m 2: 2, then Q:m-l ::; Om. To see this, notice that because
of Claims 3 and 4 and the fact that the infimum of a subset of a set is at
130 1. Basic Concepts

least as large as the infimum of the entire set,

am-l <.
_ m f{ sup S rn-l (*
y, (Vj*)). Y* -_ {3m-l
,",00
*
,Ym-l
L..Jj=m-l (3)
2:r;m (3j
+ ,",00
L..Jj=rn-l (3)
,X ,
*

X* E co({m-lx;;", m-lx;;"+l, ... }), (vj) E v(rn-lX;) }

= inf{ su p { I~ {3jyj + (3m-lY;;"-l

)=1

+ C~{3j)X* - w*IA: W* E L(Vi) } :

X* E CO({m-lX;;", m-lX;;"+l' ... }), (vi) E v(rn-lX;) }

= inf{ SUpSrn(x*, (v})) :

X* E CO({m-lX;;", m-lx;;"+l' ... }), (vi) E vern-Ix;) }

as claimed.
Claim 6: e ~ am ~ 2. To prove this, notice that because of Claims
2 and 5 it is enough to show that al :::: e. Let y* be an clement of
co({x; : j EN}) and (v;) an element of Vex;). It is enough to show
that SUPSl(Y*, (v})) :::: e, that is, that sup{ IY* - w*IA : w* E L(v})} :::: e.
Let w* be an element of L(vi). It is enough to show that IY* - w*IA :::: e.
But this is true by the hypotheses of this lemma, since L( vil c::: L( x;),
which proves Claim 6.
Using the definition of am, choose Y;" from co({m-lx:n, m-lx;"+l, ... })
and (mzil from V(m-lx,i) so that

am I
~ su p { ~l {3jyj + (~{3j )Y;;" - w*L: w* E L(Tnzj) } (1.6)
< am(l + Em),
then choose w;" from L( mzil so that

The fact that A is balanced assures that there is an Xm in A such that

(1.7)
 *1.13 Characterizations of Reflexivity 131

It follows from Claim 1 that llim infj(mzixm) I :::; 1. Let (mxi) be a subse-
quence of (mzi) such that limj(mxixm) = liminfj(mzixm)' It then follows
from the fact that (m-1xi) lies in B x " along with Claims 1, 5, and 6, that
am, y;", (mzi), and (mxi) do what is required of them in (1) through (6)
when n = m. This completes the induction.
Claim 7: L(y;) c::::: n~=o L(nxi) c::::: n~=1 L(nzi). To see that the second
inclusion holds, suppose that n E N. It is enough to show that L(nxi) c:::::
L(nzj), for which it is enough to show that (nxi) E v(nzi), and this
follows from the fact that (nxi) is a subsequence of (nzi). For the proof
that L(yi) c::::: n~=o L(nxi), suppose that n is a nonnegative integer. Notice
that if j EN, then (2), (3), and (4) together imply that

Yj* E co ({J-l'
Xj'
j-l Xj+l, . . . }) C
_ co ( { j - lZj'
'
J-l Zj+l,' .. })
C
_co ({j-2'
Xj' j-2 Xj+l,'" }) C
_co ({j-2'
Zj' j-2Zj+l,'" })

C
c::::: co( {Ox;, Xi+l' ... }).

Therefore Yi E co( {nxi, nX;+I' ... }) when j > n, from which it follows
that lim SUPj (y}x) :::; limsuPj(nxjx) for each x in X and thus that L(y}) c:::::
L(nx}). This finishes the proof of Claim 7.
Claim 8: If w* E L(y}) and mEN, then (1.7) holds for the same
element X Tn of A when w;" is replaced by W. To prove this, notice from
Claim 7 that w E L(mxi), and so the way that (mxi) was obtained from
(mz;) assures that

Claim 8 follows from this.

Fix a w* in L(y}). It follows from (1.6) and Claims 7 and 8 that if n EN,
then

Claims 5 and 6 together assure that limn an exists and lies in [B,2]. Call
this limit a. Taking limits as n tends to infinity in (1.8) shows that

All that remains to be proved is that

132 l. Basic Concepts

when n E N. The inequalities needed to do this are exactly those that

appear in step 6 of the proof of Lemma 1.13.10, except that Yk must be
replaced by (Yk - w*) for each k.

1.13.14 Theorem. (R. C. James, 1964 [112], 1972 [117]). Let X be a real
Banach space. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The space X is not reflexive.
(b) If 0 < 8 < 1, then there is a closed subspace M of X and a se-
quence (x~) in Bx< such that d(M.1.,co({x~ : n EN})) 2:: 8 and
limn x~x = 0 for each x in M.
(c) If 0 < 8 < 1 and ({3n) is a sequence of positive numbers with sum 1,
then there is an a such that 8 :::; a :::; 2 and a sequence (y~) in Bx<
such that whenever w* E L(y~),
(1) 11~~1 {3J(yj - w*)11 = a; and
(2) 11~;'=1 {3J(yj - w*)11 < a(1 - 8 ~~n+l {3j) for each positive in-
teger n.
(d) There is a z* in X* that is not a norm-attaining functional.
PROOF. For the proof that (a) =} (b), suppose that X is not reflexive
and that 0 < 8 < 1. It follows from Theorem 1.13.8 that some separable
closed subspace M of X is not reflexive. By Theorem 1.13.11, there is
a sequence (m~) in B M , such that d(O,co({m~ : n EN})) 2:: 8 and
limn m~x = 0 for each x in M. For each positive integer n, let x~ be a Hahn-
Banach extension of m~ to X. If x E co( {x~ : n EN}) and y' E M.1.,
then the restriction of x' - y* to M is a member m* of co( { m~ : n EN}),
and so

Ilx* - Y*II 2:: sup{ I(x' - y*)(m)1 : m E B M }

~ Ilm'll
2:: d (0, co ( { m~ : n EN} ) )
2:: 8.

It follows that

d(M.1.,eo({x~ : n EN})) 2:: e,

so (x;,) is a sequence as in the conclusion of (b). Therefore (a) =} (b).
Suppose that (b) holds. Let e be a scalar and ({3n) a sequence of positive
scalars such that 0 < e < 1 and ~n {3n = 1. For this 8, let M be a closed
subspace of X and (x;,) a sequence in Ex< with the properties guaranteed
by (b). It is easy to check that L(x~) c::: M.1., so

d(L(x~),eo({x~: n EN})) ?:' 8.

 *1.13 Characterizations of Reflexivity 133

Letting A equal Bx in Lemma 1.13.13 yields an a in [(;1,2] and a se-

quence (y~) in Bx> satisfying (1) and (2) in (c), which proves that (b) => (c).
Suppose that (c) holds. Let (;I and D. be scalars such that 0 < (;I < 1 and
o < D. < (;12/2. For each positive integer n, let

Then (3n) is a sequence of positive scalars that sums to 1. Let a and (y~)
be as in (c). Let w* be any member of L(y~) and let z* = 2:;:1 (3j(yJ -w*).
Then Ilz11 = a. It will be shown that z* is not norm-attaining. Suppose
that x E Bx. Since liminfj yjx :<::; w*x and (;I :<::; a, there is a positive
integer n such that

(Y~+l - w*)(x) < (;12 - 2D. :<::; a(;l- 2D..

Since w*y :<::; limsuPj yjy :<::; 1 whenever y E B x , it follows that Ilw*11 :<::; 1.
Therefore
00

j=1

I: (3j(yj - w*)(x) + (aO -

n

+ I: (3j(yJ
00

< 2D.)(3nH - w*)(x)

j=1 j=n+2

:<::; lit J=1

(3j(yj - w*)11 + (a(;l- 2D.)(3n+1 + 2 f:
J=n+2
(3j

< a( f 1- 0 (3j)
j=n+1
+ (aO - 2D.)(3nH +2 f (3j.
j=n+2

I:
00

z*x < a - (aO - 2D.) (3j + (aO - 2D.)(3n+l

j=n+l

I:(3j
00

= a - (a(;l- 2D.)
j=n+2
<a
= Ilz*ll
Since -x E Bx, it also follows that -z'x = z*( -x) < Ilz'lI, so Iz*xl < IIz*lI.
Therefore z' is not norm-attaining, which proves that (c) => (d).
Finally, Proposition 1.11.11 assures that each bounded linear functional
on a reflexive normed space is norm-attaining, so (d) => (a).
134 1. Basic Concepts

The big theorem of this section is now an easy corollary of the result just
proved.

1.13.15 James's Theorem. (R. C. James, 1964 [112]). If every bounded

linear functional on a Banach space is norm-attaining, then the space is
reflexive.
PROOF. Let X be a Banach space such that every bounded linear functional
on X is norm-attaining. If X is a real Banach space, then the preceding
theorem yields the desired result, so it may be assumed that X is a complex
Banach space. Let Xr be the real Banach space obtained from X by using
only real scalars. Let u* be a bounded linear functional on Xr and let x*
be the member of X* such that Re x* = u*. Then there is an x in B x and
a scalar a with modulus 1 such that

!lu*11 = Ilx*11 = Ixxl = x*(ax) = u*(ax).

Since each member of (Xr)* is norm-attaining, the space Xr is reflexive,
and so X is reflexive.

In 1971, James [116] gave an example to show that an incomplete normed

space can have the property that all of its bounded linear functionals are
norm-attaining, so the completeness hypothesis in the preceding theorem
cannot in general he omitted. However, see Exercise 1.150.
Here is a summary of the most important results of this section along
with a few gleaned from Section 1.11. Though this summary is stated only
for Banach spaces, conditions (a), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are equivalent with-
out the completeness hypothesis, since each implies completeness; see the
results from which the equivalences were taken. Notice that the fact that
(a) implies (f) and (g) follows trivially by considering the identity operator
on the space.

1.13.16 Summary. Suppose that X is a Banach space. Then the following

are equivalent.
(a) The space X is reflexive.
(b) The dual space of X is reflexive.
(c) Each bounded sequence in X has a weakly convergent subsequence.
(d) Whenever (Cn ) is a sequence of non empty closed bounded convex sets
in X such that C n 2 C n + 1 for each n, it follows that nn
C n "10.
(e) Each separable closed subspace of X is reflexive.
(f) The space X is isomorphic to a reflexive space.
(g) There is a bounded linear operator from some reflexive space onto X.
(h) Each bounded linear functional on X is norm-attaining.
 *1.13 Characterizations of Reflexivity 135

(i) The following does not hold: For each (} such that 0 < (} < 1 there
is a sequence (x~) in Sx' and a sequence (xn) in Sx such that
Rex~xj :::: (} if n ~ j and Rex~xj =0 if n > j.
(j) The following does not hold; For some () such that 0 < () < 1 there is
a sequence (x~) in Sx' and a sequence (xn) in Sx as in (i).
(k) The following does not hold: For each () such that 0 < e < 1 there is
a sequence (xn) in Sx such that

for each n.
(1) The following does not hold: For some () such that 0 < () < 1 there is
a sequence (xn) in Sx as in (k).

Another proof of the equivalence of (a), (c), and (e) will be obtained in
Section 2.8 from the Eberlein-Smulian theorem.

Exercises

1.146 Use an argument based on Proposition 1.13.1 to show that the nonreflex-
ivity of complex Co follows from that of real Co. (This is a trick question.
To avoid the trap, think carefully about what is obtained from complex Co
by restricting multiplication of vectors by scalars to IR x co.)

1.147 Find a bounded sequence in 1 with no weakly convergent subsequence.

1.148 Find a sequence (Cn ) of nonempty closed convex subsets of 8f= such that
C n "2 C n + 1 for each nand nn
C n = 0.
1.149 In theory, Theorem 1.13.6 gives a test for the reflexivity of a normed
space requiring no knowledge of its dual. In practice, it often happens
that information obtained from the dual space is used to show that The-
orem 1.13.6 can be applied. This is true in the proof of the nonreflexivity
of A(lIli) given in Example 1.13.7. In that proof, what information comes
from A(lIli)*?

1.150 Suppose that X is an incomplete normed space such that every element
of X' is norm-attaining. Prove that the completion of X is reflexive.

1.151 Suppose that C is a closed convex subset of a normed space X. Show

that C is "weakly sequentially closed"; that is, that whenever (Xn) is a
sequence in C that converges weakly to some element x of X, it follows
that x E C.

1.152 Prove that a Banach space is reflexive if and only if it has this property:
Whenever A and Bare nonempty closed convex subsets of the space such
that d(A, B) = 0 and at least one of the two sets is bounded, the two sets
intersect. Exercise 1.151 might help.
136 1. Basic Concepts

1.153 Let X be a Banach space. Prove that the following are equivalent.
(a) The space X is reflexive.
(b) Whenever C is a non empty closed convex subset of X, there is a
point of C nearest the origin; that is, there is at least one x in C
such that Ilxll = d(O, C).
(c) Whenever Y is a closed separable subspace of X and y* E Y*, there
is a point of {y : y E Y, y*y = Ily*11 } nearest the origin.
If James's theorem is necessary in your argument, use only the version
for separable spaces. If it is not, please send a copy of your proof to the
author of this book!
1.154 Show that James's theorem follows from the form of James's weak COIIl-
pactness theorem stated in the discussion preceding Lemma 1.13.10.
1.155 Give a single example that shows that the conclusions of Theorems 1.13.4
and 1.13.9 do not necessarily hold if the normed space X in the statements
of those theorems is not required to be complete.
1.156 This exercise uses the result of Exercise 1.151. Theorem 1.13.8 might
lead one to wonder if a normed space must be separable whenever each
of its reflexive subspaces is separable. The purpose of this exercise is to
disprove this conjecture by showing that each reflexive subspace of Roo
is separable. Let X be a reflexive subspace of Roo. Justify each of the
following statements.
(a) Let II(Xj)lla = L::) TJlxjl whenever (x)) EX. Then 11lla is a norm
on X. Furthermore, if (Xj) E X and (x;n))~=l is a sequence in X
bounded under the 00 norm, then limnll(xjn)) ~ (Xj)lla = 0 if and
only if limn x;n) = Xj for each j.
(b) The set Ex (meaning E(x, 11.1100)' not E(x, 11'lIa)) is a compact, hence
separable, metric space under the metric induced by 11lla' Let D be
a countable subset of Ex dense in Ex with respect to this metric.
For the rest of this exercise, the normed space language and symbols refer
to the space (X,IIlloo), not (X,IIlla).
(c) For each x in Ex there is a sequence from D converging weakly to x.
(d) It follows that [D] = X, so X is separable.
2
The Weak and Weak* Topologies

The topology induced by a norm on a vector space is a very strong topology

in the sense that it has many open sets. This has some advantages, espe-
cially since a function whose domain is such a space finds it particularly easy
to be continuous, but it also has its disadvantages. For example, an infinite-
dimensional normed space always has so many open sets that its closed unit
ball cannot be compact. Because of this, many familiar facts about finite-
dimensional normed spaces that are based on the Heine-Borel property
cannot be immediately generalized to the infinite-dimensional case.
The main purpose of this chapter is to study topologies for normed spaces
that are in general weaker than the norm topology, in the sense that they
have fewer open sets, but that are still strong enough to have useful proper-
ties. The most important example of such a topology is the weak topology
of a normed space X, which is the weakest topology for X such that every
member of X* is still continuous. Another useful topology is the weak*
(pronounced "weak star") topology of X*. If Q is the natural map from X
into X**, then the weak* topology of X* is the weakest topology for X*
such that every member of Q(X) remains continuous. The primary em-
phasis of this chapter is on these two topologies, though it will often be
convenient to carry out this study in a somewhat more general setting.
The topologies that will be discussed are not always induced by metrics,
so familiar metric space arguments based on the convergence of sequences
cannot be used in their usual form. However, most of those arguments can
be adapted to general topological spaces if sequences are replaced by more
general objects called nets, whose behavior is much like that of sequences.
This chapter begins with a discussion of them.
138 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.1 Topology and Nets

For reference, and to make sure that the author and the reader are speaking
the same topological language, here is a collection of the basic definitions
from topology that will be needed. Many of these terms have already been
encountered in Chapter 1 in a metric space setting.

2.1.1 Definition. Let X be a set. A topology for X is a collection 'I of

subsets of X such that
(1) both X and the empty set belong to 'I;
(2) for every subcollection of 'I, the union of the elements of the subcol-
lection also belongs to 'I;
(3) for every finite subcollection of 'I, the intersection of the elements of
the sub collection also belongs to T
The set X with the topology 'I is called the topological space (X, 'I), or just
the topological space X when no confusion can result. The elements of 'I
are called open sets.

In the preceding definition, property (1) is actually redundant, since (2)

and (3) assure that the union and intersection of the empty subcollection
of 'I are both in 'I.

2.1.2 Definition. Let (X, 'I) be a topological space and let x be an element
of X. A (local) basis for 'I at x is a collection ~x of open sets containing x
such that every open set containing x includes a member of ~x.

2.1.3 Definition. Let X be a set and let ~ be a collection of subsets of X

such that
(1) U{ B : B E ~} = X;
(2) if Bl,B2 E ~ and x E Bl n B 2 , then there is a B3 in ~ such that
x E B3 ~ Bl n B 2
Let 'I be the collection of all sets t~at are unions of subcollections of ~.
Then 'I is the topology generated by the basis ~.

2.1.4 Definition. Let X be a set and let 6 (Fraktur S; notice its resem-
blance to u) be a collection of subsets of X. Let ~6 be the collection of all
sets that are intersections of finitely many members of 6. Then the topology
generated by the subbasis 6 is the topology generated by the basis ~6.

It is easy to check that the collection 'I in Definition 2.1.3 really is a

topology and that the collection ~6 in Definition 2.1.4 is a basis for a
topology; for this latter fact, notice that the intersection X of the empty
subcollection of 6 is in ~6'
 2.1 Topology and Nets 139

The following properties of bases and subbases for topologies follow di-
rectly from the above definitions. Every basis for a topology is also a sub-
basis for that topology. Every member of a basis or subbasis for a topology
belongs to that topology. If 'I' is a topology for a set X, then a collection 23
of subsets of X is a basis for 'I' if and only if every member of 23 is open
and every open set is a union of members of 23, which happens if and only
if the following holds: For each x in X, the family {B : B E 23, x E B}
is a basis for 'I' at x. If 6 is a subbasis for a topology 'I'6 for a set X and
'I' is another topology for X such that 6 ~ 'I', then 'I'6 ~ 'I'; that is, the
topology 'I'6 is the smallest topology for X that includes 6.

2.1.5 Definition. Let {Xc> : a E I} be a family of topological spaces.

Let 6 be the collection of all subsets of the Cartesian product Il"EI Xu
of the form TIc>EI Un, where each Ua. is open and at most one Ua. is not
equal to the corresponding Xa.. Then the product topology of TIa.EI X",
is the topology generated by the sub basis 6. The topological product of
the family of topological spaces is the Cartesian product with the product
topology.

Notice that the basis generated by the sub basis in the preceding defini-
tion consists of all sets of the form TIa.EI Ua., where each U'" is open and
{ a : a E I, Un =1= X", } is finite. Henceforth, when the Cartesian product of
topological spaces is treated as a topological space without the topology being
specified, the product topology is implied.
It is worth noting what happens when the index set I in the preceding
definition is empty. In that case, the Cartesian product TInEI X", has as
its lone element the empty set, viewed as a function from I into U"'EI X",;
see, for example, [65, p. 22]. If 6 and 23 are, respectively, the subbasis and
basis for the product topology of TIo:EI X", discussed above, then it is easy
to check that 6 = 23 = {TI"'E! X",} = {{0}}.

2.1.6 Definitions. Let X be a topological space.

(a) A subset of X is closed if its complement is open.

(b) A neighborhood of a point x in X is an open set that contains x.

(c) The space X is a To space if, for each pair of distinct points in X, at
least one has a neighborhood not containing the other.

(d) The space X is a T 1 space if, for each pair of distinct points in X,
each has a neighborhood not containing the other.

(e) The space X is a Hausdorff or separated or T2 space if, for each pair
of distinct points x and y in X, there are disjoint neighborhoods Ux
and Uy of x and y respectively.
140 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

(f) The space X is a regular or T3 space if it is a Tl space, and for

each x in X and each closed subset F of X not containing x there
are disjoint open sets U and V such that U is a neighborhood of x
and V includes F.
(g) The space X is a completely regular or Tychonoff or T 3.!. space if it
2
is a Tl space, and for each x in X and each closed subset F of X not
containing x there is a continuous 1 function f: X -> [0, 1] such that
f(x) = 0 and f(y) = 1 for each y in F.
(h) The space X is a norrnal or T 4 space if it is a T 1 space, and for each
pair of disjoint closed subsets Fl and F2 of X there are disjoint open
sets U1 and U2 that include Fl and F2 respectively.
(i) The relative or induced or inherited topology of a subset 5 of X is
the collection of all sets 5 n U such that U is open in X.
(j) The closure of a subset 5 of X, denoted by 5, is the smallest closed
set that includes 5, that is, the intersection of all closed sets that
include 5.
(k) The interior of a subset 5 of X, denoted by 5, is the largest open
subset of 5, that is, the union of all open subsets of 5.
(1) The boundary of a subset 5 of X, denoted by as, is the set 5nX \ 5,
that is, the set 5\ S .
(m) A subset D of X is dense in another subset 5 of X if D ~ 5 ~ D.
(n) A limit point or cluster point or accumulation point of a subset 5
of X is a point x in X such that each neighborhood of x contains at
least one point of 5 distinct from x, that is, such that XES \ {x}.
(0) A subset 5 of X is compact if, for each collection Qj of open sets
whose union includes 5, there is a finite sub collection of Q'j whose
union includes 5. That is, the set 5 is compact if each open covering
of 5 can be thinned to a finite subcovering. The set 5 is relatively
compact if its closure is compact.
(p) The space X is locally compact if, for each x in X, there is a compact
subset Kx of X such that x E K~.
(q) A subset 5 of X is countably compact if each countable open covering
of 5 can be thinned to a finite subcovering. The set 5 is relatively
countably compact if its closure is countably compact.

IThe sharp-eyed reader will notice that continuity is mentioned here even though its
definition does not appear until later. It is assumed that the reader is already familiar
with continuity in topological spaces, as well as with most of the other terms cataloged
in the early part of this section for reference.
 2.1 Topology and Nets 141

(r) A subset S of X is limit point compact or Frechet compact or has the

Bolzano- Weierstrass property if each infinite subset of S has a limit
point in S. The set S is relatively limit point compact if it satisfies
the same condition except that the limit point need not be in S.

(s) A sequence (xn) in X converges to an element x of X, and x is called

a limit of (Xn), if, for each neighborhood U of x, there is a positive
integer nu such that Xn E U whenever n 2': nu. This is denoted by
writing Xn -> x or limn Xn = x.2

(t) A subset S of X is sequentially compact if each sequence in S has

a convergent subsequence with a limit in S. The sct S is relatively
sequentially compact if it satisfies the same condition except that the
limit need not be in S.

(u) The sequential closure of a subset S of X is the collection of all

elements of X that are limits of sequences whose terms come from S.
The set S is sequentially closed if it equals its sequential closure.

(v) A subset D of X is sequentially dense in another subset S of X if

D c:;:: S c:;:: D s, where D S is the sequential closure of D.

The conditions defined in (c) through (h) are sometimes called separation
axioms. It is not hard to show that a topological space is a T} space if
and only if each of its one-element subsets is closed; see Exercise 2.2 (a).
From that and an application of Urysohn's lemma, it follows easily that
T4 =} T31 =} T3 =} T2 =} T} =} To.
2
Here arc some relationships between the various types of compactness
mentioned above. Most general topology texts, such as [65J or [172J, will
have proofs of the less obvious ones. In a metric space, the properties of
compactness, countable compactness, limit point compactness, and sequen-
tial compactness are equivalent, as are the corresponding relative prop-
erties. Compactness obviously implies countable compactness. Countable
compactness implies limit point compactness; the properties are equivalent
in Hausdorff spaces. Even in Hausdorff spaces it is not always true that a set
is relatively sequentially compact exactly when its closure is sequentially
compact, or that a set is relatively limit point compact exactly when its
closure is limit point compact; see Exercise 2.15. However, the equivalences
do hold in metric spaces; see Exercise 2.l.

2Since two quantities equal to the same quantity should be equal to each other, it is
best to avoid the notation limn Xn = X when (xn) might have more than one limit. A
similar comment applies to the notation for net convergence that will be introduced in
Definition 2.1.14. This problem does not arise in Hausdorff spaces; see Proposition 2.1.17.
142 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.1. 7 Definition. Let X and Y be topological spaces and let f be a

function from X into Y. Then f is

(a) continuous at the point Xo of X if, for each neighborhood V of f(xo),

there is a neighborhood U of Xo such that feu) ~ V;

(b) continuous if, for each open subset V of Y, the set f- 1 (V) is open;

(c) sequentially continuous at the point Xo of X if, whenever a sequence

(x n ) in X converges to xo, the sequence (J(xn)) converges to f(xo);

(d) sequentially continuous if, whenever a sequence (xn) in X converges

to a point x, the sequence (J(xn)) converges to f(x);

(e) open if, for each open subset U of X, the set feU) is open;

(f) a homeomorphism if it is a bijection of X onto Y such that both f

and f- 1 are continuous; that is, if f is one-to-one, onto Y, continuous,
and open.

A function from one topological space into another is continuous on its

domain if and only if it is continuous at each point of its domain, and
is sequentially continuous on its domain if and only if it is sequentially
continuous at each point of its domain. Continuity at a point implies se-
quential continuity at that point, and the properties are equivalent when
the domain is a metric space. Thus, global continuity implies global se-
quential continuity, with the properties equivalent when the domain is a
metric space.
These continuity results for metric spaces can be generalized a bit. Recall
that a topological space satisfies the first countability axiom if at each point
of the space there is a countable basis for the topology at that point. Every
metric space satisfies the first count ability axiom; consider sequences of
open balls with radii decreasing to O. Now suppose that X is any topolog-
ical space satisfying the first countability axiom. Then a function from X
into a topological space is continuous at a point if and only if it is sequen-
tially continuous at that point, so global continuity and global sequential
continuity are also equivalent for such a function. Moreover, a subset of X
is closed if and only if it is sequentially closed. The proofs are essentially
the same as those for metric spaces; see, for example, [172, p. 190].
Not every topology permits such straightforward sequential testing for
continuity and closure. For example, some topological spaces have subsets
that are sequentially closed but not closed; a Hausdorff space with this
property is constructed in Exercise 2.3. Though it might seem that sequen-
tial methods useful in metric spaces must be abandoned when working
with topologies of this sort, many of those methods extend with very little
modification to all topological spaces if sequences are replaced by nets.
 2.1 Topology and Nets 143

2.1.8 Definition. A directed set is a nonempty set I with a relation j

such that
(1) a j a whenever a E I;
(2) if a j {J and {J j ,,(, then a j "(;
(3) for each pair a, {J of elements of I there is a "(a,{3 in I such that
a j 'Ya,{3 and {J j 'Ya,{3'
That is, a directed set is a nonempty preordered set that satisfies (3). A
net or Moore-Smith sequence in a set X is a function from a directed set I
into X. The set I is the index set for the net.

Some sources require that the preorder in the preceding definition be a

partial order; that is, that the following additional requirement be included
in the definition:
(4) a = {J whenever a j {J and (J ::5 a.

The theory of nets can be developed either with or without this additional
axiom. See [172, pp. 187-188] for a development that uses it.
The reason that the term Moore-Smith sequence is sometimes used for
a net is that E. H. Moore and H. L. Smith [171] introduced nets in 1922
as the basis for a general theory of limits. Mauro Picone [190] devised the
same theory independently in a book that appeared the next year. The
term net was actually first used by J. L. Kelley [131] in a 1950 paper on
topological convergence. 3 More on the early history of nets and the general
theory of limits can be found in the survey articles by E. J. McShane [167]
and R G. Bartle [18].
If f: I -+ X is a net, then for each Q in I the Qth term f(a) of the net.
is often denoted by X a , and the entire net is often denoted by (Xa)aEI or
just (xa). By analogy with sequences, it is said that Xa precedes x{3 in a
net when Q ::5 {J. In general, the familiar language of sequences is extended
to nets whenever the meaning is clear.

2.1.9 Example. Every sequence is a net, with the directed set being N in
its natural order.

2.1.10 Example. The set lR with its natural order is a directed set, so this
order makes every function with domain lR into a net. Notice that a term
in a net can be preceded by infinitely many others and that nets need not
have first terms.

3The terminology was not Kelley's invention, though. Kelley had wanted to call
such an object a way. However, nets have subnets, which Kelley would have dubbed
subways. Norman Steenrod talked him out of it. After some prodding by Kelley, Steenrod
suggested the term net as a substitute for way. See [204].
144 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.1.11 Example. The set JR2 can be made into a directed set by declaring
that (O'l,!'h) j (0'2,jJ2) whenever 0'1 :::; 0'2. If X(a,j3) = O'+jJ for each (0',jJ)
in JR2, then (X(a,j3)) is a net in lR. Notice that (1,2) j (1,3) and (1,3) j
(1,2) even though (1,2) i- (1,3).

2.1.12 Example. Let I be a three-element set {u,v,w} . Define j on I

by letting these be all of the corresponding relations: 0' j 0' for each 0'
in I; u j w; and v j w. This relation makes I into a directed set. Define a
net (x in JR with index set I by letting Xu = 0, Xv = 7r, and Xw = -3. This
Q ,)

illustrates several important ways in which nets can differ from sequences.
(a) The index set for a net can be finite.
(b) Nets can have last terms.
(c) Nets can have multiple "first" terms, that is, terms not preceded by
other terms.
(d) The index set for a net need not be a chain.

2.1.13 Example. Here is a type of net that is useful in many topological

arguments. Suppose that X is a topological space and that x EX. Let I
be the collection of all neighborhoods of X with the relation j given by
declaring that U j V when U ;2 V. Then I is a directed set. If Xu E U for
each U in I, then (xu) is a net in X.

A sequence in a topological space converges to an element of the space

if, for every neighborhood of that element, all terms of the sequence from
some term onward lie in that neighborhood. This definition generalizes
immediately to nets.

2.1.14 Definition. Let (Xa)uEI be a net in a topological space X and

let x be an element of X. Then (x",) converges to x, and x is called a limit
of (x,,), if, for each neighborhood U of x, there is an au in I such that
Xc> E U whenever au j 0'. This convergence is denoted by writing Xu -> x
or lim", Xa = x.4

Thus, the net in Example 2.1.13 converges to x. As another example,

every bounded increasing function from JR into JR, viewed as a net in the
sense of Example 2.1.10, converges to its supremum. Notice that the net in
Example 2.1.12 converges to -3.
Only sub basic neighborhoods really need to be checked for the property
required of all neighborhoods of the point x in Definition 2.1.14.

2.1.15 Proposition. Suppose that (5 is a subbasis for the topology of a

topological space X, that (Xa)aEI is a net in X, and that x E X. Then

4 See footnote 2 on page 141.

 2.1 Topology and Nets 145

xo: ---+ x if and only if the following is true: For every member U of 6 that
contains x, there is an au in I such that Xo: E U whenever au :::5 a.
PROOF. The forward implication follows immediately from the definition
of net convergence. For the converse, suppose that every member U of 6
that contains x satisfies the stated condition. It follows from conditions (2)
and (3) in Definition 2.1.8 that every finite subset of I has an upper bound
in I, which implies that if.j is a finite subset of 6 each of whose members
contains x, then there is an a;; in I such that Xo: E n{ U : U E .j} whenever
a;; ::S a. Therefore Xo: ---+ x because of the way that 6 determines a basis
for the topology of X.

The proof of the preceding result illustrates a typical application of a

useful consequence of conditions (2) and (3) in the definition of a directed
set: If (xo:) is a net and {PI"", Pn } is a finite collection of properties
defined for the terms of the net such that each Pj holds from some corre-
sponding net index value OJ onward, then there is an index value a such
that PI, ... , Pn all hold from a onward.
For nets in a topological product, convergence is equivalent to coordi-
natewise convergence.

2.1.16 Proposition. Let {X(o:) : a E I} be a family of topological spaces

and let X be their topological product. Suppose that (x{1){1EJ is a net in X
and x is a member of X. Then x(3 ---+ x if and only if x~o:) ---+ x(a) for
each a in I.
PROOF. Let 6 be the usual subbasis for the topology of X, that is, the
collection of all subsets of X of the form TIo:EI U(o:) such that each U(o:)
is open and at most one is not equal to the corresponding x(a). It follows
from Proposition 2.1.15 that x{1 ----> x if and only if the following holds:
For every member U of 6 that contains x, there is a f3u in J such that
x(3 E U whenever f3u ::S f3. This last condition is equivalent to requiring
that x~a) ---+ x(a) whenever a E I.

Recall that in a Hausdorff space, convergent sequences have unique lim-

its. The corresponding statement for nets actually characterizes Hausdorff
spaces among all topological spaces.

2.1.17 Proposition. A topological space X is a Hausdorff space if and

only if each convergent net in X has only one limit.
PROOF. Suppose that a net (x a ) in X has two different limits x and y. If
Ux and Uy are neighborhoods of x and y respectively, then the entire net
from some term onward lies in both Ux and Uy , so U x n U y i= 0. Thus, the
space X is not Hausdorff.
146 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

Conversely, suppose that X is not Hausdorff. Let x and y be distinct ele-

ments of X that cannot be separated by open sets. If UI and U2 are neigh-
borhoods of x and VI and V2 are neighborhoods of y such that UI :2 U2 and
VI :2 l/2, then declare that (UI , Vi) ~ (U2 , V2 ). For each neighborhood U
of x and each neighborhood V of y let x(U, V) be an element of Un V. Then
the net (X(u,v) converges to both x and y.

In a metric space, a point is in the closure of a set if and only if some

sequence from the set converges to that point. If sequences are replaced by
nets, then this remains true for arbitrary topological spaces.

2.1.18 Proposition. Let S be a subset of a topological space X and let x

be an element of X. Then xES if and only if some net in S converges to X.
PROOF. If a net in S converges to a point x, then every neighborhood of x
includes part ofthe net and thus intersects S, so xES. Conversely, suppose
that xES. Let I be the collection of all neighborhoods of x directed by
declaring that U:::; V when U :2 V. For each U in I, let Xu be a member
of U n S. Then (xu) is a net in S converging to x.

Since a point x is a limit point of a set S if and only if xES \ {x}, this
next corollary follows immediately from the proposition.

2.1.19 Corollary. Let S be a subset of a topological space X. Then an

element x of X is a limit point of S if and only if there is a net in S \ {x}
converging to x.

A set in a topological space is closed if and only if it includes its closure.

Combining this with the preceding proposition gives the following result.
Notice that it generalizes the fact that sets in metric spaces are closed
exactly when they are sequentially closed.

2.1.20 Proposition. A subset S of a topological space is closed if and

only if S contains every limit of every net whose terms lie in S.

The next result is a generalization of the equivalence of continuity and

sequential continuity for functions from a metric space into a topological
space.

2.1.21 Proposition. Let X and Y be topological spaces and let I be a

function from X into Y.
(a) The function I is continuous at the point Xo of X if and only if
I(x a ) -> I(xo) whenever (x",) is a net in X converging to Xo.
(b) The function I is continuous on X if and only if I(x a ) -> I(x)
whenever (x a ) is a net in X converging to an x in X.
 2.1 Topology and Nets 147

PROOF. Fix an Xo in X. If f is continuous at Xo and (xoJ is a net in X

converging to xo, then it follows immediately from the definitions of net
convergence and continuity at a point that J(x o ) --+ f(xo). Conversely,
suppose that J is not continuous at Xo. Let V be a neighborhood of J(xo)
such that no neighborhood U of Xo has the property that J(U) ~ V.
Let I be the collection of all neighborhoods of Xo directed by declaring that
U1 ::5 U2 when U1 ::;? U2. For each U in I, let Xu be an element of U such
that f(xu) tJ. V. Then the net (xu) converges to xo, but (J(xu)) does not
converge to f(xo). This proves (a), from which (b) follows immediately.

2.1.22 Corollary. If two topologies on the same set result in the same
convergent nets with the same limits for those nets, then the two topologies
are the same.
PROOF. Under the hypotheses of the corollary, the identity map on the
space, treated as a map between the two topological spaces in question, is
continuous in each direction and so is a homeomorphism.

2.1.23 Corollary. Suppose that X, Y, and Z are topological spaces and

that (x, y) 1--+ X Y is a continuous operation from X x Y into Z. Suppose
further that (x o ) and (Yo) are nets in X and Y respectively having the
same index set, and that x and yare elements of X and Y respectively
such that Xo --+ x and Yo --+ y. Then Xo . Yo --+ x . y.
PROOF. By Proposition 2.1.16, the net (X o , Yo)) in X x Y converges to
(x, y), so an application of Proposition 2.1.21 (b) finishes the proof.

A subset of a metric space is compact if and only if it is sequentially

compact. In order to generalize this fact to arbitrary topological spaces,
some notion for a subnet of a net is needed. By analogy with sequences, it
might seem reasonable to let a subnet be the object obtained after carefully
thinning the index set of a net. The following definition is needed before
exploring this possibility.

2.1.24 Definition. A subset J of a directed set I is cofinal in I if for

each Q in I there is a (30 in J such that Q ::5 (30'

Suppose that J is a cofinal subset of a directed set I. Then each two

elements of J have a common upper bound in I, which by the cofinality
of J in I gives them a common upper bound in J. It follows that J is
itself a directed set. Now suppose that I is the index set of a net (x a ) in a
topological space and that (x a ) has a limit x. Let (x,l3) be the net formed
by restricting (xa) to J. A moment's thought about the definitions of net
convergence and cofinality shows that (x,l3) also converges to x. The fact
that J is cofinal in I is important for this. If J were only a subset of I
known to be a directed set under the inherited preorder, then (x,l3) might
have no limit at all.
148 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.1.25 Example. Let No = NU{O}, directed by letting N retain its natural

order and declaring that a ::5 0 for each a in No. Define a net from No into lR
by letting Xn = a for each a in No. Then Xn --> 0 though (Xn)nEN is a net
that does not converge to anything. Notice that N is not cofinal in No.

Let (Xn)nEf be a net in a topological space. Whatever meaning is as-

signed to the term subnet, any limit that (xc has should also be a limit
for each of its subnets. Sequential intuition, tempered by Example 2.1.25
and the discussion preceding it, suggests that a subnet of (xc should be
defined to be the restriction of the net to a cofinal subset J of I, where
J has the preorder that it inherits from I. It would seem that it might
be necessary to impose additional restrictions on J, but there is no need
to worry about this because this attempt at a definition is already in se-
rious trouble. As it stands, this preliminary definition has already forced
subnets of sequences to be SUbsequences. This will not do if the net analog
of sequential compactness is to be equivalent to compactness, for there are
compact Hausdorff spaces in which sequences need not have convergent
subsequences; see Exercise 2.14. If such sequences, treated as nets, are to
have convergent subnets, then the subnets must be more general objects
than subsequences.
The basic problem with this failed attempt to define subnets is the in-
sistence on retaining the full strength of the preorder of I inherited by its
cofinal subset J. This is not at all necessary. Suppose instead that J is
given a preorder ::5J that makes it into a directed set, but not necessarily
the preorder ::51 inherited from I, and that the net (xf3) formed by restrict-
ing (xoe) to J and using the preorder of J is to be a "subnet" of (xn,). If
(x (3) is to inherit whatever limits (xc has, then it is fairly clear that one
should impose on J the requirement that /31 ::5J /32 =} /31 ::51/32. However,
there is no particular reason to inflict the converse of that requirement
on J. Suppose that ::5.1 is obtained by starting with ::51, then weakening
that relation on J by declaring that some pairs of elements of J related in I
are unrelated in J, but leaving the relation strong enough that J remains a
directed oet. It is easy to see that the "subnet" (xf3) indexed by J with its
weakened relation still has every limit that the full net (xn) has. In fact,
if /31, /32 E J and /31 = /32 in I, then in some sense thcre is not even any
reason to require that (3 1 = /32 in J or even that /31 ::5J /32 or /32 ::5J /31 in J!
This is the motivation behind the following definition.

2.1.26 Definition. Suppose that X is a set, that I is a directed set, and

that f: I --> X is a net. Suppose furthermore that J is a directed set and
that g: J --+ I is a function such that
(1) g(/31) ::5 g(/32) in I whenever /31 ::5 /32 in J;
(2) g( J) is cofinal in I.
Then the net fog: J --+ X is called a subnet of f
 2.1 Topology and Nets 149

1 3 5 7 9

"x "x "x

2
-- -- -- --
~
4 6 8
~
10 - - ...

FIGURE 2.1. A weakening of the natural order of N.

The function 9 in the preceding definition can be treated as a way of

embedding J into I as a cofinal subset so that both the relation ~ and the
very notion of equality can be weaker in J itself than in J viewed as a subset
of I. If the net f is denoted by (x",) in the usual way, then its subnet fog
should logically be denoted by (x g (,8). Though clarity sometimes requires
that notation, the subnet is often denoted by just (x,8) when no confusion
can result. Notice that the original naive attempt to define subnets following
Example 2.1.25 does in fact always yield subnets; it just does not yield all
subnets. In particular, it still follows that a subsequence of a sequence is a
subnet of that net. As the next example shows, sequences also have subnets
that are not subsequences.

2.1.27 Example. Let (xn) be any sequence and let J be the natural num-
bers with their usual order except that each relation between two integers
that requires an integer to be properly less than an odd integer has been
discarded. The directed set J is represented visually in Figure 2.1, where
Q -> f3 means that Q ~ (3. If g is the "identity" map from J into the natu-

ral numbers with their usual order, then (Xg(n) is a subnet of (xn). Thus,
subnets of sequences do not have to be sequences, or even have chains for
index sets.

2.1.28 Example. Suppose that (xn) is any sequence. Let the subset [1, (0)
ofR have its natural order and let g: [1, (0) -> N be the function that maps
each r in [1, (0) to the greatest integer less than or equal to r. Then (x r )
(that is, (Xg(r))) is a sub net of (xn). While a subsequence is often thought of
as being obtained from a sequence by thinning the index set, this example
shows that a subnet can be formed from a net by thickening the index set
(though of course the range of a subnet is never any larger than that of the
original net). Incidentally, notice that in this particular case the net (xn)
can also be viewed as a subnet of (xr) in an obvious way.

2.1.29 Example. Let (x",) be the net of Example 2.1.25. Let J be a one-
element set {(3} made into a directed set in the only way possible, and
define g: J -> No by letting g(3) = O. Then (Xg(,8) is a subnet of (x",).
More generally, suppose that J is a directed set and g: J -> No is a function
to be used to construct a subnet of (x",). Then the range of 9 must contain 0
but does not have to contain anything else.
150 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.1.30 Example. Let j be a continuous real-valued function on C. Let I

be the set of all positive reals directed by declaring that s ::S t when s 2: tj
that is, the relation ::S reverses the usual order of the positive reals. For
each r in I, let Ur be the open disk in C of radius r centered at 0 and
let Sr be the supremum of j on Ur. Then (Sr) is a convergent net with
limit j(O). Let J be the collection of all neighborhoods of 0 in C besides C
itself, directed by declaring that U ::S V when U :2 V. Define g: J -+ I by
letting g(U) = max{ r : U :2 Ur }. Then (Sg(U) is a subnet of (Sr) and
converges to j (0) .

Here is a collection of facts about subnets and the ways in which their
convergence is related to that of the main net.

2.1.31 Proposition. Let (xa) be a net in a set X.

(a) The net (xa) is a subnet of itself
(b) Every subnet of (xa) is a net in X.
(c) Every subnet of a subnet of (xa) is a subnet of (xa).
(d) If X is a topological space and (xa) converges to an element x of X,
then every subnet of (xa) converges to x.
(e) If X is a topological space and there is an element x of X such that
every subnet of (xa) has a subnet converging to x, then Xa -+ X.
PROOF. Parts (a), (b), (c), and (d) follow easily from the appropriate
definitions. For (e), suppose that X is a topological space and that x is an
element of X that is not a limit of (xa). Then there is a neighborhood U
of x with this property: For every a in the index set I for (xa) there is
a (30 in I such that a ::S (30 and xfJn :. U. Let J = {(3 : (3 E I, xfJ :. U},
a cofinal subset of I, and let (xfJ) be the restriction of (xa) to J. Then
(XfJ) is a subnet of (xa) that clearly has no subnet converging to x, which
proves (e).

2.1.32 Technique. Suppose that (xa) and (YfJ) are nets with respective
index sets I and J. It is often useful to be able to find subnets (xl') and (Yl')
of (xa) and (YfJ) respectively that have the same index set K. To do this, let
K = I x J, directed by declaring that (a 1,(3d ::S (a2' (32) when a 1 ::S a2 and
(31 ::::: (32. Let g: K -+ I and h: K -+ J be the projection mappings, that is,
the mappings defined by the formulas g(a, (3) = a and h(a, (3) = (3. Then
(xg(a,fJ and (Yh(a,fJ are subnets of (xa) and (YfJ) respectively having
the same index set. Notice that these subnets are, in a sense, formed by
thickening the index sets of the corresponding nets. Notice also that if (xa)
lies in a topological space, then (xg(a,fJl) converges to some x if and only if
(xa) converges to x, and similarly for (Yh(a,fJl) and (YfJ)

One more notion for sequences needs to be extended to nets before pro-
ceeding. Recall that an accumulation point of a sequence in a topological
 2.1 Topology and Nets 151

space is a point x such that every neighborhood of x contains terms of

the sequence with arbitrarily large indices. The following is the natural
generalization to nets.

2.1.33 Definition. Let (Xll>EI be a net in a topological space X and

let x be an element of X. Then (Xl accumulates at x, and x is called an
accumulation point of (Xl, if, for each neighborhood U of x and each a
in I, there is a i3l>,U in I such that a ~ i3l>,U and x{3Q,u E U.

Two of the most basic facts about net accumulation are contained in the
next result. The proof follows very easily from the relevant definitions.

2.1.34 Proposition. Suppose that (Xl is a net in a topological space X

and that x EX.
(a) If (x",) converges to x, then (Xl accumulates at x.
(b) If (x",) has a subnet that accumulates at x, then (Xl accumulates
at x.

Thus, while convergence is a property passed down from nets to subnets,

the property of accumulation is passed up to nets from subnets.
In a metric space, a sequence accumulates at a point if and only if the
sequence has a subsequence converging to that point, from which it follows
that a set in a metric space is closed exactly when it contains every ac-
cumulation point of every sequence in the set. Compare those facts to the
following proposition and corollary.

2.1.35 Proposition. A net in a topological space accumulates at a point

if and only if the net has a subnet converging to that point.
PROOF. Let (X"')"'EI be a net in a topological space. If (x",) has a subnet
converging to a point x, then that subnet accumulates at x, so (x",) accu-
mulates at x. For the converse, suppose that (Xl accumulates at x. Let J
be the collection of all ordered pairs (a, U) such that a E I and U is a
neighborhood of x containing xC<. Define a relation on J by declaring that
(a1,U1)::s (a2,U2) when a1 ~ a2 and U1 :2 U2. If (a1,Ud,(a2,U2) E J,
then the fact that (x",) accumulates at x assures that there is an a3
such that a1 ~ a3, a2 ::S a3, and X"'3 E U1 n U2, which implies that
(a1,U1 ) ~ (a3,U1 n U2) and (a2,U2) ~ (a3,U1 n U2). It follows that this
relation defined on J makes J into a directed set. Let g(a, U) = a whenever
(a, U) E J. Then (xg(",.U)) is a subnet of (x",) converging to x.

2.1.36 Corollary. A subset S of a topological space is closed if and only

if S contains every accumulation point of every net whose terms lie in S.
PROOF. It follows from Proposition 2.1.20 that S is closed if and only
if it contains every limit of every convergent subnet of every net whose
152 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

terms lie in S, so an application of the proposition just proved yields this

corollary.

The following result is the analog for arbitrary topological spaces of the
equivalence of compactness and sequential compactness in metric spaces.

2.1.37 Proposition. A subset S of a topological space is compact if and

only if each net in S has a subnet with a limit in S, that is, if and only if
each net in S has an accumulation point in S.
PROOF. Suppose that (Xl is a net in S with no accumulation point in S.
For each X in S, let Ux be a neighborhood of x that excludes the entire
portion of the net from some term onward. Let 115 = {Ux : XES}, an open
covering for S. Since every finite sub collection of 115 excludes the entire net
from some term onward, it follows that 115 cannot be thinned to a finite
subcovering for S, so S is not compact.
Conversely, suppose that S has an open covering 115 that cannot be
thinned to a finite subcovering for S. It can be assumed that 115 is closed
under the operation of taking finite unions of its elements. It follows that
(5 can be made into a directed set by declaring that U ~ V when U ~ V.
For each U in 115, let Xu be a member of S \ U. Then (xu) is a net in S
with the property that xu, rt UI when UI ~ U2. It follows that (xu) has
no accumulation point in S.

Compactness also has a useful characterization in terms of the conver-

gence of special nets called ultranets. See Appendix D for this characteriza-
tion as well as a general discussion of ultranets and examples of how they
can be used to simplify compactness arguments that involve the axiom of
choice.
By analogy with metric spaces, it would seem reasonable to conjecture
that a subset S of a topological space X must be relatively compact if each
net in S has a subnet with a limit in X. Proposition 2.1.37 would seem
to provide strong supporting evidence for this conjecture. It is perhaps
surprising that the conjecture is in general false; see Exercise 2.15. It does
hold, however, for a class of topological spaces large enough to include all
of the important ones that appear in this book.

2.1.38 Definition. Suppose that X is a set with a group (multiplication)

operation, that is, an operation (x, y) f-t X Y from X x X into X such that
(1) (x y) . z = X (y. z) whenever x, y, Z E X; that is, the operation is
associative;
(2) there is an identity element e in X such that X e = e x = x whenever
x E X;
(3) each element x of X has an inverse X-I in X such that x . x-I =
x-l . X = e.
 2.1 Topology and Nets 153

Then (X,) is a group. Suppose furthermore that 'I is a topology for X

such that the mappings (x, y) f-+ X . Y from X x X into X and x f-+ x-I
from X into X are both continuous. Then (X, 'I, . ) is a topological group.
When no confusion can result, both the group (X" ) and the topological
group (X, 'I" ) are denoted by X.

For example, if X is a normed space and the group operation is addition

of vectors, then X is a topological group by Proposition 1.3.2.
The reader should be warned that other sources sometimes define a topo-
logical group to be a Hausdorff space satisfying Definition 2.1.38. Most of
the topological groups important in analysis actually are Hausdorff spaces.
In fact, a topological group that is not a Hausdorff space is not even a
To space; see Exercise 2.16.
Recall that a group is said to be abelian if the group operation is com-
mutative. When this happens, the operation is often called group addition
instead of multiplication, with a corresponding shift to additive notation
such as x+y and -x. In particular, the identity of an abelian group is often
denoted by 0 instead of e. Most of the topological groups encountered in
this book will be abelian.
A bit more notation is needed before proceeding. Suppose that X is a
group and that x E X and A, B <;;; X. Then x . A = {x . a : a E A},
A . x = {a x : a E A}, A . B = {a b : a E A, b E B}, and A-I =
{a-I: a E A}. When the group is abelian and additive notation is being
used, the corresponding objects are denoted by x+A, A+x, A+B, and -A.

2.1.39 Proposition. Suppose that X is a topological group with iden-

tity e.
(a) Let Xo be an element of X. Then the maps x f-+ Xo . x, X f-+ X xo,
and x f-+ X-I are homeomorphisms from X onto itself Consequently,
if A is a subset of X that is open, or closed, or compact, then Xo' A,
A xo, and A-I also have that property. If A and G are subsets of X
and G is open, then both A . G and G . A are open.
(b) For each Xo in X, the neighborhoods of Xo are exactly the sets Xo . U
such that U is a neighborhood of e, which are in turn exactly the
sets U . Xo such that U is a neighborhood of e.
(c) For each neighborhood U of e, there is a neighborhood V of e such
that V = V-I and V V <;;; U.
PROOF. For (a), suppose that Xo E X. The continuity of the group opera-
tions of X implies that the maps x f-+ Xo . x, X f-+ X . Xo, and x f-+ X-I are
continuous, as are their respective inverses x f-+ X 0 1 . X, X f-+ X . XOI, and
x f-+ X-I, so the three maps of part (a) are homeomorphisms from X onto
itself. If A is a subset of X that is open, or closed, or compact, then Xo . A,
A xo, and A-I have that same property since these properties are preserved
by homeomorphisms. If A and G are subsets of X and G is open, then A G
154 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

and G . A are open as unions of open sets, since A . G = U{ a . G : a E A }

and G A = U{ G a: a E A}. This proves (a). If Ue and Uxo are neighbor-
hoods of e and Xo respectively, then (a) implies that Xo . Ue and X01 . Uxo
are neighborhoods of Xo and e respectively, which together with the fact
that Uxo = Xo . (X01 . Uxo ) easily yields the first part of (b). The second
part is proved similarly.
Finally, suppose that U is a neighborhood of e. By the continuity of
group multiplication, there are neighborhoods VI and V2 of e such that
VI . V2 ~ U. Let V = VI n V2 n V1- 1 n V2- 1, another neighborhood of e.
Then V does what is required of it in (c).

Here is the analog of Proposition 2.1.37 for relative compactness in topo-

logical groups that could not be obtained for arbitrary topological spaces.

2.1.40 Proposition. A subset S of a topological group X is relatively

compact if and only if each net in S has a subnet with a limit in X (not
assumed to be in S), that is, if and only if each net in S has an accumulation
point in X.
PROOF. If S is relatively compact, then 5 is compact, so every net in S
has a subnet with a limit in 5 and therefore in X.
For the converse, suppose that every net in S has a subnet with a limit
in X. Let (XoJo:EI be a net in S. By Propositions 2.1.20 and 2.1.37, it is
enough to show that (xaJ has a convergent subnet. For each a in I and
each neighborhood U of the identity e of X, let Y(o:,U) be an element of
(xo;U)nS. Then (Y(o:,U)) is a net if its index set J is preordered by declaring
that (aI, Ud :::: (a2' U2) when a1 :< a2 and U1 :2 U2. Furthermore, a
corresponding subnet (X(a,U)) of (xa) is obtained by letting x(o:,U) = Xa
for each (a, U) in J. It is enough to show that (X(a,U)) has a convergent
subnet. Since the net (Y(o:,U)) has a subnet (y,e) with a limit x, it is enough
to show that the corresponding sub net (x,e) of (X(o:,U)) also converges to x.
Suppose that Uo is a neighborhood of e. Let ao be any element of I. If
(ao, Uo) :::: (a, U), then Y(a,U) E x(o:,U) . Un, so x(a1,U) . Y(a,U) E Uo. It follows
that x(o:l,U) . Y(a,U) ----> e and therefore that Xfi1 . Y,e ----> e. The continuity of
the group operations then assures that

Y(3-1 . X,e = (X,e

-1
. Y,e )-1 --> e -1 =e
and that

X(3 = Y(3 . (Yfil . x,e) --> x . e = x,

as required.

See Proposition D.lO in Appendix D for a characterization of relative
compactness in topological groups in terms of the convergence of ultranets.
 2.1 Topology and Nets 155

In metric spaces, the notion of a Cauchy sequence has an obvious gen-

eralization to nets: A net (X")"EI in a metric space is Cauchy if, for every
positive E, there is an a, in I such that d(x/3, x.J < E whenever a, ::5 /3 and
a, ::5 {. Because of the special role played by the metric in this definition,
it is not quite so easy to obtain a further generalization to more abstract
topological settings. It turns out to be more fruitful to start with the special
case of the Cauchy condition for nets in the real line, concentrate on the
topological aspects of that condition rather than the metric space aspects,
and then attempt a generalization from that special case.
Suppose that (1""),,EI is a net in lR. Then {1"/3 - 1"'Y : (/3,{) E I x I}
becomes a net if I x I is preordered by declaring that (/31, (I) ::5 (/32, (2)
when /31 ::5 /32 and {I ::5 {2' The Cauchy condition for nets then becomes
a convergence statement about such a net of differences: The net (r,,) is
Cauchy if and only if the difference net (1"/3 - 1"'Y)(/3,'Y)ElxI converges to O.
This topological characterization of the Cauchy condition for nets in JR
can be immediately generalized to an abelian group X with a topology by
declaring that a net (X")"EI in X is Cauchy if, under the same indexing
scheme as for difference nets in JR, the difference net (X/3 - x'Y)(/3,'Y)EIXI
converges to the identity element 0 of the group. To have a useful theory
of Cauchy nets in such a topological space, it is reasonable to ask that
convergent nets be Cauchy. By analogy with the usual argument for se-
quences in the real line, the proof that a net (Xa,)aEI in X with a limit Xo
is Cauchy should amount to showing that for every neighborhood U of 0
there is an au in I such that if au :::: /3 and au :::: {, then x(3 is "near
enough" to Xo and -x'Y is "near enough" to -xo to force x/3 - x'Y to be
"near enough" to the sum 0 of Xo and -xo to lie in U. (All of this language
will be made rigorous in the proof of Proposition 2.1.47.) To assure that
this will happen, the maps (x, y) f---+ X + y from X x X into X and x f---+ -x
from X into X should be continuous; that is, the space X should be a
topological group.
Thus, abelian topological groups form a natural setting for a generaliza-
tion of the Cauchy condition. To avoid direct references to the convergence
of difference nets, this generalization can be stated as follows.

2.1.41 Definition. A net (Xa)aEI in an abelian topological group X is

(topologically) Cauchy if, for every neighborhood U of the identity element 0
of X, there is an au in I such that x/3 - x'Y E U whenever au ::5 /3 and
au:::: {.

It is worth emphasizing that the preceding definition is not a general-

ization of the Cauchy condition for nets in metric spaces. It is instead a
generalization of the topological formulation of the Cauchy condition for
nets in the real line, while the Cauchy condition for nets in metric spaces
is a different generalization based on the metric formulation of the Cauchy
condition in lR. This has unfortunate consequences when an abelian topo-
156 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

logical group has its topology induced by a metric, for it is quite possible
for a net in such a space to be metrically Cauchy or topologically Cauchy
without being Cauchy in both senses; see Exercise 2.17. However, this dif-
ficulty does not arise in the situations of most importance in this book, as
will be shown by Proposition 2.1.44 and its corollary.

2.1.42 Definition. A metric d on a group X is left-invariant (respectively,

right-invariant) ifd(zx,zy) = d(x,y) (respectively, d(xz,yz) = d(x,y))
whenever X,y,Z E X. If d is both left-invariant and right-invariant, then d
is invariant.

It follows that a metric d on an abelian group X is invariant if and only

if d(x + z, y + z) = d(x, y) whenever x, y, z E X. In particular, a metric
on a vector space is said to be invariant when it has this property, since
the space is an abelian group under vector addition. Invariant metrics on
abelian groups are sometimes said to be translation-invariant because of
the additive notation.
This is an appropriate place for the following result, which will be used
in several of the examples in the next section.

2.1.43 Proposition. If a topology for a group is induced by an invariant

metric, then the group is a topological group when given this topology.
PROOF. Suppose that a group X is given a topology that is induced by an
invariant metric d. Let e be the identity element of X. If sequences (x n )
and (Yn) converge to x and Y respectively in X, then

d(xn . Yn, X y) = d(x- 1 . Xn, y. y;;l)

:'::: d(x- 1 . xn,e) + d(e,y. y;;l)
= d(xn, x) + d(Yn, y) -+ 0

and

so Xn . Yn -+ X Y and X~ 1 -+ X-i. It follows that group multiplication and

inversion are both continuous, so X is a topological group.

2.1.44 Proposition. Suppose that the topology of an abelian topological

group is induced by an invariant metric. Then a net in the group is Cauchy
with respect to this metric jf and only if the net is topologically Cauchy.
PROOF. Let (xc<) be a net in an abelian topological group whose topology
is induced by an invariant metric d. If X(3 and x-y are two terms of the net,
then d(x(3,x-y) = d(x(3 - x-y,O), from which it easily follows that the net is
metrically Cauchy if and only if it is topologically Cauchy.
 2.1 Topology and Nets 157

Since every normed space is an abelian topological group when the group
operation is vector addition, and since the metric induced by the norm is in-
variant for this operation, the following result is an immediate consequence
of the proposition just proved.

2.1.45 Corollary. Let X be a normed space, treated as an abelian topolog-

ical group under vector addition. Then a net in X is topologically Cauchy
if and only if it is norm Cauchy.

In the real line, the convergence of a subsequence of a Cauchy sequence

is enough to force the convergence of the entire sequence to the same limit.
This fact generalizes to nets in abelian topological groups.

2.1.46 Proposition. Ifa Cauchy net in an abelian topological group has a

convergent subnet, then the entire net converges to the limit of the subnet.
PROOF. Suppose that (XcaEI is a Cauchy net in an abelian topological
group X and that (xa) has a subnet with a limit xo' Let U bc a neighbor-
hood of 0 in X, let V be a neighborhood of 0 such that V + V ~ U, and let
ao be a member of I such that X-y - X6 E V whenever ao ::: "( and ao ::: 8.
Since (xc accumulates at xo, there is an au in I such that ao ::: au and
xc>u E Xo + V. If au ::: a, then

XQ = (xc> - xuu) + xau E V + (xu + V) = Xo + (V + V) ~ Xo + U,

which implies that Xc> ----; Xo'

The remarks that precede Definition 2.1.41 include a sketch of a proof
that convergent nets in abelian topological groups are always Cauchy. It is
time to fill in the details of that proof.

2.1.47 Proposition. Every convergent net in an abelian topological group

is Cauchy.
PROOF. Let X be an abelian topological group and let (Xa)aEI be a net
in X converging to some element Xu of X. Let U be a neighborhood of 0
in X and let V be a neighborhood of 0 such that V = - V and V + V ~ U.
Let au be a member of I such that Xc> E Xo + V whenever au ::: a. If
au ::: (3 and au ::: ,,(, then

X{3 - x-y E (xo + V) - (xo + V) = V - V = V +V ~ U,

so (xc:.) is Cauchy.

2.1.48 Definition. An abelian topological group is complete if each Cau-
chy net in the group converges.
158 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

This definition of completeness might seem fundamentally different from

the usual one for metric spaces, since that definition requires only that
all metrically Cauchy sequences converge. However, it turns out that the
completeness of a metric space in the usual sense is actually enough to
guarantee the convergence of all of its metrically Cauchy nets.

2.1.49 Proposition. Let (X, d) be a metric space. Then d is a complete

metric if and only if each d-Cauchy net converges.
PROOF. Suppose that d is complete and that (Xa)aEI is a Cauchy net in X.
It is cnough to prove that (xa) converges. Since (xa) is Cauchy, there is a
sequence (an) in I such that an j a n+1 for each nand d( x (3, x,) < n- 1
whenever an j (3 and an j 'Y. It follows that (xa n ) is a Cauchy sequence
and so has a limit x. If t > 0, then there is a positive integer m such that
m> 2/f. and d(xa=, x) < E/2, which implies that if am j a, then
1 f
d(xa, x) :::: d(xa, xa m ) + d(xa m , x) < m + "2 < E.
The net (xa) therefore converges to x.

Combining the preceding proposition with Proposition 2.1.44 yields the
following result immediately.

2.1.50 Corollary. Suppose that the topology of an abelian topological

group X is induced by an invariant metric d. Then X is complete as an
abelian topological group if and only if d is a complete metric.

2.1.51 Corollary. Let X be a normed space. Then X is complete as an

abelian topological group under vector addition if and only if X is a Banach
space.

In light of Proposition 2.l.49, one might ask if the convergence of every

Cauchy sequence in an abelian topological group is enough to &'lsure that
the group is complete. As will be seen in Example 2.5.24, the answer is no.
Throughout the rest of this book, nets are the objects whose convergence
properties are used in topological arguments. They are not the only possi-
ble choice for this. Many authors use the convergence properties of filters
or their close relatives, filter bases, to accomplish the same thing. This is
especially true for those who learned much of their mathematics from Nico-
las Bourbaki's Elements de Mathematique [33] since Bourbaki uses filters
to do "his" topology. (Those who do not know why the quotes are around
the word "his" should read Paul Halmos's delightful Scientific American
article [100] about Bourbaki.) Suffice it to say here that whenever a net
converges, there are related filters and filterbascs that are also forced to
converge, and that if a filter or filter base converges, then there is a conver-
gent net lurking not too far away. See, for example, [65] for a discussion of
 2.1 Topology and Nets 159

filters and filterbases and the relationship of their convergence properties

to those of nets.

Exercises

2.1 Let S be a subset of a metric space. Prove the following.

(a) The set S is relatively sequentially compact if and only if its closure
is sequentially compact.
(b) The set S is relatively limit point compact if and only if its closure
is limit point compact.
2.2 Let X be a topological space.
(a) Prove that X is a Tl space if and only if each one-element subset
of X is closed.
(b) Prove that X is regular if and only if it is a Tl space with this
property: Whenever x E X and U is a neighborhood of x, there is a
neighborhood V of x whose closure lies in U.
(c) Prove that X is normal if and only if it is a T 1 space with this
property: Whenever F is a closed subset of X and U is an open
superset of F, there is an open superset V of F whose closure lies
inU.
2.3 Let X be the interval [0,1] with the topology given by declaring that a

subset of X is open if it does not contain or its complement is countable.
Verify that X is a Hausdorff topological space. Show that the subset (0,1]
of X is sequentially closed but not closed.
2.4 Let A and B be subsets of topological spaces X and Y respectively. Using
net arguments, prove that A x B = if x Ii in X x Y.
2.5 Using net arguments, prove that continuous images of compact sets are
always compact.
2.6 Using net arguments, prove that every compact subset of a Hausdorff
space is closed.
2.7 Using net arguments, prove that a topological space X is Hausdorff if and
only if the diagonal {(x,x): x EX} is closed in X xX.
2.8 Let X be a set. Using net arguments, prove that no Hausdorff topology
for X can be properly weaker (that is, have fewer open sets) than a
topology for X with respect to which X is compact.
2.9 (a) Let K be a compact subset of a topological space X. Suppose that
(X"')"'EI is a net in X such that whenever U is an open set that
includes K and a: E I, there is a /3""u in I such that a: ::S /3""u and
x{3c..u E U. Prove that some subnet of (x",) converges to an element
ofK.
(b) Use (a) to prove that every compact Hausdorff space is normal.
160 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.10 A subset S of a topological space is a Lindelof set if each open covering

of S can be thinned to a countable subcovering. Suppose that the net (xc
in the Lindel6f set S has no subnet converging to any point of S. Show
that there is a sequence (On) of net indices for (Xa) such that On :::::: On+l
for each n and the sequence (X an ) has no subnet converging to a point
of S. Conclude that every sequentially compact Lindelof set is compact.
2.11 Recall that a topological space X is connected if there is no pair of disjoint
nonempty open subsets of X whose union is X.
(a) Prove that a topological space X is connected if and only if it has
this property: Whenever S is a nonempty proper subset of X, there
is either a net in S converging to a point in the complement of S,
or a net in the complement of S converging to a point in S.
(b) Let X and Y be topological spaces such that X is connected. Sup-
pose that there is a continuous function from X onto Y. Use (a) to
show that Y is connected.
2.12 Let a and b be real numbers such that a < b. If T is a finite subset
{to, ... ,t n } of [a,b] such that to = a, tn = b, and t ] - l < tj when j E
{1, ... ,n}, and S is a corresponding finite subset {SI, ... ,Sn} of [a,b]
such that Sj E [t j - I , tj] for each j, then the ordered pair (T, S) is called
a Riemann partition of [a, b]. Define a relation:::::: on the collection I of
all Riemann partitions of [a, b] by declaring that (TI , SI) :::::: (T2, S2) when
Tl ~ T2. Let f be a real-valued function on [a, b]. For each (T, S) in I, let
X(T,S) = 2::;=1 f(Sj)(tj - t]_I)'
(a) Show that I with the relation:::::: is a directed set.
(b) Find necessary and sufficient conditions for the net (X(T,S to con-
verge. When it converges, identify its limit.
2.13 Let a and b be real numbers such that a < b and let>. be Lebesgue measure
on the Lebesgue-measurable subsets of [a, b]. Let I be the collection of all
partitions of [a, b] into a finite number of disjoint measurable sets. Define
a relation:::::: on I in the following way. Suppose that PI, P 2 E I and that
PI = {El, ... ,En } and P2 = {F1, ... ,FTn }. Then PI:::::: P2 if each Ej
is the union of the members of some subcollection of [>2, that is, if the
members of P2 are formed by subdividing the members of Pt. Now let f
be a nonnegative real-valued measurable function on [a, b]. If PEl and
P = {EI, ... , En}, let Xp = L;=l inf{J(t) : t E E j }>.(E]).
(a) Show that I with the relation:::::: is a directed set.
(b) Find necessary and sufficient conditions for the net (xp) to converge.
When it converges, identify its limit.
2.14 Let Y be a two-element set with the discrete topology, that is, the topology
in which every subset of the set is open. Let X be the collection of all
functions from the closed interval [0, 1] into Y, viewed as the topological
product ITaE[O,lj Y" where Y" = Y for each o. Show that X is a compact
Hausdorff space that is not sequentially compact. (Notice that if Un) is a
sequence in X, then the collection of all subsequences of Un) can be put
into one-to-one correspondence with (0,1].)
 2.2 Vector Topologies 161

Examples of sequentially compact Hausdorff spaces that are not compact

can be found in [228].
2.15 Let X = {z : z E C, Izl ~ I} and let S = {z : z E C, Izl < I}. For
each z in X \ S, let an inner deleted neighborhood of z be a set of the
form UnS, where U is a neighborhood of z in C in the usual sense. Define
a subset G of X to be open if G n S is open in C in the usual sense and for
each z in Gn(X\S) there is an inner deleted neighborhood of z included
in G. Show that this defines a Hausdorff topology on X for which S is
not sequentially compact, limit point compact, or compact. Show that S
is relatively sequentially compact and relatively limit point compact, and
that each net in S has a subnet with a limit in X.
2.16 Prove that every To topological group is Hausdorff.
2.17 Show that the formula d(rl, r2) = I(rl - J2) -1 - (r2 - J2)-11 defines a
metric on the rationals Q that induces the usual topology that Q inherits
from JR. Use this to give an example of an abelian topological group whose
topology is induced by a metric such that some sequence in the group is
topologically Cauchy but not metrically Cauchy, and some other sequence
in the group is metrically Cauchy but not topologically Cauchy.

2.2 Vector Topologies

Some useful properties of normed spaces proved in Chapter 1, such as the
fact that the closed convex hull of a set in a normed space is the closure of
its convex hull, actually follow only from the continuity of the vector space
operations of such spaces rather than from any other special properties
of norms. It turns out that a number of other important properties of
these spaces, such as the fact that every continuous linear functional on
a subspace can be extended continuously to the entire space, also rely on
the fact that every neighborhood of a point in a normed space includes a
convex neighborhood of that point, but not on any other special properties
of normed spaces beyond the continuity of the vector space operations. This
suggests the following generalizations of the notion of a normed space.

2.2.1 Definitions. Suppose that X is a vector space with a topology 'r

such that addition of vectors is a continuous operation from X x X into X
and multiplication of vectors by scalars is a continuous operation from
IF x X into X. Then 'r is a vector or linear topology for X, and the ordered
pair (X, 'r) is a topological vector space (TVS) or a linear topological space
(LTS). If'r has a basis consisting of convex sets, then 'r is a locally convex
topology and the TVS (X, 'r) is a locally convex space (LCS).

When (X, 'r) is a topological vector space, it is usually said informally

(though admittedly not quite correctly) that X is the TVS, unless the more
formal notation is needed for clarity.
162 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

The continuity of multiplication of vectors by scalars in a topological

vector space implies the continuity of the map x ~ -x on the space, which
immediately yields the following result. This characterization is sometimes
used as the definition of a vector topology.

2.2.2 Proposition. A topology on a vector space X is a vector topology

if and only if both of the following occur: The space X is a topological
group under addition of vectors, and multiplication of vectors by scalars is
a continuous operation from IF x X into X.

The continuity of the vector space operations in a TVS creates a link

between the vector space structure and the topology of the space. The ad-
ditional property possessed by an LCS provides each of its points with a
supply of nicely shaped neighborhoods. Almost all of the TVSs important in
Banach space theory are To spaces, which in fact implies that they are com-
pletely regular, as will be proved in Theorem 2.2.14. For this reason, many
sources include some separation axiom, ranging from To through T31, 2
as
one of the defining properties of a vector topology.
As the following result shows, Chapter 1 is teeming with examples of
locally convex spaces.

2.2.3 Theorem. Every norm topology is a locally convex topology.

PROOF. The continuity of the vector space operations of a normed space
is proved in Proposition 1.3.2, while the existence of a basis consisting
of convex sets comes from the fact that every ball in a normed space is
convex.

Here are some examples of vector topologies that are not in general
induced by norms.

2.2.4 Example. Let X be a vector space having a nonzero vector. Then

the topology {0, X} is a locally convex topology for X that is not even a
To topology.

Some abbreviations will be helpful in preventing the notation in the next

example from becoming too unwieldy. Suppose that (O,~, 1-) is a measure
space, that f is a scalar-valued function on 0, and that P is a property
that f(x) might satisfy for some members x of 0. Then [f satisfies P]
will be used as an abbreviation for {x : x E 0, f(x) satisfies P}. If
[f satisfies P] is a measurable set, then 1-[ f satisfies P] will be used to
denote 1-([ f satisfies P]).

2.2.5 Example: Lo(O,~, 1-). Suppose that 1- is a positive measure on a

u-algebra ~ of subsets of a set n. Let Lo(O,~, 1-) be the vector space of
all I--measurable scalar-valued functions on 0, with the usual convention
 2.2 Vector Topologies 163

that two functions are identified if they agree almost everywhere. It is a

straightforward exercise in measure theory to show that the formula

d(j,g) = inf{{l} U {f: f > 0, JL[lf - gl > f] < f}}

defines a metric on Lo(n, r:, JL), that a sequence in Lo(n, r:, JL) is Cauchy
with respect to d if and only if it is Cauchy in measure, and that a sequence
in Lo(n, I:;, JL) converges to an element f of Lo(n, r:, JL) with respect to d
if and only if the sequence converges to f in measure; see Exercise 2.18.
Since sequences that are Cauchy in measure are convergent in measure, the
metric d is complete. The topology of convergence in measure for Lo(n, r:, JL)
is the topology induced by this metric. Henceforth, this will be the topology
that Lo(n, I:;,JL) is assumed to have whenever it is treated as a topological
space.
It is clear that d is invariant, that is, that d(j + h, g + h) = d(j, g)
whenever f, g, h E Lo(n, r:, f-t). It follows from Proposition 2.1.43 that
Lo(n, I:;, f-t) is a topological group under the operation of addition of vec-
tors, and in particular that vector addition is continuous. However, it is
not in general true that multiplication of vectors by scalars is a continu-
ous operation for Lo(n, I:;, f-t); see Exercise 2.18. It does turn out that this
operation is continuous when JL is a finite measure, as will now be shown.
Assume for the rest of this example that JL(n) < 00. Suppose that the
sequences (an) and (In) are in IF and Lo(n, I:; , f-t) respectively and have
respective limits a and f. Let (b n ) be a sequence of positive numbers de-
creasing to 0 such that Ian - al : : : bn for each n, and let B be a positive
upper bound for the sequence (Ianl). For each positive f and each positive
integer n,

from which it follows that

JL[ lanfn - afl > f] ::::: JL [Ianln - anfl > ~] + JL [Ianl - all > ~]
::::: JL [ Blfn - II > ~] + f-t [bnlfl > ~]
= JL [Ifn - ]
II > 2~ + f-t [If I > 2: ].n

Letting n tend to 00 shows that f-t[ lanln - ail> f 1 -> 0 whenever e > 0,
so anln converges to af in measure. (Notice that the finiteness of JL(n) is
used here to assure that JL[ If I > e/2b n ] -> 0.) Multiplication of vectors by
scalars is therefore a continuous operation, so the topology of convergence
in measure is a vector topology for Lo(n, I:; , f-t) whenever (0" r:, JL) is a finite
positive measure space.
Now suppose that 0, is the interval [0,1]' that I:; is the u-algebra of
Lebesgue-measurable subsets of 0" and that A is Lebesgue measure on
164 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

(n, ~). Let Lo[O,l] denote Lo(n,~, .\). Let C be a convex neighborhood
of in Lo[O, 1] and let 10 be such that the open ball of radius 10 centered
at lies in C. Suppose that f E Lo[O, 1]. Let n be a positive integer such
that l/n < 10/2. For each integer j such that 1 ~j ~ n, let I[.t..;;-!.*) be the
indicator function of the interval [~, *)
and let the member h of La [0, 1]
be defined by the formula fj(t) = nf(t)I[.t..;;-!.-!;)(t). Then A[ Ihl > E/2] ~
l/n < 10/2 for each fj, so each h is in C. Since f = 'L.j=l n- 1h, the convex
combination f of members of C is itself in C. It follows that C = Lo[O, 1].
By Proposition 2.1.39 (b), every nonempty convex open set in Lo[O, 1] is a
translate of a convex neighborhood of the origin, so it also follows that the
only nonempty convex open subset of Lo[O, 1] is Lo[O, 1] itself. Thus, the
topology of convergence in measure for Lo[O, 1] is a vector topology that is
not locally convex.

2.2.6 Example: Lp(n,~, '""),

< p < 1. Suppose that'"" is a positive
measure on a O"-algebra ~ of subsets of a set n and that < p < 1. Define
Lp(n,~, '"") to be the collection of all ,",,-measurable scalar-valued functions
on n such that 10
Ifl P d,"" is finite, with the usual convention that functions
that agree almost everywhere are considered to be the same. If s ::::: and
s(t) = sP + t P - (s + t)P whenever t ::::: 0, then s is nondecreasing and

hence nonnegative on [0,(0), from which it follows that

If(x) + g(x)IP ~ (If(x)1 + Ig(x)I)P ~ If(x)IP + Ig(x)IP

whenever f, g E Lp(rl,"2'" '"") and x E n. Easy arguments based on this show
that Lp(rl,"2'" '"") is a vector space under the usual addition of functions and
multiplication of functions by scalars, and that the formula

defines a metric on Lp(rl,"2'" ,",,). Henceforth, whenever

< p < 1 and
Lp(n,"2'" '"") is treated as a topological space, the topology is assumed to be
the one induced by this metric.
The next order of business is to show that the metric d is complete. If
f, g E Lp(n, "2'" '"") and E > 0, then

,",,[If-g'>c 1 =1 [I/-gl><]
l
1d,",,:St- p
[1/-gl><1
If-gIPd,",,~cPdU,g),
from which it follows that every Cauchy sequence in Lp(rl, L;, '"") is Cauchy
in measure and so is convergent in measure to some measurable function.
Let Un) be a Cauchy sequence in Lp(o',"2'" J-l) and let f be the function
to which (fn) converges in measure. It is a standard fact from measure
theory that there is a subsequence Unj) of Un) that converges to f almost
everywhere. Suppose that 10 > O. Let the positive integer N. be such that
 2.2 Vector Topologies 165

d(fm> In) < E whenever m, n 2: Nt If n 2: N" then an application of

Fatou's lemma shows that

It follows that I = (f - INJ + IN, E Lp(D., E, fl) and that d(f, In) -+ 0,
which establishes the completeness of d.
The metric d is invariant, so vector addition is continuous for Lp(D., E, fl)
since the space is a topological group under this operation. Furthermore,
if (an) and (fn) are sequences in IE" and Lp(D.,E,fl) respectively and have
the respective limits a and I, then

d(anln, at) ::; d(anln , ant) + d(anl, at)

= lanlPll/n - IIPdfl + Ian - alPll/lP dfl-+
as n -+ 00, so multiplication of vectors by scalars is also a continuous
operation. Thus, the metric d induces a vector topology on Lp(D., E, fl).
Specializing to the case of Lebesgue measure A on the Lebesgue-measur-
able subsets of [0,1] yields the space Lp[O, 1]. Notice that Lp[O, 1] contains
every member of Loo [0, 1] and so has nonzero elements. Suppose that C


is a convex neighborhood of in Lp[O, 1] and that E is a positive number
such that the open ball of radius E centered at is included in C. Let I
be a member of Lp[O, 1] and let n be a positive integer large enough that
d(f,O) < nl-PE. Since the function t t-t J[o,t]I/IPdA is continuous on [0,1],
there must be numbers to, ... ,tn such that 0 = to < tl < ... < tn = 1 and

for each integer j such that 1 ::; j ::; n. For each such j, let I[tj_l,t J ) be the
indicator function of the interval [tj-l, tj) and let the member fJ of Lp[O, 1]
be defined by the formula /jet) = nl(t)I[tJ_l,tj)(t). Then

d(fJ, 0) = n P1 .I/IP
[tj-l,t)
dA = nP-ll
[0,1]
I/I PdA = np-1d(f, 0) < E

for each j, so each fJ is in C. Since I = I:7=1 n-lfJ, the convex com-

bination I of members of C is itself in C, so C = Lp[O, 1]. Since every
nonempty convex open subset of Lp[O, 1] is, by Proposition 2.1.39 (b), a
translate of a convex neighborhood of 0, the only nonempty convex open
subset of Lp[O, 1] is Lp[O, 1] itself. Thus, the topological vector space Lp[O, 1]
is not locally convex.

2.2.7 Example: i p , < p < 1. Let p be a rcal number such that < p < 1
and let J.l be the counting measure on the collection E of all subsets of N.

166 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

By analogy with what is done when 1 :::; p :::; 00, the space fp is defined to
be Lp(N,~,f1,). Notice that fp is the space of all sequences (an) such that
2:: n la n lP is finite, and that if (an), (On) E fPl then

Suppose that C is a convex neighborhood of 0 in fp and that ( is such that

the open ball of radius 2( centered at 0 is included in C. Let {en: n EN}
be the collection of standard coordinate vectors of f p . Then (l/Pe n E C for
each n, so m- 1 (1/p 2::7=1 ej E C for each positive integer m. However,

as m ---> 00, so C is unbounded with respect to the metric d. Thus, no open

ball centered at 0 includes a convex neighborhood of 0, and so the metric
of fp is another example of a complete invariant metric inducing a vector
topology that is not locally convex.

The notion of boundedness with respect to a metric, which played such

an important role in the preceding example, is so useful that it would be
good to be able to extend it somehow to vector topologies not induced by
metrics. One reasonable approach would be to call a set A bounded if the
points of A are "uniformly close enough to 0" that tx ---> 0 "uniformly"
for x in A as t decreases to 0; that is, if the following happens: For each
neighborhood U of 0, there is a positive ru such that tA C;;; U whenever
o < t < ru. This requirement is clearly equivalent to the condition in the
following definition.

2.2.8 Definition. A subset A of a TVS is bounded if, for each neighbor-

hood U of 0, there is a positive Su such that A C;;; tU whenever t > suo

A moment's thought shows that a subset of a normed space is bounded

in the sense of the preceding definition if and only if it is bounded with
respect to the metric induced by the norm. However, it can happen that a
vector topology is induced by a metric d such that the metrically bounded
sets are not the same as the sets bounded in the sense of Definition 2.2.8.
As an example, consider the metric d on lR defined by the formula

d(x, y) = min{l, Ix - yl},

a complete invariant metric that induces the usual norm topology of R
Notice that lR is itself metrically bounded with respect to d, though not
bounded in the sense of Definition 2.2.8. Henceforth, the term "bounded"
 2.2 Vector Topologies 167

when applied to a TVS is always to be interpreted in the sense of Defini-

tion 2.2.8 unless specifically stated otherwise.
One reason that a TVS is a good place to do analysis is that many familiar
properties of normed spaces, and in particular of IR and C, generalize to
TVSs. Here is a list of some of the most useful ones.

2.2.9 Theorem. Suppose that X is a topological vector space.

(a) Let (/30.) be a net in F and let (Xo.) and (yo.) be nets in X such that all
three nets have the same index set and (/30.), (Xo.), and (Yo.) converge
to /3, x, and y respectively. Let "( and z be elements of F and X
respectively. Then Xo. + Yo. ~ x + y, /3o.xo. ~ /3x, Xu + z ~ x + z,
"(Xo. ~ "(x, and /3o.z ~ /3z.
(b) If f and g are continuous functions from a topological space into X
and a is a scalar, then f + g and af are continuous.
(c) Let Xo be an element of X and let ao be a nonzero scalar. Then the
maps x f---; x + Xo and x f---; aox are homeomorphisms from X onto
itself. Consequently, if A is a subset of X that is open, or closed, or
compact, then Xo + A and aoA also have that property. If A and U
are subsets of X and U is open, then A + U is open.
(d) Suppose that A and B are subsets of X, that Xo E X, and that ao is
a nonzero scalar. Then A + B ~ A + B, Xo +A = Xo + A, aoA = aoA,
AO + BO ~ (A + B)O, Xo + AO = (xo + A)O, and aoAo = (aoA)o.
(e) For each Xo in X, the neighborhoods of Xo are exactly the sets Xo + U
such that U is a neighborhood of o.
(f) Each neighborhood of 0 in X is absorbing.
(g) For each neighborhood U of 0 in X, there is a balanced neighbor-
hood V of 0 in X such that V ~ V ~ V + V ~ U. If U is convex,
then V can be chosen to be convex.
(h) Suppose that A is a bounded subset of X, that Xo is an element
of X, and that ao is a scalar. Then Xo + A and aoA are bounded.
(i) Let A be a subset of X. Then [AJ = (A) and coCA) = coCA). If A is
a subspace of X, then so is A. If A is balanced, then so is A, and
A 0 is also balanced provided that 0 E A 0 If A is bounded or convex,
then both A and AO have that same property.
(j) Let Y be a subspace of X. Then the relative topology that Y inherits
from X is a vector topology. If the topology of X is locally convex,
then so is the relative topology of Y.
PROOF. Part (a) is just a collection of special cases of Corollary 2.1.23.
Part (b) is an easy consequence of the continuity of the vector space op-
erations of X, and in particular follows readily from (a). For (c), suppose
that Xo E X and ao is a nonzero scalar. The continuity of the vector space
168 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

operations of X implies that the maps x f-+ x + Xo and x f-+ aox are contin-
uous, as are their respective inverses x f-+ x - Xo and x f-+ ao1x, so the two
maps of part (c) are homeomorphisms from X onto itself. If A is a subset
of X that is open, or closed, or compact, then Xo + A and aoA have that
same property since these properties are preserved by homeomorphisms.
If A and U are subsets of X and U is open, then A + U is open as the union
of open sets, since A + U = U{ a + U : a E A}. This proves (c).
Suppose that A, B, Xo, and ao are as in the hypotheses of (d). Let Yo
and Zo be elements of A and B respectively, and let (y"J and (zj3) be nets
in A and B respectively such that y" ....... Yo and zj3 -> Zo0 There are subnets
(Yi) and (zi) of (Yo,) and (zj3) respectively having the same index set; see
Technique 2.1.32. Then Y"I + z"I ....... Yo + Zo, so Yo + Zo E A + B. This proves
that A + B <;;: A + B. Since A + BO is an open subset of A + B, it follows
that AO + BO <;;: (A + B)o. Straightforward arguments based on (a) and (c)
yield the rest of (d).
Part (e) follows immediately from Proposition 2.1.39 (b) and the fact
that X is a topological group under addition of vectors. For (f), suppose
that U is a neighborhood of 0 in X. If x E X, then the continuity of
multiplication of vectors by scalars yields a positive r x such that tx E U
when 0 < t < r Xl so x E tU when t > r;l. Thus, the set U is absorbing,
which proves (f).
To prove (g), suppose that U is a neighborhood of 0 in X. The con-
tinuity of vector addition yields neighborhoods U1 and U2 of 0 such that
U1 + U2 <;;: U. Let Ua = U 1 nU2 n( -Udn( -U2 ). Then U3 is a neighborhood
of 0 such that U3 = -U3 and U3 + U3 <;;: U. The same procedure applied
to U3 instead of U yields a neighborhood U4 of 0 such that U 4 = -U4 and
U4 + U4 + U4 + U4 <;;: U. It follows that U4 + U4 + U4 does not intersect
X \ U, so the fact that U4 = -U4 implies that U 4 + U4 does not intersect
(X \ U) + U4 . Since (X \ U) + U4 is open, it follows that U4 + U4 does not
intersect (X \ U) + U4, so U4 + U4 <;;: U. The continuity of multiplication of
vectors by scalars produces a positive 8 and a neighborhood U5 of 0 in X
such that aU5 <;;: U4 whenever lal < 8. Let V = U{ aU5 : lal < 8}. Then
V is a balanced neighborhood of 0 lying in U4 , and

This proves all of (g) except for the convexity assertion, which uses (i) in
its proof and will be obtained below.
Suppose that A is a bounded subset of X, that Xo is an element of X,
and that ao is a scalar. Let U be a neighborhood of 0 in X and let V be a
balanced neighborhood of 0 in X such that V + V <;;: U. Let Sv be a positive
number such that A <;;: tV and Xo E tV whenever t > Sv. If t > sv, then
Xo + A <;;: tV + tV <;;: tU, from which it follows that Xo + A is bounded. If
t> (Iaol + l)sv, then aoA <;;: t(laol + 1)- l aoV <;;: tV <;;: tU, which shows
that aoA is bounded and finishes the proof of (h).
 2.2 Vector Topologies 169

Let A be a subset of X. Suppose for the remainder of this paragraph

that x, y E II and a, fl E 1F'. As in the proof of (d), it is possible to find
nets (x"!) and (y"!) in A having the same index set such that x"! -+ x and
y"! -+ y. Then ax"! + fly"! -+ ax + fly If ax"! + fly"! E A for each /, then
ax + fly E II. It follows that II is a subspace of X if A is a subspace of X
and, by considering the case in which a, fl > 0 and a + fl = 1, that II
is convex if A is convex. The claim in (i) about linear hulls and convex
hulls now follows easily; see the proof of Corollary 1.3.11. If A is balanced
and lal ::; 1, then each ax"! is in A, so ax E II since ax"! -+ ax, which
implies that II is balanced. Now suppose that A is bounded. Let U be a
neighborhood of 0 in X and let V be a neighborhood of 0 in X such that
V ~ U. Let BV be a positive number such that A ~ tV when t > BV. Then
A ~ tV = tV ~ tU when t > BV, so II is bounded. This proves all the
assertions about closures in (i).
If A is a convex subset of X and 0 < t < 1, then tAo+(1-t)AO ~ A, which
implies that the open set tAO + (1 - t)AD is included in AD and therefore
that A is convex. If A is a bounded subset of X, then its subset AD is
clearly bounded. Now suppose that A is a balanced subset of X such that
o E AD. Let 0: be a scalar such that 0 < 10:1 ::; 1. Then o:AD ~ o:A ~ A, so
o:AO ~ AO since aAD is open. It is also true that OAD = {O} ~ AO, so AD is
balanced. This finishes the proof of (i).
Let Y be a subspace of X. The vector space operations of Y inherit
the continuity of those of X, so the relative topology of Y is a vector
topology. If the topology of X has a basis ~ consisting of convex sets, then
{ B n Y : B E ~} is a basis for the relative topology of Y consisting of
convex sets, so the relative topology of Y is locally convex. This proves (j).
All that remains to be proved is the convexity assertion in (g). Let U
be a convex neighborhood of 0 in X. It suffices to find a set V with the
appropriate properties inside the convex neighborhood U n (-U) of 0, so
it can be assumed that U = -U. Since 3- 1 U + 3- 1 U - 3- 1 U = U, it
follows that 3- 1 U + 3- 1 U does not intersect the open set (X \ U) + 3- 1 U
that includes X \ u, so 3- 1U + 3- 1 U ~ U. It is enough to find a convex
balanced neighborhood V of 0 such that V ~ 3- 1 U. Let

W = n{ 3- 1 0:U : 0: E IF, 10:1 = 1 }.

Then W is a subset of 3- 1 U and is convex as the intersection of convex

sets. Let B be a balanced neighborhood of 0 included in 3- 1 U. If 0: is a
scalar such that 10:1 = 1, then B = o:B ~ 3- 1 0:U, and so B ~ W, from
which it follows that 0 E WO. Now let fl be a scalar such that Ifll ::; 1 and
let t and / be scalars such that 0 ::; t ::; 1, III = 1, and fl = t/. Then

flW = t (n{3- 1 0:/U : a E IF, lal = 1}) = tW = tW + (1 - tHO} ~ w,

so W is balanced. It follows from (i) that W D is a convex balanced neigh-
borhood of 0 included in 3- 1 U, and so is the desired V.
170 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.2.10 Corollary. A subset A of a TVS X is bounded if and only if it

has this property: For each balanced neighborhood U of 0 in X, there is a
positive Su such that A ~ Su U.
PROOF. The "only if" portion follows immediately from the definition of
boundedness. For the "if" portion, suppose that A has the indicated prop-
erty for each balanced neighborhood of 0 in X. Let U be a neighborhood
of 0 in X and let V be a balanced neighborhood of 0 included in U. Let Sv
be a positive number such that A ~ Sv V. If t > Sv, then
A ~ svV = t(ClsvV) ~ tV ~ tU.
It follows that A is bounded.


If U is a neighborhood of in JR, then U includes some balanced neigh-
borhood (-, ) of 0, and so there is a balanced neighborhood (-/2, /2)
of 0 such that (-/2, /2) + (-/2, /2) ~ U. Therefore, if x, y E JR and
Ixl,lyl < /2, which is to say that x, y E (-/2, /2), then x + y E U.
Many familiar "epsilon over two" arguments of analysis are based on this.
Such arguments can often be generalized to TVSs because of part (g) of
the preceding theorem. See Exercise 2.27 for an example.
It is often easier to use Corollary 2.2.10 to check for boundedness than
to proceed directly from the definition. The proof of the next result gives
an example of this.

2.2.11 Proposition. Every compact subset of a TVS is bounded. Thus,

every convergent sequence in a TVS is bounded.
PROOF.

Let K be a compact subset of a TVS X and let U be a balanced
neighborhood of in X. Since U is absorbing, the collection {tU : t > 0 }
is an open covering for K, so there are positive numbers tl"'" tn such
that tl < t2 < ... < tn and K ~ U7=1 tjU. Since tjU = tn(t;;ltjU) ~ tnU
for each j, it follows that K ~ tnU, so Corollary 2.2.10 implies that K is
bounded. The rest of the proposition then follows from the fact that a set
in a topological space consisting of the terms and a limit of a convergent
sequence must be compact.

One fairly obvious convention is needed before proceeding. Whenever

terminology from the theory of abelian topological groups is used in a sit-
uation involving topological vector spaces, the TVSs in question are being
viewed as abelian topological groups under vector addition. In particular, a
net (Xa)",EI in a TVS X is Cauchy if, for every neighborhood U of 0 in X,
there is an o:u in I such that xfJ - x-y E U whenever O:u :::S j3 and o:u :::S "
and X is complete if each Cauchy net in X converges; see Definitions 2.1.41
and 2.1.48.
By Proposition 2.1.47, every convergent net in a TVS is Cauchy. The
fact that convergent sequences in a TVS are always bounded is therefore
just a special case of the following more general result.
 2.2 Vector Topologies 171

2.2.12 Proposition. Every Cauchy sequence in a TVS is bounded.

PROOF. Suppose that (xn) is a Cauchy sequence in a TVS X. Let U be a
neighborhood of 0 in X and let V be a balanced neighborhood of 0 such
that V + V ~ U. Let N be a positive integer such that Xn - X N E V
whenever n ~ N. Since V is absorbing, there is a positive number SN such
that XN E SNV, It follows that if n ~ Nand t > max{l, SN}, then
Xn = (xn - XN) + XN E V + SNV ~ tV + tV ~ tU.
Finally, let {SI, ... ,SN-d be positive numbers such that Xj E tU when
1 S j S N - 1 and t > Sj, and let S = max{l, Sl,"" SN-I, SN}' Then
{xn : n EN} ~ tU whenever t > s, so the sequence (xn) is bounded.

The separation properties of the open subsets of a TVS tend to be either

very good or very bad. In fact, if X is a TVS that is not completely regular,
then there is an entire nontrivial subspace Y of X such that every open set
intersecting Y actually includes Y; see Exercise 2.33. This result follows
from the fact, which will now be proved, that every To vector topology is
actually completely regular. The proof is based on the following construc-
tion, which will have a further application in the proof of Theorem 2.3.11.

2.2.13 Construction. Let B be a balanced neighborhood of 0 in a TVS X.

A continuous nonnegative-real-valued function f on X will be constructed
such that f is small "near the origin" and large "far from the origin," where
the "distance" of a point from the origin is determined by how "far" the
point is inside or outside B. Here are the steps in the construction.
1. Let B(l) = B. For each positive integer n, define B(2n) inductively by
letting B(2n) = B(2 n - 1 )+B(2 n - I ). For each positive integer n, define
B(2-n) inductively by letting B(2-n) be a balanced neighborhood
of 0 such that B(2-n) + B(2-n) ~ B(2- n+1).
2. The terminating binary expansion of the number 5 ;6 is 101.1001. Let
B(5 I96 ) = lB(4) +OB(2) + lB(l) + lB(~) +OB(i) +OB(~) + lB(6)'
Define B(;::) analogously for each integer n and each positive inte-
ger m, that is, for each positive dyadic rational. Notice that if n is an
integer, then the definition of B(2n) given in this step is consistent
with that given in Step 1, and that the inclusion of extraneous lead-
ing or trailing zeros in the terminating binary expansion of a positive
dyadic rational r does not affect the definition of B(r).
3. Claim: B(rd + B(r2) ~ B(ri + r2) whenever rl and r2 are positive
dyadic rationals. To see this, let rl and r2 be positive dyadic rationals
and let
172 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

and

be terminating binary expansions for r1, r2, and r1 + r2 respectively,

where extra leading and trailing zeros have been included where nec-
essary to assure that all three expansions have the same number of
digits to the left of the binary point and similarly for the number of
digits to the right. The claim will be proved once it is shown that

. . m2 6j(1) B ( 2J') + ",n2

Let A n, = "L...j=n, (2) ( ')
L...j=n, 6j B 2J and use the following
inductive process to pass from An, to another set A n2 + 1 . The sum
representing An, must have exactly zero, one, or two terms of the
form IB(2n,). If it has two such terms, delete those two terms from
the sum and insert a term of the form 1B(2nl +1) to obtain An, +1;
otherwise, let An, +1 = An, . It follows from Step 1 that An, ~ An, +1.
The sum representing An, +1 must have exactly zero, one, two, or
three terms of the form 1B(2nl +1). If it has more than one such
term, delete two of those terms from the sum and insert a term of the
form 1B(2nl +2) to obtain An, +2; otherwise, let An, +2 = An, +1. Then
An, +1 ~ An, +2 The sum representing An, +2 must have exactly zero,
one, two, or three terms of the form IB(2nl +2). If it has more than one
such term, delete two of those terms from the sum and insert a term of
the form IB(2 nl + 3 ) to obtain A n, +3 ; otherwise, let A n1 +3 = A n, +z .
Then An) +2 ~ A nd3 . Continue in the obvious fashion until A n2 + 1
is obtained. Now think of how this inductive process is analogous
to the usual algorithm for adding r1 to r2 by aligning their binary
expansions one above the other by binary point and adding digits
in columns, working from right to left and carrying a 1 to the left
whenever necessary. It should be clear after a moment's thought that
A n2 +1 = L.7~nl 8?) B(2j). Since An, ~ A"2+ 1 , the claim is proved.
4. Claim: If r1 and r2 are positive dyadic rationals such that r1 < r2,
then B(rd ~ B(rz). This follows from the preceding claim, since
o E B(r2 - rd and B(rl) + B(rz - r1) ~ B(r'2).
5. For each positive real number t, let

B(t) = U{B(r): r is a positive dyadic rational, r::; t}.

It follows from Step 4 that if t is a positive dyadic rational, then this

definition of B(t) is consistent with the definition from Step 2.
 2.2 Vector Topologies 173

6. Claims: If s, t > 0, then B(s) + B(t) ~ B(s + t), and if 0 < s < t,
then B(s) ~ B(t). These claims follow in an obvious way from Steps
3 and 5.
7. Claim: For each positive t, the set B(t) is a balanced neighborhood
of O. To see this, first observe that if U and V are balanced neighbor-
hoods of 0, then so is U + V. It then follows from Step 1 that B(2n)
is a balanced neighborhood of 0 for each integer n, from Step 2 that
B(r) is a balanced neighborhood of 0 for each positive dyadic ratio-
nal r, and from Step 5 that B(t) is a balanced neighborhood of 0 for
each positive real number t.
8. Claim: X = U{ B(t) : t > O}. To see this, suppose that x E X.
Let n be a positive integer such that x E 2n B. An easy argument
2n
based on Step 1 shows that 2n B ~ Lj=l B = B(2 n ), from which the
claim follows.
9. For each x in X, let f(x) = inf{ t : t > 0, x E B(t)}. It follows from
Step 8 that f is finite-valued and so has its range in [0, +00). It is
clear that f(O) = 0 and that if t > 0, then f(x) ~ t if x E B(t)
and f(x) 2 t if x E X \ B(t). In particular, it follows that f(x) 2 1
whenever x E X \ B.
10. Claim: If x E X, then f(x) = f(-x). This is a straightforward
consequence of the definition of f and the fact that B(t) = -B(t) for
each positive t.
11. Claim: If x, y E X, then f(x + y) ~ f(x) + f(y) and If(x) - f(y)1 ~
f(x - y). To see this, suppose that x, y E X and that to > O. Then
there are positive reals s and t such that s < f(x) + to, t < f(y) + to,
X E B(s), and y E B(t). Then x + y E B(s) + B(t) ~ B(s + t), and
so f(x + y) ~ s + t < f(x) + f(y) + 2tO. It follows that f(x + y) ~
f(x) + f(y) Also,
f(x) - f(y) = f(x - y + y) - f(y)
~ f(x - y) + f(y) - f(y)
= f(x - y),
and similarly
f(y) - f(x) ~ f(y - x) = f(x - y).
It follows that If(x) - f(y)1 ~ f(x - y), which finishes the proof of
the claim.
12. Claim: The function f is continuous. For the proof of this, suppose
that Xo E X and that to > O. If x is in the neighborhood Xo + B(f)
of xo, then x - Xo E B(f), and so If(x) - f(xo) I ~ f(x - xo) ~ f. It
follows that f is continuous at xo, which proves the claim and finishes
the construction.
174 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.2.14 Theorem. Every To vector topology is completely regular.

PROOF. Suppose that X is a TVS whose topology is To. The first order
of business is to show that the topology is in fact T 1. Let x and y be
distinct elements of X. Then there is a neighborhood U of a such that
either x ~ y + U or y ~ x + U; it can be assumed without loss of generality
that x ~ y + U. Then y is not in the neighborhood x - U of x, from which
it follows that the topology of X is T 1.
Now let Xo be an element of X and let F be a closed subset of X not
containing Xo. Since a is not in the closed set -Xo + F, there is a balanced
neighborhood B of 0 such that Bn (-xo +F) = 0. By Construction 2.2.13,
there is a continuous function f: X -. [a, +(0) such that f(O) = 0 and
f(x) 2: 1 whenever x E X \ B; notice that f(x) 2: 1 for each x in -Xo + F.
Let g(x) = min{l,f(x - xo)} whenever x E X. Then 9 is a continuous
function from X into [0,1] such that g(xo) = 0 and g(x) = 1 whenever
x E F. The topology of X is therefore completely regular.

Thus, a vector topology that satisfies any of the separation axioms To

through T 312 actually satisfies all of them. It is traditional that such vector
topologies be called Hausdorff, but it should be kept in mind that for vector
topologies the Hausdorff axiom is implied by the To axiom and implies
complete regularity.
Suppose that X is a vector space with a topology of any sort. If xt
and x; are continuous linear functionals on X and a is a scalar, then the
continuity ofaxi + x; follows easily from the continuity of addition and
multiplication in IF; see also Corollary 1.3.4. The collection of all continuous
linear functionals on X therefore forms a subspace of the vector space X#
of all linear functionals on X, so the following definition is justified.

2.2.15 Definition. Suppose that X is a vector space with a topology.

The dual space of X or dual of X or conjugate of X, denoted by X *, is
the vector space of all continuous linear functionals on X with the obvious
vector space operations.

There is a slight technical conflict between this definition and the one
previously given for the dual space of a normed spacc. If X is a normed
space, then by Definition 2.2.15 the dual space of X should be the vector
space of continuous linear functionals on X, while by Definition 1.10.1 it
should be the corresponding normed space. The only time this could cause
any real problem is when the vector space X underlying a normed space is
given a topology 'I different from its usual norm topology, and "X*" could
refer to either (X, 1111)* or (X, T)*, dual spaces that might not even have
the same underlying vector space; see Exercise 2.30. In this situation, care
will be taken to assure that no confusion results.
 2.2 Vector Topologies 175

The following theorem, an extension to topological vector spaces of parts

of Theorems 1.4.2 and 1.7.15 and Proposition 1.7.16, provides several ways
to test a linear functional on a TVS for continuity.

2.2.16 Theorem. Suppose that x* is a linear functional on a TVS X.

Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The functional x* is continuous.
(b) There is a neighborhood U of 0 in X such that x*(U) is a bounded
subset of If.
(c) The kernel of x* is a closed subset of X.
(d) The kernel of x* is not a proper dense subset of X.
PROOF. The theorem is trivially true if x* is the zero functional, so it can be
assumed that it is not. Since the kernel of x* is the inverse image under x*
of the closed subset {O} of If, it is clear that (a) =} (c) =} (d). Suppose
that (d) holds. Fix an element Xo of X \ ker(x*). Then parts (e) and (g)
of Theorem 2.2.9 together imply that there is a balanced neighborhood U
of 0 such that Xo + U s;;: X \ ker(x*). Notice that x*u f= -x*xo whenever
u E U. Since the balanced subset x*(U) of If contains with each of its
members every scalar of smaller absolute value, it must omit every scalar
having absolute value larger than I-x*xol, and so must be bounded. This
proves that (d) =} (b).
Finally, suppose that there is a neighborhood U of 0 in X such that x* (U)
is bounded. By multiplying U by a positive scalar if necessary, it may be
assumed that Ix*xl < 1 whenever x E U, and therefore that Ix*xl < E
whenever E > 0 and x E EU. If x E X and E > 0, then Ix*y - x*xl =
Ix*(y - x)1 < E whenever y E x + EU, from which it follows that x* is
continuous. This shows that (b) =} (a) and finishes the proof.

It is often important to know when two convex subsets C 1 and C2 of a

TVS X can be separated, not by open sets or by a continuous function in the
sense of the topological separation axioms, but rather by a member x* of X*
in the sense that sup{ Re x*x : X E C 1 } :::; inf{ Re x*x : X E C 2 }. Results of
this type include Proposition 1.9.15 as well as the three separation theorems
about to be proved here, and are often called collectively the Hahn-Banach
separation theorem since they tend to be straightforward corollaries of the
vector space version of the Hahn-Banach extension theorem.

2.2.17 Definition. Let X be a vector space. A fiat or affine subset of X

is a translate of a subspace of X, that is, a set of the form x + Y where
x E X and Y is a subspace of X.

2.2.18 Lemma. Suppose that C is a convex subset of a TVS X. If x E C,

Y E Co, and 0 < t < 1, then tx + (1 - t)y E Co.
176 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

PROOF. Just notice that tx + (1 - t)y E tC + (1 - t)CO C C and that

tC + (1 - t)CO is an open set.

2.2.19 Mazur's Separation Theorem. (G. Ascoli, 1932 [8]; S. Mazur,

1933 [162]; D. G. Bourgin, 1943 [36]). Let X be a TVS and let F and C be
subsets of X such that F is flat and C is convex with nonempty interior.
If F nCo = 0, then there is an x* in X* and a real number s such that
(1) Rex*x = s for each x in F;
(2) Re x* x :s; s for each x in C; and
(3) Rex'x < s for each x in Co.
PROOF. Suppose first that the scalar field is IR. and that 0 E Co. Then C
is a convex absorbing subset of X, so by Proposition 1.9.14 the Minkowski
functional p of C is sublinear and

{x : x E X, p(x) < 1 } ~ C ~ {x : x E X, p(x) :s; 1 }.

The continuity of multiplication of vectors by scalars implies that for each x

in Co there is an Sx such that Sx > 1 and SxX E Co, so that sxp( x) =
p(sxx) :s; 1. It follows that p(x) < 1 whenever x E Co. Conversely, suppose
that x E X and p( x) < 1. Then there is a tx such that tx > 1 and p( txx) =
txp(x) < I, whieh implies that txx E C. Since x = t;l(txx)+(l-t;l)O, the
lemma implies that x E Co. It follows that Co = {x: x E X, p(x) < I}.
Let Y be a subspace of X and Xo an element of X such that F = Xo + Y.
Since 0 ric F, the subspace Y contains neither -Xo nor its negative xo, from
which it follows that each element of the subspace Y + \{xo}) of X has a
unique representation of the form y + O:Xo where y E Y and 0: E R Let
xi) (y + o:xo) = 0: Whencver y E Y and 0: E R Then xi) is a linear functional
on Y + ({xu}). If 0: is a positive scalar and y E Y, then o:~ly + Xo is in F
and so is not in Co, from which it follows that

xC;(y + axo) = 0: :s; o:p(o:~ly + .1:0) = p(y + o:xo).

Since p(x) 2: 0 for each x in X, it is also true that x;;(y+o:xo) :s; p(y+o:xo)
whenever y E Y and 0: :s; 0, so Xo is dominated by p on Y + ({ xo}).
By the vector space version of the Hahn-Banach extension theorem, the
functional xi) can be extended to a linear functional x* on X such that
x'x :s; p(x) whenever x E X. Now Co includes a balanced neighborhood U
of 0, and x* (U) is a bounded subset of IR. since

Ix*ul = max{x*( -u), x'u} :s; max{p( -u),p(u)} < 1

whenever u E U. An application of Theorem 2.2.16 shows that x* E X'.

Since x* is dominated by p, it follows that x'x :s; 1 when x E C and that
x' x < 1 when x E CC. Since F = Xo + Y, it follows that .1:* x = xox = 1
when x E F, so this x* satisfies the conclusion of the theorem when s = 1.
 2.2 Vector Topologies 177

Now drop the assumption that 0 E Co. Let Xl be an element of Co. Then
the interior -Xl + Co of the convex set -Xl + C contains 0 and does not
intersect the flat subset -Xl + F of X, so there is an x in X* such that
xx = 1 when X E -Xl +F, xx ~ 1 when X E -Xl +C, and xx < 1 when
X E -Xl + Co. It follows that xx = XXI + 1 when X E F, xx ~ X*XI + 1
when X E C, and xx < X*Xl + 1 when X E Co, and again the conclusion
of the theorem holds.
Finally, suppose that the scalar field is C. Let Xr be the real TVS ob-
tained by restricting multiplication of vectors by scalars to IR x X. Since
every subspace of X is also a subspace of Xn the set F is flat in X r . It
follows that there is a continuous real-linear functional z* on X and a real
number s such that zx = s when X E F, zx ~ s when X E C, and
z*x < s when X E Co. Let xx = zx - iz*(ix) for each x in X. It follows
from Proposition 1.9.3 that x* is a complex-linear functional on X with
real part z*. The continuity of z* and of the vector space operations of X
and C implies that x E X, so x has all the required properties.

The following three corollaries are analogs for locally convex spaces of the
normed space version of the Hahn-Banach extension theorem and of Corol-
laries 1.9.7 and 1.9.9 of that theorem. Notice that the third one requires
the topology to be Hausdorff.

2.2.20 Corollary. Let Y be a closed subspace of an LCS X. Suppose that

x E X \ Y.Then there is an x* in X such that x*x = 1 and Y ~ ker(x*).
PROOF. Since X \ Y is a neighborhood of x, there is a convex neighbor-
hood C of x that does not intersect the flat subset Y of X. The theorem
yields an Xo in X* and a real number s such that Re xoz < s when z E C
and RexoY = s when y E Y. Since 0 E Y, it follows that s = 0, and
therefore that xoY (which equals Rexoy - iRexo(iy) ifF = q is 0 when
y E Y. Let x = (XOX)-IX O' Then x*x = 1 and ker(x*) = ker(x o) :2 Y,
which finishes the proof.

2.2.21 Corollary. Suppose that Y is a subspace of an LCS X and that

y* E Y*.Then there is an x* in X* whose restriction to Y is y*.
PROOF. The zero element of X* extends the zero element of y* to X, so it
can be assumed that y* =f. 0 and therefore that there is a Yo in Y such that
Y*Yo = 1. Let Z = ker(y*), where the closure is taken in X. The continuity
of y* and the fact that the topology of Y is inherited from X together
imply that Yo ~ Z, so by the preceding corollary there is an x in X such
that x*Yo = 1 and Z ~ ker(x*). If y E Y, then (Y*Y)Yo - Y is in ker(y*)
and so in ker(x*), which implies that

x*y = x*y + x* (Y*Y)Yo - y) = x*y + (y*y)(x*Yo) - xy = y.y.

The restriction of x to Y is therefore y .

178 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.2.22 Corollary. If x and yare different elements of a Hausdorff LOS X,

then there is an x* in X* such that x'x 1: x'y.
PROOF. Since x - y is not in the closed subspace {O} of X, Corollary 2.2.20
produces an x* in X* such that x'x - x'y = x*(x - y) = 1.

The conclusion of the preceding corollary does not in general hold if the
vector topology is not required to be Hausdorff or is not required to be
locally convex. The examples about to be given to illustrate this depend
on the fact that if X is a TVS whose only convex open subsets are the
empty set and X itself, then X* contains only the zero functional. To see
this, suppose that X is a TVS having only those two convex open subsets
and that x* E X*. For each open ball U centered at the origin of IF, the
subset (x*) -1 (U) of X is a nonempty convex open subset of X and so must
be X. Since x*(X) is either {O} or IF, it follows that x* = O.

2.2.23 Example. This is a continuation of Example 2.2.4. Let X be a

vector space having a nonzero vector. Then the topology {0, X} makes X
into an LCS that is not Hausdorff. Since X* contains only the zero func-
tional, it is not possible to separate two different vectors of X by a member
of X* in the sense of Corollary 2.2.22.

s:
2.2.24 Example. Suppose that 0 p < 1. It was shown in Examples 2.2.5
and 2.2.6 that the only nonempty convex open subset of Lp[O, 1J is Lp[O, 1]
itself, so (Lp[O,l])* = {O}. Therefore Lp[O,I] is a Hausdorff TVS having
more than just the zero element in which no two distinct elements can be
separated by a member of the dual space in the sense of Corollary 2.2.22.
Let f be a nonzero element of Lp [0,1] and let Y = ({J}), a one-dimen-
sional subspace of Lp[O, 1]. Let y*(af) = a whenever a E IF. Then y*
is a linear functional on Y that is continuous since its kernel is the closed
subspace {O} ofY. Since (Lp[O, 1])* = {a}, there is no member of (Lp[O, 1])*
whose restriction to Y is y*. Also, there is no member of (Lp[O, 1])* whose
kernel includes the closed subspace {O} of Lp[O, 1] and whose value at f
is 1. This shows that the assumption of local convexity in Corollaries 2.2.20
and 2.2.21 cannot in general be omitted.
The fact that (Lo[O, 1])* = {O} is a result of Otton M. Nikodym [175],
while the corresponding property of Lp[O, 1] when 0 < p < 1 is due to
Mahlon M. Day [46].

2.2.25 Example. Suppose that 0 < p < 1. For each m in N, the map x;"
that sends each member (an) of fp to its mth term am is clearly a continuous
linear functional on fp, so f; has enough members to separate the elements
of fp in the sense of Corollary 2.2.22 even though fp is not an LCS.

If the set F in the statement of Mazur's separation theorem is only

required to be nonempty and convex instead of fiat, then the conclusion of
the theorem turns out to hold in a form that is only slightly weakened.
 2.2 Vector Topologies 179

2.2.26 Eidelheit's Separation Theorem. (M. Eidelheit, 1936 [74];

J. Dieudonne, 1941 [60]). Let X be a TVS and let C 1 and C2 be nonempty
convex subsets of X such that C2 has nonempty interior. If C1 n C2 = 0,
then there is a member X* of X* and a real number s such that
(1) Rex*x ~ s for each x in C 1 ;
(2) Re x*x :::; s for each x in C 2; and
(3) Rexx < s for each x in C 2.
PROOF. Since the flat subset {O} of X does not intersect the nonempty
convex open subset C2- C 1 of X, Mazur's separation theorem yields an x*
in X* such that for each X2 in C2 and each Xl in C 11

Rex*x2 - Rex*xl = Rex*(x2 - xd < Rex*O = O.

It follows that there is a real number s such that

sup{Rex*x: x E C~}:::; s:::; inf{Rex*x: x E C1 }.

Notice that x* and s satisfy (1). Now fix an X2 in C2 and an Xl in C 1 . The

continuity of the vector space operations of X implies that there is a to
such that 0 < to < 1 and tOXl + (1 - to)X2 E C 2. Therefore

s ~ Re x* (tOXl + (1- to)X2)

= to Rex*xl + (1- to) Rex*x2
> to Rex*x2 + (1- to) Rex*x2
= Rex*x2'
from which it follows that x* and s satisfy (3). Finally, let x be an element
of C 2 and let X2 be the element of C 2 previously fixed. If 0 < t < 1, then
tx + (1 - t)X2 E C 2 by Lemma 2.2.18, and so

tRex*x + (1 - t) Rex*x2 = Rex (tx + (1- t)X2) < s.

Letting t increase to 1 shows that Rex*x :::; s, which establishes (2) and
finishes the proof.

Mazur's and Eidelheit's separation theorems both require one of the con-
vex sets to have nonempty interior. The third and final separation theorem
of this section does not, but instead requires one of the convex sets to be
closed and the other to be compact, and also requires that the TVS in
question be locally convex.
The following lemma gives another example of a phenomenon previously
encountered in Proposition 2.2.11: In many ways, a compact subset of a
TVS behaves as if it were a singleton.

2.2.27 Lemma. Suppose that X is a TVS and that A and K are subsets
of X such that A is closed and K is compact. Then A + K is closed.
180 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

PROOF. Suppose that (a",) and (k",) are nets in A and K respectively
such that (a", + k",) converges to some x in X. It is enough to show that
x E A + K. From the compactness of K, there is a subnet (k/3) of (k",)
converging to some k in K. Since a/3 = (a/3 + k/3) - k/3 -+ x - k, it follows
that x - k E A, so x E k + A ~ A + K.

2.2.28 Theorem. (J. W. Tukey, 1942 [233]; V. L. Klee, 1951 [133]). Let
K and C be disjoint nonempty convex subsets of an LCS X such that K
is compact and C is closed. Then there is a member x* of X* such that
max{Rex*x: x E K} < inf{Rex*x: x E C}.

PROOF. Since -K is compact, it follows from the preceding lemma that

C - K is closed, and from the fact that C n K = 0 that 0 rt:. C - K. By
the local convexity of X, there is a convex neighborhood U of 0 such that
Un (C - K) = 0, which implies that (K + U) n C = 0. Since K + U
is a nonempty open convex set disjoint from C, it follows from Eidelheit's
separation theorem that there is a member x* of X* such that for each Xo
in K + U,

Rex*xo < inf{Rex*x: x E C}.

From the compactness of (Rex*)(K), there is a ko in K such that Rex*ko =

sup{ Re x* x : x E K}. Since ko = ko + 0 E K + U,

max{ Rex*x : x E K} = Rex* ko < inf{ Rex*x : x E C},

as required.

Tukey proved the preceding theorem for only one special type of locally
convex topology, the weak topology of a normed space to be defined later in
this chapter. The general case of the theorem is due to Klee. The hypotheses
on the two convex sets in the theorem cannot be relaxed very much, as
is illustrated by several examples in Tukey's paper and by an example
of Dieudonne [61], who showed that i!1 has two disjoint nonempty closed
bounded convex subsets that cannot be separated by a bounded linear
functional in the sense of the preceding theorem. Klee [134) later extended
Dieudonne's result from i!1 to all nonreflexive separable Banach spaces.
Also, the hypotheses of the theorem cannot be relaxed by only requiring X
to be a TVSj see Exercise 2.32.
One important consequence of Theorem 2.2.28 is that if it is known that
the topology of a vector space X is locally convex, and the dual space of X
under that topology is known, then the closure of each convex subset of X
is completely determined just by that information. This is the content of
the following corollary, which will have several major applications later in
this chapter.
 2.2 Vector Topologies 181

2.2.29 Corollary. Suppose that a vector space X has two locally convex
topologies'rl and'r2 such that the dual spaces of X under the two topolo-
gies are the same. Let C be a convex subset of X. Then the 'rl-closure
of C is the same as its 'r 2-closure. In particular, the set C is 'r I-closed if
and only if it is 'r2-closed.
PROOF. It may be assumed that C =1= 0. Let X* represent the dual space
-:I,
of X under each of'r l and 'r2. For each x in X \ C ,use Theorem 2.2.28
to produce an x;
in X* such that

Rex~x = max{ Rex;y: y E {x} } < inf{ Rex;y: y E C:I, },

and let Ax = {z : z E X, Rex;z 2: inf{ Rex;y : y E a:I, } }. Then each

Ax is 'r2-closed, and C
-:I,
= n {
Ax : x E X \ C
-:I, }
. Therefore C
-:I,
is
-:I2 -:II -:I2
'r2-closed, and similarly C is 'rl-closed. It follows that C = C .

Suppose that X is a finite-dimensional vector space. Then Corollaries

1.4.17 and 1.4.19 together imply that X has exactly one norm topology
and that this topology is induced by a Banach norm. It is even true that
this Banach norm topology is the only Hausdorff vector topology that X
can have, as will now be shown.

2.2.30 Lemma. Suppose that X is a Hausdorff TVS and that Y is a

subspace of X such that the topology of Y inherited from X is a Banach
norm topology. Then Y is a closed subspace of X.
PROOF. Suppose that (Yo<) is a net in Y that converges to an x in X. It is
enough to show that x E Y. By Proposition 2.1.47, the net (y",) is Cauchy
with respect to the vector topology of X and therefore with respect to that
of Y. It follows from Corollary 2.1.51 that (Yo,) converges in Y to some y.
Since (Yet) also converges to y in X and X is Hausdorff, it must be that
y = x, so x E Y as required.

2.2.31 Theorem. Suppose that X is a finite-dimensional vector space.

Then X has exactly one Hausdorff vector topology. This topology is induced
by a Banach norm.
PROOF. The proof is by induction on the dimension of X. Let Pn be the
proposition that the conclusions of the theorem hold for X whenever X is
a vector space with finite dimension n. It is clear that Po is true. Suppose
that n 2: 1 and that Pn - l is true. Let X be a vector space of dimension n
and let {Xl, ... , x n } be a basis for X. Let

whenever ai, ... ,an E IF. It is easy to check that 1111 is a norm on X and
so is a Banach norm by Corollary 1.4.19. Now let 'I' be a Hausdorff vector
182 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

topology on X and let X'! and XII' II be X equipped with the topology 'I' and
the topology induced by 1111 respectively. Let xi, ... ,x~ be the coordinate
functionals for {Xl, ... ,xn}j that is, let X; (O:lXI + ... +O:nXn} = O:j when
Q: 1, ... ,Q: n E F and j = 1, ... , n. Then the kernel of each of the linear
functionals x; has dimension n- 1 and so is closed in X,! by Pn - 1 and the
lemma preceding this theorem. It follows from Theorem 2.2.16 that each x;
is continuous on X'r, and from the defining formula for 1111 that each is x;
continuous on XII II Since x = (XiX}Xl + ... + (x~X}Xn whenever x E X,
the continuity of each x; and of the vector space operations of X'r and XII' II
assures that the identity operator on X, viewed as a map from X'! onto XII'!!
or from XII'!! onto X,!, is continuous. The topologies of X'r and XII'!! are
therefore the same, which proves Pn and finishes the induction.

2.2.32 Corollary. Every finite-dimensional subspace of a Hausdorff TVS

is a closed subspace of the space.
PROOF. This follows immediately from the theorem and the lemma pre-
ceding it.

2.2.33 Corollary. Let X be a finite-dimensional HausdorffTVS and let Y

be a TVS. Then every linear operator from X into Y is continuous.
PROOF. It may be assumed that X =I {O}. Let {Xl, ... , xn} be a basis for X,
and let IIQ:lxl + ... + Q:nxnll = 10:11 + ... + lQ:nl whenever (}:1,"" O:n E F.
Then the Hausdorff vector topology of X is induced by the norm II II.
Suppose that T is a linear operator from X into Y. If 0:1,.'" Q: n E F, then

It follows from the continuity of the vector space operations of Y and of the
maps O:lXl + ... + Q:nXn I--> O:j when j = 1, ... ,n that T is continuous.

Exercises

2.18 Let J-L be a positive measure on a o--algebra ~ of subsets of a set 0.

(a) Prove that the function d in Example 2.2.5 is a metric on Lo(O,~, J-L).
(b) Prove that a sequence in Lo(O,~, J-L) is Cauchy with respect to d if
and only if the sequence is Cauchy in measure, and that a sequence
in Lo(O,~, J-L) converges to an f in Lo(fl,~, J-L) with respect to d if
and only if the sequence converges to f in measure.
(c) Suppose that A is Lebesgue measure on the o--algebra ~ of Lebesgue-
measurable subsets of JR. Find an element f of Lo (JR, ~, A) such that
the sequence (n- 1 f) does not converge in measure to O. Conclude
that multiplication of vectors by scalars is not a continuous operation
for Lo(JR,~, A).
 2.2 Vector Topologies 183

(d) Suppose that IL( \1) < 00. Let

p(j,g)= n 1 +lj_gld
Ij-gl
1 lL

whenever j, 9 E Lo(\1,~, IL). Prove that p is a metric on Lo(\1,~, IL)

Prove that a sequence in Lo(\1,~, IL) is Cauchy with respect to p if
and only if the sequence is Cauchy in measure, and that a sequence
in Lo(\1,~, IL) converges to an j in Lo(\1,~, IL) with respect to p if
and only if the sequence converges to j in measure. Conclude that
p is another complete invariant metric that induces the topology of
convergence in measure.
2.19 Let IL be the counting measure on the collection ~ of all subsets of N.
Then the space fa is defined to be Lo(N,~, IL), that is, the space of all
sequences of scalars with the metric d of Example 2.2.5.
(a) Prove that

d( (a,,), (,8,,)) = min{l, sup{ la" - ,8nl : n EN}}

whenever (a,,), (,8,,) E fa.

(b) Prove that fa is not a TVS.

(c) Prove that the topology that 00 inherits as a subspace of fo is its
usual norm topology.
2.20 Suppose that 0 < p < 1 and n E N. Let IL be the counting measure on the
O"-algebra E of all subsets of {I, ... , n}, and let f; = Lp({l, ... , n},~, IL)'
Notice that e;is the space of all ordered n- tuples (al, .. . , a,,) of scalars
with the metric given by the formula

"
d((al, ... ,an),(,81, ... ,,8n)) = Llaj -,8jIP.
j=l

Prove that e; is an LCS. Now consider the scalar field to be ~ and sketch
ei
the graph of the closed unit ball of j 2, that is, the set of points of j 2 ei
no more than one unit from the origin.
2.21 Suppose that 0 < p < 1 and that x and yare two different elements of fp.
Show that there are disjoint convex neighborhoods C x and C y of x and y
respectively. Notice that fp has many more convex open sets than does
Lp[O,I] (which has only two), even though it does not have enough to
make it an LCS.
2.22 Suppose that (\1,~, J-t) is a finite positive measure space and 0 < p :s: 00.
Prove that the set underlying Lp(\1, E, IL) is a dense subset of Lo(\1,~, IL).
2.23 Show that equality need not hold in the inclusions A + Ii c;;;; A + Band
AD + B O C;;;; (A + B)O in Theorem 2.2.9 (d). Also, find a balanced subset
of a TVS whose interior is not balanced.
2.24 Prove that if A and B are bounded subsets of a TVS, then A + B is
bounded.
184 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.25 The purpose of this exercise is to show that in a TVS, translation by a

compact set has many of the properties of translation by a point. Let A
and K be subsets of a TVS such that K is compact. Prove that if A is
open, closed, compact, or bounded, then A + K has that same property.
(Much of the work has been done for you in various results from this
section. )

2.26 Let C be a convex subset of a TVS such that Co i= 0. Prove that C

and Co have the same closure.

2.27 Let X and Y be TVSs, let A be a subset of X, and let f be a function

from A into Y. Then f is said to be uniformly continuous on A if it has this
property: For each neighborhood U of 0 in Y there is a neighborhood Vu
of 0 in X such that if x E A and x' E An (x + Vu), then f(x') E f(x) + U.
Prove that if A is compact and f is continuous on A, then f is uniformly
continuous on A. (One way to do this is to write out an "epsilon over two"
type of proof for the special case in which X = Y = JR., then generalize it
using Theorem 2.2.9 (g).)

2.28 Give an example of an unbounded convergent net in a TVS.

2.29 Suppose that 0 <p < 1. If (an) E Cp and ({3n) E Coo, let

Prove that the map ({3n) f--> x({3n} is a vector space isomorphism from Coo
onto C;.
2.30 Give an example of a vector space X with a norm 1111 and a Hausdorff
vector topology '1" such that (X, 1111) * and (X, '1")* do not have the same
underlying vector space.

2.31 Obtain Proposition 1.9.15 as a corollary of Eidelheit's separation theorem.

2.32 Find two disjoint. nonempty convex subsets K and C of a TVS, with K
compact and C closed, such that K and C cannot be separated by a
continuous linear functional in the sense of Theorem 2.2.28.

2.33 Let X be a TVS and let S be the collection of all x in X such that each
open set containing either x or 0 contains both.
(a) Prove that S is a subspace of X.
(b) Prove that every open set that intersects S actually includes S.
(c) Prove that if X is not completely regular, then S i= {a}. Thus, a TVS
that is not completely regular has very weak separation properties.
(d) Let 7r be the quotient map from X onto the quotient vector space
XIS; that is, let 7r(x) = x + S for each x in X. Define the quotient
topology of X/ S by letting a subset U of X/ S be open if and only
if 7r- 1 (U) is open in X. Show that this defines a completely regular
vector topology for X/ S. (This is one way to start with a TVS that
is not To and construct a completely regular TVS from it.)
 *2.3 Metrizable Vector Topologies 185

(e) Let (0, L, p,) be a positive measure space and let X be the vector
space of all scalar-valued p,-integrable functions on O. In this exer-
cise, do not consider functions to be the same if they agree almost
everywhere but differ somewhere on O. For each I in X and each
positive E, let U(f, t) = {9 : 9 E X, fol9 - II dp, < t}. Prove that
{U(f, t) : I E X, E > O} is a basis for a locally convex topology
for X. Describe S. Describe XIS and the quotient topology of XIS.
2.34 The purpose of this exercise is to study vector topologies for finite-dimen-
sional vector spaces without assuming that the topologies are Hausdorff.
Part (a) of Exercise 2.33 is needed for this. Let 'I be a vector topology
for a finite-dimensional vector space X and let S be the subspace of X
consisting of all x in X such that each open set containing either x or 0
contains both. Let Y be a vector space complement of S in X, that is,
a subspace of X such that S + Y = X and S n Y = {O}. (For example,
let lEI be a vector space basis for S, let 1E2 be a subset of X such that
lEI n 1E2 = 0 and lEI U 1E2 is a basis for X, and let Y = (1E2)')
(a) Prove that the relative topology that Y inherits from X is the unique
Hausdorff vector topology for Y.
(b) Prove that 'I = {U + S: U is an open subset of Y}.
(c) Prove that 'I is a locally convex subtopology of the unique Hausdorff
vector topology of X.
This exercise will be continued at the end of Section 2.4 as Exercise 2.51,
in which will be developed a characterization of vector topologies on finite-
dimensional vector spaces in terms of linear functionals on the space.

*2.3 Metrizable Vector Topologies

N one of the material in this section depends on that of any other optional
section.
This section contains a few results about metrizable vector topologies
that are not, in general, induced by norms. This material is marked as
optional since most of the vector topologies important for this book either
are induced by norms or are not in general compatible with any metric
whatever, as will be seen in Propositions 2.5.14 and 2.6.12. However, it is
interesting and instructive to see which of the most important results about
normed spaces survive in the somewhat more general setting to be studied
in this section.
Since completeness plays such an important rule in the study of normed
spaces, it is natural to pay special attention to completeness in the study
of more general metrizable TVSs. As was shown in Exerchie 1.42, it is
quite possible for a vector topology to be induced by two different metrics,
one incomplete and the other complete, so it is useful to have a form of
completeness that does not depend on the particular metric that induces
the vector topology. One possibility would be to use completeness as an
186 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

abelian topological group under vector addition; see Definition 2.1.48. It is

somewhat more customary to use the following form of completeness, and
that is what will be done here. As will be shown by Corollary 2.3.22, these
two forms of completeness are equivalent for metrizable vector topologies.

2.3.1 Definition. A topological space is topologically complete if some

complete metric induces its topology.

2.3.2 Definition. An F-space is a topologically complete TVS. A Frechet

space is a locally convex F-space.

The reader should be warned that some sources include local convexity
in the definition of an F-space, while others omit it from that of a Frechet
space. It is also common to require that the topology of a TVS be induced
by some complete invariant metric before the TVS is called an F-space.
Banach noticed that all of the topologically complete TVSs he studied ac-
tually do have their topologies induced by complete invariant metrics, and
he 3.'lked in [13] if this must always be the case. It is a remarkable fact due
to Victor Klee that the answer is yes, as will be shown in Theorem 2.3.20.
The definition of an F-space that requires invariance is therefore equivalent
to the one given above that does not.

2.3.3 Example. Suppose that J.L is a finite positive measure on a a-

algebra I: of subsets of a set 0. It was shown in Example 2.2.5 that
Lo(O, L:, J.L) is a TVS whose topology is induced by a complete metric,
so Lo(O,L.,J.L) is an F-space. It was also shown in that same example that
Lo[O, 1] is not locally convex, so Lo[O, 1] is an F-space that is not a Frechet
space.

2.3.4 Example. Suppose that 0 < p < 1. It was shown in Example 2.2.6
that if J.L is any positive measure, finite or not, on a a-algebra L. of subsets of
a set D, then Lp(D, L., J.L) is a TVS whose topology is induced by a complete
metric, so Lp(D, L., J.L) is an F-space. It was also shown in Example 2.2.6
that Lp[O, 1] is not locally convex, and so is an F-space that is not a Frechet
space. The space fp is a further example of an F-spaee that is not a Frechet
space, 3.'> was seen in Example 2.2.7.

Of course, every Banach space is a locally convex topologically complete

TVS. Definition 2.3.2 provides a shorter way to say this.

2.3.5 Theorem. Every Banach space is a Fnkhet space.

As will be shown by Example 2.3.25, not every Frechet spaee has its
topology induced by a norm.
This section contains two major results linking metrizability of a vector
topology to metrizability by an invariant metric. The first, Theorem 2.3.13,
 *2.3 Metrizable Vector Topologies 187

says that a vector topology that is induced by a metric is in fact induced by

an invariant metric, while the second, Theorem 2.3.20, says that a vector
topology that is induced by a complete metric is actually induced by a
complete invariant metric. Before obtaining the first of these two, it is
necessary to make a short excursion into the theory of local bases for vector
topologies.

2.3.6 Definition. A local basis for a vector topology is a basis for the
topology at O.

That is, a local basis for a vector topology is a collection 1)30 of neigh-
borhoods of 0 such that every neighborhood of 0 includes a member of 1)30.
Notice that every vector topology has a local basis, namely, the collection
of all neighborhoods of O.
The following proposition contains a few basic facts about local bases
that all follow easily from the appropriate definitions and from various
parts of Theorem 2.2.9.

2.3.7 Proposition. Let 1)30 be a local basis for the topology of a TVS X.
(a) The collection of all translates of members of 1)30 is a basis for the
topology of X.
(b) The space X has a local basis 1)3~ for its topology with cardinality
no more than that of 1)30 such that every member of 1)3~ is balanced.
If X is locally convex, then 1)3~ can be selected so that each of its
members is balanced and convex.
(c) If U is a neighborhood of 0 in X, then there is a member V of 1B0
such that V c: V c: V + V c: U.

2.3.8 Corollary. Every TVS has a local basis for its topology consisting
of balanced sets, and every LCS has a local basis for its topology consisting
of balanced convex sets.

2.3.9 Corollary. A TVS is locally convex if and only if its topology has a
local basis consisting of convex sets.

2.3.10 Corollary. If a vector space has two vector topologies with a com-
mon local basis, then the two topologies are the same.

If the topology of a TVS is induced by a metric, then the open balls cen-
tered at the origin whose radii are reciprocals of positive integers form a
countable local basis for the topology. This, together with the following re-
sult, shows that in fact the existence of a countable local basis characterizes
metrizable vector topologies among all Hausdorff vector topologies.
188 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.3.11 Theorem. (G. Birkhoff, 1936 [27]; S. Kakutani, 1936 [124]). SUJr
pose that X is a Hausdorff TVS whose topology has a countable local basis.
Then the topology of X is induced by an invariant metric such that the
open balls centered at the origin are balanced. If X is locally convex, then
its topology is induced by a metric with the preceding properties and for
which all open balls are convex.
PROOF. Let 'I be the given vector topology for X. This proof is based
on Construction 2.2.13, so the local basis about to be defined is indexed
to match the notation of that construction. As an easy consequence of
parts (b) and (c) of Proposition 2.3.7, the topology 'I has a local basis
{B(2-n) : n = 0,1,2, ... } such that, for each n, the set B(2-n) is balanced
(and, if X is an LCS, convex) and B(2- n- 1 ) + B(2- n- 1 ) ~ B(2-n); call
this local basis 113 0. Let B = B(l), then let Band {B(2-n) : n EN} be
used in Step 1 of Construction 2.2.13 to get the construction started. In
that construction, the map t f--7 B(t) from {2- n : n = 0,1,2, ... } into 'I
is extended to (0,00) in such a way that each B(t) is a 'I-neighborhood
of 0 that is balanced (and convex if each member of 113 0 is convex) and
B(s) ~ B(t) whenever 0 < s < t. It is then shown that the formula
f(x) = inf{ t : t> 0, x E B(t)}
defines a 'I-continuous nonnegative-real-valued function on X such that
f(O) = 0 and such that f(x) = f( -x) and f(x+y) ::; f(x) + fey) whenever
x, y EX. If x is a nonzero member of X, then the fact that 113 0 is a
local basis for the Hausdorff topology 'I implies that there is a nonnegative
integer n such that x rt. B(2- n ) and therefore that f(x) ::::: 2- n > O. It
follows from all of this that the formula d(x, y) = f(x - y) defines an
invariant metric on X.
For each positive t, let Vet) = U{ B(s) : 0 < s < t}. Then each Vet) is
a 'I-neighborhood of 0 that is balanced (and convex if each member of 113 0
is convex), and {V (t) : t > O} is a local basis for 'I. It is easy to see that
Vet) = {x : x E X, f(x) < t} whenever t > 0, that is, that each Vet) is the
d-open ball of radius t centered at the origin, so the d-open balls centered
at 0 are all balanced (and convex if each member of 1130 is convex). Now
let U(x, r) denote the d-open ball ofradius r centered at x. Then for each x
in X and each positive r,
U(x, r) = {y : y E X, fey - x) < r}
= x + {y: y E X, fey) < r}
= x + VCr).

Since {U(x, r) : x E X, r > O} is a basis for the topology induced by d

and {x + VCr) : X E X, r > O} is a basis for 'I, and since these bases are
the same, the metric d induces 'I. Finally, if 'I is a locally convex topology,
then the selection of each member of 113 0 to be convex assures that each
d-open ball x + VCr) is convex, which finishes the proof.
 *2.3 Metrizable Vector Topologies 189

2.3.12 Corollary. The topology of a HausdorffTVS is induced by a metric

if and only if the topology has a countable local basis.

Combining Theorem 2.3.11 with its corollary yields the first of the two
major results of this section connecting metrizability of vector topologies
to metrizability by invariant metrics.

2.3.13 Theorem. If the topology of a TVS is induced by a metric, then

it is induced by an invariant metric such that the open balls centered at
the origin are balanced. If the topology of an LCS is induced by a metric,
then it is induced by an invariant metric such that the open balls centered
at the origin are balanced and all open balls are convex.

Notice that the preceding theorem does not say that the original metric
inducing the topology has to have the nice properties assured by the con-
clusions of the theorem, but rather that some metric inducing the topology
has those properties.
The second major result of this section linking metrizability of vector
topologies to metrizability by invariant metrics is an easy consequence of
a more general result about topological groups obtained by combining the
results of three lemmas, each of which is interesting in its own right.

2.3.14 Lemma. Suppose that X is a group with a topology induced by

an invariant metric dx. Let dy be a complete metric on a set Y such
that there is an isometry I from X onto a dense subset of Y; that is,
let Y be a completion of X. Define a multiplication of members of Y as
follows. For each ordered pair (YI, Y2) of members of Y, let (XI,n) and (X2,n)
be sequences in X such that limn I(xj,n) = Yj when j = 1,2, and let
YI . Y2 = limn I(XI,n . X2,n). Then Y with this multiplication is a group, the
map I is a group isomorphism onto a subgroup of Y, and dy is invariant.
PROOF. It must first be shown that multiplication of members of Y is a
well-defined operation. Suppose that YI, Y2 E Y and that (XI,n) and (X2,n)
are sequences in X such that limn f(Xj,n) = Yj when j = 1,2. By the
invariance of d x and the fact that f is an isometry,

dy(j(XI,n' X2,n), I(XI,m 'X2,m)) s:: dX(XI,n' X2,n, XI,m' X2,n)

+ dX(XI,m' X2,n, XI,m' X2,m)
= d y (j(XI,n), I(XI,'m))
+ d y (j(X2,n), I(X2,m))
whenever m, n E N. Since (I(XI,n)) and (j(X2,n)) are Cauchy, the sequence
(I(Xl,n . X2,n)) is also Cauchy, and therefore converges. Now suppose that
(WI,n) and (W2,n) are any sequences in X such that limn I(wj,n) = Yj
when j = 1,2. Letting (Vj,n) be the sequence (X),l, Wj,l, Xj,2, Wj,2, . .. ) when
190 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

j = 1, 2 and observing that (J (VI, n . V2, n)) must converge shows that there
is no ambiguity in the definition of Yl . Y2. Multiplication is therefore a
well-defined operation on Y.
Suppose that Yl, Y2, Y3 E Y and that sequences (Xl,n), (X2,n), and (X3,n)
in X are such that limn f(xj,n) = Yj when j = 1,2,3. Then

(Yl'Y2)'Y3 =limf((Xl
n n 'X2n)'X3n) J J J

= 1imf(xl,n' (X2,n' X3,n))

n

= Yl . (Y2 . Y3),
so multiplication of elements of Y is associative. Let e be the identity of X
and let en = e for each positive integer n. Then

and similarly f(e) . Yl = Yl, so f(e) is an identity for Y. Notice next that
the invariance of dx implies that dx(xl,;' xl,;") = dX(Xl,m, Xl,n) whenever
m,n E N, so (J(xl,;)) is a Cauchy sequence in Y. Let Yo denote its limit.
Then

Yl . Yo = limf(xl,n
n
. xl,;) = f(e) = limf(xl,; . Xl,n) = Yo . Yl,
n

so each member of Y has an inverse in Y. It follows that (Y,' ) is a group.

Also,

and similarly dy (Y2 . Yl, Y3 . Yl) = dy (Y2, Y3), so d y is invariant. Finally, if

U,v EX, and Un = U and Vn = v for each positive integer n, then

f (u . v) = lim
n
f (un . V n ) = f (u) . f (v),
which together with the fact that f is one-to-one shows that f is a group
isomorphism onto a subgroup of Y.

Recall that a Go subset of a topological space is a set that is the inter-

section of count ably many open sets.

2.3.15 Lemma. (W. Sierpiriski, 1928 [213]). Suppose that X is a topolog-

ically complete subset of a metric space Y. Then X is a Go subset of Y.
 *2.3 Metrizable Vector Topologies 191

PROOF. Let dy be the metric of Y and let dx be a complete metric

for X that induces the same topology for X as does d y . For each x
in X and each n in N, let rn(x) be a positive real number such that
rn(x) < n- 1 and dx(w,x) < n- 1 whenever WE X and dy(w,x) < rn(x),
and let Un(x) be the open ball in Y of dy-radius rn(x) centered at x. Let
G n = U{Un(x): x E X} for each n in N, and let r = n{Gn : n EN}.
Then r is a G{j subset ofY. Since each x in X lies in Un(x) for every nand
therefore lies in each G n , it follows that X <:;;; r. The lemma will be proved
once it is shown that r <:;;; X.
Let Xo be a member of r. For each positive integer n, the fact that
Xo E G n implies that there is an Xn in X such that Xo E Un(x n ), that is,
such that

(2.1)

It follows that Xn ~ Xo in Y.
Let E be a positive number, and choose a positive integer N such that
2jN < E. Let m be a positive integer such that

(2.2)

It follows from (2.1) that for each positive integer k,

1
dY(Xk' XN) ~ dY(Xk' xo) + dy(xo, XN) < k + dy(xo, XN),
which together with (2.2) implies that if k > m, then dy(Xk,XN) < rN(xN)
and therefore dX(Xk,XN) < N-l. If k,l > m, then

and therefore the sequence (xn) is dx-Cauchy and so convergent to some

member of X. Since Xn ~ Xo in Y, it follows that Xo E X, so r <:;;; x.

The next lemma is not one of the three important lemmas used di-
rectly in the proof of Theorem 2.3.18, but is instead just a "sublemma"
for Lemma 2.3.17. The result is almost obvious, but needs a moment's
arguing.

2.3.16 Lemma. Suppose that Y is a topological group, that A is a subset

of Y that is of the first category in Y, and that y E Y. Then y . A is of the
first category in Y.
PROOF. Suppose that N is a nowhere dense subset of Y. By an obvious
argument involving the definition of a first category set, it suffices to show
that y. N is nowhere dense in Y. It follows from the continuity of the group
192 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

operation that y . N = y . N; one straightforward arg:.lment showing this

uses Proposition 2.1.18. If y. N were not nowhere dense in Y, then there
would be a nonempty open set U in y. N, so y-l. U would be a nonempty
open subset of N, which would contradict the fact that N is nowhere dense
in Y.

The following lemma is due to Victor Klee, and the proof given here
is from Klee's paper. As Klee points out, the argument is essentially the
same as one used by S. Mazur and L. Sternbach [165] to show that every Go
subspace of a Banach space is closed.

2.3.17 Lemma. (Y. L. Klee, 1952 [135]). Suppose that Y is a topological

group that is of the second category in itself and that X is a subgroup of Y
that is a dense Go subset of Y. Then X = Y.
PROOF. It follows from Proposition 1.5.3 (c) that Y \ X is of the first
category in Y and therefore that X is of the second category in Y. If
y E Y \ X, then y . X ~ Y \ X, and so y . X is of the first category in Y,
which implies that X itself is of the first category in Y, a contradiction. It
follows that Y \ X = 0 and therefore that X = Y.

Notice that by Proposition 2.1.43, the hypotheses of the following theo-

rem do imply that the group in question is a topological group.

2.3.18 Theorem. (V. L. Klee, 1952 [135]). Suppose that X is a group

with a topologically complete topology induced by an invariant metric dx.
Then d x is a complete metric.
PROOF. By Lemma 2.3.14, there is a group Y with a topology induced by a
complete invariant metric dy and a map f: X --+ Y that is an isometry and
a group isomorphism onto a dense subgroup of Y. It follows from Propo-
sition 2.1.43 that the group Y with the topology induced by d y is a topo-
logical group. If px is a complete metric that induces the topology of X,
then it is easy to check that the formula py(J(xd,f(X2)) = (JX(Xl,X2)
defines a complete metric on f(X) that induces the topology that f(X)
inherits from Y. As a topologically complete subset of Y, the set f(X) is a
Go subset of Y by Lemma 2.3.15. The Baire category theorem assures that
Y is of the second category in itself, so an application of Lemma 2.3.17
shows that f(X) = Y and therefore that dx is complete.

In [135], Klee used an example due to Dieudonne [62] to show that the
conclusion of the preceding theorem can fail if the metric d x is only as-
sumed to be left-invariant.
As an easy consequence of Proposition 1.4.14 (c), a normed space is a
Banach space if there is some complete norm that induces its topology, and
Corollaries 2.1.50 and 2.1.51 provide a strengthening of that statement: A
 *2.3 Metrizable Vector Topologies 193

normed space is a Banach space if there is some complete invariant metric

that induces its topology. It is an immediate consequence of Theorem 2.3.18
that a further strengthening can be made: A normed space is a Banach
space if there is some complete metric, invariant or not, that induces its
topology.

2.3.19 Corollary. (V. L. Klee, 1952 [135]). A normed space is a Banach

space if and only if it is topologically complete.

The main consequence of Theorem 2.3.18 for the purposes of this section
is the following one, which gives an affirmative answer to Banach's question
mentioned after Definition 2.3.2.

2.3.20 Theorem. (V. L. Klee, 1952 [135]). A TVS is an F-space if and

only if its topology is induced by a complete invariant metric.
PROOF. A TVS whose topology is induced by a complete invariant metric
is obviously an F-space. Conversely, suppose that X is an F-space. By
Theorem 2.3.13, the topology of X is induced by an invariant metric, and
Theorem 2.3.18 assures that this metric is complete.

A bit more can be said. The invariant metric used in the proof of the
preceding theorem can, by Theorem 2.3.13, be selected to have some special
properties. This is summarized by the following result.

2.3.21 Corollary. Every F-space has its topology induced by a complete

invariant metric such that the open balls centered at the origin are bal-
anced. Every Fh~chet space has its topology induced by a complete invari-
ant metric such that the open balls centered at the origin are balanced and
all open balls are convex.

Combining Theorems 2.3.13 and 2.3.20 with Corollary 2.1.50 yields the
following result immediately.

2.3.22 Corollary. A TVS whose topology is induced by a metric is an

F-space if and only if it is complete as an abelian topological group under
vector addition.

That is, for a metrizable TVS, topological completeness is equivalent to

completeness as an abelian topological group under vector addition.
Since the boundedness of certain sets is an issue in many of the remaining
results of this section, this is a good place to mention again a convention
adopted after Definition 2.2.8. When it is said that a subset of a TVS
is bounded, it is meant that the set is bounded in the topological sense of
Definition 2.2.8 rather than in any metric sense, unless specifically stated
194 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

otherwise. This is especially important when working with metrizable vec-

tor topologies, for such topologies are always compatible with a metric for
which the entire space is metrically bounded; see Exercise 2.36. However,
also keep in mind that for subsets of a normed space, metric bounded ness
and boundcdncss as a subset of the corresponding TVS are equivalent.

2.3.23 Definition. A vector topology is locally bounded if some neighbor-

hood of the origin in the space is bounded.

For example, every norm topology is locally bounded, since the open unit
ball of the space is bounded. The following result is a partial converse of
that fact.

2.3.24 Theorem. Every locally bounded Hausdorff vector topology is in-

duced by a metric.
PROOF. Suppose that a Hausdorff TVS X has a bounded neighborhood V
of O. It follows that if U is a neighborhood of 0, then there is a positive
integer nu such that n[:/V S;; U, so {n- 1 V : n EN} is a countable local
basis for the topology of X. By Theorem 2.3.11, the topology of X is
metrizable.

There are, however, metrizable vector topologies that are not locally
bounded.

2.3.25 Example. Let X be the collection of all sequences of scalars, made

into a vector space with the usual vector space operations for spaces of
sequences. Define d: X x X -+ [0,1] by the formula

d(x, y) = LTj min{l, IXj- Yjl}

J

It is easy to check that d is an invariant metric and that a sequence (x( n))
of members of X converges to some x if and only if limn xjn) = Xj for
each j, for which reason the topology induced by d is called the topology
of termwise convergence. By Proposition 2.1.43, the invariance of d implies
that addition of vectors is continuous. Also, if a sequence (x(n)) of members
of X converges to some x and O:n -+ 0: in IF, then limn O:nxjn) = O:Xj for
each j, and so limn O:nx(n) = O:X, from which it follows that multiplication
of vectors by scalars is continuous. The topology of termwise convergence
is therefore a vector topology for X. Since every Cauchy sequence of mem-
bers of X is termwise Cauchy, hence termwise convergent and therefore
convergent to some member of X, the metric d is complete. The space X
with the topology of termwise convergence is therefore an F-space. Now
define a collection of neighborhoods of the origin of X by letting
Vn = {x : x EX, Ix j I < n- 1 when j = 1, ... , n }
 *2.3 Metrizable Vector Topologies 195

for each positive integer n. It is easy to check that each Vn is convex and
that each open ball centered at 0 includes some Vn , from which it follows
that {Vn : n EN} is a local basis for the topology of X consisting of
convex sets and thus that X with the topology of termwise convergence is
a Frechet space.
It will now be shown that the topology of X is not locally bounded,
for which it is sufficient to show that no member of {Vn : n EN} is
bounded. Fix a positive integer n and a positive real number t and let x
be the member of X for which Xn+l = t and all other terms are O. Then
x E Vn \ tVn+l, which shows that Vn is not included in any positive scalar
multiple of Vn+l and therefore is not bounded.
Notice that since no neighborhood of the origin of X is bounded, the
topology of X is not induced by a norm, so X is an example of a Frechet
space whose topology is not compatible with any norm.

In light of the preceding results on metrizability, it is natural to ask what

conditions on a TVS assure normability. The following theorem completely
settles the question.

2.3.26 Theorem. A topology for a vector space is induced by a norm if

and only if it is a Hausdorff vector topology that is locally bounded and
locally convex.
PROOF. The topology induced by a norm on a vector space is a Haus-
dorff locally convex topology for which the open unit ball is a bounded
neighborhood of the origin. Conversely, suppose that the topology 'I of a
Hausdorff TVS X is locally bounded and locally convex. An application of
Corollary 2.3.8 produces a neighborhood V of 0 that is bounded, balanced,
and convex (and, by Theorem 2.2.9 (f), absorbing). By Proposition 1.9.14,
the Minkowski functional p of V is a seminorm on X. If x is a nonzero
member of X, then the fact that 'I is Hausdorff implies that X \ {x} is
a neighborhood of 0, which together with the boundedness of V implies
that there is a positive t such that s V ~ X \ {x} whenever 0 < s < t,
which in turn implies that p(x) > O. It follows that p is actually a norm.
By Proposition 1.9.14,

{x: x EX, p(x) < l} ~ V ~ {x: x E X, p(x) ~ I}.

If x E V, then it follows from the 'I-continuity of multiplication of vectors

by scalars and the fact that V is 'I-open that there is some real number r
greater than 1 such that rx E V, which in turn implies that p(x) < 1.
Therefore V is the open unit ball for p, so the collection {n- l V : n EN} is a
local basis for the p-topology of X. A glance at the proof of Theorem 2.3.24
shows that this collection is also a local basis for 'I, so 'I is induced by the
norm p.
196 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

As is true for the theory of linear operators between normed spaces, the
theory of linear operators between TVSs is quite rich, especially when the
topology of the domain space is metrizable. The following definition and
theorem extend Definition 1.4.1 and Theorem 1.4.2 from normed spaces
into these more general settings.

2.3.27 Definition. Let X and Y be TVSs. A linear operator T from X

into Y is bounded ifT(B) is a bounded subset ofY whenever B is a bounded
subset of X. The collection of all bounded linear operators from X into Y
is denoted by B(X, Y), or by just B(X) if X = Y.

2.3.28 Theorem. Let X and Y be TVSs and let T: X ---> Y be a linear

operator. Then the following two statements are equivalent.
(a) The operator T is continuous.
(b) The operator T is continuous at O.
Each of the above two statements implies the following one, and all three
statements are equivalent if the topology of X is metrizable.
(c) The operator T is bounded.
PROOF. Suppose first that T is continuous at O. If a net (Xl in X converges
to some X, then Xc> - X ---> 0, so T(x", - x) ---> TO = 0, and therefore
Tx", ---> Tx. The operator T is thus continuous at each point of X, and so
(b) =:} (a). The reverse implication is obvious, so (a) {:} (b).
Now suppose that T is continuous, that B is a bounded subset of X, and
that V is a neighborhood of 0 in Y. The continuity of T implies that there
is a neighborhood U of 0 in X such that T(U) ~ V, and the boundedness
of B implies that there is a positive s such that B ~ tU whenever t > s. It
follows that T(B) ~ tT(U) ~ tV whenever t > s, and therefore that T(B)
is bounded. Statement (a) therefore implies (c).
Finally, suppose that the topology of X is induced by a metric, that T
is bounded, and that (x n ) is a sequence in X converging to O. For each
positive integer k, there is a positive integer nk such that kX n lies in the
open ball of radius k- 1 centered at 0 whenever n 2": nk, from which it follows
that there is a nondecreasing sequence (k n ) of positive integers such that
k n ---> 00 and knxn ---> O. Since the set {knxn : n EN} and the operator T
are bounded, so is the set {knTxn : n EN}. Let W be a neighborhood
of 0 in Y and let s be a positive number such that {knTxn : n EN} ~ tW
whenever t > s. It follows that there is a positive integer nw such that
knTxn E kn W whenever n 2": nw, which implies that TX n E W for all
sufficiently large n. The sequence (Txn) therefore converges to 0, which
establishes the continuity of T at 0 and proves that (c) =:} (b) when the
topology of X is induced by a metric.

It is not always true that part (c) of the preceding theorem implies parts
(a) and (b) when the topology of X is not metrizable. See Exercise 2.57.
 *2.3 Metrizable Vector Topologies 197

The open mapping theorem, closed graph theorem, and uniform bound-
edness principle all have natural extensions to F-spaces that will now be
obtained. To make the statement of each extension conform as closely as
possible to the statement of the corresponding result for normed spaces
given in Section 1.6, reference will be made in the statement of each to
bounded linear operators. In each case, the domains of the linear operators
will be F -spaces, so for these operators boundedness will be equivalent to
continuity.
Several of the following results cite Banach's 1932 monograph [13] in
addition to earlier sources. When this occurs, the earlier references are
to proofs for Banach spaces, while the references to [13] are to Banach's
extensions of the results to F-spaces by substantially the same arguments.

2.3.29 The Open Mapping Theorem for F-Spaces. (J. Schauder,

1930 [208]; S. Banach, 1932 [13]). Every bounded linear operator from an
F-space onto an F-space is an open mapping.
PROOF. This proof uses the fact that if d is an invariant metric on a vector
space Wand Wl,,Wn E W, then d(2::7=lWj,0) S; 2::7=ld(wj,0). This
follows from a straightforward induction argument that begins with the
observation that d(Wl + W2, 0) = d(Wl, -W2) S; d(Wl'O) + d(O, -W2) =
d(Wl'O) + d(w2, 0).
Let T be a bounded linear operator from an F -space X onto an F -space Y
and let N be a neighborhood of the origin Ox of X. Suppose that it were
shown that T(N) must include a neighborhood of the origin Oy of Y. It
would follow that if G is an open subset of X and x E G, then
T(G) = Tx + T( -x + G) ::2 Tx + (T(-x + G)t,
and so T( G) would be open since it would include a neighborhood of each
of its points. It is therefore enough to prove that Oy E (T(N) r.
It will first be shown that Oy E (T( N) ) Q. Let V be a balanced neigh-

borhood of Ox such that V +V ~ N. If (T(V)) Q =1= 0, then

Oy E (T(V)) 0 - (T(V)) 0 ~ T(V) - T(V) = T(V) + T(V) ~ T(N);

that is, the set T(N) includes the neighborhood (T(V)) 0 _ (T(V)) 0
of Oy. It will therefore follow that Oy E (T( N) ) 0 once it is shown that
(T(V)) 0 is not empty. Since T(X) = Y and V is absorbing, it follows
that Y = Un T(nV), so by the Baire category theorem there must be a
positive integer no such that T(noV) is not nowhere dense in Y, that is,
such that (T( no V) ) Q =1= 0. It follows that (T(V) Q =1= 0 and therefore

that Oy E (T(N)r
198 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

Let d x and dy be complete invariant metrics inducing the topologies

of X and Y respectively. Let Ux (r) and Uy (r) denote the open balls of
radius r centered at Ox and Oy respectively when r > 0, and let E be a
positive number such that UX(E) ~ N. By the argument of the preceding
paragraph, there is a sequence (8 n ) of positive reals converging to 0 such
that Uy(8 n ) ~ T(Ux(2- n E)) whenever n E N. Let Yo be an arbitrary
element of Uy(8d. The theorem will be proved once it is shown that there
is an Xo in Ux(t) such that Txo = Yo.
Since Yo E Uy (8 1) ~ T(Ux (2- 1E)), there is an Xl in Ux (2- 1E) such
that dy(yo, TX1) < 82 . Since Yo - TX1 E Uy(82 ) ~ T(Ux(2- 2E)), there is
an X2 in Ux(2- 2t) such that dy(yo, TX1 +TX2) = dy(yo - TX1, TX2) < 83 ,
Continuing in the obvious fashion yields a sequence (xn) in X such that
Xn E Ux(2- n t) and dy(yo, 2:7=1 TXj) < 8n+1 for each positive integer n.
If ml, m2 EN and m1 < m2, then

L
m2

< dx(xj,Ox)
j=ml+1

L
00

< 2- j (
j=ml +1

= 2- m ,(,
from which it follows that the partial sums of the formal series 2:n Xn form
a Cauchy sequence and therefore that 2:n Xn converges. Let Xo = 2:n Xn
Since limn dY (Yo,T(2:7=1 Xj)) = 0, it follows that

TXO=T(li,;ntXj) = li,;n T(tXj) = Yo

)=1 )=1

Finally,

dx(xo,Ox) = li,;n dx (~Xj,ox) :s: ~dx(Xj,Ox) < ~Tjt = t,

so Xo E Ux (() as required.

2.3.30 Corollary. (S. Banach, 1929 [11], 1932 [13]). Every one-to-one
bounded linear operator from an F-space onto an F-space has a bounded
inverse.

The preceding corollary is a generalization of Corollary 1.6.6 and, like

that earlier result, is sometimes called the inverse mapping theorem.
 *2.3 Metrizable Vector Topologies 199

2.3.31 The Closed Graph Theorem for F-Spaces. (S. Banach,

1932 [13]). Let T be a linear operator from an F-space X into an F-space Y.
Suppose that whenever a sequence (x n ) in X converges to some x in X
and (Tx n ) converges to some y in Y, it follows that y = Tx. Then T is
bounded.
PROOF. Let dx and dy be complete invariant metrics inducing the topolo-
gies of X and Y respectively. For each pair of elements (Xl, YI) and (X2' Y2)
of X x Y, let

Then d xxY is a complete invariant metric that induces the product topol-
ogy of X x Y; see the discussion of product metrics in Appendix B. It
is easy to check that X x Y is an F -space when given its product topol-
ogy and the usual vector space operations for a vector space sum. Let
G = {(x, Tx) : X EX}; that is, let G be the graph of T in X x Y. It
follows from the hypotheses of this theorem that G is a closed subspace
of X x Y and so is itself an F-space. Since the map (x, Tx) f-> x from G
onto X is a one-to-one bounded linear operator, its inverse is bounded by
Corollary 2.3.30, so the map x f-> (x, Tx) f-> Tx is itself a bounded linear
operator.

The statement of the uniform boundedness principle given in Section 1.6

needs a bit of reinterpretation before it can be extended from Banach spaces
to F -spaces. Let J be a nonempty family of bounded linear operators from a
Banach space X into a normed space Y. Suppose that sup{ IITxl1 : T E J}
is finite for each x in X, which is the same as saying that {Tx : T E J}
is bounded whenever x EX. The conclusion of the uniform boundedness
principle for Banach spaces is that sup{ IITII : T E J} is finite. A moment's
thought about properties of the norm of a bounded linear operator between
normed spaces shows that this conclusion is equivalent to the following
statement: For each bounded subset A of X, there is a bounded subset BA
of Y such that T(A) <;;; BA whenever T E J.

2.3.32 Definition. A family J of linear operators from a TVS X into a

TVS Y is uniformly bounded if U{ T(B) : T E J} is a bounded subset of Y
whenever B is a bounded subset of X.

In addition to the horde of citatiuni::i that accompanies the statement

of the uniform bounded ness principle for Banach spaces, the following re-
sult contains one more, since Mazur and Orlicz obtained the extension to
F-spaces.

2.3.33 The Uniform Boundedness Principle for F-Spaces. (H. Hahn,

1922 [98]; S. Banach, 1922 [10]; T. H. Hildebrandt, 1923 [104]; S. Banach
200 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

and H. Steinhaus, 1927 [17]; S. Mazur and W. Orlicz, 1933 [164]). Let ~
be a family of bounded linear operators from an F-space X into a TVS Y.
Suppose that { Tx : T E ~} is bounded for each x in X. Then ~ is uniformly
bounded. In short, the pointwise boundedness of ~ implies its uniform
boundedness.
PROOF. To avoid having to think about a special case throughout this
proof, notice that it can be assumed that ~ i= 0. Let B be a bounded
subset of X and U a neighborhood of the origin Oy of Y. The theorem will
be proved once a positive s is found such that T(B) c:;: tU when T E ~ and
t > s. Let V be a balanced neighborhood ofOy such that V + V c:;: U and let
S = n{ T- 1 (V) : T E ~}, a closed subset of X because of the continuity
of each T in ~. If x E X, then the boundedness of {Tx : T E ~} assures
that {Tx : T E ~} c:;: nx V for some positive integer nx and therefore
that x E nxS. It follows that X = U{ nS : n EN}. By the Baire category
theorem, one of the closed sets nS, and hence S itself, must have nonempty
interior. Let Xo be a point in So and let W = Xo - So, a neighborhood of
the origin of X. For each T in ~,

T(W) c:;: Txo - T(S) c:;: V - V c:;: V +V c:;: U.

The bounded ness of B yields a positive s such that B c:;: tW whenever

t > s. It follows that if T E ~ and t > s, then T(B) c:;: tT(W) c:;: tU, as
required.

In the following corollary, the reason for requiring Y to have a Hausdorff

topology is to assure that limits of convergent sequences in Yare unique.

2.3.34 Corollary. Let (Tn) be a sequence of bounded linear operators

from an F-space X into a Hausdorff TVS Y such that limn Tnx exists for
each x in X. Define T: X -+ Y by the formula Tx = limn Tnx. Then T i8
a bounded linear operator from X into Y.

PROOF. The continuity of the vector space operations of Y and the linearity
of each Tn together imply the linearity of T. Let B be a bounded subset
of X. The proof will be complete once it is shown that T(B) is bounded. The
convergence of the sequence (Tnx) for each x in X forces {Tnx : n EN}
to be bounded whenever x E X, which by the preceding theorem implies
that U{ Tn(B) : n EN} is bounded. As a subset of the bounded set
U{Tn(B) : n E N}, the set T(B) is bounded.

Thus, the three fundamental theorems of Section 1.6, as well as their

major corollaries, survive virtually unscathed when extended from Banach
spaces to F-spaces. This leads to the question of which major results about
normed spaces do not generalize to metrizable TVSs.
 *2.3 Metrizable Vector Topologies 201

Some of the most important casualties are the normed space version of
the Hahn-Banach extension theorem and its main corollaries about con-
tinuous linear functionals. Most of these results do extend in some way to
Frechet spaces, as is shown by Corollaries 2.2.20-2.2.22 of Mazur's separa-
tion theorem, but this is due to the local convexity of Frechet spaces (and,
in the case of Corollary 2.2.22, to the fact that their topologies are Haus-
dorff) rather than to the metrizability of their topologies. These corollaries
do not in general extend to F -spaces that are not locally convex. For in-
stance, it was shown in Examples 2.2.24 and 2.2.25 that if 0 < p < I, then
Corollary 2.2.22, which says that Hausdorff LCSs have enough continuous
linear functionals to separate points, does extend to the non-Iocally-convex
F-space Ep but not to Lp[O, 1].
The situation is less ambiguous for Corollary 2.2.21, which says that
every LCS has the property that for each subspace of the space, every
continuous linear functional on that subspace has an extension as a con-
tinuous linear functional to the entire space. For F-spaces, this property
is called the Hahn-Banach extension property. In 1969, Duren, Romberg,
and Shields [69] noted that all of the classical non-Iocally-convex F-spaces,
as well as other examples of such spaces that they had studied, lack the
Hahn-Banach extension property, and asked if it might be the case that an
F-space has the Hahn-Banach extension property if and only if it is locally
convex. Nigel Kalton showed in 1974 [126] that the answer is yes. For an
exposition of Kalton's result, see [128], which is an excellent source for the
reader wishing to learn more about F -spaces.

Exercises
2.35 Let X be the vector space of all continuous functions from ]F into ]F, and
let

d(f, g) = L Tj min{ 1, max{ If(a) - g(a)1 : lal :'S: j} }

whenever f, g EX.
(a) Prove that d is a complete invariant metric.
(b) Prove that a sequence (fn) in X converges to an f in X if and
only if the following holds: For each compact subset K of ]F, the
sequence Un) converges uniformly to f on K. (Because of this, the
topology induced by d is called the topology of uniform convergence
on compact sets.)
(c) Prove that X with its d-topology is a Fnkhet space that is not locally
bounded. Conclude that this topology is not induced by a norm.
2.36 Show that in each of the two statements in Theorem 2.3.13, the invariant
metric in the conclusion of the statement can be selected to have the nice
properties of that conclusion and the further property that the diameter
202 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

of the space with respect to that metric is at most 1. (Recall that the
diameter of a nonempty subset A of a metric space with metric d is
sup{ d(x, y) : x, yEA }.)
2.37 (a) Suppose that fL is a positive measure on a a-algebra I: of subsets of a
n
set and that 0 < p < 1. Prove that Lp(n,~, fL) is locally bounded.
(b) Prove that Lo [0, 1] is not locally bounded.
2.38 Prove that no F-space has a count ably infinite vector space basis.
2.39 Prove that Zabrelko's lemma extends to F-spaces, that is, that every
countably subadditive semi norm on an F-space is continuous.
2.40 Prove that if a vector space has two topologies under which it is an F-
space, and one of the topologies includes the other, then the two topologies
are the same.
2.41 (a) Prove the following generalization of Theorem 1.3.14: Suppose that
C is a closed, convex, absorbing subset of an F-space. Then C in-
cludes a neighborhood of the origin. (While this can be done by
copying the proof of Theorem 1.3.11 verbatim, there is a shorter
proof available. Find it.)
(b) Suppose that X is a vector space with a topology. A barrel in X
is a closed, convex, balanced, absorbing subset of the space. The
space X is barreled if each of its barrels includes a neighborhood of
the origin. Conclude from (a) that every F-space is barreled.
(c) For some F-spaces, the observation in (b) is not very significant. To
see why this is so, list all of the barrels in Lp [0, 1] when 0 -s: p < 1.
2.42 Suppose that X is an infinite-dimensional metrizable TVS and that Y
is a TVS with more open sets than just 0 and Y (which happens, for
example, when Y is a Hausdorff TVS such that Y i {O}). Prove that
some linear operator from X into Y is unbounded. Conclude that every
infinite-dimensional metrizable TVS has a linear functional on it that is
unbounded.
2.43 An F-space is often said to have the Hahn-Banach extension property if,
for every closed subspace of the space, every bounded linear functional
on that subspace has an extension as a bounded linear functional to the
entire space. Show that this is equivalent to the definition of the Hahn-
Banach extension property for F -spaces given near the end of this section,
in which the word "closed" is omitted.
2.44 Some texts define an F-space to be a vector space X with a topology
ind uced by a complete invariant metric such that multiplication of vectors
by scalars is continuous in each variable separately; that is, which has
the property that for each scalar 0'0 and each vector Xo, the mappings
fao: X --> X and 9"'0: IF ---+ X given by the formulas fa.o(x) = aox and
9"'0 (a) = axo are continuous. The purpose of this exercise is to prove that
this definition is equivalent to the one given in Definition 2.3.2. For the
moment, let an Fa-space be a vector space satisfying the above alternative
definition.
 2.4 Topologies Induced by Families of Functions 203

(a) Prove that every F-space is an Fo-space.

(b) Suppose that X is an Fo-space whose topology is induced by the
complete invariant metric d and that (" > O. Prove that there is a
positive /j such that d(ax, 0) ~ (" whenever x is a member of X and
a a scalar such that d(x, 0) ~ /j and lal ~ 1. (Notice that the set
{x: x E X, d(ax, 0) ~ (" whenever lal ~ I} has nonempty interior.)
(c) Conclude that every F o-space is an F -space.

2.4 Topologies Induced by Families of Functions

Suppose that X is a set and that ~ is a family of functions such that each J
in ~ maps X into a topological space (Yf , T j ). It is always possible to find
a topology for X that makes every member of ~ continuous; for example,
just declare every subset of X to be open. However, such a topology might
have too many open sets to be of much use, especially when it is important
that as many subsets of X as possible be compact. For that reason, it is
often desirable to be able to find a topology for X that has just enough
open sets to make every member of ~ continuous. As the following result
shows, this is always possible.

2.4.1 Proposition. Let X be a set and let ~ be a family of functions and

{ (Yj, T j) : J E ~} a family of topological spaces such that each J in ~
maps X into the corresponding Y j . Then there is a smallest topology for X
with respect to which each member of ~ is continuous. That is, there is a
unique topology T;r for X such that
(1) each J in ~ is T;)-continuous; and
(2) if T is any topology for X such that each J in ~ is T-continuous,
then T;r <:" T.
The topology T;r has {J- 1 (U) : f E~, U E Tj } as a subbasis.
PROOF. Let 6 = {J-1(U) : J E ~, U E Tj} and let T;r be the topology
generated by the sub basis 6. Since 6 ~ T;r, every member of J is T;)-
continuous. Now suppose that T is a topology for X such that every member
of ~ is T-continuous. Then 6 ~ T, so T;r ~ T. The uniqueness assertion
follows immediately.

2.4.2 Definition. Let all notation be as in the preceding proposition. Then

the set ~ is a topologizing family of functions for X, and the topology T;)
is the ~ topology of X or the topology O"(X,~) or the weak topology of X
induced by J. The collection {J-1(U) : J E J, U E T j } is the standard
subbasis for this topology, and the standard basis for the topology is the
collection of all sets that arc intersections of finitely many members of this
subbasis.
204 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

The term weak topology is included in the preceding definition for ref-
erence, since it is often given this meaning. However, there is a specific
topology for normed spaces called the weak topology whose study will be
taken up in the next section. To avoid confusion, the term weak topology
will not be used here in the more general sense.

2.4.3 Example. Let { (Xn' T",) : a E I} be a family of topological spaces

and let X be the Cartesian product Il"EI X n . For each a in I, let 1fa be the
projection from X to X"" that is, the map x f-> x",. Let J = {1f", : a E I}.
If ao E I and U is an open subset of X nD , then 1f~ol(U) = lInEl Un, where
Uo:o = U and Un = Xo: when a -I- ao. Let 671" = {1f~l(U) : a E I, U E To:}
and let 6n be the standard subbasis for the product topology of X as given
in Definition 2.1.5. If I -I- 0, then clearly 671" = 6 n . If 1= 0, then 671" = 0
but 6n -I- 0 by the discussion following Definition 2.1.5; however, the two
different subbases 671" and 6 n both generate the only topology that the
one-element set X can have. It follows that the product topology of X is
the J topology of X, whether or not I = 0. That is, the product topology
of X is the smallest topology for X with respect to which each of the
maps 1fn is continuous.

Suppose that X is a topological product and that J is the family of

projection maps as in the preceding example. Let x be a member of X and
(x,e) a net in X; notice that f3 represents a net index element here, not a
member of the index set for the Cartesian product. Then Proposition 2.1.16
says that x(:J ---> x if and only if f(x(3) ---> f(x) for each f in J. This result
generalizes to arbitrary J topologies.

2.4.4 Proposition. Let X be a set and J a topologizing family offunctions

for X. Suppose that (xo:) is a net in X and x is a member of X. Then
Xn -+ x with respect to the J topology if and only if f(xn) -+ f(x) for
each f in J.
PROOF. The forward implication follows immediately from the continuity of
each member of J with respect to the J topology. For the converse, suppose
that f(xa) -+ f(x) for each f in J. If f E J and U is a neighborhood of f(x),
then there is an aj,U such that Xa E f-1(U) when Ctj,U :< Ct, It follows
from Proposition 2.1.15 that Xn ---> x with respect to the J' topology.

2.4.5 Corollary. Let W be a topological space, let X be a set topologized

by a family J of functions, and let g be a function from W into X. Then
g is continuous if and only if fog is continuous for each f in J.
PROOF. For each f in J', the continuity of f implies that of fog when g
is continuous. Conversely, suppose that fog is continuous for each f in J'.
If (w a ) is a net in W that converges to some w, then f(g(w n )) ---> f(g(w))
whenever f E J, so g(w n ) -+ g(w). It follows that g is continuous.
 2.4 Topologies Induced by Families of Functions 205

Proposition 2.4.4 is not only a generalization of a statement about net

convergence in a topological product, but is in fact itself just a statement
about net convergence in a specific topological product. Suppose that X
and ~ are as in the statement of the proposition. For each I in ~, let Y f be
the topological space into which I maps X. Because of the equivalence of
convergence and coordinatewise convergence for nets in topological prod-
ucts, Proposition 2.4.4 says that a net (xoJ in X converges to some Xo in X
with respect to the ~ topology if and only if (J(x Q fE~ --4 (J(xo)) fE~ in
))

the topological product rrfE~ Y f ; notice that if ~ is empty, then the nota-
tion (J(x)) fE~ is being used to represent the unique element of rrfE~ Y f
lt follows immediately that the map x I-> (J(x)) fE~ is a homeomorphism
from X onto a topological subspace of rrfE~ Y f provided the map is ane-
ta-one. A moment's thought shows that the property needed to assure that
the map is one-to-one is exactly the following one.

2.4.6 Definition. Let X be a set and let ~ be a family of functions each

of which has domain X. Then the family ~ is separating or total if, for
each pair x and y of distinct elements of X, there is an Ix,y in ~ such that
Ix,y(x) oF Ix,y(y).
The discussion preceding this definition can be summarized by the fol-
lowing result.

2.4.7 Proposition. Let X be a set and ~ a separating topologizing family

of functions for X. For each I in ;3', let Yf be the topological space into
which I maps X. Then the map x I-> (J(x)) fa is a homeomorphism
from X with the ~ topology onto a topological subspace of rrfE~ Y f with
the product topology.

If a topologizing family ~ of functions for a set X is to induce a topology

satisfying one of the separation axioms, then it is helpful if each topological
space Y f into which the corresponding member I of ~ maps X satisfies that
separation axiom, as will be seen in the next proposition. However, it is far
from essential that this be so. For example, let X be any set and let Y be
a topological space satisfying none of the separation axioms but having a
nonempty proper open subset U. For each x in X, let Ix map x into U and
the rest of X into Y \ U, and let ;3' = {Ix: x EX}. Then the ~ topology
of X satisfies just about any separation axiom one might devise, since each
of its one-element sets, and hence each of its subsets, is open.
On the other hand, the spaces Y f can satisfy any of the separation axioms
whatever, yet the;3' topology will still have no hope of being even a To space
if ;3' is not a separating family. To see this, suppose that there are distinct
elements Xl and Xz of X such that I(XI) = I(X2) whenever I E ;3'. Then a
member of the standard subbasis for the ~ topology that contains either Xl
206 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

or X2 must contain both, so the same holds for each member of the standard
basis for the ~ topology, from which it follows that the ~ topology is not
even To.

2.4.8 Proposition. Let X be a set and ~ a separating topologizing family

of functions for X. For each f in ~, let Yj be the topological space into
which f maps X. If each Yj is To, or T l , or T 2 , or T 3, or T3 12 , then the
~ topology of X satisfies that same separation axiom.

PROOF. Throughout this proof, the topology of X is its ~ topology. Sup-

pose that Xl and X2 are different elements of X, that f is a member of ~
such that f(xI) 1= f(X2), and that UI and U2 are disjoint neighborhoods of
f(XI) and f(X2) respectively. Then f-I(Ud and f- I (U2) are disjoint neigh-
borhoods of Xl and X2 respectively. It follows that X is Hausdorff whenever
each Y j is so. The proofs for the To and TI axioms are analogous. For the
other two cases, recall that topological subspaces and topological products
of regular topological spaces are always regular, and that the corresponding
result for completely regular spaces is also true; see, for example, [172J. Ap-
plications of Proposition 2.4.7 and the fact that homeomorphisms preserve
regularity and complete regularity then finish the proof.

The preceding result cannot be extended to normal topological spaces,

for topological products of normal spaces need not be normal; see [172] for
an example. However, the extension to metrizable topological spaces does
hold, provided that the topologizing family is countable.

2.4.9 Proposition. Let X be a set and ~ a separating topologizing fam-

ily of functions for X. For each f in ~, let Y j be the topological space
into which f maps X. If ~ is countable and the topology of each Y f is
metrizable, then the ~ topology of X is metrizable.
PROOF. It may be assumed that X has more than one element, and there-
fore that ~ 1= o. Then the members of ~ can be listed in a sequence (In),
where the sequence is constant from some term onward if ~ is finite,
and the members of {Yj : f E ~} can be listed in a corresponding se-
quence (Yn). For each n, let dn be a metric inducing the topology of Y n
Define d: X x X --> [0,1] by the formula

d(XI,X2) = L min{1,dn(Jn2~d,fn(X2))}.
n

It is easy to check that d is a metric on X, and that a net (Xc.) in X con-

verges to some X with respect to this metric if and only if f n (Xo.) --> f n (x)
for each n, which happens if and only if Xo. --> x with respect to the ~ topol-
ogy. It follows from Corollary 2.1.22 that the topologies induced on X by
d and ~ are the same.
 2.4 Topologies Induced by Families of Functions 207

2.4.10 Corollary. If X is a compact topological space and there is a

countable separating family of continuous metric-space-valued functions
on X, then the topology of X is metrizable.
PROOF. Let J be the countable separating family, let 'I';j be the J topol-
ogy of X, which is metrizable by the proposition, and let 'I'c be the given
compact topology of X. Then 'I';j ~ 'I'c by Proposition 2.4.1. It follows
that 'I';j = 'I'c since Hausdorff topologies are never proper subtopologies of
compact topologies; see [200, p. 61] or Exercise 2.8.

The count ability hypothesis cannot be omitted from Proposition 2.4.9.

See Exercise 2.45.
In the rest of this book, almost all of the interest in topologies induced by
families of functions will be in topologies induced on a vector space X by
subspaces of the vector space X# of all linear functionals on X. The follow-
ing result makes the connection between such topologies and those studied
in Section 2.2. The characterization of the dual space in this theorem is a
1940 result of R. S. Phillips [188].

2.4.11 Theorem. Suppose that X is a vector space and that X' is a

subspace of the vector space X# of all linear functionals on X. Then the
X' topology of X is a locally convex topology, and the dual space of X
with respect to this topology is X'.
PROOF. Throughout this proof, all allusions to a topology for X refer to
the X' topology. Suppose that (xj3) and (Yj3) are nets in X and (0:13) a net
in IF such that all three nets have the same index set, and that (x{3), (Y{3),
and (0:13) converge to x, y, and 0: respectively. The continuity of addition
and multiplication in IF assures that for each f in X',

so a{3xj3 + Yj3 -+ ax + y. It follows that the vector space operations of X

are continuous. It is easy to see that

{rl(U) : f EX', U is an open ball in IF}

is a sub basis for the topology of X that generates a basis for that topology
consisting of convex sets, so X is an LeS.
Let fo be a continuous linear functional on X. There is some neigh-
borhood of 0 in X that is mapped by fo into the open unit ball of IF,
from which it follows that there is a nonempty finite collection h,, fn
of members of X' and a corresponding collection U 1 , .. , Un of neigh-
borhoods of 0 in IF such that fll(Ut} n ... n f;; 1 (Un) is mapped by fo
into the open unit ball of IF. Suppose that x E kerCh) n ... n ker(fn).
Then mx E fl-l(Ut} n ... n f;;l(Un ) for each positive integer m, and so
mlfo(x)1 = Ifo(mx)1 < 1 whenever mEN, which implies that x E ker fo.
208 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

It follows from Lemma 1.9.11 that fo is a linear combination of 11,, fn,

so fo E X'. Thus, the dual space of X is included in X'. The reverse in-
clusion follows from the definition of the X' topology of X, which finishes
the proof.

It turns out that the topology induced on a vector space X by a sub~pace

of X# has a particularly simple subbasis and basis.

2.4.12 Proposition. Suppose that X is a vector space and that X' is a

subspace of X#. For each x in X and each f in X', let

B(x, {f}) = {y : y E X, If(y - x)1 < l}.

Similarly, for each x in X and each finite subset A of X', let

B (x, A) = { y : y EX, 11 (y - x) I < 1 for each 1 in A }.

Let

(5 = {B(x, {f}) : x E X, f E X'}

and let

IE = {B(x, A) : x E X, A is a finite subset of X' }.

Then (5 is a subbasis and IE a basis for the X' topology of X. If U is a

subset of X that is open with respect to the X' topology and Xo is an ele-
ment of U, then there is a finite subset Ao of X' such that BCxo, Ao) <;;; U;
that is, the set U includes a basic neighborhood of Xo that is "centered"
at xo.
PROOF. Throughout this proof, the topology of X is the X' topology.
First of all, notice that for each x in X, each f in X', and each finite
subset A of X', the sets B(x, {f}) and B(x, A) are open. Now let 1 be a
member of X' and U an open subset of IF, so that f-l(U) is a member
of the standard sub basis for the topology of X, and let x be an element
of f-l(U). To show that (5 is a subbasis for the topology of X, it is enough
to find a 9 in X' such that B (x, {g}) <;;; 1- 1 (U). Let E be a positive number
such that {o: : 0: Elf, 11(x) - 0:1 < E} <;;; U, and let 9 = ell. Then this 9
does what is required of it.
Suppose that f1, ... , In E X', that U1,, Un are open subsets oflF, and
that x E f1l(U1 ) n n l;;l(Un ). Then a straightforward modification of
the argument just given yields a positive c such that

from which it easily follows that IE is a basis for the topology of X.

 2.4 Topologies Induced by Families of Functions 209

Finally, let Xo be an element of an open subset U of X, and let x be a

member of X and A a finite subset of X' such that Xo E B(x, A) ~ U. It
may be assumed that A i- 0. Let 8 be such that

0< 8 < 1 ~ max{ II(xo ~ x)1 : I E A},

and let Ao = 8- 1 A. If y E B(xo, Ao) and I E A, then

II(y ~ x)1 :S II(y ~ xo)1 + II(xo ~ x)1 < 8 + (1 ~ 8) = 1,

and so y E B(x, A). It follows that Xo E B(xo, Ao) ~ B(x, A) ~ U, as

required.

Let X and X' be as in the preceding two results, with X treated as

a topological space under its X' topology. The rest of this section con-
cerns properties that are defined for objects in X because X is a TVS.
In particular, the Cauchy condition for nets is defined, and has a char-
acterization analogous to the characterization of net convergence given in
Proposition 2.4.4.

2.4.13 Proposition. Suppose that X is a vector space and that X' is a

subspace of X#. Let (x",) be a net in X. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The net (x a ) is Cauchy with respect to the X' topology of X.
(b) For each I in X', the net (J(x a )) is Cauchy in IF.
(c) For each I in X', the net (J(x a )) is convergent in IF.
PROOF. Throughout this proof, the topology of X is the X' topology. It
suffices to prove that (a) and (b) are equivalent. Let I be the index set
for (x a ). Then {x!3 ~ xI : (/3,,) E I x I} is a net if I x I is preordered
by declaring that (/31, It) ~ (/32, 12) when /31 ~ i32 and 11 ~ 12 Fur-
thermore, it is easy to see that the net (xa,) is Cauchy if and only if the
net (x!3 ~ xI) converges to 0; see the discussion preceding Definition 2.1.41.
It therefore follows from Proposition 2.4.4 that (xa) i!:> Cauchy if and only
if lim(!3,J) (J(X!3) ~ I(x l )) = 0 for each I in X', which happens if and only
if (J(x a )) is a Cauchy net in IF for each I in X'.

The final two re!:>ults of this section concern boundedness with respect
to the topology induced on a vector space X by a !:>ubspace of X#. The
first gives a useful test for such boundedness, while the second shows one
dramatic difference between topologies of this sort and norm topologies
when the topologizing subspace of X# is infinite-dimensional.

2.4.14 Proposition. Suppose that X is a vector space and that X' is a

subspace of X#. Then a subset A of X is bounded with respect to the
X' topology if and only if I(A) is bounded in IF for each I in X'.
210 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

PROOF. Throughout this proof, the topology of X is the X' topology. Let A
be a subset of X. Suppose first that A is bounded. Let f be a member of X'
and let U be the open unit ball of IF. Then there is a positive t such that
A ~ tj-I(U), which implies that f(A) ~ tU and therefore that f(A)
is bounded. Conversely, suppose that f(A) is bounded whenever f E X'.
Let Uo be a neighborhood of 0 in X and let iI, ... , fn be members of X' and
VI, ... , Vn neighborhoods of 0 in IF such that fll (VI) n ... n f;; 1 (Vn) ~ Uo.
The boundedness of each h(A) yields a positive S i:iUch that fJ(A) ~ tVj
foreachj when t > s. It follows that A ~ t(J1I(VJ)n nf;;I(Vn)) ~ tUo
when t > s, so A is bounded.

2.4.15 Proposition. Suppose that X is a vector space and that X' is a

subspace of X#. If X' is infinite-dimensional, then every nonempty subset
of X that is open with respect to the X' topology is unbounded with
respect to that topology.
PROOF. Throughout this proof, the topology of X is the X' topology. Let U
be a nonempty open subset of X. Since translates of bounded subsets of a
TVS are bounded, it may be assumed that U is a neighborhood of the ori-
gin. Let 11, ... ,In be members of X I and VI, ... , Vn neighbor hoods of 0 in IF
such that Il-l(vd n n 1;;1 (Vn) ~ U, and let 8 = ker(JI) n n ker(fn),
a subspace of X. It follows that 8 ~ U, so it is enough to show that 8
is unbounded. Let 1 be a member of X' that is not a linear combination
of JI, ... ,In. It follows from Lemma 1.9.11 that 8\ ker(f) contains some x.
Since nx E 8 for each positive integer nand If(nx)1 = nII(x)1 ---+ 00 as
n ---+ 00, the set 1(8) is unbounded. By Proposition 2.4.14, the set 8 is
unbounded.

Exercises
2.45 Give an example of a set X and an uncountable separating topologizing
family ~ of functions for X such that the ~ topology of X is not metrizable
even though each of the topological spaces into which the members of ~
map X is a metric space. Exercise 2.14 might be helpful.
2.46 If X is an infinite-dimensional normed space, then some linear functional
on X is not continuous; see Theorem 1.4.11. Show that this result does
not generalize to infinite-dimensional Hausdorff locally convex spaces.
2.47 Prove that if a vector space with a topology has a linearly independent
sequence in it that converges to 0, then some linear functional on the space
is not continuous. Use this fact and your example from the preceding
exercise to give an example of an infinite-dimensional Hausdorff LeS in
which no linearly independent sequence converges to O.
2.48 Let X be a set and ~ a separating topologizing family of functions for X.
Suppose that for each f in ~, the topological space Yf into which f maps X
is Hausdorff. Prove that X is compact with respect to its J topology if
 2.5 The Weak Topology 211

and only if f(X} is compact in Yj for each f in J and the image of X in

fI fEJ Yj under the map x t--7 (J(x)) fEJ is closed.
2.49 Let X be a vector space with the topology induced by some subspace X'
of X#, and let A be a subset of X. Prove that A is a closed subspace
of X if and only if the following holds: For each x in X \ A, there is an fx
in X' such that fx(x) = 1 and A ~ ker(fx).
2.50 Let K be a compact Hausdorff space. Show that if C(K) is separable,
then the topology of K is metrizable.
2.51 The goal of this exercise is to prove that the vector topologies of a finite-
dimensional vector space are exactly the topologies induced by subspaces
of the vector space of all linear functionals on that space. This will be
done by continuing the argument begun in Exercise 2.34. Let all notation
be as in that exercise. All unqualified references to the topologies of X
and Y will be to the given topology of X and to the relative topology
that Y inherits from that given topology of X.
(a) Prove that the topology of Y is the same as the Y* topology of Y.
(b) For each y. in Y, each sin S, and each y in Y, let x;.
(s+y) = y.y.
Show that the map y* f-> x;.
is a vector space isomorphism from Y*
onto X.
(c) Prove that every open subset of X is open with respect to the
X topology of X. Conclude that the topology of X is the same
as the X* topology of X.
(d) For each subspace X' of X#, let ~x' be the X' topology of X. Show
that the map X' t--7 ~x' is a one-to-one correspondence between the
subs paces of X# and the vector topologies of X.
2.52 The preceding exercise says that every vector topology ~ on a finite-
dimensional vector space X (which, by Exercise 2.34, is the same as say-
ing every locally convex topology ~ on X) is exactly the topology induced
by the vector space X* of all ~-continuous linear functionals on X. This
result clearly does not extend to infinite-dimensional TVSs, since Exam-
ple 2.2.24 shows that there are Hausdorff TVSs with nonzero elements,
and hence other open sets besides the empty set and the entire space,
whose dual spaces contain only the zero functional. However, the TVSs
in Example 2.2.24 are not LCSs, so this leaves open the possibility that
the finite-dimensional result might extend to infinite-dimensional LCSs.
The purpose of this exercise is to show that it does not. Prove that if X
is an infinite-dimensional normed space, then the norm topology of X is
not induced by any subspace of X#.

2.5 The Weak Topology

The following convention will help prevent a bit of confusion that could
otherwise occur throughout the rest of this book. If X is a normed space,
then the notation X* and the term "the dual space of X" always refer to
212 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

the dual space of X with respect to the norm topology of X, except where
explicitly stated otherwise, even in contexts in which another topology for X
is being discussed. Recall also the convention from Section 1.2 concerning
topological terms when a normed space is involved: Whenever reference is
made to some topological property in a normed space without specifying the
topology, the norm topology is implied. For example, if a subset of a normed
space is said without further qualification to be open, then it is meant that
it is open with respect to the norm topology of the space.
It is time to introduce the first of the two topologies that are the main
topics of this chapter.

2.5.1 Definition. Let X be a normed space. Then the topology for X

induced by the topologizing family X* is the weak topology of X or the
X* topology of X or the topology u(X, X*).

That is, the weak topology of a normed space is the smallest topology
for the space such that every member of the dual space is continuous with
respect to that topology. See Proposition 2.4.1 and Definition 2.4.2.
Since the dual space of a normed space X is a separating family of
functions for X by Corollary 1.9.9, and each x* in X* maps X into the
completely regular space IF, it follows from Proposition 2.4.8 that the weak
topology of X is itself completely regular. By Theorem 2.4.11, this topology
is also locally convex, and the dual space of X with respect to this topology
is exactly X*. As the smallest topology for X with respect to which every
member of X* is continuous, the weak topology of X must be included in
every topology with respect to which the members of X* are all continuous,
and in particular must be included in the norm topology of X. These
observations are summarized in the following two results.

2.5.2 Theorem. The weak topology of a normed space is a completely

regular locally convex subtopology of the norm topology.

2.5.3 Proposition. A linear fUIlctional on a normed space is continuous

with respect to the weak topology if and only if it is continuous with respect
to the norm topology.

2.5.4 Example. Let (en) be the sequence of unit vectors in 2. It is clear

from the usual identification of 2 with 2 that x* en --+ 0 for each x*
in i, and so, by Proposition 2.4.4, the sequence (en) converges to 0 with
respect to the weak topology. Since IIe n ll2 = 1 for each n, the sequence (en)
cannot converge to 0 with respect to the norm topology. The norm and weak
topologies of 2 are therefore different, so it is possible for the weak topology
of a normed space to be a proper subtopology of the norm topology.

A topological property that holds with respect to the weak topology is

said to be a weak property or to hold weakly. For example, the preceding
 2.5 The Weak Topology 213

theorem and proposition could be restated in part by saying that weakly

open subsets of a normed space are always open and that continuity and
weak continuity are equivalent for linear functionals on a normed space.
Attaching the letter w to a topological symbol is another way to indicate
that the weak topology is being used. For example, the weak convergence
of a net (x,,) to an element x can be expressed by writing x" ~ x or
w-lim" x" = x, while the weak closure of a set A can be denoted by AW.
Of course, all of the results derived in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 for a Haus-
dorff locally convex topology induced by a separating vector space of linear
functionals hold for the weak topology of a normed space X. In particular,
it follows from Propositions 2.4.4 and 2.4.13 that if (x,,) is a net in X and
x is an element of X, then Xc> ~ x if and only if x*xc> -> x*x for each x*
in X*, and (x,,) is weakly Cauchy if and only if (x*x,,) is a Cauchy (that
is, convergent) net in IF for each x* in X*. A particularly useful basis for
the weak topology of X is given by the collection of all sets of the form
{ y : y EX, Ix* (y - x) I < 1 for each x* in A}

such that x E X and A is a finite subset of X*; see Proposition 2.4.12 for the
development of this basis and some other information about it. The reader
might also wish to review the properties of a TVS given in Theorem 2.2.9,
since those properties will be used extensively in what is to follow.
As a special case of Definition 2.2.8, a subset A of a normed space X
is weakly bounded if, for each weak neighborhood U of 0 in X, there is a
positive Sf} such that A ~ tU whenever t > Sf}. By Proposition 2.4.14, this
is equivalent to requiring that x* (A) be a bounded set of scalars for each x*
in X'. As Example 2.5.4 shows, the weak topology of a normed space can
be a proper subtopology of the norm topology, so it might seem easier for
a subset of a normed space to be weakly bounded than to be bounded.
Perhaps surprisingly, this is not the case.

2.5.5 Theorem. A subset of a nOfmed space is bounded if and only if it

is weakly bounded.
PROOF. It is clear that every bounded subset of a normed space is weakly
bounded, since every weakly open subset of a normed space is open. Con-
versely, suppose that A is a weakly bounded subset of a normed space X.
It may be assumed that A is nonempty. Let Q be the natural map from X
into X**. Then Q(A) is a nonempty collection of bounded linear functionals
on the Banach space X*. For each x* in X*,

sup{ I(Qx)(x*)1 : x E A} = sup{ Ix*xl : x E A} < 00.

It follows from the uniform bounded ness principle that

sup{ Ilxll : x E A} = sup{ IIQxll : x E A} < 00,

as required.

214 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.5.6 Corollary. A subset A of a normed space X is bounded if and only

if x*(A) is a bounded set of scalars for each x* in X*.

As special cases of Propositions 2.2.11 and 2.2.12, every weakly com-

pact set and every weakly Cauchy sequence in a normed space is weakly
bounded, and every weakly convergent sequence in a normed space is
weakly Cauchy by Proposition 2.1.47. The next two corollaries of the above
theorem follow immediately.

2.5.7 Corollary. Weakly compact subsets of a normed space are bounded.

2.5.8 Corollary. In a normed space, weakly Cauchy sequences, and so

weakly convergent sequences, are bounded.

2.5.9 Corollary. Every nonempty weakly open subset of an infinite-dimen-

sional normed space is unbounded.
PROOF. Let X be an infinite-dimensional normed space. Then X* is also
infinite-dimensional. By Proposition 2.4.15, every nonempty weakly open
subset of X is weakly unbounded, and therefore unbounded.

Theorem 2.5.5 and its corollaries have several important consequences

for the continuity of linear operators. Suppose that T is a linear operator
from a normed space X into a normed space Y. Then T is bounded if and
only if the set T( B x) is bounded, which by Corollary 2.5.6 happens if and
only if y*T(Bx) is bounded for each y* in Y*. This immediately yields the
following result.

2.5.10 Proposition. A linear operator T from a normed space X into a

normed space Y is bounded if and only if y*T E X* whenever y* E Y.

Since a linear functional on a normed space is continuous if and only

if it is weakly continuous, the above proposition also says that the linear
operator T is continuous if and only if y*T is a weakly continuous linear
functional on X whenever y* E Y*. By Corollary 2.4.5, this is equivalent
to the weak-to-weak continuity of T.

2.5.11 Theorem. A linear operator T from a normed space X into a

normed space Y is norm-to-norm continuous if and only if it is weak-to-
weak continuous.

2.5.12 Corollary. A linear operator T from a normed space X onto a

normed space Y is an isomorphism of normed spaces if and only if it is a
weak-to-weak homeomorphism.

In particular, if two normed spaces are implicitly treated as the same

because of some natural isometric isomorphism from one onto the other,
 2.5 The Weak Topology 215

such as the way Co is usually identified with lI, then the weak topologies
of the two spaces are preserved by the same isometric isomorphism.
If X is an infinite-dimensional normed space, then Corollary 2.5.9 implies
that its open unit ball cannot be weakly open, so the norm and weak topolo-
gies of X must differ. This could not happen if X were finite-dimensional,
for then the norm and weak topologies of X would both be the unique Haus-
dorff vector topology of X and so would be the same; see Theorem 2.2.31.
Summarizing these observations yields the following useful characterization
of normed spaces whose norm and weak topologies are identical.

2.5.13 Proposition. The norm and weak topologies of a normed space

are the same if and only if the space is finite-dimensional.

The weak topology of an infinite-dimensional normed space is therefore

not induced by the norm of the space. In fact, the weak topology of such a
space is not induced by any metric at all.

2.5.14 Proposition. The weak topology of a normed space is induced by

a metric if and only if the space is finite-dimensional.
PROOF. The weak topology of a finite-dimensional normed space is the
same as the norm topology, and so is induced by a metric. For the con-
verse, suppose that the weak topology of some infinite-dimensional normed
space X is induced by a metric d. For each positive integer n, let Un be
the d-open ball in X centered at 0 having d-radius n- 1 . By Corollary 2.5.9,
each Un contains some Xn such that Ilxnll ~ n. It follows that (xn) is an
unbounded sequence in X that converges weakly to 0, which contradicts
Corollary 2.5.8.

Completeness is yet another property that the weak topology cannot

have unless the normed space is finite-dimensional.

2.5.15 Proposition. The weak topology of a normed space is complete if

and only if the space is finite-dimensional.
PROOF. Let X be a normed space. If X is finite-dimensional, then X is
a Banach space that is the same TVS with respect to the weak topology
as it is with respect to the norm topology, so the weak topology of X is
complete by Corollary 2.1.51.
Suppose that X is infinite-dimensional. Since X is infinite-dimensional,
it follows from Theorem 1.4.11 that some linear functional f on X is
unbounded. It will first be shown that if Fo is a finite subset of X*, then
there is an xFo in X such that x'x Fo = fx for each x in Fo. This is trivial
if Fo is empty, so it may be assumed that Fo is a nonempty finite subset
{xi, ... , x~} of X. Let M be the norm of the bounded linear functional
216 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

obtained by restricting I to the finite-dimensional subspace ({xi, ... , x~})

of X*. For each linear combination al xi + ... + anx~ of xi, ... ,x~,

ladxi + ... + anlx~1 = I/(alxi + ... + anx~)1

::; M IlalXi + ... + anx~ll.
By Helly's theorem, there is an x Fu in X such that x; x Fo = I x; when
j = 1, ... ,n, as was claimed.
Let I be the collection of all finite subsets of X* , preordered by declaring
that FI ::< F2 when FI ~ F 2. For each F in I, let x F be a member of X
such that X'xF = Ix' for each x* in F. Then the net (XF)FEI is weakly
Cauchy, since x*xF = Ix' whenever x' E X' and {x'} ::< F. However,
the net (x F ) is not weakly convergent, for if it were to converge weakly to
some x in X, then it would follow that Ix' = limFx*xF = x'x for each x
in X*, which would imply that I is in the image of X in X** under the
natural map, in contradiction to the fact that I is unbounded.

Suppose that X is an infinite-dimensional normed space. Then X must

have open convex subsets that are not weakly open; in particular, the open
balls in X cannot be weakly open since they are bounded. Because of this,
it might not seem likely that the closed convex subsets of an arbitrary
normed space would have to be the same as its weakly closed convex sub-
sets. However, Corollary 2.2.29 assures that this must be the case, since
the dual space of a normed space with respect to the norm topology is the
same as the dual space with respect to the weak topology. The following
theorem is just a special case of that corollary.

2.5.16 Theorem. (S. Mazur, 1933 [162]). The closure and weak closure
of a convex subset of a normed space are the same. In particular, a convex
sllbset of a normed space is closed if and only if it is weakly closed.

Mazur actually showed that every closed convex subset of a normed space
is weakly sequentially closed, but his method can be used to prove the more
general result.

2.5.17 Corollary. (S. Banach, 1932 [13]). The closllre and weak closure
of a subspace of a normed space are the same, so a sllbspace of a normed
space is closed if and only if it is weakly closed.

2.5.18 Corollary. If A is a subset of a normed space, then coCA) =

coW(A).

PROOF. It follows from Theorem 2.2.9 (i) that coCA) = coCA) = coCA) W =
co W(A).
 2.5 The Weak Topology 217

2.5.19 Corollary. If (Xc.)aEI is a net in a normed space that converges

weakly to some x, then some sequence of convex combinations of members
of {xa : 0:: E I} converges to x with respect to the norm topology.
PROOF. Since x E co( {Xa : 0:: E I}) by the preceding corollary, some
sequence in co( {xa : 0:: E I}) must converge to x.

One of the basic properties of normed spaces is that the norm function
x ~ Ilxll is continuous. However, it does not have to be weakly continuous.
For instance, the norm function on 2 is not weakly continuous since, by
Example 2.5.4, there are sequences in the unit sphere of 2 that converge
weakly to o. In fact, it can be shown that the norm function is weakly
continuous if and only if the norm and weak topologies of the space are the
same, that is, if and only if the space is finite-dimensional. See Exercise 2.54.
Thus, it is not always true that Ilxall ---> Ilxll when a net (xa) in a normed
space converges weakly to some x. Something can be said in this situation,
but saying it requires the definition of the limit inferior of a net of real
numbers.
Suppose that (ta)aEI is a net of real numbers. For each 0:: in I, let ia =
inf{ t{3 : 0:: ::S f3} and Sa = sup{ t{3 : 0:: ::S f3}; notice that ia and Sa could
be infinite. If 0::1 ::S 0::2, then i al ::; ia2 and Sa,;::: Sa2l from which it follows
that lima ia and lima Sa both exist, provided that the notion of the limit
of a net of real numbers is extended in the obvious way to nets of extended
real numbers, that is, to nets in the ordered set lRu { -00, +oo}. By analogy
with sequences of real numbers, it is natural to call these limits the limit
inferior and limit superior, respectively, of (ta).

2.5.20 Definition. Let (ta)aEI be a net in R Then lima inf{ t{3 : 0:: ::S f3}
and lim" sup{ t{3 : 0:: ::S f3} are, respectively, the limit inferior and limit su-
perior of (t,,), and are denoted, respectively, by liminfa t" and limsuPa ta.

See Exercise 2.55 for some properties of the limit inferior and limit su-
perior that can be extended from sequences to nets.

2.5.21 Theorem. If (xa) is a weakly convergent net in a normed space,

then Ilw-lim"x"ll:s: liminfollxoll
PROOF. Let x be the weak limit of a weakly convergent net (X")"EI in
a normed space X. It may be assumed that x i= O. By Corollary 1.9.8,
there is an x* in Sx' such that x*x = Ilxll, so Ilxll = limolx*xal. For each
positive E, there is an 0::, in I such that Ilxll- E :s: Ix*xal :s: Ilx,,11 if 0::, ::S 0::,
from which it follows that Ilxll :s: liminf"llxall.

A function f from a topological space X into lR is said to be lower semi-

continuous if f(x) :s: liminf" f(xa) whenever (xa) is a net in X converging
to some element x of X. Thus, the preceding theorem says that norm func-
tions are weakly lower semicontinuous.
218 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

Suppose that M is a subspace of a normed space X. Then a statement

such as "the net (xu) in M converges weakly to an x in M" might seem
ambiguous, since it is not clear whether the statement refers to the weak
topology of X or to that of M treated as a normed space in its own right.
Fortunately, it makes no difference.

2.5.22 Proposition. Let M be a subspace of a normed space X. Then the

weak topology of the normed space 111 is the same as the topology of M
inherited from the weak topology of X.
PROOF. Let (xu) be a net in M and x an element of M. It is enough to
show that (x a ) converges to x with respect to the weak topology of M if
and only if (xu) converges to x with respect to the weak topology of X.
Since the restriction of a member of X* to M always lies in M*, and each
member m* of M* has a Hahn-Banach extension x;". in X*, it follows that
x*xa ----> x*x for each x* in X* if and only if m*xa ----> m*x for each m*
in M*, as required.

The rest of this section deals with sequential properties of the weak
topology and ways in which those sequential properties can mimic those of
the norm topology.
It follows from Proposition 2.5.15 that every infinite-dimensional normed
space contains a weakly Cauchy net with no weak limit, but that does not
eliminate the possibility that all of the weakly Cauchy sequences in such a
space could be weakly convergent. This sometimes happens.

2.5.23 Definition. A normed space is weakly sequentially complete if every

weakly Cauchy sequence in the space has a weak limit.

2.5.24 Example. Let ((o:~k):=l be a weakly Cauchy sequence in 1'

For each positive integer no, the map (!3n) f--7 !3no is a bounded linear
functional on 1, which implies that the sequence (O:~:k=l of nth terms
:=
of the members of (( o:~k)) 1 has a limit O:no' It will be shown that the
sequence (O:n) oftermwise limits of ((o:~k):=l is itself a member of 1 and
that II(o:~k - (O:n)lll ----> O.
To this end, lct M be a bound for the norms of the members of the
sequence ((o:~k):=l' Then for each pair of positive integers m and k,

Llo:~k)l:S; M.
11,=1

Treating m as fixed and letting k tend to 00 in this inequality shows that

Tn

n=l
 2.5 The Weak Topology 219

for each positive integer m, from which it follows that

00

Llanl::; M,
n=l

that is, that (an) E fl.

Suppose that II(a~k - (a n )111 does not tend to O. Then there is a sub-
sequence (a~kj);:l of (a~k):l and a positive scalar t such that

for each j. Let (3~) = ta~kj) - tan for each j and each n. Then (jJ~) ';:1
is a weakly Cauchy sequence in f1 such that 11(3$/)111 : :;:. 1 for each j and
limj (3$/) = 0 for each n. After thinning ((3$/))';:1 if necessary, it may be
assumed that there is a sequence (nj) of nonnegative integers such that
0= n1 < n2 < ... and

m=nj+1
for each j. For each positive integer m, let 'Ym be a scalar of absolute
value 1 such that if j is the positive integer for which nj < m ::; njH, then
'Ym(3';/,) = (-lFI(3';/,\ Let x* be the member of i that is represented in
the usual way by the member bn) of f oo . For each positive even integer j,

L
nj+l

Re x* (3$/) = 'YmjJ';/,) +

L
nj+l

> 1(3';/,)1-

> ~ I (3$/) III - ill (3~ 111

:::;:. ~,

and similarly Re x* (3~ < - ~ whenever j is odd. This contradicts the

weak Cauchyness of ((3$/);:1' so it must be that II(a~k) - (a n )111 --> O.
Thus, every weakly Cauchy sequence in 1 is norm convergent, from
which it follows that f1 is weakly sequentially complete even though, by
Proposition 2.5.15, it cannot be weakly complete.
Since weakly convergent sequences are weakly Cauchy, it also follows
that every weakly convergent sequence in f1 is actually norm convergent
to the weak limit of the sequence. The fact that 1 possesses this property
220 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

first appeared in a 1920 paper by J. Schur [212], and is important enough

that Schur's name has become attached to the property.

2.5.25 Definition. A normed space has Schur's property if it satisfies the

following condition: Whenever (xn) is a sequence in the space and x an
element of the space such that Xn ~ x, it follows that Xn ~ x.

By Example 2.5.4, the space 2 does not have Schur's property. As will
be shown, it does have the following weakened version of the property.

2.5.26 Definition. A normed space has the Radon-Riesz property or the

Kadets-Klee property or property (H), and is called a Radon-Riesz space,
if it satisfies the following condition: Whenever (xn) is a sequence in the
space and x an element of the space such that Xn ~ x and Ilxnll ~ Ilxll, it
follows that Xn ~ x.

2.5.27 Example. Let (Xk) be a sequence in 2 and x an element of 2 such

that Xk ~ x and IIXkl12 ~ Ilxll2. It will be shown that Xk --> x. For each k,
let (a~k)) be the sequence of scalars that is Xk and let Xk be the member
of 2 obtained by replacing each scalar a in that sequence with its complex
conjugate n. Similarly, let (an) be the sequence of scalars that is x and let
x = (an). Let X* and x* be the members of ::; that are identified in the
usual way with x and x respectively. Then

n n n n

= Ilxkll~ ~ X*Xk ~ X*Xk + Ilxll~

Ilxll~ ~ x*x ~ x*x + IIxll~
-->

=0.

Thus, the space 2 has the Radon-Riesz property.

The reason that the Radon-Riesz property is named after J. Radon and
F. Riesz is that they proved that the spaces Lp(O,~,J-l), where J-l is a
positive measure on a O"-algebra ~ of subsets of a set 0, have it when
1 < p < 00, with Radon's proof coming in 1913 [192] and Riesz's in 1928~
1929 [196, 197]. M. 1. Kadets and V. L. Klee used versions of the Radon-
Riesz property to develop the ingredients for the proof that all infinite-
dimensional separable Banach spaces are homeomorphic; see [119], [138],
and [122]. In addition, Kadets used it in [120] to prove that every sepa-
rable normed space has an equivalent locally uniformly rotund norm; the
definition of this rotundity property will be given in Chapter 5. Because
 2.5 The Weak Topology 221

of the work that Kadets and Klee did with the Radon-Riesz property, it
is sometimes named after them. The Radon-Riesz property is also some-
times called property (H) since a strengthened form of it was given that
name and studied in a 1958 paper by K. Fan and I. Glicksberg [77], and
M. M. Day later adopted that notation for the Radon-Riesz property in
his book [56]. Incidentally, the letter H in the notation does not stand for
anything. The Fan and Glicksberg paper has an alphabetically-labeled list
of properties for normed spaces that starts with (A) and ends with (H), and
their strengthened version of the Radon-Riesz property happens to fall last
in the list. Such is often the way mathematical notation gets established!

Exercises
2.53 Suppose that X is CQ or p, where 1 < p < 00. Let (,B~")aEI be a net
in X and (,Bn) an element of X.
(a) Show that if (,B~a ~ (,Bn), then ,B~a) --+,Bn for each n.
(b) Show that if the net (,B~Q)QEI is bounded and ,B~u) --+ ,Bn for
each n, then (,B~" ~ (,Bn).
(c) Show that the conclusion of (b) can fail if the net (,B~C<)aEI is not
required to be bounded.
(d) Suppose that (,B~a)OEl is a net in 1 and (,Bn) an element of fl.
Does the result stated in (a) still hold? What about (b)?
2.54 Suppose that X is an infinite-dimensional normed space. Show that there
is a net in Sx that converges weakly to 0. (Notice that this implies that
the map x r--+ Ilxll from a normed space into IF' is not weakly continuous if
the normed space is infinite-dimensional.)
2.55 For the purposes of this exercise, the notions of infimum, supremum, and
net limit in ~ have been extended in the obvious way to the extended
real numbers. Suppose that (t a ) and (Ua) are nets in ~ having the same
index set I. Prove that the following hold.
(a) liminfutu = sup{inf{ttl : Q ~,B}: Q E I} and limsuPata =
inf { sup{ ttl : a ~ ,B} : Q E I }.
(b) liminf" ta ~ limsupo t".
(c) If s ;::: 0, then liminf,,(st,,) = sliminfata and limsuPa(st,,)
s lim sup" ta.
(d) If s ~ 0, then lim inf,,(st,,)
slim infa t".
(e) liminf"t" + lim infa U a ~ liminfa(ta+ua) and limsuPa(ta+ua ) ~
limsupu ta + limsuPa u" except in cases in which a sum of liminf's
or limsup'6 i6 formally +00 - 00 or -00 + 00 and therefore not
defined.
(f) There arc subnets (t"() and (to) of (ta) such that lim"( t"( = lim inf a ta
and limo to = lim sup" ta.
222 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

(g) If (td is a convergent subnet of (t",), then lim inf" t", ::; lim, t, ::;
lim sup" t",. (Notice that lim, t, could be oo.)
(h) If (td is any subnet of (t,,) whatever, then lim inf" t" ::; lim inf, t, ::;
lim sUPe t( ::; lim sup" to.
(i) lim inf" t" = lim sup" to if and only iflimo to exists. If lima to exists,
then lima t" = lim inf a t" = lim sup" ta.
2.56 Prove that a normed space with its weak topology is of the second category
in itself if and only if the space is finite-dimensional. (The fact that an
infinite-dimensional normed space with its weak topology is of the first
category in itself is a 1938 result of J. V. Wehausen [241].)
2.57 Find a one-to-one linear operator from a Hausdorff TVS onto a normed
space such that the operator is bounded but not continuous. (Compare
this to Theorems 1.4.2 and 2.3.28.)
2.58 Prove that if 1 is isomorphic ally embedded in a normed space X, then
some bounded sequence in X h8.5 no weakly Cauchy subsequence. (Com-
pare Exercise 2.66.) This is the easy part of Rosenthal's J\ theorem (H. P.
Rosenthal, 1974 [199]): Each bounded sequence in a Banach space X has
a weakly Cauchy subsequence if and only if 1 is not isomorphically em-
bedded in X. See Joseph Diestel's book [58] for an extensive discussion
of this theorem and its consequences.
2.59 Show that Co is not weakly sequentially complete.
2.60 Suppose that K is a compact Hausdorff space. Show that C(K) is weakly
sequentially complete if and only if K is finite.
2.61 Suppose that 1 < p < 00. Show that p is weakly sequentially complete.
(Do not use any results from later sections of this book to do this. As will
be seen in Section 2.8, every reflexive normed space is weakly sequentially
complete, but that result is a corollary of a fairly deep theorem of that
section.)
2.62 Show that the spaces Co and p such that 1 < p < 00 all lack Schur's
property.
2.63 Show that if a normed space X h8.5 Schur's property, then so does every
subspace of X, but in general the same cannot be guaranteed of every
quotient space X / M such that M is a closed subspace of X.
2.64 Show that a normed space X h8.5 the Radon-Riesz property if and only
if it satisfies this condition: Whenever (Xn) is a sequence in Sx and x is
an element of Sx such that Xn ~ x, it follows that Xn --> x.
2.65 A normed space X has the semi-Radon-Riesz property if it satisfies the fol-
lowing condition: Whenever (Xn), x, and (x;') are, respectively, a sequence
in Sx, an element of Sx, and a sequence in Sx such that x;'x n = 1 for
each nand Xn ~ x, it follows that x;'x --> 1.
(a) Show that the Radon-Riesz property implies the semi-Radon-Riesz
property.
(b) Show that Co does not have the semi-Radon-Riesz property.
 2.6 The Weak* Topology 223

The definition of this property is due to L. P. Vlasov [236], who called it

property (SA) and provided an example to show that it is properly weaker
than the Radon-Riesz property. See also Vlasov [238] and Megginson [168]
for further studies of the property.
2.66 This exercise assumes familiarity with ultranets; see Appendix D. Prove
that every bounded ultranet in a normed space is weakly Cauchy. Con-
clude from this that every bounded net in a normed space has a weakly
Cauchy subnet. (Compare Exercise 2.58.)

2.6 The Weak* Topology

The dual space of a normed space is the setting for the second of the two
topologies that are the main focus of this chapter.

2.6.1 Definition. Let X be a normed space and let Q be the natural map
from X into X**. Then the topology for X* induced by the topologizing
family Q(X) is the weak* (pronounced "weak star") topology of X* or the
X topology of X* or the topology a(X*, X).

That is, the weak* topology of the dual space of a normed space X is the
smallest topology for X* such that, for each x in X, the linear functional
x* f-+ x*x on X* is continuous with respect to that topology.
By analogy with the weak topology, a topological property that holds
with respect to the weak* topology is said to hold weakly*5 or to be a weak*
property. Whenever w* is attached to a topological symbol, it indicates that
the reference is to the wea~* topology. Examples of this would be x~ .:!'.;+ x*,
* = X * , an d -A w .
W * - I'lma Xa
Let X and Q be as in Definition 2.6.1. If x* and y* are different elements
of X*, then there is an x in X such that x'x oF y*x, so Q(X) is a separating
family of functions for X*. It therefore follows from Proposition 2.4.8 and
Theorem 2.4.11 that the weak* topology of X* is a completely regular
locally convex topology and that the dual space of X' with respect to this
topology is Q(X). Since Q(X) ~ X** and the weak topology of X* is the
smallest topology for X* with respect to which all members of X** are
continuous, the weak* topology of X* is included in the weak topology
of X*, and the two topologies are the same if and only if Q(X) = X",
that is, if and only if X is reflexive. The following theorem and proposition
summarize these observations.

5 "Weakly'" might sound somewhat awkward, but the alternatives are at least equally
unpleasant. "Weak*ly" is perhaps grammatically correct, but too outrageous to consider.
"Weak*" is sometimes used as both an adjective and adverb, but consistency then
demands that "weak" be used as an adverb, and calling a function "weak continuous"
also seems awkward. "Weakly'" was suggested to the author by Mahlon Day.
224 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.6.2 Theorem. Let X be a normed space. Then the weak* topology

of X* is a completely regular locally convex subtopology of the weak topol-
ogy of X*, and therefore of the norm topology of X'. Furthermore, the
weak* and weak topologies of X* are the same if and only if X is reflexive.

2.6.3 Corollary. Let X be a normed space. Then the weak* and norm
topologies of X* are the same if and only if X is finite-dimensional.
PROOF. If X is infinite-dimensional, then the weak topology of X* is a
proper subtopology of the norm topology by Proposition 2.5.13, and there-
fore so must be the weak* topology. If X is finite-dimensional, then the
weak*, weak, and norm topologies of X' are each the unique Hausdorff
vector topology of X*.

2.6.4 Proposition. Let X be a normed space. Then a linear functional

on X* is weakly* continuous if and only if it has the form x* f-> x'xu for
some Xu in X.

2.6.5 Example. Let Ce~) be the sequence of elements of Co that corre-

spond in the usual way to the standard unit vectors of 1\. It is clear that
Ce~) is weakly* convergent to O. By Corollary 2.5.12, the natural isomet-
ric isomorphism from i\ onto Co is also a weak-to-weak homeomorphism,
from which it follows that (e~) does not converge weakly to O. The weak
and weak* topologies of Co are therefore different, as Theorem 2.6.2 assures
must be the case since Co is not reflexive.

As with the weak topology of a normed space, the results obtained in

Sections 2.2 and 2.4 for a Hausdorff locally convex topology induced by a
separating vector space of linear functionals all hold for the weak* topology
of the dual space X* of a normed space X. For example, Propositions 2.4.4
and 2.4.13 imply that if (x~) is a net in X* and x* is a member of X*,
then (x~) is weakly* convergent to x* if and only if x~x -> x'x for each X
in X, and (x~) is weakly* Cauchy if and only if (x~x) is a Cauchy (that is,
convergent) net inlF for each x in X. Notice also that by Proposition 2.4.12,
a basis for the weak* topology of X' is given by the collection of all subsets
of X* of the form

{y* : y' E X*, ICy* - x*)xl < 1 for each x in A}

such that x* E X' and A is a finite subset of X.

Since the weak* topology of the dual space of a normed space X is a
subtopology of the norm topology of X*, part (a) of the following result is a
strengthening of part (a) of Proposition 1.10.15, while the rest of this result
provides the characterizations of (.1.B).1. for a subset B of X* promised in
the discussion following that proposition.
 2.6 The Weak* Topology 225

2.6.6 Proposition. Let X be a normed space and let A and B be subsets

of X and X* respectively.
(a) The set A.l is a weakly* closed subspace of X*.
(b) (.lB).l = [B] w.
(c) If B is a subspace of X*, then (.lB).l =B W

PROOF. Let Q be the natural map from X into X**. Then

A.l = {x*: x* E X*, x'x = 0 for each x in A} = n{ker(Qx): x E A}.

For each x in A, the linear functional Qx is weakly* continuous on X* , from

which it follows that n{ ker( Qx) : x E A} is a weakly* closed subspace
of X', proving (a). For (b), first notice that e-B).l is a weakly* closed
subspace of X* that includes B, so [B] w' c:;: eB).l. Now suppose that
xii E X* \ [B] w. An application of Corollary 2.2.20 then yields an Xo
in X such that xiixo = 1 and [B] w' c:;: ker(Qxo). Since Xo E .lB, it follows
that xii <t (:B).l. Therefore (.LB).l c:;: [B] w', which finishes the proof of (b).
Since (B) W = [B] w' by Theorem 2.2.9 (i), part (c) follows immediately.

Suppose that X is a normed space and that A c:;: X*. In accordance with
Definition 2.2.8, the set A is weakly* bounded if, for each weak* neighbor-
hood U of 0 in X*, there is a positive Su such that A c:;: tU whenever
t > su. By Proposition 2.4.14, the set A is weakly* bounded if and only if
{x*x : x* E A} is bounded in II? for each x in X. The following result is
the weak* analog of the fact that a subset of a normed space is bounded if
and only if it is weakly bounded. However, notice the requirement that X
be a Banach space.

2.6.7 Theorem. Let X be a Banach space. Then a subset of X* is

bounded if and only if it is weakly* bounded.
PROOF. Since every weak* neighborhood of 0 in X* is open with respect to
the norm topology, it is clear that every bounded subset of X* is weakly*
bounded. Conversely, suppose that A is a weakly* bounded subset of X* .
It may be assumed that A is nonempty. Then sup{ Ix'xl : x* E A} is finite
for each x in the Banach space X, so the uniform boundedness principle
implies that sup{ Ilx' II : x* E A} is finite, as required.

2.6.8 Corollary. Let X be a Banach space. Then a subset A of X* is

bounded if and only if {x'x : x' E A} is a bounded set of scalars for
each x in X.

If X is a normed space, then it follows from Propositions 2.2.11, 2.2.12,

and 2.1.47 that wcakly* compact sets and weakly* Cauchy sequences in X*
are weakly* bounded and that weakly* convergent sequences in X' are
226 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

weakly* Cauchy. This immediately yields two more corollaries of Theo-

rem 2.6.7.

2.6.9 Corollary. Let X be a Banach space. Then weakly* compact subsets

of X* are bounded.

2.6.10 Corollary. Let X be a Banach space. Then weakly* Cauchy se-

quences in X*, and so weakly* convergent sequences in X*, are bounded.

Neither the preceding theorem nor any of its three corollaries remain true
if X is only required to be a normed space; see Exercise 2.68. However, the
following result does hold for every normed space, whether or not it is
complete.

2.6.11 Proposition. Let X be an infinite-dimensional normed space. Then

every nonempty weakly* open subset of X* is unbounded.
PROOF. Since X is infinite-dimensional, so is X. If A is a nonempty
weakly* open subset of X*, then A is also weakly open, and so is un-
bounded by Corollary 2.5.9.

The following two results are the weak* analogs of Propositions 2.5.14
and 2.5.15. The first of the two has a completeness hypothesis that cannot
be omitted; sec Exercise 2.70.

2.6.12 Proposition. Let X be a Banach space. Then the weak* topology

of X* is induced by a metric if and only if X is finite-dimensional.
PROOF. If X is finite-dimensional, then the weak* topology of X* is in-
duced by a metric since it is the same as the norm topology. For the con-
verse, suppose that X is infinite-dimensional and that the weak* topology
of X* is induced by a metric d. For each positive integer n, let Un be
the d-open ball in X* centered at 0 and having d-radius n-l. By Proposi-
tion 2.6.11, each Un contains some x~ such that Ilx~11 :::: n. It follows that
(x~) is an unbounded sequence in X* that converges weakly* to 0, which
contradicts Corollary 2.6.10.

2.6.13 Proposition. Let X be a normed space. Then the weak* topology

of X* is complete if and only if X is finite-dimensional.
PROOF. If X is finite-dimensional, then the weak* topology of X* is the
same vector topology as the norm topology, and therefore is complete by
Corollary 2.1.51.
Suppose that X is infinite-dimensional. By Theorem 1.4.11, some lin-
ear functional f on X is unbounded. Let I be the collection of all finite
subsets of X, preordered by declaring that Fl ::< F2 when Fl ~ F2. For
 2.6 The Weak* Topology 227

each F in J, obtain an x'F in X* that agrees with I on F by first restrict-

ing I to the finite-dimensional subspace (F) of X, then letting x'F be any
Hahn-Banach extension to X of this bounded linear functional on (F). The
net (x'F)FEI is weakly* Cauchy, since x'Fx = Ix when {x} :::::; F, but can-
not be weakly* convergent to any x* in X*, since that would require that
x*x = limF x'Fx = Ix for each x in X.

Just as norm functions are weakly lower semicontinuous, norm functions

on dual spaces are weakly* lower semicontinuous.

2.6.14 Theorem. Let X be a normed space. If (x:) is a weakly* conver-

gent net in X*, then IIw*-limnx~11 ::::: liminCl'llx~ll.
PROOF. Let x* = w*-lim", x~. Suppose that I' > o. Then there is an x
in Ex such that limQlx~xl = Ix*xl 2 Ilx'll - E. Since there is an O:E in the
index set for (x:) such that Ilx*11 - 21' ::::: Ix~xl ::::: Ilx~11 when 0:. :::::; 0:, it
follows that IIx*11 ::::: liminfallx~ll

The following partial converse of the preceding theorem will have an

application in Example 5.4.13.

2.6.15 Theorem. Suppose that X is a normed space, that 11lla is a

norm on X* equivalent to its usual dual norm, and that Ilw*-lim", x~lla :::::
lim inf",llx~ lIa whenever (x:) is a weakly* convergent net in X*. Then there
is a norm II lib on X equivalent to its original norm such that 11lla is the
dual norm on (X, 11llb)*.
PROOF. Throughout this proof, the original norms of X and X* will be
denoted by 1111. Let Ilxllb = sup{lx*xl: x* E X*, Ilx*lla::::: I} whenever
x E X. It is easy to check that II lib is a norm on X. Now let sand t
be positive reals such that sllx* II : : : Ilx* Iia ::::: tllx* II whenever x* E X*. If
x E X, then

Ilxllb = sup{ Ix*xl : x* EX', Ilx'lla ::::: 1}

::::: sup{ Ix*xl : x* E X*, sllx*11 ::::: I}
= s-lllxli

and

Ilxll = sup{ Ix*xl : x* E X*, Ilx* II ::: I}

::::: sup{ Ix*xl : x* E X*, t-lllx* Iia ::::: 1 }
= tllxllb,

so sllxllb :s: Ilxll :s: tllxllb. Therefore II lib is equivalent to the original norm
of X.
228 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

Let II lie be the dual norm on (X, 11'llb)*' All that remains to be proved is
that 11lIa = II lie. Fix an x* in X*. If Ilx*lla :S 1, then Ix*xl :S 1 whenever
Ilxllb :S 1, so Ilx*lle :S 1. It follows that Ilx*lle :S Ilx*lla no matter what the
value of Ilx*lla is. All that is left to be shown is that Ilx*lle ~ Ilx*lla.
Let E be a fixed positive number. Suppose that n E N and that Xl, ... , Xn
is a basis for an n-dimensional subspace Mo of X. Let (T(x)(x*) = x*x
whenever X E X and x' E X'. Then T is an isometric isomorphism from
(X, II lib) into (X*, 11lla)*. If aI, ... , an ElF, then

lalx'xl + ... + anx'xnl :S Ilx'lle lIalXl + ... + cnxnllb

= Ilx'lle IlalTxl + ... + anTxnll(x*,II'llu)*'

so by Helly's theorem there is an xMo in X' such that

when j = 1, ... , n, and

Notice that xMo and x' agree on Mo. It follows that for each finite-dimen-
sional subspace M of X there is an x M in X* such that x M and x* agree
on M and IlxM Iia :S Ilx* lie + . Preordering the collection of all finite-
dimensional subspaces of X by declaring that Ml :::S M2 when Ml 0;;;; M2
makes (x M) into a net. Since x M :!!.* x*, it follows that

Ilx' Iia :S limM inf IlxM Iia :S Ilx' lie + E.

Therefore Ilx'lla :S Ilx'lle since E is an arbitrary positive number.

So far, most of the results of this section have emphasized the similarities
between the weak and weak* topologies, especially when the weak* topol-
ogy is for the dual space of a Banach space. As the following two examples
show, there are also some fundamental ways in which the two topologies
differ.

2.6.16 Example. Let X be a nonreftexive Banach space and let x*' be

any member of X** that is not in the image of X under the natural map
from X into X**. Since x*' is continuous but not weakly* continuous, the
kernel of x** is a closed convex subset of X' that is not weakly* closed.
Thus, the weak* analog of Theorem 2.5.16 does not hold.

2.6.17 Example. Let Co be identified with 1 in the usual way. Define

T: Co -> Co
by the formula T((a n ) = (2::nCn,a2,c3,a4,''')' Then T
is linear, is one-to-one since ker(T) = {O}, and maps Co onto itself since
T(a1 - 2::~=2 an, a2, a3,"') = (an) whenever (an) E co'
Since IIT(an)lll :S
 2.6 The Weak* Topology 229

211(a n )lh and IIT-l(an)lIl :::: 211(a n )lIl whenever (an) Eco,
the operator T
is an isomorphism from Co onto itself.
Now let (e~) be the sequence of standard unit vectors of 1, viewed as
members of Co. Then (e~) converges weakly* to 0, but the sequence (Te~)
does not since (Te~)(l, 0, 0, 0, ... ) = 1 for each n. The operator T is there-
fore not weak*-to-weak* continuous, even though it is a norm-to-norm iso-
morphism from Co onto itself. Thus, the weak* analogs of Theorem 2.5.11
and Corollary 2.5.12 both fail.
As will be seen in Corollary 3.1.12, it is true that if X and Yare normed
spaces and T is a weak*-to-weak* continuous linear operator from X*
into Y*, then T is norm-to-norm continuous.

The next theorem illustrates another way in which the weak* topology
is strikingly different from both the norm and the weak topology. As was
mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, many of the difficulties that
arise when trying to extend familiar facts about finite-dimensional normed
spaces to the infinite-dimensional case come about because of the loss of
the Heine-Borel property, that is, because the closed unit ball of a normed
space X is not compact unless X is finite-dimensional. When X is infinite-
dimensional, the fact that the weak topology of X is a proper subtopology
of the norm topology makes it easier for Bx to be weakly compact than
compact, and in fact Bx is weakly compact if and only if X is reflexive, as
will be seen in Theorem 2.8.2. This leads naturally to the question of what
conditions on X assure that Bx. is weakly* compact.
One of the major results of the theory of normed spaces is that B x'
is always weakly* compact. The general form of this result first appeared
in a 1940 paper by Leonidas Alaoglu, and for that reason is often called
Alaoglu's theorem. However, there is a result on page 123 of Banach's 1932
book [13] that easily implies the theorem when X is a separable Banach
space; see Exercise 2.73 at the end of this section. For that reason, Banach
is often given joint credit with Alaoglu for discovering the theorem, and
that is what is done here.

2.6.18 The Banach-Alaoglu Theorem. (S. Banach, 1932 [13]; L. Alao-

glu, 1940 [3]). Let X be a normed space. Then Bx' is weakly* compact.
PROOF. Let Q be the natural map from X into X**. Then Q(Bx) is a sep-
arating topologizing family of functions on Bx' that induces the restriction
of the weak* topology of X* to Bx-. All references to a topology for Bx' in
the rest of this proof are to this topology. Let I = { a : a E IF, lal ::; 1 }, let
Ix = I for each x in B x , and let IBx be the topological product ITxEBx Ix.
Then IBx is compact by Tychonoff's theorem, and the map F: Bx. ----+ IBx
defined by the formula F(x*) = (X*X)XEBx is a homeomorphism from Bx'
onto a topological subspace of IBx by Proposition 2.4.7. The theorem will
be proved once it is shown that F(B x .) is closed in IBx.
230 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

Let (x;) be a net in Bx- such that F(x;) converges to some (OX)XEBx
in JBx . The goal is to find an x* in Bx- such that F(x*) = (Ox)XEBx '
For each nonzero x in X, let x*(x) = IlxlloCllxll-1x), and let x*(O) = O.
Since x* (x) = Ilxlllim,a xHllxll-1x) = lim,a x;x whenever x E X \ {O}, and
thus x* (x) = lim,a x~x for every x in X, it follows that x* is a linear func-
tional on X, and furthermore that x* E Bx- since Ix*xl = lim,alx.exl ::; Ilxll
whenever x EX. For each x in B x,

so F(x*) = (OX)XEBx , as required.

It is an obvious consequence of the Banach-Alaoglu theorem that every
closed ball in the dual space of a normed space is weakly* compact, from
which the next result follows immediately.

2.6.19 Corollary. Let X be a normed space. Then every bounded subset

of X* is relatively weakly* compact. In particular, subsets of X* that are
bounded and weakly* closed are weakly* compact.

2.6.20 Corollary. Let X be a separable normcd space and let A be a

bounded subset of X*. Then the relative weak* topology of A is induced
by a metric.
PROOF. It may be assumed that A is weakly* closed in X* and therefore
weakly* compact. Let D be a countable dense subset of X and let Q be
the natural map from X into X'*. Since Q(X) is a separating family of
functions for A, so is the countable dense subset Q(D) of Q(X). It follows
from Corollary 2.4.10 that the relative weak* topology of A is metrizable .

2.6.21 Corollary. Let X be a Banach space. Then every weakly* Cauchy

sequence in X* is weakly* convergent. That is, every Banach space has a
weakly* sequentially complete dual space.
PROOF. Let (x~) be a weakly* Cauchy sequence in X*. Corollary 2.6.10
implies that the sequence (x~) is bounded, and therefore has a weakly*
convergent subnet by the relative weak* compactness of bounded subsets
of X*. It follows from Proposition 2.1.46 that (x;,) is weakly* convergent
to the limit of that subnet.

Dual spaces of infinite-dimensional Banach spaces are therefore always

weakly* sequentially complete but never weakly* complete. An example of
an incomplete normed space whose dual space is not weakly* sequentially
complete is given in Exercise 2.69.

2.6.22 Corollary. Let X be a normed space. Then there is a compact

Hausdorff space K such that X is isometrically isomorphic to a subspace
 2.6 The Weak* Topology 231

of C(K). If X is a Banach space, then X is isometrically isomorphic to a

closed subspace of C(K).

PROOF. Let K be Bx- with the topology it inherits from the weak* topol-
ogy of X, and define T: X -+ C(K) by the formula (T(x))(x*) = x*x. It
is easy to check that T really does take its values in C(K) and that T is
linear. If x EX, then it follows from Theorem 1.10.9 that

Ilxll = max{ Ix*xl : x* E Bx} = max{ I(Tx)(x*)1 : x* E K} = IITxll oo )

so T is an isometric isomorphism from X into C(K). If X is a Banach

space, then so is T(X), and therefore T(X) is closed in C(K).

Thus, in a sense the entire theory of normed spaces is contained in the

theory of the subspaces of normed spaces C(K) such that K is a compact
Hausdorff space. This by no means trivializes the theory of normed spaces,
but rather serves to point out the richness of the theory of the spaces C(K).
Suppose that X is a normed space. If X is separable, then the relative
weak* topology of Bx- is metrizable by Corollary 2.6.20. It turns out that
the converse is also true.

2.6.23 Theorem. Let X be a normed space. Then the relative weak*

topology of Bx' is induced by a metric if and only if X is separable.

PROOF. As was observed in the discussion preceding the theorem, one

direction follows from Corollary 2.6.20. For the other, suppose that the
relative weak* topology of Bx' is induced by some metric d. For each
positive integer n, let Un be the d-open ball in Bx- of radius n- 1 centered
at O. By Proposition 2.4.12, there is for each n a finite subset An of X such
that

Un ~ Bx' n {x* : x* X*, Ix*xl < 1 for each x in An}

E
~ Bx' n {x : x* EX, x*x = 0 for each x in An },

from which it follows that

{O} = nUn =
n
Bx- n { x* : x EX, xx = 0 for each x in UAn }.
n

Since {x : x EX, xx = 0 for each x in Un An} is a subspace of X,

it must be that

{ x : x EX, xx = 0 for each x in UAn } = {O}.

n
232 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

Therefore by Proposition 1.10.15 (b),

= 1. { x' : x' EX', x'x = 0 for each x in U An }

n

Since Un An is countable, it follows from Proposition 1.12.1 (a) that X is

separable.

The second dual X" of a normed space X is the dual of X' and therefore
has its own weak* topology. The rest of this section concerns that topology.

2.6.24 Proposition. The natural map Q from a normed space X into X"
is weak-to-weak* continuous, and in fact is a weak-to-relative-weak* ho-
meomorphism from X onto Q(X).
PROOF. Just notice that if (xa) is a net in X and x is an element of X,
then Xa :!!!., x if and only if x'x a --+ x'x for each x* in X', which happens
if and only if Qx", :'!'... Qx.

2.6.25 Corollary. Let X be a normed space and let Q be the natural map
from X into X**. Then the topologies that Q(X) inherits from the weak
and weak* topologies of X** are the same.
PROOF. It follows from the preceding proposition and Corollary 2.5.12
that Q is both a weak-to-relative-weak* homeomorphism from X onto the
subset Q(X) of X** and a weak-to-weak homeomorphism from X onto
the normed space Q(X). By Proposition 2.5.22, the weak topology of the
normed space Q(X) is the same as the relative weak topology of Q(X) when
Q(X) is viewed as a subset of X**, from which the corollary follows.

If Q is the natural map from a nonreflexive Banach space X into its

second dual, then Q(X) is a convex proper subset of x*' that is closed and
therefore weakly closed, so Q(X) is neither dense nor weakly dense in X**.
However, it turns out that Q(X) must be weakly* dense in X**, and in
fact a bit more than that can be said.

2.6.26 Goldstine's Theorem. (H. H. Goldstine, 1938 [89]). Let X be a

normed space and let Q be the natural map from X into X**. Then Q(Ex)
is weakly* dense in Ex ...
---w'
PROOF. It is enough to show that Ex' C;;;; Q(Ex) . Suppose that x~' is an
I > 1. Since
---7V'"
element of X** not in Q(Ex) . It is enough to show that Ilx~*
 2.6 The Weak* Topology 233

---w'
Q(Bx) is convex and weakly* closed, an application of Theorem 2.2.28
produces an Xo in X* such that

Ix~'x~1 ~ Rex~'x~
> sup{ Re x*'x~ : x" E Q(Bx) w}
~ sup{Rex~x: x E Bx}
= IIRex~1I
= Ilx~ll

It follows that Ilx;)' II > 1.

2.6.27 Corollary. Let X be a normed space and let Q be the natural map
---w'
from X into X". Then Q(Bx) = Bx'"
PROOF. The Banach-Alaoglu theorem and Goldstine's theorem together
imply that Q(Bx) is weakly* dense in the weakly* closed set Bx", from
which the corollary follows.

2.6.28 Corollary. Let X be a normed space and let Q be the natural map
from X into X**. Then Q(X) is weakly* dense in X**.
PROOF. If x** is a nonzero element of X*', then Goldstine's theorem im-
plies that there is a net (x",) in Ex such that Qx", ---- Ilx"
w
11- 1x**, from
which it follows that Q(llx**llx",) ~. x**.

Exercises
2.61 Suppose that X is Co or f p , where 1 :S p < 00, and that X' is identified
in the usual way with the appropriate fq such that 1 :S q :S 00. Let
((,B~<))<>El be a net in X' and (,Bn) an element of X'.
(a) Show that if (,B~Q) ~. (,Bn), then ,B~< ----> (3n for each n.
(b) Show that if the net ((,B~"'))"'El is bounded and ,B~"') ----> ,Bn for
each n, then (,B~Q) ~. (,Bn).
(c) Show that the conclusion of (b) can fail if the net ((,B~Q) tEl is not
required to be bounded.
2.68 Let X be the vector space of finitely nonzero sequences equipped with the
f1 norm. For each positive integer m, let x;" : X ----> IF be defined by the
formula x;" ((an)) = m . am. Let A = {x;" : mEN}.
(a) Show that A is a weakly* bounded subset of X' that is not norm
bounded, and therefore that the conclusions of Theorem 2.6.7 and
Corollary 2.6.8 do not follow when X is only required to be a normed
space.
234 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

(b) Show that the conclusions of Corollaries 2.6.9 and 2.6.10 do not
follow when X is only required to be a normed space.
2.69 Let X be the vector space of finitely nonzero sequences equipped with
the 1 norm. Find a weakly* Cauchy sequence in X that is not weakly*
convergent.
2.70 Give an example of an infinite-dimensional normed space X such that the
weak* topology of X is metrizable.
2.71 Suppose that X is a normed space and that D is a dense subset of S x.
(a) Show that a bounded net (x~) in X converges weakly* to an ele-
ment x" of X" if and only if x~x --> xx for each x in D.
(b) Give an example to show that the requirement in (a) that the net
be bounded cannot be omitted.
(c) Let 0[0,1]* be identified with rca[O, 1] in the usual way. Show that
a bounded net (1-",) in 0[0,1] converges weakly* to an element 1-
of 0[0,1]* if and only if f[o.I) t n dl-",(t) --> f[o.I) t n dl-(t) for each
nonnegative integer n.
2.72 Suppose that X is a separable normed space. The goal of this exercise
is to show that there is a norm 11110 on X" such that for each bounded
subset A of X, the topologies induced on A by the weak* and 11110
topologies of X" are the same. It may be assumed that X #- {O}. Let
{x n : n EN} be a countable dense subset of S x.
(a) Define 11110: X" ..... IR by the formula Ilx"llo = Ln Tnlxxnl. Show
that 11110 is a norm on X', and that if 1111 is the usual norm of X,
then IIx"llo :::; Iix"1I for each x" in X .
(b) Let A be a bounded subset of X. Show that the topologies that
A inherits from the weak* and 11110 topologies of X" are the same.
Exercise 2.71 might help.
Do not use the Banach-Alaoglu theorem or any of its corollaries in your
arguments. Notice that this provides a proof of Corollary 2.6.20 that is
not based on the Banach-Alaoglu theorem.
2.73 The following result appears on page 123 of Banach's book [13], using
slightly different notation and terminology: If the Banach space X is
separable, then every bounded sequence in X" has a weakly* convergent
subsequence. Prove that this implies the conclusion of the Banach-Alaoglu
theorem when X is a separable Banach space. Of course, you should not
use the Banach-Alaoglu theorem or any of its corollaries in your argument.
You might find Exercise 2.72 helpful.
2.74 For this exercise, it will be useful to know that if K is a compact metric
space and P is the Cantor set, then there is a continuous map from P
onto K. (I. Rosenholtz has given a particularly nice proof of this that is
built up from a sequence of elementary lemmas; see [198].) Let X be a
separable normed space.
(a) Prove that X is isometrically isomorphic to a subspace of O(P).
(b) Prove that X is isometrically isomorphic to a subspace of 0[0, 1].
 2.7 The Bounded Weak* Topology 235

2.15 (a) Prove that if X is a separable Banach space, then every weakly*
compact subset of X* is weakly* sequentially compact.
(b) Find a subset of f~ that is weakly* compact but not weakly* se-
quentially compact.
2.76 Use the Banach-Alaoglu theorem to prove that every bounded net in a
normed space has a weakly Cauchy subnet. (See Exercise 2.66 for another
line of proof that uses ultranets.)
2.11 Corollary 2.6.28 can be easily derived from results of this section much
more basic than Goldstine's theorem. Do so.
2.78 The purpose of this exercise is to generalize the notion of a weak* topology
to a more abstract setting. Let X be a topological vector space and let Y
be the subset of (X')# consisting of all linear functionals f on X for
which there is an xf in X such that fx' = X'Xf for each x' in X'.
Then the weak* topology of x' is the topology induced on X' by the
topologizing family Y.
(a) Prove that Y is a subspace of (X')# that is a separating family of
functions for X', and therefore that the weak* topology of X' is
a completely regular locally convex topology for X such that the
dual space of X' with respect to this topology is Y.
Suppose that A C;;; X. Then {x' : x EX', Ix'xl :S 1 for each x in A} is
called the absolute polar set for A.
(b) Let U be a neighborhood of 0 in X. Prove that the absolute polar
set for U is weakly* compact.
(c) Derive the Banach-Alaoglu theorem from (b).
The statement proved in (b) is itself sometimes called the Banach-Alaoglu
theorem.

2.7 The Bounded Weak* Topology

Most of this section is devoted to the study of yet another locally convex
topology for the dual space of a normed space, the bounded weak* topology.
Though this topology is interesting in its own right, the primary reason for
introducing it is to obtain a theorem due to M. G. Krein (pronounced
"crane") and V. L. Smulian that provides a useful way to test whether a
convex subset of the dual space of a Banach space is weakly* closed.

2.1.1 Definition. (J. Dieudonne, 1950 [63]). Let X be a normed space.

For each x in X* and each sequence (xn) in X that converges to 0, let

B(x*, (xn)) = {y* : y' EX', I(y* - x*)xnl < 1 for each n}.

The topology for X* having the basis consisting of all such sets B(x*, (x n ))
is the bounded weak* topology of X'.
236 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

Of course, it must be shown that the collection of sets B(x*, (xn)) really
is a basis for a topology for X*. This is done in the proof of the next
theorem.
For notational convenience, properties related to the bounded weak*
topology will often be referred to as "b-weak*" properties; for example,
a set that is closed with respect to the bounded weak* topology will be
said to be b-weakly* closed. Convergence of a net (x~) to an x* with re-
spect to this topology will be denoted by writing x~ ~ x*.

2.7.2 Theorem. Let X be a normed space. Then the bounded weak*

topology of X* is a completely regular locally convex topology. Let 'I bw '
be this topology, and let 'Iw' and 'In be, respectively, the weak* and norm
topologies of X*. Then 'Iw' ~ 'I bw ' ~ 'In- If A is a bounded subset of X*,
then the relative bounded weak* and relative weak* topologies of A are the
same. If 'I is a topology for X* such that the relative topologies inherited by
each bounded subset of X* from 'Iw* and 'I' are the same, then 'I ~ 'I'bw* .
PROOF. Let ~ be the collection of all subsets B(x*, (x n )) of X* as in
Definition 2.7.1. It is necessary to check that ~ really is a basis for a
topology for X*. Since X* = B(O, (0,0, ... )), it follows trivially that X' =
U{B: B E ~}. Now suppose that B(xi, (xl,n)),B(x;, (x 2,n)) E ~ and
that xCi E B(xi, (Xl,n)) n B(X2' (X2,n))' Since Xl,n -+ 0 and X2,n -+ 0, it
follows that { I(xCi - xj)Xj,nl : j E {I, 2}, n EN} has a maximum element
less than 1. Let 8 be such that
0< 8 < 1 - max{ l(xC; - Xi)xj,nl : j E {I, 2}, n EN},
and let (XO,n) be the sequence
8-1 X22'
,
8-1 X13
, '
8- 1X2 ,3, . "
),

a sequence in X that converges to O. If X* E B(xCi, (xo,n)), then

I(x* - xi)xj,nl s: I(x' - XC;)Xj,nl + I(xC; - xi)Xj,nl < 8 + (1 - 8) = 1
whenever n E Nand j is lor 2, so x* E B(xi,(x 1 ,n)) n B(X2,(X2,n))'
It follows that xCi E B(xC;, (xo,n)) ~ B(xi, (x 1 ,n)) n B(x;, (X2,n)), which
finishes the proof that ~ is a basis for a topology for X*.
The argument just given yields another fact that will be useful later in
this proof. Suppose that x* E X*, that (x n ) is a sequence in X converging
to 0, and that xCi E B(x*, (xn))' Letting xi = x; = x' and (Xl,n) =
(X2,n) = (x n ) in the argument of the preceding paragraph shows that there
is a sequence (XO,n) in X converging to 0 such that xC; E B(xCi, (xo,n)) ~
B(x*, (x n)).
To see that 'I'w' ~ 'Ibw* ~ 'In, first observe that for each x* in X* and
each x in X,
B(x*, (x, 0, 0, ... )) = {y* : yO E X*, I(y* - x*)xl < I}.
 2.7 The Bounded Weak* Topology 237

It follows from this and Proposition 2.4.12 that

{B(x*, (x,O,O, ... )) : x* E X*, x EX}

is a subbasis for 'I w', and therefore that 'Iw' ~ 'Ibw" Notice that this
implies that 'I bw ' is Hausdorff. Now suppose that (X~)O:EI is a net in X*

that is norm convergent to an x* in X*. Then for each sequence (x n ) in X
converging to there is an a(x n ) in I such that x~ E B(x*, (x n )) when
a(x n } :5 a. This implies that x~ ~ x*, so 'Ibw' ~ 'In.
The next order of business is to show that 'Ibw' is locally convex. Suppose
that x*, y* E X*, that a E IF, and that U and V are b-weak* neighborhoods
of x* + y* and ax* respectively. Then there are sequences (un) and (v n )
in X converging to such that x* + y* E B(x* + yo, (Un)) ~ U and
ax' E B(ax*, (v n )) ~ V. It is easy to check that

from which it follows that addition of vectors is 'Ibw-continuous. If

1.8 - al < min { ( I l l )

2 x'v n + 1
:n EN}

and w* E B(x*, ((2Ial + l)v n )), then a straightforward computation shows

that I(.8w' - .8x* )vn I < ~ and I(,Bx' - ax' )vn I < ~ for each n, so ,Bw' E
B( ax', Cv n )). Multiplication of vectors by scalars is therefore 'Ibw.-continu-
ous, so 'I bw' is a vector topology. It then follows that 'I bw ' is locally convex
since its basis ~ consists of convex sets. Because this vector topology is
Hausdorff, it is completely regular by Theorem 2.2.14.
Now suppose that A is a bounded subset of X'. Let x* be a member
of X* and let (x n ) be a sequence in X converging to O. Then there is a
positive integer no such that I(y* -x*)xnl < 1 whenever y' E A and n > no.
It follows that

An B(x', (x n ))
= An {y': y' E X*, ICy* - x*)xnl < 1 when n = 1, ... , no}.

Since An {y* : y* E X*, I(y* - x*)xnl < 1 when n = 1, ... , no} is open
with respect to the relative topology that A inherits from 'I w ', it is clear
that the relative topologies that A inherits from 'I bw ' and 'Iw' are the
same.
Let 'I be a topology for X* such that the relative topologies inherited
by each bounded subset of X* from 'Iw' and 'I are the same, and let U
be a member of 'I. The proof of the theorem will be finished once it is
shown that U E 'I bw " Let x* be an element of U. The proof that U is
b-weakly* open is based on the construction of a sequence Fo, F l , F 2 , . . .
of finite subsets of X such that for each nonnegative integer n,
238 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

(1) {y* : y* E X*, Ily* - x*11 ::; n + 1, I(y* - x*)xl ::; 1 when x E Fa U
... U Fn } ~ U; and
(2) Ilxll ::; n- l if n ;?: 1 and x E Fn.
The construction begins with the observation that since the closed ball
of radius 1 centered at x* inherits the same relative topologies from 'T
and 'T w " there are elements Xl, ... ,xno of X such that

{y* : y* E X*, Ily* - x*11 :so 1, I(y* - x*)xjl < 1 when j = 1, ... , na} ~ U.

Let Fa = {2XI, ... , 2x no }. Now suppose that mEN and that finite subsets
Fa, .. . , Fm - 1 of X have been found such that (1) and (2) are satisfied when
n = 0, ... ,m - 1. Suppose further that there is no finite subset Fm of X
such that (1) and (2) are satisfied when n = m. Let I be the collection
of all finite subsets of m- 1 B x , pre ordered by declaring that F =5 G when
F ~ G. For each F in I, let

K(F) = {y*: y* E X*, lIy* -x*II:so m+ 1,

I(y' - x*)xl ::; 1 whcn x E Fa U ... U F m - 1 U F} \ U.

Notice that each K(F) is nonempty and that K(F) :;2 K(G) when F =5 G.
As a straightforward consequence of the Banach-Alaoglu theorem and the
fact that 'T and 'Tw' induce the same relative topology on bounded subsets
of X*, each K(F) is weakly* compact. For each F in I, let x'F be an element
of K(F). Then (x'F)PE[ is a net in the weakly* compact set K(0) and has
the property that Xc
E K(F) whenever F =5 G, and so has a subnet with
a weak* limit Xo in n{ K(F) : F E I}. It follows that I(xo - x*)xl < 1
whenever X E m- 1 B x , so Ilxo - x*11 :so m. This means that

Xo E {y* : y* E X*, Ily' - x* I :so m,

I(y* - x*)xl :so 1 when x E Fa U U Fm - 1 },

but this last set lies inside U by (1) when n = m-l. This is a contradiction,
since xC; E K(0) :;;;; X* \ U. It follows that there is a finite subset Fm of X
such that (1) and (2) are satisfied when n = m, which mcans that the
construction of the sequence Fa, F 1 , F2 , ... can be accomplished. It may be
assumed that each Fn is nonempty, since each empty Fn may be replaced
by {O}.
By (2), the elements of U~=a Fn can be listed as a sequence (x n ) that
converges to O. It follows from (1) that B(x*, (x n )) :;;;; U, which is enough
to establish that U is b-weakly* open.

A useful fact obtained in the proof of the preceding theorem is worth

repeating. With all notation as in Definition 2.7.1, suppose that x' is an
element of a b-weakly* open subset U of X'. Then there is a sequence (xn)
 2.7 The Bounded Weak* Topology 239

in X converging to 0 such that B(x*, (x n )) ~ U. That is, there is a basic

b-weak* neighborhood of x* "centered" at x* that is included in U.
Suppose that (x~) is a bounded net in the dual space of a normed space
and that x* is an element of that dual space. If A is the set consisting
of x* and the terms of (x~), then the preceding theorem assures that the
relative bounded weak* and relative weak* topologies of A are the same.
The following result is an immediate consequence.

2.7.3 Corollary. Let X be a normed space, let (x~) be a bounded net

in X*, and let x* be an element of X*. Then x~ ~ x* if and only if
x*Cl ~* x*

The characterizations of b-weakly* open sets in the following corollary

are often used to define the bounded weak* topology.

2.7.4 Corollary. (J. Dieudonne, 1950 [63]). Let X be a normed space and
let A be a subset of X*. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The set A is b-weakly* open.
(b) The set A n B is relatively weakly* open m B whenever B is a
bounded subset of X*.
(c) The set An tBx- is relatively weakly* open in tBx- whenever t > O.
PROOF. Let 'I be the collection of all subsets U of X* such that U n B is
relatively weakly* open in B whenever B is a bounded subset of X*. It is
easy to check that 'I is a topology for X*, that 'I and the weak* topology
of X* induce the same relative topology on each bounded subset of X*, and
that 'I' ~ 'I whenever 'I' is a topology for X* such that 'I' and the weak*
topology of X* induce the same relative topology on each bounded subset
of X*. By the preceding theorem, the topology 'I is the bounded weak*
topology of X*, which shows that (a) and (b) are equivalent. It is clear
that (b) '* (c). Also, for each bounded subset B of X* there is a positive
tB such that B ~ tBBx-, from which it easily follows that (c) '* (b).

2.7.5 Corollary. (J. Dieudonne, 1950 [63]). Let X be a normed space and
let A be a subset of X*. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The set A is b-weakly* closed.
(b) The set A n B is relatively weakly* closed in B whenever B is a
bounded subset of X*.
(c) The set An tBx- is weakly* closed in X* whenever t > O.
(d) The set A contains the weak* limits of all bounded nets in A that
are weakly* convergent in X*.
240 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

PROOF. The equivalence of (a), (b), and (c) follows from the preceding
corollary and the fact that tBx- is weakly* compact, hence weakly* closed,
whenever t > O. The equivalence of (c) and (d) is clear.

One pleasant property of the bounded weak* topology is that in contrast

to what happens with the weak* topology, completeness is not lost when
passing from the finite-dimensional to the infinite-dimensional case.

2.7.6 Proposition. Let X be a normed space. Then the bounded weak*

topology of X* is complete.
PROOF. Let (x~)aEI be a net in X* that is b-weakly* Cauchy. Then (x~) is
also weakly* Cauchy, so (x~x) converges for each x in X. Define f: X --+ IF
by the formula f(x) = lima x~x. Then f is a linear functional on X. It will
bw'
be shown that f E X* and that x~ ---4 f.
Let (xn) be a sequence in X converging to o. For each positive E, the set
{y* : y* EX', Iy*xnl < f for each n} is a b-weak* neighborhood of 0; in
the notation of Definition 2.7.1, it is the set B(O, (C1Xn)). It follows from
this and the fact that (x~) is b-weakly* Cauchy that the net ((x~xn)) aEI
in Co is Cauchy, hence convergent, and therefore has limit (fxn). Since
(fxn) E Co, the linear functional f must be bounded, for otherwise the
sequence (xn) could have been chosen so that Ifxn I --+ +00 even though
Xn --+ O. The convergence of the net (((x~ - j)xn))aEI to 0 in Co assures
that there is an 0:0 such that x~ E BU, (xn)) when 0:0 ::S 0:. Since each
b-weak* neighborhood of f includes a b-weak* neighborhood of f of the
form BU, (Yn)), where (Yn) is a sequence in X converging to 0, it follows
that x~
bw
---4
f.

2.7.7 Corollary. Let X be an infinite-dimensional normed space. Then

the bounded weak* topology of X* is different from the weak*, weak, and
norm topologies of X*.
PROOF. Since the bounded weak* topology of X* is complete and the
weak* and weak topologies of X* are not, the bounded weak* topology is
not equal to either of those. The bounded weak* and norm topologies of X*
must also differ, since B x * is b-weakly* compact but not norm compact .

It follows from the preceding corollary that if X is an infinite-dimensional

normed space, then some subset of X* is b-weakly* closed but not weakly*
closed, and therefore is not weakly* closed even though it contains the
weak* limits of all the bounded nets in the set that are weakly* convergent
in X*.
As was suggested in the introduction to this section, much can be learned
about the weak* topology of the dual space X* of a normed space X by
studying the bounded weak* topology of X*. The main reason for this is
 2.7 The Bounded Weak* Topology 241

contained in the next theorem: The dual spaces with respect to the two
topologies are the same if X is a Banach space. When interpreting this
theorem and its corollaries, keep in mind that a linear functional on X* is
weakly* continuous if and only if it has the form x* f-+ x*xo for some Xo
in X.

2.7.8 Theorem. Let X be a Banach space. Then a linear functional on X*

is weakly* continuous if and only if it is b-weakly* continuous. That is, the
dual spaces of X* with respect to the weak* and bounded weak* topologies
are the same.
PROOF. Since every weakly* open subset of X* is b-weakly* open, every
weakly* continuous linear functional on X* is b-weakly* continuous. For
the converse, suppose that I is a b-weakly* continuous linear functional
on X*. A moment's thought about basic b-weak* neighborhoods of 0 "cen-
tered" at 0 shows that there is a sequence (xn) in X converging to 0 such
that IIx*1 < 1 whenever X* E X* and Ix*xnl < 1 for each n. Notice that
this implies that Ix* = 0 when x*xn = 0 for each n.
Define T: X* -> Co by the formula T(x*) = (x*xn). Then T is clearly
linear and bounded. It is also easy to check that the map v*: T(X*) -> IF'
given by the formula v*(Tx*) = Ix* is well-defined, linear, and bounded.
By the normed space version of the Hahn-Banach extension theorem, there
is a w* in Co whose restriction to T(X*) is v*. Let (an) be the element of ~\
that represents w* in the usual way. For each x* in X*,

Ix* = v*(Tx*) = w*(x*xn) = 2:>l:nX*Xn = x* (2::Cl!nxn),

n n

where the convergence of the last sum is assured by the completeness of X.

It follows that I is in the image of X in X** under the natural map, and
so is weakly* continuous.

2.7.9 Corollary. Let I be a linear functional on the dual space of a Banach

space X. Then I is weakly* continuous if and only if the restriction of I
to Bx. is continuous with respect to the relative weak* topology of Bx.
PROOF. If I is weakly* continuous, then its restriction to Bx. is certainly
continuous with respect to the relative weak* topology of Bx'. Conversely,
suppose that the restriction of I to Bx is continuous with respect to the
relative weak* topology of Bx'. Since Bx. is weakly* closed in X*, so
is ker In Bx. If t > 0, then ker I n tBx. = t(ker f n Bx')' which is
weakly* closed, so ker f is b-weakly* closed by Corollary 2.7.5. It follows
from Theorem 2.2.16 that f is b-weakly* continuous, and therefore weakly*
continuous.

2.7.10 Corollary. A linear functional on the dual space of a separable

Banach space is weakly* continuous if and only if it is weakly* sequentially
continuous.
242 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

PROOF. Let X be a separable Banach space and let f be a weakly* sequen-

tially continuous linear functional on X*. Since continuity always implies
sequential continuity, the corollary will be proved once it is shown that
f is weakly* continuous. By the preceding corollary, it is enough to show
that the restriction of f to Ex- is continuous with respect to the rela-
tive weak* topology of Ex-. Since this relative topology is metrizable by
Corollary 2.6.20, the continuity of f on Ex- with respect to this topology
is assured by the weak* sequential continuity of f.

Theorem 2.7.8 has the main result of this section as an easy corollary.

2.7.11 The Krein-Smulian Theorem on Weakly* Closed Convex

Sets. (M. G. Krein and V. L. Smulian, 1940 [146]). Let e be a convex
subset of the dual space of a Banach space X. Then e is weakly* closed if
and only if en tEx- is weakly* closed whenever t > O.

PROOF. If C is weakly* closed and t > 0, then the weak* compactness

of tEx- assures that en tEx- is weakly* closed. Conversely, suppose that
en tEx- is weakly* closed whenever t > O. Then C is b-weakly* closed by
Corollary 2.7.5. Since the dual spaces of X* with respect to the weak* and
bounded weak* topologies are the same, it follows from Corollary 2.2.29
that C is weakly* closed.

2.7.12 Corollary. Let M be a subspace of the dual space of a Banach

space X. Then M is weakly* closed if and only if M n Bx- is weakly*
closed.

PROOF. Since M n tBx- = t(1\,f n Bx-) whenever t > 0, it follows that

M n tEx is weakly* closed for each positive t if and only if M n Ex- is
weakly* closed, which together with an application of the preceding theo-
rem finishes the proof.

2.7.13 Corollary. Let X be a separable Banach space. Then a convex

subset of X* is weakly* closed if and only if it is weakly* sequentially
closed. In particular, every weakly* sequentially closed subspace of X* is
weakly* closed.

PROOF. Suppose that C is a weakly* sequentially closed convex subset

of X*. It is enough to show that C is weakly* closed. Let t be a positive
number. It is enough to show that en tBx- is weakly* closed. By Corol-
lary 2.6.20, the relative weak* topology of the weakly* closed set tEx- is
metrizable, so it is enough to show that en tEx- is weakly* sequentially
closed. This follows immediately from the fact that both C and tEx' are
weakly* sequentially closed.
 2.7 The Bounded Weak* Topology 243

Exercises

2.79 Prove that a bounded net in the dual space of a normed space is b-weakly*
Cauchy if and only if it is weakly* Cauchy.

2.80 Let X be an infinite-dimensional normed space. Prove that every non-

empty b-weakly* open subset of X* is unbounded.

2.81 Let X be a Banach space. Prove that a subset of X* is bounded if and

only if it is b-weakly* bounded.

2.82 Let X be a Banach space. Prove that the bounded weak* topology of X*
is metrizable if and only if X is finite-dimensional. Exercise 2.80 might
be helpful.

2.83 The purpose of this exercise is to show that if X is a Banach space and
1: is a topology for X* such that the relative topologies inherited by each
bounded subset of X* from 1: and the weak* topology 1:w ' are the same,
then it does not necessarily follow that 1: w * c;;:; 1:, even if 1: is a completely
regular locally convex topology. To this end, let X = Co, let Q be the
natural map from Co into c~*, let Y be the subspace of Co consisting of
the finitely nonzero sequences, and let 1: be the Q(Y) topology of c~.
(a) Prove that 1: is a completely regular locally convex topology for c~
such that 1: ~ 1:w *.
(b) Prove that the relative topologies inherited by each bounded subset
of c~ from 1: and 1:w * are the same. Exercise 2.67 might be helpful.
2.84 Let C be a convex subset of a normed space X.
(a) Prove that C is closed if and only if en tBx is closed whenever
t > o.
(b) Prove that C is weakly closed if and only if en tB x is weakly closed
whenever t > o.
These are, of course, the analogs for the norm and weak topologies of the
Krein-Smulian theorem on weakly* closed convex sets. Notice that these
analogs do not require X to be complete.

2.85 The hypotheses of both Theorem 2.7.8 and the Krein-Smulian theorem
on weakly* closed convex sets include the requirement that the normed
space X in question be a Banach space. The purpose of this exercise is
to show that this requirement cannot in general be omitted. Let X be an
incomplete normed spacej let Q be the natural map from X into X* j let Y
be the closure of Q(X) in X'*j let 1:w ', 1:bw ' , and 1:y be, respectively, the
weak*, bounded weak*, and Y topologies of X*j and let (X,:,.)*, (X;w')*'
and (X;')* be the respective dual spaces of X' under these topologies.
(a) Show that the relative topologies inherited by each bounded subset
of X from 1:w ' and 1:y are the same.
(b) Show that (X,:,.)* ~ (X;')* c;;:; (X;w')*. Conclude that the require-
ment in the hypotheses of Theorem 2.7.8 that the normed space be
complete is necessary.
244 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

(c) Find a convex subset C of X* that is not weakly* closed even though
en tBx' is weakly* closed whenever t > O.
2.86 The bounded weak topology. Let X be a normed space and let 'Ibw be the
collection of all subsets U of X such that Un B is relatively weakly open
in B whenever B is a bounded subset of X. Then 'Ibw is the bounded
weak topology of X. For convenience, properties related to this topology
will be called "b-weak" properties. Let 'Iw and 'In be the weak and norm
topologies of X respectively. Prove each of the following statements.
(a) The collection 'Ibw is a topology for X.
(b) 'Iw <:;; 'Ibw <:;; 'In.
(c) The relative topologies inherited by each bounded subset of X from
'Iw and 'Ibw are the same. Furthermore, if 'I is a topology for X
such that the relative topologies inherited by each bounded subset
of X from 'I", and 'I are the same, then 'I <:;; 'Ib,,,.
(d) A bounded net (xe in X is b-weakly convergent to some x in X if
and only if (Xa) is weakly convergent to x.
(e) A subset A of X is b-weakly open if and only if AntBx is relatively
weakly open in tEx whenever t > O.
(f) A subset A of X is b-weakly closed if and only if An B is relatively
weakly closed in B whenever B is a bounded subset of X, which
happens if and only if An tBx is weakly closed in X whenever
t > o.
2.87 Let X be a normed space. The purpose of this exercise is to study another
topology for X related to the bounded weak topology developed in Exer-
cise 2.86. For each x in X and each sequence (x;') in X* that converges
to 0, let

B(x, (x~)) = {y : y E X, Ix~(y ~ x)1 < 1 for each n}.

Prove the statements in (a) through (d).

(a) The collection of all sets B(x, (x;')) described in the above definition
is a basis for a topology for X.
Let 'Io denote the topology from (a), and let 'Iw and 'Ibw denote the weak
and bounded weak topologies of X respectively.
(b) The relative topologies inherited by each bounded subset of X from
'Iw and 'Io are the same.
(c) 'Iw <:;; 'Io <:;; 'Ib",
(d) The topology 'Io is completely regular and locally convex.
Instead of just trying to modify arguments from the proof of Theo-
rem 2.7.2, it might be useful to consider Q(X), where Q is the natural
map from X into X".
2.88 The purpose of this exercise is to show that the topologies 'Ibw and 'Io
defined in Exercises 2.86 and 2.87 do not have to be the same. For each
pair of positive integers m and n, let x(m, n) be the element of Co that
 2.8 Weak Compactness 245

has its first n - 1 terms equal to m- 1 , its nth term equal to m, and all
the rest of its terms equal to O. Let A = {x(m, n) : m, n EN}.
(a) Show that A is b-weakly closed.
(b) Show that 0 EA. -~ Conclude that A is not 'I'D-closed, and t herefiore
that 'I'D ~ 'I'bw for co
This example is due to R. F. Wheeler [243J.

2.8 Weak Compactness

Though Section 2.5 is devoted to the introduction and study of the weak
topology of a normed space, nothing is said in that section about weakly
compact sets other than that they are bounded. Actually, there is little more
about weak compactness that could be said very easily in that section, since
most of the interesting results about weakly compact sets are most readily
obtained from facts about the weak* topology that are derived in Sections
2.6 and 2.7. Those results are now available, so it is time to take a closer
look at weak compactness.
The first result of this section provides two tests for weak compactness
using the weak* topology of the second duaL

2.8.1 Proposition. Let A be a subset of a normed space X and let Q be

the natural map from X into X**. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The set A is weakly compact.
(b) The set Q(A) is weakly* compact.
(c) The set A is bounded and Q(A) is weakly* closed.
PROOF. By Proposition 2.6.24, the map Q is a weak-to-relative-weak* ho-
meomorphism from X onto Q(X). It follows that A is weakly compact if
and only if Q(A) is compact with respect to the relative weak* topology
of Q(X), which happens if and only if Q(A) is weakly* compact in X**.
This proves the equivalence of (a) and (b). The equivalence of (b) and (c)
is an easy consequence of the Banach-Alaoglu theorem, the boundedness
of weakly* compact subsets of the dual space of a Banach space, and the
fact that Q is an isometry.

The preceding result is one of the three key ingredients in the proof of
the following important characterization of reflexivity, with the Banach-
Alaoglu theorem and Goldstine's theorem being the other two.

2.8.2 Theorem. A normed space is reflexive if and only if its closed unit
ball is weakly compact.
PROOF. Let Q be the natural map from a normed space X into X**.
It follows easily from Proposition 2.8.1, the Banach-Alaoglu theorem, and
246 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

Goldstine's theorem that each of statements 1 through 3 below is equivalent

to the one following it.

1. The normed space X is reflexive.

2. Q(Bx)=Bx .
3. The set Q(Bx) is weakly* closed.
4. The set Bx is weakly compact.
The equivalence of statements 1 and 4 is the conclusion of the theorem.

One nice property of topologies induced by metrics is that for such

topologies, the properties of compactness, countable compactness, limit
point compactness, and sequential compactness are equivalent. By a rather
remarkable theorem due to W. F. Eberlein and V. L. Smulian, the same
is true for the weak topology of every normed space, despite the fact
that this topology is not metrizable when the underlying space is infinite-
dimensional; see Proposition 2.5.14. It is fairly easy to show that in any
topological space, compactness =? countable compactness =? limit point
compactness ~ sequential compactness. The hard part of the proof of the
Eberlein-Smulian theorem is showing that weak limit point compactness
implies both weak sequential compactness and weak compactness. The fol-
lowing lemmas will be useful for obtaining these latter implications.

2.8.3 Lemma. Every relatively weakly limit point compact subset of a

normed space is bounded.
PROOF. Suppose that A is a relatively weakly limit point compact subset
of a normed space X and that X* E X*. By Corollary 2.5.6, it is enough to
show that x*(A) is bounded.
Suppose to the contrary that x*(A) is not bounded. Let (xn) be a se-
quence in A such that Ix*xn+ll ;::: IX'xnl + 1 for each n, and let w be
a weak limit point of the infinite subset {xn : n EN} of A. Then the
weak neighborhood {x : x E X, Ix'x - x'wl < ~} of w must contain
two different members xno and X n, of the sequence, which implies that
Ix*xno - x'xn,1 < 1. This contradiction proves the lemma.

2.8.4 Lemma. Let X be a Ilormed space and Ya finite-dimensional sub-

space of X'. If M > 1, then there is a finite subset FM of Bx such that
Ily*11 ::; Mmax{ ly*xl : x E F M } for each y* in Y.
PROOF. It may be assumed that Y '" {OJ. The compactness of Sy implies
that there is a finite subset {Yi, ... , y~} of Sy such that the open balls

of ra d IUS - I centere d at YI,'
M2M + I < 1 , th ere are
* .. , Yn* cover S y . ,SIIlce M2M
elements Xl,. ,xn of Bx such that lyiXjl > ~i11 when j = 1, ... ,no Let
FM = {XI, ... ,X n }.
 2.8 Weak Compactness 247

Suppose that Yo E By. Select j so that Ilyo - yjll < ~Ml. Then

IYoxjl2:: lyjxjl-IYoxj - yjxjl

2:: Iyjxjl-Ilyo - yjllllxjll
> M+l _ M-l
2M 2M

= k
Therefore max{ IYoxl : x E F M } 2: k. It follows that

whenever y* E Y and y. i= 0, and therefore that

for every y. in Y.

The following result is central to the proof of the Eberlein-Smulian theo-
rem to be given below. It is called Day's lemma because the argument used
to prove it is essentially the same as an argument used by Mahlon Day to
prove that every weakly sequentially compact subset of a normed space is
weakly closed; see [54, Theorem III.2.4].

2.8.5 Day's Lemma. Let X be a normed space.

(a) If A is a relatively weakly limit point compact subset of X and
Xo E :A w , then there is a sequence in A that converges weakly to Xo.
(b) If A. is a relatively weakly limit point compact subset of X* and
xii E A* w, then there is a sequence in A. that converges weakly
to xii.
PROOF. The plan of attack is to prove (b) and then to obtain (a) from (b).
To this end, let A. be a relatively weakly limit point compact subset of X*
and let xii be in A* w*. It may be assumed that xii ~ A . By a straightfor-
ward argument involving various parts of Theorem 2.2.9 and the fact that
-xii + A. is relatively weakly limit point compact, it may also be assumed
that xii = o.
The first order of business is to construct an increasing sequence (Fn)
of nonempty finite subsets of Ex and a sequence (x~) in A. such that
X~, i= X~2 when nl i= n2 and such that for each positive integer n,

(1) IIx*11 :::; 2max{ Ixxl : x E Fn} whenever X* E ({xi, ... ,x~}); and
(2) max{ IX~+lXI : x E Fn} < n~l.
To start the construction, let xi be any element of A., let Xl be a member
of Ex such that 21xixil 2:: Ilxill, and let Fl = {xd. Now suppose that a
248 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

nonempty finite subset Fn of Ex and elements xi, ... , x~ of A. satisfy (1).

Since {x : x EX, Ixxl < (n+1)-l whenever x E Fn} is a weak* neigh-
borhood of 0 in X and 0 E A* w' \A., there is an x~H in A* \ {xi, ... , x~}
that satisfies (2). By Lemma 2.8.4, there is a finite subset F~ of Ex such
that Ilx*11 ~ 2max{lx*xl : x E F~} whenever x* E ({xi, ... ,x~H})'
Letting FnH = Fn U F~ completes the inductive construction.
Let D = U{ Fn : n EN}, a subset of Ex. Then (1) implies that Ilx* II ~
2 sup{ Ix*xl : xED} whenever x* E ( {x~ : n EN} ), from which it easily
follows that Ilx*11 S; 2sup{ Ix*xl : XED} whenever x* E [{ x~ : n EN}].
By hypothesis, the infinite subset {x~ : n EN} of A. has a weak limit
point w*. Since w* must lie in the weakly closed set [{ x~ : n EN}],
it follows that 11111* II S; 2 sup{ Iw*xl : xED}. For each x in D and each
positive E, the weak neighborhood {x* : x* E X*, Ix*x - w*xl < E/2 } of w*
contains infinitely many members of {x~ : n EN}, which by (2) implies
that Iw*xl < E whenever xED and E > 0, that is, that w*x = 0 whenever
xED. It follows that w* = O.
Thus, the set {x~ : n EN} has 0 as its one and only weak limit point.
If (x~) did not converge weakly to 0, then there would be a weak neigh-
borhood U of 0 and a subsequence (x~.) J
of (x~) lying entirely outside U.
Then {x~ J : j EN} would have a weak limit point of its own, necessarily
different from 0, even though this new weak limit point would also be a
weak limit point of {x~ : n EN} and therefore would have to be O. This
contradiction shows that x~ ~ 0, which proves (b).
Now suppose that A is a relatively weakly limit point compact subset
of X and that Xo E }fw. Let Q be the natural map from X into X*.
Because of the weak-to-weak continuity of Q, the set Q(A) is relatively
weakly limit point compact in X**. Since Xo is the weak limit of a net
from A, it follows that Qxo is the weak* limit of a net from Q(A), so
by (b) there is a sequence (x n ) in A such that QX n ~ Qxo. This implies
that Xn ~ Xo and finishes the proof of (a).

As has already been mentioned, the hard parts of the proof of the follow-
ing theorem are the arguments that (c) =} (d) and that (c) =} (a). These
were, essentially, the respective contributions of Smulian and Eberlein to
this result. See [67, p. 466] for more details.

2.8.6 The Eberlein-Smulian Theorem. (W. F. Eberlein, 1947 [71];

V. L. Smulian, 1940 [225]). Let A be a subset of a normed space. Then the
following are equivalent.
(a) The set A is weakly compact.
(b) The set A is weakly countably compact.
(c) The set A is weakly limit point compact.
(d) The set A is weakly sequentially compact.
 2.8 Weak Compactness 249

Also, the following are equivalent.

(aT) The set A is relatively weakly compact.
(bT) The set A is relatively weakly countably compact.
(c T ) The set A is relatively weakly limit point compact.
(d T) The set A is relatively weakly sequentially compact.
PROOF. It should be noted that the equivalence of (aT) through (d T) does
not follow immediately from the equivalence of (a) through (d) by con-
sidering weak closures. The problem lies in the definition of relative limit
point compactness and relative sequential compactness. It is possible for a
subset of a topological space to be both relatively limit point compact and
relatively sequentially compact, yet have its closure be neither limit point
compact nor sequentially compact; see Exercise 2.15.
Let X be the normed space of which A is a subset. It is clear that
(a) =} (b) and that (a r ) =} (br ). Suppose that (c) does not hold, that is,
that A has an infinite subset with no weak limit point in A. Then there is
a countably infinite subset {xn : n EN} of A with no weak limit point
in A. For each positive integer n, let Un = X \ {Xj : j ~ n} w; notice that
A \ Un = {Xj : j ::;> n}. It follows that { Un : n EN} is a countable covering
of A by weakly open sets that cannot be thinned to a finite subcovering.
The set A is therefore not weakly countably compact, which shows that
(b) =} (c). Now suppose that the preceding argument is repeated under the
stronger supposition that A has an infinite subset with no weak limit point
in X. The set {xn : n EN} will also have no weak limit point in X, which
implies that {Xj : j ::;> n} is weakly closed for each positive integer n.
It follows that Un = X \ {Xj : j ::;> n} and JIw \ Un = {Xj : j ~ n}
for each n. Therefore {Un : n EN} is a countable covering of JIw by
weakly open sets that cannot be thinned to a finite subcovering, so A is
not rclatively weakly count ably compact. This proves that (br ) =} (c r ). It
is easy to see that (d) =} (c) and that (d r ) =} (c r ).
Notice that no special properties of the weak topology of X have yet been
used, and in fact the preceding arguments show that (relative) compactness
=} (relative) countable compactness =} (relative) limit point compactness

"'*= (relative) sequential compactness in every topological space. What re-

mains to be shown is that (relative) weak limit point compactness implies
both (relative) weak sequential compactness and (relative) weak compact-
ness in X.
For the rest of this proof, assume that A is relatively weakly limit point
compact. The first order of business is to show that A is relatively weakly
sequentially compact. Let (Yn) be a sequence in A. Since the goal is to
show that (Yn) has a weakly convergent subsequence, it may be assumed
that Yn, cI Y"2 when nl cI n2 Let Yo be a weak limit point of the infinite
subset {Yn : n EN} of A. By discarding one Yn if necessary, it may be
assumed that Yo tJ. {Yn : n EN}. Since Yo E {Yn :nEN}w, part (a)
250 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

of Day's lemma assures that there is a sequence in {Yn : n EN} that

converges weakly to Yo. It follows easily that some subsequence of (Yn)
converges weakly to Yo, which shows that (c r ) =} (d r ). If A were actually
weakly limit point compact, then the weak limit point Yo could have been
selected to lie in A, which would have implied that (Yn) has a subsequence
converging weakly to an element of A. It follows that (c) =} (d).
Let Q be the natural map from X into X**. Since Q is weak-to-weak
continuous and A is relatively weakly limit point compact, the set Q(A)
is also relatively weakly limit point compact. It follows from Lemma 2.8.3
--w
that Q(A) is bounded, and therefore that Q(A) is weakly* compact.
Suppose that xo' --w
E Q(A) . By part (b) of Day's lemma, there is a
sequence (zn) in A such that QZn ~ xo.
However, the relative weak se-
quential compactness of A assures that (zn) has a subsequence converging
weakly to a member Zo of X. This implies that xo
= Qzo E Q(X), so
Q(A) w <;;: Q(X). Since Q-l ( Q(A) w.) is a weakly compact subset of X
and A <;;: Q-l( Q(A)w), the set A is relatively weakly compact. This
proves that (c,.) =} (a r ).
Finally, suppose that A is actually weakly limit point compact, and there-
fore weakly sequentially compact. If Wo E A W , then part (a) of Day's lemma
produces a sequence in A that converges weakly to woo Since this sequence
must in turn have a subsequence converging weakly to a point of A, it fol-
lows that Wo E A. Thus, the set A is weakly closed and relatively weakly
compact, and so is weakly compact. This shows that (c) =} (a), the last
implication needed to finish the proof of the theorem.

2.8.7 Corollary. If A is a relatively weakly compact subset of a normed

space and Xo E AW, then there is a sequence in A that converges weakly
to Xo.
PROOF. All that is needed is the observation that A is relatively weakly
limit point compact, followed by an appeal to part (a) of Day's lemma.

The following corollary is often summarized by saying that weak com-

pactness and relative weak compactness are separably determined. Notice
that the condition in the statement of the corollary that AnY be weakly
compact in Y is equivalent to AnY having that same property in X,
and that the same is true for relative weak compactness since every closed
subspace Y of X is a weakly closed subset of X.

2.8.8 Corollary. Let A be a subset of a normed space X. Then A is

weakly compact if and only if AnY is weakly compact in Y whenever Y
is a separable closed subspace of X. The same is true if "weakly compact"
is replaced by "relatively weakly compact."
 2.8 Weak Compactness 251

PROOF. If A is (relatively) weakly compact and Y is any closed subspace

of X, then the intersection of A with the weakly closed set Y is (relatively)
weakly compact in X, and hence with respect to the weak topology of Y.
Conversely, suppose that whenever Y is a separable closed subspace of X,
the set AnY is (relatively) weakly compact in Y and therefore (relatively)
weakly sequentially compact in Y. Let (xn) be a sequence in A. Then
[ {xn : n EN} 1 is a closed subspace of X and is separable by Proposi-
tion 1.12.1 (a). It follows that (xn) has a subsequence that is convergent
with respect to the weak topologies of both Y and X. Notice that A must
contain the weak limit if A n [ {xn : n EN} 1is actually weakly compact
in [{ Xn : n EN}]. It follows that A is (relatively) weakly sequentially
compact and therefore (relatively) weakly compact.

The next two results were previously obtained in optional Section 1.13
from a sequential characterization of reflexivity by R. C. James. See The-
orems 1.13.4, 1.13.5, and 1.13.8.

2.8.9 Corollary. A normed space is reflexive if and only if each bounded

sequence in the space has a weakly convergent subsequence.
PROOF. A normed space is reflexive if and only if its closed unit ball is
weakly compact, which by the Eberlein-Smulian theorem and the fact that
the closed unit ball is weakly closed is equivalent to the condition that every
sequence in the closed unit ball has a weakly convergent subsequence. The
corollary follows easily.

2.8.10 Corollary. A normed space is reflexive if and only if each of its

separable closed subspaces is reflexive.
PROOF. Let X be a normed space. Then X is reflexive if and only if Ex is
weakly compact, which by Corollary 2.8.8 is true if and only if the closed
unit ball Bx n Y of each separable closed subspace Y of X is weakly
compact in Y, which holds if and only if each separable closed subspace
~X~~~~.

2.8.11 Corollary. Every reflexive normed space is weakly sequentially

complete.
PROOF. Let (xn) be a weakly Cauchy sequence in a reflexive normed space.
Then (xn) is bounded and so has a weakly convergent subsequence. It
follows that (xn) converges weakly to the weak limit of this subsequence .

2.8.12 Corollary. A reflexive normed space has Schur's property if and

only if it is finite-dimensional.
PROOF. If X is a reflexive normed space with Schur's property, then every
bounded sequence in X has a convergent subsequence, which implies that
252 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

X has the Heine-Borel property and therefore is finite-dimensional. Con-

versely, all finite-dimensional normed spaces have Schur's property since
the weak and norm topologies of a finite-dimensional normed space are the
same.

Suppose that K is a weakly compact subset of a Banach space X. Then

the convex hull of K does not have to be weakly compact; see Exercise 2.93.
As it turns out, all that really prevents co(K) from being weakly compact is
that it might not be weakly closed, since it does have to be relatively weakly
compact. (There can be further complications when X is not complete. See
Exercise 2.94.)
The fact that the closed convex hull of a weakly compact subset of a
Banach space must be weakly compact is due to M. G. Krein and V. L.
Smulian, and is the analog for the weak topology of an earlier result of
S. Mazur for the norm topology. The two results have proofs that are very
similar and that begin by considering the separable case.

2.8.13 Lemma. Suppose that ':r is the norm or weak topology of a separa-
ble Banach space X and that K is a ':r-compact subset of X. Then co( K)
is ':r-compact.
PROOF. It may be assumed that K =I 0. Notice that K is weakly compact,
whether ':r is the norm or the weak topology. For the rest of this proof, the
topology of K is assumed to be its relative ':r topology whenever K is
treated as a topological space.
This proof makes extensive use of the standard identification of C(K)*
with rca(K); sec Example 1.10.6. Let K, be the identity function on K,
viewed as a map from the topological space K into the topological space
consisting of X with the topology ':r. For each x* in X*, the map x* K, is
in C(K), so JKx*K,d/1 exists for each /1 in rca(K).
Let /10 be a member of rca(K). It will be shown that there is a unique xl"o
in X such that x* x 1"0 = J K x* K, d/10 for each x* in X*. To this end, suppose
that (x~) is a sequence in X* that is weakly* convergent to some xo. For
each x in K and each positive integer n,

IX~K,(x)1 S; Ilx~lIllxll S; sup{ Ilx;"1I : mEN} sup{ Ilyll : y E K},

and Corollaries 2.6.10 and 2.5.7 imply that these last two suprema are fi-
nite. Since .'E~r.:(x) -> xor.:(x) for each x in K, it follows from Lebesgue's
dominated convergence theorem that JK x~ K, d/10 -+ JK Xu r.: d/10. The linear
functional x* f-+ J~ x* K, d/10 on X* is therefore weakly* sequentially con-
tinuous, and so is weakly* continuous by Corollary 2.7.10. Thus, there is a
unique xl"O in X such that x*x!-,o = JKx*r.:dJ1o for each x* in X*, as was
claimed.
Define T: C(K)* -> X as follows. For each y* in C(K)*, let J1y' be
the member of rca(K) identified with y* and let T(y*) be the unique ele-
ment xl'V" of X such that x*x!-'y* = JKx*K,dJ1y' for each x* in X*. It is
 2.8 Weak Compactness 253

easy to check that T is linear. If (y~) is a net in C(K)* that is weakly*

convergent to some y*, then for each x* in X*,

x*Ty~ = L x*Kdf.ly;, = y~(X*K) -> Y*(X*K) = x*Ty*,

and so Ty~ ~ Ty*. Thus, the map T is weak* -to-weak continuous. It

follows from this, the weak* compactness of BC(K, and the linearity of T
that T(BC(K)*) is a weakly compact convex subset of X.
Suppose for the moment that ~ is the norm topology. Let E be a positive
number. Since K is a compact metric space, there are elements Xl, ... , xm
of K and a partition AI' ... ' Am of K into Borel subsets such that if
each Aj has corresponding indicator function IA] and K. is the function
2:;:lIAjXj from K into X, thcn IIK(X) - K.(x)11 < E for each X in K.
Define T.: C(K)* -> X as follows. For each y* in C(K)*, let f.ly> be the
member of rca(K) identified with y* and let T.(y*) = 2:;:1 f.ly>(Aj)Xj.
Then T, is linear and IIT,y*11 :s: (2:;:lllxjll)lly*11 for each y* in C(K)*, so
T. E B(C(K)*,X). If x* E Bx> and y* E BC(K, then

Ix*(Ty* - T.Y*)1 = Ii x*",df.ly> - ~f.ly>(Aj)x*Xjl

= 11K x*",df.ly. - lK X*"" df.ly-I

= Ii X*(K - "") df.ly> I

:s: IIx*11 sup{ II "'Cx) - ",.(x)11 : X E K} If.ly-ICK)
:S:f.
Therefore, if y* E BC(K)-, then
IITy* - T.y*1I = max{ Ix*(Ty* - T.Y*)1 : x* E Bx } :s: f.
Since T. is a bounded finite-rank linear operator, the subset T.(Bc(K)
of X can be covered with a finite number of open balls of radius E, and
the inequality just proved assures that if the radius of each of these balls
is doubled without changing the center, then the resulting open balls cover
T(Bc(K)*). The set T(Bc(K) is therefore totally bounded, and so is norm
compact since it is norm closed and the normed space X is complete.
Thus, the set T(BC(K) is a ~-compact convex subset of X, whether ~
is the norm or the weak topology.
Let Xo be a member of K and let oxo be the member of rca( K) such that
oxo({xo}) = 1 and IOxolCK \ {xo}) = O. Let y~ be the member of C(K)*
that corresponds to oxo. Then for each x* in X*,

x*Ty6 = i x*", do xo = x*",(xo) = x*xo,

254 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

so Tyo = Xo Since IIYol1 = Iloxoli =

1, it follows that K ~ T(Bc(K)*), so
co(K) ~ T(Bc(K)*)' As a 'I"-closed subset of a 'I"-compact set, the set co(K)
is itself'I"-compact.

The following theorem was obtained by Krein under the additional as-
sumption that X is separable. The general case is due to Krein and Smulian.

2.8.14 The Krein-Smulian Weak Compactness Theorem. (M. G.

Krein, 1937 [143]; M. G. Krein and V. L. Smulian, 1940 [146]). The closed
convex hull of a weakly compact subset of a Banach space is itself weakly
compact.
PROOF. Let K be a weakly compact subset of a Banach space X. If it can
be shown that co(K) is weakly sequentially compact, then an application of
the Eberlein-Smulian theorem will finish the proof. Let (xn) be a sequence
in co(K). Since co(K) is weakly closed, it is enough to show that (xn) has
a weakly convergent subsequence. For this, notice that each Xn is the norm
limit of a sequence of convex combinations of elements of K, from which it
follows that there is a countable subset A of K such that

{Xn : n EN} ~ co(A) ~ co(K n [AJ) ~ [AJ.

Since Kn [AJ is a weakly compact subset of the separable Banach space [AJ,
it follows from the preceding lemma that co(K n [AJ) is weakly compact
and thus weakly sequentially compact in [AJ, and so (Xn) has a subsequence
that is weakly convergent in [AJ and therefore in X.

2.8.15 Mazur's Compactness Theorem. (S. Mazur, 1930 [161]). The

closed convex hull of a compact subset of a Banach space is itself compact.
PROOF. Let K be a compact subset of a Banach space X. Then K is
separable since it is a compact subset of a metric space, so [KJ is separable.
It may therefore be assumed that X is itself separable. The conclusion of
the theorem now follows immediately from Lemma 2.8.13.

Recall that a normed space is compactly generated if it is the closed

linear hull of one of its compact subsets, which is equivalent to the space
being separable; see Theorem 1.12.15 and the comments following it. Since
separable normed spaces have so many nice properties, it is natural to ask
what special properties a normed space has when it is the closed linear
hull of one of its weakly compact subsets, and in fact such spaces have been
studied extensively. It turns out to be easier to prove theorems about spaces
with this property when they are complete, which is why the completeness
requirement is traditionally included in the following definition.

2.8.16 Definition. A normed space X is weakly compactly generated if

it is a Banach space that includes a weakly compact subset K such that
X=[KJ.
 2.8 Weak Compactness 255

Banach spaces that are the closed linear hull of a compact set or have a
weakly compact closed unit ball are obviously weakly compactly generated,
which immediately leads to two large classes of weakly compactly generated
normed spaces.

2.8.17 Proposition. If a Banach space is separable or reflexive, then it is

weakly compactly generated.

There are weakly compactly generated normed spaces that are neither
separable nor reflexive; see Exercise 2.98. As is shown in Exercise 2.99, the
space 00 is not weakly compactly generated, so there are Banach spaces
that lack this property.
See Mahlon Day's book [56, pp. 72-77] for more on weakly compactly
generated normed spaces. Klaus Floret's book [79] is a good source of fur-
ther information about weak compactness in general.

Exercises
2.89 Suppose that K is a weakly compact subset of the dual space of a normed
space X.
(a) Prove that the relative topologies induced on K by the weak and
weak* topologies of X are the same.
(b) Part (a) might seem to suggest that if x" E X", then there must
be an x in X such that x" and Qx agree on K, where Q is, as usual,
the natural map from X into X**. Show that this does not have to
be so, even if K is norm compact and X is a Banach space.
2.90 Prove that a subset of 1 is compact if and only if it is weakly compact.
Conclude that no infinite-dimensional subspace of 1 is reflexive.
2.91 Use the results of this section to prove that Co is not reflexive.
2.92 Let X be a normed space and let Q be the natural map from X into X*.
(a) Find conditions on X necessary and sufficient for Q(X) to be dense
in X**.
(b) Find conditions on X necessary and sufficient for Q(X) to be weakly
dense in X".
2.93 Find a compact subset K of a Banach space such that co(K) is not closed.
(A peek at Exercise 2.94 would not hurt.)
2.94 The goal of this exercise is to show that the conclusions of Lemma 2.8.13,
the Krein-Smulian weak compactness theorem, and Mazur's compactness
theorem can all fail if the normed space in question is not required to be
complete. Let X be the separable incomplete normed space consisting of
the vector space of finitely nonzero sequences with the = norm, and let
{en : n EN} be the collection of standard unit vectors of this space.
Show that the subset {D} U { n -1 en : n EN} of this space is compact,
but that its closed convex hull is not even weakly compact.
 256 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.95 (a) Prove that if a normed space X is weakly compactly generated,

then there is a subset K of X that is convex, balanced, and weakly
compact such that X = U{tK: t > O}.
(b) Suppose that the convex, balanced, weakly compact set K in (a)
were such that X = U{ tK : t > O}. What could then be said
about X?
2.96 (a) Prove that if a Banach space X is separable, then there is a sub-
set K of X that is convex, balanced, and compact such that X =
U{tK: t > O}.
(b) Suppose that the convex, balanced, compact set K in (a) were such
that X = U{ tK : t > O}. What could then be said about X?
2.97 Prove that if Xl, ... , Xn are weakly compactly generated normed spaces,
then Xl E9 ... E9 Xn is weakly compactly generated. Exercise 2.95 might
help.
2.98 Give an example of a weakly compactly generated normed space that is
neither separable nor reflexive. Exercises 1.145 and 2.97 might help.
2.99 (a) Prove that if K is a weakly compact subset of loo, then the relative
weak topology of K is induced by a metric. (Exercise 2.89 might
help.) Conclude that K is norm separable.
(b) Prove that loo is not weakly compactly generated.

*2.9 James's Weak Compactness Theorem

This section is motivated by the form of James's theorem proved in Sec-
tion 1.13, and requires the following material from that section: Lemmas
1.13.10, 1.13.12, and 1.13.13, and the observations about L(x~) made just
after the proof of Theorem 1.13.11. Reading that material does not require
the reading of any other part of that section. No other material from that
or any other optional section is used in this section. In particular, James's
theorem itself is not needed to prove any of the results of this section, and
in fact will be derived from the main theorem of this section.
James's theorem says if X is a Banach space such that the supremum
of Ix I on B x is actually an attained maximum whenever x E X*, then
X is reflexive. Robert James's first proofs of this for the separable and
general cases appeared in 1957 [111] and 1964 [112] respectively, with a
greatly simplified proof of the general case following in 1972 [117]. It is the
1972 proof that is presented in Section 1.13 of this book.
Since a Banach space is reflexive if and only if its closed unit ball is weakly
compact, James's theorem can be interpreted to say that if the closed unit
ball of a Banach space X has the property that Ix* I attains its supremum
on Bx whenever x* E X*, then Bx is weakly compact. Motivated by this
interpretation, Victor Klee conjectured in a 1962 paper [139] that James's
 *2.9 James's Weak Compactness Theorem 257

result extends to every weakly closed subset of a Banach space; that is, that
a weakly closed subset A of a Banach space X must be weakly compact if
sup{ Ix*xl : x E A} is attained whenever x* E X*. (A moment's thought
about the half-open interval (0, IJ in the Banach space R shows why A must
be required to be closed in some sense. Also, requiring A to be closed in
the norm sense is not enough; see Exercise 2.101.)
James proved Klee's conjecture in a 1964 paper [115J using some of the
same ideas he had used in his proof of the reflexivity theorem. In his 1972
paper containing the simplified proof of the reflexivity theorem, James
showed how that argument could be modified to obtain a simplified proof
of the more general weak compactness result.
The purpose of this section is to give a proof of Klee's conjecture follow-
ing James's lead from his 1972 paper. The general plan of attack is to use
Lemma 1.13.10 to prove the weak compactness result for nonempty, sep-
arable, weakly closed subsets of the closed unit ball of a Banach space in
Proposition 2.9.1, then use this proposition and Lemma 1.13.13 to obtain
the corresponding result for nonempty, balanced, weakly closed subsets of
the closed unit ball of a real Banach space in Proposition 2.9.2, and fi-
nally use Proposition 2.9.2 to obtain the general result and several useful
variations of it in Theorem 2.9.3. This program parallels the one used in
Section 1.13 to prove James's theorem, with Propositions 2.9.1 and 2.9.2
taking the place of Theorems 1.13.11 and 1.13.14 respectively. This is a full
agenda, so it would be best to get started.

2.9.1 Proposition. (R. C. James, 1972 [117]). Let A be a nonempty,

separable, weakly closed subset of the closed unit ball of a Banach space X.
Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The set A is not weakly compact.
(b) There is a () for which 0 < () < 1 and a sequence (x~) in Bx- such
that limn x~x = 0 for each x in A and sup{ Ix*xl : x E A} 2: ()
whenever x* E co( {x~ : n EN} ).
(c) There is a () for which 0 < () < 1 such that if (f3n) is a sequence of
positive numbers with sum 1, then there is an a such that () :::; a :::; 1
and a sequence (y;) in Bx- such that
(1) limn y;x = 0 for each x in A;
(2) sup{ IE;:1 f3jyjxl : x E A} = a; and
(3) sup{ IE.1=l f3jyjxl : x E A} < a(l - () E;:n+l f3j) for each pos-
itive integer n.
(d) There is a z* in X* such that sup{ Iz*xl : x E A} is not attained.
PROOF. To see that (a) '* (b), suppose that A is not weakly compact. Let
V = [AJ and let W be the vector space underlying V* but with the norm
given by the formula IIv* IIw = sup{ Iv*xl : x E A}j it is easy to check
258 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

that 1Illw really is a norm on W, with the key observation being that a
member of W that is zero on A must be zero on V. Let I: A - W* be
defined by the formula (J(x))(v*) = vx; that is, let I be the "natural
map" from A into W*. Notice for this that the definition of 11llw assures
that f(x) really is a bounded linear functional on W whenever x E A, and
that f(A) ~ Bw . Since V* is a separating family of linear functionals
on V, the function I is one-to-one. It is clear that a net (x",) in A is weakly
convergent in X to an x in A if and only if l(xaJ ~ f(x) in W*, from
which it follows that I is a homeomorphism from A with its relative weak
topology as a subset of X onto f(A) with its relative weak* topology as
a subset of W*. Since A is not weakly compact in X, the set I(A) is not
weakly* compact in W*. As a subset of the weakly* compact subset Bw.
of W* , the set I (A) must not be weakly* closed in W*. Fix an element F of
--w
f(A) \ f(A). Notice that there cannot be a v in V such that Fv = v*v
for each v* in W, for it is easy to see that such a v would have to be in
A W \ A, contradicting the fact that A is weakly closed. In particular, it
follows that F f= 0, and therefore that 11F11w > O. Since A ~ B v ,
sup{ IFv*1 : v* E Bv.} :::; sup{jFv*1 : v* E W, sup{ Iv*xl : x E A} :::; 1 }
= 1IFIIw"
from which it follows that F E V** and IlFllv" :::; 1IFIIw. Let Qv be the
natural map from V into V**. Since V is complete, the set Qv (V) is closed
in V**, and since F . Qv(V), it follows that d(F,Qv(V)) > 0, where d is
determined by the norm of V**. Let b.. be such that
0< b.. < d(F,Qv(v))
and let {an : n EN} be a countable dense subset of A. If n E Nand
aI, ... ,an+l are scalars, then

which by HeIly's theorem implies the existence of a v~ in V* such that

. ~ d(F, Qv(V)) - b..
(1) Ilv~llv :::; d(F, Qv(V)) + 2. d(F, Qv(V)) < 1;
(ii) Fv~ = ~; and
(iii) v~aj = (Qvaj)v~ = 0 if j :::; n.
For each n, let x~ be a Hahn-Banach extension of v~ to X. Then (iii)
together with the density of {an: n EN} in A assures that limn x~x = 0
for each x in A. If x E co( {x~ : n EN}) and v* is the restriction of x*
to V, then
~ = Fv* :::; 11F11w. sup{ Iv*xl : x E A} = 11F11w sup{ Ix*xl :x E A}.
 *2.9 James's Weak Compactness Theorem 259

Let () = .l/llFllw*. Since

0< .l = Fv; ::; 1IFIIv**llv~ Ilv- < 1IFIIw*,

it follows that 0 < () < 1. Therefore f) and (x~) satisfy (b), which finishes
the proof that (a) => (b).
Now assume the existence of a f) and a sequence (x~) as in (b), and
let ({3n) be a sequence of positive reals summing to 1. Then the 0 and
the sequence (Y~) guaranteed by Lemma 1.13.10 do all that is required
of them in (c). In particular, notice that if x E A, then the facts that
Y~ E co( {xj : j 2:: n}) for each n and limn x~x = 0 together imply that
limn Y~x = O. It follows that (b) (c). *
Suppose that (c) holds. Fix a sequence ({3n) of positive scalars summing
to 1. Let 0 and (Y~) be as in (c) and let z* = 2:;:1 {3jyj. It will be shown
that sup{ Iz*xl : x E A} is not attained. Let Xo be an element of A and
let n be a positive integer such that IYixol < 00 whenever j > n. Then

Iz*xol = If: {3j Yi XO I

: ; It
J=l

{3j Yi XO I ~E~j'Y;xo'
< su p { It {3jY;XI :
J=l
x E A} + of) f=
J=n+1
{3j

< 0 ( 1- f=
f) (3j )
j=n+1
+ of) f=
j=n+l
{3j

=0

= sup{ Iz*xl : x E A},

so sup{ Iz*xl : x E A} is not attained at Xo. This proves that (c) => (d).
Finally, if A is weakly compact and x* E X*, then the weakly continuous
function Ix*1 must attain its supremum on A, so (d) => (a).

For the next result, it will be necessary to reinstate temporarily some

notation used in Section 1.13. Suppose that X is a real normed space and
that (x;,) is a bounded sequence in X*. Let

L(x~) = {x* : x* E X*, x*x ::; limsupx~x whenever x EX}.

n

The only use that will be made of this notation in the rest of this book is
in the next proposition. It was shown in Lemma 1.13.12 that L(x~) i- 0.
Notice also that liminfnx~x <::: x*x whenever x E L(x~) and x E X, since
liminfnx~x = -limsuPnx~(-x).
260 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.9.2 Proposition. (R. C. James, 1972 [117]). Let A be a nonempty,

balanced, weakly closed subset of the closed unit ball of a real Banach
space X. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The set A is not weakly compact.
(b) There is a 0 for which 0 < 0 < 1, a subset Ao of A, and a se-
quence (x~) in Bx- such that sup{ I(x* - w*)(x)1 : x E A} 2' 0 for
each x* in co( {x~ : n EN}) and w* in At, and limn x~x = 0 for
each x in Au.
(c) There is a 0 for which 0 < 0 < 1 such that if (;3n) is a sequence of
positive numbers with sum 1, then there is an a such that 0 ::; a ::; 2
and a sequence (y~) in Bx- such that whenever w* E L(y~),
(1) sup{ 12::;:1 fJj(yj - w*)(x)1 : x E A} = a; and
(2) 12::;'=1 fJj(yj - w*)(x)1 : x E A} < a(l - 02::;:n+l ;3j) for
SUp{
each positive integer n.
(d) There is a z* in X* such that sup{ Iz*xl : x E A} is not attained.
PROOF. Suppose first that A is not weakly compact. By Corollary 2.8.8,
there is a separable closed subspace Y of X such that AnY is not weakly
compact. It follows from Proposition 2.9.1 that there is a 0 for which
o < 0 < 1 and a sequence (x~) in Bx> such that limn x~x = 0 for each x
in AnY and sup{ Ix*xl : x E AnY} 2' 0 whenever x* E co( {x~ : n EN}).
Let Ao = AnY. If x* E co( {x~ : n EN}) and w* E At, then

sup{ I(x' - w*)(x)1 : x E A} 2' sup{ I(x* - w*)(x)1 : x E Ao }

= sup{ Ix*xl : x E Au} 2' O.
The number 0, the set A o, and the sequence (x~) do all that is required of
them in (b), so (a) =? (b).
Now suppose that (b) holds. Since liminfn x~x ::; x'x ::; limsuPn x~x
whenever x* E L( x~) and x EX, it follows that x* x = limn x~ x = 0
whenever x* E L(x;,) and x E A o, that is, that L(x~) <;; A(}. This and
Lemma 1.13.13 together imply that (c) holds, so (b) =? (c).
Suppose next that (c) holds. Let .6. be a scalar such that 0 < .6. < 0 2 /2.
For each positive integer n, let

Then (fJn) is a sequence of positive scalars that sums to 1. Let a and (y~) be
as in (c). Let w* be any member of L(y~) and let z* = 2::;:1 fJj(yj - w*).
It will be shown that sup{ Iz*xl : x E A} is not attained. To this end,
suppose that Xu E A. Since lim infj yj Xo :S w* Xo and 0 :S a, there is an n
such that
 *2.9 James's Weak Compactness Theorem 261

Since w*x ::; limsuPj yjx ::; 1 whenever x E Ex, it follows that Ilw* II ::; l.
Therefore

= L (3j(yj - w*)(xo)
00

Z*xo
j=l
n
L (3j(yj - +L
00

< w*)(xo) + (oJ) - 2tl.){3n+1 (3j(yj - w*)(xo)

j=l j=n+2

::; sup { It
J=l
{3j(yj - w*)(x)1 : x E f (3j
A} + (08 - 2tl.){3n+1 + 2J=n+2
< o{ f 1- 8 (3j)
j=n+1
+ (08 - 2tl.){3n+l +2 f {3j.
j=n+2

L
00

Z*xo < 0 - (08 - 2tl.) {3j + (08 - 2tl.){3n+1

j=n+1

L {3j
00

= 0 - (08 - 2tl.)
j=n+2
<0

= su p { 1~{3j(y; - w*)(x)1 : x E A}

= sup{ Iz*xl : x E A}.

Since A is balanced and therefore contains -Xo, it is also true that -z*xo <
sup{ Iz*xl : x E A}, and therefore that Iz*xol < sup{ Iz*xl : x E A}. This
proves that sup{ Iz*xl : x E A} is not attained, and shows that (c) => (d).
Finally, if z* E X* and the weakly continuous function Iz* I does not
attain its supremum on A, then A cannot be weakly compact, which proves
that (d) => (a).

2.9.3 James's Weak Compactness Theorem. (R. C. James, 1964 [115]).

Suppose that A is a nonempty weakly closed subset of a Banach space X.
Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The set A is weakly compact.
(b) Whenever x* is a bounded linear functional on X, the supremum
of Ix'i on A is attained.
(c) Whenever u* is a bounded real-linear functional on X, the supremum
of lu* I on A is attained.
(d) Whenever u' is a bounded real-linear functional on X, the supremum
of u' on A is attained.
262 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

PROOF. The weak continuity of the functions mentioned in (b), (c), and (d)
assures that (a) implies each of (b), (c), and (d).
For the rest of this proof, it may be assumed that A is bounded, for
the hypotheses of (b), (c), and (d) all assure that x*(A) is a bounded set
of scalars for each x* in X*, and therefore, by Corollary 2.5.6, that A
is bounded. Clearly, it may then be assumed that A ~ B x. Let Xr be
the Banach space formed from X by using real scalars (which does not
imply any assumption that IF = C; if IF = lR, then Xr and X are the same
Banach space). Even when IF = C, straightforward arguments based on
Proposition 1.9.3 and Corollary 2.1.22 show that the weak topologies of Xr
and X are the same topology for the set underlying these Banach spaces.
Suppose that (b) holds. Let

B = n {x:
x*EX
X E X, Ix*xl : : ; sup{ Ix*yl : YEA} }.

Then B is a balanced, weakly closed subset of Bx that includes A, and

sup{ Ix* xl : x E B} is attained by Ix* I on B, in fact on A, whenever
x* E X*. If IF = C, then easy arguments based on the fact that B is
balanced and on standard facts about the relationship between real-linear
and complex-linear functionals show that

sup{ IRex*xl : x E B} = sup{ Ix*xl : x E B}

for each x* in X* and that sup{ lu*xl : x E B} is attained whenever

u* E (Xr)*. Whether or not IF = C, it now follows from Proposition 2.9.2
that B is a weakly compact subset of X r , and so of X, and therefore that
the weakly closed subset A of B is also weakly compact. This proves that
(b) => (a).
Suppose next that (c) holds. Since it has already been proved that
(b) => (a) when IF = lR, it follows immediately that A is a weakly com-
pact subset of Xr and therefore of X, which shows that (c) => (a).
Finally, suppose that (d) holds. If u* is a bounded real-linear functional
on X, then

sup{ lu*xl : x E A} = max {sup{ u*x: x E A },sup{ -u*x: x E A}},

from which it follows that sup{ lu*xl : x E A} is attained. This shows that
(d) => (c) and finishes the proof of the theorem.

James's theorem is itself an easy corollary of James's weak compactness

theorem.

2.9.4 James's Theorem. (R. C. James, 1964 [112]). If every bounded

linear functional on a Banach space is norm-attaining, then the space is
reflexive.
 *2.9 James's Weak Compactness Theorem 263

PROOF. Just observe that if every bounded linear functional on a Banach

space is norm-attaining, then James's weak compactness theorem implies
that the closed unit ball of the space must be weakly compact.

Of course, if a Banach space X is reflexive, then for each x* in X*

the weakly continuous function Ix' I attains its supremum on the weakly
compact set B x, so the condition that all bounded linear functionals be
norm-attaining is actually equivalent to reflexivity for Banach spaces.
In 1971, James [116] gave an example of a normed space, necessarily
incomplete, with the property that each bounded linear functional on the
space is norm-attaining, though the space is not reflexive and its closed unit
ball is therefore not weakly compact. Thus, the completeness requirement
cannot be deleted from the hypotheses of either James's theorem or James's
weak compactness theorem. See also Exercise 2.102.
Actually, the term James's theorem is often used for both the reflexivity
theorem proved immediately above and the weak compactness theorem
that also bears James's name. In practice, the context always makes it
clear which of these two closely related results is intended.

Exercises

2.100 Either prove the following weak* analog of James's weak compactness
theorem or find a counterexample: Suppose that A is a nonempty weakly*
closed subset of the dual space of a Banach space X. Then A is weakly*
compact if and only if sup{ Ix'xl : x' E A} is attained whenever x E X.
2.101 Find a nonempty closed subset A of a Banach space X such that A is
not weakly compact even though the supremum of Ix"1 on A is attained
whenever x* E X*.

2.102 Without citing the 1971 example by James mentioned in this section, find
a nonempty weakly closed subset A of an incomplete normed space X such
that A is not weakly compact even though the supremum of Ix*1 on A is
attained whenever x* E X*. Exercise 2.94 might help.

2.103 Suppose that X is a Banach space having a subset A with nonempty inte-
rior such that the supremum of Ix"1 on A is attained whenever x" E X".
Prove that X is reflexive.

2.104 Prove the following result.

Theorem. (V. L. Smulian, 1939 [223]). A convex subset C of a Banach
space is weakly compact if and only if nn
C n =1= 0 whenever (C n ) is a
decreasing> sequence of nonempty convex subsets of C that are closed
in C.

6Recall that a sequence (An) of subsets of a set X is decreasing if An =2 A n + 1 for

each n, even if some or all of the inclusions are equalities.
264 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

2.105 Prove the following result.

Theorem. (V. L. Klee, 1962 [139]). Suppose that C is a closed bounded
non-weakly-compact convex subset of a Banach space X. Then there is a
decreasing sequence (Cn ) of nonempty closed convex subsets of C such
that whenever x E C and 0 :::; t < 1, the set x + t( -x + C) intersects only
finitely many of the sets Cn.
2.106 Derive the Krein-Smulian weak compactness theorem from James's weak
compactness theorem.

2.10 Extreme Points

Suppose that C is a closed convex polygonal region in the Euclidean plane
and that Vl, ... , Vn are the vertices of the polygon that bounds C. Then
it is easy to see that C is the convex hull of the set {Vl,'" ,vn}' The
main purpose of this section is to show that the same is true whenever C
is a nonempty compact convex subset of a Hausdorff locally convex space,
provided that the notion of a "vertex" of the boundary of C is appropriately
generalized and that the closed convex hull of the set of "vertices" is used.
As one consequence, it will be seen that certain common Banach spaces
are not isometrically isomorphic to the dual space of any normed space.

2.10.1 Definition. Let C be a non empty closed convex subset of a TVS.

A subset D of C is extremal in C if D is itself a nonempty closed convex
set having this additional property: If x, y E C and tx + (1 - t)y E D for
some t such that 0 < t < 1, then x, Y E D.

That is, a nonempty closed convex subset D of C is extremal in C if

every "closed line segment" in C whose "interior" intersects D must lie
entirely in D.

2.10.2 Definition. Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a TVS

that is Hausdorff (so that singleton sets are closed). An extreme point of C
is an element x of C such that {x} is an extremal subset of C.

In other words, an element of C is an extreme point of C if the point

does not lie in the "interior" of any nontrivial "closed line segment" in C.

2.10.3 Example. In real t'~, the extreme points of the closed unit ball are
the four points (1, 1), that is, the vertices of the polygonal boundary of
the closed unit ball. In real Euclidean 2-space, the set of extreme points of
the closed unit ball is the entire unit sphere.

2.10.4 Example. Suppose that (an) is an element of the closed unit ball
of Co. Let no be a positive integer such that lano I < ~, and let (;3n) and Cl'n)
 2.10 Extreme Points 265

be the members of Co such that (3n = "'In = On if n : no, but (3no = ono + !
and "'Ino = Ono - !.Then ((3n) and bn) are different elements of Beo
such that (on) = !((3n) + !bn), so (On) is not an extreme point of B cQ .
Therefore Bco has no extreme points, so not even in Banach spaces are
bounded nonempty closed convex sets guaranteed to have extreme points.

Since Co is infinite-dimensional and not reflexive, its closed unit ball is

neither norm compact nor weakly compact, but this leaves open the pos-
sibility that there might be some other Hausdorff locally convex topology
for Co with respect to which Bco is compact. One of the consequences of the
Krein-Milman theorem, the main result of this section, is that this possi-
bility is ruled out, for the compactness of Bco with respect to a Hausdorff
locally convex topology for Co would force Beo to have extreme points.
The following collection of simple facts about extremal sets will be useful
in the proof of the Krein-Milman theorem.

2.10.5 Lemma. Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a TVS X.

(a) If D is an extremal subset of C and D' is an extremal subset of D,
then D' is an extremal subset of C.
(b) If;,y is a nonempty family of extremal subsets of C and n{ D : D E ;,y}
is nonempty, then n{ D : D E ;,y} is an extremal subset of C.
(c) Suppose that C is compact and that x* E X*. Then

{x: x E C, Rex*x = max{ Rex*y: y E C} }

is an extremal subset of C.
PROOF. Parts (a) and (b) follow easily from Definition 2.10.1. For (c), sup-
pose that C is compact and that x* E X*. Let s = max{Rex*x: x E C}
and let D s = {x : x E C, Re x* x = s }, a nonempty closed convex subset
of C. If x and yare members of C such that tx + (1- t)y E Ds for some t
in (0,1), then tRex*x + (1- t) Rex*y = s, which together with the defi-
nition of s implies that Re x* x = Re x* y = s and thus that x, y E D s' The
set D s is therefore an extremal subset of C.

2.10.6 The Krein-Milman Theorem. (M. G. Krein and D. P. Milman,

1940 [145]). Let C be a nonempty compact convex subset of a Hausdorff
LOS. Then C is the closed convex hull of its set of extreme points.
PROOF. Let X be the Hausdorff LeS of which C is a subset. The first order
of business is to show that C has at least one extreme point. To this end,
let 1) be the collection of all extremal subsets of C, preordered by reverse
inclusion; that is, preordered by declaring that Dl :5 D2 when Dl ;;::> D 2.
Then 1) =f. 0 since C E 1). If I! is a nonempty chain in 1), then it follows
from the compactness of C that n{ D : DEI!} =f. 0 and therefore from
266 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

Lemma 2.10.5 (b) that n{ D : DEe:} is an upper bound for e: in 1). By

Zorn's lemma, the set 1) has a maximal element M.
Suppose that M were to contain two distinct elements y and z. By Corol-
lary 2.2.22, there would be an x' in X' such that x*y i- x* z; after mul-
tiplying x' by i if necessary, it may be assumed that Re x*y i- Re x' z.
Since Re x* is not constant on M, it follows from parts (a) and (c) of
Lemma 2.10.5 that {x: x E M, Rex*x = max{Rex*y: y E M}} would
be a proper subset of M that is also an extremal subset of C, which con-
tradicts the maximality of M. Thus, the set M contains only one point,
and so C has an extreme point.
Let E be the collection of all extreme points of C. To finish the proof, it is
enough to show that C ~ co(E). Suppose to the contrary that C r.t. co(E).
Applying Theorem 2.2.28 to the compact set co(E) and anyone-element
subset {xo} of C \ co( E) yields an Xo in X* such that

max{ Rexox : x E co(E)} < Rexoxo ::; mo = max{ Re xox : x E C}.

The extremal subset {x : x E C, Re xox = mo } of C is itself a nonempty

compact convex subset of X, and therefore has an extreme point Xe which
must also be an extreme point of C. However, the fact that Re xOxe =
mo > sup{ Re xox : x E E} prevents Xe from being an extreme point of C,
a contradiction that finishes the proof of the theorem.

2.10.7 Corollary. Let C be a nonempty compact convex subset of a Haus-

dorff LCS X and let x* be a member of X'. Then there is an extreme
point Xe of C such that Rex'x e = max{Rex*x: x E C}. Consequently,
if E is the set of extreme points of C, then max{ Rex'x : x E C} =
max{ Rex'x : x E E}.
PROOF. The extremal subset { x: x E C, Re x'x = max{ Rex*y : y E C} }
of C is a nonempty compact convex subset of X, and therefore has an
extreme point Xe which is also an extreme point of C. The corollary follows
immediately from this.

2.10.8 Corollary. If X is a reflexive normed space, then Bx is the closed

convex hull of its set of extreme points.
PROOF. Since the closed convex hulls of the set of extreme points of Ex
with respect to the norm and weak topologies are the same, it is enough
to know that Ex is weakly compact, which follows from the reflexivity
~X.

2.10.9 Corollary. If X is a normed space, then Bx' is the weakly* closed

convex hull of its set of extreme points.
PROOF. This follows immediately from the weak* compactness of Ex.
 2.10 Extreme Points 267

FIGURE 2.2. A polygon P in the Euclidean plane, and its closed convex hull.

2.10.10 Corollary. An infinite-dimensional normed space whose closed

unit ball has only finitely many extreme points is not isometrically isomor-
phic to the dual space of any normed space.
PROOF. It is clear that isometric isomorphisms from one normed space onto
another preserve extreme points, so it is enough to show that the closed
unit ball of an infinite-dimensional normed space's dual space always has
infinitely many extreme points. Let X be an infinite-dimensional normed
space. Then X* is also infinite-dimensional, and Ex. is the weakly* closed
convex hull of its set E of extreme points. The weakly* closed convex hull
of a finite subset of X* must lie in the finite-dimensional linear hull of that
finite set, and therefore cannot be Ex . Thus, the set E is infinite.

2.10.11 Example. As was shown in Example 2.lO.4, the closed unit ball
of Co has no extreme points, so Co is not isometrically isomorphic to the dual
space of any normed space. Similarly, the space L1 [0,1] is not isometrically
isomorphic to the dual space of any normed space, since it can be shown
that E LdO ,lj has no extreme points. See Exercise 2.110.

Suppose that P is a polygon in the Euclidean plane, not assumed to be

convex, whose sides intersect only at its vertices and whose vertices are
each common to exactly two sides; see Figure 2.2. Let K be the compact
region in the plane consisting of P together with the bounded component
of its complement. It is easy to see that co(K) (which is the same as co(K)
in this case) is a closed convex polygonal region whose vertices are a subset
of the vertices of K. In particular, the extreme points of co(K) all tie in K.
There is a partial converse of the Krein-Milman theorem, due to Milman,
that says that the same is true whenever K is a nonempty compact subset
of a Hausdorff LCS, provided that co(K) is also compact. To get this result,
several lemmas will be used that are of some interest in their own right.

2.10.12 Lemma. Suppose that Xe is an extreme point of a nonempty

closed convex subset C ofa HausdorffTVS and that Xe = ~;=1 tjXj, where
t 1 , ... ,tn are nonnegative real numbers summing to 1 and Xl, ... ,X n E C.
Then Xj = Xe for each] such that tj -I- O.
PROOF. It may be assumed that each tj is nonzero and that n ~ 2. Fix an
integer ]0 such that 1 :S]o :S n. Then ~#jo(l - tjo)-lt j Xj E C because
268 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

o is convex. Since Xe is an extreme point of 0 and

Xe = tjoXjo + (1- tjo) 2)1- tjo)-l tjXj ,
#jo
it follows that Xjo = Xe
2.10.13 Lemma. Suppose that 0 1, ... ,On arenonempty convex subsets of
a vector space. Then co( 0 1 U ... U On) consists of all sums 2:7=1 tjXj such
that t1, .. " tn are nonnegative real numbers summing to 1 and Xj E OJ
when j = 1, ... , n.
PROOF. It suffices to show that every member of CO(Ol U ... U On) can
be written as a sum of the type described in the statement of the lemma.
Suppose that x E co(Cl U ... U On). Then there are positive numbers
81, ... , 8 m that sum to 1 and elements Y1, ... , Ym of 0 1 U .. U On such that
x = 2:;;'=1 8kYk For notational convenience in what is to follow, it may be
assumed that the elements Yk come from more than one OJ. By reordering
the indices if necessary, it may be assumed that there are integers k o, . .. , kq
and h, ... , lq such that 0 = ko < ... < kq = m and 1 ~ II < ... < lq ~ n
such that Ykp_l +1, ... ,Ykp E Olp when 1 ~ p ~ q. For each integer p such
that 1 ~ p ~ q, let tp = 2:=~kp_l+l 8k and let xp = 2:=~kp_l+1 ti/ 8kYk.
Then the convexity of each Olp implies that xp E Olp for each p. Since
2:~=1 tp = 1 and x = 2:~=1 tpxp, the lemma is proved.

2.10.14 Lemma. (N. Bourbaki, 1953 [34, p. 80]). Suppose that K 1, ... , Kn
are compact convex subsets of a TVS. Then CO(K1 U U Kn) is compact.
PROOF. Each K j may be assumed to be nonempty. Let (2:7=1 t;a)x;"'))O:EI
be a net in co(K l U ... U Kn), where each term of the net is being writ-
ten as a sum of the type described in Lemma 2.10.13. Since each K j is
compact, as is the interval [0,1]' there is a subnet (2:7=1 t;(3)xt)){3EJ of
(2:j=l t;"')x;a))aEI such that, for each j, there are elements tj of [0,1]
and Xj of K j such that t;(3) ---> tj and xJ(3) ---> Xj. It then follows from the
continuity of the vector space operations that 2:7=1 tt)x;{3) ---> 2:7=1 tjXj.
Also, the continuity of the map (a1'.'.' an) f---+ 2:7=1 aj from Euclidean
n-space into IF assures that 2:7=1 tj = 1, so 2:j=1 tjXj E CO(K1 u .. U Kn)
Since every net in CO(K1 U ... U Kn) has a convergent subnet with a limit
in CO(K1 U ... U Kn), the set CO(K1 U ... U Kn) is compact.

2.10.15 Theorem. (D. P. Milman, 1947 [170]). Let K be a nonempty

compact subset of a Hausdorff LOS such that co(K) is also compact. Then
every extreme point of co(K) lies in K.
PROOF. Let X be the Hausdorff LeS of which K is a subset, let Xe be
an extreme point of co(K), and let U be a neighborhood of 0 in X. To
 2.10 Extreme Points 269

show that x" E K, it is enough to show that Xe + U -intersects K. By

Theorem 2.2.9 (g) and the local convexity of X, there is a convex balanced
neighborhood V of 0 such that V ~ U. Since K is compact, there are
elements Xl,"" xn of K such that K ~ U7=1 (Xj + V).
For each integer) such that 1::;)::; n, let K j = co(Kn (Xj + V)).
As closed subsets of the compact set co(K), the sets K l , ... , Kn are all
compact, and so CO(Kl U ... U Kn) is compact by Lemma 2.10.14. Since
K ~ Kl U ... U Kn ~ co(K), it follows that

By Lemma 2.10.13, there are nonnegative real numbers t l , ... , tn summing

to 1 and elements Yl, ... , Yn of K l , .. , Kn respectively such that Xe =
2:7=1 tjYj An application of Lemma 2.10.12 yields a)o such that Xe = Yjo'
which implies that

Xe E Kjo = co( K n (Xjo + V)) ~ Xjo + V = Xjo - V.

It follows that Xjo E (xe + V) nK ~ (xe+U)nK, so xe+U intersects K .

2.10.16 Corollary. Let A be a nonempty subset of a Hausdorff LCS such

that co(A) is compact. Then every extreme point of co(A) lies in A.
PROOF. Since A is compact and co(A) co(A), this corollary follows
immediately from the theorem.

2.10.17 Corollary. Let K be a nonempty weakly compact subset of a

Banach space. Then every extreme point of co(K) lies in K.
PROOF. By the Krein-Smulian weak compactness theorem, the closed con-
vex hull of K (which is the same as the weakly closed convex hull of K)
is weakly compact, so K contains all of the extreme points of its closed
convex hull.

2.10.18 Corollary. Suppose that X is a normed space and that K is a

nonempty subset of X* that is bounded and weakly* closed. Then every
extreme point of co w"(K) lies in K.
PROOF. It is an easy consequence of the Banach-Alaoglu that both K
and co w*(K) are weakly* compact, so the corollary follows immediately.

Exercises
2.107 Let x be an element of a nonempty closed convex subset C of a Hausdorff
TVS. Show that x is an extreme point of C if and only if it has this
property: Whenever XI,X2 E C and x = ~(XI + X2), it follows that Xl =
X2 = X.
 270 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

e
2.108 Identify all of the extreme points of the closed unit ball of 1 , then show
that Be, is the closed convex hull of its set of extreme points. Do not use
any results from this section in your arguments.
e
2.109 Identify all of the extreme points of the closed unit ball of ao , then show
that Be oo is the closed convex hull of its set of extreme points. Do not use
any results from this section in your arguments.

2.110 Prove that B L ,[o,l] has no extreme points.

2.111 Prove that real 0[0,1] is not isometrically isomorphic to the dual space
of any normed space.
2.112 Let 0 be a nonempty closed convex subset of a Hausdorff TVS X. An
element Xe of 0 is an exposed point of 0 if there is an x in X' such that
Re x is bounded from above on 0 and attains its supremum on 0 at Xe
and only at Xe.
(a) Show that an exposed point of 0 must be an extreme point of O.
(b) Find a Banach space Xo such that some extreme point of Bxo is
not an exposed point of Bxo' (This can be done by constructing an
appropriate norm on ne. Exercise 1.37 might be helpful.)
Exposed points were introduced by S. Straszewicz [229] in 1935. Two good
sources for more on exposed points and related objects are Klee's 1958
paper [136] and Day's book [56, pp. 105~1O6].
2.113 Let P be a polygon in the Euclidean plane, not assumed to be convex,
whose sides intersect only at its vertices and whose vertices are each com-
mon to exactly two sides, and let K be the compact region in the plane
consisting of P together with the bounded component of its complement.
In the discussion of such polygonal regions that precedes Lemma 2.10.12,
it is claimed that "co(K) (which is the same as co(K) in this case) is a
closed convex polygonal region whose vertices are a subset of the vertices
of K." Prove this. Base your arguments on elementary principles, without
using the Krein-Milman theorem or Theorem 2.10.15 in any way.
2.114 Let A be a nonempty subset of a Hausdorff LeS X such that co(A) is
compact, let E be the set of extreme points of co(A), and let B be a
subset of A. Show that the following are equivalent.
(a) co(B) = co(A).
(b) E ~ B.
(c) sup{Rex'x: x E B} = sup{Rex'x: x E A} whenever x EX".

Do not overlook the possibility that B might be empty.

*2.11 Support Points and Subreflexivity

The ideas and results of this section have close ties to James's theorem and
James's weak compactness theorem from Sections 1.13 and 2.9, but do not
 *2.11 Support Points and Subreflexivity 271

actually depend on the material of those or any other optional sections of

this book.
Recall that a bounded linear functional x' on a normed space X is said
to be norm-attaining if there is an Xo in B X such that

Ix'xol = sup{ Ix'xl : x E Bx} = Ilx*ll

As was shown in Section 1.13 and again in Section 2.9, a Banach space
is reflexive if and only if each bounded linear functional on the space is
norm-attaining. About the time that Robert C. James's proof of that fact
for separable Banach spaces appeared in 1957 [111], Robert R. Phelps be-
gan investigating norm-attaining bounded linear functionals on nonreflex-
ive Banach spaces, and was struck by the fact that each classical nonreflex-
ive Banach space X has the property that the collection of norm-attaining
members of X* is dense in X*. In light of James's work, it seemed to Phelps
that a normed space X such that the norm-attaining members of X' are
dense in X* is in a sense almost reflexive, which is the reason he gave such
spaces the following name.

2.11.1 Definition. (R. R. Phelps, 1957 [184]). A normed space X is sub-

reflexive if the set of norm-attaining members of X' is dense in X*.

Early in his study of subreflexivity, Phelps established that not ev-

ery incomplete normed space is subreflexive, giving an example of a non-
subreflexive one in his 1957 paper [184] that introduced subreflexivity. The
following somewhat simpler example is attributed to Yitzhak Katznelson
in [28].

2.11.2 Example. Let X be the subspace of real e[O, 1] consisting of the

polynomials on [0,1]. Since the Weierstrass approximation theorem assures
that X is dense in e[O, 1], the dual space of X can be identified with rca[O, 1]
in the same way as is the dual space of e[O, 1]. For the rest of this example,
consider X* to be so identified. The collection of all possible norm-attaining
members of X* will now be found.
Suppose that p is a constant polynomial in Sx, that is, that p is either
identically 1 or identically -Ion [0,1]. Let /1> be a member of X* such that
1/1>(p) I = 11/1>11, and let /1>+ and /1>- be the positive and negative variations
of /1> respectively, so that /1> = /1>+ - /1>_ and 1/1>1 = /1>+ + /1>_. Then

1/1>+([0,1]) - /1>_([0, 1])1 = 1/1>([0,1])1

-ltOoll p d/1>1
= 11/1>11
= /1>+([0, 1]) + /1>_([0, 1]),
272 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

from which it follows that either /.L+ or /.L- is the zero measure, that is, that
/.L is either a nonnegative or a nonpositive measure.
Now suppose that P is a nonconstant member of Sx and that F is the
nonempty finite subset of [0, 1] on which Ipi is 1. Let /.L be a member of X*
such that I/.L(p) I = II/.LII If I/.LI([O, 1] \ F) > 0, then

II/.LII =! r J[D,l]
Pd/.L!

:S r
J10,1]\F
Ipi dl/.LI + rdl/.LI
JF
< r
J10,1]\F
dl/.LI + rdl/.LI
JF
= II/.LII,
a contradiction that shows that 1111([0,1] \ F) = 0, that is, that /.L is finitely
supported.
Thus, a member of X* that is norm-attaining must be nonnegative, non-
positive, or finitely supported. Let ..\ be Lebesgue measure on [0,1] and
let /.La be the member of X* given by the formula
/.Lo(A) = ..\(A n [0, 1/2]) - ..\(A n [1/2, 1]).
Then II/.Lo I = 1. If 11 is a member of X* that is finitely supported, then it
is easy to see that II/.L - /.La I = 11/111 + 11/10 II ~ 1, whereas if 11 is a member
of X* that is nonnegative or non positive , then it is equally easy to see
that II/.L - /.Loll ~ 1/2. It follows that the open ball of radius 1/2 centered
at /.La contains no norm-attaining members of X*, and therefore that the
collection of norm-attaining members of X* is not dense in X*.

It is possible for an incomplete normed space to be subreflexive; see

Exercise 2.115. In fact, as was shown by an example due to James [116], it
is even possible for all of the bounded linear functionals on an incomplete
normed space to be norm-attaining.
Examples such as the one given above leave open the possibility that
every Banach space is subreflexive, and Phelps's early work on subreflex-
ivity was aimed toward finding a proof of this. After Phelps discussed a
new approach toward the problem with Errett Bishop, the two were able
to devise a proof that appeared in 1961 [28]. The proof to be given here is
based on a later reformulation of their technique in terms of support cones
that allowed Bishop and Phelps to obtain much more general results about
support points and support functionals of nonempty closed convex subsets
of Banach spaces. The notation and arguments used here will closely follow
those of Bishop and Phelps.

2.11.3 Definition. Let A be a subset of a topological vector space X. A

nonzero x* in X* is a support functional for A if there is an Xo in A such
 *2.11 Support Points and Subreflexivity 273

that Re x Xo = sup{ Re x x : x E A}, in which case Xo is a support point

of A and x* supports A at Xo.

Support points have been encountered before in disguise, for Corol-

lary 1.9.8 is just a roundabout way of saying that if X is any normed
space, then every point of S x is a support point of B x.
The notion of a support functional is in a sense a generalization of the
notion of a norm-attaining functional, for if x* is a nonzero member of the
dual space of a normed space X, then it follows easily from the fact that
sup{Rex'x: x E Bx} = sup{ IX'xl: x E Bx} that x' is norm-attaining if
and only if x' supports B x .
If a subset A of a TVS X is supported at some point Xo by an x' in X'
and U is a neighborhood of xo, then the continuity of Re x* implies that
there is a y in U such that Rex'y > sup{Rex*x: x E A}, which implies
that y ~ A. It follows that every support point of a subset of a TVS is a
boundary point of that set.

2.11.4 Definition. Let X be a vector space. A subset K of X is a wedge if

it is nonempty, convex, and has the property that tK s;:; K whenever t 2: O.
A wedge K in X is a cone if K n (- K) = {O}.

See Exercise 2.117 for other equivalent definitions of wedges and cones
that are sometimes used. Notice that if K is a wedge, then OK s;:; K, so
wedges always contain O.

2.11.5 Definition. (E. Bishop and R. R. Phelps, 1963 [29]). Suppose that
X is a TVS such that X =J {O}. Suppose further that Xo is an element of
a subset A of X and that K is a cone in X with nonempty interior such
that An (xo + K) = {xo}. Then K is a support cone for A, the point Xo is
a conical support point of A, and Xo + K supports A at Xo.

The reason for defining conical support points only in nontrivial topo-
logical vector spaces is that without this restriction, the convex subset {O}
of the normed space {O} would have 0 as a conical support point but not
as a support point. This would be inconsistent with the behavior of conical
support points of convex sets in larger topological vector spaces, as the
following proposition shows.

2.11.6 Proposition. (E. Bishop and R. R. Phelps, 1963 [29]). Suppose

that X is a TVS such that X =J {O}. Then every conical support point of
a convex subset of X is a support point of that set.
PROOF. Suppose that Xo is a conical support point of a convex subset C
of X. Let K be a cone in X with nonempty interior such that Xo + K
supports C at Xo If 0 E KO, then the continuity of multiplication of vectors
of X by scalars and the fact that X contains nonzero vectors together assure
274 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

that there is a nonzero Yo in X such that Yo and -Yo are both in K, which
contradicts the fact that K n (-K) = {O}. It follows that Xo :. (xo + K)O,
and therefore that en (xo + K)O = 0. By Eidelheit's separation theorem,
there is an x* in X* and a real number s such that Rex*x ::; s for each x
in C, Rex*x 2:: s for each x in xo+K, and Rex*x > s for each x in (xo+K)o.
It follows that x* =I- 0 and that Rex*xo = s = sup{ Rex*x : x E C}, and
therefore that x* supports C at Xo.

Some temporary notation is now needed that will not apply outside this
section. Suppose that X is a normed space, that x* E Sx', and that t > 1.
Then
K(x*, t) = {x: X E X, Ilxll ::; Re x* (tx) }.
Since Ilx*11 = 1, there is an Xo in X such that Rex*(txo) > Ilxoll, which
assures that {x : x E X, Ilxll < Rex*(tx)} is a nonempty open set inside
K(x*, t). It then follows easily that K(x*, t) is a closed cone with nonempty
interior.

2.11.7 Lemma. (E. Bishop and R. R. Phelps, 1963 [29]). Suppose that
x is an element of a complete subset A of a normed space X, that x* is
a member of Sx' such that Rex' is bounded from above on A, and that
t> 1. Then there is an Xo in A such that Xo E x+K(x*, t) and xo+K(x*, t)
supports A at xo.
PROOF. Let B = A n (x + K(x*, t)). Notice that an element z of A is in B
if and only if liz - xii::; Rex*(t(z - x)). The set B is a closed subset of
the complete set A and so is itself complete. Since K(x*, t) is a cone, it
follows easily that the relation on B defined by declaring that y ::::; z when
z - y E K(x*, t) is a partial order for B. It is also clear that x E B and that
x ::::; z whenever z E B.
Suppose that ~ is a nonempty chain in B. Then ~ can be used as the
index set for a net, so the restriction of Re x* to <!: is a net in R Since
Re x*y ::; Re x* z whenever y ::::; z, the boundedness from above of Re x*
on A implies that the net Re x* II!: converges and therefore is Cauchy. Since
liz - yll ::; Re x* (t(z - y)) whenever y, z E Band y ::::; z, the net It (or, more
properly, the identity function on <!:, viewed as a net) is a Cauchy net in B
and so converges to some u in B. Since K(x*, t) is closed, it follows that
u - y E K(x*, t) for each y in ~, that is, that u is an upper bound for ~
in B.
By Zorn's lemma, the set B contains a maximal element Xo. Then Xo E
x + K(x', t) since x ::::; Xo. Suppose that yEA n (xo + K(x*, t)). Then
y E Xo + K(x*, t) ~ x + K(x*, t) + K(x*, t) = x + K(x*, t),
so Y E Band Xo ::::; y. It follows from the maximality of Xo that y = Xo, and
therefore that An (xo + K(x*, t)) = {xu}. The set Xo + K(x*, t) therefore
supports A at Xo
 *2.11 Support Points and Subreflexivity 275

2.11.8 Theorem. (E. Bishop and R. R. Phelps, 1963 [29]). If C is a closed

convex subset of a Banach space X such that X =1= {O}, then the conical
support points of e are dense in the boundary of e.
PROOF. Suppose that x E 8e and that I: > O. Let Yo be an element of X\e
such that Ilyo - xii < 1:/2. By Theorem 2.2.28, there is an x* in X* such
that sup{ Re x*y : y E e} < Re x*yo; it may be assumed that Ilx* II = 1. An
application of Lemma 2.11.7 produces an Xo in e such that Xo E x+K(x*, 2)
and Xo + K(x*, 2) supports e at Xo. Since Xo - x E K(x*, 2) and Xo E e,

Ilxo - xii::; 2Rex*(xo - x) < 2Rex*(yo - x) ::; 211Yo - xii < E;

that is, the conical support point Xo of e, which is in Be by Proposi-
tion 2.11.6 and the fact that the support points of e all lie in Be, is less
than distance I: from x.

The preceding theorem, with a little help from Proposition 2.11.6, im-
mediately yields the following result when the Banach space is not {O}. If
the space is {O}, then the result is trivially true since both subsets of the
space have empty boundaries.

2.11.9 The Bishop-Phelps Support Point Theorem. (E. Bishop and

R. R. Phelps, 1963 [29]). If e is a closed convex subset of a Banach space,
then the support points of e are dense in the boundary of e.

In 1958, Victor Klee [136] asked if a nonempty bounded closed convex

subset of a Banach space X such that X =1= {O} has to have a support point.
Every such set, and in fact every nonempty proper subset A of a TVS X,
has a nonempty boundary; fix an x in A and a y in X \ A, let

s = sup{ t : 0 ::; t ::; 1, (1 - t)x + ty E A},

and consider (1- s)x+sy. The Bishop-Phelps support point theorem there-
fore implies that the answer to Klee's question is yes.
Let e be a closed convex subset of a Banach space X. Then in addition
to the support points of e being dense in the boundary of e, it turns out
that the support functionals for e must be dense in X* provided that a few
restrictions are placed on e and X. To see what those restrictions might
be, first notice that e cannot be empty or all of X, for then e would have
no support functionals at all. It is not enough of a restriction on e just
to require that it be nonempty and not all of X; see Exercise 2.119. As
will be shown, it is enough to require e to be nonempty and bounded,
provided that X =f {O} so that e cannot be X. This will follow easily
from a separation theorem due to Bishop and Phelps. The proof of this
separation theorem is based on Lemma 2.11.11 below, which is in turn a
consequence of the following result, which says, roughly speaking, that if
276 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

the kernels of two norm-one bounded linear functionals on a real normed

space are about the same near the origin, then each functional is about the
same as the other or the negative of the other.

2.11.10 Lemma. (R. R. Phelps, 1960 [186]). Suppose that X is a real

normed space, that E > 0, and that xi and x 2are members of Sx. such that
x2 (Bx n ker xi) <;:: [-E/2, f/2]. Then either Ilxi - x 2 11 ::; f or IIx! + x 2 11 ::; f.
PROOF. The normed space version of the Hahn-Banach extension theorem
produces a y* in X* such that the restrictions of y* and xi to ker xi are
the same and Ily*11 ::; f/2. Since ker(x2 - y*) :2 kerxi, it follows from
Lemma 1.9.11 that there is a scalar a such that x2 - y* = axi, and

1 1 -l a ll = Illx;II-llo:xilll ::; Ilx; - o:xill ::; ~.

If 0: 2: 0, then

Ilx; - xiii::; Ilx; - o:xill + 11- o:lllxill :S ~ + ~ = t,

whereas if 0: < 0, then

Ilx; + xiii :S Ilx; - axill + 11 + allixill ::; ~+~ = E.

In either case, the conclusion of the lemma holds.

2.11.11 Lemma. (E. Bishop and R. R. Phelps, 1963 [29]). Suppose that X
is a real normed space, that xi, X2 E Sx., that < f < 1, that t > 1 + 2/ f,
and that xi is nonnegative on K(xi, t). Then Ilxi - xiii :S E.
PROOF. Fix an Xo in Sx such that xixo > max{C1(1 + 2/t), E}; notice
that this implies that Ilxoll = 1 < txixo, so Xo E K(xi, t) and xixo 2' 0. If
x E Bx n kerxi, then

Ilxo ~xll :S 1 + ~ < txixo = txi (xo ~x),

so Xo (2/c)x E K(xi, t) and therefore x2(xo (2/E)X) 2: 0, from which it
follows that

By Lemma 2.11.10, either Ilxi - x 211 :S for Ilxi + x211 :S E. However, the
second inequality cannot hold, since Ilxi + xiii 2: (xi + xi)(xo) > E, which
completes the proof.

The following theorem says that, under the hypotheses on X, C, and A,

any member of Sx. that strictly separates C from A can be approximated
by members of SX. that support C and strictly separate C from A.
 *2.11 Support Points and Subreflexivity 277

2.11.12 Theorem. (E. Bishop and R. R. Phelps, 1963 [29]). Suppose that
C and A are nonempty subsets of a Banach space X such that C is closed
and convex and A is bounded. Suppose further that E > 0, that xi E Sx.,
and that

sup{Rexix: x E C} < inf{Rexix: x E A}.

Then there is an x; in Sx' and an Xo in C such that

Rex;xo = sup{ Rex;x : x E C} < inf{ Rex;x : x E A}

and Ilxi - xzll :S E.

PROOF. It may be assumed that 0 < E < 1 and that X is a real Banach
space. Let

M= ~(inf{ xix: x E A} + sup{ xix: x E C})

and

6= ~(inf{ xix: x E A} - sup{ xix: x E C}).

Let B = A + 6Bx, a bounded set that includes A in its interior. Then

inf { xi x : X E B } = inf { xi x : X E A} + 6 inf { xi x : x E B x}

= inf{ xix: x E A} - 6
=M

Let 8 = 1 + 2/ E and select a z from C such that

sup{xix: x E C} - xiz < ~.

28
Let M be any number larger than both 6/2 and sup{ Ily _. zll : y E B} and
let t = 2sM/6; then t > s > 1. By Lemma 2.11.7, there is an Xo in C such
that Xo - z E K(xi, t) and Xo + K(xi, t) supports C at Xo.
Suppose that y E B. Then

Ily - xoll :S Ily - zll + Ilxo - zll

< M + xi (t(xo - z))
:S M + t(sup{xix: x E C} - xiz)
t6
<M+-
28
tf;
s
< t6
:S txi(y - xo).
278 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

Therefore Y - Xo E K(xr, t), and so B s:;: Xo + K(xi, t).

An application of Eidelheit's separation theorem yields an x~ in Sx'
such that

x;xo = sup{ x;x : x E C}

= inf{x2x: x E Xo +K(xi,t)}
:s: inf { x;x : x E B }
= inf {x;x : x E A} + 6 inf { xix: x E B x}
= inf{ x;x : x E A} - 6
< inf{x;x: x E A}.

Since t > 1 + 2/E and

inf{x;x: x E K(xi, t)} = inf{x;x: x E Xu + K(x~, t)} - x;xo = 0,

it follows from Lemma 2.11.11 that Ilxi - x211 :s: E.

Two of the main results of this section are easy consequences of the
theorem just proved.

2.11.13 The Bishop-Phelps Support Functional Theorem. (E. Bish-

op and R. R. Phelps, 1963 [29]). If C is a nonempty bounded closed convex
subset of a Banach space X such that X of- {O}, then the support function-
als for C are dense in X * .
PROOF. It suffices to prove that the norm-one support functionals for C
are dense in Sx" Let xi be an element of Sx', let Y be an element of X
such that sup{Rexix: x E C} < Rexiy, and let E > O. Letting A = {y}
in Theorem 2.11.12 yields a norm-one support functional xi for C such
that IIxi - x~ II :s: E.

The completeness hypothesis in the preceding result is necessary, for

Bishop and Phelps proved in [29] that every incomplete normed space X
has a bounded closed convex subset C with nonempty interior such that
the support functionals for C are not dense in X*.
Applying the preceding result to the closed unit ball of a Banach space
immediately yields the subrefiexivity result that motivated this entire sec-
tion. (The special case in which the Banach space is {O} is trivial.)

2.11.14 The Bishop-Phelps Subreflexivity Theorem. (E. Bishop and

R. R. Phelps, 1961 [28]). Every Banach space is subreflexive.

Suppose that X and Yare normed spaces. As one would expect, a mem-
ber T of E(X, Y) is called norm-attaining if there is an x in Ex such that
IITxl1 = IITII In light of the Bishop-Phelps subrefiexivity theorem, it is
 *2.11 Support Points and Subreflexivity 279

natural to ask the following question that Bishop and Phelps posed in [28]:
What conditions on two Banach spaces X and Y assure that the collection
of norm-attaining members of B(X, Y) is dense in B(X, Y)? There must
be some additional conditions imposed on at least one of the spaces; in
particular, in a 1963 paper Joram Lindenstrauss [153] showed that there
is a Banach space X such that the set of norm-attainers in B(X) is not
dense in B(X). Partial answers to the question have emerged from research
done on a property for Banach spaces called the Radon-Nikodym property,
in particular from work by Jean Bourgain [35) published in 1977. See the
books by Richard Bourgin [37] and by Joseph Diestel and J. Jerry Uhl [59]
for discussions of the Radon-Nikodym property and its relationship to the
question raised by Bishop and Phelps.
Since Bishop and Phelps showed that the norm-attainers are dense in
B(X, Y) for every Banach space X when Y = IF, it is particularly nat-
ural to ask what conditions on a Banach space Y would assure that the
norm-attainers are dense in B(X, Y) for every Banach space X. A good
starting point for anyone interested in that problem is Timothy Gowers's
1990 paper [90], in which he shows that each space 1!p such that 1 < p < 00
lacks this property.

Exercises

2.115 Let X be the vector space of finitely nonzero sequences, equipped with
the e2 norm. Show that X is an incomplete subreflexive normed space.

2.116 Suppose that C is a closed convex subset of a TVS such that Co Ie 0.

Prove that every point of the boundary of C is a support point of C.

2.117 Let K be a nonempty subset of a vector space X.

(a) Prove that K is a wedge if and only if it has this property: If x, Y E K
and t ~ 0, then x + y, tx E K. (Notice the natural way in which
wedges are generalizations of subspaces.)
(b) Prove that K is a wedge if and only if it has this property: If x, y E K
and s, t ~ 0, then sx + ty E K. (Notice the natural way in which
convex sets are generalizations of wedges.)

(c) Prove that K is a cone if and only if it is a wedge with the property
that x = whenever x, -x E K.
2.118 The preceding exercise is useful, though not at all essential, for this one.
Suppose that P is a wedge in a real vector space X. Define a relation ~
on X by declaring that x ~ y when y - x E P.
(a) Prove that ~ is a preorder on X.
(b) Prove that if x, y, z E X, t ~ 0, and x ~ y, then x +z ~ y +z and
tx ~ ty.
(c) Prove that ~ is a partial order if and only if P is a cone.
280 2. The Weak and Weak* Topologies

The pair (X,~) is called an ordered vector space, the members of P are
called the positive elements of X, and P itself is called the positive wedge
(or positive cone, if appropriate) of X.
2.119 Find a closed convex subset C of a Banach space X such that the collection
of support functionals for C is nonempty but not dense in X'. (It can be
done in Il~?)
2.120 Call a subset A of a normed space X orthodox iffor each x in X \ A there
is a norm-attaining x' in X such that Rex'x > sup{Rex'y: yEA}.
Prove that a normed space is su breflexive if and only if each of its bounded
closed convex subsets is orthodox.
2.121 Prove the following improvement of Theorem 2.2.28 for Banach spaces:
Let K and C be disjoint nonempty convex subsets of a Banach space X
such that K is compact and C is closed. Then there is a member x'
of X such that inf{Rex'x : x E C} is attained by Rex' on C and
max{Rex'x: x E K} < min{Rex'x: x E C}.
2.122 Let X be a normed space such that X f:. {O}. If t E lR and x is a nonzero
member of X, then the subset of X defined by the formula

H(x',t) = {x: x E X, Rex'x ~ t}

is called a closed hal/space. Let C be a nonempty closed convex sub-

set of X. Then a closed haifspace H(x', t) is said to support C if t =
sup{ Rex'x : x E C} and x* is a supporting functional for C. It was
shown in Exercise 1.109 (which is not needed for this exercise) that C is
the intersection of a collection of closed halfspaces. Prove that if X is a
Banach space, then C is the intersection of the collection of its supporting
closed halfspaces.
2.123 Suppose that A is a subset of a topological vector space X. A nonzero x
in X is a modulus support functional for A if there is an Xo in A such
that Ix'xol = sup{ Ix'xl : x E A}, in which case Xo is said to be a modulus
support point of A.
(a) Show that if A is balanced, then the modulus support points of A
are the same as the support points of A, and the modulus support
functionals for A are the same as the support functionals for A.
(b) Give an example of a subset C of a Banach space such that the mod-
ulus support points of C are not dense in the boundary of C, even
though C is bounded, closed, convex, and has nonempty interior.
(This can be done in C.)
It turns out not to be too hard to show that every nonempty bounded
closed convex subset of a real Banach space X has the property that its
modulus support functionals are dense in X'. At the time of this writing,
it is not known if this result extends to complex Banach spaces. For more
information, see Phelps's 1992 survey article [187] on this problem.
2.124 Let X be a normed space. By Corollary 1.9.8, every member of Sx is
a support point of Ex. The space X is said to be smooth if for each x
 *2.11 Support Points and Subreflexivity 281

in Sx there is a unique x; in Sx. that supports Ex at x. The space X

is then said to be very smooth if it is smooth and the map x 1-+ x;
from Sx into Sx' is norm-to-weak continuous. These definitions will be
encountered again in Chapter 5.
(a) Prove that if X is a Banach space and X is very smooth, then every
member of X is norm-attaining.
(b) (This part depends on James's theorem from Section 1.13 or 2.9.)
Conclude from (a) that every Banach space with a very smooth dual
is reflexive.
3
Linear Operators

Linear operators have already received quite a bit of attention in this book,
primarily as tools for probing the structure of normed spaces. The purpose
of this chapter is to reverse that emphasis temporarily by studying linear
operators between normed spaces as interesting objects in their own right,
with the properties of normed spaces obtained in the first two chapters used
as the tools for the study. Almost all of the attention will be on bounded
linear operators, though there is also an interesting theory of unbounded
ones; see, for example, Chapter 13 of [200] or Chapter VII, Section 9 of [67].
The adjoint of an isomorphism from one normed space onto another was
introduced in Section 1.10, primarily to be able to prove that normed spaces
that are isomorphic or isometrically isomorphic have dual spaces bearing
that same relationship to each other. The first order of business is to extend
the notion of adjoint operators and learn more about them.

3.1 Adjoint Operators

Recall the following notation introduced in Section 1.10: When x is an
element of a vector space X and x# E X#, then x# x is often denoted
by (x, x#), particularly in situations in which the usual notation might be
visually confusing.

3.1.1 Definition. Suppose that X and Yare vector spaces and that
T E L(X, Y). Then the algebraic adjoint of T is the linear operator T#
284 3. Linear Operators

from y# into X# given by the formula T#(y#) = y#T. That is, the al-
gebraic adjoint T# is defined by letting (x, T#y#) = (Tx, y#) whenever
x E X and y# E y#.

With X, Y, and T as in the preceding definition, it is immediate that

T#(y#) really is a linear functional on X whenever y# in Y#, and it is
easy to check that T# is itself linear.

3.1.2 Proposition. Suppose that X and Yare normed spaces and that
T E L(X, Y). Then T is bounded if and only if T#(Y*) C;;;; X*. If T
is bounded, then the restriction T* of T# to Y*, viewed as a member
of L(Y*,X*), is itself bounded, and IIT*II = IITII.
PROOF. The fact that T is bounded if and only if T#(Y*) C;;;; X* is just
a restatement of Proposition 2.5.10. Now suppose that T is bounded, so
that T# (y*) C;;;; X*, and let the restriction T* of T# to Y be viewed as
a member of L(Y*, X*). An application of Proposition 1.10.11 (a) shows
that

IITII = sup{ I(Tx,y*)I: x E Bx, y* E By.}

= sup{ I(x, T*y*)1 : x E B x , y* E By.}.

By Proposition 1.10.11 (b), the fact that the second supremum in the above
equality is finite assures that T* is bounded and has its norm equal to that
supremum, and therefore to IITII.
3.1.3 Definition. Suppose that X and Yare normed spaces and that
T E B(X, Y). Then the (normed-space) adjoint of T is the restriction
of T# to Y*, that is, the linear operator T* from y* to X* given by the
formula T*(y*) = y*T.

Thus, with all notation as in the preceding definition, the normed-space

adjoint T* of T is defined by letting (x, T*y*) = (Tx, y*) whenever x E X
and y* E Y*. For the rest of this book, the only real interest in adjoints
will be in the normed-space variety, so the unqualified term adjoint will
always refer to them and not to algebraic adjoints.
Definition 3.1.3 is due to Banach [11] for the case in which X and Y
are arbitrary Banach spaces, but adjoints of operators on special spaces
were used long before the appearance of Banach's paper in 1929. In par-
ticular, Frederic Riesz made use of adjoints in published works appearing
in 1910 [193] and 1913 [194] concerning linear operators on 2 and certain
other Lp spaces. The idea of an adjoint actually has its roots in matrix
theory, as will now be shown.
For the purposes of the next paragraph, consider Euclidean p-space
(p> 0) to be identified with the collection of all p x 1 matrices of scalars
 3.1 Adjoint Operators 285

in the obvious way, and B(lF P, lF q ) (p, q > 0) to be identified with the col-
lection of all p x q matrices of scalars, with the action of a member T of
B(lFP, lF q ) on an element x of lF P given by the formula Tx = Tt . x, where
Tt is the transpose of the matrix T and represents matrix multiplication.
In particular, when IF is identified with lF 1 in the obvious way, a member x*
of (lFP)* acts on a member x of lFP through the formula x*x = (x*)t . x.
Suppose that m and n are positive integers and that T E B(lFm,lFn). If
x E lF m and y* E (lFn)*, then

so T*y* = (Tt)t . y*. It follows that T* is, as a matrix, equal to Tt. The
notion of an adjoint operator is therefore, in a sense, a generalization of
the notion of the transpose of a matrix.
The verification of the following proposition is easy. The corollary then
follows after a glance at Proposition 3.1.2.

3.1.4 Proposition. If 8 and T are bounded linear operators from a

normcd space X into a normed space Y and a E IF, then (8+T)* = 8*+T*
and (a8)* = a(8*).

3.1.5 Corollary. If X and Yare normed spaces, then the map T ....... T*
is an isometric isomorphism from B(X, Y) into B(Y, X*).

The isometric isomorphism of the preceding corollary docs not have to

map B(X, Y) onto B(Y', X*), even when both X and Yare Banach spaces.
See Exercises 3.3 and 3.4.

3.1.6 Example. Let I be the identity operator on a normed space X. For

each x in X and each x* in X*,

(x,I*x*) = (Ix,x*) = (x,x*).

It follows that I*x' = x* for each x* in X*, that is, that 1* is the identity
operator on X*.

3.1. 7 Example. In this example, members of f1 will also be treated as

members of Co and f oc)) so to avoid confusion a subscript of 0, 1, or 00
will indicate whether a particular sequence of scalars is being treated as a
member of co, f1' or foc; respectively. Let T be the map from 1 into Co given
by the formula T((anh) = (an)o. Then T is clearly linear and bounded
and is easily seen to have norm 1. Consider fi and Co to be identified with
foo and 1 respectively in the usual way. Then for each pair of elements
(anh and (t3nh of f1'

((anh, T*(t3nh) = (T(anh, (t3nh) = ((an)o, (t3nh) = L t3n a n,

n
286 3. Linear Operators

so the element T*((3nh of fi can be identified with the element (;3")00

of foo. In short, the adjoint of the "identity" map from f1 into CO is the
"identity" map from f1 into f=. It is clear that the norm of T* is 1, as
predicted by Proposition 3.1.2.

The preceding two examples might give one the idea that the adjoint of
a one-to-one bounded linear operator between normed spaces must itself
be one-to-one. As the next example shows, this is not the case. The actual
relationships between such properties as being one-to-one and being onto
for bounded linear operators and their adjoints will be settled by Theorems
3.1.17,3.1.18, and 3.1.22.

3.1.8 Example. Let X be any nonreflexive Banach space and let Qx be

the natural map from X into X**, an isometric isomorphism from X onto
a closed subspace of X**. Then Q-;' maps X*** into X*. Let Q X' be the
natural map from X* into X***. Then for each x in X and each x* in X* ,

(x,QxQx'x*) = (Qxx,Qx'x*) = (x*,Qxx) = (x,x*),

which implies that Q-;'Q X' is the identity map on X* and therefore that
Q-;' maps X*** onto X*. If Q-;' were also one-to-one, then Qx' would have
to map X* onto X***, contradicting the fact that X* is not reflexive. The
isometric isomorphism Qx therefore does not have a one-to-one adjoint.

As has already been mentioned, adjoints were used in Section 1.10 to

prove that normed spaces that are isomorphic or isometrically isomorphic
have dual spaces that are isomorphic or it:iometrically isomorphic, respec-
tively. Adjoints had another ut:ie in that section, as the next example shows.

3.1.9 Example. Suppose that X is a normed space and that M is a closed

subspace of X. By Theorem 1.10.17, there is an isometric isomorphism that
identifies (XjM)* with M1.. such that if an element of (XjM)* is identified
with the element x* of M 1.. , then x* (x + M) = x* x for each member x + M
of X j M. A glance at the proof of Theorem 1.10.17 shows that this isometric
isomorphism is the adjoint of the quotient map from X onto XjM.

Since the concept of the adjoint of a linear operator it:i in a sense a

generalization of the notion of the transpose of a matrix of scalars, it is not
surprising that some of the properties of transposes of matrices generalize to
adjoints of operators. In particular, the following result is a generalization
of the fact that if A and B are matrices whose dimensions are such that
the matrix product A B is defined, then (A B)t = Bt . At.

3.1.10 Proposition. Suppose that X, Y, and Z are normed spaces, that

S E B(X, Y), and that T E B(Y, Z). Then (TS)* = S*T*.
 3.1 Adjoint Operators 287

PROOF. If x E X and z* E Z*, then

(x,(TS)*(z*)) = (TSx,z*) = (Sx,T*z*) = (x,S*T*z*),

from which it follows that (TS)* = S*T*.

It is certainly true that every matrix A is the transpose of a matrix, since
A = (At)t. There is a sense in which this fact generalizes to adjoints, as
Proposition 3.1.13 and the comments immediately preceding it will show.
In another sense it does not, since there exist Banach spaces X and Y such
that some members of B(Y*, X*) are not adjoints of members of B(X, Y);
see the comment after Corollary 3.1.5. The following result characterizes
the linear operators between dual spaces of normed spaces that actually
are adjoints.

3.1.11 Theorem. Suppose that X and Yare normcd spaces. If T E

B(X, Y), then T* is weak*-to--weak* continuous. Conversely, if S is a
weak*-to--weak* continuous linear operator from y* into X*, then there
is a T in B(X, Y) such that T* = S.

PROOF. Suppose first that T E B(X, Y). Let (y~) be a net in y* that is
weakly* convergent to some y'. For each x in X,

(x, T*y~) = (Tx, y~) -+ (Tx, yO) = (x, T*y*},

so T*y~ ~. T*y*. This establishes the weak* -to--weak* continuity of T*.

Now suppose instead that S is a weak*-to-weak* continuous linear oper-
ator from y* iuto X*. Let Qx aud Qy be the natural maps from X and Y
respectively into their second duals. For each x in X, the weak* continuity
of Qx(x) on X* assures that the operator product Qx(x)S is a weakly*
continuous linear functional on Y* and so is a member of Qy(Y), which in
turn implies that Qyl(QX(x)S) E Y.
Define T: X -+ Y by the formula Tx = Qyl(QX(X)S). It is easy to
check that T is linear. To see that T is bounded, suppose that (x a,) is
a net in X converging weakly to some Xo. Then Qx(x a ) ~. Qx(xo),
so (Qx(xaJS)(y*) -+ (Qx(xo)S)(y*) whenever y* E yo, which in turn
implies that Qx(x",)S ~. Qx(xo)S and therefore that

The operator T is therefore weak-to-weak continuous and so is norm-to-

norm continuous by Theorem 2.5.11.
288 3. Linear Operators

Finally, observe that for each x in X and each y* in Y*,

(x, T*y*) = (Tx, yO)

= (Q;.:I(Qx(x)S),y*)
= (y*, Qx(x)S)
= (Sy*, Qx(x))
= (x,Sy*),
which shows that T* = S.

3.1.12 Corollary. Suppose that X and Yare normed spaces. Then every
weak*-to-weak* continuous linear operator from X* into y* is norm-to-
norm continuous.

In Example 2.6.17, an isomorphism T from Co onto itself was constructed

that is not weak*-to-weak* continuous, so the converse of the preceding
corollary is not in general true. Notice also that, by Theorem 3.1.11, the
isomorphism T is an explicit example of a member of B(co) that is not the
adjoint of any member of B(co).
As was mentioned in the comments preceding Theorem 3.1.11, there is a
sense in which the fact that (At)t = A for every matrix A has an extension
to adjoints. The generalization is given in the following proposition, which
says that if T is a bounded linear operator from a normed space X into a
normed space Y and each space is identified with its image in its second
dual under the natural map, then T** = Ton X.

3.1.13 Proposition. Suppose that X and Yare normed spaces and that
T E B(X, Y). Let Qx and Qy be the natural maps from X and Y
into their respective second dual spaces. Then T**Qx(X) ~ Qy(Y) and
Q}/T**Qx = T.
PROOF. Fix an x in X. First notice that whenever y* E Y* ,

(y*,T**Qxx) = (T*y*,Qxx) = (x,T*y*) = (Tx,y*).

If a net (y~) in Y* is weakly* convergent to some Yo, then

(y~, T**Qxx) = (Tx, y~) -> (Tx, y~) = (y~, T**Qxx),

so T**Qxx is a weakly* continuous linear functional on Y* and therefore

lies in Qy (Y). Whenever y* E Y*,

(Tx, yO) = (y*, T**Qxx) = (Q}}T**Qxx, yO),

from which it follows that Q}}T**Q x = T.

 3.1 Adjoint Operators 289

3.1.14 Corollary. Suppose that X and Y are normed spaces and that
T E R(X, Y). Let Qx and Qy be the natural maps from X and Y into
their respective second dual spaces.
(a) The operator T is one-to-one if and only if the restriction of T**
to Qx(X) is one-to-one.
(b) The operator T maps X onto Y if and only if T** maps Qx(X)
onto Qy(Y).
PROOF. The preceding proposition implies that T**Qx = QyT, from
which the corollary follows easily.

Yet another property of transposes of matrices that generalizes to ad-

joints is the fact that a square matrix A is invertible if and only if its
transpose is invertible, in which case (A -l)t = (At)-l. The generalization
of the formula for (A -1) t is easy.

3.1.15 Proposition. Suppose that T is an isomorphism from a normed

space X onto a normed space Y. Then (T- 1 )* = (T*)-l.
PROOF. By Theorem 1.10.12, the operator T* is an isomorphism from y*
onto X*, so (T*)-l does exist. For each y in Y and each x* in X*,

(y, (T-1)*(x*)) = (T- 1 y,x*)

= (T- 1y, T*(T*)-l(X*))
= (TT-1y, (T*)-l(X*))
= (y, (T*)-l(x*)),

from which it follows that (T-l)* = (T*)-l

The generalization to adjoints of the fact that a square matrix is invert-
ible if and only if its transpose is invertible requires a bit more work. One
key element for obtaining the generalization is part (b) of the next theorem.
The lemma used to prove the theorem is itself of some interest.

3.1.16 Lemma. Suppose that X and Yare normed spaces and that T E
B(X, Y). Then ker(T) =.L (T*(Y*)) and ker(T*) = (T(X)).L.
PROOF. Since y* is a separating family of functions for Y, an element x
of X is in ker(T) if and only if

(x, T*y*) = (Tx, y*) = 0 (3.1)

for each y* in Y*, which is the same as saying that x E .L(T*(Y*)). Simi-
larly, an element y* of y* is in ker(T*) if and only if (3.1) holds for each x
in X, which is equivalent to requiring that y* be in (T(X)).L.
290 3. Linear Operators

3.1.17 Theorem. Suppose that X and Yare normed spaces and that
T E B(X,Y).
(a) The operator T is one-to-one if and only if T*(Y*) is weakly* dense
in X*.
(b) The operator T* is one-to-one if and only if T(X) is dense in Y.
PROOF. By Lemma 3.1.16 and Propositions 2.6.6 (c) and 1.10.15 (c),

(3.2)

and

(3.3)

Since T is one-to-one if and only if ker(T) = {O}, which happens if and only
if (ker(T)).L = X*, it follows from (3.2) that T is one-to-one if and only
if X* = T*(Y*) w', proving (a). Part (b) follows from a similar argument
based on (3.3).

Here is the promised extension of the fact that square matrices are in-
vertible exactly when their transposes are. Part of this result was previ-
ously obtained as Theorem 1.10.12. Unlike Theorem 1.10.12 and Propo-
sition 3.1.15, this theorem has a completeness hypothesis that cannot in
general be removed. See Exercise 3.8.

3.1.18 Theorem. Suppose that X is a Banach space, that Y is a normed

space, and that T E B(X, Y). Then T is an isomorphism from X onto Y
if and only if T* is an isomorphism from y* onto X*. The same is true if
"isomorphism" is replaced by "isometric isomorphism."
PROOF. It has already been shown in Theorem 1.10.12 that if T is an
isomorphism or isometric isomorphism from X onto Y, then T* is an iso-
morphism or isometric isomorphism, respectively, from y* onto X*.
Suppose that T* is an isomorphism from y* onto X*. Then there is a
positive constant c such that (T*) -1 (B x.) ~ cBy . If x EX, then

IITxl1 = sup{ I(Tx, Y*)I : y* E By.}

= sup{ l(x,T*y*)I: y* E By.}
2 sup{ I(x, x*)1 : x* E c- 1Bx}
= c-11Ixll,
which is enough to assure that T is an isomorphism. Since T(X) is dense
in Y and complete, hence closed, it follows that T(X) = Y.
 3.1 Adjoint Operators 291

Suppose now that T* is an isometric isomorphism from y* onto X*.

Then the constant c in the argument just given can be selected to be 1.
This and the fact that IITII = IIT* II assures that Ilxll :::; IITxll :::; II xII for
each x in X, which implies that T is an isometric isomorphism.

One immediate consequence of Theorem 3.1.17 is that, with all notation

as in that theorem, ifT maps X onto Y (respectively, T* maps Y* onto X*),
then T* (respectively, T) is one-to-one. These statements can be greatly
strengthened when X and Y are Banach spaces, as will be shown in Theo-
rem 3.1.22. A major ingredient in the proof of that result is Theorem 3.1.21,
which establishes important relationships between closure properties of the
range of T and those of the range of T* when X and Yare complete.
The proof of Theorem 3.1.21 given here, which is essentially the one that
appears in [43J, uses the Krein-Smulian theorem on weakly* closed convex
sets. See [200J for a different proof that does not.

3.1.19 Lemma. Suppose that M is a closed subspace of a normed space X

and that rr is the quotient map from X onto XIM. Then rr* is a homeo-
morphism from (XIM)* with its weak* topology onto the weakly* closed
subspace M.l of X* with the relative weak* topology that M.l inherits
from X*. That is, the usual identification map from (XI M) * onto M.l also
identifies the weak* topologies of the two spaces.
PROOF. As has been noted in Example 3.1.9, the map rr* is the usual
identification map from (XI M)* onto M.l and so is one-to-one. The set M.l
is weakly* closed in X* by Proposition 2.6.6 (a), and the weak*-to-relative-
weak* continuity of rr* follows from Theorem 3.1.11, so all that needs to
be shown is the relative-weak*-to-weak* continuity of (rr*)-l on M.l.
Suppose that a net (m~) in M.l is weakly* convergent to some mem-
ber m* of M.l. Then for each x in X,

See Theorem 1. 7.13 for the basic properties of the map S in the following
lemma.

3.1.20 Lemma. Suppose that X and Y are normed spaces and that T E
B(X, Y). Let rr be the quotient map from X onto XI ker(T), let S be
the bounded linear operator from XI ker(T) into Y such that T = Srr,
let Z = T(X), and let R be T viewed as a member of B(X, Z).
(a) The set S(XI ker(T) is closed if and only if T(X) is closed.
(b) The set S* (Y*) is closed if and only if T* (Y*) is closed.
292 3. Linear Operators

(c) The set S*(Y*) is weakly* closed if and only if T*(Y*) is weakly*
closed.
(d) The set R(X) is closed if and only if T(X) is closed.
(e) The set R*(Z*) is closed if and only if T*(Y*) is closed.
(f) The set W(Z*) is weakly* closed if and only if T*(Y*) is weakly*
closed.
PROOF. Part (a) follows immediately from the fact that the range of S is the
same as that of T, while (b) and (c) hold because T* = 7f* S* and 7f* is both
an isometric isomorphism and a weak*-to-relative-weak* homeomorphism
from (XIM)* onto the weakly* closed subspace MJ. of X*. Part (d) is
obvious. For (e) and (f), notice that if y* E y* and z* is the member of Z*
formed by restricting y* to Z, then

(x, T*y*) = (Tx, yO) = (Rx, z*) = (x, R* z*)

whenever x E X, and so T*y' = Rz*. Since every member of Z' has
a Hahn-Banach extension to Y and therefore is the restriction of some
member of Y* to Z, the ranges of R* and T* are the same, from which (e)
and (f) follow immediately.

3.1.21 Theorem. Suppose that X and Yare Banach spaces and that
T E B(X, Y). Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The set T(X) is closed.
(b) The set T*(Y*) is closed.
(c) The set T*(Y*) is weakly* closed.
PROOF. Let 7f be the quotient map from X onto XI ker(T) and let S be the
bounded linear operator from XI ker(T) into Y such that T = S7r. Then S
is one-to-one since its kernel contains only the zero element of XI ker(T).
It is a consequence of this and parts (a), (b), and (c) of Lemma 3.1.20 that
the theorem is true if it holds under the additional hypothesis that T is
one-to-one. It may therefore be assumed that T is one-to-one. Now suppose
that the theorem holds under the additional hypothesis that T(X) = Y.
The general case then follows from parts (d), (e), and (f) of Lemma 3.1. 20,
so it may also be assumed that T(X) is dense in Y. By Theorem 3.1.17,
the operator T* is one-to-one and T* (Y*) is weakly* dense in X*.
Suppose that T(X) is closed and therefore that T(X) = Y. Then Corol-
lary 1.6.6 implies that T is an isomorphism from X onto Y, so it follows
from Theorem 1.10.12 that T* is an isomorphism from Y* onto X* a.nd
therefore tha.t T*(Y*) is closed. This shows that (a) => (b).
Suppose next that T* (Y*) is weakly* closed. Then T* (Y*) = X*, so T*
is an isomorphism from Y* onto X*. It follows from Theorem 3.1.18 that
T is an isomorphism from X onto Y and therefore that T(X) is closed,
which shows that (c) => (a).
 3.1 Adjoint Operators 293

Finally, suppose that T*(Y*) is closed. Since Y* and T*(Y*) are both
Banach spaces, the operator T* is an isomorphism from y* onto T* (Y*).
Suppose that (x:) is a net in T*(Y*) n Bx" that is weakly* convergent
to some x* in X*. Then x* E Bx" since B x " is weakly* closed. Let
y: = (T*)-l(X:) for each a. Then (y:) is a bounded net and so, by the
Banach-Alaoglu theorem, has a subnet (y~) that is weakly* convergent to
some y* in Y*. It follows from the weak*-to-weak* continuity of T* that
x~ = T*y~ }1!," T*y*, so T*y* = x*. Since x* E T*(Y*) n B x ", the set
T* (Y*) n B x" is weakly* closed, which by Corollary 2.7.12 of the Krein-
Smulian theorem on weakly* closed convex sets implies that T*(Y*) is
itself weakly* closed. This shows that (b) => (c) and finishes the proof of
the theorem.

3.1.22 Theorem. Suppose that X and Yare Banach spaces and that
T E B(X,Y).
(a) The operator T maps X onto Y if and only if T* is an isomorphism
from Y* onto a subspace of X*.
(b) The operator T* maps y* onto X* if and only if T is an isomorphism
from X onto a subspace of Y.
PROOF. The operator T maps X onto Y if and only if T(X) is both closed
and dense in Y, which by Theorems 3.1.17 and 3.1.21 is equivalent to
T* being one-to-one and having closed range, which by Corollary 1.6.6 is
equivalent to T* being an isomorphism from y* onto a subspace of X*. The
operator T* maps y* onto X* if and only if T* (Y*) is both weakly* closed
and weakly* dense in X*, which is equivalent to T being one-to-one and
having closed range, which is in turn equivalent to T being an isomorphism
from X onto a subspace of Y.

See [205] for a discussion of adjoints in settings more general than that
of bounded linear operators between normed spaces.

Exercises
3.1 Suppose that x' is a bounded linear functional on a normed space X.
Describe the adjoint of x*.
3.2 Suppose that X is Co or R.p such that 1 < p < 00 and that mEN. Let T m
and T -m be the right-shift and left-shift operators defined by the formulas

and

T-m((a n ) = (a m +l,a m +2, ... ),

where the number of leading zeros in the formula for Tm is m. It is easy
to check that T m , T_ m E B(X). Describe T:;" and T"."".
294 3. Linear Operators

3.3 Show that there is no continuous map from B(JF, co) onto B(c~, JF').
3.4 Suppose that X and Yare normed spaces.
(a) Prove that if X t {O} and Y is not reflexive, then some member
of B(Y', X') is not weak*-to-weak* continuous.
(b) Prove that the isometric isomorphism T f-+ T' maps B(X, Y) onto
B(Y', X') if and only if either X = {O} or Y is reflexive.
3.5 Prove that every weakly* closed subspace of the dual space of a normed
space is the range of the adjoint of some bounded linear operator. That
is, prove that if X is a normed space and N is a weakly* closed subspace
of X', then there is a normed space Y and a T in B(X, Y) such that
T*(Y*) = N.
3.6 Prove that every weakly* closed subspace of the dual space of a normed
space is the kernel of the adjoint of some bounded linear operator. That
is, prove that if X is a normed space and N is a weakly* closed subspace
of X*, then there is a normed space Y and a T in B(Y, X) such that
ker(T*) = N. Conclude that a subspace of the dual space of a normed
space is weakly* closed if and only if it is the kernel of the adjoint of some
bounded linear operator.
3.7 (a) Suppose that X and Y are Banach spaces, that T E B(X, Y), and
that Y* is an isomorphism from Y* onto X*. Prove that T' is also
a weak*-to-weak* homeomorphism from Y* onto X*.
(b) Give an example to show that the conclusion of (a) can fail if X
and Yare only assumed to be normed spaces.
3.8 (a) If the normed space Y in Theorem 3.1.18 is incomplete, then the the-
orem really says nothing about T itself that was not already shown
in Chapter 1, but instead amounts only to a statement about T*.
What is that statement?
(b) Show that Theorem 3.1.18 would not be true if its statement were
amended to require Y instead of X to be complete.
3.9 Show that the conclusion of Theorem 3.1.21 does not have to hold if the
completeness hypothesis is dropped for either X or Y.
3.10 Suppose that P is a property defined for Banach spaces such that
(1) if a Banach space X has property P, then so does every Banach
space isomorphic to X;
(2) if a Banach space has property P, then so does every closed subspace
of the space; and
(3) a Banach space ha::; property P if and only if its dual space ha..<;
property P.
For example, reflexivity satisfies these conditions. Prove that if X and Y
are Banach spaces such that X has property P and there is a bounded
linear operator from X onto Y, then Y has property P. Conclude that if
a Banach space X has property P and M is a closed subspace of X, then
X/M has property P.
 3.2 Projections and Complemented Subspaces 295

3.11 Let X be a normed space. In this exercise, the notation Qy represents

the natural map from Y into Y" whenever Y is a normed space.
(a) Prove that Qx maps X'" onto X'.
(b) Prove that Q'; is an isomorphism from X" onto a subspace of X(4).
(c) Prove that Q';Qx = QxQx, that is, that Q'; and Qx" agree
on Qx(X).
(d) Parts (b) and (c) might lead one to suspect that Q'; = Qx'" Prove
that this is true if and only if X' is reflexive (which is of course
equivalent to X being reflexive if X is a Banach space).
3.12 Suppose that T is an isomorphism from a Banach space X onto a Ba-
nach space Y. Let Qx and Qy be the natural maps from these respec-
tive Banach ,,'paces into their second duals. Define S: X"/Qx(X) -->
Y"/Qy(Y) by the formula S(x" + Qx(X)) = T"x" + Qy(Y). Prove
that S is an isomorphism from X" /Qx(X) onto Y" /Qy(Y), and that
S is an isometric isomorphism if T is. Notice that it must be established
that S is well-defined.
3.13 Prove that a normed space is isomorphic to the dual space of a separable
Banach space if and only if it is isomorphic to a weakly* closed subspace
of r. That is, prove that, up to isomorphism, the normed spaces that are
dual spaces of separable Banach spaces are exactly the subspaces of 00
that are weakly* closed when 00 is identified in the usual way with r.

3.2 Projections and Complemented Subspaces

The following two definitions have already been encountered in Section 1.8
for the special case in which X is a normed space.

3.2.1 Definition. Suppose that MI"'" Mn are closed subspaces of a

topological vector space X such that 2:k Mk = X and M j n2:kh Mk = {O}
when j = 1, ... , n. Then X is the internal direct sum of Ml"'" Mn.

In other words, a TVS X is the internal direct sum of its subspaces

M I , ... , Mn when each of these subspaces is closed and X is their algebraic
internal direct sum. By Proposition 1.8.7, this is equivalent to requiring
that each M j be closed and that for each x in X there be unique elements
ml(x), ... , mn(x) of M I , .. , Mn respectively such that x = 2:k mk(x).

3.2.2 Definition. A subspace M of a TVS X is complemented in X if

it is closed in X and there is a closed subspace N of X such that X is
the internal direct sum of M and N, in which case it is said that the two
subspaces are complementary or that N is complementary to M.

By analogy with the relationship between algebraic internal direct sums

and the internal direct sums of Definition 3.2.1, a subspace M of a vector
296 3. Linear Operators

space X is said to be algebraically complemented in X if there is a sub-

space N of X such that X is the algebraic internal direct sum of M and N.
These more general algebraic notions will be useful in what follows, but
it must be emphasized that references in this book to internal direct sums
or to the complementation of subspaces without the qualifier "algebraic" al-
ways imply thatthe subspaces involved are closed subspaces of some TVS.
The question of which subs paces of a vector space are algebraically com-
plemented can be settled quickly.

3.2.3 Proposition. Every subspace of a vector space X is algebraically

complemented in X.
PROOF. Suppose that M is a subspace of X. Let BM be a vector space
basis for M, let BN be a subset of X such that BMnB N = 0 and BMUB N
is a basis for X, and let N = (BN). It is easy to check that X = M + N
and M n N = {O}, so M is algebraically complemented in X.

Not every closed subspace of every TVS is complemented in the sense

of Definition 3.2.2. In particular, it will be seen that some Banach spaces
have uncomplemented closed subspaces.
Section 1.8 contained a very brief glance at complemented subspaces
of normed spaces; see the discussion that follows Definition 1.8.14. The
purpose of this section is to take a closer look at complemented subspaces
and their relationship to linear operators of the following type.

3.2.4 Definition. Suppose that X is a vector space. A linear opera-

tor P: X ---+ X is a projection in X if P( Px) = Px for each x in X,
that is, if p 2 = P.

Trivial examples of projections are given by the identity operator and

zero operator on a vector space. The more interesting projections lie be-
tween these two extremes. In particular, the following one will provide a
useful counterexample later in this section.

3.2.5 Example. Let X be the vector space of finitely nonzero sequences

with the (X) norm, let ((3n) be a sequence of scalars, and let P be the linear
operator from X into X defined by the formula

Then P is a projection. Also,

P(X) = {(an) : (an) EX, a2n = 0 for each n in N}

and

ker(P) = {(an) : (an) EX, a2n-l + (3na2n = 0 for each n in N},

 3.2 Projections and Complemented Subspaces 297

from which it readily follows that the range and kernel of P are both closed
subspaces of X and that X is the internal direct sum of these two subspaces;
see Exercise 3.14. It is easy to check that P is bounded if and only if ((3n)
is bounded, and that IIPII = 1 + 11((3n)lloo whenever ((3n) is bounded.
Notice that all of this is just as valid if X is all of C[XJ provided that ((3n)
is required to be bounded to assure that P takes its values in 00' in which
case P must be a bounded projection.

If t ;::: 1, then it is possible to arrange for the projection P of the preceding

example to be bounded with norm t by selecting the sequence ((3n) properly;
one obvious choice is (t-I, t-I, ... ). However, it is not possible for P to be
bounded with norm strictly between 0 and 1. This is actually a property of
all bounded projections on a normed space, since a projection always acts
as the identity operator on its range.
The next several results contain some of the basic properties of projec-
tions.

3.2.6 Theorem. Suppose that X is a vector space and that T is a linear

operator from X into X. Then T is a projection if and only if the algebraic
adjoint T# of T is a projection. If X is a normed space and T is bounded,
then T is a projection if and only if T* is a projection.
PROOF. Suppose first that T# is a projection. For each x in X and each x#
in X#,

which implies that T(Tx) = Tx since the collection of all linear functionals
on a vector space is always a separating family for that vector space. Thus,
the operator T is a projection. The remaining claims in the theorem are
proved by similar arguments.

As usual, the symbol I in the next several results represents the identity
operator on the vector space in question.

3.2.7 Proposition. Suppose that X is a vector space and that T is a

linear operator from X into X. Then T is a projection if and only if I - T
is a projection. If X is a TVS, then T is a continuous projection if and
only if I - T is a continuous projection.
PROOF. Suppose first that T is a projection. For each x in X,

(I - T)2(x) = X - 2Tx + T 2 x = X - Tx = (I - T)(x),

so I - T is a projection. Conversely, if I - T is a projection, then so is T

since T = I - (I - T). The result for TVSs now follows immediately.
298 3. Linear Operators

3.2.8 Proposition. If P is a projection in a vector space X, then ker( P) =

(I - P)(X) and P(X) = ker(I - P).
PROOF. If X E ker(P), then (I - P)(x) = x, so ker(P) c:::;: (I - P)(X). The
reverse inclusion follows from the fact that p((I - P)(X)) = {O}, which
proves that ker(P) = (1 - P)(X). The rest of the proposition follows by
applying what has already been proved to the projection 1- P.

3.2.9 Corollary. If P is a projection in a vector space X, then P(X) =

{x : x E X, Px = x}.

Since the kernel of a continuous linear operator from a Hausdorff TVS

into itself must be closed, Proposition 3.2.8 has the following additional
corollary.

3.2.10 Corollary. Every continuous projection in a Hausdorff TVS has

closed range.

3.2.11 Theorem. Suppose that X is a vector space. If P is a projection

in X, then X is the algebraic internal direct sum of the range and kernel
of P. Conversely, if X is the algebraic internal direct sum of its subspaces
M and N, then there is a unique projection in X having range M and
kernel N.
PROOF. If P is a projection in X, then it follows from Proposition 3.2.8
that X = P(X) + (I - P)(X) = P(X) + ker(P) and P(X) n ker(P) =
ker(I - P) nker(P) = {O}, so X is the algebraic internal direct sum of P(X)
and ker(P). Conversely, suppose that X is the algebraic internal direct sum
of its subspaces M and N. By Proposition 1.8.7, every element x of X can
be represented in a unique way as a sum m( x) + n( x) such that m( x) E M
and n(x) E N. It is clear that the map x f---+ m(x) is a projection in X with
range M and kernel N. Furthermore, if Po is any projection in X having
range M and kernel N, then Po(x) = Po(m(x)+n(x)) = Po (m(x)) = m(x)
whenever x E X, which proves the uniqueness assertion.

3.2.12 Corollary. If P is a continuous projection in a Hausdorff TVS X,

then X is the internal direct sum of the range and kernel of P.

Suppose that x is an element of a vector space X that is the algebraic

internal direct sum of its subspaces M and N, that PM,N is the unique
projection in X with range M and kernel N, that PN,M is the unique
projection in X with range N and kernel M, and that m and n are the
unique elements of M and N respectively such that x = m + n. Then
PM,N(X) = m and PN,M(X) = n, so I = PM,N + PN,M. Conversely, if there
are projections PI and P2 in X such that 1 = PI + P2 , then P2 = 1 - PI,
so it follows from Theorem 3.2.11 and Proposition 3.2.8 that X is the
 3.2 Projections and Complemented Subspaces 299

algebraic internal direct sum of the ranges (or kernels) of PI and P2 Thus, a
decomposition of X as a sum of two algebraically complementary subspaces
corresponds to a decomposition of I as a sum of two projections; that is, to
a decomposition of I as a sum of two operators that are "smaller identities"
in the sense that each acts as the identity operator on its range.
Corollary 3.2.12 suggests the following question: If M and N are com-
plementary subspaces of a Hausdorff TVS X, must the projection with
range M and kernel N be continuous? The answer does not have to be yes,
even when X is a normed space.

3.2.13 Example. Suppose that X is the vector space of finitely nonzero

sequences with the Coo norm and that ({3n) is an unbounded sequence of
scalars. Let P be the projection in X constructed in Example 3.2.5. Then
X is the internal direct sum of the range and kernel of P even though P is
not bounded.

The normed space X of the preceding example is not complete. As it

turns out, that is a crucial aspect of the example.

3.2.14 Theorem. If M and N are complementary subspaces of a Banach

space X, then the projection in X with range M and kernel N is bounded.
PROOF. Let P be the projection in question. Suppose that a sequence (xn)
in X converges to some x and that (Px n ) converges to some y. Then
(I -P)(x n ) -+ x-yo It follows that y E M and x-y E N, so y = Py = Px.
By the closed graph theorem, the operator P is bounded.

3.2.15 Corollary. A subspace of a Banach space is complemented if and

only if it is the range of a bounded projection in the space.

3.2.16 Corollary. If M and N are complementary subspaces of a Banach

space X, then M ~ X/No
PROOF. Just apply the first isomorphism theorem for Banach spaces to the
bounded projection in X with range M and kernel N.

Though the normed space version of the Hahn-Banach extension theo-

rem guarantees that every bounded linear functional on a subspace M of a
normed space X has a bounded linear extension to all of X, it does not ad-
dress the more general problem of finding conditions on M, X, and normed
spaces Y besides IF that guarantee that all bounded linear operators from M
into Y have bounded linear extensions to X. The next theorem, which is a
straightforward consequence of Corollary 3.2.15, provides a partial solution
to this problem.
300 3. Linear Operators

3.2.17 Theorem. Suppose that M is a subspace of a Banach space X.

Then the following are equivalent.
(a) For every Banach space Y and every bounded linear operator T
from Minto Y, there is a bounded linear operator Tx from X into Y
that agrees with Ton M.
(b) The closure of M is complemented in X.
PROOF. Suppose first that (a) holds. Let T be the identity operator on M
viewed as a bounded linear operator from Minto M and let Tx be a
bounded linear operator from X into M that agrees with T on M. It follows
from the continuity of Tx that Tx agrees with the identity operator of M
on M, which implies that Tx is a bounded projection in X with range M.
Therefore M is complemented in X by Corollary 3.2.15, which shows that
(a) =? (b).
Suppose conversely that M is complemented in X. By Corollary 3.2.15,
some bounded projection P in X has range M. If Y is a Banach space
and T is a bounded linear operator from Minto Y, then Theorem 1.9.1
guarantees the existence of a bounded linear operator Tl from Minto Y
that agrees with T on /1/1, and it is then clear that TI P is a bounded
linear operator from X into Y that agrees with T on M. This proves that
(b) =? (a).

The idea used to prove that (b) =? (a) in the preceding theorem can also
be used to prove results about the extensibility of more general continuous
functions. See Exercise 3.22.
The closed subs paces {O} and X of a Hausdorff TVS X are certainly
complemented, since X is the internal direct sum of the two. The follow-
ing theorem says that closed subspaces of X that differ by only a finite
number of dimensions from X or, if X is locally convex, from {O}, are also
complemented.
Recall that if M is a subspace of a vector space X, then the codimension
of M in X is the dimension of the quotient vector space XI M.

3.2.18 Theorem. Suppose that M is a subspace of a Hausdorff TVS X.

Then M is complemented in X if either of the following two statements
holds.
(a) The subspace M is closed and finite-codimensional.
(b) The subspace M is finite-dimensional and X is locally convex.
PROOF. It may be assumed that M is neither X nor {O}. Suppose first
that M is closed and finite-codimensional. Let Xl + M, ... ,X n + M be a
basis for XIM and let N = ({Xl, ... ,Xn}). By Corollary 2.2.32, the finite-
dimensional subspace N of X is closed. It is easy to check that M + N = X
and M n N = {O}, so M is complemented in X.
 3.2 Projections and Complemented Subspaces 301

Now suppose instead that AI is finite-dimensional and X is locally con-

vex. Then AI is closed by Corollary 2.2.32. Let m1, ... , mn be a basis
for AI and let m;(a1m1 + ... + anm n ) = aj whenever j E {I, ... , n} and
a1, ... ,an E IF. Then each m; is a linear functional on AI that is contin-
uous by Corollary 2.2.33 since M is a finite-dimensional Hausdorff TVS
with respect to the topology it inherits from X. Since X is an LCS, Corol-
lary 2.2.21 assures that each m; has a continuous linear extensionx;to X.
It follows easily that the formula Px = (x~x)m1 + ... + (x~x)mn defines a
continuous projection from X onto AI, which by Corollary 3.2.12 implies
that AI is complemented in X.

The stipulation in part (b) of the preceding theorem that X be locally

convex cannot in general be omitted. See Exercise 3.20.
Not every closed subspace of every Banach space is complemented. In
fact, J. Lindenstrauss and L. Tzafriri showed in 1971 [155J that the only
Banach spaces having all of their closed subs paces complemented are those
isomorphic to Hilbert spaces. One specific example of an uncomplemented
closed subspace of a Banach space is the subspace Co of loo. This was first
shown in 1940 by R. S. Phillips [189J. The proof to be given here is by
R. J. Whitley [244J and is based on an idea due to M. Nakamura and
S. Kakutani [174J as well as A. Pelczyriski and V. N. Sudakov [180J. The
following lemma needed for the proof can be found in [214, p. 77J. The
lemma's extremely short proof is from Whitley's paper and is credited by
Whitley to Arthur Kruse.

3.2.19 Lemma. Suppose that A is a countably infinite set. Then there is

a family {Set: a E I} of subsets of A such that
(1) for each a in I, the set Sex is infinite;
(2) if a, (3 E I and a =1= (3, then Sa n Sf3 is finite; and
(3) the index set I is uncountable.
PROOF. It may be assumed that A is the set of rational numbers in (0,1).
Let I be the irrationals in (0,1). For each a in I, let Sa be a set whose
members come from a sequence of rationals in (0,1) converging to a. Then
A, I, and { Sa : a E I} do all that is required of them.

3.2.20 Theorem. (R. S. Phillips, 1940 [189]). The space Co is an uncom-

plemented closed subspace of loo.
PROOF. In this proof, a Banach space X will be said to have property P
if X* has a countable subset that is a separating family for X. It is clear
that if a Banach space X has property P, then so does every closed sub-
space of X and every Banach space isomorphic to X. It is also clear that
l= has property Pi one countable separating family for loo in l~ is the
collection {e~ : n EN} such that each e~ maps each member of lDO to its
nth term.
302 3. Linear Operators

Suppose that some closed subspace N of foo is complementary to the

closed subspace eo. Then foo/co ~ N, so foo/eo has property P. A contra-
diction will be obtained and the theorem will be proved once it is shown
that foo/co cannot have property P.
Let A = N and let I and { Sa. : 0: E I } be as in the preceding lemma. For
each 0: in I, let Xa be the member of foo that, when viewed as a function
from N into F, is the indicator function of Sa:; that is, let the nth term
of Xa: be 1 whenever n E Sa and let all other terms of Xa be O. Notice that
xa:+co # x,e+co when 0: # (3. Suppose that y* E (foo/eo)*, that pEN, and
that 0:1,,'" O:q are distinct members of I such that Iy*(x aj + co)1 2: p-l
when j = 1, ... , q. Let 11, ... " q be scalars of absolute value 1 such that
IjY*(Xaj + co) = ly*(x nJ + co)1 for each j. Properties (1) and (2) listed in
the lemma assure that infinitely many terms of the member 2::;=1 1 jX OIj
of foo have absolute value 1 and that only finitely many have absolute value
more than 1, from which it follows that

Therefore

and so q ::; pIIY*II. Consequently, there are only finitely many index ele-
ments 0: such that Iy*(xa: + co)1 2: p-l. Since p was an arbitrary positive
integer, it follows that there are only countably many index elements 0:
such that y*(xa: + eo) # O.
Now suppose that C is a countable subset of (foo/co)*. It follows that
there are only countably many members 0: of I such that z*(xa: + co) # 0
for some z* in C. Since I is uncountable, there must be two different mem-
bers 0:1,0:2 of I such that z*(xal +co) = Z*(X02 +co) = 0 for each z* in C,
which shows that C is not a separating family for eX) / Co. The space f= / Co
therefore lacks property P, which is the desired contradiction.

3.2.21 Corollary. No bounded linear operator from foo onto Co maps each
element of Co to itself

3.2.22 Corollary. Let Q be the natural map from Co into cQ*. Then Q(co)
is not complemented in co*.
PROOF. Suppose Q( co) were complemented in co'. Then there would be
a bounded projection P in coo with range Q(co). Let S: foo -+ fi' and
T: f 1 -+ Co be the standard identifying isometric isomorphisms, and let
Po = S-lT* P(T*)-lS. Routine verifications show that Po is a projection
in foo with range co---a contradiction.
 3.2 Projections and Complemented Subspaces 303

The preceding corollary might lead one to ask if it is ever possible for
the natural image of a nonreflexive Banach space in it second dual to be
complemented. It is quite possible, as the next result shows.

3.2.23 Proposition. Suppose that X is a normed space that is isomorphic

to the dual space of a normed space and that Qx is the natural map from X
into X**. Then Qx(X) is complemented in X**.
PROOF. Since the dual space of a normed space is a Banach space that is
isometrically isomorphic to the dual space of the completion of its predual,
the space X is actually a Banach space isomorphic to the dual space y* of
a Banach space Y. Let T be an isomorphism from X onto Y* and let Qy.
be the natural map from y* into Y***. It is enough to show that there is a
bounded projection P in Y*** with range Qy. (Y*), for then (T**)-l PT**
is a bounded projection in X** with range Qx(X) since

(T**)-l PT**(T**)-l PT** = (T**)-l PPT** = (T**)-l PT**

and

(T**)-l PT**(X**) = (T-l)** P(Y***) = (T-l)**Qy.(Y*) = Qx(X),

where the very last equality comes from Corollary 3.1.14.
Let Qy be the natural map from Y into y** and let P = Qy.QY. For
each y in Y and each y* in Y*,

(y,QYQyy*) = (Qyy,Qy.y*) = (y*,Qyy) = (y,y*),

so QYQy. is the identity map on Y*. It follows that p 2 = P, that is, that
P is a projection in Y***. Since Qy is an isomorphism from the Banach
space Y onto a subspace of Y**, its adjoint Qy maps y*** onto Y*, so
P(Y***) = Qy.QY(Y***) = Qy.(Y*).

3.2.24 Corollary. The Banach space Co is not isomorphic to the dual

space of any normed space.

The preceding corollary improves the result of Example 2.10.11, where

the fact that Bco has no extreme points was used to show that Co is not
isometrically isomorphic to the dual space of any normed space.

Exercises
3.14 Provide the missing details in Example 3.2.5 by showing that the range
and kernel of P are both closed subspaces of X, that X is the internal
direct sum of these two subspaces, that P is bounded if and only if CBn}
is bounded, and that IIPII = 1 + II (,Bn) 1100 whenever (,Bn) is bounded.
304 3. Linear Operators

3.15 For each T in L(JF 2, JF2), let the determinant of T be the determinant of
the matrix meT) of T with respect to the standard basis for JF2, and let
the trace of T be the trace of meT), that is, the sum of the elements
along the main diagonal of meT). Prove that a member T of L(JF 2, ]F2) is
a projection if and only if it satisfies one of the following three conditions.
(a) T = f.
(b) T = O.
(c) The determinant of Tis 0 and the trace of Tis 1.
3.16 (a) Prove that if M is a complemented subspace of a Banach space, then
all subspaces complementary to M are isomorphic to one another.
(b) Give an example of a complemented subspace of a Banach space
that has infinitely many different subs paces complementary to it.
3.17 (a) Suppose that P is a bounded projection in a normed space X. Prove
that P(X) = .L(ker(P") and P(X) = (ker(P)l..
(b) Suppose that M and N are complementary subspaces of a Banach
space X. Prove that M.L and N.L are complementary in X.
(c) Give an example to show that the conclusion of (b) need not hold if
X is only assumed to be a normed space.
3.18 Suppose that P is a bounded projection in a normed space X. Prove that
P(X) has finite dimension n if and only if P*(X) has finite dimension n.
(One proof of this uses Exercise 3.17 (a) and either Exercise 1.81 or the
first isomorphism theorem for vector spaces; see, for example, [105, p. 397]
for this theorem.)
3.19 This exercise uses the material of optional Section 2.3. Show that Theo-
rem 3.2.14 and Corollary 3.2.15 have natural extensions to F-spaces.
3.20 Suppose that 0 ::; p < 1. Prove that no finite-dimensional subspace
of Lp[O, 1] other than {O} is complemented. Exercise 3.19 may be helpfuL
3.21 This exercise improves the conclusion of Exercise 1.141. Suppose that X
is a Banach space and that there is a bounded linear operator from X
onto 1. Prove that X has a complemented subspace isomorphic to 1.
3.22 Suppose that M is a subspace of a Banach space X and that M is com-
plemented in X.
(a) Prove that if M is closed, then the following holds: For every topo-
logical space Z and every continuous function I from Minto Z,
there is a continuous function Ix from X into Z that agrees with f
onM.
(b) Show by example that the conclusion in (a) does not necessarily
hold if M is not required to be closed, even when Z is assumed to
be a normed space and f is assumed to be linear.
3.23 Suppose that M is a closed subspace of a Banach space. It follows from
Exercise 3.17 (b) that if M is complemented, then so is M.L. The main
goal of this exercise is to prove that the converse is not in general true.
 3.3 Banach Algebras and Spectra 305

(a) Prove that if X is a Banach space and Qx and Qx' are the natural
maps from X and X into X" and X" respectively, then Qx' (X')
and (Qx(X).L are complementary subspaces of X.
(b) Find a closed subspace M of a Banach space such that M.L is com-
plemented but M is not.
3.24 No result in this section says anything about complemented subspaces of
TVSs that are not Hausdorff. There is a good reason for this. Find it.

3.3 Banach Algebras and Spectra

The main purpose of this section is to obtain a few facts about the spectrum
of a bounded linear operator from a Banach space into itself. Most of the
discussion of the spectrum will take place within the more general context
of Banach algebras, since it is no more difficult to do so and since it provides
an opportunity to take a brief look at these objects.

3.3.1 Definition. Suppose that X is a set, that + and e are binary op-
erations from X x X into X, and that . is a binary operation from F x X
into X such that
(1) (X, +, . ) is a vector space;
and for all x, y, z in X and every scalar a,
(2) x e (y e z) = (x e y) e z;
(3) x e (y + z) = (x e y) + (x e z) and (x + y). z = (x. z) + (y e z); and
(4) a(xey)=(ax)ey=xe(ay).
Then (X, +, e,. ) is an algebra. This algebra is an algebra with identity if
X '" {O} and there is a member e of X such that
(5) eex=xee=x
whenever x EX, in which case e is the (multiplicative) identity of X. If
1111 is a norm on the vector space (X, +, . ) such that

(6) Ilx e yll ~ Ilxllllyll

whenever x, y E X, then (X, +, e,, 1111) is a normed algebra, and is a
Banach algebra if the norm is a Banach norm.

With all notation as in the preceding definition, the products ax and xey
are usually abbreviated to ax and xy respectively, and it is usually said
that X is an algebra (or normed algebra or Banach algebra if there is a
norm involved) rather than using the more formal notations (X, +, e, . )
and (X, +, e,, 11-11).
306 3. Linear Operators

The reason for requiring an algebra with identity to contain more than 0
is to make it impossible for 0 to be a multiplicative identity for the algebra.
See the proof of Proposition 3.3.10 (b).

3.3.2 Example. The set IF with its usual vector space operations, its
usual multiplication, and the norm given by the absolute value function is
a Banach algebra with identity 1.

3.3.3 Example. Suppose that K is a compact Hausdorff space. Define

the product of two members f and 9 of C(K) to be the usual pointwise
product. Then C(K) is a Banach algebra when given this multiplication,
the usual vector space operations, and the usual norm. As long as K is
nonempty, the algebra C(K) has an identity, namely, the function taking
on the constant value 1 on K.

3.3.4 Example. Suppose that J1 is a positive measure on aCT-algebra 1:

of subsets of a set n. As with C(K), let the product of two members f
and 9 of Loo(n, 1:, f-L) be the pointwise product. Then L(X)(n, 1:, J1) with
this multiplication, the usual vector space operations, and the usual norm
is a Banach algebra. As long as f-L(n) > 0, the function having constant
value 1 on n is an identity for Loocn, 1:, J1).

3.3.5 Example. As a special case of the preceding example, the space Roc> is
a Banach algebra with identity (1,1,1, ... ). Notice that the multiplication
of elements of Roc; is done termwise.

3.3.6 Example. With Roo treated as a Banach algebra as in the preceding

example, the space Co is a closed subalgebra of Roo and therefore is itself a
Banach algebra. Notice that Co has no multiplicative identity.

The following example is the most important one for the purposes of this
book.

3.3.7 Example. Suppose that X is a normed space. As has been done

throughout this book, let the product ST of two members Sand T of B(X)
be given by composition, that is, by the formula ST(x) = S(T(x)). Then
B(X) with this multiplication, the usual vector space operations, and the
operator norm is a normed algebra. If X is a Banach space, then B(X) is
a Banach algebra. As long as X cI {O}, the identity operator on X is a
multiplicative identity for B(X).

The multiplication operations defined in the above examples are the stan-
dard ones for their spaces and are the ones that will be assumed when these
spaces are treated as algebras in this book.
 3.3 Banach Algebras and Spectra 307

3.3.8 Definition. Suppose that X is an algebra with identity e. A mem-

ber x of X is invertible if there is a y in X such that xy = yx = e, in which
case y is the (multiplicative) inverse of x and is denoted by X-I.

3.3.9 Definition. Suppose that x is an element of an algebra X. Then

xn is defined inductively for each positive integer n by letting Xl = x and
xn = xn-Ix when n ~ 2. Now suppose that X has identity e. Then xO
is defined to be e. If x is invertible and n E N, then x- n is defined to
be (x-l)n.

It is implicitly assumed in the preceding two definitions, as well as in the

use of the phrase "the (multiplicative) identity" in Definition 3.3.1, that
every algebra has at most one identity and that an invertible element of
an algebra with identity has at most one inverse. This does turn out to be
the case. The next proposition contains these facts, as well as some other
basic ones about algebras.

3.3.10 Proposition. Suppose that X is an algebra.

(a) If x E X and 0 is the zero element of X, then Ox = xO = O.
(b) The element 0 of X is not a multiplicative identity for X.
(c) The algebra X has at most one multiplicative identity.
Now suppose that X is an algebra with identity e.
(d) The element 0 of X is not invertible.
(e) Each element of X has at most one inverse.
(f) If x, y, and z are elements of X such that yx = xz = e, then y = z
and x is invertible with inverse y. That is, every element of X that
is both left-invertible and right-invertible is invertible, and each of its
left inverses and right inverses equals its inverse.
(g) If x and yare invertible elements of X and a is a nonzero scalar, then
xy, ax, and x-I are invertible and have respective inverses y-Ix- l ,
a-lx-I, and x.
(h) If x is an invertible element of X and n E N, then xn is invertible,
and (Xn)-l = (x-I)n = x-no

Suppose next that X is a normed algebra, possibly without identity.

(i) If x E X and n E N, then Ilxnll ~ Ilxlln.
Finally, suppose that X is a normed algebra with identity e.

(j) Ilell 2: l.
(k) If x is an invertible element of X, then Ilx-III ~ IIxll- i .
308 3. Linear Operators

PROOF. If x E X and 0 is the zero element of X, then Ox = (0 + O)x =

Ox + Ox, so 0 = Ox, and similarly 0 = xO. This gives (a), from which (b)
follows immediately once it is noted that, by definition, an algebra with
identity must have a nonzero element. If el and e2 are both identities
for X, then el = eIe2 = e2, proving (c).
Suppose that X has identity e. It follows immediately from (a) and (b)
that 0 is not invertible, giving (d). If an element x of X has inverses Y
and z, then y = ye = y(xz) = (yx)z = ez = z, proving (e). The same
string of equalities proves (f). Parts (g) and (h) are easily verified.
Now suppose that X is a normed algebra, possibly having no identity, and
that x E X and n is a positive integer greater than l. Then Ilxlli = Ilxll l and
Ilxnll :::; Ilxn-Illllxll, which together with an obvious induction argument
yields (i).
Finally, suppose that X is a normed algebra having identity e. Then
Ilell = IIe 2 11 :::; Ile11 2, which together with the fact that e i= 0 proves (j). If
x is an invertible clement of X, then 1 :::; Ilell = Ilx-Ixll :::; Ilx-Illllxll, so
Ilx-III 2: IIxll- l , which finishes the proof of (k) and of the proposition.

Many of the familiar laws of exponents from basic arithmetic also hold
for algebras, and are easy consequences of Definition 3.3.9 and parts (g)
and (h) of Proposition 3.3.10 (but beware of assuming that (xY)" = xnyn
unless it is known that xy = yx).
It often happens that an identity for a normed algebra has norm 1, and
the examples given in this section might lead one to suspect that this must
always be the C3.'le. However, part (j) of Proposition 3.3.10 cannot in general
be sharpened, even for Banach algebras. See Exercises 3.27 and 3.28.
Addition of vectors and multiplication of vectors by scalars are contin-
uous operations for a nOfmed algebra because of the continuity of these
operations for normed spaces. It turns out that multiplication of vectors
by vectors is also continuous. The proof is essentially thc same as the fa-
miliar proof of the continuity of multiplication in the scalar field.

3.3.11 Proposition. The multiplication of members of a normed alge-

bra X is a continuous operation from X x X into X.
PROOF. Suppose that (xn) and (Yn) are sequences in X for which there
are elements x and y of X such that Xn --t x and Yn --+ y. Since the
sequence (x n ) is bounded,
IlxnYn - xY11 :::; IlxnYn - xnyll + IlxnY - xY11
:::; IlxnllllYn - yll + Ilyllllxn - xii --+ 0
as n --+ 00, so XnYn --+ xy as required.

The continuity of the inversion map x f--> x-Ion its domain in a Banach
algebra is most easily treated after the introduction of resolvent functions
and will be taken up then.
 3.3 Banach Algebras and Spectra 309

One immediate consequence of the preceding proposition is that multipli-

cation in a normed algebra distributes through infinite sums; that is, that if
x is a member of a normed algebra and .En Xn is a convergent series in the
algebra, then .En XXn and .En XnX both converge, and x(.E n xn) = .En xx"
and (.En Xn)X = .En XnX. Here is an application of this.
Suppose that X is a Banach algebra with identity e, that x E X, and
that 0: is a scalar such that 10:1 > Ilxll. Then

t
n=O
1I00-(n+l) xn ll = 10:1- 1 (Ilell + t
n=l
II(o:-lx)nll)

:::; 10:1- 1 (Ilell + ~ 1100-lxlln).

This last series is a convergent geometric series, so .E::'=o o:-(n+1)x n is an

absolutely convergent series that is therefore convergent. This, together
with the formula for the sum of a convergent geometric series of scalars,
suggests that o:e - x might be invertible with inverse .E::'=o o:-(n+l)xn ,
which is in fact the case since

(o:e - x) L= o:-(n+l)x n = L= o:-nxn - L= o:-nxn = e

n=O n=O n=l

and similarly (.E::'=o o:-(n+l)xn)(o:e - x) = e. This motivates the next

definition and proves the theorem that follows it.

3.3.12 Definition. Suppose that x is an element of an algebra X with

identity e. Then the resolvent set p(x) of x is the set of all scalars 0: such
that o:e - x is invertible. The spectrum iT(x) of x is the complement in IF
of p( x). The resolvent function or resolvent Rx of x is the function from p( x)
into X defined by the formula Rx (a) = (o:e - x) -1.

3.3.13 Theorem. Suppose that x is an element of a Banach algebra with

identity and that 0: is a scalar such that 10:1 > Ilxll. Then 0: E p(x) and
R x (0:) ="",00
~n=O
o:-(n+l)x n .

3.3.14 Corollary. If x is an element of a Banach algebra with identity

and 0: E iT(x), then 10:1 :::; Ilxll.

3.3.15 Corollary. If x is an element of a Banach algebra with identity e

and Ilx - ell < 1, then x is invertible and X-I = L~o(e- x)n.
PROOF. Since x = Ie - (e - x) and III > lie - xii, Theorem 3.3.13 assures
the invertibility of x and yields the series expansion for x-I from the series
expansion for the resolvent function.
310 3. Linear Operators

All the ingredients are now at hand for the examination of the continuity
of inversion promised earlier in this section.

3.3.16 Proposition. Suppose that X is a Banach algebra with identity e.

Let G(X) be the set of invertible elements of X. Then G(X) is an open
subset of X that is a group with identity e under the restriction of the
multiplication operation of X to G x G. Furthermore, the map x f--> X-I
is a topological homeomorphism of G(X) onto itself
PROOF. It is clear that G(X) has the claimed group structure. By parts (e)
and (g) of Proposition 3.3.10, the map x f--> X-I is one-to-one from G(X)
onto G(X) and is its own inverse, so the proposition will be proved once it
is shown that the map is continuous and that G(X) is open. Suppose that
x E G(X) and that ( > O. It follows from the continuity of multiplication of
members of X that there is a positive 8 such that Ilx-Iyll < (/(llx-111 + c)
whenever y E X and Ilyll < 8. Fix a z in X such that IIzll < 8. It is enough
to prove that x + z E G(X) and II(x + Z)-l - x-III < (.
Since lI-x-1zll < 1, Theorem 3.3.13 assures that 1 E p(-x-1z) and
therefore that e + x-1z is invertible and has inverse I::~=o(_x-lz)n. It
follows that x + z is invertible because x + z = x(e + x-Iz). Furthermore,

II(x+Z)-I_X-111 = II(e+x-Iz)-lx-1_x-111
:-:; Ilx-lllll(e + X-IZ)-I - ell
= Ilx-IIIII~(_x-Iz)n - ell

= IIx-IIIII~(_x-Iz)nll

n=1

= (,

as required.
With all notation as in the preceding proposition, suppose that x EX.
Then p(x) = { Q : Q E IF, Qe - x E G(X) }. The next result is therefore an
immediate consequence of the continuity of the map Q f--> Qe - x from IF
into X.

3.3.17 Proposition. If x is an element of a Banach algebra with identity,

then p(x) is open.
 3.3 Banach Algebras and Spectra 311

It follows from the preceding proposition and Corollary 3.3.14 that the
spectrum of an element of a Banach algebra with identity is closed and
bounded. This can be summarized as follows.

3.3.18 Theorem. If x is an element of a Banach algebra with identity,

then a(x) is compact.

It is possible for the spectrum of an element of a Banach algebra with

identity to be empty if the Banach algebra is real; see Exercise 3.30. As will
now be shown, this never happens when the scalar field is C. The following
fact will be useful for one of the lemmas needed for the proof.

3.3.19 The Resolvent Equation. If x is an element of an algebra with

identity, then

whenever a,(J E p(x).

PROOF. Let e denote the identity of the algebra. If a,(J E p(x), then
((J - a)Rx(a)Rx((J) = (ae - x)-l((Je - ae)((Je - X)-l
= (ae - x) -1 (((Je - x) - (ae - x)) ((Je - X)-l
= (ae - X)-l - ((Je - X)-l
= Rx(a) - Rx((J),
as claimed.

3.3.20 Definition. Suppose that f is a function from an open subset G
of IF into a normed space X, that a E G, and that

~i~ (* (J(a + (J) - f(a)))

exists. Then f is differentiable at a. The above limit is the derivative of f
at a and is denoted by l' (a).

3.3.21 Lemma. If x is an element of a Banach algebra with identity e,

then Rx is differentiable on p(x), and R~(a) = -(ae - X)-2 whenever
a E p(x).
PROOF. Suppose that a E p(x). Let (J be a nonzero scalar such that a+(J E
p(x). It follows from the resolvent equation that
1
i3(Rx(a + (J) - Rx(a)) = -Rx(a + (J)Rx(a)
= - ( (a + (J)e - x) -1 (ae _ x) -1 .

Letting (J tend to 0 establishes the lemma.

312 3. Linear Operators

3.3.22 Lemma. Suppose that x is an element of a Banach algebra X with

identity and that x* E X*. Then x* Rx is differentiable on p( x).
PROOF. Let e denote the identity of X. It follows from the preceding lemma
and the continuity and linearity of x* that x* Rx is differentiable on p(x)
with derivative x* (-(ae - x)-2).

3.3.23 Lemma. If x is all element of a Banach algebra with identity, then

limlal_oo Rx(a) = O.
PROOF. Let e be the identity of the Banach algebra. If a is a scalar such
that la I > I x II, then it follows from Theorem 3.3.13 and the computation
preceding Definition 3.3.12 that

oc

n=O

Letting lal tend to 00 finishes the proof.

3.3.24 Theorem. If x is an element of a complex Banach algebra with
identity, then O'(x) is nonempty.
PROOF. Let X be the Banach algebra. Suppose that O'(x) = 0. For each x*
in X*, it follows from Lemmas 3.3.22 and 3.3.23 that x* Rx is bounded
and entire and so, by Liouvillc's theorem, constant; another application of
Lemma 3.3.23 then shows that the constant value is O. This assures that
Rx(a) = 0 for each a in i.C, which implies that 0 is invertible. Since this
cannot be, the supposition that O'(x) = 0 must be wrong.

Thus, each element x of a complex Banach algebra with identity has a

nonempty compact spectrum lying in the closed disc in i.C centered at 0 of
radins Ilxll. The next portion of this section is devoted to finding the radins
of the smallest closed disc in i.C centered at 0 that includes the spectrum.

3.3.25 Definition. Suppose that x is an element of a complex Banach

algebra with identity. Let

T,,(X) = max{ lal : a E O'(x)}.

Then Tu (x) is the spectral radius of x.

 3.3 Banach Algebras and Spectra 313

3.3.26 Lemma. Suppose that x is an element of an algebra with identity,

that n E N, and that a E a(x). Then an E a(x n ).
PROOF. Let e be the identity of the algebra. Suppose that (3 is a scalar
such that (3n rt. a(xn), that is, such that (3ne - xn is invertible. The lemma
will be proved once it is shown that (3e - x is also invertible. Since

(where (30 is to be interpreted to be 1 if (3 = 0), it follows that

Since (3e - x has both a right inverse and a left inverse, it is invertible.

In the following result, the existence of the limit in the formula is part
of the conclusion. The existence of the limit does not actually require the
complex normed algebra in question to be complete or to have an identity;
see Exercise 3.31.

3.3.27 The Spectral Radius Formula. If X is a complex Banach alge-

bra with identity, then

rCT(x) = lim Ilxnll l / n

n

whenever x E X.
PROOF. Fix an x in X. Suppose first that (3 E a(x). For each positive
integer n, the preceding lemma assures that (3n E a(x n ) and therefore that
l(3nl:s Ilxnll and 1(31 :S Ilxnll l / n . It follows that 1(31 :S liminfnllxnlil/n and
thus that rCT(x) :S liminfnllxnlil/n.
Now suppose that 'I' is a scalar such that I'l'l > rCT(x). Let x* be a
member of X*. Then x* Rx is analytic on {a : a E te, lal > rCT(x)} by
Lemma 3.3.22. Applying x* to the series expansion for Rx from Theo-
rem 3.3.13 shows that x* Rx(a) = E~=o x*(xn)a~(n+l) when lal > IIxll.
This series expansion must actually hold for x* Rx(a) when lal > ra(x)
by the uniqueness of Laurent series expansions on annuli; see, for example,
[42, p. 103]. In particular, it holds for x* Rxb), so E~=o x*(xnh~(n+1)
converges, which in turn implies that limnx'b~(n+1)xn) = O. Since x is
an arbitrary member of X', it follows that 'Y~(n+l)xn ~ 0 and therefore
314 3. Linear Operators

that the sequence c-r-(n+l)x n ) is bounded. Let B be a positive upper bound

for the norms of the terms of this sequence. For each positive integer n,
it follows that Ilxnll ~ IIln+l B and thus that Ilxnll l / n ~ Irl(IIIB)l/n.
Therefore limsuPnllxnlll/n ~ III since limn(IIIB)l/n = 1. Since r could
have been any scalar with absolute value greater than r iT (x), it must be
that limsuPnllxnlll/n ~ riT(x), which when combined with the inequality
involving lim inf n Ilxn Ill/n derived in the first part of this proof shows that
limnllxnlil/n exists and equals riT(x).
3.3.28 Corollary. Suppose that X is a complex Banach algebra with
identity and that M is a closed subalgebra of X with an identity (not
assumed to be the identity of X). Let x be an element of M and let r iT M (x)
and r iTX (x) be the spectral radii of x with respect to the algebras M and X
respectively. Then r iT M (x) = r iT x (x).
Notice that the preceding corollary says only that the spectral radii of x
with respect to the two algebras have to be the same, not that the spectra
themselves do. See Exercise 3.34.
This ends the portion of this section covering the general theory of Ba-
nach algebras. Those interested in learning more about this theory will find
[148] to be an excellent source.
The rest of this section is devoted to a very brief look at the particular
Banach algebras of the most interest in this chapter, namely, the Banach
algebras B(X) such that X is a nontrivial Banach space, that is, a Banach
space that is not just {O}. As usual, the symbol I will be used throughout
this discussion and the rest of this chapter to denote the identity operator
on X. The identity operator on X* will be denoted by I*, which is con-
sistent with the fact that this operator is the adjoint of I. Notice that I
and J* are multiplicative identities for B(X) and B(X*) respectively since
X is nontrivial. Notice also that a member T of B(X) is invertible in the
sense of Definition 3.3.8 if and only if it is a normed space isomorphism
from X onto itself, which by Corollary 1.6.6 happens exactly when T is
algebraically invertible, that is, when T is one-to-one and maps X onto
itself. Incidentally, this would not in general be true if X were not assumed
to be complete, since it is possible for a one-to-one bounded linear operator
from an incomplete normed space onto itself not to have a bounded inverse;
consider the map (an) I--> (n- 1 a n ) on the vector space of finitely nonzero
sequences with t4e Roo norm.
Suppose that T E B(X), where X is a nontrivial Banach space, and that
a E IF. Since (aI - T)* = aI* - T*, it follows from Theorem 3.1.18 that

then an application of Proposition 3.1.15 shows that (( aI - T) -1

(aI* - T*) -1. These observations can be summarized as follows.
r
aI - T is invertible if and only if aI* - T* is invertible. If aI - T is invertible,
=

3.3.29 Proposition. Suppose that X is a nontrivial Banach space and that

T E B(X). Then a(T) = a(T*). If a E p(T), then (RT(a))' = R T * (a).
 3.3 Banach Algebras and Spectra 315

If T E B(X), where X is a nontrivial Banach space, then a scalar a is

in the spectrum of T if and only if af - T is not invertible, that is, if and
only if af - T either is not one-to-one or fails to map X onto X. The first
possibility is interesting enough to deserve special treatment.

3.3.30 Definition. Suppose that X is a nontrivial Banach space and that

T E B(X). The point spectrum ap(T) of T is the collection of all scalars a
such that af - T is not one-to-one. That is,

ap(T) = {o : 0 E JEi', ker(of - T) f::. {O} }.

Each member of ap(T) is an eigenvalue of T. If 0 E ap(T), then the closed

subspace ker( of - T) of X is the eigenspace associated with the eigenvalue 0:
of T, and each nonzero member of this eigenspace is an eigenvector of T.

When X and T are as in the preceding definition, the continuous spec-

trum ac(T) of T is the collection of all scalars 0: such that af - T is
one-to-one and (af - T)(X) is a proper dense subset of X, while the resid-
ual spectrum ar(T) of T is the collection of all scalars a such that af - T
is one-to-one and (of - T)(X) is not dense in X. These two terms will
not be needed here. Notice that a(T) is the disjoint union of ap(T), ac(T),
and ar(T).
Eigenvalues have many other names (with corresponding names for eigen-
spaces and eigenvectors), including proper values, characteristic values,
characteristic roots, secular values, spectral values, latent values, and latent
roots. See [67, pp. 606-607] for an interesting quote by Sylvester concerning
the rationale for that last name.
With X and T as in Definition 3.3.30, a scalar 0: is an eigenvalue of T
if and only if there is a nonzero x in X such that Tx = ax, while a
nonzero member x of X is an eigenvector of T if and only if T maps x to
a scalar multiple of itself. Some sources allow the zero element of X to be
an eigenvector. While this does make every member of an eigenspace an
eigenvector, many interesting facts about eigenvectors hold only for nonzero
ones anyway. For example, see the next theorem.
Though the spectrum of a bounded linear operator from a nontrivial
complex Banach space into itself must be nonempty, it is quite possible for
its point spectrum to be empty. See Exercise 3.38.
The following theorem is just another way to say that if T is a bounded
linear operator from a nontrivial Banach space into itself, then every sum
of a nonempty finite collection of distinct eigenspaces of T is actually an
internal direct sum.

3.3.31 Theorem. Suppose that X is a nontrivial Banach space, that T E

B(X), that 0:1, ... ,an are distinct eigenvalues of T, and that Xl, ... ,X n
are eigenvectors associated with aI, ... ,an respectively. Then Xl, ... ,X n
are linearly independent.
316 3. Linear Operators

PROOF. It may be assumed that n > 1. Suppose that j E {2, ... ,n} and
that Xl, ... ,Xj~l are linearly independent. Suppose moreover that there
are scalars f31, ... , f3j~l such that Xj = f31Xl + ... + f3j~lXj~l. Then

Since exj-exk f 0 when k = 1, ... ,j-1, it follows that f31 = ... = f3j~l = o.
This implies that Xj = 0, a contradiction. It must be that Xl, ... , Xj are
linearly independent, so it follows by induction that Xl, ... ,X n are linearly
independent.

The linear independence of eigenvectors associated with distinct eigen-

values is a key element in the proof of the following analysis of the spectrum
of a linear operator on a nontrivial finite-dimensional Banach space.

3.3.32 Theorem. Suppose that X is a nontrivial Banach space having

finite dimension n and that T E B(X).
(a) The spectrum O"(T) of T is finite with cardinality no more than n.
(b) O"(T) = O"p(T).
(c) If ex is an eigenvalue of T, then the eigenspaces of T and T* associ-
ated with ex have the same dimension.
PROOF. Part (b) is an immediate consequence of the fact that a member
of B(X) is one-to-one if and only if its range is all of X. Part (a) then
follows from Theorem 3.3.31. For (c), first note that if S E B(X), then by
Theorem 1.10.17, Lemma 3.1.16, and basic properties of finite-dimensional
vector spaces and linear operators on them,

(S~))
r)
dim(ker(S)) = dim

= dim ((S~)
= dim(S(X).L)
= dim(ker(S*)).

Letting S = cd - T, where ex is an eigenvalue of T, completes the proof.

In contrast, it is quite possible for the point spectrum of a bounded

linear operator from an infinite-dimensional Banach space into itself to be
uncountable; see Exercise 3.38. The next section will take up the study
of a particular class K(X, Y) of bounded linear operators from a Banach
space X into a Banach space Y such that if X is nontrivial, then the spectra
of members of K(X, X) have properties very similar to those described in
Theorem 3.3.32, even though the Banach space in question might not be
finite-dimensional.
 3.3 Banach Algebra.s and Spectra 317

Exercises

3.25 The purpose of this exercise is to show that every normed algebra can
be completed to a Banach algebra. To this end, suppose that X is a
normed algebra. Show that there is a Banach algebra Y and a map T
from X onto a dense subspace of Y such that T is a normed algebra
isometric isomorphism, that is, a normed space isometric isomorphism
for which T(XIX2) = T(xI)T(X2) whenever Xl, X2 EX. Show that if X
ha.s identity e, then Y ha.s identity T(e).
3.26 Suppose that X is an algebra. Let X[e] be the vector space sum X x IF; see
the introduction to Section 1.8 for the definition of a vector space sum.
Define a multiplication of elements of X[e] by the formula (x, a)(y, (3) =
(xy + o.y + (3x, 0.(3).
(a) Let e be the element (0,1) of X[e]. Prove that with its multiplication
and its vector space operations a.s a vector space sum, the space X[e]
is an algebra with identity e.
(b) Suppose that 11llx is a norm for X. Define a norm for X[e] by the
formula lI(x, a) IIX[e] = Ilxll x + 10.1. Prove that this really does define
a norm for X[e]. Prove that if X with 11llx is a normed or Banach
algebra, then X[e] with 11IIX[e] is, respectively, a normed or Banach
algebra with identity.
(c) With all notation a.s in (b), suppose that X with the norm 11llx is
a normed algebra and therefore that X[e] with the norm 11IIX[e] is
a normed algebra with identity. Prove that the map T: X -+ X[e]
given by the formula T(x) = (x,O) is a normed algebra isometric
isomorphism from X into X[e]; see Exercise 3.25 for the definition.
Thus, every Banach algebra without an identity can be embedded into a
Banach algebra with identity as a subalgebra having codimension 1.
3.21 Suppose that t 2: 1. Give an example of a Banach algebra with identity e
such that lIell = t.
3.28 Suppose that X is a normed algebra with identity e. For each x in X, let
Tx(Y) = xy whenever y E X. Show that the map x f-+ Tx is a normed
algebra isomorphism (that is, a normed space isomorphism such that
TXl TX2 = T X1X2 whenever Xl, X2 E X) from X onto a sub algebra of B(X).
Conclude that X is isomorphic as a normed algebra to a normed algebra
with identity e' such that Ile'll = 1, whether or not lIell = 1.
3.29 Suppose that (o.n) is a member of the Banach algebra 00. Identify the
spectrum of (an).
3.30 Let X be the real Banach algebra with identity formed from the com-
plex Banach algebra 00 by restricting multiplication of vectors by scalars
to lR x 00' and let x be the member (i, 0, 0, ... ) of X.
(a) Show that O"(x) = 0.

(b) Find limnllxnli n . Comment on what this says about extending the
l /

spectral radius formula to real Banach algebra.s.

318 3. Linear Operators

3.31 Prove that if X is a complex normed algebra not assumed to be complete

or to have an identity, and x EX, then limn IIxn 1I 1 / n exists. Exercises 3.25
and 3.26 could be helpful.
3.32 Suppose that X is a Banach algebra with identity e and that (x n ) is a
sequence of invertible elements of X that converges to some noninvert-
ible x. Prove that Ilx;;-lll -+ 00 as n -+ 00. (Otherwise, there would be
an n such that Ilx;;-lx - ell < 1.)
3.33 Prove that if X is a normed algebra with identity, then the map x f-+ X-I
on the set of invertible elements of X is continuous, whether or not X is
complete. Exercise 3.25 might help.
3.34 Let el be the element (1,0,0,0, ... ) of the complex Banach algebra Coo
and let M be the closed subalgebra of eDQ consisting of all the scalar
multiples of el, a Banach algebra with identity el. Find the spectra of el
with respect to the two algebras M and X. Notice that these spectra are
ciifferent though, of course, the spectral raciii are the same.
3.35 A complex homomorphism or multiplicative linear functional on a com-
plex algebra X is a nonzero linear functional T on X such that T(XY) =
T(X)T(Y) whenever x, Y E X. Suppose that T is a complex homomorphism
on a complex algebra X with identity e. Prove the following.
(a) T(e) = l.
(b) If x is an invertible element of X, then T(X) f= and T(X- 1) =
(T(X)(l.
(c) Suppose that X is a Banach algebra. Then IT(x)1 :::: Ilxll whenever
x E X, so T E X*.
3.36 A division algebra is an algebra with identity such that the only element
of the algebra that is not invertible is 0. Suppose that X is a complex
Banach algebra with identity e and that X is also a division algebra.
Prove that X = {ae : a E C}. Conclude that X is isomorphic as a
normed algebra to IC. (See Exercise 3.28 for the definition of a normed
algebra isomorphism.) This result is called the Gelfand-Mazur theorem.
3.37 An involution for an algebra X is a map x -+ x* from X into X such that
if x, y E X and a E Jl<, then
(1) (x+y)*=x'+y*;
(2) (axl' =ax';
(3) (xy)* = y'x';
(4) (xT = x.
(It is not being assumed in (2) that IF = C. If IF = JR, then a is just a.)
A Banach algebra X with an involution is a B' -algebra or a C* -algebra
if Ilx'xll = IIxl1 2 whenever x E X. Suppose that x is an element of a
B' -algebra X.
(a) Prove that Ilx'll = Ilxll
Now suppose for the rest of this exercise that the B* -algebra X has an
identity.
 3.4 Compact Operators 319

(b) Prove that x is invertible if and only if x* is invertible, in which case

(x*)-l = (x- l )*.
(c) Suppose that IF = C and that x is self-adjoint, that is, that x* = x.
Prove that TO" (x) = Ilxll.
3.38 Let X be complex f2, let Y be complex foo, and let II)) be the closed unit
disc in the complex plane.
(a) Let Tr be the right-shift operator from X into X given by the for-
mula Tr(O!l, 0!2, ... ) = (0, O!l, 0!2, ... ). Show that CT(Tr) = II)) but
CTp(Tr) = 0.
(b) Let Tl be the left-shift operator from X into X given by the formula
Tl(O!l, 0!2, ... ) = (0!2, 0!3, ... ). Show that cr(Tl) = II)) and CTp(Tl) = II))0.

(c) Let Sl be the left-shift operator from Y into Y given by the formula
for Tl from (b). Show that CT(Sz) = CTp(Sz) = II)).

3.4 Compact Operators

The following definition could be generalized to linear operators between
normed spaces, but enough of the results that follow depend on the com-
pleteness of the normed spaces in question to justify concentrating on the
Banach space case.

3.4.1 Definition. (D. Hilbert, 1906 [103]; F. Riesz, 1918 [195]). Suppose
that X and Yare Banach spaces. A linear operator T from X into Y
is compact if T(B) is a relatively compact subset of Y whenever B is a
bounded subset of X. The collection of all compact linear operators from X
into Y is denoted by K(X, Y), or by just K(X) if X = Y.

The definition of a compact operator as it appears above is due to Riesz.

More will be said about Hilbert's earlier definition near the end of this
section.
The notion of a compact operator is in a sense a generalization of the
notion of a bounded finite-rank linear operator. To see this, suppose that
T is a finite-rank linear operator from a Banach space X into a Banach
space Y. Since a subset of T(X) is bounded if and only if it is relatively
compact, the operator T is bounded if and only if it is compact. Even if
the assumption that T(X) is finite-dimensional is dropped, it is still true
that relatively compact subsets of T(X) are bounded, which implies that
T is bounded if it is compact. These observations are summarized in the
following two results.

3.4.2 Proposition. Evcry compact linear operator from a Banach space

into a Banach space is bounded.
320 3. Linear Operators

3.4.3 Proposition. A finite-rank linear operator from a Banach space

into a Banach space is compact if and only if it is bounded. In particular, a
linear functional on a Banach space is compact if and only if it is bounded.

As will be seen in Example 3.4.5, not every compact operator has finite
rank.
Recall that a subset S of a metric space X is totally bounded if, for every
positive , there is a finite subset FE of S (or, equivalently, of X) such that
every point of S is within distance of a member of FE; that is, such that
S is covered by the finite collection of open balls in X having radius and
centered at the points of FE' It is a basic fact from the theory of metric
spaces that a subset of a complete metric space is relatively compact if and
only if it is totally bounded; see, for example, [67, p. 22] or [129, p. 101J.
This, together with other obvious arguments, proves the following collection
of characterizations of compact operators.

3.4.4 Proposition. Suppose that T is a linear operator from a Banach

space X into a Banach space Y. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The operator T is compact.
(b) The set T(Bx) is a relatively compact subset of Y.
(c) The set T(B) is a totally bounded subset of Y whenever B is a
bounded subset of X.
(d) Every bounded sequence (xn) in X has a subsequence (x nj ) such that
the sequence (TxnJ) converges.

Here is an application of this proposition.

3.4.5 Example. Define the linear operator T from 2 into itself by the
formula T(a n ) = (n- 1a n ). Let ((,8j,n));':l be a bounded sequence ofmem-
bers of 2' It will be shown that (T(,8j,n));':l has a convergent subse-
quence. Since 2 is reflexive, each of its bounded sequences has a weakly
convergent subsequence, so it may be assumed that there is a member (,8n)
of 2 such that w-limj(,8j,n) = (,8n). It follows that limj ,8j,n = ,8n for
each n. Also, for each positive there is a positive integer n, such that
L~=n,ln-1(,8j,n - ,8n)12 < for every j. These two facts together imply
that limj T(,8j,n) = T(,8n). It follows from the equivalence of (a) and (d)
in Proposition 3.4.4 that T is compact. Notice that T(X) contains the
sequence (en) of standard unit vectors of 2, so T is an example of a
compact operator that does not have finite rank. Notice also that the
range of T is not closed since it contains, for each positive integer n,
the element (l-1,2- 1, ... ,n- 1,O,O, ... ) of 2, but does not contain the
limit (1- 1 ,2- 1 , ... ) obtained by letting n tend to 00.
 3.4 Compact Operators 321

The failure of the range of T to be closed in the preceding example is a

general phenomenon for compact operators not having finite rank.

3.4.6 Proposition. The range of a compact linear operator from a Banach

space into a Banach space is closed if and only if the operator has finite
rank.
PROOF. The reverse implication follows immediately from the fact that
finite-dimensional subspaces of normed spaces are always closed. For the
forward implication, suppose that T is a compact linear operator from a
Banach space X into a Banach space Y having closed range. Then T(X)
is itself a Banach space. By the open mapping theorem, the operator T
maps open subsets of X onto open subsets of T(X). It follows that T
maps the open unit ball of X onto a nonempty relatively compact open
subset of T(X), which implies that T(X) has the Heine-Borel property
and therefore is finite-dimensional.

Of course, the range of a bounded finite-rank linear operator from a

Banach space into a Banach space is separable. It turns out that this is a
property shared by the ranges of all compact operators.

3.4.7 Proposition. Every compact linear operator from a Banach space

into a Banach space has a separable range.
PROOF. Suppose that X and Yare Banach spaces and that T E K(X, Y).
Then [T(Bx)] is separable by Theorem 1.12.15 since T(Bx) is relatively
compact. It follows that the subspace T(X) of [T(Bx)] is separable.

If X and Yare Banach spaces, then K(X, Y) is closed in the usual

algebraic and topological senses.

3.4.8 Proposition. Suppose that X and Yare Banach spaces, that R

and S are compact linear operators from X into Y, that 0 E IE", and that
(Tn) is a sequence of compact linear operators from X into Y that converges
to some T in B(X, Y). Then R + S, oR, and T are all compact.
PROOF. If (xn) is a bounded sequence in X, then (xn) can be thinned to
a subsequence (x nj ) such that both (Rx nJ ) and (Sx nj ) converge, which
implies that ((R + S)(xnJ) and (oRxnJ converge. It follows that R + S
and a.R are compact.
Now suppose that B is a bounded subset of X and that 10 > O. Let n
be such that IITnx - TxlI < E/3 whenever x E B. Since Tn(B) is totally
bounded, there is a finite subset F of B such that every member of Tn(B)
lies within distance 10/3 of a member of Tn(F). It follows from straightfor-
ward applications of the triangle inequality that every member of T(B) lies
within distance 10 of a member of T(F), which implies that T(B) is totally
bounded and therefore that T is compact.
322 3. Linear Operators

With X and Y as in the preceding proposition, the space K(X, Y) is

nonempty since it contains the zero operator, so the following corollary is
essentially just a restatement of the proposition.

3.4.9 Corollary. If X and Yare Banach spaces, then K(X, Y) is a closed

subspace of B(X, Y).

It also turns out that the product of two compact operators must be
compact. In fact, the compactness of the product follows even if only one
of the operators is compact and the other is bounded.

3.4.10 Proposition. Suppose that X, Y, and Z are Banach spaces, that

S E B(X, Y), and that T E B(Y, Z). If either S or T is compact, then TS
is compact.
PROOF. By definition, bounded linear operators between normed spaces
map bounded sets to bounded sets, and also map relatively compact sets to
relatively compact sets because of their continuity. The proposition follows
easily from this.

When A is a subset of an algebra X and x EX, the sets {xy : yEA} and
{yx : yEA} are denoted, as one might expect, by xA and Ax respectively.

3.4.11 Definition. An ideal in an algebra X is a vector subspace M of X

such that xM, M x t;;; M whenever x EX.

It is clear that every ideal in an algebra is a subalgebra of the algebra.

With this term in hand, and in light of Corollary 3.4.9, the following result
is an immediate corollary of Proposition 3.4.10.

3.4.12 Corollary. If X is a Banach space, then K(X) is a closed ideal

in B(X).

For a bounded linear operator between Banach spaces, the property of

being compact can be characterized in several different ways in terms of
the behavior of the adjoint of the operator. One such characterization will
be derived here from the Arzela-Ascoli theorem, and a second will then be
obtained from the first.

3.4.13 Definition. Suppose that K is a compact Hausdorff space and that

S is a subset of C(K) with the property that for every x in K and every
positive E there is a neighborhood UX,f of x such that If(y) - f(x)1 < f
whenever f E Sand y E UX,E' Then S is equicontinuous.

In the following theorem, ArzeIa proved the forward implication while

Ascoli is responsible for the converse.
 3.4 Compact Operators 323

3.4.14 The Arzela-Ascoli Theorem. (C. Arzela, 1889 [6]; G. Ascoli,

1882-1883 [7]). Suppose that K is a compact Hausdorff space and that
S is a subset of C(K). Then S is relatively compact jf and only if S is
bounded and equicontinuous.
PROOF. It may be assumed that K and S are nonempty. Suppose first that
S is relatively compact. Fix a positive ( and an Xo in K. Since S is totally
bounded, there is a finite subset F of S such that every member of S lies
within distance (/3 of a member of F. Let UXQ,f be a neighborhood of Xo
such that If(y) - f(xo)1 < (/3 whenever f E F and y E UxQ , It follows
that if fo E Sand y E UXQ,f) then there is an f in F such that

Ifo(Y) - fo(xo)1 ~ Ifo(Y) - f(Y)1 + If(y) - f(xo)1 + If(xo) - fo(xo)1 < (.

The set S is therefore equicontinuous, and is bounded since it is relatively

compact.
Suppose conversely that S is bounded and equicontinuous. Again, fix
a positive (. For each x in K, let UX,f be a neighborhood of x such that
If(Y) - f(x)1 < (/3 whenever f E Sand Y E UX,f' Since K is compact, there
is a finite collection Xl, ... , Xm of members of K such that K .;; U;:l UXj,f'
It follows from the boundedness of S that { (J(Xl), ... ,f(xm ) : f E S}
is a subset of Euclidean n-space that is bounded and therefore totally
bounded, so there is a finite collection II, ... , f n of members of S such
that for each f in S there is a j for which (J(xJ), ... , f(x m ) is within
distance (/3 of (Jj(xd, ... ,fj(x.,.,,)). Fix an f in S and let fj be as in the
preceding sentcnce. If X E K, then there is a k such that x E UXk ,., and so

It follows that Ilf - fj 1100 < E. The set S is therefore totally bounded and
so is relatively compact.

The following characterization of operator compactness is important

enough to have inherited the name of its discoverer.

3.4.15 Schauder's Theorem. (J. Schauder, 1930 [209]). A bounded linear

operator from a Banach space into a Banach space is compact if and only
if its adjoint is compact.
PROOF. Let T be a bounded linear operator from a Banach space X into
a Banach space Y. Suppose first that T is compact. Let K = T( B x) and
let B be a bounded subset of Y. Since

whenever z* E Band Yl,Y2 E K, the set B, viewed as a subset of C(K),

is bounded and equicontinuous and therefore relatively compact by the
324 3. Linear Operators

Arzela-Ascoli theorem. Suppose that (y~) is a sequence in B. By what has

been proved, some subsequence (y~) of (y~) is uniformly Cauchy on K,
which implies that (y~.J T) is unifori'nly Cauchy on B X and therefore, by
the completeness of X*, convergent as a sequence in X*. Since (T* (Y~j)) =
(y~ T), it follows that T* is compact.
J
Conversely, suppose that T* is compact. Then T** is compact by what
has already been proved. Let Qx and Qy be the natural maps from X
and Y respectively into their second duals. Then T = Q};1T**Qx by Propo-
sition 3.1.13, from which it follows that T is compact.

As was promised earlier, there is another important characterization of

operator compactness in terms of the behavior of the adjoint, and it is
based on a continuity condition involving the bounded weak* topology.

3.4.16 Theorem. A bounded linear operator from a Banach space X into

a Banach space Y is compact if and only if its adjoint is continuous from
the bounded weak* topology of y* to the norm topology of X*.
PROOF. Let T be a bounded linear operator from X into Y. Suppose first
that T is compact. Then T* is also compact. Let F be a closed subset
of X*. To show that T* has the claimed continuity property, it is enough
to show that (T*)-1(F) is b-weakly* closed. Let (y~) be a bounded net
in (T*) -1 (F) that is weakly* convergent to some y* in Y*. By Corol-
lary 2.7.5, the set (T*)-l(F) will be shown to be b-weakly* closed once it
is shown that y* E (T*)-l(F). Now the weak*-to-weak* continuity of T*
assures that T*y~ ~. T*y*, while the compactness of T* produces a sub-
net (y~) of (y~) such that (T*y~) converges in the norm topology to some x*
in X* that must lie in the closed set F. It follows that T*y* = x*, so
y* E (T*)-l(F) and T* has the required continuity property.
Suppose conversely that T* is continuous from the bounded weak* topol-
ogy of Y* to the norm topology of X*. Let B be a bounded subset of y*
and let (z;) be a net in B. To show that T* is compact and therefore that
T is compact, it is enough to show that (T* z;) has a subnet convergent in
the norm topology. By the Banach-Alaoglu theorem, the bounded net (z;)
has a subnet (z~) that is convergent in the weak* topology and therefore
in the bounded weak* topology, which implies that (T* z;) is convergent in
the norm topology.

3.4.17 Corollary. If the adjoint of a bounded linear operator T from a

Banach space into a Banach space is weak*-to-norm continuous, then T is
compact.

It it; not true that every compact operator has a weak*-to-norm contin-
uous adjoint. See Exercise 3.44.
The next portion of this section is devoted to obtaining Theorem 3.4.23,
Frederic Riesz's analysis of the spectrum of a compact operator from an
 3.4 Compact Operators 325

infinite-dimensional Banach space into itself. The path that will be taken
to this theorem is related to Riesz's original method. See [67, p. 609] for the
history of Riesz's result and its relationship to earlier work of Fredholm,
and for references to various methods of obtaining it.
The first lemma en route to Theorem 3.4.23 is so useful throughout
functional analysis that it has become a named result.

3.4.18 Riesz's Lemma. (F. Riesz, 1918 [195]). Suppose that M is a proper
closed subspace of a normed space X and that 0 < () < 1. Then there is
an x in Sx such that d(x, M) ?: ().
PROOF. By Corollary 1.9.7, there is an x* in Sx' such that M ~ ker(x*).
Let x be an element of Sx such that Ix*xl ?: (). If y E M, then Ilx - yll ?:
Ix*x - x*YI = Ix*xl ?: (), as required.

Suppose that X is a Banach space. It often happens that if a statement

is true for f - T whenever T E K(X), then it must also be true for af - T
whenever T E K(X) and a is a nonzero scalar since a-IT is compact and
af -T = a(I -a-IT). This can sometimes be used to simplify the notation
in certain arguments just a bit, as is done in the proofs of the next three
lemmas.

3.4.19 Lemma. Suppose that X is a Banach space, that T E K(X), and

that a is a nonzero scalar. If (af - T)(X) = X, then af - T is one-to-one.
PROOF. It may be assumed that a = 1. Notice that T commutes with
(I - T)n for each positive integer n; think of the expansion of (I - T)n into
polynomial form. It follows that

whenever n E N.
Suppose that (I -T)(X) = X but f -T is not one-to-one. If n is a positive
integer, then (f -T)n(x) = X and therefore (f _T)n+l maps some member
of X to 0 that (I - T)n does not, so ker((I - T)n) ~ ker((f - T)n+l). By
Riesz's lemma, there is a sequence (x n ) in Sx such that if n E Nand
y E ker((I - T)n), then Xn E ker((I - T)n+I) and Ilx n - yll ?: 1/2. If
n,m EN and n > m, then (I - T)(x n ) + TX m E ker((f - T)n), so
1
IITxn - TXml1 = Ilxn - ((I - T)(x n ) + Tx m) II?: 2
It follows that (Txn) has no convergent subsequence, which contradicts the
compactness of T.

Under the hypotheses of the preceding lemma, it actually turns out that
(af - T)(X) = X if and only if af - T is one-to-one. This is an immediate
consequence of the next lemma.
326 3. Linear Operators

3.4.20 Lemma. Suppose that X is a Banach space, that T E K(X), and

that 0: is a nonzero scalar. Then 0:1 - T has finite-dimensional kernel and
closed range, and the dimension of its kernel equals the codimension of its
range.
PROOF. It may be assumed that 0: = 1. If ker(I - T) were infinite-dimen-
sional, then, by Lemma 1.4.22, the unit sphere of ker(I - T) would contain
a sequence (xn) such that Ilxn - Xm I 2: 1 whenever n =1= m, which would
imply that IITxn - TXml1 = Ilxn - xmll 2: 1 whenever n =1= m, and so (Txn)
would have no convergent subsequence. This contradicts the compactness
of T, so ker(1 - T) must be finite-dimensional.
It follows from Theorem 3.2.18 (b) that ker(I - T) is a complemented
subspace of X. Let M be a closed subspace of X such that X is the internal
direct sum of ker(I - T) and M. Then (I - T)(M) = (I - T)(X) and 1- T
is one-to-one on M. To show that (I - T)(X) is closed, it is enough to show
that the restriction of I - T to M is an isomorphism. Suppose it were not.
Then there would be a sequence (Yn) in SM such that (I - T)(Yn) ---+ O.
Due to the compactness of T, it may be assumed that (TYn) converges to
some z, which implies that Yn = (I - T)(Yn) + TYn ---+ z and therefore that
z E SM. However,

(I - T)(z) = lim
n
(I - T)(Yn) = 0,

which implies that z = 0 since I - T is one-to-one on M. This contradicts

the fact that z E 8 M and therefore establishes that (I - T)(X) is closed.
It remains to be shown that dim(ker(I - T) = codim((I - T)(X).
The first step toward this is to observe that, by Theorem 1.10.17 and
Lemma 3.1.16,

((I _~)(X) * ~ ((I - T)(X)-L = ker(I* - T*).

Since ker( J* - T*) is finite-dimensional by the compactness of T* and since

a finite-dimensional normed space has the same dimension as its dual space,

codim((I - T)(X) = dim(ker(I* - T*). (3.4)

The compactness ofT* also implies that (1* -'I'*)(X*) is closed and thus, by
Theorem 3.1.21, weakly* closed. It follows from Lemma 3.1.16 and Propo-
sition 2.6.6 (c) that

and therefore from Theorem 1.10.16 that

X*
(I* - T*)(X*)
X*
- - - - , - ~ (ker(I - T)
(ker(I - T)-L
r.
 3.4 Compact Operators 327

A further application of the fact that every finite-dimensional normed space

has the same dimension as its dual then shows that

cOdim((I* - T*)(X*)) = dim(ker(I - T)). (3.5)

Next, suppose that dim(ker(I - T)) > codim((I - T)(X)). It follows from
Theorem 3.2.18 (a) that there is a closed subspace N of X such that X
is the internal direct sum of (I - T)(X) and N. Applying the first iso-
morphism theorem for Banach spaces to the projection with range Nand
kernel (I - T)(X) shows that codim(I - T)(X)) = dim(N), so there is
a bounded linear operator S that is not one-to-one that maps the finite-
dimensional Banach space ker(I - T) onto the smaller-dimensional Banach
space N. Consider S to be a member of B(ker(I - T), X), and notice that
S is compact. As in the first part of this proof, let M be a closed subspace
of X such that X is the internal direct sum of ker(I - T) and M, and
let P be the projection in X with range ker(I - T) and kernel M. Let
R = T + SP. Then R is compact since T and S are so, and

(I - R)(X) = I - T) - SP)(ker(J - T)) + ((I - T) - SP)(M)

= N + (I - T)(M)
= N + (I - T)(X)
=X.
It follows from Lemma 3.4.19 that 1- R is one-to-one. However, there is
some nonzero w in the subset kereS) of ker(I - T), which implies that
(I - R)(w) = (I - T)(w) - SPw = 0, a contradiction. Therefore, it must
be that
dim(ker(I - T)) :::; codim(I - T)(X)) , (3.6)
and furthermore, since T* is compact, that

dim(ker(I* - T*)) :::; codim((I* - T*)(X*)). (3.7)

It follows from (3.4), (3.5), (3.6), and (3.7) that

dim(ker(I - T)) = codim((I - T)(X)),
as required.

The next result also follows from (3.4), (3.5), (3.6), and (3.7).

3.4.21 Lemma. Suppose that X is a Banach space, that T E K(X), and

that a is a nonzero scalar. Then dim(ker(aI - T)) = dim(ker(aJ* - T*)).

3.4.22 Lemma. Suppose that X is a nontrivial Bana.ch space, tha.t T E

K(X), and that (an) is a sequence of distinct eigenvalues of T. Then
an ---> O.
328 3. Linear Operators

PROOF. It may be assumed that each O:n is nonzero. For each positive
integer n, let Xn be an eigenvector associated with O:n and let Mn =
({ Xl, ... , Xn}), a closed subspace of X that has dimension n by Theo-
rem 3.3.31; then Mn ~ Mn+1 and (O:n+l1 - T)(Mn +1) ~ Mn, so by
Riesz's lemma there is a Yn+l in SMn + 1 such that d(Yn+1, Mn) 2': 1/2 and
(O:n+l1 - T)(Yn+r) E Mw It follows that if j, kEN and j > k> 1, then

T(o:j1 yj ) - T(O:k 1Yk)

= O:k1(O:k1 - T)(Yk) - 0:-; 1 (O:j1 - T)(Yj) - Yk + Yj
= Yj - (Yk + 0:-;1 (O:j1 - T)(Yj) - O:k1(O:k1 - T)(Yk)'

The expression subtracted from Yj lies in M j - 1 and therefore has dis-

tance at least 1/2 from YJ, so IIT(o:-;lYj) - T(O:k1Yk)11 2: 1/2. Therefore
(T(o:;;-lYn) has no convergent subsequence. Since T is compact, it must be
that (o:;;-lYn) has no bounded subsequence, which implies that O:n -> O.

3.4.23 Theorem. (F. Riesz, 1918 [195]). Suppose that X is an infinite-

dimensional Banach space and that T E K(X).

(a) The spectrum a(T) of T is a countable compact set whose only pos-
sible limit point is O.
(b) a(T) = {O} U ap(T).
(c) If 0: is a nonzero eigenvalue of T, then the eigenspaces of T and T*
associated with a have the same finite dimension.

PROOF. Since X is infinite-dimensional, the compact operator T cannot

be an isomorphism from X onto itself, so 0 E a(T). If a E a(T) \ {O}, then
either ker(a1 -T) i {O} or (a1 -T)(X) i X; it follows from Lemma 3.4.20
that both are actually true, so a E ap(T). This proves (b).
It follows from Theorem 3.3.18 that a(T) is compact. Now suppose that
r > 0, that AT = {o: : a E a(T), lal 2: r}, and that AT is infinite. Then
some sequence of distinct members of AT converges to some member of AT'
By (b), each member of this sequence is an eigenvalue ofT, so this sequence
converges to 0 by Lemma 3.4.22. This contradiction assures that AT is finite
for each positive r, from which (a) follows.
Now suppose that a is a nonzero eigenvalue of T. Then dim(ker( 0:1 - T)
is finite by Lemma 3.4.20 and equal to dim(ker(a1* -T*)) by Lemma 3.4.21,
which proves (c).

The preceding theorem does not say that the spectrum of a compact
operator from an infinite-dimensional Banach space into itself is the dis-
joint union of {O} and ap(T). For example, the compact operator (an) f-->
(a1,0,0, ... ) from 2 into itself has 0 as an eigenvalue (and the associ-
ated eigenspace is infinite-dimensional). On the other hand, notice that
 3.4 Compact Operators 329

the member T of K(2) from Example 3.4.5 is one-to-one and therefore

does not have 0 as an eigenvalue.
Several of the lemmas leading up to the preceding theorem have an in-
teresting application to the solution of linear equations.

3.4.24 The Fredholm Alternative. Suppose that X is a Banach space,

that T E K(X), and that a is a nonzero scalar. Then the following are
equivalent.
(a) For every y in X, the equation (al - T) (x) = y is satisfied by some x
in X.
(b) For every y* in X*, the equation (aI* - T*)(x*) = y* is satisfied by
some x* in X*.
(c) The homogeneous equation (al - T)(x) = 0 is satisfied only when
x=O.
(d) The homogeneous equation (al* - T*)(x*) = 0 is satisfied only when
x* = O.
If any (and therefore all) of (a), (b), (c), and (d) are true, then the equation
in (a) has a unique solution Xy whenever y E X, and similarly for the
equation in (b). Whether or not (c) and (d) are true, the solution spaces of
the homogeneous equations in (c) and (d) have the same finite dimension.
PROOF. The fact that the solution spaces of the homogeneous linear equa-
tions in (c) and (d) have the same finite dimension is just a restatement of
Lemma 3.4.21 and part of Lemma 3.4.20. The equivalence of (c) and (d)
follows from this. It is a consequence of Lemma 3.4.20 that al - T is one-
to-one if and only if (al -T)(X) = X, which is another way to say that (a)
and (c) are equivalent; this also shows that if (a) holds, then the equation
in (a) is satisfied by a unique Xy whenever y E X. The same argument
applied to T* proves the equivalence of (b) and (d) and the uniqueness
assertion about solutions of the equation in (b).

See Exercise 3.47 for more properties of solutions of homogeneous and

nonhomogeneous equations that are sometimes included in the Fredholm
alternative.
Most of the rest of this section is devoted to a very brief look at the ap-
proximation property. Historically, the motivating example is the following
one.

3.4.25 Example. For each positive integer n, define Pn : 2 ~ 2 by the

formula Pn ((OJ)) = (a1, . .. ,an, 0, 0, ... ). Then each Pn is a bounded pro-
jection from 2 onto { (aj) : (aj) E 2, an+l = a n +2 = ... = 0 }. Suppose
that S is a nonempty relatively compact subset of 2. For each positive E,
there must be a positive integer ne such that (Ej:n,+llaj 12 )1/2 < E when-
ever (aj) E S, because if this failed for some positive E then it would be
330 3. Linear Operators

possible to construct a sequence of elements of S with no convergent sub-

sequence; the basic idea is to start with some (al,j) in S, select an n1
such that O:;:n,+1la1,jI2)1/2 ::; E/2, then select an (a2,j) in S such that
(E;:nl +1l a 2,j 12)1/2 ~ E, and continue in the obvious fashion. It follows
that limn {sup{ 11(1 - Pn )(y)112: yES}} = o.
Now suppose that T is a compact operator from a Banach space X
into 2. Let Tn = PnT for each n. Then each Tn is a bounded finite-rank
linear operator, and

0= lim{sup{ 11(1 - Pn)(y)112: Y E T(Bx)}}

n

= lim{sup{
n
I/(T - Tn)(x)112 : x E Bx}}

= lim
n
liT - Tn 1/.
This proves that every compact linear operator from a Banach space into 2
is the limit of a sequence of bounded finite-rank linear operators from that
Banach space into 2' Since bounded finite-rank linear operators from a
Banach space into a Banach space are compact, another way of expressing
this is to say that 2 has the following property.

3.4.26 Definition. A Banach space X has the approximation property if,

for every Banach space Y, the set of finite-rank members of B(Y, X) is
dense in K(Y, X).

The argument that proves the following result is essentially the same as
that of Example 3.4.25.

3.4.27 Theorem. The spaces Co and p such that 1 ::; p < 00 have the
approximation property.

Though the definition of the approximation property given above is the

historical one, it is probably not the one used most often by modern au-
thors. The definition commonly encountered today is an equivalent one
due to Alexandre Grothendieck that has the advantage of being based on
intrinsic properties of the Banach space X in question rather than on prop-
erties that involve every Banach space Y as well as X. The equivalence of
these two definitions will be proved in Theorem 3.4.32, both for the impor-
tance of the result and because some useful ideas occur in the proofs of the
theorem and the lemmas leading up to it.

3.4.28 Lemma. Suppose that S is a nonempty relatively compact subset

of a Banach space X and that 11llx is the norm of X. Let

Ks = co (U{ as : a E IF', lal :S 1})

and let Y = (Ks). Then
 3.4 Compact Operators 331

(a) the set Ks is a compact subset of X that includes S;

(b) the vector space Y has a Banach norm 11lly such that Ks is the
closed unit ball for that norm; and
(c) the "identity" map from (Y, IHy) into (X, 11llx) is compact.
PROOF. The set U{ o:S : 0: E IF, 10:1 ::; I} is relatively compact because
each of its sequences has a convergent subsequence. Since

Ks = co (u{ o:S: 0: ElF, 10:1 ::; l}) ,

the set Ks is compact by Mazur's compactness theorem. This and the
obvious fact that S ~ Ks prove (a).
Since co( U{ o:S : 0: E IF, 10:1 ::; I}) is balanced, so is Ks by Theo-
rem 2.2.9 (i), which implies that Ks is an absorbing subset of Y since
Y = (Ks) and Ks is convex. Let 1Illy be the Minkowski functional of Ks
on Y, a seminorm by Proposition 1.9.14 (a) (3). If y is a nonzero mem-
ber of Y, then lIylly > 0, for otherwise there would be a sequence tn of
positive reals converging to 0 such that t;;;ly E Ks for all n, contradicting
the boundedness of K s in X. Therefore II II y is a norm on Y. It is easy to
check that lIylly ::; 1 if Y E Ks and lIylly > 1 if y E Y \ Ks, that is, that
Ks is the closed unit ball for 11lly. The "identity" map from (Y, IIlly)
into (X, 11llx) is bounded since it maps BCy.II'lly) onto the bounded sub-
set Ks of X, and will necessarily be compact once it is demonstrated that
(Y, II II y) is a Banach space.
All that remains to be proved is that the metric induced by 11lIy is
complete. Suppose it is not. Let (v n ) be a nonconvergent Cauchy sequence
in B CYII . IIY)' Since (v n ) is also Cauchy in X and lies in Ks, there is some v
in Ks such that Ilvn - vllx -+ O. Letting Wn = Vn - v for each n produces a
nonconvergent Cauchy sequence in Y such that Ilwn Ilx -+ O. It follows that
there is a subsequence (WnJ of (w n ) and a positive {j such that IIwnj Ily ~ (j
for each). Letting Zj = Ilwnj 1I;}wnj for each) produces a Cauchy sequence
in S(Y.II'lIy) that, when viewed as a sequence in X, converges to O. Let)o
be a positive integer such that Ilzj - zklly ::; 1/2 whenever j,k ~ )0' Then
2(zjo - Zj) E Ks whenever ) ~ )0' Since Zj -+ 0 in X and Ks is closed
in X, it follows that 2zjo E Ks. This implies that IIzjolly ::; 1/2, which is a
contradiction.

3.4.29 Lemma. Suppose that (xn) is a sequence in a Banach space X

that converges to 0 and that the subset H of IF is either {I} or a closed
ball in IF centered at O. Then
co( {o:xn : 0: E H, n EN})

= { L tno:nxn : tn ~ 0 and O:n E H for each n, L tn ::; 1 }

n n

and this closed convex hull is compact.

332 3. Linear Operators

PROOF. The set {UXn : Q E H, n EN} U {O} is compact because each

sequence in it has a convergent subsequence whose limit is in the set. Also,

cO({UXn: U E H, n EN}) = co({uxn: Q E H, n E N} U {O})

and this last set is compact by Mazur's compactness theorem. Let

B = {Ltnunxn: tn 2':
n
0and Un E H for each n, Ltn::;
n
I}.
Notice that there is no problem with the definition of B, since X is a
Banach space and each of the formal series that is supposed to belong to B
is absolutely convergent. It will now be shown that B is closed. Suppose
that (Ln tj,nUj,nXn)'j=1 is a sequence in B convergent to some member
of X. By a straightforward diagonalization argument, it may be assumed
that, for each n, the sequence (tj,n)~1 converges to some nonnegative tn
and (Uj,n)~1 converges to some Un in H. It follows that Ln tn ::; 1 and,
by an argument involving the fact that Xn ---+ 0, that limj Ln tj,nUj,nXn =
Ln tnunxn Therefore B is closed. It is not difficult to show that B is
convex; when H is a closed ball in IF centered at 0, this uses the fact that
if Ln tnunxn, Ln t~u~xn E Band 0 < t < 1, then

for each n. Since

{UXn : U E H, n EN} ~ B ~ co( {uxn : U E H, n EN}),

it follows that B = co( {uxn : U E H, n EN}).

3.4.30 Lemma. Suppose that A is a relatively compact subset of a normed
space X. Then there is a sequence (xn) in X converging to 0 such that
A ~ CO({xn: n EN}).
PROOF. It may be assumed that A =I 0. For each x in X and each
positive r, let B(x,r) denote the closed ball of radius r centered at x.
Since 2A is relatively compact and therefore totally bounded, there are
members Xl>'" ,X n , of 2A such that 2A ~ U;~1 B(Xj, 2- 1). Let
n,
Al = U((2AnB(xj,2- 1)) -Xj).
j=1
Then Al ~ B(D, 2- 1 ). Since Al is nonempty and relatively compact, there
are members Xn,+l,'" ,xn2 of 2Al such that 2Al ~ U;~n,+1 B(xj,2- 2 ).
Let
n2
A2 = U ((2A 1 nB(xj,z-2))-Xj).
j=n,+1
 3.4 Compact Operators 333

Then A2 <;;; B(0,2- 2). Since A2 is nonempty and relatively compact, there
arc members Xn2 +1,' .. , xn3 of 2A2 such that 2A2 <;;; U;!n2+1 B(Xj, 2- 3).
Let
n3

A3= U ((2A 2 nB(xj,T 3))-Xj).

j=n2+ 1
The construction of (xn) is continued in the obvious fashion. Notice that
Xn -+ O.
Suppose that Xo E A. Then there is a positive integer jl with 1 ::; j1 ::; nl
such that 2xo - Xj, E AI, so there is a positive integer j2 with nl < 12 ::; n2
such that 4xo - 2xj} - xJ2 E A 2, and so forth. It follows that

L
m
Xo - Tnxjn E 2-m Am <;;; B(O, 4- m )
n=l

for each m, and therefore that Xo = Ln 2- n xjn E co( {Xn : n EN}).

Thus, every relatively compact subset of a normed space is small in the

sense that it is included in the closed convex hull of a null sequence. If the
normed space is not a Banach space, then such a closed convex hull is not
guaranteed to be compact; see Exercise 2.94. However, it is when the space
is complete, as was shown in Lemma 3.4.29.

3.4.31 Lemma. Suppose that X is a Banach space.

(a) A subset A of X is relatively compact if and only if there is a se-

quence (xn) in X converging to 0 such that A <;;; co( {xn : n EN}).
(b) If A is a relatively compact subset of X and (xn) is as in (a), then
there is a compact subset S of X such that co( {xn : n EN}) <;;; S
and, with Y being the Banach space constructed from this S as in
Lemma 3.4.28, the sequence (xn) converges to 0 in Y as well as in X.

PROOF. The forward implication in (a) follows immediately from the pre-
ceding lemma, while the converse comes from Lemma 3.4.29 and the fact
that every subset of a compact subset of X is relatively compact.
For (b), suppose that A is a relatively compact subset of X and that (xn)
is a sequence in X as in (a). It may be assumed that each Xn is nonzero.
Let 11llx be the norm of X. For each n, let Yn = Ilxnll~1/2xn if IIxnllx < 1
and let Yn = Xn otherwise. Let S = co( {Yn : n EN}), a compact subset
of X since I Yn I x -+ O. Then co( {xn : n EN}) <;;; S. Let Y and I . II y be as
in Lemma 3.4.28 for this S. If Ilxnllx < 1, then Ilxnll~1/2xn E B(Y,II'b-),
so Ilxnlly ::; Ilxnll3/2. It follows that Ilxnlly -+ 0, which proves (b).
334 3. Linear Operators

3.4.32 Theorem. (A. Grothendieck, 1955 [96]). Let X be a Banach space.

Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The space X has the approximation property.
(b) For every compact subset K of X and every positive f, there is a
finite-rank member TK,. of B(X) such that IITK,Ex - xii < f when-
ever x E K. That is, the identity operator on X can be uniformly
approximated on compact subsets of X by bounded finite-rank linear
operators.
PROOF. Suppose first that X has the approximation property, that K is
a compact subset of X, and that f > O. By Lemma 3.4.31, there is a se-
quence (x,,) in X converging to 0 such that K ~ co({ Xn : n EN}), and
there is a compact subset S of X that includes co( {xn : n EN}) such
that (x n ) converges to 0 in the Banach space Y constructed from S as
in Lemma 3.4.28. Let 11llx and 11lly be the norms of X and Y respec-
tively. For the rest of this argument, references to Y as a normed space are
to (Y, 11lly) rather than to Y as a subspace of X. Since the "identity" map
from Y into X is compact, there is a finite-rank member 11 K,E of B(Y, X)
such that II1IK"x-xllx < f/2 whenever x E K. The goal is to find a finite-
rank member of B(X) that uniformly approximates the identity operator
of X within f on K, so it may be assumed that 11 K,E "I O. It follows that
there are members Yi, ... , y:r, of Y* and a basis Zl, ... , Zm for 11 K,E (Y) such
that lIK,EY = r:;=l(YjY)Zj whenever Y E Y. The proof that (a) '*
(b) will
be done once it is shown that if y* E Y* then there is an x* in X such
that IYx - xxl < f/(2mmax{ Ilzlllx, ... , Ilzmllx}) whenever x E K, for
with elements xi, ... , x:r, of X * near in this sense to Yi, ... , y:r, respectively
and TK,EX = I:;:l(XjX)Zj whenever x E X, it would follow that for each x
in K,

IITK,E X - xlix ~ IlfeXix)Zj - f(YjX)Zjll + II1IK,EX - xlix

J=l )=1 X
m

< L:( Ixi x - YixlllZjllx) +~

j=l
E E
<2+2
=E.

Suppose that y* E Y*. Let 0 = f/(2mmax{llzlllx, ... ,llzmllx}) Since

Xn -+ 0 in Y, there is an no such that Iy*xnl < 0/2 when n > no. Let
Kno = 20- 1 co({ax n : a E F, lal ~ 1, n > no });
by Lemma 3.4.29 and the continuity of the map x f-+ x from Y into X, this
is the same closed convex hull whether it is taken in Y or in X. Let
c = {y: y E (Xl, ... ,Xno), Rey*y = I}.
 3.4 Compact Operators 335

Then C is a closed subset of a finite-dimensional subspace of Y and so

is closed in X, while Kno is, by Lemma 3.4.29, a compact subset of X.
If Xl,"" Xno E ker(y*), then by letting X* be the zero element of X* it
would follow that IY*x - x*xl = ly*xl < 8/2 for every X in K, so it may
be assumed that at least one of Y*Xl" .. ,y*xno is nonzero and therefore
that C =1= 0. Since ly*xl < 1 when x E Kno and Iy*xl ~ 1 when x E C,
the sets Kno and C are disjoint, so by Theorem 2.2.28 there is an x* in X*
such that

max{Rex*x: X E Kno} < inf{Rex*x: X E C}.

Notice that Rex* must actually be constant on C, for otherwise Rex*(C)

would be R Since 0 E Rex*(Kno), it may be assumed that Rex*x = 1
whenever x E C. It follows that x*x = y*x whenever x E (Xl"'" x no ) and
therefore that x*xn = y*xn when n = 1, ... ,no. Since Kno is balanced,
it must be that Ix*xo I < inf {Re x*x : X E C} = 1 whenever Xo E K no '
which implies that Ix*xnl < 8/2 when n > no. If x E K, then let (tn) be a
sequence of nonnegative reals such that Ln tn ::::: 1 and x = Ln tnxn and
observe that

Ix*x - y*xl = 12:)n(x*xn - y*xn)l:::::

n
f
n=no+l
t n ( Ix*xnl + Iy*xnl) < 8.

This finishes the proof that (a) =} (b).

Now suppose that (b) holds. Let Z be a Banach space and let T be a
compact operator from Z into X. By (b), there is a sequence (w n) of finite-
rank members of B(X) such that IIwnx - xlix < l/n for each x in T(B z )
and each n in N. It follows that
1
IlwnT - Til = sup{ Ilwnx - xlix: x E T(Bz )} ::::: -
n
for each n. Therefore T is the limit in K(Z, X) of the sequence (wnT) of
finite-rank operators, so X has the approximation property.

The proof of the preceding theorem is essentially the one found in [156]
with minor modifications to allow for the possibility of complex scalars.
For a long time one of the major open problems in Banach space the-
ory, the approximation problem, was whether every Banach space has the
approximation property. This was finally settled in the negative in a 1973
paper by Per EnBo [76], who found a separable reflexive Banach space,
necessarily infinite-dimensional, that lacks the approximation property. 1

1 It had been established by Grothendieck in [96J that an example of a Banach space

lacking the approximation property would abo provide a negative answer to a question
of Mazur from real analysis. On November 6, 1936, Mazur had entered his question
336 3. Linear Operators

A. M. Davie [45] has published a simplified version of Enflo's example that

is reproduced in [156].
See Grothendieck's memoir [96] for other properties equivalent to the
approximation property. Another excellent source for more on the approxi-
mation property and its consequences is [156]. The approximation property
will be briefly revisited in Section 4.1.
This section ends with a quick look at Hilbert's original version of the
definition of a compact operator, which is essentially the following one.

3.4.33 Definition. (D. Hilbert, 1906 [103]). Suppose that X and Yare
Banach spaces. A linear operator T from X into Y is completely continuous
or a Dunford-Pettis operator if T(K) is a compact subset of Y whenever
K is a weakly compact subset of X.

Complete continuity is not really equivalent to compactness. As a prop-

erty for linear operators between Banach spaces, complete continuity actu-
ally lies properly between compactness and boundedness, as the next two
results and Exercise 3.51 together show.

3.4.34 Proposition. Every compact linear operator from a Banach space

into a Banach space is completely continuous.
PROOF. Suppose that X and Yare Banach spaces, that T E K(X, Y),
and that K is a weakly compact, hence bounded, subset of X. Then T(K)
is relatively compact, and is also weakly compact since T is weak-to-weak
continuous. It follows easily that T(K) is compact.

3.4.35 Proposition. Every completely continuous linear operator from a

Banach space into a Banach space is bounded.
PROOF. Suppose that T is an unbounded linear operator from a Banach
space X into a Banach space. Then there is a sequence (xn) in Bx such
that IITxnll ~ n 2 for each n. It follows that {n-1xn : n E Ii} U {O} is a
weakly compact subset of X whose image under T is not bounded, hence
not compact.

The following characterization of complete continuity is what Hilbert

actually used as the definition of the property.

3.4.36 Proposition. A linear operator from a Banach space into a Banach

space is completely continuous if and only if it is weak-to-norm sequentially
continuous.

in the famous "Scottish book" of open problems kept at the Scottish Coffee House in
Lwow, Poland, by Banach, Mazur, Stanislaw Ulam, and other mathematicians in their
circle; see [160, problem #153]. Mazur offered a live goose as the prize for a solution.
About a year after solving the problem, Enflo traveled to Warsaw to give a lecture on
his solution, after which he was awarded the goose.
 3.4 Compact Operators 337

PROOF. The forward implication is an easy consequence of the weak-to-

weak continuity of completely continuous operators along with the fact that
a subset of a Banach space consisting of the terms and limit of a weakly
convergent sequence is weakly compact. The converse follows directly from
the fact that weakly compact subsets of a normed space are weakly sequen-
tially compact.

Since sequential continuity does not in general imply continuity, the pre-
ceding proposition stops a bit short of claiming that every completely con-
tinuous operator is weak-to-norm continuous, and in fact not all completely
continuous operators are; see Exercise 3.51. It does of course follow from
the preceding proposition, and in fact directly from the definition of com-
plete continuity, that every weak-to-norm continuous linear operator from
a Banach space into a Banach space is completely continuous.
The reason that Hilbert is given joint credit with Riesz for founding the
field of compact operator theory is that Hilbert was interested in linear op-
erators with domain 2 when he gave the definition of complete continuity,
and for such operators compactness and complete continuity are equivalent.

3.4.37 Theorem. A linear operator from a reflexive Banach space into a

(possibly nonreflexive) Banach space is compact if and only if it is com-
pletely continuous.

PROOF. It is enough to prove that every completely continuous linear op-

erator from a reflexive Banach space into a Banach space is compact, but
this follows immediately from the weak compactness of the closed unit ball
of the domain space.

Though this section has concentrated on compact operators between ar-

bitrary Banach spaces, the theory of compact operators between Hilbert
spaces, especially the theory of the Banach algebra K(H) where H is a
Hilbert space, is particularly rich. In this situation, many of the results of
this section can be proved in somewhat different and often simpler ways.
The interested reader should have no difficulty finding sources in which this
more specialized theory is developed. See, for example, Conway's text [43].

Exercises

3.39 Characterize the compact projections in a Banach space among all pro-
jections in that Banach space.
3.40 (a) Suppose that X is a reflexive Banach space. Prove that every mem-
ber of B(X, e1 ) is compact.
(b) Suppose that Y is a reflexive Banach space. Prove that every mem-
ber of B(co, Y) is compact.
338 3. Linear Operators

3.41 Give an example of a closed subalgebra of a Banach algebra that is not

an ideal in the algebra.
3.42 Suppose that K is a compact Hausdorff space and that S ~ C(K). Then S
is pointwise bounded if {f(x) : f E S} is a bounded subset of IF whenever
x E K. Prove that if S is equicontinuous, then S is pointwise bounded
if and only if S is a bounded subset of C(K). (Thus, the boundedness
condition in the statement of the Arzela-Ascoli theorem can be replaced
by pointwise boundedness, and in fact the theorem is often stated that
way.)
3.43 Suppose that g: [0, 1] x [0, 1] --> IF is continuous. Define T: C[O, 1] -->
fa
C[O, 1] by the formula (T(f)) (t) = 1 get, s)f(s) ds. Prove that T is a
compact linear operator.
3.44 (a) Suppose that X and Yare infinite-dimensional normed spaces and
that S is a one-to-one linear operator from Y' into X'. Prove that
S is not weak*-to-norm continuous.
(b) Give an example of a compact linear operator T from a Banach space
into a Banach space such that T' is not weak*-to-norm continuous.
3.45 Prove the following improvement of Riesz's lemma for reflexive spaces:
If M is a proper closed subspace of a reflexive normed space X, then
there is an x in Sx such that d(x, M) = l.
3.46 Lemma 3.4.21 is in a sense a generalization of the fact that the row rank
and column rank of a matrix are the same. (At least, it is a generalization
of that fact for square matrices.) Explain.
3.47 Suppose that X is a Banach space, that T E K(X), and that a is a
nonzero scalar. Prove the following facts that are sometimes included in
the Fredholm alternative.
(a) If y E X, then (0.1 -T)(x) = y for some x in X if and only if x*y =0
whenever x* E X* and (ar - T*)(x*) = O.
(b) If y' E X*, then (ar - T*)(x*) = y' for some x* in X' if and only
if y'x = 0 whenever x E X and (0.1 - T)(x) = O.
(c) If y E X and the equation (cd - T)(x) = y has a solution, then
the general solution of the equation is found by adding a particular
solution of that equation to the general solution of the equation
(0.1 - T)(x) = O.
(d) If y* E X* and the equation (ar -T*)(x*) = y* has a solution, then
the general solution of the equation is found by adding a particular
solution of that equation to the general solution of the equation
(ar - T*)(x*) = O.
3.48 Prove the following converse of Proposition 3.4.7: If X is a separable
Banach space, then there is some Banach space Y and a compact linear
operator T from Y into X such that T(Y) is dense in X.
3.49 Prove that the collection of completely continuous linear operators from
a Banach space X into a Banach space Y is a closed subspace of B(X, Y).
 3.5 Weakly Compact Operators 339

3.50 Suppose that T is a linear operator from a normed space X into a normed
space Y. Prove that the following are equivalent.
(a) The operator T is continuous.
(b) The set T(K) is a compact subset of Y whenever K is a compact
subset of X.
(c) The set T(K) is a weakly compact subset of Y whenever K is a
weakly compact subset of X.
Notice the analogy between this result and the definition of complete
continuity.
3.51 (a) Suppose that Y is a Banach space. Prove that every member of
B(ll, Y) is completely continuous. (Compare Exercise 3.40 (a).)
(b) Give an example of a linear operator from a nonreflexive Banach
space into a reflexive Banach space that is completely continuous
but not compact.
(c) Give an example of a linear operator from a Banach space into a
Banach space that is bounded but not completely continuous.
(d) Give an example of a linear operator from a Banach space into a
Banach space that is completely continuous but not weak-to-norm
continuous.

3.5 Weakly Compact Operators

Since compact operators possess so many interesting properties, it is nat-
ural to ask how much of what has been shown in the preceding section
survives if the linear operators being studied are only required to have the
following weakened version of the compactness property.

3.5.1 Definition. (S. Kakutani, 1938 [125]; K. Yosida, 1938 [245]). Sup-
pose that X and Yare Banach spaces. A linear operator T from X into Y
is weakly compact if T(B) is a relatively weakly compact subset of Y when-
ever B is a bounded subset of X. The collection of all weakly compact
linear operators from X into Y is denoted by KW(X, Y), or by just KW(X)
if X = Y.

The development of the theory of weakly compact operators in this sec-

tion parallels that done for compact operators in the preceding section, up
to but not including spectral theory. The reason for not saying anything
hcrc about the spectral theory of weakly compact operators is mentioned
near the end of this section.
The first two results of this section place weak compactness between
compactness and bounded ness as a property for linear operators between
Banach spaces. The first is obvious, while the second is an immediate conse-
quence of the fact that every relatively weakly compact subset of a Banach
space is bounded.
340 3. Linear Operators

3.5.2 Proposition. Every compact linear operator from a Banach space

into a Banach space is weakly compact.

3.5.3 Proposition. Every weakly compact linear operator from a Banach

space into a Banach space is bounded.

Weak compactness is genuinely different from the other two properties

for linear operators mentioned in the preceding two propositions. For ex-
ample, it is easy to see that the identity operator on 1 is bounded but not
weakly compact, while the identity operator on 2 is weakly compact but
not compact.
Since a subset of a finite-dimensional subspace of a normed space is
relatively weakly compact if and only if it is relatively compact, a finite-
rank linear operator between Banach spaces is weakly compact if and only
if it is compact. Thus, the most obvious analog for weak compactness of
Proposition 3.4.3, that a finite-rank linear operator from a Banach space
into a Banach space is weakly compact if and only if it is bounded, is
trivially true. A more interesting analog can be obtained by first observing
that, as an immediate consequence of Proposition 3.4.3, a bounded linear
operator from a Banach space X into a Banach space Y is compact if either
X or Y is finite-dimensional, and then recalling that weakly compact sets
often play the same role in reflexive Banach spaces that compact sets do
in finite-dimensional ones.

3.5.4 Proposition. If X and Yare Banach spaces and either X or Y

is reflexive, then every bounded linear operator from X into Y is weakly
compact.
PROOF. This follows easily from the relative weak compactness of bounded
subsets of reflexive spaces and the weak-to-weak continuity of bounded
linear operators between normed spaces.

The equivalence of the following characterizations of weak compactness

for linear operators is easily proved using elementary arguments and the
Eberlein-Smulian theorem.

3.5.5 Proposition. Suppose that T is a linear operator from a Banach

space X into a Banach space Y. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The operator T is weakly compact.
(b) The set T(Bx) is a relatively weakly compact subset of Y.
(c) Every bounded sequence (xn) in X has a subsequence (x nj ) such that
the sequence (Tx nj ) converges weakly.

The fact that the range of a compact operator is closed if and only
if the operator has finite rank does have an analog for weakly compact
 3.5 Weakly Compact Operators 341

operators, and again that analog is suggested by the similarity between the
role of compact sets in finite-dimensional Banach spaces and that of weakly
compact sets in reflexive Banach spaces.

3.5.6 Proposition. The range of a weakly compact linear operator from

a Banach space into a Banach space is closed if and only if the range of the
operator is reflexive.
PROOF. One implication is a trivial consequence of the fact that every
reflexive subspace of a Banach space is closed. For the other, suppose that
a weakly compact linear operator T from a Banach space X into a Banach
space Y has closed range. Then T is an open mapping from X onto T(X),
so T(Bx) is a relatively weakly compact suhset of T(X) that includes a
neighborhood of 0 in T(X). This implies that BT(x) is weakly compact
and therefore that T(X) is reflexive.

If T is a weakly compact linear operator from a Banach space X into a

Banach space Y such that T(X) is not known to be closed in Y, then it is
not necessarily the case that T(X) is reflexive; see Exercise 3.52. However,
it does follow that T(X) is the closed linear hull of the weakly compact
set T( B x), which yields the following analog of the fact that every compact
linear operator from a Banach space into a Banach space has a separable
(that is, compactly generated) range.

3.5.7 Proposition. Suppose that T is a weakly compact linear operator

from a Banach space X into a Banach space Y. Then T(X) is weakly
compactly generated.

The collections KW(X, Y) and KW(X) of Definition 3.5.1 have the same
algebraic and topological closure properties that were shown to hold for
K(X, Y) and K(X) in Section 3.4. Before showing this, it will be useful
to have the following result relating the weak compactness of an operator
to the location of the range of its second adjoint. This theorem is due to
Gantmacher when the spaces are separable, while the general case is due
to Nakamura.

3.5.8 Theorem. (V. Gantmacher, 1940 [83]; M. Nakamura, 1951 [173]).

Suppose that X and Yare Banach spaces, that T E B(X, Y), and that
Qy is the natural map from Y into Y**. Then T is weakly compact if and
only if T**(X**) ~ Qy(Y).
PROOF. Let Qx be the natural map from X into X**. Suppose first that
T**(X**) ~ Qy(Y). By Proposition 2.6.24, the map Ql::;l is relative-weak*-
to-weak continuous from Q(Y) onto Y, and T*' is weak*-to-weak* contin-
uous, so QyIT** is weak*-to-weak continuous. It follows from the weak*
compactness of Bx that Qy1T*'CB x **) is weakly compact and there-
fore that its subset QylT**Qx(Bx) is relatively weakly compact. Since
342 3. Linear Operators

Q:y.1T**Qx = T by Proposition 3.1.13, the set T(Bx) is relatively weakly

compact, so T is a weakly compact operator.
Suppose conversely that T is weakly compact. Then QyT(Bx) W is a
weakly compact subset of y** and therefore is weakly* compact. This im-
plies that
-=----=-o-:=:~ w'
= QyT(Bx) = QyT(Bx),
W
QyT(Bx)
where the last equality follows from the convexity of QyT(Bx) by Theo-
rem 2.5.16. It is therefore a consequence of the weak*-to-weak* continuity
of T**, the Banach-Alaoglu theorem, Goldstine's theorem, and the fact
that Q;}T**Qx = T, that

T**(Bx") = T**Qx(Bx) w' = QyT(Bx) w' = QyT(Bx) ~ Qy(Y),

from which it follows that T**(X**) ~ Qy(Y).

3.5.9 Proposition. Suppose that X and Yare Banach spaces, that R
and S are weakly compact linear operators from X into Y, that a E IF,
and that (Tn) is a sequence of weakly compact linear operators from X
into Y that converges to some T in B(X, Y). Then R + S, aR, and Tare
all weakly compact.
PROOF. The claims about R+S and aR follow easily from the equivalence
of (a) and (c) in Proposition 3.5.5. For the weak compactness of T, just
notice that if Qy is the natural map from Y into Y**, then T~*(X**) lies in
the closed set Qy(Y) for each n, so T**(X**) ~ Qy(Y) sinceT~* ~ T** .

With X and Y as in the preceding proposition, the set KW(X, Y) is non-

empty since it contains the zero operator from X into Y, so the proposition
can be restated as follows.

3.5.10 Corollary. If X and Y are Banach spaces, then KW(X, Y) is a

closed subspace of B(X, Y).

The weak-to-weak continuity of a bounded linear operator from a Banach

space into a Banach space assures that the operator maps relatively weakly
compact sets to relatively weakly compact sets, and by definition such
an operator maps bounded sets to bounded sets. The next result is an
immediate consequence of this.

3.5.11 Proposition. Suppose that X, Y, and Z are Banach spaces, that

S E B(X, Y), and that T E B(Y, Z). If either S or T is weakly compact,
then T S is weakly compact.

3.5.12 Corollary. If X is a Banach space, then KW(X) is a closed ideal

in B(X).
 3.5 Weakly Compact Operators 343

As was done for compact operators in the preceding section, the weakly
compact linear operators from a Banach space X into a Banach space Y will
now be characterized among all members of B(X, Y) in two different ways
based on the behavior of their adjoints. The first characterization is just
Schauder's theorem with compactness replaced by weak compactness, while
the second, an analog of Theorem 3.4.16, involves a continuity property for
the adjoint.

3.5.13 Gantmacher's Theorem. (V. Gantmacher, 1940 [83]). A bounded

linear operator from a Banach space into a Banach space is weakly compact
if and only if its adjoint is weakly compact.
PROOF. Let T be a bounded linear operator from a Banach space X into a
Banach space Y. As usual, let the natural map from a Banach space Z into
its second dual be denoted by Qz. Suppose first that T is weakly compact.
Let y*** be an element of Y***. To show that T* is weakly compact, it is
enough to show that T***y*** E Qx' (X*), for which it is enough to show
that T***y*** is weakly* continuous on X**. Suppose that (x~*) is a net
in X** that is weakly* convergent to some x** in X**. Then T**x~* ~.
T**x**. Since T**(X**) ~ Qy(Y) and the relative weak and relative weak*
topologies of Qy(Y) as a subspace of Y** are the same, it follows that
T**x~* ~ T**x**, and so

y***)
T***
(xCI!**, = (T** Xc>**, y***) -+ ** y ***)
(T** x, = (x,
** T*** y ***) ,

as required.
Suppose conversely that T* is weakly compact. Then T** is weakly com-
pact by what has already been proved. Since T = Ql}T**Qx, it follows
that T is weakly compact.

As with Theorem 3.5.8, Gantmacher established the following result for

separable spaces while Nakamura obtained the general result.

3.5.14 Theorem. (V. Gantmacher, 1940 [83]; M. Nakamura, 1951 [173]).

A bounded linear operator from a Banach space into a Banach space is
weakly compact if and only if its adjoint is weak*-to-weak continuous.
PROOF. Let T be a bounded linear operator from a Banach space X into
a Banach space Y. Suppose first that T is weakly compact, that (y~) is
a net in Y* that is weakly* convergent to some y*, and that x** E X**.
To show that T* is weak*-to-weak continuous, it is enough to show that
x**T*y~ -+ x**T*y*, that is, that (y~, T**x**) -+ (y*, T**x**). This follows
from the fact that T**x** is in the natural image of Y in Y** and therefore
is weakly* continuous.
Suppose conversely that T* is weak* -to-weak continuous. Since each
bounded subset of y* is relatively weakly* compact, it follows that T*
344 3. Linear Operators

maps bounded subsets of Y' to relatively weakly compact subsets of X'

and is therefore weakly compact, so T is weakly compact.

As properties for linear operators, both weak compactness and complete

continuity lie between compactness and boundedness, which suggests that
the two properties might be related. In general, neither implies the other;
see Exercise 3.58. However, it does happen that some common Banach
spaces have the property that every weakly compact linear operator whose
domain is that space is completely continuous. This property has a name
given to it by Grothendieck in honor of N. Dunford and B. J. Pettis, who
proved in a 1940 paper [66] that L1 (8,~, >.) has the property when>. is
Lebesgue measure on the u-algebra ~ of Lebesgue-measurable subsets of a
finite or infinite interval 8 in ]Rn, where n is a positive integer.

3.5.15 Definition. (A. Grothendieck, 1953 [95]). A Banach space X has

the Dunford-Pettis property if, for every Banach space Y, each weakly com-
pact linear operator from X into Y is completely continuous.

It is obvious that every finite-dimensional Banach space has the Dun-

ford-Pettis property. So do some infinite-dimensional ones.

3.5.16 Example. It can be shown that for every Banach space Y, each
member of B(l, Y) is completely continuous; see Exercise 3.51. Therefore
1 trivially has the Dunford-Pettis property. Another (perhaps not entirely
independent) proof that 1 has this property can be found in Exercise 3.59.

However, not every infinite-dimensional Banach space has the Dunford-

Pettis property. If X is an infinite-dimensional reflexive Banach space and
I is the identity operator on X, then I is weakly compact but certainly
not completely continuous since it does not map the closed unit ball of the
space to a compact set. The next result follows from this.

3.5.17 Proposition. No infinite-dimensional reflexive Banach space has

the Dunford-Pettis property.

The definition of the Dunford-Pettis property given above has the draw-
back that it involves every Banach space Y rather than just the space X
in question. The following theorem gives characterizations of the Dunford-
Pettis property that lack this defect.

3.5.18 Theorem. Suppose that X is a Banach space. Then the following

are equivalent.
(a) The space X has the Dunford-Pettis property.
(b) Every weakly compact linear operator from X into Co is completely
continuous.
 3.5 Weakly Compact Operators 345

(c) For every sequence (xn) in X converging weakly to some x and

every sequence (x~) in X converging weakly to some x*, the se-
quence (x~xn) converges to xx.
(d) For every sequence (xn) in X converging weakly to 0 and every se-
quence (x~) in X* converging weakly to 0, the sequence (x~xn) con-
verges to O.
PROOF. Suppose that (d) does not hold. Let (xn) and (x~) be sequences
converging weakly to 0 in X and X* respectively such that Ix~xnl ~ t: for
some positive t: and each n. Define T: X --+ Co by the formula Tx = (x~x).
Then T E B(X, co), but T is not completely continuous since IITxmll ~ t:
for each m. The immediate goal is to show that T is weakly compact.
To this end, let (w m ) be a bounded sequence in X. It is enough to show
that (Twm) has a weakly convergent subsequence. Let Qx be the nat-
ural map from X into X** and let x** be a weak* accumulation point
of (Q x w m ). It follows that there is a subsequence (w mj ) of (wTn ) such
* Tnj - x ** x *kI <]-1 when k = 1, ... ,].. N ow (**
t hat IXkW x xn*) E Co, so 1t IS
.
enough to show that (Tw mj ) ~ (x"x~), that is, that w-limj(x~wTnJ =
(x**x~). Fix a positive integer no. It is now enough to show that X~oWTnj --+
x** x~o' but this is guaranteed by the construction of the sequence (wTnJ.
Therefore the operator T is weakly compact though not completely contin-
uous, so (b) does not hold. This shows that (b) => (d).
Suppose next that (a) does not hold, that is, that there is a Banach
space Y and a member T of KW(X, Y) that is not completely continuous.
Let (zn) be a sequence in X such that Zn ~ 0 but IITznl1 2: {j for some
positive {j and every n. For each n, let y~ be a member of By. such that
y~Tzn = IITznll. The adjoint T* of T is weakly compact by Gantmacher's
theorem, so the sequence (Ty~) has a weakly convergent subsequence; it
may be assumed that T*y~ ~ z* for some z* in X*. Then (T*y~)(zn) =
y~Tzn 2: {j for each n, so (T*y~)(zn)) does not converge to zO (that is,
to 0) even though T*y~ ~ z* and Zn ~ o. Therefore (c) fails, so (c) => (a).
Now suppose that (d) holds. Let (v n ) be a sequence in X converging
weakly to some v and let (v~) be a sequence in X* converging weakly to
some v*. Then

* Vn - V V
vn vn - V *)( Vn - V )
= (* + Vn* V + V * Vn - 2V * V
--+ 0+ vv + vv - 2v*v = 0,
which shows that (d) => (c). It is obvious that (a) => (b), so the theorem
is proved.

The spaces Ll (n, E, p,) such that (n, E, p,) is a finite measure space have
the Dunford-Pettis property, a fact that is essentially due to Dunford and
Pettis [66), and the spaces C(K) such that K is a compact Hausdorff space
346 3. Linear Operators

do also, as was shown by Grothendieck in a 1953 paper [95] and indepen-

dently by Bartle, Dunford, and Schwartz in a 1955 paper [20]. These facts
are proved in Diestel and Uhl's book [59] as Corollaries III. 2. 14 and VI.2.6,
and an interesting discussion of the Dunford-Pettis property and its history
appears on pp. 176-178 of the same work. See also Diestel's book [58], in
which the fact that C(K) and LdO, 1] have the Dunford-Pettis property is
developed in exercises.
It was mentioned earlier that the spectral theory of weakly compact op-
erators would not be developed in this section. The reason for this omission
is illustrated by the following example.

3.5.19 Example. Let X be complex 2 and let []) be the closed unit disc
in C. Let 11 and Tr be, respectively, the left-shift and right-shift oper-
ators on X, that is, the bounded linear operators from X into X de-
fined by the formulas Tl (al,a2, ... ) = (a2,a3, ... ) and Tr (al,a2, ... ) =
(0, aI, a2' ... ). It can be shown that 0"(11) = []) and O"p(Tl) = [])O, and that
O"(Tr) = []) and O"p(Tr) = 0; see Exercise 3.38. Also, the identity operator I
on X has 1 as an eigenvalue, and the associated eigenspace, which is all
of X, is certainly not finite-dimensional. By Proposition 3.5.4, the opera-
tors T l , Tn and I are all weakly compact. Together, they show that none
of the conclusions of Theorem 3.4.23, or even reasonable generalizations of
those conclusions such as the possibility that either the point spectrum or
its complement in the spectrum must be countable, need hold for weakly
compact operators from an infinite-dimensional Banach space into itself
(except for the statement about the compactness of the spectrum, and
that is true for the spectrum of every element of every Banach algebra
with identity).

It does sometimes happen that an infinite-dimensional Banach space X

has the property that the square of every member of KW(X) is compact,
so the conclusions of Theorem 3.4.23 then hold for members T of KW(X)
provided that T is replaced by T2 in those conclusions. See Corollaries
VI.7.5 and VI.8.13 in [67] for particular examples of this phenomenon.

Exercises

3.52 Give an example of a bounded linear operator T from some reflexive Ba-
nach space X onto a dense subspace of some non reflexive Banach space Y.
Conclude that T is weakly compact but T(X) is not reflexive.

3.53 Suppose that X and Yare Banach spaces, that T E L(X, Y), that M is
a closed subspace of X such that M <;;; ker(T), that 1f is the quotient map
from X onto X/M, and that S is the unique map, automatically linear,
from X/M into Y such that T = So 1fj see the commutative diagram in
Theorem 1.7.13.
 3.5 Weakly Compact Operators 347

(a) Prove that T is compact if and only if S is compact.

(b) Prove that T is weakly compact if and only if S is weakly compact.
3.54 (a) Prove that a linear operator from a Banach space into 1 is weakly
compact if and only if it is compact.
(b) Prove that a linear operator from Co into a Banach space is weakly
compact if and only if it is compact.
(c) Prove that neither Co nor 1 has any complemented infinite-dimen-
sional reflexive subspaces.
3.55 Prove that if a weakly compact linear operator from one Banach space
onto another has a reflexive kernel, then the domain of the operator is
reflexive.
3.56 Prove the following converse of Proposition 3.5.7: If Y is a weakly com-
pactly generated Banach space, then there is some Banach space X and
a weakly compact linear operator T from X into Y such that T(X) is
dense in Y.
3.57 Obtain from Gantmacher's theorem another proof that a Banach space is
reflexive if and only if its dual space is reflexive.
3.58 (a) Give an example of a linear operator from a Banach space into a
Banach space such that the operator is weakly compact but not
completely continuous.
(b) Give an example of a linear operator from a Banach space into a
Banach space such that the operator is completely continuous but
not weakly compact. (Exercise 3.51 might help for this part.)
3.59 Prove that every Banach space having Schur's property also has the
Dunford-Pettis property.
3.60 (a) Suppose that X is a Banach space. Prove that if X has the Dunford-
Pettis property, then so does X.
(b) Conclude from (a) and Exercise 3.59 that Co has the Dunford-Pettis
property.
3.61 Why is there no section on weakly* compact operators in this book?
4
Schauder Bases

Much of the theory of finite-dimensional normed spaces that has been pre-
sented in this book is ultimately based on Theorem 1.4.12, which says
that every linear operator from a finite-dimensional normed space X into
any normed space Y is bounded. A careful examination of the proof of
that theorem shows that it essentially amounts to demonstrating that if
Xl, ... , Xn is a vector space basis for X, then each of the linear "coordi-
nate functionals" O'IXI + ... + O'nXn 1-4 O'm, m = 1, ... , n, is bounded; this
can be seen from the nature of the norm /. / used in the proof and the
argument near the end of the proof that there is no sequence (Zj) in Bx
such that /1 Zj / 2: j for each j. It should not be too surprising that many
topological results about finite-dimensional normed spaces are ultimately
based on the continuity of the members of the family ~# of coordinate
functionals for some basis ~ for the space, since it is an easy consequence
of Proposition 2.4.8, Theorem 2.4.11, and the uniqueness of Hausdorff vec-
tor topologies for finite-dimensional vector spaces that the norm topology
of the space is the ~# topology of the space.
Though it is possible for an incomplete infinite-dimensional normed space
to have a vector space basis ~ such that all coordinate functionals for ~ are
bounded, this can never happen for an infinite-dimensional Banach space;
see Exercises 4.1 and 4.2. Thus, the topology of an infinite-dimensional
Banach space is not nearly so closely tied to coordinate functionals with
respect to a vector space basis as is the topology of a finite-dimensional
Banach space. It is primarily for this reason that vector space bases have
not been used very much in this book's exploration of the general theory
of Banach spaces.
350 4. Schauder Bases

Many of the classical infinite-dimensional Banach spaces do have se-

quences of elements with properties enough like those of a vector space
basis to allow some arguments involving bases in finite-dimensional vector
spaces to be carried over almost unchanged. For example, consider the se-
quence (en) of standard unit vectors of Co. The set consisting of the terms
of this sequence is not a vector space basis for Co, nor is any other countable
subset of Co by Theorem 1.5.8. However, this sequence does have the prop-
erty that every element (an) of Co can be written in exactly one way as a
"linear combination" of these unit vectors, namely, as 2::n ane n , provided
that infinite sums are allowed. Notice also that for each positive integer m,
the "coordinate functional" (an) I-> am is a bounded linear functional.
Compare the proof of the separability of Co given in Example 1.12.6 to the
proof of the separability of all finite-dimensional normed spaces in Exam-
ple 1.12.8 to see one instance in which the standard unit vectors of Co are
used to extend a finite-dimensional argument to that space.
The purpose of this chapter is to study sequences in Banach spaces such
that every member of the space can be written in exactly one way as an
"infinite linear combination" of the terms of the sequence, and to see what
can be learned about the structure of Banach spaces having such Schauder
bases.

4.1 First Properties of Schauder Bases

Notice that the following definition pertains to ordered sequences (In)
rather than unordered sets of the form {In: n EN}.

4.1.1 Definition. (J. Schauder, 1927 [206]). A sequence (In) in a Banach

space X is a Schauder basis for X if for each I in X there is a unique
sequence (an) of scalars such that I = 2::n anIn

Schauder included in his definition the requirement that each of the co-
ordinate functionals 2::n anIn I-> am such that mEN be continuous. As
will be shown in Corollary 4.1.16, that actually follows from the rest of the
definition.
The following generalization of the notion of a Schauder basis also has
its uses.

4.1.2 Definition. A sequence (In) in a Banach space is a Schauder basic

sequence if it is a Schauder basis for [{ Xn : n EN}].

Henceforth, whenever reference is made to a basis for a Banach space or

a basic sequence in a Banach space, the reference is to a Schauder basis
or a Schauder basic sequence unless stated otherwise. To avoid confusion,
 4.1 First Properties of Schauder Bases 351

vector space bases are often called Hamel bases after the German analyst
and applied mathematician Georg Karl Wilhelm Hamel (1877~1954).

4.1.3 Example. If X is Co or lp such that 1 ::; p < 00, then it is easy to

check that the sequence (en) of standard unit vectors of X is a basis for X
and that (O:n) = Ln O:nen whenever (an) EX. However, the sequence (en)
is not a basis for loo. For example, there is no sequence (O:n) of scalars such
that (1,1,1, ... ) = Ln O:nen. See Exercise 4.3.
Whenever the sequence (en) lies in the unit sphere of a Banach space of
sequences of scalars and is a basis for the space, the sequence will be called
the standard unit vector basis for the space.

The basis of the preceding example has the special property that each
of its terms has norm 1. As will now be shown, every Banach space having
any basis whatever has a basis with this property that can be obtained
from the original basis in the obvious way.

4.1.4 Definition. A basic sequence (xn) in a Banach space is bounded if

0< infnllxnll ::; sUPnllxnl1 < +00, and is normalized if each Xn has norm 1.

The use of the terms "bounded basic sequence" and "bounded basis"
in the sense of the preceding definition is common but unfortunate, since
the usual meaning of the word "bounded" when used to describe a se-
quence (xn) in a Banach space does not imply that infnllxnll > O. To avoid
confusion, the word will not be applied to basic sequences in this book.

4.1.5 Proposition. Suppose that (xn) is a basis for a Banach space X

and that (An) is a sequence of nonzero scalars. Then (Anxn) is also a basis
for X.
PROOF. It is easy to check that for each member x of X there is a unique
sequence of scalars (an) such that x = Ln (}:nAnXn, as required.

The uniqueness of basis expansions implies that the terms of a basis

are nonzero, so the following result is an immediate consequence of the
preceding proposition.

4.1.6 Corollary. If (xn) is a basis for a Banach space, then (1Ixnll~lXn)

is a normalized basis for the space.

Just as each of the classical separable Banach sequence spaces of Exam-

ple 4.1.3 has the sequence of standard unit vectors as a basis, every Banach
space with a basis can be viewed in a natural way as a sequence space for
which the sequence (en) of standard coordinate vectors is a basis (though
it would be misleading to call this basis the standard unit vector basis for
the space, since the terms of the sequence might not have norm 1). The
352 4. Schauder Bases

following proposition shows how this is done, and is obvious enough that
it is really just an observation.

4.1. 7 Proposition. Suppose that X is a Banach space with a basis (xn).

Let Y be the collection of all sequences (Cl: n ) of scalars such that 2:: n Cl:1'1X1'1
converges, treated as a normed space with the usual vector space opera-
tions for a space of sequences of scalars and with the norm 11lly given
by the formula II(an)lly = 112::1'1 Cl:1'1xnll. Then Y is a Banach space having
the sequence (en) of standard coordinate vectors as a basis, and the map
2::1'1 anXn f-+ (an) is an isometric isomorphism from X onto Y.

The isometric isomorphism of the preceding proposition maps the given

basis (x1'1) for X onto a basis (en) for Y. This turns out to be a general
property of Banach space isomorphisms.

4.1.8 Proposition. Suppose that X and Yare Banach spaces, that T is

an isomorphism from X into Y, and that (xn) is a basic sequence in X.
Then (Txn) is a basic sequence in Y. In particular, if (xn) is a basis for X
and T maps X onto Y, then (Txn) is a basis for Y.
PROOF. Since T maps [{X1'1 : n E Ii}] onto [{Txn : n E Ii}], it may be
assumed that (xn) is a basis for X and that T(X) = Y. It is then enough
to show that (Txn) is a basis for Y, which follows easily from the fact that
T(2::1'1 Cl:1'1xn) = 2::n anTx1'1 whenever 2::n anXn EX.

The spaces with bases in Example 4.1.3 are infinite-dimensional and

separable. In fact, every Banach space with a basis must be separable by
Proposition 1.12.1 (a) since the space is the closed linear hull of the collec-
tion of basis elements. Also, every basic sequence is linearly independent
since no element of the underlying Banach space can be written in two
different ways as a finite linear combination of the terms of the sequence.
Therefore, Banach spaces having bases must be infinite-dimensional. These
observations are summarized formally in the following two results.

4.1.9 Proposition. Every basic sequence in a Banach space is linearly

independent.

4.1.10 Proposition. Every Banach space having a basis is infinite-dimen-

sional and separable.

It can be shown that every separable Banach space is isometrically iso-

morphic to a subspace of e[O, 1]; see Exercise 2.74. It is therefore of some
interest that e[O, 1] has a basis.

4.1.11 Example: The classical Schauder basis for e[O, 1]. This example
is from Schauder's 1927 paper [206] that introduced the notion of Schauder
 4.1 First Properties of Schauder Bases 353

'G 1
'~ 1

'~ 'L '~

1 1 1

'L tL 'Ow 'GL

1 1 1 1

FIGURE 4.1. The first few terms of the classical Schauder basis for e[a, 1].

bases. Define the sequence (sn):;'=o of members of e[O, 1] as follows. Let

so(t) = 1 and Sl(t) = t. When n 2: 2, define Sn by letting m be the positive
integer such that 2m - l < n :S 2m , then let

if 2n-2
2
Tn
- 1 < t < 2n-l
- 2m
- 1,

otherwise.

See Figure 4.1 for the graphs of So through S8, which should demystify
these formulas a bit.
Suppose that 1 E e[o, 1]. Define a sequence (Pn):;'=o in e[o, 1] in the
following way. Let

Po = 1(0)so,
Pl = Po + (J(1) - Po(l))sl'
P2 = + (J(1/2) -
Pl Pl(1/2))s2,
P3 = P2 + (J(1/4) - P2(1/4))s3,
P4 = P3 + (J(3/4) - P3(3/4))S4'
P5 = P4 + (J(1/8) - P4(1/8))s5,
P6 = P5 + (J(3/8) - P5(3/8))S6,
P7 = P6 + (J(5/8) - P6(5/8))S7'
P8 = P7 + (J(7/8) - P7(7/8))S8,

and so forth. Then Po is the constant function that agrees with 1 at 0, while
PI agrees with 1 at 0 and 1 and interpolates linearly in between, and P2
agrees with 1 at 0, 1, and 1/2 and interpolates linearly in between, and so
forth. For each nonnegative integer n, let an be the coefficient of Sn in the
formula for Pn. Then Pm = 2::=0 ans n for each m. It follows easily from
354 4. Schauder Bases

the uniform continuity of f that limmllpm - fll= =

and therefore that
f = L~=o ansn
Now let (!3n)~=o be any sequence of scalars such that f = L~=o !3nsn.
Then L~=o(an - !3n)sn = 0, which implies that L~=o(an - !3n)sn(t) =
when t = 0,1,1/2,1/4,3/4,1/8,3/8,5/8,7/8, ... , from which it quickly fol-

lows that an = !3n for each n. Therefore there is a unique sequence (rn)~=o
of scalars such that f = L~=o InSn, and so the sequence (sn)~=o is a basis
for e[O, 1]. Notice that this basis is normalized.

The next order of business is to prove the continuity of two types of

natural linear maps on Banach spaces having bases.

4.1.12 Definition. Suppose that a Banach space X has a basis (xn). For
each positive integer m, the mth coordinate functional x;" for (xn) is the
map Ln anXn f---+ am from X into F, and the mth natural projection Pm
for (xn) is the map Ln anXn f---+ L~=l anXn from X into X.

\Vith all notation as in the preceding definition, it is clear that each x;"
is a linear functional on X and that each Pm is a projection from X onto
({ Xl, ... ,xm})' To show that these maps are bounded, it is convenient
to work not with the original norm of the underlying Banach space, but
instead with the following one.

4.1.13 Definition. Suppose that (xn) is a basis for a Banach space X.

Then the (xn) norm of X is defined by the formula IILn anxnll(xn) =
sUPmIIL~=1 anxnll

It is important to notice that the norm 1111 (Xn) in the preceding definition
depends not only on (x n ), but also on the space's original norm.

4.1.14 Theorem. Suppose that (xn) is a b&<;is for a Banach space X.

Then the (xn) norm of X is a Banach norm equivalent to the original
norm of X, and Ilxll(x n ) ::::: Ilxll for each.7: in X.
PROOF. Throughout this proof, symbols denoting convergent series repre-
sent series convergent with respect to the original norm of X, not the (xn)
norm, even when such series appear inside (xn) norm function symbols.
(Of course, one consequence of this theorem is that there is no difference
between these two types of series convergence.)
Suppose that a member of X has expansion Ln anXn in terms of the
basis (xn). Then

which is the inequality claimed in the statement of the theorem.

 4.1 First Properties of Schauder Bases 355

It is easy to check that 11II(x n ) really is a norm. To see that it is com-

plete, let (Ln on,JXn)~l be a sequence in X that is Cauchy with respect
to II-II(x n ) ' If j1,h, kEN and k 2: 2, then

10k,J, - ok,j,lllxkll = 11;(on,]' - on,j,)xn - %(on,J, - on,j,)xnll

~ 2112)on,J, - on,h)xnll
n (xn)

and 101,j, -0l,j211Ix111 ~ IILn(on,J, -on,j,)xnll(x n), from which it follows

that, for each n, the sequence (On,J)~l is Cauchy and therefore convergent.
Let (on) be the resulting sequence of limits. Fix a positive E, and let j, be
a positive integer such that if j, j' 2: j" then

for each m. Letting j = j, and letting j' tend to infinity shows that

f
Il n=l nXn - f
n=l
on,j,xnll ~~ (4.1)

for each m. It follows that if m2 2: m1 > 1, then

Now let mE be such that if m2 2: m1 > mEl then IIL:~m, on,],xnll < E/3.
It follows that

II ~
n-ml
Onxnll ~ II ~
n-ml
OnXn - ~
n-ml
on,j,xnll + II ~
n-ml
On,j,Xnll < E

when m2 2: m1 > mE, so Ln OnXn converges. Now (4.1) still holds if j, is

replaced by any j such that j 2: j" so making that substitution and taking
the supremum over all m shows that limj IILn 0nXn - Ln on,jxnll(x n ) = 0,
which finishes the proof that 11II(x n ) is a Banach norm.
Finally, the inequality verified at the beginning of this proof implies that
the identity operator from (X, 1111 (x n )) onto (X, 1111) is continuous, which
by Corollary 1.6.8 assures that the two norms are equivalent.
356 4. Schauder Bases

The continuity of coordinate functionals and natural projections follows

easily from the preceding theorem.

4.1.15 Theorem. Each natural projection associated with a basis for a

Banach space is bounded.
PROOF. Suppose that (xn) is a basis for a Banach space X, that mEN,
and that Pm is the mth natural projection for (xn). If Ln D:nXn E X, then

from which the continuity of Pm is immediate.

4.1.16 Corollary. (S. Banach, 1932 [13, p. 111]). Each coordinate func-
tional associated with a basis for a Banach space is bounded.
PROOF. Let (x~) and (Pn ) be, respectively, the sequence of coordinate
functionals and the sequence of natural projections for a basis (xn) for a
Banach space X, and let m be a positive integer. If m 2: 2, then x;" is the
map Ln D:nXn f-+ (Pm - Pm-I)(Ln D:nXn) = D:mXm f-+ D: m , while xi is the
map Ln D:nXn f-+ PI (Ln D:nXn) = D:IX1 f-+ D:1. In either case, the map x~
is clearly continuous.

4.1.17 Corollary. If { Pn : n EN} is the collection of natural projections

associated with a basis for a Banach space, then sUPnIlPnII is finite.
PROOF. This is an easy consequence of the uniform boundedness principle,
but also follows directly from the inequality in the proof of Theorem 4.1.15
by noting that, in the notation of that proof, if I is the identity map from
(X, 11II(x n ) ) onto (X, 1111), then

IIPm (~D:nxn) I ~ IIIllllPm (~D:nxn) II(xn)

~ IIIIIII~D:nxnll(xn)
~ 1IIIIIIrlllllL:D:nXnll
n

whenever mEN and Ln D:nXn EX.

4.1.18 Definition. Let {Pn : n EN} be the collection of natural pro-
jections associated with a basis for a Banach space. Then sUPn II Pn II is the
basis constant for that basis. The basis is monotone or orthogonal if its
basis constant is 1.
 4.1 First Properties of Schauder Bases 357

The term monotone for a basis with basis constant 1 was introduced by
M. M. Day in his 1958 book [53], while the older term orthogonal for such
bases dates back to independent studies of them by V. Ya. Kozlov [142]
and R. C. James [1l0] published in 1950 and 1951 respectively.
Since each natural projection for a basis has norm at least 1, basis con-
stants are always greater than or equal to 1, and a basis is monotone if and
only if each of the natural projections for the basis has norm 1.
Of course, a basic sequence is a basis for the closed linear hull of the set
consisting of the terms of the sequence and therefore has a basis constant
associated with it. As one would expect, a monotone basic sequence is one
whose basis constant is 1. In general, terminology used for bases automat-
ically extends to basic sequences in this fashion as long as the extension
makes sense.
It must be emphasized that basis constants depend on the norm of the
space. In particular, it will follow from Exercise 4.11 and Corollary 4.1.22
that every Banach space with a basis has a nonmonotone basis (xn) that
becomes monotone when the space is renormed with 11II(xn ) .

4.1.19 Example. If X is Co or p such that 1 :::; p < 00, then the standard
unit vector basis for X is monotone.

Some useful characterizations of basis constants and monotone bases

are given in the following two propositions. It is from the equivalence of
(a) and (c) in the second of these propositions that monotone bases get
their name. (The reader interested in knowing why such bases were once
called orthogonal should be able to reconstruct the reason from this same
equivalence and the comments preceding Lemma 4.1.28.)

4.1.20 Proposition. Suppose that (xn) is a basis for a Banach space X

and that K is the basis constant for (x n ). Then K is the smallest real
number M such that

whenever Ln anXn E X and mEN, which is in turn the smallest real

number M such that

whenever ml,m2 EN, ml :::; m2, and al,. ,a m2 ElF.

PROOF. It is a straightforward consequence of Definition 4.1.18 that

K
= sup
{ IIL~:"l anxnll '"
I Ln anxn II : Dn anxn E X
\ { } }
0, mEN ,

from which the proposition readily follows.

358 4. Schauder Bases

The equivalence of (a) and (b) in the next result follows immediately
from the preceding proposition. It is clear that (b) and (c) are equivalent,
while the equivalence of (c) and (d) is an easy consequence of the definition
of the (xn) norm.

4.1.21 Proposition. Suppose that (xn) is a basis for a Banach space X.

Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The basis (xn) is monotone.
(b) 11.E:=1 Q:nxnll ::; II.En Q:nxnll for each positive integer m and each
member .En Q:nXn of X.
(c) 11.E:=1 Q:nxnll ::; 11.E::11 Q:nxnll for each positive integer m and each
collection of m+ 1 scalars Q:l, ... , Q:m+l'
(d) The original norm of X and the (xn) norm of X are the same.

4.1.22 Corollary. If (xn) is a basis for a Banach space X, then (xn) is

monotone with respect to the (xn) norm of X.

The following definition is suggested by the equivalence of (a) and (c) in

the preceding proposition.

4.1.23 Definition. (M. G. Krein, M. A. Krasnoselskii, and D. P. Mil-

man, 1948 [144]). A basis (xn) for a Banach space is strictly monotone
if 11.E:=1 Q:nxnll < 1I.E::11 Q:nxnll for each positive integer m and each
collection of m+ 1 scalars Q:l, ... ,Q:m+l such that Q: m+! =I- O.

For example, the standard unit vector basis for each space p such that
1 ::; p < 00 is strictly monotone, while the corresponding basis for Co is
monotone but not strictly monotone.
So far, the results of this section have been about conclusions that can
be drawn when it is known that certain sequences are basic rather than
properties sequences can have that assure that they are basic. The next
theorem is probably the most important result of the latter kind.

4.1.24 Theorem. (S. Banach, 1932 [13]). A sequence (xn) in a Banach

space X is a basis for X if and only if
(I) each Xn is nonzero;
(2) there is a real number M such that

whenever ml,m2 EN, ml::; m2, and Q:l, ... ,Q: m2 E IF; and
(3) [{xn:nEN}]=X.
 4.1 First Properties of Schauder Bases 359

PROOF. By what has already been proved in this section, the sequence (xn)
has properties (1), (2), and (3) if it is a basis for X.
For the proof of the converse, assume that (xn) satisfies (1), (2), and (3).
Suppose first that (J3n) and (,n) are sequences of scalars such that Ln J3nxn
and Ln 'YnXn both converge and are equal. By (2),

1J31 -,111I x 111 ::::: MII2::J3nxn -

n
2:: Inxnll = 0,
n

so J31 = 11 It then follows by induction that J3n = In for each positive

integer n. Thus, for no element x of X is there more than one sequence (an)
of scalars such that x = Ln anxn-
For each positive integer m and each finitely nonzero sequence (an) of
scalars, let Pm (Ln anXn) = L:'=l anx n It follows from (2) that each Pm is
a bounded linear operator from ({ Xn : n EN}) onto ({Xl, ... , xm}) having
norm no more than M, and so, by Theorem 1.9.1, has a bounded linear
extension Pm from X onto ({Xl, ... ,xm}) with norm no more than M. For
each x in X, each Y in ({ Xn : n EN}), and each positive integer m,

l[Pm x - xii::::: l[Pmx - Pmyll + l[PmY - yll + Ily - xii

::::: (M + l)lIx - yll + l[PmY - YII
Letting m tend to infinity shows that limsuPml[Pmx-xll ::::: (M + l)llx -yll
whenever X E X and y E ({ Xn : n EN}). Since Y is an arbitrary member
of a dense subset of X, it follows that limsuPml[Pmx - xII = 0 whenever
x E X, that is, that limm Pmx = X for each x in X.
Fix an x in X and let a1 be such that PIX = a1x1. Now P 1P2y = PlY
whenever y is in the dense subset ({ Xn : n EN}) of X, from which it follows
that P1 P2 = Pl Therefore, there is an a2 such that P2x = L~=l anx n .
An easy induction argument produces a sequence (an) of scalars such that
Pmx = L:'=l anXn for each m, so x = limm Pmx = Ln anxn It follows
from this and the uniqueness assertion proved earlier that (xn) is a basis
furX.

4.1.25 Corollary. A sequence (xn) in a Banach space is basic if and only

if each Xn is nonzero and there is a real number M such that

4.1.26 Corollary. Every subsequence of a basic sequence in a Banach

space is itself a basic sequence.

4.1.27 Example: The Haar basis for Lp[O, 1], 1 ::::: p < =. Suppose that
1 ::::: p <=.
Define a sequence (h n ) in Lp[O,lJ as follows. Let hI be 1
360 4. Schauder Bases

'p '~ '~

h.(t)

I I
I t I t I t I I

I I II I I I I II
I I I I I I
-I -I ~~ -1 ~ -I

h6(t) h7(t) h8(t)

'~
-I
I

I I
I I
~
I
t

-1
I I
II

I I
I I
-I
I I
II

I I
I I
1

-I
I I
I I

111
I I

FIGURE 4.2. The first few terms of the Haar basis for Lp[D, 1], 1 ::; p < 00.

on [0, 1) and 0 at 1. When n 2:: 2, define h n by letting m be the positive

integer such that 2 m - 1 < n :s: 2m , then let
if 2n-2
217l.
- 1 <
-
t < 2n-1
2n1.
- l',
if 2n2171-1 _ 1<
-
t< 2n - l',
21

otherwise.
See Figure 4.2 for the graphs of the first few of these functions, which will
make it clear how they are being constructed. The vertical dashed lines
in the graphs are included for clarity. Notice that each h n is a positive
multiple of the derivative of the corresponding member Sn of the classical
Schauder basis for e[O, 1].
Suppose that (an) is a sequence of scalars, that no and mo are positive
integers such that no 2:: 2 and 2 mo - 1 < no :s: 2ffi o, and that hand /2 are the
respective intervals [2n2 rno-2
o
2no-1 - 1) and [2n2 o-1
- 1 '2"T1l.0 - 1 ~ - 1) . Let a
0 ' 2171.0 171

be the constant value of L:~,,=~1 anh n on h U /2' It is a straightforward

calculus exercise to show that sP + t P - 2((s + t)/2)P 2:: 0 when s,t 2:: 0,
from which it follows that

jo,J~ anhnlP - jo,J~l anhnlP

Jrhla+anoI + J~.
= P r la-anoI P- r lalP
JhU~
la + ano IP + la - ano IP - 21alP
2
ffi o

2:: O.
Therefore 11L:~,,=~1 anhnll p ::; 11L:~"=1 anhnll p , and so 11L::~1 anhnll p :s:
11L::~1 anhnll p whenever ml,m2 EN and ml :s: m2
It is easy to check that ({ h n : n EN}) contains the indicator function of
every dyadic interval [~-;;,l, 2';" ) such that m is a nonnegative integer and n is
 4.1 First Properties of Schauder Bases 361

an integer for which 1 ~ n ~ 2m. It follows that Lp[O, 1] = [{ hn : n EN}];

see the argument of Example 1.12.3. Since each h n is nonzero, an appli-
cation of Theorem 4.1.24 shows that (h n ) is a basis for Lp[O,I]. Notice
that this basis is monotone by the equivalence of (a) and (c) in Proposi-
tion 4.1.21.
The sequence (h n ) is called the Haar basis for Lp[O, 1]. The fact that it
is a basis for Lp[O, 1] was first shown by Schauder in a 1928 paper [207].

The infinite-dimensional separable Banach spaces are, up to isometric

isomorphism, just the infinite-dimensional closed subspaces of C[O, 1]; see
the comments preceding Example 4.1.11. Since C[O,I] has a basis, it is
natural to ask if every infinite-dimensional separable Banach space has a
basis. This question appeared in Banach's book [13, p. 111] and is called
Banach's basis problem. It remained open for forty years, but was finally
settled in the negative in a 1973 paper by Per Enflo [76], who found a
reflexive counterexample. The space is the same one used by Enflo as an
example of a Banach space lacking the approximation property; see the
discussion following Theorem 3.4.32. The connection between bases and the
approximation property will be explored briefly at the end of this section.
It is at least true that every infinite-dimensional Banach space has a ba-
sic sequence in it. This result has a rather interesting history. It is often
attributed to Banach since it first appeared in his book [13, p. 238], with-
out proof, as an afterthought to some remarks on his basis problem. The
way it is stated there almost makes it sound as if Banach is leaving the
result as a straightforward exercise for the reader. 1 However, no published
proof appeared for twenty-six years. Proving this result was an idea whose
time had apparently come in 1958, for three proofs appeared that year, by
Bernard Gelbaum [86], Czeslaw Bessaga and Aleksander Pelczynski [26],
and Mahlon Day [53, p. 72] (though Day's proof contained an error that he
corrected in a 1962 paper [55]). It is a testament to the faith put in Banach
that the review of [26] in Mathematical Reviews referred to Bessaga and
Pelczynski's accomplishment as a new proof of a previously known result.
Though this leaves open the question of whether Banach really did have
a proof, a 1962 paper by Pelczynski [179] provides a clue. In that paper,
Pelczynski displayed a method of constructing basic sequences that he at-
tributed to S. Mazur and that can be used to produce a fairly simple
proof that infinite-dimensional Banach spaces always have basic sequences
in them. It seems likely that Banach knew of Mazur's method and had a
proof based on that method in mind when he made his claim.
The essence of Mazur's method is contained in the next two lemmas.
Suppose that n EN, that Y is a proper subspace of Euclidean n-space IF n ,
and that Xo is a member of IF n such that lIyll ~ Ily + Q:xoll whenever

1 "Remarquons toutefois que tout espace du type (8) a une infinite de dimensions
renferme un ensemble lineaire ferme a une infinite de dimensions qui admet une base."
362 4. Schauder Bases

Y E Y and a E IF. Then Xo is orthogonal to Y. The second lemma says

that, analogously, for every finite-dimensional subspace Y of an infinite-
dimensional Banach space X there is a norm-one vector in X that is "almost
orthogonal" to Y. To prove that every infinite-dimensional Banach space
has a basic sequence in it, the general plan of attack is to use this lemma to
construct a particular sequence (xn) of norm-one members of the Banach
space such that Xn is, in the sense of the lemma, "almost orthogonal" to
(Xl, ... ,Xn-l) when n > 1, then show that this sequence is basic.
The only immediate use made of the first lemma is to derive the second,
and in fact the second lemma could be proved directly by a slightly modified
version of the proof of the first. However, the first will have a further
application later in this section, in the proof of Theorem 4.1.32.

4.1.28 Lemma. Suppose that Y is a nontrivial tinite-dimensional subspace

of a Banach space X and that 0 < E < 1. Let YI, ... , Yrn be elements of the
compact set By such that every member of By is within E/4 of some Yj, and
let xi, ... ,x;" be members of Bx' such that xjYj = 1 for each j. Suppose
that (xn) is a sequence in X such that infnllxnll > 0 and limn xjxn = 0
when j = 1, ... , m. Then for every positive integer N there is a positive
integer nE,N greater than N such that Ilyll :s; (1 +f)lly+axn,.N II whenever
Y E Y and a E IF.
PROOF. Suppose that N E N. Let nE,N be a positive integer greater than N
such that Ixjxn"NI < (Einfn llxn ll)/8 when j = 1, ... ,m. Since 1- E/2 >
l/(l+E), it is enough to prove that Ily+axn"N II > 1-E/2 whenever Y E By
and a ElF.
Suppose that Y E By and a E IF. If lal ~ 2/llxn"N II, then lIy+axn"N II ~
Ilaxn"N II-IIYII ~ 1 > 1- E/2, so it may be assumed that lal < 2/llxn"N II
Since there is a jo such that Ily - Yjo II < E/4, it follows that
E
lIy + aXn"N II > IIYjo + aXn,.N II - 4;
~ IXJo(Yjo + aXn"N)I- ~
~ IxjoYjo I - lallxJoxn,.N I - ~
f E
>1----
4 4
E
= 1- 2'
as required.

4.1.29 Lemma. Suppose that Y is a tinite-dimensional subspace of an
intinite-dimensional Banach space X. Then for every positive E there is
an x, in Bx such that IIYII :s; (1 + E)lly + ax. II whenever Y E Y and a E IF.
PROOF. Fix a positive f. It may be assumed that E < 1 and that Y i- {O}.
Let YI,'" , Yrn and xi, ... , x;,. be as in the statement of Lemma 4.1.28.
 4.1 First Properties of Schauder Bases 363

Since not every member of X* is a linear combination of xr, ... , x;", it

follows from Lemma 1.9.11 that nj'=l kerx; =I {O}. Let x, be any mem-
ber of nj'=l ker x; having norm 1 and let Xn = x, for each n. Then
Lemma 4.1.28 assures that Ilyll ::; (1 + E)lly + O:'x,11 whenever y E Yand
0:' E IF.

4.1.30 Theorem. Suppose that X is an infinite-dimensional Banach space

and that M > 1. Then there is a normalized basic sequence in X having
basis constant no more than M.
PROOF. Let Xl be any member of Sx. By Lemma 4.1.29, there an X2 in Sx
such that 1I000lxIli :s; MI/21lalxl + 0:'2x211 whenever 0:'1, a2 E IF. Further
applications of the lemma then produce a sequence (xn) in Sx such that
112:;:'=1 O:'nXn II ::; M1/2= II 2:;:':11 O:'nXn II whenever m is a positive integer
and aI, ... ,am+! are scalars. It follows that

whenever ml, m2 E N, ml < m2, and aI, ... ,am2 E IF. The sequence (xn) is
therefore basic by Corollary 4.1.25 and has basis constant no more than M
by Proposition 4.1.20.

Thus, every infinite-dimensional Banach space has in it basic sequences

with basis constants as close to 1 as desired. This naturally leads to the
question of whether every Banach space with a basis must have bases with
basis constants arbitrarily close to 1; that is, whether the following quantity
must be 1 for every Banach space possessing a basis.

4.1.31 Definition. Suppose that X is a Banach space having a basis. For

each basis (xn) of X, let K(xnl be the basis constant for (x n ). Then the
basis constant for X is inf{ K(xnJ : (xn) is a basis for X}.

Of course, if every Banach space with a basis were to have a monotone

basis, then every Banach space with a basis would have basis constant 1.
However, it was shown in a series of papers by V. I. Curaril, culminating
in the 1965 paper [97], that some Banach spaces with bases do not have
monotone bases; see pages 241 248 and 623 of [216] for an exposition of
Curarij's result. The larger problem was put to rest by Per Enflo in a 1973
paper [75J in which he constructed a Banach space having a basis such that
the basis constant of the space is greater than 1.
Though Theorem 4.1.30 guarantees the presence of basic sequences inside
every infinite-dimensional Banach space, it does not suggest any specific
places in a Banach space to look for them. The following result does. It is es-
sentially this result that Pelczynski obtained in [179] using Mazur's method;
364 4. Schauder Bases

see the comments preceding Lemma 4.1.28. In his paper, Pelczynski points
out that the result was first proved by Czeslaw Bessaga in his thesis, also
using Mazur's method.
Notice the close similarity between the proof of this theorem and that of
Theorem 4.1.30.

4.1.32 Theorem. Suppose that (Xn) is a sequence in a Banach space such

that (xn) converges weakly to zero but does not converge to zero with
respect to the norm topology. Then some subsequence of (xn) is a basic
sequence.
PROOF. Since some subsequence of (xn) is bounded away from 0, it may
be assumed that infn IlxnI > O. Let M be any real number greater than 1,
and let nl = 1. By Lemma 4.1.28, there is a positive integer n2 greater
than nl such that Ilalxn11l:::; Mlj211alxnl +a2xn211 whenever al,a2 ElF.
An easy induction argument based on Lemma 4.1.28 then produces a sub-
sequence (xn) of (xn) such that IIL;:l ajx nj II :::; M 1 j2 m IIL7=il ajXn] I
whenever mEN and a1,"" am+l ElF. It follows that

whenever ml, m2 E N, ml < m2, and aI, ... ,am2 E IF. The sequence (XnJ
is therefore basic by Corollary 4.1.25.

The final topic for this section is the brief exploration of the connection
between bases and the approximation property promised earlier. The main
result in this direction is the following one.

4.1.33 Theorem. Every Banach space with a basis has the approximation
property.
PROOF. Suppose that X is a Banach space with a basis (x n ), that (Pn )
is the sequence of natural projections for (x n ), and that M is the basis
constant for (xn). Let K be a nonempty compact subset of X and let I'
be a positive number. By Theorem 3.4.32, it is enough to find a positive
integer no such that IIPnox - xii < c whenever x E X.
Let Yl, ... ,Ym be members of K such that every member of K is within
distance c/(M + 2) of some Yj, and let no be a positive integer such that
IlPnoYj-Yjll < c/(M+2) whenj = 1, ... ,m. Suppose that x is any member
of K. Let jo be such that Ilx - Yjo I < c/(M + 2). Then

which finishes the proof.

 4.1 First Properties of Schauder Bases 365

Thus, Enflo's example of an infinite-dimensional separable Banach space

lacking the approximation property is also an example of an infinite-dimen-
sional separable Banach space lacking a basis.
Actually, a bit more was proved in the preceding theorem than adver-
tised. In the notation of the theorem, it was shown not only that the identity
operator on X can be uniformly approximated on compact subsets of X by
bounded finite-rank linear operators, but also that the family of approxi-
mating operators can be selected to be a bounded subset of B(X), since
sUPnllPnl1 is the finite basis constant for (x n ). That is, it was shown that
every Banach space with a basis has the following property.

4.1.34 Definition. Let X be a Banach space. Suppose that there is a

positive constant t having the property that, for every compact subset K
of X and every positive E, there is a finite-rank member TK,E of B(X) such
that IITK,EII ::; t and IITK,EX - xii < E whenever x E K. Then X has the
bounded approximation property.

A Banach space that satisfies the conditions of the preceding definition

for a specific t is said to have the t-approximation property, and is said to
have the metric approximation property if it has the I-approximation prop-
erty. See Exercise 4.21 for an important characterization of the bounded
approximation property for separable Banach spaces.
Though the bounded approximation property obviously implies the ap-
proximation property, it was shown by Tadeusz Figiel and William B.
Johnson in a 1973 paper [78] that there are infinite-dimensional separa-
ble Banach spaces with the approximation property but not the bounded
approximation property. It is therefore of some interest that every Banach
space with a basis has not just the approximation property, but in fact the
bounded approximation property.
Incidentally, there are infinite-dimensional separable Banach spaces hav-
ing the bounded approximation property but no basis. The first example of
one appeared in a 1987 paper of Stanislaw Szarek [230]. Thus, for infinite-
dimensional separable Banach spaces the property of having a basis implies
the bounded approximation property, which in turn implies the approxi-
mation property, but neither of the implications is reversible.
For a further discussion of the relationship between the approximation
property, the bounded approximation property, and the existence of bases,
see the comments of Pelczynski and Bessaga in either [14] or [15].

Exercises

4.1 Suppose that ~ is a vector space basis for an infinite-dimensional Banach

space and that ~# is the collection of coordinate functionals for ~. The
purpose of this exercise is to show that not all members of ~# can be
366 4. Schauder Bases

bounded, and that, in fact, only finitely many can be so. Let '13t be the
collection of members of '13# that are bounded.
(a) Show by example that '13t might be nonempty.
(b) Show that sup{ 11/11 : I E '13t }-j. +00.
(c) Show that '13t is finite.
4.2 Give an example of an infinite-dimensional normed space with a vector
space basis '13 such that every coordinate functional for '13 is bounded.
(Compare Exercise 4.1.)
4.3 Prove the claims made in Example 4.1.3.
4.4 Prove that the sequence (1,1,1, ... ), el, e2, e3, ... is a basis for the Banach
space c of Exercise 1.25.
4.5 Prove that if Banach spaces X and Y have bases, then so does X EEl Y.
4.6 Suppose that (Xn) is a basis for a Banach space X and that (nj) is a
sequence of positive integers such that N \ {nj : j EN} is infinite. Let
M = [{ Xnj : j EN}]. Prove that both M and X / M have bases.
4.1 Suppose that X is a complex Banach space and Xr is the real Banach
space obtained from X by restricting multiplication of vectors by scalars
to R x X. Show that a sequence (Xn) in X is a basis for X if and only if
the sequence (Xl,ixl,X2,ix2, ... ) is a basis for X r .
4.8 Suppose that (xnl is a basis for a Banach space and that (An) is a sequence
of nonzero scalars.
(a) Must each coordinate functional for (AnXn) be the same as the cor-
responding coordinate functional for (Xn)?
(b) Must each natural projection for (AnXn) be the same as the corre-
sponding natural projection for (Xn)?
(c) Must the basis constant for (AnXn) be the same as the basis constant
for (Xn)?
4.9 Prove that the classical Schauder basis for e[G, 1] is monotone. Is it strictly
monotone?
4.10 Suppose that 1 S p < 00. Is the Haar basis for Lp[G, 1] strictly monotone
for any or all such p?
4.11 Prove that every Banach space with a basis has a nonmonotone basis.
4.12 (a) Suppose that (xnl is a basis for a Banach space X. What is wrong
with the following "proof" that there is only one norm for X equiv-
alent to the original norm of X with respect to which (Xnl is mono-
tone? "By the equivalence of (a) and (d) in Proposition 4.1.21, every
norm for X equivalent to the original norm of X with respect to
which (Xn) is monotone is the same tl.'l the (Xn) norm of X, so there
is only one such norm."
(b) Display a basis (Xn) for a Banach space X and two different norms
for X equivalent to the original norm of X with respect to which
(xn) is monotone.
 4.1 First Properties of Schauder Bases 367

4.13 The purpose of this exercise is to show that uniqueness of expansions is

not enough to guarantee that a sequence in a Banach space is basic; that
is, that it is possible for a sequence (Xn) in a Banach space not to be
basic even though the sequences (an) and can) of scalars are the same
whenever Ln anXn and Ln f3nxn both converge and are equal. Show this
by considering the sequence (Xn)~=o in e[o, 1] defined by the formulas
xo(t) = 1 and xn(t) = t n when n 2: 1.
4.14 Suppose that (Xn) is a basis for a Banach space and that (x~) is the
sequence of coordinate functionals for (Xn). Prove that there is a positive
constant M such that 1 ::; Ilxn II II x;. II ::; M for each n.
4.15 Suppose that (Xn) is a basis for a Banach space and that (x~) is the
sequence of coordinate functionals for (Xn).
(a) Show by example that sUPnllx~11 might not be finite.
(b) Find necessary and sufficient conditions on (Xn) for sUPnllx;'11 to be
finite. (Exercise 4.14 might help.)
(c) Find necessary and sufficient conditions on (x~) for sUPnllXnll to be
finite.
4.16 Suppose that (Xn) is a basis for a Banach space.
(a) Show by example that it might not be true that Ln anXn converges
whenever Lnlanl < 00.
(b) Find necessary and sufficient conditions on (Xn) for Ln anXn to be
convergent whenever Lnlanl < 00.
4.17 Suppose that (Xn) is a basic sequence in a Banach space.
(a) Prove that 0 is the only possible weak limit point of {xn : n EN}.
(b) Show by example that {Xn : n EN} might have 0 as a weak limit
point, even if (Xn) is normalized.
(c) Show by example that {Xn : n EN} might have no weak limit
points whatever, even if (xn) is normalized.
4.18 Suppose that Xl, ... ,X m is a nonempty linearly independent finite list in
an infinite-dimensional Banach space. Show that this list can be extended
to a basic sequence (Xn).
4.19 Theorem 4.1.32 is not very useful for finding basic sequences inside l\.
Why not?

4.20 Give a proof of Theorem 4.1.33 that uses nothing deeper about the ap-
proximation property than its definition, and in particular avoids the use
of Theorem 3.4.32.

4.21 Prove that a separable Banach space X has the bounded approximation
property if and only if there is a sequence (Tn) of finite-rank members
of B(X) such that limn Tnx = X for each X in X.
4.22 Prove that every Banach space with a monotone basis has the metric
approximation property.
368 4. Schauder Bases

4.23 The major content of Theorem 4.1.24-namely, that conditions (1), (2),
and (3) in the statement of that theorem together imply that the se-
quence (Xn) is a basis-does appear in Banach's book [13] in an equiva-
lent form, but it is not all that easy to spot. Banach's result is actually
about biorthogonal sequences rather than bases, where a biorthogonal "se-
quence" is actually a pair of sequences (x n), (x~) such that (Xn) lies in
some Banach space, the sequence (x~) lies in the dual of that space, and
X;"Xn is 1 if m = nand 0 otherwise. This is Banach's result, which appears
as Theorem 4 of Chapter VII on page 108 of his book:
Suppose that X is a Banach space; that (Xn) is a sequence in X and
(x~) a sequence in X that together form a biorthogonal sequence;
that [{ Xn : n EN}] = X; and that, for each x in X, the partial
sums ofthe formal series Ln(X~X)Xn are bounded. Then Ln(x~X)Xn
converges for each x in X.
Here is another way to look at this result. Suppose that X, (x n ), and (x~)
satisfy the initial parts of the hypotheses of Banach's result up to and
including the requirement that [{ Xn : n EN}] = X. For each positive
integer m, let Pm be the member of B(X) given by the formula Plnx =
L;;'=l (x~x )Xn. Banach's result says that if sUPIn IIPlnxl1 is finite for each x
in X, then limm Pmx exists for each x in X. The purpose of this exercise
is to demonstrate that Banach's result is essentially the same as the major
content of Theorem 4.1.24 by showing that each can be readily derived
from the other.
(a) Suppose that X, (Xn), and (x~) satisfy the hypotheses of Banach's
result. Use Theorem 4.1.24 to show that the sequence (Xn) is a basis
for X having (x~) as its sequence of coordinate functionals, and that
the conclusion of Banach's result follows.
For the rest of this exercise, assume that Banach's result is known to hold
but that neither Theorem 4.1.24 nor the consequences of it demonstrated
in part (a) have been proved.
(b) Show that under the hypotheses of Banach's result and using the
notation in the explanation of Banach's result given above, it follows
that lim ln Plnx = x whenever x E X, that is, that x = Ln(X~X)Xn
for each x in X.
(c) Suppose that (Xn) is a sequence in a Banach space X satisfying
conditions (1), (2), and (3) of Theorem 4.1.24. Use Banach's result
to prove that (xn) is a basis for X. You may duplicate the relevant
portion of the proof of Theorem 4.1.24 up to and including the
construction of the maps Pin, but you should then concentrate on
obtaining the sequence (x;.) as in the hypotheses of Banach's result
with the goal of applying his result as quickly thereafter as possible.

4.2 Unconditional Bases

The following two propositions will prove useful in what is to follow. Though
these results were not needed until now, their proofs are entirely elementary
 4.2 Unconditional Bases 369

and could have been given in Section 1.3. The first of these propositions
has a much shorter, though less elementary, proof; see Exercise 4.25.

4.2.1 Proposition. If 2:n Xn is an unconditionally convergent series in a

normed space, then 2:n X7r(n) = 2:n Xn for each permutation 1T of N.
PROOF. Suppose that 2:n Xn is a series in a normed space and that 1T is
a permutation of N such that 2:n Xn and 2:n X7r(n) both converge but to
different limits. It will be shown that there is another permutation 1T' of N
such that 2: n X7r/(n) does not converge, from which it follows that 2: n Xn
is only conditionally convergent.
Let ( = II2:n X1r(n) - 2:n xnll and let the positive integer PI be such that

There is a positive integer qi such that

{ 1T(n) : n E N, 1 ::; n ::; PI } c:;;: {n : n E N, 1 ::; n ::; qi }

and

There is then a positive integer P2 such that

{ n : n E N, 1 ::; n ::; qi } c:;;: { 1T(n) : n E N, 1 ::; n ::; P2 }

and

and a further positive integer q2 such that

{1T(n) : n E N, 1 ::; n ::; P2} c:;;: {n : n EN, 1 ::; n ::; q2 }

and

Continue the construction of the sequences (Pn) and (qn) in this fashion.
Now let 1T' be the permutation of N obtained by listing N in the following
order. First list 1T(1) through 1T(Pl), then follow this by the members of
1, ... , ql not already listed. Follow this by the members of 1T(1), ... , 1T(P2)
370 4. Schauder Bases

not already listed, and in turn follow that by the members of 1, ... ,Q2
not already listed, and so forth. Since the partial sums of Ln X7l"(n) swing
back and forth between being within c/3 of Ln X7l'(n) and being within c/3
of Ln X n , the series Ln X7l"(n) does not converge.

4.2.2 Definition. In any setting in which the notion of series makes sense,
a subseries of a formal series '"'"
L-n Xn is a formal series '""'.
~J X n J obtained
from a subsequence (Xnj) of (xn).

4.2.3 Proposition. A formal series Ln Xn in a Banach space is uncondi-

tionally convergent if and only if each subseries of Ln Xn converges.
PROOF. Suppose first that there is a subsequence (xnJ of (xn) such that
L j xnJdoes not converge. Then there must be a positive E and sequences
(Pn) and (qn) of positive integers such that

and IIL3~Pk Xnj II ~ E for each k. It may be assumed that infinitely many
positive integers are omitted from Uk {nj : Pk S; j S; qk}. Let (Tn) be the
sequence consisting of those omitted integers in ascending order, and let 7f
be the permutation of N into the order

where the admittedly ambiguous notation n pk , ... , n qk is being used here

to represent the particular terms of (nj) that are indexed by Pk through qk
rather than all integers j such that n pk S; j S; n qk . It is clear that Ln X7f(n)
does not converge, so Ln Xn is not unconditionally convergent.
Suppose conversely that Ln x7l'(n) does not converge for some permuta-
tion 7f of N. Then there must be a positive E and sequences (sn) and (t n )
of positive integers such that

and I L~k=Sk X7l'(n) II ~ E for each k. It may be assumed that

max{ 7f(n) : Sk S; n S; tk} < min{ 7f(n) : Sk+1 S; n S; tk+l }

for each k. Let (nj) be formed by applying 7f to the terms of the se-
quence Sl, ... , t 1, S2, ... , t2, . .. to get 7f( 81), ... , 7f( h), 7f( S2), ... , 7f( t2), ...
and sorting the resulting sequence into ascending order. Then the sub-
series L j x nJ of Ln Xn does not converge.

4.2.4 Corollary. If a series in a Banach space converges unconditionally,

then so does each of its subseries.
 4.2 Unconditional Bases 371

An important consequence of Proposition 4.2.1 and Corollary 4.2.4 is

that it is possible to define "unordered subseries" of unconditionally con-
vergent series in Banach spaces in the following way.

4.2.5 Definition. Suppose that Ln Xn is an unconditionally convergent

series in a Banach space X and that A S;; N. If A = 0, then LnEA Xn is
the zero element of X, otherwise LnEA Xn is the member of X obtained
by listing the elements of A in any order nl, n2, ... and letting LnEA Xn =
x n , + x n2 + ....

One other important characterization of unconditional convergence in

Banach spaces requires a bit of preliminary work.

4.2.6 Lemma. If Y is a closed subspace of 00 that contains every se-

quence of scalars whose terms all come from {O, 1}, then Y = =.
PROOF. Suppose that the member (t n ) of Sf~ has only nonnegative real
terms. It is enough to show that (tn) E Y. For each positive integer n,
let 0.Sn,lSn,2Sn,3'" be a binary expansion of tn. Then ((Sn,j));:l is a
sequence in Y, and (tn) = Lj 2- j (sn,j) E Y.

The next lemma is proved in a bit more generality than is really needed
here, but the more general version will have a further use in Section 4.3 to
prove Proposition 4.3.9.

4.2.7 Lemma. Suppose that Ln Xn is a formal series in a normed space X

such that 2:n x*xn is absolutely convergent whenever x* E X*. Then
there is a nonnegative real number M such that sUPrnlIL;:l D:nxnll ::;
MII(D:n)lloo whenever (D:n ) E 00'
PROOF. Define T: X* -+ 1 by the formula T(x*) = (x*xn)' It is clear
that T is linear, and it follows from the closed graph theorem that T is
bounded. Fix a member (D: n ) of [=. If mEN and x' E B x " then

Ix' (~D:nxn) I I~ = D:nX'Xnl ::; 11(D:n)ll= IITx*lll ::; 11(D:n)lI= IITII,

so 112::'=1 D:nXnll ::; IITIIII(D:n)lIoo whenever mEN. Let M = IITII to finish

the proof.

4.2.8 The Bounded Multiplier Test. A formal series 2:nXn in a Ba-

nach space is unconditionally convergent if and only if Ln D:nXn converges
whenever (D:n ) E 00'
PROOF. Let X be the Banach space in which the sequence (xn) lies. Sup-
pose first that 2:n D:nXn converges whenever (D: n ) E [=. It follows immedi-
ately that every subseries of 2:n Xn converges, so 2:n Xn is unconditionally
convergent.
372 4. Schauder Bases

Suppose conversely that 2:: n Xn is unconditionally convergent. Let Y be

the subspace of loo consisting of all members (an) of loo such that 2::n anXn
converges. The goal is to show that Y = loo. Since each subseries of 2:: n Xn
converges, every sequence of scalars whose terms all come from {O, I} is
in Y, so by Lemma 4.2.6 it is enough to show that Y is closed.
Suppose that ((a n,j));:1 is a sequence in Y that converges to some (an)
in loo. It is enough to show that (an) E Y, for which it is enough to show
that the sequence of partial sums of 2:: n anxn is Cauchy. To this end, sup-
pose that E > O. For each x* in X*, the series 2::n x*xn is a series of scalars
that is, by Proposition 4.2.3, unconditionally convergent and therefore ab-
solutely convergent, so 2::n Xn satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma 4.2.7.
Let M be as in the conclusion of that lemma. Let j( be a positive integer
such that I (an,j,) - (an) Iltxl < E, then let N be a positive integer such that
112::~=pan,j,xnll < E whenever q 2: p 2: N. It follows that if q 2: P 2: N,
then

< E + Mil (an,j,) - (an)lloo

:::; (1 + M)f..
Thus, the sequence of partial sums of 2::n anxn is Cauchy.

4.2.9 Corollary. If a series 2::" Xn in a Banach space converges uncondi-
tionally, then so does 2::n anxn whenever (an) E ltxl

Considering the title of this section and the emphasis already placed
on unconditionally convergent series, the reader may have anticipated the
following definition.

4.2.10 Definition. A basis (xn) for a Banach space X is unconditional

if, for every x in X, the expansion 2::n anxn for x in terms of the basis is
unconditionally convergent. A basis for a Banach space is conditional if it
is not unconditional.

The term unconditional basis is due to R. C. James [109]. However, others

studied such bases before James gave them their modern name in his 1950
paper. In particular, S. Karlin [130] called such bases absolute in a study
published two years earlier, and this term was still used by some authors
at least as late as 1962; see, for example, [82].

4.2.11 Example. Suppose that X is Co or lp such that 1 :::; P < 00. Then
the standard unit vector basis for X is clearly unconditional.

The following elementary results about unconditional bases follow easily

from the corresponding general results about bases in Section 4.1.
 4.2 Unconditional Bases 373

4.2.12 Proposition. Suppose that (xn) is an unconditional basis for a

Banach space X and that (An) is a sequence of nonzero scalars. Then
(AnXn) is also an unconditional basis for X.

4.2.13 Corollary. If (xn) is an unconditional basis for a Banach space,

then (1Ix nll- 1 xn) is a normalized unconditional basis for the same space.

4.2.14 Proposition. Suppose that X and Yare Banach spaces, that T

is an isomorphism from X into Y, and that (xn) is an unconditional basic
sequence in X. Then (Txn) is an unconditional basic sequence in Y. In
particular, if (xn) is an unconditional basis for X and T maps X onto Y,
then (Txn) is an unconditional basis for Y.

If (xn) is an unconditional basis for a Banach space, then in addition

to the (xn) norm there are several other useful norms based on (xn) and
the original norm of the space that are equivalent to the original norm.
The following is the most useful one for the purposes of this book. See
Exercise 4.29 for another.

4.2.15 Definition. Suppose that (xn) is an unconditional basis for a Ba-

nach space X. Then the bounded multiplier unconditional (xn) norm of X
or bmu-(xn) norm of X is defined by the formula II.En anxnllbmu-(x n ) =
sup{ II.En ,6n a nx nll : ((3n) E Sf",}.

4.2.16 Theorem. Suppose that (xn) is an unconditional basis for a Banach

space X. Then the bounded multiplier unconditional (xn) norm of X is
a Banach norm equivalent to the original norm of X, and Ilxllbmu-(x n ) 2:
Ilxll(xn ) 2: IIxll for each x in X.
PROOF. Throughout this proof, symbols denoting series convergence always
indicate convergence with respect to the original norm of X, not the bmu-
(xn) norm. (It is of course a consequence of this theorem that there is really
no difference between these two forms of series convergence.)
The first issue is whether Ilxllbmll-(x n ) is finite for each x in X. Sup-
pose to the contrary that there is a member .En anXn of X such that
II.En anxnllbmu-(x n ) = +00. Then for each positive integer n1 there is a
positive integer n2 greater than n1 and scalars ,61, ... ,,6n2 each having
absolute value no more than 1 such that

which implies that

II f
n=n,+1
,6n a n x nll2: Ilf(3n anxnll-
n=l
f: Ilanxnll
n=l
2: l.
374 4. Schauder Bases

Using this fact, it is easy to construct a sequence ("'tn) in 00 such that

2.::n "'tnanXn does not converge since its sequence of partial sums is not
Cauchy. This contradicts the unconditional convergence of 2.:: n anx n . Thus,
the function 11'llbmu~(xn) is finite-valued.
It is now easy to check that 11llbmu-(xn) really is a norm. The inequalities
claimed in the statement of the theorem follow immediately from Theo-
rem 4.l.14 and the definitions of IHbmu-(x n ) and IH(x n ), which in turn
implies that the identity operator from (X, 11llbmu-(x ) onto (X, 1111) is
n

continuous. If 11lIbmu-(xn) is a Banach norm, then it will be equivalent to

the original norm of X by Corollary l.6.8, so all that remains to bc proved
is the completeness of (X, 11lIbmu-(x n )'
Let (2.::n an.jXn)~l be a sequence in X that is Cauchy with respect
to 11llbmu-(x
n )'Then this sequence is also Cauchy with respect to 1111 and
so converges with respect to II II to some 2.:: n anXn having the property
that an = limj an.j for each n. Suppose that f > O. Let j, be a positive
integer such that if j,j' ~ j" then II2.::n an,j'Xn - 2.::n an,jxnllbmu-(x n ) < E.
For each member (,Bn) of Sf=, each pair of integers j,j' such that j, j' ~ j"
and each positive integer m,

Letting j' tend to infinity shows that if (,Bn) E Si= and m is a positive
integer, then

whenever j ~ j,. Letting m tend to infinity shows that

IIL,Bnanxn - L,Bnan,jxnll ::; E

n n

whenever (,Bn) E Sc= and j ~ JEJ from which it follows that

IILanXn
n
- Lan,jXnll
n bmu-(x n )
::; f

whenever j ~ j,. The norm 11llbmu-(xn) is therefore a Banach norm.

It is possible to impose an algebra structure on a Banach space having an

unconditional basis, and, if the Banach space is real, a lattice structure also.
The following two order properties of bounded multiplier unconditional
norms will be used in the arguments that show this.
 4.2 Unconditional Bases 375

4.2.17 Proposition. Suppose that (xn) is an unconditional basis for a

Banach space X. Then

whenever Ln anXn E X and (13n) E Ccxo

PROOF. Suppose that Ln anXn E X and (13n) E Sloc. The proof will be
finished once it is shown that IILn 13n a nx nllbmu-(x n ) ::; IILn anxnllbmu-(x n ) ,
and this inequality follows easily from the definition of 11llbmu-(xn).
4.2.18 Proposition. Suppose that (xn) is an unconditional basis for a
Banach space X. Then

Xn\\
bmu-(xn) < \\l.:13n
\\l.:anX n \\
n n bmu-(xnl
whenever Ln anxn, Ln 13n x n E X and lanl ::; l13nl for each n.
PROOF. If Ln anxn , Ln 13nxn E X and lanl ::; l13nl for each n,
then there
is a member (rn) of Be oc such that an = In13n for each n, which by Propo-
sition 4.2.17 implies that

bmu-(xn) ::; II(rn)II=\\l.:13n

l.:anXn\\ X n\\ ::; \\l.: 13n x n
\1
n n bmu-(xn) n
1\
bmu-(xn) '

as required.

Bounded multiplier unconditional norms provide a way to turn any Ba-
nach space having an unconditional basis into a Banach algebra. Suppose
that a Banach space (X, +,,1111) has an unconditional basis. By Corol-
lary 4.2.13, the space has a normalized unconditional basis (xn). Define a
multiplication of the elements of X by the formula

It follows from the bounded multiplier test that the series on the right side
of this formula does converge, since the convergence of Ln anXn and the
fact that Ilxnll = 1 for each n together imply that (an) E co. It is easy to
check that for all x, y, z in X and every scalar a,
(1) xe(yez)=(xey)ez;
(2) x e (y + z) = (x e y) + (x e z) and (x + y) e z = (x e z) + (y e z); and
(3) a(xey)=(ax)ey=xe(a.y).
376 4. Schauder Bases

1 2::anf3nxnll
n bmu-(xn)
<:; II(an)lIooI12::f3nXnll
n bmu-(xn)

< 112:: anxn l

n bmu-(xn) 112:: f3nxn l bmu-(xn) .
n

Thus, whenever x, y EX,

(4) Ilx. yllbmu-(x n ) Ilxllbmu-(x Ilyllbmu-(x

~ n ) n )'

It follows that the ordered quintuple (X, +,., . , 11llbmu-(x

n ) ) is a Banach

algebra. This algebra cannot have a multiplicative identity; the only candi-
date is '2::n x,,, and that series does not converge. The algebra does, how-
ever, have the following property.

4.2.19 Definition. A Banach algebra (X, +'.",11'11) is commutative if

x y = y x whenever x, y EX.

These observations can be summarized as follows.

4.2.20 Theorem. Suppose that (X, +,,1111) is a Banach space with an

unconditional basis. Let (x n ) be a normalized unconditional basis for X,
and let

whenever '2::n anxn , '2::n f3n x n EX. Then (X, +,.,', 11llbmu-(x n )) is a com-
mutative Banach algebra without identity.

Suppose that X is a partially ordered set and that x, y E X. A least

upper bound for x and y is an element of X, denoted by x V y, such that
(1) x ::s x V y and y ::S x V y; and
(2) x Vy ::S z whenever x ::S z and y ::S z.
The appropriate modifications can be made to this to give the definition
of a greatest lower bound x /\ y for x and y. Least upper bounds and
greatest lower bounds are obviously unique when they exist, so the notation
is unambiguous.

4.2.21 Definitions. An ordered vector space is a vector spa~e X over lR

with a partial order ::S such that if x, y E X and x ::S y, then
(1) x + z ::S y + z whenever z E X; and
(2) tx::s ty whenever t > O.
 4.2 Unconditional Bases 377

A vector lattice is an ordered vector space X such that

(3) every pair of elements of X has a least upper bound.
For every element x of a vector lattice, let the absolute value of x be defined
by the formula Ixl = x V (-x). A real normed space X that is also a vector
lattice is a normed lattice if

(4) Ilxll ::; Ilyll whenever x, y E X and Ixl ::S IYI

A Banach lattice is a real Banach space that is a normed lattice.

Suppose that X is an ordered vector space. It is easy to check that

-y ::S -x whenever x, y E X and x ::S y. It readily follows that if x and y
are members of a vector lattice, then - (( -x) V (-y) is a greatest lower
bound for x and y. It would therefore be redundant to require that every
pair of elements of a vector lattice have a greatest lower bound; however,
that requirement is sometimes inserted into the definition of a vector lattice
for clarity.

4.2.22 Theorem. Suppose that (X, 1111) is a real Banach space having an
unconditional basis (x n ). Define a partial order ::S on X by declaring that
Ln anXn ::S Ln f3n x n when an ::; f3n for each n. Then (X,::s, 11llbmu-(x n)
is a Banach lattice. Furthermore, if x and y are members of X, where
x = Ln anXn and y = Ln f3n x n, then x Vy = Ln max{ an, f3n}x n , X 1\ Y =
Ln min {an ,f3n}xn, and Ixl = Lnlanlxn.
PROOF. It is easy to verify that (X, ::S) is an ordered vector space. Now sup--
pose that x, y E X, where x = Ln anXn and y = Ln f3nxn. It follows from
the bounded multiplier test that Lnlanl Xn and Lnlf3nl Xn both converge,
and therefore that Ln(lanl + lf3nl)x n converges. The bounded multiplier
test then implies that both Ln max { an, f3n} Xn and Ln min { an, f3n} Xn
converge. It is clear that Lnmax{an,f3n}xn and Lnmin{an,f3n}xn are,
respectively, the least upper bound and greatest lower bound for x and y,
so (X,::s) is a vector lattice. Notice that Ixl = Ln ma..x:{a n , -an}x n =
Lnlanl x n
Finally, suppose that Ixl ::S IYI, that is, that lanl ::; lf3nl for each n. Then
Ilxllbmu-(xn) ::; Ilyllbmu-(x n) by Proposition 4.2.18, so (X,~, 11llbmu.(x n) is
a Banach lattice.

4.2.23 Example. Suppose that X is Co or p such that 1 ::; p < 00 and that
(en) is the standard unit vector basis for X. Then the original norm of X is
the same as its bmu-(e n ) norm, so the multiplication of elements of X given
by the formula (an) (f3n) = (a n f3n) turns X into a commutative Banach
algebra. Furthermore, if IF = 1R, then X is a Banach lattice with respect to
the partial order given by declaring that (an) ::S (!3n ) when an ::; f3n for
each n.
378 4. Schauder Bases

The reader interested in Banach lattices can find out more about them
from [157], while [205] is a good source of information on lattices in more
general topological vector spaces.
When (xn) is a basis for a Banach space, the (xn) norm is a useful tool
for demonstrating the continuity of the natural projections {Pn : n EN}
for (xn); see the proof of Theorem 4.1.15. If the basis (xn) is unconditional,
then the bmu-(xn) norm can be used to prove the boundedness of a much
larger class of linear maps.

4.2.24 Definition. Suppose that (xn) is an unconditional basis for a

Banach space X. For each subset A of N, let PA be the linear operator
Ln anX" f---+ LnEA anXn from X into X. Then each such map is a natural
projection for (xn).

Notice that the maps Pn of Definition 4.1.12 are just special cases of
those of Definition 4.2.24.

4.2.25 Theorem. Suppose that (xn) is an unconditional basis for a Banach

space X. For each (/3n) in Coo, let T(3nl be the map L" an x" f---+ Ln /3nanxn
from X into X. Then each such map T(3n 1 is a bounded linear operator
from X into X, and sup{ II T(3n 1II : (/3n) E Sf oc } is finite.
PROOF. Suppose that bn) E Coo. Then Thnl is clearly linear. For the
proof that Thnl is bounded, it may be assumed that bn) E Sf oc ' The
bounded ness of Thnl then follows, since

1 T h nl(Lanxn)11
n bmu-(x n
=
1
IILinanxnl1 bmu-(xnl <- IILanxnl1 bmu-(xnl
n n

whenever Ln anXn E X. Finally, since sup{ IIT(3nlxll : (/3n) E Sf oc } =

Ilxllbmu-(xnl < +00 whenever x EX, the uniform bounded ness principle
assures that sup{ IIT(3n) II : (/3n) E Sloc} is finite.

With all notation as in the statement of the preceding theorem, it follows

that if A is any nonempty subset of Sloc' then sup{ IIT(3nl II : (/3n) E A}
must be finite. This fact can be used to obtain several constants important
for the study of Banach spaces having unconditional bases. The two that
arc probably most commonly used are given in the following two corollaries,
the first of which generalizes some properties of the natural projections Pn
of Definition 4.1.12 proved in Section 4.1.

4.2.26 Corollary. Suppose that (xn) is an unconditional basis for a Ba-

nach space X. For each subset A of N, the natural projection PA is a
bounded projection from X onto [{ Xn : n E A}]. Furthermore, the quan-
tity sup{ IWAII: A <::: N} is finite.
 4.2 Unconditional Bases 379

PROOF. It follows immediately from the preceding theorem that each PA

is a bounded linear map and that sup{ I!FA I : A <::: N} is finite. Now fix a
subset A of No Then PA maps X into [{ Xn : n E A}]. Furthermore, the con-
tinuous map PA agrees with the identity operator for X on ({ Xn : n E A})
and therefore on [{ Xn : n E A}], from which it follows that PA is a projec-
tion onto [{ Xn : n E A}].
4.2.27 Corollary. Suppose that (xn) is an unconditional basis for a Ba-
nach space X. Let S be the collection of all sequences whose terms come
from the set {-I, + 1}, that is, of all sequences of signs. For each mem-
ber (<Tn) of S, let T(a n ) be the isomorphism from X onto X given by the
formula T(O"n)(2::n onxn) = 2::n <TnOnXn Then sup{ IITCan) I : (<Tn) E S} is
finite.
PROOF. The only issue is whether each T(O"n) is a vector space isomorphism
from X onto X with a bounded inverse, and this is settled by noting that
each T(J"n) has itself as an inverse.

4.2.28 Definition. Suppose that (xn) is an unconditional basis for a Ba-

nach space X. Let {PA : A <::: N} be the collection of all natural pro--
jections for (xn). Then sup{ I!FA II : A <::: N} is the unconditional basis
constant for (xn). Now let S be the collection of all sequences of signs, and
let T(O"n)(2::n onxn) = 2:: n <TnOnXn whenever (un) E Sand 2::n OnXn EX.
Then sup{ IIT(O"n) II : (un) E S} is the unconditional constant for (x n ).

The two constants of the preceding definition have characterizations anal-

ogous to those given for basis constants in Proposition 4.1.20.

4.2.29 Proposition. Suppose that (xn) is an unconditional basis for a

Banach space X and that Kub is the unconditional basis constant for (xn).
Then K ub is the smallest real number M such that

Ill: OnXn11 ~ MIIl:onXnll

nEA n

whenever 2:: n OnXn E X and A <::: N, which is in turn the smallest real
number M such that

I l: Onxnll ~ Mil l: OnXn11

nEA nEB

for each pair A and B of finite subsets of N such that A <::: B and each
collection {on : nEB} of scalars.
PROOF. It is a straightforward consequence of the definition of Kub that

Kub = sup { II2::nEA OnXn I

II2:: nonxnll : 2::n OnXn EX \ {O}, A ~ N
}
,

from which the proposition readily follows.

380 4. Schauder Bases

4.2.30 Proposition. Suppose that (xn) is an unconditional basis for a

Banach space X and that Ku is the unconditional constant for (x n ). Then
K u is the smallest real number M such that

112: anXn - 2:
nEA nEN\A
anxnll ~ MII2: anxn l
n

whenever Ln O:nXn E X and A ~ N, which is in turn the smallest real

number M such that

112: anxn - 2: o:nXnl1 ~ Mil 2:

nEA nEB nEAUB
anxnll

for each pair A and B of disjoint finite subsets of N and each collection
n E A u B} of scalars.
{ O:n :

PROOF. Easy arguments based on the fact that

prove the proposition.

With all notation as in the statement of the preceding proposition, the
proposition essentially says that if Ln O:nXn E Bx and the positive inte-
gers are split into two disjoint sets A and N \ A, then the two "halves"
of Ln anXn obtained by summing over A and N \ A separately cannot be
farther than Ku units apart, and furthermore that Ku is the smallest real
number having this property for every member of Bx and every subset
of N.
Since an unconditional basis has associated with it a basis constant, an
unconditional basis constant, and an unconditional constant, it is worth-
while to know the relationship between these numbers.

4.2.31 Proposition. Suppose that (xn) is an unconditional basis for a

Banach space X and that K b, K ub, and K u arc, respectively, the basis con-
stant, unconditional basis constant, and unconditional constant for (xn)
TheIl 1 ~ Kb ~ Kub ~ ~(1 + Ku) ~ KIl ~ 2K uh . If X is renormed with
11llbmu-(x n), then Ku = Kub = Kb = l.
PROOF. It was shown in the discussion following Definition 4.1.18 that
1 ~ K b , and it is an easy consequence of the definitions of Kb and Kub
that Kb ~ Kub. If Ln O:nXn E X and A ~ N, then

211 L anxnll-IIL o:nxnll ~ I L anXn - L anxnll ~ Kull2: anxnll,

nEA n nEA nEN\A n
 4.2 Unconditional Bases 381

so IILnEA O::nxnll ::; ~(l+Ku)IILn O::nxnll It follows that Kub ::; ~(1 + Ku).
Now ~(1 + Ku) ::; Ku because Ku ~ 1, while Ku ::; 2Kub since

IL O::nXn - L O::nXn \I ::; \I L O::nXn \I + \I L O::nXn \I

nEA nEN\A nEA nEN\A

::; 2Kub \I Ln
O::nXn \I

whenever L n O::nXn E X and A <::;:: N.

Now suppose that X has been renormed with 11llbmu-(xnl. A quick glance
at the proof of Theorem 4.2.25 shows that, after the renorming, each of the
maps T(anl used in the definition of Ku has norm no more than 1. Therefore
Ku ::; 1, and so Ku = Kub = Kb = 1.

The test for being a basis given in Theorem 4.1.24 has its analog for
unconditional bases.

4.2.32 Theorem. A sequence (xn) in a Banach space X is an uncondi-

tional basis for X if and only if
(1) each Xn is nonzero;
(2) there is a real number M such that

for each pair A and B of finite subsets of N such that A c:;;: Band
each collection {O::n : nEB} of scalars; and
(3) [{xn:nEN}]=X.
PROOF. By results earlier in this chapter, the sequence (xn) has properties
(1), (2), and (3) if it is an unconditional basis for X.
Suppose conversely that (xn) satisfies (1), (2), and (3). Then (xn) is a
basis for X by Theorem 4.1.24, so the only issue is whether it is uncon-
ditional. Suppose that L n O::nXn E X and that L j O::nj x nj is a subseries
of this series. It is enough to show that L j o::njx nj converges. This follows
immediately from the convergence of L n O::nXn and the fact that

II~
J-Tnl
O::nJxn J I ::; Mil ~ o::nxnll
n-nTTll

4.2.33 Corollary. A sequence (xn) in a Banach space is an unconditional
basic sequence if and only if each Xn is nonzero and there is a real number M
382 4. Schauder Bases

such that

for each pair A and B of finite subsets of N such that A ~ B and each
collection { an : nEB} of scalars.

4.2.34 Corollary. Every permutation of an unconditional basic sequence

in a Banach space is itself an unconditional basic sequence.

So far, no examples of conditional bases have been given. It is time to

remedy that.

4.2.35 Theorem. The classical Schauder basis for e[O, 1] is a conditional

basis.
PROOF. Let (8 n );:O=O be the classical Schauder basis for e[o, 1]. For the
argument about to be given, it will be helpful to refer to the graphs in
Figure 4.1 on page 353. The argument will involve a subsequence of (8 n ),
that for convenience will be called (t n ), obtained as follows. Let h = 82,
the member of the basis that is nonzero precisely on (0, 1). Let t2 = 83, the
member of the basis that is nonzero precisely on (0,1/2). Let t3 = 86, the
member of the basis that is nonzero precisely on (1/4,1/2). Let t4 = 811,
the member of the basis that is nonzero precisely on (1/4,3/8). Continue
this pattern, selecting each tn to be nonzero on an interval half as long as
is the case for t n - 1 , and arranging for the interval on which tn is nonzero
and the corresponding interval for tn-1 to share left endpoints if n is even
and right endpoints if n is odd.
For each positive integer n, let Vn be the midpoint of the interval on
which tn is nonzero, and let an = 0:=7=1 tj)(vn ); that is, let (v1,ad =
(1/2,1) and, when n;::: 2, let (v n , an) be the coordinates of the new vertex
added when passing from the graph of 2:,7~t tj to that of 2:,7=1 tj. Then
a1 = 1, a2 = 3/2, and a moment's reflection on the process of passing from
the graph of 2:,7~t tj to that of 2:,7=1 tJ shows that

when n 2: 3. Since

when n 2: 3, an easy induction argument shows that 1/2 :=:: an - an -1 :=:: 3/4
when n 2: 2. It follows from this that (an) is strictly increasing and un-
bounded and that 112:,7=1 tj 1100 = an for each n.
Now let bn = (2:,7=1(-1)J+ 1tj)(vn ) for each n; that is, let (v1,b 1 ) =
(1/2,1) and, when n ;::: 2, let (vn' bn ) be the coordinates of the vertex added
 4.2 Unconditional Bases 383

when passing from the graph of L;:;( 1

-1)i+ tj to that of L;=1 (-l)j+ltj.
Then b1 = 1, b2 = -1/2, and, when n :::: 3,

~(bn-l + bn- 2 ) + 1 if n is odd;

bn ={
~(bn-l + bn- 2 ) - 1 if n is even.

It follows by induction that

when n is even, so
1 s: bn s: 2 when n is odd and -1 s: bn s:

for each n.
If (sn) were unconditional and Ku were its unconditional constant, then
it would have to be true that

for each n, which contradicts the fact that (an) is an unbounded sequence
of positive numbers. The basis (sn) is therefore conditional.

Notice that, in the notation of the proof of the preceding theorem, the
formal series Ln tn and L n (-1)n+lt n do not converge; in fact, the se-
ries Ln ant n cannot converge for any sequence (an) of signs since the terms
of the series do not tend to 0. This illustrates the power of the methods
that have been developed in this section, since the preceding proof shows
that the classical Schauder basis for e[O, 1] is conditional without actually
producing any members of e[O, 1] whose expansions with respect to the
basis are only conditionally convergent.
It actually turns out that no basis for e[O, 1] is unconditional. Proofs of
this can be found in [156] and [216).

4.2.36 Theorem. The Haar basis for L 1 [0, 1] is a conditional basis.

PROOF. To follow this argument, it will be helpful to refer to the graphs
in Figure 4.2 on page 360. Let (h n ) be the Haar basis for Ll [0,1]. It will
be more convenient to work with the normalized version
(hI, h2' 2h 3 , 2h 4 , 4h 5 , 4h6 , 4h 7 , 4h8 , .. )

of this basis; call it (h~). It is enough to show that (h~) is conditional.

Let gl = h~, then let gn = h;n-2+1 when n :::: 2; that is, let (gn) be the
subsequence of (h~) formed by saving only the members of (h~) for which
h~ (0) i= O. It is easy to check that for each positive integer n,
if Os: t < 2-(n-l);
otherwise,
384 4. Schauder Bases

so 112::7=1 gjl11 = 1 for each n. Now form a subsequence (gn,) of (gn) in

the following way. Let n1 = 1 and n2 = 2; notice that Ilgn,11r ~ 1/2
and Ilgnl + gn211r ~ 2/2. Now suppose that positive integers nl, ... , n p -1
have been chosen so that nl < ... < np-l and 112::~=1 gnj III ~ k/2 when
1 s: s:
k p - 1. Then there is a to in (0,1) such that gnp~l (to) > 0 and
Jt~l2::j:i gnj(t)ldt ~ (p - 2)/2. Let np be a positive integer such that the
subset of [0, 1] on which gnp is nonzero lies in [0, to). Then np-l < n p , and
it is easy to check that

By induction, there is a subsequence (gn]) of (gn) such that I 2::~=1 gnj III ~
k/2 for each k.
Suppose that (h~) were an unconditional basis. Let Kub be its uncondi-
tional basis constant. Then for each positive integer k,

a contradiction.

As with the proof that the classical Schauder basis for e[O, 1] is condi-
tional, the above proof does not actually produce any elements of the space
whose basis expansions are only conditionally convergent.
It can be shown that L1 [0, 1] has no unconditional bases at all; proofs
of this can be found in [156] and [216]. It does turn out that the Haar
basis for Lp[O, 1] is unconditional if 1 < p < 00, but that is not as easy to
show as the conditional nature of the basis when p = 1; see [157] and [216]
for proofs. Exercise 4.30 gives an example of a Banach space that has two
natural bases, one of which is unconditional and the other conditional.
Much has been said in this section about unconditional bases, but little
about unconditional basic sequences. This does not mean that they are
unimportant. In fact, the settling of an old problem about unconditional
basic sequences sparked a burst of activity in Banach space theory in the
early 1990s. Bessaga and Pelczyiiski, having just provided in their 1958
paper [26] one of the first published proofs that every infinite-dimensional
Banach space has a basic sequence in it, did not wait long before asking
whether all infinite-dimensional Banach spaces have unconditional basic
sequences lurking in them; their paper [25] containing the question is the
very next paper in the same volume of the same journal. 2 The problem

2Gowers and Maurey mention in [94J that although Bessaga and Pe!czynski's paper
apparently marked the first appearance of this question in print, Mazur was aware of it
at least ten years earlier.
 4.2 Unconditional Bases 385

remained open until the summer of 1991, when Timothy Gowers found
a counterexample based on earlier work of Thomas Schlumprecht [210].
Shortly thereafter, Bernard Maurey independently found essentially the
same counterexample by essentially the same argument, so the two decided
to publish jointly. Their paper [94] appeared in 1993. Upon seeing Gowers's
and Maurey's original preprints, William B. Johnson pointed out that the
proofs could be modified to show that their space was the first example of a
hereditarily indecomposable Banach space; see [94] for the definition of this
property. Acting on Johnson's observation, Gowers [92] was able to adapt
the construction to produce the first example of an infinite-dimensional Ba-
nach space X having a closed subspace Y of codimension 1 not isomorphic
to X, thus settling a question of Banach known as the hyperplane problem.
Soon afterward, Gowers [91, 93] was able to produce counterexamples that
settled several other major open problems in Banach space theory.
A good, brief, and accessible summary of the Schlumprecht-Gowers-
Maurey-Johnson accomplishments, as well as several related problems still
open at the time, can be found in Peter Casazza's 1994 book review [39].

Exer-cises

4.24 Let (Xn) be a sequence in a normed space X and let I be the collection
of all finite subsets of N directed by declaring that A :j B when A ~ B.
Define a net (SA) with index set I by letting SA = LnEA Xu; as usual,
the empty sum is defined to be the zero element of X. Prove that Ln Xn
is unconditionally convergent if and only if (SA) converges.
4.25 Prove the following generalization of Proposition 4.2.1: Suppose that X is
a topological vector space for which X is a separating family. If Ln Xn is
a series in X such that Ln x (n) converges for each permutation 7l" of 1'\1,
7f

then Ln X7r(n) = Ln Xn for each permutation 7l" of N. You may take it as

known that rearranging the terms of an unconditionally convergent series
of scalars does not change the limit of the series. (Do not be surprised if
your proof is much shorter than that of Proposition 4.2.1. That proof is
det>igned to be accessible to the reader who has just encountered series in
Section 1.3 and knows nothing about dual spaces.)
4.26 Prove or disprove: If a series Ln Xn in a Banach space X converges un-
conditionally and (Yn) is a sequence in X such that llYn II ::; IIx n II for
each n, then Ln Yn converges unconditionally.
4.27 Suppose that Ln Xn is a formal series in a Banach space. Prove that the
following are equivalent.
(a) The series Ln Xn is unconditionally convergent.
(b) For every sequence (Qn) of scalars such that IQnl = 1 for every n,
the series Ln QnXn converges.
(c) For every sequence (O"n) of signs, that is, of scalars taken from the
set {-I, +1}, the series Ln O"nXn converges.
386 4. Schauder Bases

4.28 Prove that a sequence (Xn) in a Banach space X is an unconditional basis

for X if and only if (xrr(n)) is a basis for X for each permutation 7r of N.
4.29 Suppose that (Xn) is an unconditional basis for a Banach space X. Then
the norm for X defined by either the formula

or the formula

is called the unconditional (Xn) norm of X.

(a) Show that the two formulas really do yield the same norm.
(b) Prove that the unconditional (Xn) norm of X is a Banach norm
equivalent to the original norm of X, and that

Ilxllbmu-(x n ) ::::- Ilxllu-(x n ) ::::- Ilxll(x n ) ::::- Ilxll

for each x in X.
4.30 (a) Show that the basis for c given in Exercise 4.4 is unconditional.
(b) For each positive integer n, let Xn be the member of c whose first
n -1 terms are 0 and the rest of whose terms are 1. Prove that (Xn)
is a monotone normalized conditional basis for c. (This is called the
summing basis for c.)
4.31 Suppose that (Xn) is an unconditional basis for a Banach space X and
that K u is the unconditional constant for (Xn).
(a) Prove that if (f3n) E loo and ~n CtnXn E X, then lI~n f3nCtnXnll ::;
2Ku 11(f3n)lloo II~n CtnXnll
(b) Prove that if (f3n) is a member of loo having only real terms and
~n CtnXn E X, then II~n f3n Ct n Xnll ::; Ku II (f3n) 1100 II~n Q:nXnll
(Notice that if (f3n) E 00 and ~n CtnXn E X, then there is a bounded
norm-one real-linear functional u* on X such that u* (~n f3 n Q: n Xn) =
lI~n f3n Ct n X n ll)

4.3 Equivalent Bases

It is often useful to know when a Banach space Y has an isomorphic copy of
some standard Banach space X embedded in it. If X has a basis, then it is
plausible that one way to find an isomorphic copy of X inside Y would be
to look for a basic sequence (Yn) in Y that is "enough like" a basis for X
that [{ Yn : n EN} 1 must be isomorphic to X. The following definition
would seem to be a good starting point when seeking a way to tell if two
 4.3 Equivalent Bases 387

bases (xn) and (Yn) for Banach spaces are enough alike that the Banach
spaces have to be isomorphic.

4.3.1 Definition. Two bases (xn) and (Yn) for Banach spaces are equiva-
lent if, for every sequence (an) of scalars, the series En anXn converges if
and only if En anYn converges.

The equivalence of bases really does guarantee the isomorphism of the

Banach spaces they span.

4.3.2 Proposition. Suppose that (xn) and (Yn) are bases for the respective
Banach spaces X and Y. Then (xn) and (Yn) are equivalent if and only if
there is an isomorphism T from X onto Y such that TX n = Yn for each n.
PROOF. It is clear that (xn) and (Yn) are equivalent if there is an isomor-
phism T from X onto Y such that TX n = Yn for each n. Suppose conversely
that (xn) and (Yn) are equivalent. If (En !3n,jXn)fr= 1 is a sequence in X that
converges to some member En !3nxn of X and (En !3n,jYn)fr=l converges
to some Y in Y, then it follows from the continuity of the coordinate func-
tionals for (xn) and (Yn) that Y = En !3nYn. It is an easy consequence of
the closed graph theorem and the equivalence of (xn) and (Yn) that the
map En anXn f--> En anYn is an isomorphism from X onto Y that maps
each Xn to the corresponding Yn.

4.3.3 Corollary. A basis equivalent to an unconditional basis is itself

unconditional.

One useful consequence of the preceding proposition is that a sequence

that does not lie very far from a basis must itself be a basis.

4.3.4 Proposition. Suppose that X is a Banach space, that (xn) is a basic

sequence in X, that Kb is the basis constant for (x n ), and that (Yn) is a
sequence in X such that Enllxnll-lllxn - Ynll < 1/(2Kb). Then (Yn) is a
basic sequence equivalent to (xn). If (xn) is a basis for X, then so is (Yn).
PROOF. It is easy to see that the normalized basic sequence (1Ixnll-1xn)
has the same basis constant as (xn); for example, this is a consequence of
Proposition 4.1.20. It may therefore be assumed that (xn) is normalized.
For each positive integer m, let x;'" and Pm be, respectively, the mth
coordinate functional and mth natural projection for (x n ), with both maps
of course having domain [{ Xn : n EN}]. If x E [{ Xn : n EN}] and m is a
positive integer greater than I, then

so I x;'" I S; 2Kb when m ~ 2. An obvious modification of this argument

shows that IIxili S; K b
388 4. Schauder Bases

For each positive integer n, let z~ be a Hahn-Banach extension of x~

to X. Since Lnlz~xlllxn - Ynll :s; 2Kb{Lnllxn - Ynll) Ilxll whenever x E X,
it follows that the formula T(x) = Ln(Z~X)(xn - Yn) defines a bounded
linear operator from X into X and that IITII :s; 2Kb Lnllxn -Ynll < 1. Let I
be the identity operator on X. By Theorem 3.3.13, the operator I - T is an
invertible member of the Banach algebra B(X) and so is an isomorphism
from X onto X. Notice that (1 - T)(xn) = Yn for each n. It follows from
Propositions 4.1.8 and 4.3.2 that (Yn) is a basic sequence equivalent to (Xn),
and that (Yn) is a basis for X if (xn) is.

4.3.5 Corollary. Suppose that a Banach space X has a basis (xn) and
that D is a dense subset of X. Then X has a basis equivalent to (xn)
whose terms all come from D.

The rest of this section is devoted primarily to finding characterizations

of basic sequences equivalent to the standard unit vector bases for 1 and Co
and deriving some results from those characterizations for Co. The following
two theorems give the fundamental characterizations.

4.3.6 Theorem. Suppose that (xn) is a sequence in a Banach space. Then

(xn) is a basic sequence equivalent to the standard unit vector basis for 1
if and only if sUPn Ilx n II < +00 and there is a positive constant M such
that

whenever mEN and 0:1, ... ,O:m E IF.

PROOF. Let (en) be the standard unit vector basis for 1. Suppose first
that (xn) is a basic sequence equivalent to (en). Let T be an isomorphism
from [{ Xn : n EN} 1 onto 1 that maps each Xn to the corresponding en
Then sUPnllxnl1 = suPnllT-lenll :s; liT-III < +00. Furthermore, if mEN
and 0:1, ... ,O:m E IF, then

so the claimed inequality is shown to hold by letting M = IITII.

Suppose conversely that sUPn Ilxn II < +00 and there is a positive con-
stant M such that L~llO:nl .::; MIIL:'=lOnxnll whenever mEN and
01, ... ,Om E IF. It must first be shown that (xn) is a basic sequence. To
this end, notice that 1 :s; Mllx n II for each n, so each Xn is nonzero. Now
 4.3 Equivalent Bases 389

suppose that ml, m2 EN, that ml ::; m2, and that al,, a'm2 E IF. Then

L
m2

::; (suPllxnll) lanl

n
n=l

It follows from Corollary 4.1.25 that (xn) is basic.

Let (an) be any sequence of scalars. Ifml,m2 EN and ml::; m2, then

~ lanl ::; Mil ~ anxnll ::; M(s~Pllxnll) ~ lanl

n=ml n=m} n=ml

It follows that 2::n ane n converges if and only if 2::n anXn converges, so
(xn) and (en) are equivalent.

Notice that the hypotheses of the following theorem are stronger than
those of the preceding one, since the statement that (Xn) is basic is now
in the hypotheses rather than in one of the equivalent statements in the
conclusion. See Exercise 4.34 for the reason for this.

4.3.7 Theorem. Suppose that (x T. ) is a basic sequence in a Banach space.

Then (xn) is equivalent to the standard unit vector basis for Co if and only
if infn Ilx n II > 0 and there is a positive constant M such that

whenever mEN and al, ... , am ElF.

PROOF. Let (en) be the standard unit vector basis for Co. Suppose first
that (xn) is equivalent to (en). Then there is an isomorphism T from Co
onto [{ Xn : n EN}] that maps each en to the corresponding Xn. It follows
that infnllxnll = infnllTenl1 > o. Furthermore,

whenever mEN and al, ... , am ElF', so the claimed inequality is obtained
by letting M = IITII.
Now suppose instead that infnllxnll > 0 and there is a positive con-
stant M such that 112:::=1 anxnll ::; Mmax{ lanl : n = 1, ... ,m} whenever
390 4. Schauder Bases

mEN and 01, ... , am E F. Let (an) be a sequence of scalars. If the series
'Ln OnXn converges, then so does 'Ln Onen since (an) E Co. On the other
hand, if 'Ln Onen converges, then

whenever m1,m2 E Nand m1 :s; m2, so 'Ln 0nXn must also converge. The
basic sequences (xn) and (en) are therefore equivalent.

Another characterization of basic sequences equivalent to the standard

unit vector basis for Co requires a brief excursion into the realm of weakly
unconditionally Cauchy series.

4.3.8 Definition. A formal series 'Ln Xn in a Banach space is weakly

unconditionally Cauchy if, for each permutation 7r of N, the sequence of
partial sums of 'Ln X11'(n) is weakly Cauchy.

4.3.9 Proposition. Let 'Ln Xn be a formal series in a Banach space X.

Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The series 'Ln Xn is weakly unconditionally Cauchy.
(b) For each subseries of 'Ln Xn , the sequence of partial sums of the
subseries is weakly Cauchy.
(c) The series 'Ln x*xn is absolutely convergent whenever x* E X*.
(d) The series :En OnXn converges whenever (an) E Co.
(e) There is a positive constant M such that

whenever mEN and 01, ... ,am E F.

PROOF. For series of scalars, the properties of absolute convergence, un-
conditional convergence, and convergence of all subseries are equivalent. It
follows that each of statements 1 through 4 below is equivalent to the next
statement in the list.
1. The series :En Xn is weakly unconditionally Cauchy.
2. For each x in X* and each permutation 7r of N, the series :En x*X11'(n)
converges.
3. For each x* in X*, the series 'Ln x'x n is absolutely convergent.
4. For each subseries 'L j xnJ of :En Xn and each x' in X*, the se-
ries :Ej x*xnJ converges.
 4.3 Equivalent Bases 391

5. For each subseries of En X n , the sequence of partial sums of the

subseries is weakly Cauchy.
This proves the equivalence of (a), (b), and (c).
If (c) holds, then by Lemma 4.2.7 there is a nonnegative real number M
such that sUPmIIE;:'=1 anxnll :5 MII(an)lloo whenever (an) E 00' from
which (e) follows. Now suppose that (e) holds and that (an) E Co. If
ml,m2 EN and mi :5 m2, then

Ilj~~l anxnll :5 Mmax{ lanl : n = ml, ,m2},

from which it follows that En anXn converges. Therefore (e) =} (d).
The proof will be finished once it is shown that (d) =} (c). Suppose that
(c) fails, that is, that there is an x(j in X* such that Enlx(jxnl = +00. It
follows that there is an increasing sequence (nj) of positive integers such
that ni = 1 and E:~~j-Ilx(jxnl ;:.:: j for each j. Define a member (f3n) of CO
as follows. For each positive integer n, first let j be the positive integer
such that nj :5 n < njH, then let f3n be a scalar such that lf3nl = j-I
and f3nx(jxn = j-Ilx(jxnl. It follows that En f3n x (jX n = +00, so En f3nxn
cannot converge. Therefore (d) does not hold.

With the preceding proposition in hand, the promised second characteri-

zation of basic sequences equivalent to the standard unit vector basis for Co
is now just a restatement of Theorem 4.3.7.

4.3.10 Theorem. Suppose that (xn) is a basic sequence in a Banach space.

Then (xn) is equivalent to the standard unit vector basis for Co if and only
if infnllxnll > 0 and the formal series Enxn is weakly unconditionally
Cauchy.

By Propositions 4.1.8 and 4.3.2, a Banach space X has in it an isomorphic

copy of some particular Banach space Y with a basis (Yn) if and only if X
has in it a basic sequence equivalent to (Yn). Thus, results such as Theorems
4.3.6, 4.3.7, and 4.3.10 can be useful when trying to decide whether a
Banach space has certain other Banach spaces embedded in it. The next
theorem is an example of such an application of Theorem 4.3.10.

4.3.11 Lemma. Suppose that a formal series En Xn in a Banach space is

weakly unconditionally Cauchy but not unconditionally convergent. Then
there is a subsequence (x nj ) of (xn) and an increasing sequence (mk) of
positive integers with the property that if Yk = L~~~ -1 x nj for each k,
then (Yk) is a basic sequence equivalent to the standard unit vector basis
for Co.
PROOF. Let (xnj) be a subsequence of (xn) such that Lj Xnj does not
converge. Then there is a positive f with the property that for each positive
392 4. Schauder Bases

integer N there are positive integers PN, qN such that qN ~ PN > Nand
IILJ~PN x nj II ~ f.. After thinning (xnJ if necessary, it may be assumed
that there is an increasing sequence (mk) of positive integers such that
IIL7:;.~-1 xnjll ~ f for each k. Let Yk = L~;.~-l x nj for each k. Then
the formal series Lk Yk is weakly unconditionally Cauchy since Ln Xn is
so. Since Yk ~ 0, it follows from Theorem 4.1.32 that (Yk) can be thinned to
a basic sequence that will also be denoted by (Yk). By Theorem 4.3.10, the
basic sequence (Yk) is equivalent to the standard unit vector basis for Co .

4.3.12 Theorem. Suppose that X is a Banach space. Then the following

are equivalent.
(a) The space X does not have Co embedded in it.
(b) Every weakly unconditionally Cauchy series in X is convergent.
(c) Every weakly unconditionally Cauchy series in X is unconditionally
convergent.
PROOF. Suppose first that there is an isomorphism T from Co into X.
Let (en) be the sequence of standard unit vectors of Co. Then Ln Ten is
weakly unconditionally Cauchy, but not convergent since infn IITe n II > O.
This shows that (b) ::;.. (a). Since (c) obviously implies (b), all that remains
to be proved is that (a) ::;.. (c). However, this follows immediately from
Lemma 4.3.11.

In light of the preceding theorem, it is natural to ask what conditions

must be placed on a Banach space to assure that every series in the space
that is in some sense "weakly unconditionally convergent" is uncondition-
ally convergent. Before investigating this, it is necessary to decide what
"weak unconditional convergence" might mean. Here are two possibilities.

4.3.13 Definition. A formal series Ln Xn in a Banach space is weakly

reordered convergent if Ln x..-(n) is weakly convergent (that is, the sequence
of partial sums of Ln x..-(n) is weakly convergent) for each permutation 7r
of N, and is weakly subseries convergent if each subseries of Ln Xn is weakly
convergent.

Since norm reordered convergence and norm subseries convergence are

equivalent in Banach spaces, as are weak reordered Cauchyness and weak
subseries Cauchyness, it might seem likely that the two terms defined just
above are equivalent. However, this turns out not to be so in any Banach
space that has Co embedded in it; see Exercise 4.37. Though the term weak
unconditional convergence will not be used in this book, it does occasionally
appear elsewhere, and usually refers to weak reordered convergence.
It turns out that no conditions whatever need to be imposed on a Ba-
nach space to assure that each of its weakly subseries convergent series is
unconditionally convergent.
 4.3 Equivalent Bases 393

4.3.14 The Orlicz-Pettis Theorem. CW. Orlicz, 1929 [177]; B. J. Pettis,

1938 [182]). A formal series in a Banach space is weakly subseries convergent
if and only if it is unconditionally convergent.
PROOF. Every unconditionally convergent series in a Banach space has to
be weakly subseries convergent since each of its subseries is actually con-
vergent with respect to the norm topology. For the converse, suppose that
some Banach space has a weakly subseries convergent series 2:: n Xn in it
that is not unconditionally convergent. By Lemma 4.3.11, there is a subse-
quence (xnJ of (xn) and an increasing sequence (mk) of positive integers
such that, after letting Yk = 2::T:~~-1 x nj for each k, the sequence (Yn) is
a basic sequence equivalent to the standard unit vector basis (en) for co.
Notice that the weak convergence of 2:: j x nj implies that of 2::n Yn' Let T
be an isomorphism from Co onto [{ Yn : n EN}] such that Ten = Yn for
each n. It follows from the weak-to-weak continuity of T-1 that 2::n en
is weakly convergent. However, this is just not so, and this contradiction
finishes the proof.

An immediate consequence of the Orlicz-Pettis theorem is that weak

subseries convergence implies weak reordered convergence for formal series
in Banach spaces. With a small amount of extra effort, it can be shown that
weak subseries convergence and weak reordered convergence are equivalent
notions in a Banach space X if and only if X has no copy of Co embedded
in it; see Exercise 4.38. Therefore, a formal series in a Banach space in
which Co is not embedded is weakly reordered convergent if and only if
it is unconditionally convergent, which could be called the Orlicz-Pettis
theorem for weak reordered convergence.
The proof of the Orlicz-Pettis theorem given above is due to Bessaga
and Pelczynski [26]. See [58] for two other interesting proofs of the Orlicz-
Pettis theorem, one due to S. Kwapien [147] that uses the Bochner inte-
gral and is based on the Pettis measurability theorem, and another that
is similar to the original proofs by Orlicz and Pettis. Joseph Diestel's
notes [58, pp. 29-30] on the Orlicz-Pettis theorem contain a very inter-
esting history of this result, including the reason Pettis's name became
attached to it nine years after Orlicz's original proof because of an over-
sight in Banach's book [13]. Other interesting discussions of this theorem
can be found in [127] and [235].
The final item on this section's agenda is a look at block basic sequences,
especially those taken from basic sequences equivalent to the unit vector
basis for Co or fl'

4.3.15 Definition. Suppose that (xn) is a basic sequence in a Banach

space and that (Pn) is a sequence of positive integers such that 1 = PI <
P2 < P3 < .... For each positive integer n, let O!pn' ... 'O!Pn+l-l be scalars
at least one of which is nonzero, and let Yn = 2::;;:';~ -1 O!jXj. Then (Yn) is
a block basic sequence taken from (Xn).
394 4. Schauder Bases

4.3.16 Proposition. Every block basic sequence taken from a basic se-
quence in a Banach space is itself a basic sequence and has basis constant
no more than that of the original basic sequence.
PROOF. Suppose that (Yn) is a block basic sequence taken from a basic
sequence (xn). Then each Yn is nonzero by the uniqueness of expansions of
members of [{ Xn : n EN}] in terms of (xn). Let K be the basis constant
for (xn). Then IIE:'~lanxnll ::; KIIE:'~lanxnll whenever ml,m2 EN,
m1 ::; m2, and a1, ... ,a m2 E IF. It follows that the same is true if Xn is re-
placed by Yn, so (Yn) is basic by Corollary 4.1.25 and, by Proposition 4.1.20,
has basis constant no more than K.

If a basic sequence equivalent to the standard unit vector basis for 1

or Co is permuted, thinned out, or blocked up, then the resulting basic
sequence still generates a subspace isomorphic to 1 or Co respectively.

4.3.17 Theorem. Suppose that (xn) is a basic sequence equivalent to the

standard unit vector basis for 1. Then every permutation of (xn) and
every subsequence of (xn) is a basic sequence equivalent to the standard
unit vector basis for 1. If (Yn) is a block basic sequence taken from (x n ),
then (1IYnll- 1Yn) is a basic sequence equivalent to the standard unit vector
basis for 1, so [{ Yn : n EN}] is isomorphic to 1.
PROOF. It follows readily from Theorem 4.3.6 that every permutation
of (xn) and every subsequence of (xn) is a basic sequence equivalent to
the standard unit vector basis (en) for 1.
Now suppose that (Yn) is a block basic sequence taken from (xn). Let T be
an isomorphism from 1 onto [{ Xn : n EN}] that maps each en to the corre-
sponding X n . The definition of a block basic sequence and the nature of the
norm of 1 together imply that IIE:'=l ,8nT - 1Yn II 1 = E:'=11,8nIIlT- 1Ynlll
whenever mEN and ,81, ... ,,8m E IF. It follows that if mEN and
a1, ... ,am E IF, then
m m

~)anl :::; IITII L lanIIlYnll- 1I1T- 1 Ynlll

n=l n=l

= IITIIII~ anIlYnll-lT-lYnlll

:::; IITIIIIT-llIll~ anIIYnll-lYnll

By Theorem 4.3.6, the basic sequence (IIYnll- 1Yn) is equivalent to (en) .

4.3.18 Theorem. Suppose that (xn) is a basic sequence equivalent to the

standard unit vector basis for Co. Then every permutation of (xn) and
 4.3 Equivalent Bases 395

every subsequence of (xn) is a basic sequence equivalent to the standard

unit vector basis for Co. If (Yn) is a block basic sequence taken from (x n),
then (IIYnll- I Yn) is a basic sequence equivalent to the standard unit vector
basis for Co, so [{yn : n EN}I is isomorphic to Co.
PROOF. Since (xn) is an unconditional basic sequence, each of its permu-
tations is a basic sequence. It follows immediately from Theorem 4.3.7 that
every permutation of (xn) is a basic sequence equivalent to the standard
unit vector basis (en) for Co. The same theorem guarantees that every sub-
sequence of (xn) is equivalent to (en).
Now let (Pn) be a sequence of positive integers such that 1 = PI <
P2 < P3 < ... , and for each positive integer n let Yn = E~~;~-I O:jXj,
where O:pn' ... ,O:pn+l- I are scalars that are not all zero. All that remains
to be proved is that the normalization (1IYnll- 1 Yn) of the block basic se-
quence (Yn) is equivalent to (en). To this end, let Zn = E~~;~-1 O:jej for
each n. Suppose it could be proved that (1Iznll;;,lzn) is equivalent to (en).
Let T be an isomorphism from Co onto [{ Xn : n EN}] such that Ten = Xn
for each n. It would follow from Theorem 4.3.7 that there is a positive
constant M such that whenever mEN and f31, ... , f3Tn Elf,

II~ f3nllYn 1I- Yn I = IIT(~f3nIlTznll-lzn) I

I

~ IITIIIIT-ll1ll~ f3nllznll;;,lznlloo
~ MIITIIIIT- 1 11 max{ lf3nl : n = 1, ... ,m},

so (1IYnll- 1 Yn) would be equivalent to (en) by another application of The-

orem 4.3.7. It is therefore enough to prove that (1Iznll;;,lzn) is equivalent
to (en). If mEN and f31, . .. ,f3Tn E If, then

II~ f3n II Zn 11;;,1 znlL

Tn Pn+l- 1 I
= II ~ j~n f3n (max{IO:pJ, ... , IO:Pn+l- 1 1})-IO!jej 00

~ max{ lf3nl : n = 1, ... ,m},

so yet another application of Theorem 4.3.7 shows that (II Zn 11;;,1 Zn) is equiv-
alent to (en).

The final result of this section is the following variation on the fact that
every sequence in a Banach space that converges to zero weakly but not in
norm has a basic subsequence; see Theorem 4.1.32.
396 4. Schauder Bases

4.3.19 The Bessaga-Pelczynski Selection Principle. (C. Bessaga and

A. Pelczynski, 1958 [26]). Suppose that (x~) is the sequence of coordinate
functionals for a basis (xn) for a Banach space X and that (Yn) is a sequence
in X such that limm x~Ym = 0 for each n but (Yn) does not converge to
zero with respect to the norm topology. Then some subsequence of (Yn) is
a basic sequence equivalent to a block basic sequence taken from (Xn).
PROOF. Suppose first that IIYnl1 = 1 for each n. Let K(xn) be the basis con-
stant for (xn) and let ql = 1. Since limm x~Ym = 0 for each n, there is a pos-
itive integer ml such that 112:~'=l(x~YmJxnll = I (XiYm,)Xl II < K~~)2-4.
Since Ym, = 2:n (X;,Ym, )xn' there is a positive integer q2 such that q2 > ql
and 112:~=q2+1 (x~Yml )xn I < K~~)2-4. There is then a positive integer m2
such that m2 > ml and 112:~2=1(x~Ym2)xnll < K~~)2-5, and a positive
integer q3 such that q3 > q2 and 112:~=q3+l (X~Ym2 )xn II < K~~l2-5. Con-
tinuing in the obvious fashion produces increasing sequences (m n ) and (qn)
of positive integers such that for each positive integer j,

and

For each positive integer j, let

qJ+l
Zj = L (x~Ymj )xn.
n=qJ+1
It follows that for each j,

1= IIYm] II
= IIL(x~YmJ)xnll
11.

::; Ilt(X~YmJxnll + Ilzjll + 11_

n-l
f: (x~YmJxnll
n-qJ+l+1
< lizJ I + K-(x,,)
1 T(j+2)

< Ilz}ll + 2- 1 ,
so Ilzj II > 1/2 > O. Therefore (zn) is a block basic sequence taken from (x n ).
The basis constant K(znl for (zn) can be no more than K(xnJ by Proposi-
 4.3 Equivalent Bases 397

tion 4.3.16, which together with what has been proved above shows that

j j

j
1
2K(xnl
1
<---
- 2K(znl'

It follows from Proposition 4.3.4 that (Ym,,) is a basic sequence equivalent

to (zn). This finishes the proof for the special case in which IIYnl1 = 1 for
each n.
Now drop the assumption that each Yn has norm 1. By thinning (Yn) if
necessary, it may at least be assumed that infnllYnl1 > O. It follows that for
each positive integer n,

and therefore that limrn x~ (1IYrnll- 1 Ym) = 0 for each n. By the special case
proved above, some subsequence (1IYrn" 11- 1 Ym,,) of (1IYnll-1Yn) is a basic
sequence equivalent to some block basic sequence (zn) taken from (xn), so
(Yrn,,) is a basic sequence equivalent to the block basic sequence (1IYm" Ilzn)
taken from (xn).

In this book, the only need for the Bessaga-Pelczynski selection principle
will be for the proof in the next section that a Banach space has 1 em-
bedded in it if Co is embedded in its dual. However, the principle has many
other applications to Banach space theory. See [58] for several important
ones.

Exercises
4.32 Suppose that X is C[O, 1] or Lp[O, 1] such that 1 ::; p < 00. Show that X
has a basis whose terms are all polynomials. (However, the sequence of
polynomials that is the most obvious candidate to be a basis for C[O, 1]
is not even a basic sequence. See Exercise 4.13.)
4.33 Suppose that 1 < p < 00. Prove the best analog of Theorems 4.3.6
and 4.3.7 for p that you can devise.
398 4. Schauder Bases

4.34 (a) Give an example of a sequence (Xn) in a Banach space such that
(Xn) is not basic even though infnllxnll > 0 and there is a positive
constant M such that

II~ onxnll :::; Mmax{ 10nl: n = 1, ... ,m}

whenever mEN and 01, ... , am E F. Thus, unlike the situation for
Theorem 4.3.6, the statement that (Xn) is basic must appear in the
hypotheses of Theorem 4.3.7 rather than in one of the two equivalent
statements in the conclusion.
(b) Give an example of a sequence (Xn) in a Banach space X and a se-
quence (Yn) in a Banach space Y such that for each sequence (an) of
scalars, the formal series En OnXn converges if and only if En OnYn
converges, even though (Xn) is basic and (Yn) is not.
4.35 Let (h n ) be the Haar basis for LdO, 1] and let (Xn) = (lIh n ll- l h n ). Show
that (Xn) is not equivalent to the standard unit vector basis (en) for ll,
but that (Xn) does have a subsequence equivalent to (en).
4.36 Suppose that En Xn is a formal series in a Banach space. Prove that the
following are equivalent.
(a) The series En Xn is weakly unconditionally Cauchy.
(b) There is a positive constant Mo such that IIEnEF Onxnll :::; Mo
whenever F is a finite subset of Nand {an: n E F} is a collection
of scalars each having absolute value 1. (As usual, the sum of an
empty collection of members of the Banach space is defined to be
the zero element of the space.)
(c) There is a positive constant Ml such that IIEnEF unxnll :::; Ml
whenever F is a finite subset of N and (Un) is a sequence of signs,
that is, of scalars taken from the set {-1, +1}.
4.37 Let (en) be the standard unit vector basis for co. Let Xl = el, and let
Xn = en - en-l when n::::: 2.

(a) Prove that the formal series En Xn is weakly reordered convergent.

(b) Prove that the formal series En Xn is not weakly subseries conver-
gent by displaying one of its subseries that is not weakly convergent.
(Notice that this also follows from the Orlicz-Pettis theorem, since
the formal series does not converge.)
4.38 Suppose that X is a Banach space. Prove that the notions of weak re-
ordered convergence and weak subseries convergence (that is, uncondi-
tional convergence; see the Orlicz-Pettis theorem) are equivalent in X if
and only if X does not have Co embedded in it. Exercise 4.37 may help.
4.39 (a) Prove that every block basic sequence taken from a monotone basic
sequence is itself monotone.
(b) Prove that every block basic sequence taken from an unconditional
basic sequence is itself unconditional.
 4.4 Bases and Duality 399

4.4 Bases and Duality

Suppose that X is Co or Cp such that 1 < p < 00. Let T be the usual
isometric isomorphism from Cq onto X*, where q is 1 if X is Co and otherwise
is such that p-l + q-l = 1. Let (en) and (e~) be the standard unit vector
bases for X and Cq respectively, and let (e~) be the sequence of coordinate
functionals for (en). Then Te~ = e~ for each n, from which it follows
immediately that (e~) is a basis for X*.
This leads naturally to the question of whether it is always the case that
the sequence of coordinate functionals for a basis for a Banach space is
a basis for the dual space, but this is quickly settled by observing that
the sequence (ei n) of coordinate functionals for the standard unit vector
basis (el,n) for Cl ' ca:nnot be a basis for Ci, since Ci is not separable. However,
a moment's thought about the natural identification of Ci with Coo shows
that (ei n) is a basis for a subspace of Ci isometrically isomorphic to Co, so
one couid still hope that sequences of coordinate functionals for bases are
themselves always basic sequences. This hope, at least, turns out not to be
in vain.

4.4.1 Theorem. Suppose that (x~) is the sequence of coordinate function-

als for a basis (xn) for a Banach space X. Then (x~) is a basic sequence
in X* whose basis constant is no more than that of (xn). Furthermore,
if Q is the natural map from X into X**, then the sequence of coordi-
nate functionals for (x~) is formed by restricting the terms of (Qxn) to
[{x~ : n EN}].
PROOF. Let K be the basis constant for (xn). Suppose that ml and m2 are
positive integers such that ml :S m2 and that al, ... , a m2 are scalars.
Let 6 be a positive number and Ln f3nxn a member of Sx such that
I(L:~l anx~)(Lnf3nxn)l2: IIL:~l anx~ll- 6. Then

I
II~ anX~11 :S (~anx~) (~f3nxn) 1+ 6
= I( ~ anx~) ( ~ f3n X n) I + 0

:S II~ f3nxnllll~ Qnx~1I + 6

:S KII~f3nxnllll~anx~1I +6
= KII~anx~1I +0.
400 4. Schauder Bases

Since 8 is an arbitrary positive number, it follows that

Each x~ is nonzero, so Corollary 4.1.25 implies that (x~) is a basic sequence.

By Proposition 4.1.20, the basis constant for (x~) is no more than K.
Finally, if mEN and Ln InX~ E [{ x~ : n EN}], then (Qxm)(Ln InX~) =
Ln InX~ Xm = 1m, so the restriction of QX m to [{ X~ : n EN} 1 is the m th
coordinate functional for (x~).

Consider again the example given in the second paragraph of this section.
It is true that (ei n) is not a basis for fi in the usual sense, but it is
a basis for ti: in a' certain weak* sense. Suppose that x* E fi and that
(an) is the member of 1'00 that is identified with x* in the usual way.
It is easy to check that limk L~=l anei,nx = x*x whenever x E 1'1, so
X* = w* -limk L~=l anei,n Since x*e1,n = an for every term e1,n of the
standard unit vector basis for 1'1, no sequence of scalars ((3n) besides (an)
has the property that x* = w*-limk L~=l (3nei,w Notice that (e1,n) (or,
more properly, the sequence (Qe1,n), where Q is the natural map from 1'1
into fi*) is the sequence of "coordinate functionals" for the "weak* basis"
(ei.n) for fi
As it turns out, the sequence of coordinate functionals for any Banach
space basis (xn) has this property of being a weak* basis whose sequence
of coordinate functionals is (xn) in the sense of the preceding paragraph.

4.4.2 Theorem. Suppose that (x~) is the sequence of coordinate func-

tionals for a basis (xn) for a Banach space X. For each x* in X*, there
is a unique sequence (an) of scalars such that x* = w* -limk L~=l anx~,
Furthermore, if Q is the natural map from X into X", then

for each positive integer m and each sequence (an) of scalars such that
w * - l'Imk ",k
Ln=l anX * . ts.
n eX1S
PROOF. Fix an x* in X*. For each element Ln (3nxn of X and each positive
integer k,
 4.4 Bases and Duality 401

from which it follows that 2::~=1 (x*xn)x~ ~: x* as k ---+ 00. Furthermore,

if (an) is any sequence of scalars such that x* = w*-limk 2::~=1 CtnX~, then

k
x*xm = lif 2: anx~xm = am
n=l

for each positive integer m, which proves the uniqueness assertion of the
theorem and also shows that (Qxm)(W*-limk 2::~=1 anx~) = am whenever
mEN.

With all notation as in Theorem 4.4.1, the last conclusion in that theorem
is, roughly speaking, that each Xm can be found in [{ x~ : n EN}]* as the
mth coordinate functional for the basic sequence (x~). Since (xn) is a basis
for X, this leads naturally to the question of whether [{ x~ : n E N }]*
might have embedded in it an entire copy of X. This turns out to be so.

4.4.3 Lemma. Suppose that (x~) is the sequence of coordinate functionals

for a basis (xn) for a Banach space X. Let K be the basis constant for (xn)
and let Q be the natural map from X into X** . For each member x of X, let
\II (x) be the restriction of Qx to [{ x~ : n EN}]. Then \II is an isomorphism
from X into [{x~: n E N}]*, and K-Illxll ::; II\Ilxll ::; Ilxll for each x in X.
PROOF. The restriction map R: X** ---+ [{ x~ : n E N }]* is clearly linear,
and IIRx** I ::; Ilx** I whenever x** E X**. Since Q is an isometric isomor-
phism from X into X** and \II = RQ, the map \II is linear and bounded,
and I \II x I ::; IIxll for each x in X.
Suppose that mEN and that Xo E ({Xl, ... ,xm }). Let x* be a member
of Sx* such that Ix*xol = Ilxoll, and let y* = 2:::=1 (x*xn)x~. Notice that

ly*(~Ctnxn)1 = I~Ctnx*xnl
= Ix* (~Ctnxn) I
: ; II; anxnll

: ; KII2: CtnXn ll,

n
402 4. Schauder Bases

which implies that I y* II :S; K. Therefore

Ilxoll = Iy*xol = l(wxo)(y*)1 :S; Ily*llllwxoll :S; Kllwxoll,
so K-111xoll :S; IIwxoll Since Xo is an arbitrary member of the dense subset
({ Xn : n EN}) of X, it follows that K- 111xll :S; Ilwxll for each x in X. Since
K- 111xll ::; Ilwxll :S; Ilxll whenever x E X, the map W is an isomorphism.
4.4.4 Proposition. Suppose that (x~) is the sequence of coordinate func-
tionals for a basis (x n ) for a Banach space X. Then X is embedded in
[{x~: n E N}]*, and is isometrically embedded in [{x~: n E N}]* if (x n )
is monotone.
PROOF. This follows immediately from the preceding lemma and the obser-
vation that the map W of the lemma is an isometric isomorphism whenever
K=l.

Theorem 4.4.1 and Proposition 4.4.4 suggest several further lines of in-
quiry. In light of Theorem 4.4.1, it is natural to ask for a simple condition C 1
on a basis (x n ) for a Banach space X that is necessary and sufficient for
the sequence (x~) of coordinate functionals for (xn) to be a basis for X*,
not merely a basic sequence. Similarly, Proposition 4.4.4 and its derivation
from Lemma 4.4.3 suggest the search for a simple condition C 2 on (x n )
that is necessary and sufficient for the isomorphism W of Lemma 4.4.3 to
map X onto [{ x~ : n E N }]*, which would guarantee that X is, at least
up to isomorphism, a dual space. It would be particularly interesting if
(x n ) were to satisfy both C 1 and C 2 In that case, the fact that (x n ) sat-
isfies C 1 guarantees that the map W of Lemma 4.4.3 is just the natural
map Q from X into X**, and the fact that (x n ) satisfies C 2 then assures
that Q maps X onto X**, that is, that X is reflexive.
The purpose of this section is to pursue these issues and to see what can
be learned about the structure of Banach spaces with bases along the way.
Most of the ideas and results of this section are due to R. C. James and
come from his 1950 article [109].
To bcgin thc search for a condition C 1 as described abovc, suppose that
(x~) is the sequence of coordinate functionals for a basis (x n ) for a Banach
space X. A few moments' thought about the role of (x n ) as the sequence of
coordinate functionals for (x~) as described in Theorem 4.4.1 shows that
whatever condition C 1 might be, the basis (xn) will have it if and only if
Ilx* - 2::=1(X*xn)x~lI-+ 0 as m -+ 00 whenever X* E X*. Now fix an x*
in X* and a positive integer m. For each member 2: n anXn of X,

(x* - ~(x*xn)x~) (~anxn) = ~anx*xn - ~anx*xn

= x* ( f:
n=m+1
anxn),
 4.4 Bases and Duality 403

so x - ~:=l (x*xn)x~ is, roughly speaking, the part of x* that acts on

[{ Xn : n > m }]. In fact, the linear functional x* - ~::l (xXn}X~ is what
one gets by restricting x to [{ Xn : n > m}] and then re-extending this
restriction back to a member of X* in such a way that the re-extension is
zero on ({Xl, ... ,xm }). The condition C1 should be such that (xn) possesses
it if and only if this re-extension must have small norm when m is large.
This might not seem to be the same as requiring the restriction to have
small norm when m is large, since extending a bounded linear operator
to a larger space can increase its norm, but it at least suggests that the
following might be the desired condition C l . As will be seen, it is.

4.4.5 Definition. Suppose that (xn) is a basis for a Banach space X.

For each x* in X* and each positive integer m, let IIx*ll(m) be the norm
of the restriction of x to [{ Xn : n > m }]. Then (xn) is shrinking if
limmllx*ll(m) = 0 for each x in X*.

4.4.6 Example. If X is Co or fp such that 1 < p < 00 and (en) is the

standard unit vector basis for X, then the nature of the identification of X
with fq for some q such that 1 ::; q < 00 assures that (en) is shrinking.
However, the standard unit vector basis for f1 is not shrinking. Consider,
for example, the member x* of i identified in the usual way with the
element (1,1,1, ... ) of 00' and observe that IIx*lI(m) = 1 for each m.

4.4.7 Proposition. Suppose that (xn) is a basis for a Banach space X

and that (x~) is the sequence of coordinate functionals for (xn). Then (x~)
is a basis for X* if and only if (xn) is shrinking.
PROOF. Suppose first that (x~) is a basis for X*. If ~n ,Bnx~ E X, then

I L,Bnx~11
n (m)
= f: ,Bnx~11 ::; I
I n=m+1 (m)
f:
n=m+l
,BnX~11
for each positive integer m, so limmll~n ,Bnx~ll(m) = O. The basis (xn) is
therefore shrinking.
Suppose conversely that (xn) is shrinking. Let K be its basis constant
and let x be a member of X. Then for each positive integer m and each
member ~n QnXn of X,

1= QnXnll::; IlLn QnXn11 + Ilf

I n=m+1 n=l
QnXn11 ::; (1 + K)IILn QnXnll,
and so

I(x* - ~(x.xn)x~) (~Qnxn) I= Ix (n~+l QnXn) I

::; Ilx*IICm)(l + K)IIL QnXnll
n
404 4. Schauder Bases

Therefore Ilx* - 2::'=l(x*xn)x~1i S; Ilx*ll(m)(l + K) whenever mEN, so

limrnllx* - 2::'=1 (x*xn)x~11 = O. It follows that X' = [{ x~ : n EN}] and
therefore that (x~) is a basis for X*.

With all notation as in Lemma 4.4.3, the next item on the agenda is to
find a simple condition C2 on (x n ) that is necessary and sufficient for W to
map X onto [{ x~ : n EN}]*. The search will begin with a condition that
is in a sense dual to the shrinking condition.

4.4.8 Definition. A basis (xn) for a Banach space is boundedly complete

if, whenever a sequence (an) of scalars is such that sUPm II 2::'=1 O:nxnll is
finite, the series 2: n O:nXn converges.

4.4.9 Example. Let (en) be the standard unit vector basis for i p , where
1 S; p < 00. If (an) is a sequence of scalars such that sUPmll2::'=l anenll p
is finite, then

so 2:n ane n converges to the element (an) of i p . The basis (en) is therefore
boundedly complete. However, the standard unit vector basis (eo,n) for Co is
not, since 2:n eO,n does not converge even though sUPmll2::'=l eo,nlioo = 1.

The shrinking property for a basis implies bounded completeness for the
"dual basis."

4.4.10 Proposition. Suppose that (x~) is the sequence of coordinate func-

tionals for a shrinking basis (xn) for a Banach space X. Then (x~) is a
boundedly complete basis for X* .
PROOF. It follows from Proposition 4.4.7 that (x~) is a basis for X*, so
the only issue is whether (x~) is boundedly complete. Suppose that (O:n)
is a sequence of scalars such that (2::'=1 anX~)~=l is bounded. Then the
Banach-Alaoglu theorem assures that (2::'=1 O:nX~)~=l has a subnet that
is weakly* convergent to some x* in X*. Since lim m (2::'=l O:nX~)(Xk) = ak
for each k, it follows that X*Xk = ak for each k, so

n n

In particular, the series 2:n anx;, converges.

The following theorem summarizes major portions of several of the pre-
ceding results and adds the important fact that a boundedly complete "dual
basic sequence" must actually be a basis for the entire dual spacc.
 4.4 Bases and Duality 405

4.4.11 Theorem. Suppose that (xn) is a basis for a Banach space X

and that (x~) is the sequence of coordinate functionals for (xn). Then the
following are equivalent.
(a) The sequence (x~) is a basis for X*.
(b) [{x~:nEN}]=X*.
(c) The basis (xn) is shrinking.
(d) The basic sequence (x~) is boundedly complete.
PROOF. The implications (a) {::} (b) {::} (c) '* (d) follow immediately from
Theorem 4.4.1 and Propositions 4.4.7 and 4.4.10, so it is enough to show
that (d) '* (b). To this end, suppose that (x~) is boundedly complete and
that x* E X*. Then x* = w' -limm 2::'=1 (x'xn)x~ by Theorem 4.4.2, so
the sequence (2::'=1 (X'Xn)X~):=1 is bounded by Corollary 2.6.10 and thus
converges by the bounded completeness of (x~). It follows immediately that
x* = 2:n(x'xn)x~, so x* E [{x~: n EN}].

As one might have suspected from the way the plot has developed, the
search for the condition C z that began in the discussion following Propo-
sition 4.4.4 is about to end. Bounded completeness is that condition.

4.4.12 Lemma. Let X, (x n ), (x~), and I}i be as in Lemma 4.4.3. Then I}i
maps X onto [{ x~ : n E N }]* if and only if (xn) is boundedly complete.
PROOF. Suppose first that (Xn) is boundedly complete. Let y* be a member
of [{ x~ : n E N }]*. The goal is to find a member of X that I}i maps to y*.
Let K and K' be the basis constants for (xn) and (x~) respectively. Then
for each positive integer m and each member 2:n (Jnx~ of [{ x~ : n EN}],

I(I}i(~(y*x~)xn)) (~(Jnx~) I = I(~(Jnx~) (~(y*x~)xn) I

= 1~(y*x~)(Jnl
= Iy* ( ~ (Jnx~ ) I
~ K' Ily* I IlL f3nx~
n
II

Therefore 111}i(2::'=1(y*x~)xn)11 ~ K'lly*11 whenever mEN, so it follows

from Lemma 4.4.3 that 112:::1(y*x~)xnll s KK'lly*11 whenever mEN.
The bounded completeness of (xn) then assures that Ln(Y*X~)xn con-
verges. Now (1}i(2:n(Y*X~)xn))(xi;) = y*xi; for each k, from which it fol-
lows that I}i(Ln(Y*X;,)x n ) = yO.
406 4. Schauder Bases

Suppose conversely that W maps X onto [{ x~ : n E N }]*. Then (wxn)

is a basis for [{ x~ : n EN}]* and is also the sequence of coordinate
functionals for (x~), so (wxn) is boundedly complete by Theorem 4.4.11.
Since isomorphisms clearly preserve bounded completeness, the basis (xn)
is boundedly complete.

Notice that the first of the following two results is a partial converse
of Proposition 4.4.10, while the second is an analog of Theorem 4.4.11 in
which the roles of bounded completeness and the shrinking property have
been exchanged.

4.4.13 Theorem. Suppose that a Banach space X has a boundedly com-

plete basis (x n ). Then X is isomorphic to the dual space of a Banach space
with a shrinking basis, and is isometrically isomorphic to such a dual space
if (xn) is monotone.
PROOF. Let (x~) and W be as in Lemma 4.4.12. Then W is an isomorphism
from X onto [{ x~ : n E N }]*, and a glance at the last paragraph of the
proof of that lemma shows that the sequence of coordinate functionals
for (x~) is a basis for [{x~: n E N}]*. It follows from Theorem 4.4.11 that
(x~) is a shrinking basis for [{ x~ : n EN}]. Furthermore, Lemma 4.4.3
assures that W is an isometric isomorphism if (xn) is monotone.

4.4.14 Theorem. Suppose that (xn) is a basis for a Banach space X and
that (x~) is the sequence of coordinate functionals for (xn). Then (xn) is
boundedly complete if and only if the basic sequence (x~) is shrinking.
PROOF. It was shown in the proof of Theorem 4.4.13 that the basic se-
quence (x~) is shrinking if (Xn) is boundedly complete. Suppose conversely
that (x~) is shrinking. Let W be the isomorphism of Lemma 4.4.12. Then
(Wxn) is the sequence of coordinate functionals for the shrinking basis (x~)
for [{ x~ : n EN}], and so is a boundedly complete basic sequence by
Theorem 4.4.11. It follows that (xn) is also boundedly complete.

The following result has already been suggested in the comments follow-
ing Proposition 4.4.4.

4.4.15 Theorem. Suppose that X is a Banach space with a basis. Then

the following are equivalent.
(a) The space X is reflexive.
(b) Some basis for X is both shrinking and boundedly complete.
(c) Every basis for X is both shrinking and boundedly complete.
PROOF. Suppose first that X has a basis (xn) that is both shrinking and
boundedly complete. Let (x~) be the sequence of coordinate functionals
for (xn) and let W be the isomorphism of Lemmas 4.4.3 and 4.4.12. Since
 4.4 Bases and Duality 407

[{ X~ : n EN}] = X* by Theorem 4.4.11, it follows directly from the

definition of W that W is just the natural map from X into X** and from
Lemma 4.4.12 that W(X) = [{x~ : n E N}]* = X**. The space X is
therefore reflexive, which proves that (b) =} (a).
Since (c) obviously implies (b), all that remains to be proved is that
(a) =} (c). For this, suppose that X is reflexive. Let (zn) be a basis for X
and let (z~) be the sequence of coordinate functionals for (zn). Then the
closed convex subset [{ z~ : n EN}] of X* is weakly closed and so is
weakly* closed because the weak* and weak topologies of X* are the same.
Since ({ z~ : n EN}) is weakly* dense in X* by Theorem 4.4.2, it follows
that [{ z~ : n EN}] = X*. Therefore (zn) is shrinking by Theorem 4.4.11.
Applying the same argument to (z~) instead of (zn) shows that (z~) is also
shrinking, so (zn) is boundedly complete by Theorem 4.4.14.

4.4.16 Corollary. If (x~) is the sequence of coordinate functionals for a

basis for a reflexive Banach space X, then (x~) is a basis for X*.

As has already been observed, the standard unit vector basis for Co is
not boundedly complete. It turns out that no basis for Co is boundedly
complete, and in fact much more than that can be said.

4.4.17 Lemma. If Co is embedded in the dual space of a Banach space X,

then 1 is embedded in X.
PROOF. Let (eo,n) and (el,n) be the standard unit vector bases for Co
and 1 respectively, let (e~) be the basis for Co that corresponds to (el,n)
when Co is identified with t\ in the usual way, let Q be the natural map
from X into X**, and let T be an isomorphism from Co into X*. Then the
adjoint T* ofT maps X** onto Co by Theorem 3.1.22 (b). For each positive
integer n, let
Vn = {y* : y* E c~, Iy*eo,ml < ~ when 1 S; m < n, Iy*eo,nl > ! },
a weak* neighborhood of e~ in co' The open mapping theorem assures
that there is a positive t such that e~ E T*(tB x **) for each n, so the
weak* density of Q(tBx) in tBx** and the weak*-to-weak* continuity
of T* guarantee that for each positive integer n there is an Xn in tBx
such that QX n E (T*)-I(Vn); that is, such that I(T*Qxn)(eo,n)1 > ~ and
I(T*Qxn)(eo,m)1 < ~ when 1 S; m < n. Now limn(T*Qxn)(eo,m) = 0 for
each m, but (T*Qxn) does not converge to 0 since IIT*Qxnll > !
for
each n, so by the Bessaga-Pelczyriski selection principle there is a subse-
quence (Xk n ) of (xn) such that (T*QXkn) is a basic sequence equivalent to
some block basic sequence (z~) taken from (e~). Since (lIz~lI-l z~) is equiva-
lent to (el,n) by Theorem 4.3.17, the basic sequence (1Iz~II-IT*QXkn) must
also be equivalent to (el,n), which implies the existence of a positive con-
stant b such that for each positive integer n,
408 4. Schauder Bases

Let S be an isomorphism from [{ Ilz~II-1T*Qxkn : n E Pi!}] onto 1 such

that S(llz~II-1T*QXkn) = el,n for each n. If m E Pi! and al,"" am ElF,
then
Tn m

n=l n=l
= II~ 21Iz~llbanel,nlll
= II~ 21Iz~llbanS(llz~II-1T*QXkn)lll
= 2bIIST*Q(~QnXkn) III
S 2bIISIIIIT*QIIII~anXknll
Since sUPn Ilxkn I s
t, it follows from Theorem 4.3.6 that (Xk,.) is a basic
sequence equivalent to (el,n), so f1 is embedded in X.

4.4.18 Lemma. If Co is embedded in the dual space X* of a normed

space X, then X* is not separable.
PROOF. By Theorem 1.11.5, it may be assumed that X is a Banach space.
Let R be an isomorphism from f1 into X. Then the adjoint of R maps X*
onto fr, a nonseparable space. It follows from Proposition 1.12.9 (a) that
X* must itself be nonseparable.

With only a bit more work, it can even be shown that if a Banach space X
has Co embedded in its dual, then there is a complemented copy of fl em-
bedded in X, and X* has embedded in it a subspace isomorphic to foo
and complemented by a weak*-to-weak* continuous projection. An expo-
sition of this result of Bessaga and Pelczyriski [26] can be found in Joseph
Diestel's book [58, pp. 48-49].

4.4.19 Theorem. If a Banach space has Co embedded in it, then no basis

for the space is boundedly complete.
PROOF. Suppose that a Banach space X has a boundedly complete ba-
sis (x n ). Let III be the map of Lemmas 4.4.3 and 4.4.12. Then III is an
isomorphism from X onto [{ x~ : n E Pi! }]* by those two lemmas. If X
were to have Co embedded in it, then so would the separable dual space
[{ x~ : n E Pi! }]*, a possibility that is ruled out by Lemma 4.4.18.

The preceding result has an analog for f1 and the shrinking property.
 4.4 Bases and Duality 409

4.4.20 Theorem. If a Banach space has 1 embedded in it, then no basis

for the space is shrinking.
PROOF. Suppose that X is a Banach space such that some isomorphism T
maps 1 into X. Then the adjoint of T maps X* onto the nonseparable
space i, so X* cannot be separable and therefore cannot have a basis. By
Proposition 4.4.7, the space X has no shrinking basis.

The rest of this section is devoted to the shrinking and bounded com-
pleteness properties for unconditional bases. The main result for this study
is the following one.

4.4.21 Theorem. Suppose that X is a Banach space with an unconditional

basis (x n ).
(a) The basis (xn) is shrinking if and only if 1 is not embedded in X.
(b) The basis (xn) is boundedly complete if and only if Co is not embed-
ded in X.
PROOF. Giving X a different norm equivalent to its original one does not
affect whether (xn) is shrinking or boundedly complete or whether X has
1 or Co embedded in it. Thus, the norm of X used in this proof will be
the bmu-(xn) norm and will be denoted by 1111 rather than 11llbmu-(x n ) for
convenience.
Theorem 4.4.20 provides the forward implication in (a). Suppose con-
versely that (xn) is not shrinking. Let x* be an element of X* such that,
in the notation of Definition 4.4.5, the sequence (1Ix* II (m)) does not tend
to O. Let E = 1limmllx*ll(m), a positive number. It follows that there is
an increasing sequence (m n) of positive integers and a sequence (Yn) in X
such that for each positive integer n,
(1) Yn E ({x mn , .. ,xmn+1-r});
(2) IIYnl1 = 1; and
(3) x*Yn > E.
Suppose that mEN and aI, ... ,am E IF. Then it follows from Proposi-
tion 4.2.18 that

The sequence (Yn) is therefore a basic sequence equivalent to the standard

unit vector basis for 1 by Theorem 4.3.6, so 1 is embedded in X. This
finishes the proof of (a).
The forward implication in (b) is an immediate consequence of Theo-
rem 4.4.19. For the converse, suppose that (xn) is not boundedly com-
plete. Then there is a sequence (,an) of scalars and a positive M such that
410 4. Schauder Bases

112:::::'=l,Bnxnll ::; M for each m but 2:::n ,Bnxn does not converge, so there
are sequences (Pn) and (qn) of positive integers and a positive 6 such that
P1 ::; q1 < P2 ::; q2 < P3 ::; q3 < ... and I12:::J:Pn {3jxjll 2': 6 whenever
n E N. Let Zn = ~J:Pn,BjXj for each n. Then (zn) is a block basic se-
quence taken from (xn). It follows from Proposition 4.2.18 that if mEN
and a1, ... ,am Elf, then

II~ anznll ::; II~ max{ lanl : n = 1, ... , m }znll

= max{ Ian I : n = 1, ... ,m } I~ Zn II

::; max{ lanl : n = 1, ... , m} II~ {3n Xnll

::; Mmax{ lanl : n = 1, ... ,m}.

Therefore (zn) is equivalent to the standard unit vector basis for Co by

Theorem 4.3.7, and so Co is embedded in X.

4.4.22 Corollary. Suppose that X is a Banach space.

(a) Either every unconditional basis for X is shrinking, or none is.
(b) Either every unconditional basis for X is boundedly complete, or
none is.

4.4.23 Corollary. Suppose that X is a Banach space with an uncondi-

tional basis. Then X is reflexive if and only if neither Co nor P1 is embedded
in X.
PROOF. This follows immediately from Theorems 4.4.21 and 4.4.15.

4.4.24 Corollary. Suppose that X is a Banach space in which there is an

unconditional basic sequence. Then X has an infinite-dimensional reflexive
subspace, or a subspace isomorphic to co, or a subspace isomorphic to fl'

The preceding corollary points out the special importance of Bessaga

and Pelczynski's question of whether all infinite-dimensional Banach spaces
have unconditional basic sequences in them; see the discussion at the end
of Section 4.2. As long as that question remained open, therc was at least a
small amount of hope that every infinite-dimensional Banach space might
have an infinite-dimensional subspace that is reflexive or isomorphic to ei-
ther Co or i\. That hope faded rapidly when Cowers and Maurey produced
their example of an infinite-dimensional Banach space with no uncondi-
tional basic sequence in it, and vanished altogether when Cowers pub-
lished in a 1994 paper [91] an example of an infinite-dimensional Banach
 *4.5 James's Space J 411

space with no infinite-dimensional reflexive subspace and in which neither

Co nor fl is embedded.
See Exercises 4.41 and 4.42 for two other applications of the ideas ex-
plored in the last few results.

Exercises
4.40 Prove that C[O,l] is not isomorphic to the dual space of any normed
space.
4.41 Suppose that X is a Banach space with an unconditional basis. Prove that
if X is separable, then X is reflexive if and only if Co is not embedded
in X.
4.42 Suppose that X is a Banach space with an unconditional basis. Prove
that X is separable if and only if X is reflexive. Exercise 4.41 may help.

*4.5 James's Space J

None of the results of this section depend on those of any other optional
section.
The purpose of this section is to continue the development of some of the
ideas of the preceding section, with the goal of being able to examine some
of the unusual characteristics of an important Banach space J first devised
and studied by R. C. James. Many of this space's important properties are
related to the fact that it has a natural monotone shrinking basis, so the
first portion of this section will focus on properties of such bases and spaces
that have them.

4.5.1 Lemma. Suppose that (xn) is a basis for a Banach space. Let

S = { (an): (an) is a. sequence of scalars, s~ll~anxnll < +00 }.

Let lI(an)lIs = sUPmll2::=1 anxnll for each member (an) of S. Then S,
with the usual vector space operations for spaces of sequences of scalars
and the norm 11115, is a Banach space.
PROOF. It is easy to check that S is a vector space and just as easy to
check that II lis is a norm for S. The only remaining issue is whether 1Ills
is a Banach norm. Suppose that ((a n ,j)):'1 is a Cauchy sequence in S. If
m,j,j' EN and m ~ 2, then

lam,j - am,j' I = IIxm 11-111 f)

n=1
an,j - an,j' )Xn - 'I:
n=1
(an,j - an,j' )Xn II

~ 21Ix m ll- 1 11(an ,j) - (an,j')lls,

412 4. Schauder Bases

while

It follows that for each positive integer m there is a scalar am such that
limj am,j = am.
Suppose that f > O. Let j. be a positive integer such that if j, j' 2:: jf'
then II(an,j) - (an,],) lis < Eo If mEN and j, j' 2:: j., then

Letting j' tend to infinity shows that

whenever mEN and j 2:: jf' and therefore that

whenever j 2:: j,. It follows that (an) E S and that II(a n ,)) - (an)lls -> 0
as j -> 00, so Cauchy sequences in S do converge.

4.5.2 Proposition. Suppose that (xn) is a shrinking basis for a Banach

space X. Let S be the Banach space of the preceding lemma. Let (x~) be
the sequence of coordinate functionals for (xn) and let (x**) = (x**x~)
whenever x*' E X*'. Then is an isomorphism from X** onto S. If
(xn) is monotone, then is an isometric isomorphism, and so Ilx" I =
limm llL:::'=l (x**x~)xn I whenever x** E XH.
PROOF. It may be assumed that the norm of X is its (xn) norm and
therefore that (x n ) i~ monotone. Then (x~) i~ a monotone basis for X* by
Theorem 4.4.1 and Proposition 4.4.7. For each element x** of X**, each x'
in X', and each positive integer m,

IX'(~(x'*x~)xn)1 = IX**(~(X'xn)x~)1
::; IIX*'llll~(x*xn)x~11
::; II x " 1111x' I
since x* = L:n(x*xn)x;,. Therefore IIL::=l(x'*x~)xnll ::; Ilx"1I when-
ever x" E X** and mEN, and so (x") = (x*'x~) E S whenever
 *4.5 James's Space J 413

X** E X**. Notice that IIx**lls = sUPmlll::=l(x**x~)xnll Ilx**11 for s:

each x* in X**.
It is clear that is linear. If x* E X** and x** = 0, then for each x'
in X',

x**x* = x** ( 2)X*Xn)X~) = 2)X'Xn)(X'*X~) = 0,

n n

so x* = O. The map is therefore one-to-one.

Suppose that (an) E S. If x* E X*, the positive integers ml and m2 are
such that ml < m2, and 11'II(m) has the meaning given in Definition 4.4.5,
then

I f:
n=m,+l
anX*Xnl s: Ilx*lI(m,) I! f:
n=m,+l
anXnl! s: 21I x *lI(m,) II(an)lls,
which implies that l:n anx'xn converges since limmllx*ll(mJ = O. Define
xo': X' ---> IF by the formula xo*(x*) = Enanxxn. Then x;)* is clearly
linear. If x* E X* and mEN, then

so Ixo*x*1 s:
II(an)lIs Ilx'll whenever x' E X*. It follows that xo* E X'*
and x;)* = (xo*x~) = (an), so maps X** onto S.
Notice that the argument just given, along with the fact that is one-to-
s:
one, shows that Ix*'x* I II <px *' 11 s Ilx' II whenever x* E X'* and x* E X*,
and therefore that II x** II :s 11 <px** II s whenever X** E X *'. The reverse
inequality was obtained earlier, so is an isometric isomorphism from X**
onto S. The fact that (xn) is monotone then assures that

whenever X** E X'*.

Let X, (xn), (x~), and S be as in the preceding proposition, with the
stipulation that (xn) is a monotone shrinking basis for X. For the purposes
of this section, the main point of the proposition is that X** can be iden-
tified in a natural way with the space of all sequences (an) of scalars such
that sUPmIIE:=l anxnll is finite. Since (x~) is a basis for X* by Propo-
sition 4.4.7, it follows that X* can be identified with the space of all se-
quences (an) of scalars such that Ln anx~ converges, while of course X
itself can be identified with the space of all sequences (an) of scalars such
that l:n anXn converges; see Proposition 4.1.7. To summarize, the space X
414 4. Schauder Bases

Identified with the

Space space of sequences of Norm
scalars (an) such that

X (~ anxn) :=1 converges II(an)11 = l~ II~ anXnl1

= s~p II~ anxnll
X* (~ anX~ ) :=1 converges II(an)11 = 1~~\I~anx~11
=s~ll~anx~11
X** ( m
~ anXn
) 00
m=l is bounded II(an)11 = l~ II~ anXnl1
=s~ll~anxnll
TABLE 4.1. The natural identification of X, X*, and X" with sequence spaces
when X is a Banach space with a monotone shrinking basis (Xn) and (x~) is the
sequence of coordinate functionals for (Xn).

and its first and second dual spaces can be treated as if they were sequence
spaces as in Table 4.1, where the equalities of limits and suprema in the
norm column are due to the fact that (xn) and (x~) are both monotone,
the first by hypothesis and the second by Theorem 4.4.1.
Suppose that the sequences of scalars (an), (3n) , and bn) have been
identified with the members x** , X* , and x of X** , X* ) and X respectively.
Then the actions of (an) on (3n) and of ((3n) on bn) are given by the
formulas

and

since

n n
 *4.5 James's Space J 415

and

Furthermore, if Q is the natural map from X into X** and the identifica-
tions of Table 4.1 are made, then it is clear from the formulas for (a n )(f3n)
and (f3n)(,n) given above that Qbn) = bn) for each member bn) of X.
Now suppose that X is Co and that (xn) is its standard unit vector
basis, which is indeed monotone and shrinking. Let W, Y, and Z be the
sequence spaces that the correspondences of Table 4.1 identify with Co, co,
and co* respectively. It is easy to check that Wand Z are just Co and =,
respectively, with their usual norms, and an easy argument based on the
standard way that Co is identified with 1 shows that Y is just 1 with its
usual norm. Furthermore, the identification of Co with itself given in the
table is just the identity map, while the identifications of cO and co* with 1
and 00 respectively that follow from the table are precisely the standard
identifications of these spaces that have been discussed previously in this
book. 3 Thus, the identifications of Table 4.1 are generalizations of the usual
characterizations of the first and second duals of Co to other Banach spaces
having monotone shrinking bases.
The identifications described in Table 4.1 will prove useful for analyzing
the space about to be defined.

4.5.3 Definition. For each member (an) of the vector space V underlying
real Co, let

II(an)lIa = 2- 1 / 2 sup { (~(apn - a pn +J 2 + (a Pm _ a p J2 ) 1/2

m 2: 2, PI < ... < Pm }

and

Then James's space J is the real Banach space of all members (an) of V
such that II(an)lla is finite, with the norm 1IlIa.

Though the function II lib is not actually used to define J, this function
will have important uses in the study of the space to be done below. Of

3See Example 1.11.2 for the standard identification of co' with i=. It is easy to check
directly that if that identification has been made and i1 has been identified with Co in
the natural way, then (a n )(l'n) = En anl'n whenever (an) E co'
and (I'n) E co.
416 4. Schauder Bases

course, the first issue in the analysis of J is whether it truly is a Banach

space.

4.5.4 Proposition. The space J is a real Banach space, and II lib is a

norm for this space equivalent to 11lla'
PROOF. The triangle inequality for 11lla follows readily from that for 2,
and it is apparent that ILB(an)lIa = liJllI(an)lla whenever (an) E J and
f3 E lR. It follows that J is a vector subspace of the vector space that
underlies real Co. It is apparent that IIOlla = 0 and that II(an)lla > 0
whenever (an) is a nonzero member of J, so 11lla is a norm for J. It is
just as easy to check that II lib is also a norm for J, and that this norm is
equivalent to 11lla since lI(an)llb ::; II(an)lla ::; 211(an)llb whenever (an) E J;
this last inequality uses the fact that for each member (an) of J,

whenever m ::::: 2 and PI < ... < Pm.

All that remains to be proved is that 11lla is a Banach norm. Suppose
that ((f3n,j));:1 is a Cauchy sequence of elements of J. If (an) E J and
no, nl E N, then

Letting nl tend to 00 shows that lanol

S lI(an)lla
whenever (an) E J and
no E N. From the fact that ((f3n,j)):1 is Cauchy, it follows that (f3n,j )~I is
a Cauchy, therefore convergent, sequence of real numbers whenever n E N.
Let f3n = lim] f3n,j for each n.
Let E be an arbitrary positive number and let j, be a positive integer
such that IICBn,]) ~ CBn,j')lIa < E when j,j' ::::: jE' If j,j',m,Pl,'" ,Pm are
positive integers such that j,j' ::::: j" m ::::: 2, and PI < ... < Pm, then

< E.
 *4.5 James's Space J 417

Letting j' tend to 00 shows that

whenever j 2: j" m 2: 2, and PI < ... < Pm. It follows that ((3n) E J and
that

whenever) 2: )E' Since ((3n,j) -+ ((3n) as) -+ 00, the space J is complete .

Let (en) be the sequence of standard unit vectors in real Co. Then each
of these vectors is in J, and Ilenll a = 1 for each n. The sequence (en) turns
out to be a monotone shrinking basis for J just as it is for Co.

4.5.5 Proposition. The sequence (en) of standard unit vectors in J is a

monotone shrinking basis for J, and (an) = ~n ane n whenever (an) E J.
PROOF. If (an) E J, then the sequence (11(O:l, ... ,O:k,Q,Q, ... )lla):=l is
clearly nondecreasing, so (en) is a monotone basic sequence in J by Corol-
lary 4.1.25 and Proposition 4.1.21. Now fix a member ((3,,) of J. To prove
that (en) is a basis for J, it is enough to show that II ((3n)- L:~=l (3jejlla -+ 0
as k -+ 00, that is, that 11(0, ... ,0, (3k+l, (3k+2, ... ) Iia -+ 0 as k -+ 00. Sup-
pose to the contrary that this did not happen. Then there would be a
positive E and, for each positive integer j, a collection {Pl,j, ... ,Pm(j),j} of
positive integers such that PI,j < ... < Pm(j),j < Pl,Hl and

m(j)-l
L ((3Pn,j - (3Pn+l,j)2 + ((3P=U),j - (3Pl,j)2 2: Eo
n=1

Since (3n -+ 0, there is some positive integer )0 such that

when) 2: )0' But a moment's thought about the definition of 11lla then
shows that 11((3n)lIa = +00, a contradiction. This finishes the proof that
(en) is a basis for J and verifies the formula for basis expansions.
All that remains to be shown is that the monotone basis (en) is shrinking.
Suppose it is not. Then there is an x* in J*, a positive 6, and a normalized
block basic sequence (un) taken from (en) such that x*u n 2: 6 for each n.
418 4. Schauder Bases

Therefore En x' (n- l u n) does not converge, so En n-1u n does not con-
verge. To obtain a contradiction to this and thereby finish the proof of the
proposition, it is enough to show that there is a positive constant c such
that IIE:~m, n- l u n llb ::; c(E:~ml n- 2)1/2 whenever m1 ::; m2
Let ((n) be a sequence of real numbers and (qn) a sequence of positive
integers such that 1 = ql < q2 < q3 < ... and Uj = E~~~J-1 (nen for
eachj. Notice that I(nl ::; 1 for each n since Ilujlla = 1 for eachj. A positive
integer P will be said to belong to a term Uj of (un) if qj ::; P < Qj+l
Let positive integers ml and m2 be such that m1 ::; m2, and let bn)
be the element E:~Tn' n-Iu n of J. Fix a positive integer m and positive
integers PI, ... ,Pm such that m :2: 2 and PI < ... < Pm, then let s =
E::l\"(Pn - I'Pn+I)2. Let It 1 be the collection of summands bPk - "YPk+ I?
of s such that Pk and PHI both belong to the same term of (un), that
is, such that there is some j for which qj ::; Pk < PHI < Qj+I' For each
member bPk - 'IPk+l? of Itl and the Uj to which it belongs, either
(I'Pk - 'IPk+l )
2
= ( .-I(
J Pk - J
.-I(
Pk+1
)2
= J'-2(r'>Pk -
r
'>Pk+1
)2

or bPk - 'IPk+J 2 = O. It follows that if SI is the sum of all members of ([.})

then

L n-21Iunll~ L n-
m2 ffi2

81 ::; 2 = 2 2.
n=Tnl

Now let ([.2 be the collection of summands bPk - 'IPk+!)2 of s such that Pk
and PHI do not belong to the same term of (un), and let 82 be the sum of
all members of ([.2. Fix a member bPk - "YPk+I)2 of ([.2 and let uj, and uj,
be the terms of (un) to which Pk and PHI, respectively, belong. Then "YPk
is either jl I (Pk or 0, and similarly "YPk+l is either j:;I(Pk+l or O. It follows
that
("YPk - 'IPk+l )
2<
-
('-I()2
11 Pk + (.-1(
12 Pk+l )2 + 211-1 12.-11(Pk '>Pk+1
r I
::; j1 2 + j:;2 + 2jl1j:;1
::;j1 2 +j:;2+ j1 2 +j:;2
= 2j1 2 + 2j:;2.

Of course, if ji < ml or jl > then jl 1 and j1 2 can be replaced

m2,
by 0 in the above inequality, and similarly for J2. Also, it is clear from
the definition of ([.2 that if the preceding argument is repeated for each
member bPk - 'IPk+J 2 of ([.2, then each integer jo such that mi ::; jo ::; m2
can appear in at most one of those arguments as ji and in at most one
other as J2. Consequently,

L
Tn2

82 ::; 4 n- 2 .
n=ml
 *4.5 James's Space J 419

Therefore

It follows from the definition of II lib that

As has already been shown, this is a contradiction that implies that (en)
is shrinking.

As one would expect, the sequence (en) of standard unit vectors in J is

called the standard unit vector basis for J.
The rest of this section is devoted to a close look at J**. As observed in
the comments following Proposition 4.5.2, the space J can be identified with
the space of all sequences (an) of real numbers such that (2:.::'=1 anen)~=1
converges, with the norm given by the formula

In fact, the space J is already precisely that space; in particular, the norm
given by (4.2) is precisely 11lIa' Furthermore, the space J** can be viewed
as the space of all sequences (an) of scalars such that (2:.::'=1 anen)~=1 is
bounded in J, with the norm also given by (4.2). For consistency, this norm
will be denoted by 1IlIa as for J. As an aid to understanding, in most of the
rest of this section the space J** will be treated as if it actually were this
sequence space rather than just isometrically isomorphic to it, and J will
often be viewed as the subspace of J** with which the natural map from J
into J** identifies it; again, see the comments following Proposition 4.5.2.
The reader wishing to rewrite the following arguments to include all of the
appropriate isometric isomorphisms will have no trouble doing so.
Suppose that (f3n) is a sequence of reals such that limn f3n does not exist.
Then there must be a positive f; and sequences (Pn) and (qn) of positive
integers such that 1 ~ PI < ql < P2 < q2 < ... and such that If3Pn -f3qn I 2: f;
for each n. For every positive integer m,

so (f3n) . J**. Therefore limn an exists whenever (an) E J**.

420 4. Schauder Bases

Though 11lla is being used to denote the norm of J**, that does not
mean that the formula of Definition 4.5.3 can be used to compute it. For
example, it is easy to see that every constant sequence (e, e, e, ... ) of real
numbers is in J** and has norm lei by (4.2), but the formula from Def-
inition 4.5.3 would incorrectly give 0 for the value of the norm. For the
moment, let the "norm" of a member (an) of J** computed using the for-
mula in Definition 4.5.3 be denoted by l(an)la' and let II(an)lla continue
to represent the actual value of the norm of (an). For each (an) in J**,

whenever m,Pl, ... ,Pm E N, m 2': 2, and PI < ... < Pm, from which it
follows that l(an)la ~ II(an)lla and in particular that l(an)la is finite. One
immediate consequence of this is that

since the only way that a member of J** can avoid being in J is to have a
nonzero limit.
Incidentally, the formula for 11lla of Definition 4.5.3 can be modified a
bit so that the resulting slightly more complicated formula does also work
to compute the norms of members of J**. See Lemma 4.5.8.
Let eo = (1,1,1, ... ). Then eo E J** and lIeolla = 1. It will now be
shown that (eO,el,e2, ... ) is a basis for J**. Fix an element hn) of J**
and let 'Y = limn 'Yn. Then limnhn - 'Y) = 0, so hn) - 'Yeo E J and
hn) - 'Yeo = L:~=1 hn - 'Y)en . Therefore
CXl

hn) = 'Yeo + Lhn - 'Y)e n .

n=1
Now suppose that ((n)~=o is any sequence of reals such that
00

hn) = (oeo + L (nen

n=1
Then hn) - (oea = L:~=1 (nen E J, which implies that limnhn - (0) = 0,
which in turn implies that (0 = 'Y. Therefore
00 00

L (nen = Lhn - 'Y)e n E J,

n=1 n=1
so (n = 'Yn -'Y when n 2': l. Thus, there is one and only one sequence ((n)~=o
of reals such that hn) = L:~=o (nen, and so (en)~=[) is a basis for J**.
It would not hurt to pause for a moment to recap in rigorous language
part of what has been discovered in the preceding discussion.
 *4.5 James's Space J 421

4.5.6 Proposition. Let X J be the Banach space of sequences of scalars

described above that is identified with J** and has J as a subspace, and
let A: X J -> J** be the identifying isometric isomorphism. Let (en) be
the standard unit vector basis for J, and let eo be the element (1,1,1, ... )
of XJ*" Let Q be the natural map from J into J**.
(a) If (an) E J, then Q(a n ) = A(an ).
(b) If (an) E X J .. , then limn an exists.
(c) J = {(an) : (an) E X J **, limn an = o}.
(d) The sequence (en)~=o is a basis for XJ*" Consequently, the sequence
(Aen)~=o' which is the same as (Aeo, Qel' Qe2,"')' is a basis for J**.

Recall that if W is a vector subspace of a vector space V, then the

codimension of W in V is the dimension of the quotient vector space V /W;
that is, roughly speaking, the number of dimensions that W lacks of being
all of V. Let J** be identified as before with a space of sequences of scalars
and J with its natural image in J**. Suppose that x** E J** and that
2::=0 (nen is the expansion for x** in terms of the basis (en)~=o for J**.
Consider the element x** + J of the quotient Banach space J** / J. Since
2:::1 (nen E J, it follows that x** + J = (oeo + J, so J** IJ = ({eo + J}).
Therefore {eo + J} is a basis for J** 1J, so J has co dimension 1 in J**.
This can be stated more formally as follows.

4.5.7 Theorem. Let Q be the natural map from J into J**. Then the
co dimension of Q(J) in J*' is 1. Thus, the space J is not reflexive.

Though the natural map is an isometric isomorphism from J onto a

proper subspace of J** , there is another isometric isomorphism from J onto
all of J**. The key to the proof of that to be given here is the following
formula for computing the norms of members of J*'.

4.5.8 Lemma. Let J** be identified with a Banach space of sequences of

scalars as has been done above, and let (an) be a member of J". Then
II(an)lIa is the supremum over all real numbers t such that t equals either

(4.3)

or
m-2 ) 1/2
2- 1/ 2 ( "(a
~ Pn
- a Pn+l )2 + a2
PTn-l
+ a2
PI
( 4.4)
n=l

for some positive integers m, PI, ... ,Pm such that m 2: 2 and PI < ... < Pm.
(By convention, the sum from 1 to m - 2 is considered to be 0 if m = 2.)
422 4. Schauder Bases

PROOF. For each positive integer k, let I{l,oo.,k} be the indicator function
of the set {I, ... ,k}. Then

II(an)lla = s~plI~ anen\\a

=supll(al,oo.,ak,O,O,.oo)lla
k

1/2
+ (apmI{l, ... ,k} (Pm) - a p, )2 )

m ~ 2, kEN, PI < 00. < Pm, Pm-I:::; k }.

A moment's thought shows that this last supremum is precisely the one
described in the statement of this lemma.

For the duration of this paragraph, let (an) be a fixed member of J**. It
is easy to see that II(O,al,oo.,am,O,O,oo.)lla = lI(al,.oo,a m ,O,O,oo.)lla
for each m, from which it follows that

and therefore that the "shifted" sequence (0, a1, a2, ... ) is in J**. Sub-
tracting (limn an)eo from this shifted sequence yields the member

(-lima n , a1 -lima n , a2 -lima n , ... )

n n n

of J** , which is in fact in J since the limit of this sequence is 0. If the norm
of this member of J is computed using the formula of Definition 4.5.3 (with
the 2- 1/ 2 brought inside the supremum), then the set whose supremum is
being taken is precisely the set whose supremum is used to compute II (an) Iia
in Lemma 4.5.8, so the above member of J has the same norm as (an).
Define T: J** - t J by the formula

T((a n )) = (-lim an, al -lim an, a2 -lima n , ... ).

n n n

It is clear that this map is linear, and therefore is an isometric isomorphism

from J** into J by the result of the preceding paragraph. Now suppose that
(13n) E J. Then (132,133,' .. ) is clearly in J, so (132,133, ... ) - 131 eo E J**. It
is easy to check that T ((132,133, ... ) - 131 eo) = (13n). Therefore T( J**) = J,
which finishes the proof of the following result.
 *4.5 James's Space J 423

4.5.9 Theorem. The Banach space J is isometrically isomorphic to J**.

The ideas and results of this section are essentially from R. C. James's
papers [109J and [110J that appeared in 1950 and 1951 respectively. In the
earlier paper, James constructed a Banach space that is almost J and is
isomorphic to it; however, the norm is not quite right for the space to be
isometrically isomorphic to its second dual, so James had to settle for an
isomorphism. By tweaking the norm a bit in the later paper, he was able
to obtain the stronger result.
The space J proved useful as a counterexample for several long-standing
conjectures. As was discussed at the end of Section 1.11, a comment in
Banach's book [13J can be interpreted to be the question of whether a sep-
arable Banach space must be reflexive if there is any isometric isomorphism
whatever from the space onto its second dual. The space J shows that the
answer is no. Also, the separability of J** shows that J is a counterexample
for the conjecture that a Banach space must be reflexive if its second dual
is separable. 4 See Exercises 4.44 and 4.45 for two other conjectures settled
in the negative by J. A list of references for other applications of J can be
found in [118, p. 633J.

Exercises
4.43 Prove that J has no unconditional basis.
4.44 Prove that J is an example of an infinite-dimensional Banach space X
such that X is not isomorphic to X ED X. Exercise 3.12 could help.
4.45 Prove that J is an infinite-dimensional real Banach space for which there
is no complex Banach space X such that J is isomorphic to the real
Banach space Xr obtained from X by restricting multiplication of vectors
by scalars to lR x X. It might help to look at Exercise 3.12 as well as
Proposition 1.13.1 and its proof.

4 However , it was not quite the first such counterexample. That honor went to J's
isomorphic cousin constructed in [109], as James observed in that paper.
5
Rotundity and Smoothness

When thinking of the closed unit ball of a normed space, it is tempting to vi-
sualize some round, smooth object like the closed unit ball of real Euclidean
2- or 3-space. However, closed unit balls are sometimes not so nicely shaped.
Consider, for example, the closed unit balls of real ei and e~. Neither is
round by any of the usual meanings of that word, since their boundaries,

which is to say the unit spheres of the spaces, are each composed of four
straight line segments. Also, neither is smooth along its entire boundary,
since each has four corners. These features of the closed unit balls have
a number of interesting consequences that cause the norms of these two
426 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

spaces to behave a bit unlike that of real Euclidean 2-space. For example,
if Zl and Z2 are different points on anyone of the four sides of one of these
balls, then 1 = Ilzlll = IIz211 = ~llzIil + ~llz211 = II~Zl + ~z211, so equality
is attained in the inequality IlzI + z211 ~ IIzIl1 + IIz211 despite the fact that
neither Zl nor Z2 is a nonnegative real multiple of the other. Furthermore,
the presence of the corners leads to the existence of multiple norming f1LnC-
tionals for some points Z of the unit sphere of each of these spaces, that is,
norm-one members z* of the dual space such that z*z = Ilzll. To see why
this would be, let Z be either of these two spaces and let Zo be one of the
four corners of B z. Then there are infinitely many different straight lines
that pass through Zo without intersecting the interior of the closed unit
ball; let hand l2 be two of them. By Mazur's separation theorem, there
are members zi and Zz of Z*, necessarily different, such that if j E {1,2},
then zj z = 1 when Z E lj and zjz ~ 1 when z E B z It follows readily
that zi and Zz are both norming functionals for Zo. As will be seen, it is
precisely the presence of the corners or sharp bends in the unit sphere that
caused this multiplicity of norming functionals for elements at the locations
of the bends.
The purpose of this chapter is to study the special properties of normed
spaces whose closed unit balls are round, in the sense that the unit spheres
include no nontrivial line segments, and of those whose closed unit balls
are smooth, in the sense that the unit spheres have no corners or sharp
bends. Roundness will be taken up first.

5.1 Rotundity
The property about to be defined was formulated independently by James
Clarkson and Mark Krein. Clarkson was particularly interested in the uni-
form version of this property that will be studied in the next section, while
Krein used it in joint work with Naum Akhiezer on the moment problem.
There is an entire host of equivalent ways to define this property, some of
which are given in this section.

5.1.1 Definition. (J. A. Clarkson, 1936 [41]; N. I. Akhiezer and M. G.

Krein, 1938 [1]). A normed space X is rotund or strictly convex or strictly
normed if IltXI + (1 - t)x211 < 1 whenever Xl and X2 are different points
of Sx and 0 < t < 1.

If a normed space satisfies the condition of the preceding definition, then

it is sometimes said that its norm or its closed unit ball is rotund rather
than attaching that label to the entire space. The term rotund used here
is due to Mahlon Day, who published a series of six important papers
 5.1 Rotundity 427

[47]-[52J on rotundity and uniform rotundity between 1941 and 1957. 1 The
term strictly normed is Krein's.
Definition 5.1.1 actually says that a normed space is rotund when its
unit sphere includes no nontrivial straight line segments, but some arguing
needs to be done to show that. Suppose that X is a normed space. Just
for the remainder of this paragraph, let (XljX2) denote the "open line
segment" {tXl +(I-t)x2 : 0 < t < I} whenever Xl,X2 EX. If X is rotund
and Xl and X2 are different points of its unit sphere, then the definition
of rotundity assures that (XljX2) lies entirely in the interior of Ex, so no
nontrivial line segments lie in S x. Suppose conversely that no nontrivial line
segments lie in Sx and that Xl and X2 are different points of Sx. Then some
of the points of (XljX2) lie in B x, so it follows easily from Lemma 2.2.18
that all of the points of (Xl j X2) lie in Ex. The space X is therefore rotund.
Incidentally, the last portion of this argument also establishes the following
characterization of rotundity that allows the verification of the property
by examining only the midpoints of straight line segments rather than the
entire segments.

5.1.2 Proposition. Suppose that X is a normed space. Then X is rotund

if and only if II ~ (Xl + X2) II < 1 whenever Xl and X2 are different points
of Sx.

It is time for some examples.

5.1.3 Example. The scalar field IF, viewed as a normed space over IF, is
obviously rotund. More generally, it is easy to see that every normed space
that is zero- or one-dimensional is rotund.

5.1.4 Example. Suppose that p, is a positive measure on a a-algebra :E

of subsets of a set n and that 1 < p < 00. Then Lp(n,:E, p,) is rotund.
The argument showing this will be saved for the proof of Theorem 5.2.11,
in which it will be shown that Lp(n, :E,p,) has the stronger property of
uniform rotundity.

5.1.5 Example. This generalizes the examples of nonrotund spaces given

in the introduction to this chapter. As in the last example, suppose that p,
is a positive measure on a a-algebra :E of subsets of a set n, but suppose in
addition that there are two disjoint measurable subsets Al and A2 of n each
having finite positive measure. Let IAl and IA2 be the respective indicator
functions of these sets, and let II = (p,(Al)) -IIA" h .= (p,(A2 -IIA 2 ,

1 However, Day referred to the property as strict convexity in those papers, as most
others did before and, admittedly, have since. The term rotund first appeared in his 1958
book [53J.
428 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

from which it follows that neither Ll(n, 2:, J.t) nor Loo(n, 2:, J.t) is rotund.
In particular, the spaces 1\ and 00 are not rotund, and f and ~ are not
rotund when n ~ 2. Notice that f and ~ are rotund when n < 2 by
Example 5.1.3.

5.1.6 Example. Let el and e2 be the first two standard unit vectors of Co.
Let Xl = el + e2 and X2 = el - e2. Then

so neither Co nor 00 is rotund.

5.1. 7 Example. Suppose that K is a compact Hausdorff space having

more than one element. Let kl and k2 be different members of K. Then
Urysohn's lemma assures that there is a continuous function h: K ~ [0,1]

such that h (k 1 ) = and h (k2) = 1. Let 12 be the function taking on the
value 1 everywhere on K. Then

Ilhlloo = 11121100 = 11~(h + 12)1100 = 1,

so C(K) is not rotund.

5.1.8 Example. The evidence presented so far might lead one to conjec-
ture that rotund Banach spaces are always reflexive. The purpose of this
example is to construct a nonreflexive rotund Banach space by finding a
rotund norm for 1 that is equivalent to its original norm. This construc-
tion might seem to have some unnecessary complications in it, but the new
norm is being designed to have some special properties that will be useful
in Example 5.1.22.
The first step is to define some functions. For each positive integer m
and each nonnegative real number t, let

f rn () _
t -
t2 + mt .
m+1
Then for each Tn,

(1) the function 1m maps [0,1] continuously onto [0,1]' and 1m(0) =
and 1rn(1) = 1;
(2) fm, 1:n , and 1:'n are all positive on (0, (0), so in particular the function
1m is strictly increasing on [0, (0);
(3) m~l t :S 1m(t) :S t whenever t E [0,1], with strict inequality when
t E (0, 1);
 5.1 Rotundity 429

(4) fm{st l + (1- s)b) < sfm(h) + (1- S)fm(t2) whenever hand t2 are
different members of [0, (0) and 0 < s < 1; and
(5) Ifm(td - fm(t 2 )1 ~ max{ f:n(t) : 0 ~ t ~ I} It 1 - t21 ~ ~ It 1 - t21
whenever t l , t2 E [0,1].
Let {Am: mEN} be a collection of pairwise disjoint infinite subsets of N
whose union is N, and for each positive integer n let m(n) be the index m
of the set Am containing n. Let

c = { (an): (an) E 1, 2:n

fm(n) (Iani) ~ 1 }.

Notice that if (an) E C, then lanl ~ 1 for each n. Suppose that (((n,j));:l
is a sequence in C that converges to some member ((n) of 1. For each j,

12: n
fm(n) (I(n,jl) - 2:
n
fm(n) (I(nl) I~ E!fm(n)(I(n,jl) - fm(n)(I(nl)!
n

:s ~ L II(n,jl- I(nll
n

n
= ~1I((n,j) - ((n)lIl,

so Ln fm(n) (I(nl) = limj Ln fTn(n) (I (n,j I) :s 1 and ((n) E C. The set C is

therefore closed. If (fin), bn) E C and 0 < s < 1, then

n n

:s S L fm(n) (Ifinl) + (1 - s) L fm(n) (I,nl)

n n
:s 1,
so s(fin) + (1- s)bn) E C. The set C is therefore convex. It is clear that C
is balanced and, since Be, ~ C, absorbing. The Minkowski functional Pc
of C is therefore a semi norm on 1 by Proposition 1.9.14. Now fTn(t) 2: t/2
whenever mEN and 0 ~ t ~ 1. From this and Proposition 1.9.14, it follows
that

which in turn implies that pc(x) = 0 only if x = O. The seminorm Pc is

therefore actually a norm, which will be denoted by 1111r- The normed
space resulting from this new norm will be denoted by l,T to distin-
guish it from (1,11'111)' Since Be, ~ C S;; 2Be" it is easy to check that
430 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

~llxI11:::; Ilxll r :::; IIxl11 whenever x E 1, so the norms 11111 and 11llr are
equivalent. Now

{x: x E 1, Ilxll r < I} ~ C ~ {x: X E 1, Ilxll r :::; I}

by Proposition 1.9.14, which together with the fact that C is closed in the
common topology of 1 and i,r shows that C is the closed unit ball of l,r'
The equivalence of 11111 and 11llr shows that l,r is a nonrefiexive Ba-
nach space, so all that remains to be proved is that the norm 11llr is
rotund. Suppose that ((3n) and ("'fn) are different elements of Se"r' Let
(I-n) = ~ ( ((3n) + ("'fn))' It is enough to find a real number a greater than 1
such that a(l-n) E C, for this will imply that Ila(l-n)llr :::; 1 and there-
fore that II (I-n) liT < 1. To this end, let no be a positive integer such that
(3no =I "'fno' Then either \~((3no + "'fno) \ < ~1(3nol + ~hnol or l(3nol =I hnol
It follows that one of the first two inequality symbols in the inequality

Lfm(n) (II-nl) = Lfm(n)(I~((3n + "'fn)l)

n n

n n

actually represents a strict inequality, so Ln f-m(n) (II-nl) < 1. This implies

that maxnll-nl < 1, so there is a real number a greater than 1 such that
max n laILn 1 < 1. An argument like that used to demonstrate that C is closed
then shows that

iLfm(n)(lal-nl) - Lfm(n)(ll-nl)j:::; ~lla(l-n) - (I-n) II 1

n n

= ~(a - 1)11(l-n)111,

so it is possible to reduce a enough that Lnf-m(n)(lal-nl) < 1 while leav-

ing a greater than 1. It follows that a(l-n) E C, which establishes the
rotundity of l,T'
It should be noted that in the last few lines of the preceding argu-
ment it was established that if (an) E l,T and Ln fm(n) (Ianl) < 1, then
lI(an)llr < 1. This fact will be used again in Example 5.1.22.

One consequence of Examples 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 (which, for the real case at
least, is also apparent from diagrams of the corresponding unit spheres) is
that Euclirlean 2-space is rotund while i is not, even though the two spaces
are isomorphic. Thus, in contrast to most properties of normed spaces that
have been studied so far, rotundity is not isomorphism-invariant. The fol-
lowing is the most that can be said along these lines. The proof is obvious.
 5.1 Rotundity 431

5.1.9 Proposition. Every normed space that is isometrically isomorphic

to a rotund normed space is itself rotund.

The next portion of this section is devoted to obtaining a number of

characterizations of rotundity. One easy one involves extreme points and
is based on the observation that if Xo is a point in the unit sphere of
a normed space X and there are elements Xl and X2 of Bx and a real
number t such that 0 < t < 1 and Xo = tXI + (1- t)X2' then Xl and X2 also
lie in S x; this is easy to prove directly and also follows immediately from
Lemma 2.2.18. Thus, if a point in Sx is an "interior point" of a "closed
line segment" {tXI + (1 - t)X2 : 0 ::::; t ::::; 1} in Bx such that Xl =1= X2, then
both endpoints lie in Sx, which by Lemma 2.2.18 implies that the entire
"closed line segment" lies in Sx. Therefore every point of Sx is an extreme
point of Bx if and only if Sx includes no nontrivial "closed line segments,"
which happens if and only if X is rotund.

5.1.10 Proposition. A normed space is rotund if and only if each element

of its unit sphere is an extreme point of its closed unit ball.

Another useful characterization of rotundity is based on the occurrence of

equality in the triangle inequality. It is an elementary fact from Euclidean
geometry that if A, B, and C are points in the Euclidean plane and B
does not lie on the straight line segment connecting A to C, then the
distance from A to C must be strictly less than the sum of the distances
from A to B and from B to C. Treating the vectors of real Euclidean
2-space as arrows 2 transforms this property of the Euclidean plane into
the statement that if Xl, X2 E t'~, then equality occurs in the inequality
IlxI + x2112 : : ; IIxll12 + IIx2112 only if one of the vectors Xl and X2 is a
nonnegative real multiple of the other. It turns out that this condition
characterizes rotund norms among all norms.

5.1.11 Proposition. Suppose that X is a normed space. Then the follow-

ing are equivalent.
(a) The space X is rotund.
(b) Whenever XI,X2 E X and II Xl + X211 = IIxIiI + IIX211, one of the two
vectors must be a nonnegative real multiple of the other.
PROOF. Suppose first that X is rotund and that Xl and X2 are members
of X such that IIXI +x211 = IlxI11 + Ilx211. It must be shown that one of the
two vectors Xl and X2 is a nonnegative multiple of the other, so it may be
assumed that neither is zero. It may even be assumed that 1 = IlxIIi : : ; Ilx211.

2See the introduction to Section 1.2.

432 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

2~ II Xl + yll
= IIXI +X2 - (1-llx211-I)X211
~ II Xl +X211- (1-llx211- 1 )ll x211
= IIXIII + IIx211-llx211 + 1
= 2,
from which it follows that II ~(Xl + y) II = 1. Since Xl, Y E Sx, the rotundity
of X requires that Xl = Y = Ilx211-IX2. This shows that (a) '* (b).
Suppose conversely that (b) holds. Let Zl and Z2 be different members
of Sx. Then neither of the two vectors is a nonnegative multiple of the
other, which implies that Ilzl + z211 < Ilzlll + IIz211 = 2 and therefore that
11~(zl + z2)11 < 1. The space X is therefore rotund, so (b) '* (a).

It should be noted that for any normed space whatever and any two
members Xl and X2 ofthe space such that one of the vectors is a nonnegative
multiple of the other, it is true that IIxl + x211 = IlxIiI + Ilx211. Thus, the
preceding proposition yields the following strengthened form of the triangle
inequality for rotund normed spaces.

5.1.12 Corollary. Suppose that X is a rotund normed space and that

Xl, X2 EX. Then Ilxl + x211 ::; IIxIl1 + Ilx211, with equality if and only if one
of the two vectors is a nonnegative real multiple of the other.

Still another characterization of rotundity involves support hyperplanes.

Most of the following definition was given earlier as Definition 2.11.3, but
will be repeated here since it appeared in an optional section.

5.1.13 Definition. Let A be a subset of a topological vector space X.

A nonzero x* in X* is a support functional for A if there is an Xo in A
such that Re x* Xo = sup{ Re X* X : X E A}, in which case Xo is a support
point of A, the sct {x : X E X, Re X* X = Re x* Xo } is a support hyperplane
for A, and the functional X* and the support hyperplane are both said to
support A at Xo.

Notice that if H is the support hyperplane of the preceding definition,

then H n A is exactly the collection of points at which H supports A, and
this intersection is by definition nonempty.
An abuse of terminology is being committed in the preceding definition.
In standard linear algebra parlance, a hyperplane in a vector space V is
usually defined to be a set of the form {v : v E V, f (v) = ao }, where f
is a nonzero linear functional on V and ao is a scalar. In Definition 5.1.13,
the support "hyperplane" is the set of all points in X where a particular
 5.1 Rotundity 433

real-linear functional, rather than a true linear functional, takes on some

constant value. Of course, there is no difference when the scalar field is ]R,
but there is when it is C. For example, let x* be the linear functional
on the complex Banach space C given by the formula x*a = a. Then x*
supports Be at 1, with the corresponding support hyperplane being the
line {a : a E IC, Rea = I}. However, it is easy to see that the true
hyperplanes in IC are exactly the individual points of IC rather than lines.
Of course, every complex normed space X is also a real normed space when
multiplication of vectors by scalars is restricted to ]R x X. Thus, when X is
a complex normed space, the object called a hyperplane in Definition 5.1.13
really is a hyperplane in the standard linear algebra sense if X is treated
as a real normed space in this fashion.
To see what motivates the next characterization of rotundity, it will be
helpful to review some of the properties of the hyperplanes of the real
vector space Il~? Since every linear functional on ]R2 has the form (a,;3) 1---*
aoa + ;30;3 where ao,;3o E ]R, the hyperplanes in ]R2 are exactly the sets of
the form

{(a,;3): (a,;3) E ]R2, aoa + ;30;3 = /o}

such that ao,;3o, /0 E ]R and ao and ;30 are not both zero. Thus, the hyper-
planes in ]R2 are precisely the straight lines in ]R2. The hyperplanes in 1R2
that pass through the origin, that is, the hyperspaces in ]R2, are precisely
the kernels of the linear functionals on the space. If H is a hyperplane
in 1R2 that does not pass through the origin, then clearly there is some
linear functional f on 1R2 such that

H = {(a,;3): (a,;3) E ]R2, f(a,;3) = I},

from which it follows that

{ (a,;3) : (a,;3) E 1R2 , f(a,;3) < 1}

is the open halfspace bounded by H that contains the origin, while

{(a,;3): (a,;3) E Il~.z, f(a,;3) > I}

is the open halfspace on the other side of H.
Now suppose that X is a real normed space whose underlying vector
space is 1R2 . It follows from the preceding discussion that the support hy-
perplanes for Ex are exactly the straight lines in 1R2 that intersect Ex
without penetrating its interior, that is, the "tangent lines" to Ex. If X is
rotund, then no support hyperplane for Ex can intersect Ex at more than
one point, for the straight line segment connecting two points of intersec-
tion would have to lie in Sx. Suppose conversely that X is not rotund.
Let x 1 and X2 be different points of S x such that the entire line segment
{tXl + (1- t)X2 : 0 :S t:S 1} lies in Sx. By Lemma 2.2.18, the straight line
434 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

that includes this segment cannot intersect B x, so this line is a support

hyperplane for Bx that intersects it at more than one point. To summa-
rize, the space X is rotund if and only if each support hyperplane for B x
intersects it at exactly one point. This fact generalizes to arbitrary normed
spaces.

5.1.14 Lemma. Suppose that H is a support hyperplane for a subset A

of a topological vector space. Then H n A 0 = 0.
PROOF. Let X be the topological vector space in question, and let x* be
a nonzero member of X* and Xo an element of A such that Re x*xo =
sup{Rex*x: x E A} and H = {x: x E X, Rex*x = Rex*xo}. Suppose
that there is some y in H n A o. Lct x 1 be an element of X such that
Rexxl = l. Then y + t5xl E AD for some small positive 15, so

Rex'xo 2: Rex*(y + t5Xl) = Rexxo + 15 > Rex'xo,

a contradiction.

5.1.15 Theorem. (A. F. Ruston, 1949 [203]). A normed space X is rotund
ifand only if each support hyperplane for B x supports B x at only one
point.
PROOF. This proof is very much like the one done above for real normed
spaces having ]R2 as their underlying vector space. Suppose first that X
is rotund. Let H be a support hyperplane for Bx. Then H n Bx C;;; Sx
since H n Bx = 0. The convexity of Hand B x assures that H n B x is
also convex, so H n Bx cannot have two distinct points in it without also
including the entire straight line segment connecting the points. However,
the set Sx includes no nontrivial straight line segments, so the only point
in H n B x is the one guaranteed by the definition of a support hyperplane.
Suppose conversely that X is not rotund. Let Xl and X2 be distinct
elements of Sx such that {tXl + (1 - t)X2 : 0 ::; t ::; 1} C;;; Sx; call
this line segment C. By Eidelheit's separation theorem, there is an x
in X* such that Rex'x 2: 1 for each x in C and Rex'x ::; 1 for each x
in Bx. Notice in particular that Rex'xl = Rex'x2 = 1. It follows that
{x : X E X, Re x'x = I} is a support hyperplane for Ex at both Xl
and X2.

Since a member x' of the unit sphere of the dual space of a normed
space X supports B x at some point x of S x if and only if Re x x = x x = 1,
the following result is essentially just a restatement of the preceding one.

5.1.16 Corollary. Suppose that X is a normed space. Then the following

are equivalent.
(a) The space X is rotund.
 5.1 Rotundity 435

(b) No member x* of Sx' supports Bx at more than one point.

(c) For each x* in Sx" there is no more than one x in Sx such that
Rex*x = 1.
(d) For each x' in Sx" there is no more than one x in Sx such that
xx = 1.

The next characterization of rotundity is important in approximation

theory. It links rotundity to the possession by nonempty convex sets of a
certain nearest point property.

5.1.17 Definition. A nonempty subset A of a metric space M is a set of

uniqueness if, for every element x of M, there is no more than one element y
of A such that d(x, y) = d(x, A). The set A is a set of existence or proximinal
if, for every element x of M, there is at least one element y of A such that
d(x, y) = d(x, A). The set A is a Chebyshev set if, for every element x of M,
there is exactly one element y of A such that d(x,y) = d(x,A); that is, if A
is both a set of uniqueness and a set of existence.

5.1.18 Theorem. Suppose that X is a normed space. Then the following

are equivalent.
(a) The space X is rotund.
(b) Every nonempty convex subset of X is a set of uniqueness.
(c) Every nonempty closed convex subset of X is a set of uniqueness.
PROOF. It will first be shown that (a) =?- (b). Suppose that X is rotund,
that C is a nonempty convex subset of X, and that Xo EX. The goal is to
show that there are not two or more points of C closest to Xo. Since y is a
point of C closest to Xo if and only if y - Xo is a point of - Xo + C closest to 0,
it may be assumed that Xo = O. It may also be assumed that d(O, C) > 0
and then, after multiplying each point of C by the same positive constant,
that d(O, C) = 1. Suppose that Cl and C2 are points of C closest to O. Then
Ilcili = IIC211 = 1, so
{tCl + (1 - t)C2 : 0 ~ t ~ I} ~ C n Bx ~ Sx.
Since X is rotund, it follows that Cl = C2, which proves that (a) =?- (b).
It is clear that (b) =?- (c), so all that remains to be shown is that (c) =?- (a).
Suppose that X is not rotund. Then there is a line segment in Sx of the
form {tXl + (1 - t)X2 : 0 ~ t ~ I}, where Xl =I- X2. This line segment is a
nonempty closed convex subset of X such that each of its infinitely many
points is at the same distance from the origin. The failure of (a) therefore
implies the failure of (c).

5.1.19 Corollary. (M. M. Day, 1941 [47]). If a normed space is rotund and
reflexive, then each of its nonempty closed convex subsets is a Chebyshev
set.
436 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

PROOF. Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a rotund reflex-

ive normed space X and let Xo be an element of X. Then there is a se-
quence (Yn) in C such that limn llYn - xoll = d(xo, C). By the reflexivity
of X, there is some subsequence (Yn;) of the bounded sequence (Yn) that
converges weakly to some Yo. Then Yo E C since C is weakly closed, and Yo
is a point of C closest to Xo since an application of Theorem 2.5.21 shows
that

d(xo, C) :::; Ilyo - xoll :::; liminf llYn; - xoll = d(xo, C).
J

Therefore there is at least one point of C closest to Xo. Notice that the
rotundity of X has not yet been used.
Finally, the rotundity of X implies that C is a set of uniqueness, so
there is no other point of C besides Yo closest to Xo. Thus, the set C is
Chebyshev.

It was shown in the proof of the preceding corollary that if a normed

space X is reflexive, then each of its nonempty closed convex subsets is a
set of existence. Conversely, it can be shown, as a straightforward corollary
of James's theorem that appears in the optional Sections 1.13 and 2.9, that
a Banach space is reflexive if every nonempty closed convex subset of the
space is a set of existence, and a tiny bit of extra work based on a result of
Jorg Blatter then shows that a norrned space is reflexive if every nonernpty
closed convex subset of the space is a set of existence; see Exercise 5.11.
Combining this with Theorem 5.1.18 and Corollary 5.1.19 shows that a
normed space is rotund and reflexive if and only if each of its nonempty
closed convex subsets is a Chebyshev set. This important result is sometimes
called the Day-James theorem.
The last characterization of rotundity to be given here characterizes the
property in terms of itself. One important ingredient in the characterization
is the following obvious result.

5.1.20 Proposition. If a Ilormed space is rotund, then so is each of its

subspaces.

As a trivial consequence of this and the fact that every normed space
is a subspace of itself, a normed space is rotund if and only if each of its
subspaces is rotund. The following is a far better result along these lines.

5.1.21 Proposition. A normed space is rotund if and only if each of its

two-dimensional subspaces is rotund.
PROOF. Suppose that X is a normed space that is not rotund. It is enough
to find a two-dimensional subspace of X that is not rotund. Let Xl and X2
be distinct members of S x such that ~ (Xl + X2) E S x. If there were a
scalar a such that Xl = aX2, then 1 and a would be different scalars
 5.1 Rotundity 437

.
of absolute value 1 such that ~ (1 + a) also has absolute value 1, which
would contradict the rotundity of IF. It follows that Xl and X2 are linearly
independent. Therefore ({Xl, X2}) is a two-dimensional subspace of X that
~~~~.

Proposition 5.1.20 leads naturally to the question of whether quotient

spaces formed from rotund normed spaces must be rotund. Perhaps sur-
prisingly, the answer is no, even for Banach spaces. The following example
is from a 1959 paper by Victor Klee [137].

5.1.22 Example. This is a continuation of Example 5.1.S. The reader

should review the following items from that example: property (3) of the
functions f m, the definition of the sets Am and C, the fact that if (an) E C
then Ian I ~ 1 for each n, the fact that C is the closed unit ball of the rotund
Banach space 1,,., and the fact that II (an)lIr < 1 whenever (an) E l,r and
l:n fm(n) (Ianl) < 1.
Let Y be any separable nonrotund Banach space; for example, either Co
or 1 will do. Let D be a countable dense subset of By and let 9 be a
function from N onto D such that g(Am) ~ m";.l By for each m. Define
T: l,r --> Y by the formula T((a n )) = l:n ang(n); notice that the sum
is absolutely convergent, so there is no problem with the definition. The
function T is clearly linear.
Most of the remaining work in this example involves showing that T
maps the open unit ball of l,r onto the open unit ball of Y. To this end,
it will first be shown that T(C) ~ By. Suppose that (an) E C. Then

IIT(an)1I = IlL n
ang(n)11

~ L( L
m nEA~
lanl m: 1)
~ L(
m
L
nEA~
fTT1(la n l))
= L fm(n) (Ianl)
n

~ 1,

as claimed. Notice that this also shows that T is bounded, since C = B i,r .
Let Ui,,, and Uy be the open unit balls of l,r and Y respectively. It will
now be shown that T(Uil r) 2 Uy. Suppose that y E Uy. Since 112yll < 2,
the open balls of radius l' centered at 2y and the origin intersect (at y, for
438 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

example), so there is a d l in D such that

Since 114y - 2d l l < 2, there is a d 2 in D such that

114y - 2d l - d2 11 < 1.
Since 118y - 4d l - 2d2 11 < 2, there is a d3 in D such that
118y - 4d l - 2d2 - d3 11 < 1.
Continuing in the obvious fashion produces a sequence (d n ) in D such that

for each positive integer k, so y = Ln 2- n d n . Rearranging the terms of

the sequence (2- n ) and interspersing zeros where necessary produces a
member (rn) of 1,,. such that T(rn) = y. It follows from property (3) of
the functions fm that Ln fm(n)(rn) < 1, so (rn) E Ul 1 r This proves that
T(Uc1,J :2 Uy . An immediate consequence of this is that T(1\,.) = Y, so
T is an open mapping. Since Uy ~ T(Ul l r) ~ By and T(Uc l J is open, it
must be that T(Ue, ,) = U y . ' ,
By the first isomorphism theorem for Banach spaces, there is an isomor-
phism S from 1,,./ ker(T) onto Y. A glance at the proof of that theorem
shows that S is the map from Theorem 1.7.13 such that T = S7f, where 7f is
the quotient map from 1,,. onto 1,,./ ker(T). Let Ue"r/ ker(T) be the open
unit ball of l,,./ker(T). Then 7f(UC1 ,r) = Ue",./ker(T) by Lemma 1.7,11.
Since T(Ue,.,) = Uy, it must be that S(UC"r/ker(T = Uy. It follows that
S is an isometric isomorphism from 1,,./ ker(T} onto Y. Thus, the quotient
space 1,,./ ker(T) of 1,1' is not rotund even though 1,1' is.

It does turn out that if X is a rotund normed space and M is a closed

subspace of X that is a set of existence in X, then X / M is rotund. See
Exercise 5.13.
Direct sums do a better job of preserving rotundity than do quotients.

5.1.23 Theorem. Suppose that Xl,.'" Xn are normed spaces. Then

Xl EEl ... EEl Xn js rotund jf and only if each Xj is rotund.
PROOF. This proof is based on the rotundity of real ~. It may be assumed
that n = 2, for then an obvious induction argument based on the fact that
(Xl EEl . EEl X k - 1 ) EEl X k is isometrically isomorphic to Xl EEl EEl X k when
2 ::.:; k ::.:; n yields the general case.
Suppose first that either Xl or X 2 is not rotund. It follows from Propo-
sition 1.8.10 (a) that Xl EEl X 2 has a subspace isometrically isomorphic to
this nonrotund space, so Xl EEl X 2 is itself not rotund.
 5.1 Rotundity 439

Now suppose conversely that both Xl and X 2 are rotund. Let (Xl,X2)
and (YI,Y2) be different members of SX, fBX 2 The proof will be finished
once it is shown that 11~(xl + YI,X2 + Y2)11 < 1. Notice that

If either Ilxlll =l-IIYlll or IIx211 =I- IIY211, then it follows from the rotundity of
real ~ that

II ~(XI + YI, X2 + Y2) II = II Hlixi + YIII,IIX2 + Y211) 112

::; IIHllxll1 + IIYIII, IIx211 + IIY211)112
< 1,
as required. Thus, it may be assumed that IlxI11 = IIYIII and IIx211 = IIY211
It may also be assumed without loss of generality that Xl =I- YI. Then

by the rotundity of X I. Therefore

II ~ (Xl + YI, X2 + Y2) II = II Hlixi + yIiI, IIx2 + Y211) 112

< IIHllxll1 + IlytIi, IIX211 + IIY211)112
= 1,
which finishes the proof.

Much more could be said about basic rotundity, but for the purposes of
this book it is time to move on to some of its special forms. The reader
interested in learning more about rotundity in general should see Day's
book [56, pp. 144~ 151] for an excellent brief discussion of it, and Istratescu's
book [107] for a more thorough introduction to the subject.

Exercises
5.1 Suppose that (Xn) is a sequence of normed spaces and that 1 ~ P < =.
Then the Cp sum lp((Xn)) of the sequence (Xn) is the collection of all
sequences (xn) such that Xn E Xn for each nand LnllxnllP is finite,
along with the obvious vector space operations and the norm defined by
the formula

Prove that all of this really does define a normed space, and that lp (( X n))
is a Banach space if and only if each Xn is a Banach space.
440 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

5.2 With all notation as in the preceding exercise, suppose that 1 < p < 00.
Prove that fp((Xn)) is rotund if and only if each Xn is rotund. You
may use the fact about the rotundity of certain Lebesgue spaces that is
mentioned in Example 5.1.4.
5.3 Prove that if K is a compact Hausdorff space having more than one
element, then rca(K) is not rotund.
5.4 This exercise assumes some knowledge of inner product spaces. See, for
example, [24J (in which such spaces are called pre-Hilbert spaces) or [202J.
Prove that every inner product space is rotund.
5.5 Suppose that X is a normed space. Prove that the following are equivalent.
(a) The space X is rotund.
(b) Whenever (Xn) is a sequence in Sx and there is a member x of Sx'
such that limn x'X n = 1, all weakly convergent subsequences of (Xn)
have the same limit.
(c) Whenever (Xn) is a sequence in Sx and there is a member x of Sx'
such that limn x'xn = 1, all convergent subsequences of (Xn) have
the same limit.
5.6 (P. R. Beesack, E. Hughes, and M. Ortel, 1979 [22]). Suppose that X is
a complex normed space. Prove that the following are equivalent.
(a) The space X is rotund.
(b) For each pair Xl and X2 of different members of Sx, there is a
scalar a X" X2 such that Ilaxl,x2xl + (1 - ax" x2)x211 <
1.
5.7 Prove that a normed space is rotund if and only if no two closed balls in
the space having disjoint interiors intersect at more than one point.
5.8 If C is a nonempty closed convex subset of a Hausdorff TVS X, then an
element Xe of C is an exposed point of C if there is an x in X' such that
Re x is bounded from above on C and attains its supremum on C at Xe
and only at Xe. (This definition was previously given in Exercise 2.112, in
which it was shown that the property of being an exposed point is properly
stronger than that of being an extreme point.) Prove that a normed space
is rotund if and only if every point of its unit sphere is an exposed point
of its closed unit ball.
5.9 Prove that if X is a Banach space that is not zero- or one-dimensional,
then there is a nonrotund norm on X equivalent to the original norm.
5.10 Suppose that X is a normed space and that there is a one-to-one bounded
linear operator T from X into a rotund normed space Y. Prove that the
formula IIXllr = Ilxll + IITxl1 defines a rotund norm for X equivalent to its
original norm 1111.
5.11 This exercise requires James's theorem from either of the optional Sections
1.13 and 2.9.
(a) Prove that if every nonempty closed convex subset of a Banach space
is a set of existence, then the space is reflexive.
 5.2 Uniform Rotundity 441

(b) Prove that a Banach space is rotund and reflexive if and only if each
of its nonempty closed convex subsets is a Chebyshev set.
(c) It is a 1976 result of Jorg Blatter [30J that a normed space is complete
if every nonempty closed convex subset of the space has an element
of minimum norm. Use this result to improve parts (a) and (b) of
this exercise by replacing "Banach space" with "normed space."
5.12 (a) Show that every reflexive subspace of a normed space is a set of
existence.
(b) Show that every nonempty weakly compact subset of a normed space
is a set of existence.
(c) Show that every nonempty weakly* compact subset of the dual space
of a normed space is a set of existence.
5.13 (a) Prove that if M is a subspace of a rotund normed space X and M
is a set of existence in X, then XjM is rotund. (Notice that the fact
that M is a set of existence implies that it is closed. Why?)
(b) From parts (a) of this exercise and Exercise 5.12, conclude that if
M is a reflexive subspace of a rotund normed space X, then XjM
is rotund. (This is a 1959 result of Victor Klee [137J.)

5.2 Uniform Rotundity

By Proposition 5.1.2, a normed space is rotund if and only if every nontriv-
ial straight line segment whose endpoints lie in the unit sphere of the space
has its midpoint in the interior of the closed unit ball. This leads naturally
to the question of how far into the interior of the closed unit ball the mid-
point of such a segment must be if the segment has some minimum positive
length, since this is a measure of the "amount of rotundity" the space has.
As will be seen in Example 5.2.13, it is quite possible for a normed space X
to be rotund and yet for there to be sequences (xn) and (Yn) in Sx such
I
that Ilxn-Ynll is bounded away from 0 even though supn ~(Xn + Yn)11 = 1.
It seems reasonable to call a normed space X uniformly rotund if this does
not happen; that is if, for every positive f, there is a positive /5 depending
on f such that 11~(x + y)11 :s
1 - /5 whenever x, Y E Sx and Ilx - yll : :;.
f.

5.2.1 Definition. (J. A. Clarkson, 1936 [41]). Let X be a normed space.

Define a function Ox: [0,2J --+ [0, 1J by the formula

bx(f) = in{ l-II~(x + y)11 : x,y E Sx, !Ix - yli :::;. f}

if X 1= {O}, and by the formula

if E = 0;
ifO<E:S2
442 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

if X = {O}. Then 8x is the modulus of rotundity or modulus of convexity

of X. The space X is uniformly rotund or uniformly convex if {j x (f) > 0
whenever 0 < f ::; 2.

It is easy to see that for each normed space X, the modulus of rotundity
is a nondecreasing function of f such that {j x (0) = O. It is also clear that if
M is a subspace of X, then {j M (f) ~ 8x (f) when 0 ::; f ::; 2. Furthermore,
if X is a real one-dimensional normed space, then

if f = 0;
if 0 < f ::; 2,

which means that the definition of b{O} given above is exactly what is needed
to avoid having exceptions for the zero-dimensional case to the properties
given at the beginning of this paragraph.
The first portion of this section is devoted to obtaining Theorem 5.2.5,
which gives some alternative formulas for the modulus of rotundity that
are often used as its definition. These formulas are not actually used in any
crucial way later in this book. The main reason for developing them is to
give some examples of a certain type of argument involving the geometry
of two-dimensional real normed spaces that is often encountered in the
theory of normed spaces but that has not yet been used in this book.
A generous amount of detail will be provided to illustrate how much care
must be taken to avoid making unwarranted assumptions about the relative
positions of objects such as lines and points in the plane when carrying
out such an argument, as well as other unjustified assumptions based on
possibly unsupported intuition about the shape of closed unit balls.

5.2.2 Lemma. Suppose that X is a two-dimensional real normed space.

Then S x is connected. Moreover, if x* E X*, then { x : XES x, x* x ~ 0 }
is connected.
PROOF. Only the second statement in the conclusion needs to be proved,
since the first then follows by letting x* = O. By an easy argument involv-
ing the facts that X is isometrically isomorphic to a normed space with
underlying vector space ]R2 and that continuous functions preserve con-
nectedness, it may be assumed that the vector space underlying X is the
same vector space]R2 that underlies ~. Let 11llx be the norm function of X
and let x* be a member of X*. Define a map f: {x: x E Se~, x*x ~ O}---->
{x : x E Sx, x*x ~ O} by the formula f(x) = Ilxllx1X. It is easy to
check that f is continuous and has range {x : x E Sx, xx ~ O}. Since
{x : x E Se~, xx ~ O} is either a circle or a closed semicircle, it is con-
nected, and therefore {x : XES x, x* x 2: 0 } is also connected.

5.2.3 Lemma. Suppose that X is a normed space that is not zero-dimen-

sional if IF = C and is neither zero- nor one-dimensional if IF = R If
 5.2 Uniform Rotundity 443

Xo 0

(a) (b)

FIGURE 5.1. Two diagrams for the proof of Lemma 5.2.3.

Xo E Sx and Yo E Ex, then there are members Xl and Yl of Sx such that

Xl-Yl =Xo -Yo and II~(XI +ydll ~ 1I~(xo+Yo)ll
PROOF. Since X is a real normed space when multiplicat.ion of vectors by
scalars is restricted to IR x X, and since a one-dimensional complex normed
space becomes a two-dimensional real normed space when treated this way,
it may be assumed that IF = IR, and then that X is two-dimensional, and,
for purposes of visualization, that the vector space underlying X is JR.2 . It
may also be assumed that IIYol1 < 1.
Let X* be a member of X* whose kernel is the line through Xo and -Xo
and such that x*Yo ~ O. Then the set {x: x E Sx, x*x ~ O} is connected
due to the preceding lemma. Since

Ilxo + Yo - xoll = Ilyoll < 1

and

II-xo + Yo - xoll ~ 211 xoll - IIYol1 > 1,

the intermediate value theorem for connected sets assures that there is an Xl
in {x : xESx, x* x ~ 0 }, necessarily different from both Xo and - xo, such
that IIxl + Yo - xoll = 1. Let Yl = Xl + Yo - Xo Then Xl,Yl E Sx and
Xl - Yl = Xo - Yo, so all that remains to be proved is that II ~(Xl + Yl)11 ~
11~(xo+Yo)ll
If Zl E Ex and Z2 E Ex, then tZl + (1- t)Z2 E Ex when 0 < t < 1; this
follows from the triangle inequality as well as from Lemma 2.2.18. This fact
will be used repeatedly in the following arguments. Let Zl, Z2 represent the
straight line (not just a straight line segment) through the points Zl and Z2
in X when Zl i= Z2. In Figure 5.1 (a), the set Wo is the set of all points on
or above Xo, -Xo and on or to the left of xo, -Xl, while l-VI is the set of all
points strictly above Xl, -xo and strictly to the left of Xo: Xl. Notice that
the parallelogram with vertices xo, Xl, -xo, and -Xl lies in Ex by an easy
convexity argument, and the interior of that parallelogram lies in Ex. It
has already been shown that, with the points Xo, -xo, and Xl arranged as
444 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

they are in Figure 5.1 (a), the point Yo lies on or above xo, -Xo. If Yo were
strictly to the left of Xo, Xl, then it would follow that either Yo E Wo or
YI E WI' However, either case would place one of the two points Xo and Xl
in the "interior" of a straight line segment with one endpoint in Bx and
the other in B1:, which would imply that either Xo or Xl is in B1:. This
contradiction shows that Yo lies on or to the right of xo, Xl. If Yo were to
lie on this line, then an easy argument involving the location of YI would
show that IlxI11 < 1, another contradiction. Therefore Yo lies strictly to the
right of XO,XI'
Since -Xo and -Xl are different elements of Sx, it follows that the points
of -xo, -Xl lying on or above Xo, -Xo all have norm at least 1, so no point
on Xo, Yo strictly between Xo and Yo can intersect -Xo, -Xl, nor can Yo
lie on that line; see Figure 5.1 (b). Thus, the point Yo lies strictly to the
left of -xo, -Xl' Since xo, Xl, 0, Xl - Xo, and -xo, -Xl are parallel, it also
follows that ~ (xo+yo), denoted by mo in Figure 5.1 (b), lies strictly between
xo, Xl and 0, Xl - Xo. Therefore 0, ~ (xo + Yo) intersects xo, Xl somewhere
on or above Xo, -Xo and at a point of 0, ~ (xo + Yo) that is reached by
traveling from 0 to ~ (xo + Yo) and then beyond.
The point to the preceding argument is that there are real numbers S
and t such that s > 1 and t 2': 0 that satisfy the equation
S
-(xo
2
+ Yo) = Xo + t(XI - xo).

It follows easily that

If t ::; 1, then

Ilxo + t(XI - xo)11 ::; 1 ::; Ilxo + (t + S)(XI - xo)ll

If t > 1, then the facts that IlxI11 = 1, that Ilxo + (t + S)(XI
- xo)11 2': 1,
and that Xo + t(XI - xo) lies on the straight line segment connecting Xl to
Xo + (t + S)(XI - xo) together assure that
Ilxo + t(XI xo)11 ::; Ilxo + (t + S)(XI - xo)ll
-
In either case, it follows that I ~s(xo + Yo) I ::; II ~S(XI + YI) II, and therefore
that 11~(xo+yo)ll::; 11~(xI+ydll
5.2.4 Lemma. Suppose that X is a normed space, that 0 < E < 2, and
that X and yare members of Sx such that Ilx - yll = E. Then there are
sequences (xn) and (Yn) in Sx such that Ilxn-Ynll > E for each n and such
that limn Xn = X and limn Yn = y.
PROOF. It may be assumed that X is a two-dimensional real normed space
whose underlying vector space is IR2. Let X* be a nonzero member of X*
 5.2 Uniform Rotundity 445

x y

~(x-y) ~(y - x)
o

-y -x

FIGURE 5.2. A diagram for the proof of Lemma 5.2.4.

such that x*(x - y) = O. If xx = 0, then it would follow that x, y E

Sx n ker x and therefore that Ilx - yll is either 0 or 2, a contradiction. It
may therefore be assumed that xx = x*y = 1. For each real number 8,
let H{j = {z : z E X, x*z = 8}. The topmost horizontal line in Figure 5.2
represents HI. The convexity of Bx assures that the parallelogram whose
vertices are x, y, -x, and -y lies in Bx. The conclusion of the lemma is
immediate if the straight line segment HI n Bx has length greater than E,
so it may be assumed that x and yare the endpoints of HI n Bx.
Suppose that Hr;o n Bx were to have length E for some 80 such that
o < 80 < 1. Then some point of S x would lie on the line through x
and -y somewhere strictly between those points, which would imply that
II ~ (x - y) II = 1. Since II x - y II = f < 2, this is a contradiction. Therefore
HIj n Bx has length greater than f when 0 < 8 < 1. Let (8n ) be a sequence
of positive real numbers strictly increasing to 1. For each positive integer n,
let Xn and Yn be the endpoints of H6 n nBx such that Xn is on or to the left
of the line through x and -Y in Figure 5.2 and Yn is on or to the right of
the line through y and -x. Notice that Xn, Yn E Sx and Ilx n - Yn II > f for
each n. Because of the compactness of Sx, it may be assumed that there are
elements Xo and Yo of Sx such that limn Xn = Xo and limn Yn = Yo. Since
Xo, Yo E HI n Sx and Ilxo - Yoll 2: f, it follows that x = Xo and Y = Yo.

5.2.5 Theorem. Suppose that X is a normed space that is not zero-dimen-

sional if IF = C and is neither zero- nor one-dimensional if IF = JR. Let 8x
be the modulus of rotundity of X. Then
8X(E) = inf {l-II~(x + y)11 : x, y E B x , IIx - yl 2: f}
= inf {l-II~(x +y)11 : X,y E sx, Ilx - yll = E}
= in{ l-IIHx + y)11 : X,y E B x , Ilx - yll = f}
when 0 ::; f ::; 2, and

8X(f) = inf {l-II~(x + y)1I : x, y E Sx, Ilx - yll > f}

= in{ l-II~(x + y)1I : x,y E B x , IIx - yll > f}
when 0 ::; f < 2.
446 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

PROOF. It may be assumed that IF = R Let Ox be as in Definition 5.2.1 and

let 01, 02, 03, 04, and 05 be the five infima in the statement of this theorem
in the order in which they occur. The first claim is that OX(E) = 01(10)
when 0 ::; E ::; 2. Suppose that 0 < EO ::; 2, that Xo, Yo E Ex, and that
Ilxo - Yoll 2: fO To prove the claim, it is enough to show that OX(EO) ::;
1-11 ~(xo + Yo) II It may be assumed that Xo E Sx. By Lemma 5.2.3, there
are members Xl and Yl of Sx such that Ilxl - Ylil = Ilxo - Yoll 2: EO and
II~(XI +ydll2: 11~(xo +Yo)ll, so
h(Eo) ::; 1 -II~(XI + ydll ::; l-II~(xo + Yo)ll
Therefore OX(E) = Ol(E) when 0 ::; E ::; 2, as claimed. A similar argument
shows that 84(E) = 85(E) when 0::; E < 2.
The next claim is that 8X(E) = 04(10) when 0 ::; 10 < 2. To show this,
suppose that 0 < El < 2, that X2, Y2 E Sx, and that IIx2 - Y211 = 101.
It is enough to show that 84 (Ed -::: 1 - 11~(X2 + Y2)11. By Lemma 5.2.4,
there are sequences (v n ) and (w n ) in Sx such that Ilv n - wnll > 101 for
each n and such that limn v" = X2 and limn Wn = Y2. It follows that
84 (Ed -::: 1 - 11~(Vn + wn)11 for each n, so passing to the limit yields the
inequality needed to prove the claim.
It is next claimed that 82(E) = 8:'!(E) when 0 -::: E ::; 2. Suppose that
o < E2 -::: 2, that X:,!, Y3 E Ex, and that IIx3 - Y311 = 102. To prove the claim,
it suffices to show that 82(102) ::; l-II~(X3 + Y3)11. Suppose for the moment
that X3 and Y3 both have norm less than 1. Then there are two closed line
segments of length 102 on the line through X3 and Y3 such that each segment
has one endpoint in Sx and the other in Ex. Since ~(X3 + Y3) is a convex
combination of the midpoints of these two segments, the midpoint of at least
I II,
one of the segments has norm at least ~ (X3 + Y3) so it may be assumed
that X3 E Sx. Lemma 5.2.3 then produces clements X4 and Y4 of Sx
such that IIx4 - Y411 = II x 3 - Y311 = 10 2 and 11~(x4 + Y4)11 2: H(X3 + Y3)11
Therefore

as required for the claim.

The final claim needed to prove the theorem is that 8X (E) = 82(f) when
o -:: E ::; 2. Suppose that 0 < 103 < 2 and that X5 and Y5 are elements
of Sx such that IIx5 - Y511 2: E3- It is enough to show that 82 (E3) <::;
I II
1 - ~ (X5 + Y5) The closed line segment with endpoints X5 and Y5 in-
cludes a closed line segment of length exactly E3 centered at ~ (X5 + Y5),
which by the argument of the preceding paragraph produces elements X6
and Y6 of Sx such that IIx6 - Y611 = 103 and 11~(x6 + Y6)11 2: 11~(x5 + Y5)11
Therefore

which finishes the proof of the claim and of the theorem.

 5.2 Uniform Rotundity 447

It is time to leave the general study of the modulus of rotundity and to

focus on uniform rotundity. Notice that if X is a uniformly rotund normed
space with modulus of rotundity 8x and x and yare different elements
of Sx, then 11~(x + y)11 ::; 1 - 8x (11x - yll) < 1, which proves the most
basic fact about uniformly rotund normed spaces.

5.2.6 Proposition. Every uniformly rotund normed space is rotund.

As is true for rotundity, uniform rotundity is not always preserved by iso-

morphisms. For example, real Euclidean 2-space is clearly uniformly rotund
even though it is isomorphic to real fi, a nonrotund space. The following
statement, whose proof is obvious, is about all that can be said in this
direction.

5.2.7 Proposition. Every normed space that is isometrically isomorphic

to a uniformly rotund normed space is itself uniformly rotund.

Though the definition of uniform rotundity allows its nature to be visu-

alized easily, the following sequential characterizations of the property are
sometimes easier to use in applications.

5.2.8 Proposition. Suppose that X is a normed space. Then the following

are equivalent.
(a) The space X is uniformly rotund.
(b) Whenever (xn) and (Yn) are sequences in Sx and II ~ (xn + Yn) II -+ 1,
it follows that Ilx n - Ynll -+ O.
(c) Whenever (xn) and (Yn) are sequences in Bx and 11~(Xn +Yn)ll-+ 1,
it follows that Ilx n - Ynll -+ O.
(d) Whenever (xn) and (Yn) are sequences in X and Ilxnll, llYn II, and
11~(xn + Yn)11 all tend to 1, it follows that Ilxn - Ynll-+ O.
PROOF. Suppose that (b) holds and that (xn) and (Yn) are sequences in X
such that IIxnll -+ 1, IIYnl1 -+ 1, and II ~(Xn + Yn)11 -+ 1. It will be shown
that Ilxn - Ynll -+ O. By discarding terms from the beginning of the se-
quences if necessary, it may be assumed that no Xn or Yn is O. Then
1 2: II Hllxnll-1xn + IIYnll-1Yn) II
2:11~(Xn + Yn)II-II~(1-llxnll-l)Xnll-II~(I- IIYnll-1)Ynll
-+ 1,

so IIHllxnll-1xn + IIYnll-1Yn) II -+ 1. Since 1lllxnll-1xn - IIYnll-1Ynll -+ 0

by (b), it follows that
Os Ilxn .- Ynll
S 1lllxnll-1xn -IIYnll-1Ynll + 11(1-llxn ll- 1)X n ll + 11(1 -IIYnll-1)Ynll
-+ O.
448 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

Therefore Ilxn - Ynll --+ 0, which establishes that (b) :::;. (d).
Now suppose that (d) holds and that (xn) and (Yn) are sequences in Bx
such that 11~(Xn + Yn)11 --+ 1. Since 11~(Xn + Yn)11 ~ Hllxnll + IIYnl!) for
each n, it follows that Ilxnll --+ 1 and llYn II --+ 1, so Ilx n - Ynll --+ 0 by (d).
Therefore (d) =} (c), from which it follows that (b) {:} (c) {:} (d).
Suppose that X is uniformly rotund and that (xn) and (Yn) are se-
quences in Sx such that II ~(Xn + Yn)11 --+ 1 but Ilxn - Ynll does not tend
to O. Let Ox be the modulus of rotundity of X. It follows that there is a
subsequence (x nj ) of (xn) such that Ilxnj - Ynj II ;::: f for some positive f
and each j, which implies that 11~(Xnj +Ynj)1I ~ 1- OX(f) for each j, a
contradiction. Therefore (a) =} (b).
Finally, suppose that X is not uniformly rotund. Then there is an f such
that 0 < f ~ 2 but OX(f) = O. Therefore there are sequences (xn) and (Yn)
in Sx such that Ilxn -Ynll;::: f for each n but 11~(Xn+Yn)II--+ 1, so (b)
does not hold. This shows that (b) =} (a).

One very important class of uniformly rotund Banach spaces is that of the
spaces Lp(n, I:, J1.), where J1. is a positive measure on a a-algebra I: of subsets
of a set nand 1 < p < 00; notice that this includes the spaces lp and i;
such that 1 < p < 00 and n is a nonnegative integer. The uniform rotundity
of these spaces was first established in 1936 by James Clarkson [41] in the
same paper in which he introduced the notions of rotundity and uniform
rotundity. Proofs of this usually begin by establishing some inequality or
inequalities in the scalar field or for the norms of elements of Lp(n, I:, J1.),
and often require the separate consideration of the cases in which 1 < p :S 2
and 2 ~ P < 00; see, for example, Clarkson's paper or [21]. The proof
given here is from [141] and is based on a method from a 1950 paper by
E. J. McShane [166] that does not require the consideration of the two
different cases.
The following lemma is proved in quite a bit more generality than is
needed for the proof of Clarkson's result, but the extra generality will be
required later for the proof of Theorem 5.2.25.

5.2.9 Lemma. For each p such that 1 < p < 00 and each function
A: (0,2] --+ (0,1], there is a function 'Yp,>.; (0,2] --+ (0,1] such that if X
is a uniformly rotund normed space whose modulus of rotundity Ox has
the property that A(E) :S OX(E) when 0 < f ~ 2, then

whenever 0 < t ~ 2 and x and yare members of X such that Ilx - yll ;:::
tmax{llxlI,IIYII}
PROOF. Suppose to the contrary that there were a p such that 1 < p < 00
and a function A: (0,2] --+ (0,1] for which no such function 'Yp,A exists.
 5.2 Uniform Rotundity 449

Let f(t) = (~(1 + t))V /(~(1 + tv)) when 0:::; t :::; 1. It is an easy calculus
exercise to show that f strictly increases on [0,1) to its maximum value
of 1, from which it follows that if X is a normed space and x and yare
members of X such that Ilxll = 1 and lIyll :::; 1, then

11~(x+Y)llv < (H1+lIyll))V <1

Hllxllv + Ilyllv) - ~(1 + Ilyllv) - .
By the supposition of the nonexistence of a function IV,A with the required
properties, there must be a t such that 0 < t :::; 2, a sequence of uniformly
rotund normed spaces (Xn) such that the modulus of rotundity 8xn of
each Xn has the property that >'(E) :::; 8Xn (E) when 0 < E :::; 2, and sequences
(xn) and (Yn) such that for each positive integer n,
(1) X n, Yn E Xn;
(2) Ilxnll = 1 and IIYnll :::; 1;
(3) Ilxn - Ynll ~ tmax{llxnll, IIYnll} = t; and

(4) IIHx n +Yn)II P > (1-~) (l'xnIIP; IIYnIl P ).

Notice that
. 11~(Xn+yn)llv
(5) h,;n Hllxnllp + IIYnllv) = 1.
It is an easy consequence of what has been proved about f that IIYnl1 -+ 1,
so in particular it may be assumed that no Yn is zero. Let Zn = IIYnll-1Yn
for each n. Then Ilzn - Ynll -+ 0, so it may be assumed that Ilxn - znll ~ ~t
for each n. It follows that

for each n. However, it also follows from (5) that

limll~(xn+zn)11
n
=limll~(xn+Yn)11
n
= 1,
a contradiction.

With all notation as in the statement of the preceding lemma, letting >.
be the restriction of the modulus of rotundity of the scalar field to (0,2]
produces the following special case of the lemma, which is what is actually
needed for the proof of Theorem 5.2.11.

5.2.10 Lemma. Suppose that 1 < p < 00. Then there is a function
Ip: (0,2] -+ (0,1] such that

P
la; f3 I :::; (l- rp (t) Ca IP ;lf3I P )

when 0 < t :::; 2 and a and 13 are scalars such that la - 131 ~ t max{lal, If3l}.
450 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

5.2.11 Theorem. (J. A. Clarkson, 1936 [41]). Suppose that {t is a positive

measure on a (J-algebra E of subsets of a set and that 1 < p < 00. Then
Lp(O, E, {t) is uniformly rotund.
PROOF. Suppose that h, 12 E SLp(O,E,p.) and that IIh - hll p 2: E > O. Let

A= { w:wE 0, Ih(w) - h(w)iP 2: ~ (lh(w)iP + Ih(w)IP) },

and observe that Ih(w) - h(w)1 2: (E/4 1 / p ) max{lh(w)l, Ih(w)l} when

w E A. With "fp as in Lemma 5.2.10, it follows from that lemma that

/h(w);h(w)I P::; (1-"f p (4 1E/ p )) Ch(wW;lh(W W )

whenever w E A and that
h(w) + h(w) /P < Ih(wW + Ih(w)IP
1
2 - 2

whenever w E 0, so

l-ii~(h+h)ii== 1nChI P
;lhI
P
_Ih;h/P)d{t

2: i ChiP; -I h; 12 I d{tIhl P
P
)

>
- "fp
(_E)
41/p
r Ihl P+ Ihl P
JA 2
d
{to

Let lA be the indicator function of A. Then

IlhlA - hIAII~ = Ilh - hll~ - { Ih - hiP d{t

1
JO\A

2: fP - E
P
(lhl P + IhI P ) d{t
4 O\A
EP
2: EP - 4(llhll~ + Ilhll~)
EP

2'
from which it follows that max{llhlAllp, IlhlAllp} 2: E/(2 21 / P ). Therefore
1
l-ii'2(h + h)ii p 2:
P
"fp
(f)
4
IlhlAII~ + IlhlAII~
1/ p 2 2: "fp
([)
41/p
fP
2 P+ 2 '
and so

The uniform rotundity of Lp(O, E, {t) follows immediately.

 5.2 Uniform Rotundity 451

5.2.12 Corollary. Suppose that 1 < p < 00. Then fp is uniformly rotund,
as is f; whenever n is a nonnegative integer.

5.2.13 Example. This is an example of a rotund Banach space that is

not uniformly rotund. For each positive integer n, let Pn = 1 + ~. The
example is based on an observation about the spaces f;", each of which
is itself uniformly rotund by Corollary 5.2.12. It is easy to check that
(1,0), (0, 1) E Si~n' that 11(1,0) - (O,l)IIPn = 2n /(n+1) ?: v'2, and that
IIH(l, 0) + (0,1)) IIPn
= 2- 1/(n+l) for each n. Since limn 2- 1/(n+1) = 1, the
spaces f;"such that n E N are not "uniformly" uniformly rotund. In partic-
ular, if a normed space X has each space f;n such that n E N isometrically
embedded in it, then X cannot be uniformly rotund.
Let X be the collection of all sequences (Xn) such that Xn E f;"
for each n
and I:n Ilxn II;" is finite, along with the obvious vector space operations and
the norm given by the formula

It is not difficult to check that this defines a Banach space; see Exercise 5.1.
Suppose that (Xn ,l), (Xn ,2), H(xn,d + (X n ,2)) E Sx. Then the triangle in-
equalities for f2 and each f;" imply that

= 1,

so each of the two inequality symbols actually represents an equality. It

follows that (1IXn,Iilp,J,(llxn'21Ipn),~((IIXn'11Ipn) + (1Ixn,21Ip,,)) E Se 2 , so
the rotundity of f2 implies that Ilx n ,lllPn = Ilxn,21lPn for each n. It also
follows that Ilx",l + xn ,21lPn = Ilxn,lllPn + Ilx n ,21lPn for each n. Therefore
x n,l = X n,2 for every n by the rotundity of each f;n' which shows that
(Xn,l) = (X n ,2) and thus that X is rotund.
Fix a positive integer m. To show that X is not uniformly rotund, it is
enough to produce a subspace of X isometrically isomorphic to f;m .
Letting

does precisely this.

452 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

It is clear that the Banach space of the preceding example is infinite-

dimensional. As the next result shows, this is an essential property of any
rotund normed space that is not uniformly rotund.

5.2.14 Proposition. A finite-dimensional normed space is uniformly ro-

tund if and only if it is rotund.
PROOF. Suppose that X is a finite-dimensional rotund normed space. It is
enough to show that X is uniformly rotund. Let (x n ) and (Yn) be sequences
in Sx such that Ilx n - Ynll does not tend to O. It is enough to show that
111 (Xn + Yn) II does not tend to 1. After thinning the sequences, it may be
assumed that there is a positive t such that Ilx n - Yn II ::::0: I: for each nand
that there are elements x and Y of Sx such that Xn --+ x and Yn --+ y. Then
Ilx - yll ::::0: E, and II ~(xn + Yn) II --+ II ~(x + y) II < 1.

As was seen in Example 5.1.8, rotund Banach spaces do not have to be

reflexive. It turns out that uniformly rotund Banach spaces do.

5.2.15 The Milman-Pettis Theorem. (D. P. Milman, 1938 [169]; B. J.

Pettis, 1939 [183]). Every uniformly rotund Banach space is reflexive.
PROOF. This proof is due to Lindenstrauss and Tzafriri [157, p. 61]. Sup-
pose that X is a uniformly rotund Banach space, which may be assumed
to be infinite-dimensional, and that x** E Sx'" Let Q be the natural map
from X into X". By Goldstine's theorem, there is a net (Xa)"EI in Bx
such that Qx" ~. x*'. Declaring that (al,J3d::s (a2,J32) when a1::S 02
and J31 ::S (32 then makes (QO(x" + Xj3)))(n,j3)ElxI into a net. An. easy
argument based on Theorem 2.2.9 (g) shows that Q(~(xo: + Xj3)) ~ x**,
so 11~(Xa +.7:,,,)11->
1 by Theorem 2.6.14. It then follows from the uniform
rotundity of X that Ilxo: - xj311 --+ 0, which in turn implies that (x,,) is
a Cauchy net in X. By Proposition 2.1.49, the completeness of X implies
that (xo:) has some limit xo, so Qxa. --+ Qxo Therefore x* = Qxo, so X
is reflexive.

5.2.16 Corollary. If a normed space X is isomorphic to a uniformly rotund

Banach space, then X is reflexive.

Notice that if a property P defined for normed spaces is such that when-
ever a Hormed space X has it then so do all normed spaces isometrically
isomorphic to X, then a normed space (X, 11llx) is isomorphic to some
normed space (Y, 11lly) with property P if and only if there is a norm 1111 p
for X equivalent to 11llx such that (X, II lip ) has property P. The forward
implication comes about by letting IIxlip = IITxlly for each x in X, where T
is the isomorphism, while the converse is obtained by noting that the iden-
tity map on X is an isomorphism from (X, II I x) onto (X, 1111 p). Thus,
 5.2 Uniform Rotundity 453

the preceding corollary can be viewed as the statement that every normed
space with an equivalent uniformly rotund Banach norm is reflexive.
A normed space is called superrefiexive if it can be given a uniformly
rotund norm equivalent to its original norm (though that is not the original
definition of superreflexivity; see [56, pp. 168~ 173] for the original definition
and a proof that it is equivalent to the one given here). It follows from
Corollary 5.2.16 that every superreflexive Banach space is reflexive. Mahlon
Day showed in a 1941 paper [47] that there are reflexive spaces that are
not superreflexive.
In a way, the Milman-Pettis theorem explains why it should not be sur-
prising that the classical nonreflexive Banach spaces examined in the intro-
ductory examples of Section 5.1 are all nonrotund, and why it took so much
work to construct a nonreflexive rotund Banach space in Example 5.1.8.
A nonreflexive rotund Banach space X cannot be uniformly rotund, which
means that while the midpoint of every straight line segment connecting
distinct points on the unit sphere of X must dip into the interior of the
closed unit ball, there is some positive f such that one can always find two
points on the unit sphere at least distance E apart with the midpoint of the
line segment connecting the points taking as shallow a dip into Bx as one
might wish. Such a unit sphere is somewhat oddly shaped.
Incidentally, it follows from the Milman-Pettis theorem that the rotund
nonreflexive Banach space f l ,,. of Example 5.1.8 is another example of a
rotund Banach space that is not uniformly rotund.
By Corollary 5.1.19, every nonempty closed convex subset of a rotund
reflexive normed space is a Chebyshev set, so the following result is an
immediate consequence of the Milman-Pettis theorem.

5.2.17 Corollary. Every nonempty closed convex subset of a uniformly

rotund Banach space is a Chebyshev set.

Recall that a normed space has the Radon-Riesz property if, whenever
(x n ) is a sequence in the space and x an element of the space such that
Xn ~ x and Ilx n II ---> Ilxll, it follows that Xn ---> x. As was discussed in Sec-
tion 2.5, J. Radon and F. Riesz proved that the Lebesgue spaces Lp(O, L:, /1)
such that 1 < p < 00 have this property. It turns out that this is a direct
consequence of the uniform rotundity of those spaces.

5.2.18 Theorem. Every uniformly rotund normed space has the Radon-
Riesz property.
PROOF. Suppose that X is a uniformly rotund normed space and that
(x n ) is a sequence in X and x an element of X such that Xn ~ x and
Ilxnll ---> Ilxll. It is to be shown that Xn ---> x, so it may be assumed that
x -I- 0 and therefore, after discarding some initial terms of (xn) if necessary,
that each Xn is nonzero. Now IIxnll~lxn ~ Ilxll~lx, and it is enough to show
454 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

that IIxnll-1xn -+ Ilxll-Ix, so it may even be assumed that x and each Xn

are in Sx. Since HX n +x) ~ x, the weak lower semicontinuity of the norm
function implies that iiHxn +x)ii-+ 1, so IIxn -xll-+ 0, as required.

5.2.19 Corollary. (J. Radon, 1913 [192]; F. Riesz, 1928-1929 [196, 197]).
Suppose that J-L is a positive measure on a a-algebra E of subsets of a set n
and that 1 < p < 00. Then Lp(n, E, J-L) has the Radon-Riesz property.

Like rotundity, uniform rotundity is inherited by subspaces, as can be

verified by a glance at Proposition 5.2.8. A slightly better proof of this fact
uses an important, though obvious, relationship between the modulus of
rotundity of a normed space and those of its subspaces. That relationship
is given in the next lemma, which was previously stated as an observation
after Definition 5.2.1. The proposition following it is then an immediate
consequence of the definition of uniform rotundity.

5.2.20 Lemma. Suppose that M is a subspace of a normed space X and

that 6M and 6x are the respective moduli of rotundity of the two spaces.
Then 6M (t:) 2 6x(t:) when 0 ~ t: ~ 2.

5.2.21 Proposition. Every subspace of a uniformly rotund normed space

is uniformly rotund.

As was shown in Example 5.1.22, it is possible for a quotient space of a

rotund normed space not to be rotund. In contrast, uniform rotundity is
always inherited by quotient spaces. Two proofs of this will be given, one
that is based on the following lemma and one that is not. Notice that, in
the notation of this lemma, it is not claimed that 6X / M (2) 2 6x (2). The
reason for this will be made clear in the example that follows the lemma.

5.2.22 Lemma. Suppose that M is a closed subspace of a normed space X

and that 6X / M and 6x are the moduli of rotundity of X/M and X respec-
tively. Then 6X / M (t:) 2 6x (t:) when 0 ~ E < 2.
PROOF. It may be assumed that X/M is not zero-dimensional if IF' = C and
is neither zero- nor one-dimensional if IF' = R.. Suppose that x + M, Y + M E
SX/M and that lI(x - y) + Mil> E. By Theorem 5.2.5, it is enough to show
that 1-ii~(x+y)+Mii2 6X(E). It follows from Proposition 1.7.6 that
there are sequences (xn) and (Yn) in X such that Ilxnll 2 1, IIYnl1 2 1,
Xn + M = x + M, and Yn + M = Y + M for each n, and IIxnll -+ 1 and
llYn II -+ 1. Then
iillxnll-IXn -IIYnll-1Ynii
2 IIxn - Ynll- (1 - Ilxnll-1)llxnll- (1 - IIYnll- I )IIYnll
2 II (x - y) + MII- (1Ixnll- 1) - (1IYnll- 1)
 5.2 Uniform Rotundity 455

for each n, so it may be assumed that 1lllxnll-1xn - IIYnll-1Ynll > for

each n. Therefore

OX(E)::; l-IIHllxnll- 1xn + IIYnll-1Yn)II

::; 1 - II ~ (lIxn11-1xn + llYn II-lYn) + Mil
:::; l-II~(xn + Yn) + Mil
+ ~(1 - IIxnll-I)lIxn + Mil + ~(I-IIYnll-l) llYn + Mil
= 1-11~(x + y) + Mil + ~(1-IIXnll-l) + ~(1-IIYnll-l)

for each n, so letting n tend to infinity produces the inequality needed to

prove the lemma.

5.2.23 Example. Let il,r be the rotund nonreflexive Banach space of Ex-
amples 5.1.8 and 5.1.22 and let Oll,r be its modulus of rotundity. It follows
readily from the rotundity of il,r that oll,r(2) = 1; see Exercise 5.14. It was
shown in Example 5.1.22 that if Y is a separable nonrotund Banach space,
then there is a closed subspace M of il,r such that il,r/.M is isometrically
isomorphic to Y, so in particular there is a closed subspace Mo of il,r such
that il,r/Mo is isometrically isomorphic to i~. Then the modulus of rotun-
dity 0ll,rIMo for this quotient space is the same as that for R~, so it follows
easily that Oll,rIMo(2) = O. Therefore Oll,r(2) > OI.I,rIMo(2), which shows
why the preceding lemma was stated and proved only proved for values of E
strictly less than 2.
Incidentally, this example relies on the fact that RI,r is not reflexive. See
Exercise 5.19 for the reason.

5.2.24 Theorem. If M is a closed subspace of a uniformly rotund normed

space X, then X/M is uniformly rotund.
PROOF. This is an immediate consequence of Lemma 5.2.22 and the fact
that moduli of rotundity are nondecreasing functions on [0,2].
Here is another proof that is related to the argument of Lemma 5.2.22
but that does not ultimately rely on Theorem 5.2.5. Suppose that (xn +M)
and (Yn + M) are sequences in SXIM such that II ~(Xn + Yn) + Mil -> 1. It
suffices to show that II(xn - Yn) + Mil -> O. By Proposition 1.7.6, it may
be assumed that

for each n, from which it follows that Ilxnll -> 1. Similarly, it may be
assumed that llYn II -> 1. Since

it also follows that II ~ (xn + Yn) II -> 1, which implies that IIxn - Yn I ---> 0
and therefore that lI(xn - Yn) + Mil -> O.
456 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

As is the case for rotundity, uniform rotundity is preserved by the oper-

ation of taking direct sums. The proof of this to be given here will seem
suspiciously similar to that of Theorem 5.2.11. The reason for this is that
both proofs are generalizations of an argument that can be used to derive
the uniform rotundity of Euclidean n-space for each positive integer n from
the uniform rotundity of the scalar field.

5.2.25 Theorem. Suppose that Xl' ... ' Xn are normed spaces. Then
Xl EEl ... EEl Xn is uniformly rotund if and only if each Xj is uniformly ro-
tund.
PROOF. Suppose first that Xl EEl EElXn is uniformly rotund. Since each Xj
is isometrically isomorphic to a subspace of Xl EEl ... EEl X n , it follows im-
mediately that each Xj is uniformly rotund.
Now suppose instead that each Xj is uniformly rotund. Let (Xl, ... , Xn)
and CYI, ... , Yn) be elements of SX,EB ... EBXn such that

Lct

A = {j :j E {I, ... ,n}, Ilxj _ Yjl12 ~ ~ (11xj112 + IIYjI12) },

and observe that Ilx) - Yjll ~ (E/2)max{lIxjll, IIYjll} for each j in A. Let
'\(8) = min{c5 x1 (8), ... ,c5 xn (8)} when 0 < 8 S 2, where c5 x "..,c5 xn are
the respective moduli of rotundity of the spaces Xl, ... ,Xn . With /2,'>' as
in Lemma 5.2.9, it follows from that lemma that

whenever j E A and that

whenever j E {I, ... , n}, so

 5.2 Uniform Rotundity 457

Furthermore, if B = {I, ... , n} \ A, then

L Ilxj - Yjl12 = II(Xl,'" ,xn ) - (Yl,"" Yn)11 2 - L Ilxj - Yjl12

JEA JEB

2
?: E2 - ~ (11(Xl, .. ' ,xn)112 + II(Yl, ... ,Yn)11 2)
E2
2'
so O:=jEAllxj - YjI12)1/2 ?: t/2 1/ 2, from which it follows that

and so

It follows that Xl ffi ... ffi Xn is uniformly rotund.

There are many sources available for the reader interested in learning
more about uniform rotundity, including [21], [56], [107], [141], and [157]'
as well as Mahlon Day's papers [47H50j.

Exercises
5.14 Prove that if X is a normed space and 6x is its modulus of rotundity,
then X is rotund if and only if 6x(2} = 1.
5.15 Find an explicit formula, in terms only of functions one might encounter
in a precalculus course, for the modulus of rotundity D2 of Euclidean 2-
space. (This formula is important because it provides a simple expression
for the least upper bound of the moduli of rotundity of all uniformly
rotund normed spaces of dimension at least two. It is a 1960 result of
G. Nordlander [176] that if X is a uniformly rotund normed space that
is not zero-dimensional if IF = IC and is neither zero- nor one-dimensional
if IF = 1ft, and if Dx is the modulus of rotundity of X, then DX(E) ::; b2(E}
when 0::; E ::; 2.)
458 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

5.16 This exercise assumes some knowledge of inner product spaces and Hilbert
spaces. See, for example, the references cited in Exercise 5.4.
(a) Suppose that X is an inner product space that is not zero-dimension-
al if IF = C and is neither zero- nor one-dimensional if IF = R Find
an explicit formula for the modulus of rotundity of X in terms only
of functions one might encounter in a precalculus course. (Compare
Exercise 5.15.)
(b) Use the formula found in (a) to show that every inner product space
is uniformly rotund.
(c) Conclude from (b) that every Hilbert space is reflexive.
5.17 The purpose of this exercise is to provide another proof of Theorem 5.2.11
when p 2: 2 that is perhaps a bit more in the spirit of Clarkson's. Let p
be such that 2 :.:; p < 00.
(a) Prove that if 0:, {3 E IF, then

and therefore

Notice that this is a generalization of the well-known parallelogram

law for IF, namely, that

whenever 0:, (3 E IF.

(b) Suppose that p, is a positive measure on a ",-algebra E of subsets of
a set n. Use (a) to prove that Lp(n, E, p,) is uniformly rotund.
5.18 This exercise requires James's theorem from either of the optional Sections
1.13 and 2.9. Suppose that X is a uniformly rotund Banach space.
(a) Show that for each nonzero member x of X, the set

{x: x E X, Rexx = IixlI}

has a unique point closest to the origin. Do not use the Milman-
Pettis theorem or its corollaries to do this (but do look at the be-
havior of the nets in the proof of the Milman-Pettis theorem).
(b) Derive the Milman-Pettis theorem from (a) and James's theorem.
5.19 Suppose that the requirement that M be a set of existence is added to
the hypotheses of Lemma 5.2.22. Then there is a much simpler proof of
the lemma that does not rely on Theorem 5.2.5 and that extends to the
case in which E = 2. Find this proof.
It can be shown that every reflexive subspace of a normed space is a set
of existence; see Exercise 5.12. Since every closed subspace of a reflexive
normed space is reflexive, it follows that Lemma 5.2.22 can be extended
to the case in which E = 2 under the additional hypothesis that X is
reflexive.
 5.3 Generalizations of Uniform Rotundity 459

5.20 (M. M. Day, 1944 [50]). Prove that a normed space X is uniformly rotund
if and only if

inf{ OM(E) : M is a two-dimensional subspace of X} > 0

whenever 0 < E :::; 2, where OM is the modulus of rotundity of the sub-

space M.
5.21 (M. M. Day, 1941 [48]). This exercise uses the notion of the fp sum of
normed spaces developed in Exercise 5.1. Suppose that (Xn) is a se-
quence of normed spaces, that (OXn) is the corresponding sequence of
moduli of rotundity of the spaces, and that 1 < p < 00. Prove that
fp((Xn)) is uniformly rotund if and only if each Xn is uniformly rotund
and infn OXn (E) > 0 when 0 < E :::; 2. (The condition that each Xn be
uniformly rotund has been added only for emphasis, since the condition
involving the infimum of the moduli of rotundity clearly implies it.)

5.22 Suppose that X is a superreflexive Banach space and that Y is a Banach

space such that there is a bounded linear operator from X onto Y. Prove
that Y is superreflexive.

5.23 Prove that the Banach space X of Example 5.2.13 is superreftexive. (Ex-
ercise 5.21 might he helpful.) Conclude that X is a reflexive Banach space
that is rotund but not uniformly rotund.

5.3 Generalizations of Uniform Rotundity

In approximation theory, it is sometimes important to know if a Banach
space X has the property that whenever x is an element of X and (xn)
is a sequence in a closed convex subset C of X such that Ilx - xnll -+
d(x, C), then (xn) converges. For the moment, call this property D; the
definition will appear again later in an equivalent form. As will be seen
below, for a Banach space X to have property D it is necessary that X be
rotund and sufficient that X be uniformly rotund. However, it is known
that there are rotund Banach spaces lacking property D and Banach spaces
that have property D without being uniformly rotund. Thus, property D
can be viewed as a strong form of rotundity that lies properly between
simple rotundity and uniform rotundity.
Many other properties lying properly between rotundity and uniform
rotundity have been defined and studied since Clarkson's introduction of
the notions of rotundity and uniform rotundity in 1936. The purpose of
this section is to examine a few of the more well-known ones. Since such a
study tends to abound with lengthy terms such as "weakly locally uniformly
rotund" and "uniformly rotund in every direction," it is both helpful and
customary to use abbreviations for these terms along with the following
notational scheme.
460 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

5.3.1 Notation. Suppose that P is an abbreviation for a property that

normed spaces can have. Then a normed space X is said to be (P) if it has
property P, and is said to be (P) if there is a norm II lip for X equivalent to
its original norm such that (X, II lip ) is (P). In particular, a normed space is
said to be (UR), (R), (B), (Rf), or (H) ifit is respectively uniformly rotund,
rotund, a Banach space, reflexive, or a Radon-Riesz space. A normed space
that has properties P and Q is said to be (P) & (Q).

For example, the i and ~ norms are equivalent on JF2, so i is not (R) but
is (UR). As further examples, the statement that every uniformly rotund
Banach space is a rotund reflexive Radon-Riesz space can be abbreviated
to (UR) & (B) "*(R) & (Rf) & (H), while the fact that every superreflexive
Banach space is reflexive can be stated symbolically as (UR) & (B) (Rf). "*
The first generalization of uniform rotundity to be examined here is a
localization of that property obtained by requiring that for each fixed x
in the unit sphere of a normed space X and each positive E, there is a
positive 0 depending on E and x such that 11~(x + y)11 S 1 - 0 whenever
y E Sx and Ilx - yll 2': E.

5.3.2 Definition. (A. R. Lovaglia, 1955 [159]). Suppose that X is a normed

space. Define a function ox: [0, 2] x Sx ---> [0, 1] by the formula
8X(E,X) = inf {1-11~(x + y)11 ; y E Sx, Ilx - yll 2': E}.
Then Ox is the L UR modulus of X. The space X is locally uniformly rotund
or locally uniformly convex if 8x (E, x) > 0 whenever 0 < E S 2 and xESx.
The abbreviation LUR is used for this property.

Notice that every zero-dimensional normed space is (LUR) since the

requirement on its LUR modulus is satisfied vacuously. Similar observa-
tions about the other moduli defined later in this section show that zero-
dimensional normed spaces have the rotundity properties defined in terms
of those moduli.
A comparison of the definitions of uniform rotundity and local uniform
rotundity shows that the first implies the second. Also, if X is a locally
uniformly rotund normed space with LUR modulus Ox and x and yare
different elements of Sx, then II ~(x + y) II S 1 - Ox (11x - yll, x) < 1, which
finishes the proof of the following result.

5.3.3 Proposition. Every uniformly rotund normed space is locally uni-

formly rotund, and every locally uniformly rotund normed space is rotund.
In symbols, (UR) "*
(LUR) "*
(R).

In particular, the uniformly rotund normed space f!~ is locally uniformly

rotund though it is isomorphic to the nonrotund normed space i, so lo-
cal uniform rotundity is not preserved by isomorphisms. It certainly is by
isometric isomorphisms.
 5.3 Generalizations of Uniform Rotundity 461

5.3.4 Proposition. Every normed space that is isometrically isomor-

phic to a locally uniformly rotund normed space is itself locally uniformly
rotund.

In general, the strengthenings of rotundity to be studied in this section

are preserved by isometric isomorphisms but not isomorphisms, though this
will not be stated explicitly for any more of these properties. The argument
for isometric isomorphisms will always be obvious, while the argument for
isomorphisms can always be based on ~ as above.
As with uniform rotundity, there are sequential characterizations of local
uniform rotundity that are often used as its definition. Notice that the proof
of the following result is essentially the same as that of Proposition 5.2.8.

5.3.5 Proposition. Suppose that X is a normed space. Then the following

are equivalent.
(a) The space X is locally uniformly rotund.
(b) When x E Sx and (Yn) isasequenceinSx such that 11~(X+Yn)ll-+ 1,
it follows that Ilx - Ynll -+ o.
(c) When x E Sx and (Yn) is a sequence in Ex such that 11~(x + Yn)ll-+ 1,
it follows that Ilx - Ynll -+ o.
(d) When x E Sx and (Yn) is a sequence in X such that IIYnl1 and
II ~ (x + Yn) II both tend to 1, it follows that Ilx - Yn I -> O.
PROOF. Suppose that (b) holds and that x is an element of Sx and (Yn) a
sequence in X such that llYn I and II ~ (x + Yn) II both tend to 1. It will be
shown that Ilx - Yn I -> O. By discarding terms from the beginning of the
sequence if necessary, it may be assumed that no Yn is O. Then

1:::: IIHx+ IIYnll-1Yn)ll:::: 11~(X+Yn)II-II~(1-IIYnll-l)Ynll-+ 1,

so II Hx + IIYnll-1Yn) II -+ 1. Since IIYnll- 1 Yn -> x by (b), it follows that

Yn -+ x, which establishes that (b) =? (d).
Now suppose that (d) holds and that x is an element of Sx and (Yn) a
sequence in Ex such that II ~ (x + Yn) II -+ 1. Since

for each n, it follows that IIYnl1 -> 1, so Ilx - Ynll -> 0 by (d). Therefore
(d) =? (c), from which it immediately follows that (b) <=;. (c) B (d).
Suppose that X is locally uniformly rotund and that x is an element
ofSx and (Yn) a sequence in Sx such that 11~(X+Yn)ll-> 1 but Ilx-Ynll
docs not tend to O. Let Ox be the LUR modulus of X. It follows that there
is a subsequence (Ynj) of (Yn) such that Ilx - Yn J I :::: E for some positive E
and each j, which implies that II!(x + YnJl1 ~ 1 - OX(E,X) for each j, a
contradiction. Therefore (a) =? (b).
462 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

Finally, suppose that X is not locally uniformly rotund. Then there is

an E such that 0 < E :s; 2 and an x in Sx for which 8X (E, x) = O. Therefore
there is a sequence (Yn) in Sx such that Ilx - Yn II ~ E for each n but
II ~(x + Yn)ll----+ 1, so (b) does not hold. This shows that (b) =} (a).

For most of the generalizations of uniform rotundity in this section, exam-

ples will be cited from the work of Mark Smith to show that the properties
are distinct from each other and from rotundity and uniform rotundity.
Space limitations prevent the detailed presentation of all the examples,
but the following one showing that local uniform rotundity does not imply
uniform rotundity will give the flavor of such constructions.

5.3.6 Example. (M. A. Smith, 1978 [219]). This example uses the paral-
lelogram law for 2, namely, that if (an), (f3n) E 2, then

See Exercise 5.24. Also needed is the fact that if (an) E 1, then (an) E 2
and II(an)112 :s; II(an)111. The proof of this is easy: If (an) E Sfp then
lanl :s; 1 for each n, so 2:nlanl2 :s; 2:nlanl = 1 and (an) E B e2 .
For each member (an) of 1, let

It is easy to check that II liE is a norm on 1, and this norm is equivalent

to the usual norm of 1 since lI(a n )111 :s; lI(an)IIE :s; -/211(an)1I1 whenever
(an) E 1'
Suppose that x E SUd' liE) and that (Yk) is a sequence of elements
of Seed liE) such that II ~(x + Yk) I E ----+ 1. For notational convenience, the
element x and each Yk will sometimes be denoted by (an) and (f3n,k) re-
spectively. If u and v are members of a normed space, then

Ilu + vl1 2 :s; (Ilull + Ilvll)2

:s; (Ilull + Ilvll)2 + (liull -lI vll)2
= 2(llu112 + Il vI1 2),

so 2(lIu112 + Ilv112) -Ilu + vl1 2 ~ O. Since

o :s; 2(ll xlli + IIYklli) - Ilx + Yklli + 2(llxll~ + IIYkllD - Ilx + Ykll~
= 2(llxll~ + IIYkll~) - Ilx + Ykll~
= 4- Ilx + Ykll~
for each k, and since 4 - Ilx + Ykll~ ----+ 0, it follows that
 5.3 Generalizations of Uniform Rotundity 463

when j = 1,2. This, together with the fact that

0:::; (1lxlh - IIYklh)2

= 2(ll xlli + IIYklii) - (1lxlh + IIYklh)2
:::; 2(ll xlli + IIYklli) - Ilx + Yklli
for each k, shows that IiYklil --> Ilxlh. Moreover, since

for each k by the parallelogram law, it also follows that Ilx - Ykl12 --> 0, so
f3n,k --> an for each n.
It will now be shown that Ilx - Yk 111 --> O. If x = 0, then this fol-
lows immediately from the fact that IIYklll --> Ilxlll. Suppose instead that
x i= 0. Fix a positive f less than Ilxlh and let m be a positive integer
such that L:~=m+1Ianl < E. Notice that L:::'=llanl > Ilxlh - E. It follows
that L:::'=llf3n,kl > Ilxlll - E for large k, which together with the fact that
L: nlf3n,kl = IiYklil --> Ilxlh implies that L:~=Tn+11f3n,kl < 2E for large k.
Therefore for large k,
m 00 00

n=l n=m+1 n=m+1

which shows that Ilx - Yk III --> O.
It follows from the equivalence of 11111 and II liE that Ilx - YkllE --> 0,
which establishes that (1\, 1111 E) is locally uniformly rotund. By the Mil-
man-Pettis theorem, this Banach space is not uniformly rotund, or even
isomorphic to a uniformly rotund normed space, since it is not reflexive. The
space does have the Radon-Riesz property, and even Schur's property, since
(f 1, II 111) has Schur's property, so (f 1, II II E) is an example of a nonreflexive
Banach space that is not (UR) but is (LUR) & (H).

Smith's paper [219] also contains examples of reflexive Banach spaces

that are locally uniformly rotund without being uniformly rotund, as well
as reflexive and nonreflexive Banach spaces that are rotund but not locally
uniformly rotund.
Although an issue was made of the fact that the Banach space of the
preceding example has the Radon-Riesz property, this is actually true for
every locally uniformly rotund normed space. Notice that the statement
and proof of the following result are obtained from the statement and
proof of Theorem 5.2.18 by just :mbstituting "locally uniformly rotund"
for "uniformly rotund" everywhere it occurs.

5.3.7 Theorem. (R. Vyborny, 1956 [240]). Every locally uniformly rotund
normed space has the Radon-Ricsz property. In symbols, (LUR) :::} (H).
464 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

PROOF. Suppose that X is a locally uniformly rotund normed space and

that (xn) is a sequence in X and x an element of X such that Xn ~ x and
Ilxnll ---f Ilxll. It is to be shown that Xn ---f x, so it may be assumed that
x -I- 0 and therefore, after discarding some initial terms of (xn) if necessary,
that each Xn is nonzero. Now Ilxnll-Ixn ~ IIxll-Ix, and it is enough to show
that Ilxnll-Ixn ---f IIxll-Ix, so it may even be assumed that x and each Xn
are in Sx. Since ~ (xn +x) ~ x, the weak lower semicontinuity of the norm
function implies that II ~ (xn + x) II ---f 1, so II Xn - x II ---f 0, as required.

One reason for the importance of local uniform rotundity is that it im-
parts some of the same benefits, such as the presence of the Radon-Riesz
property, as does uniform rotundity, while far more spaces can be equiv-
alently renormed to be (LUR) than to be (UR). It was shown in a 1971
paper by S. L. Troyanski [232] that every weakly compactly generated Ba-
nach space is (LUR), while no nonreflexive Banach space can be (UR).
The next generalization of uniform rotundity is obtained by letting the
weak topology play the rolc of the norm topology in the definition of uni-
form rotundity, in a sense that will be made clearer by Proposition 5.3.9.

5.3.8 Definition. (V. L. Smulian, 1939, 1940 [223, 224]). Suppose that
X is a normed space. Define a function Ox: [0,2] x Sx' ---f [0,1] by the
formula

bX(E,X*) = inf({l} U {l-II!(x +y)11 : x,y E Sx, Ix*(x - y)1 ~ E}).

Then bx is the wUR modulus of X. The space X is weakly uniformly
rotund or weakly uniformly convex if bX(E,X*) > 0 whenever 0 < f:S: 2 and
x* E SX'. The abbreviation wUR is used for this property.

The reason for specifically including 1 in the set whose infimum defines
the wUR modulus is to keep the modulus finite-valued in one particular
situation. With all notation as in Definition 5.3.8, suppose that some x*
in SX' is not norm-attaining. Then there are no members x and y of Sx
such that Ix*(x - y)1 ~ 2, so bx(2,x*) would be +00 were it not for the l.
As with uniform rotundity and local uniform rotundity, weak uniform
rotundity has sequential characterizations. The next result gives one along
the lines of the equivalence of (a) and (b) in Propositions 5.2.8 and 5.3.5.
The derivation of other characterizations analogous to parts (c) and (d) of
those two propositions is left as an exercise for the interested reader.

5.3.9 Proposition. Suppose that X is a Ilormed space. Then the following

are equivalent.
(a) The space X is weakly uniformly rotund.
(b) Whenever (x n ) and (Yn) are sequences in Sx and 11!(xn + Yn)ll---f 1,
it follows tlJat Xn - Yn ~ O.
 5.3 Generalizations of Uniform Rotundity 465

PROOF. Suppose that (b) fails. Then there are sequences (xn) and (Yn)
I
in Sx and an x* in Sx' such that ~ (xn Yn) + I -+ 1 but X* (Xn - Yn) does
not tend to O. Let Ox be the wUR modulus of X. It follows that there is a
subsequence (xnj ) of (xn) such that Ix' (xn) - Yn)) I 2: E for some positive E
and each j, implying that OX(E,X*)::; 1-11~(Xnj +YnJII for each j and
therefore that () x (E, x*) = O. Therefore X is not weakly uniformly rotund.
Suppose conversely that X is not weakly uniformly rotund. Then there is
an E such that 0 < E ::; 2 and an x' in Sx' for which OX(E) = O. Therefore
there are sequences (xn) and (Yn) in Sx such that Ix*(xn - Yn)1 2: E for
each n but 11~(Xn + Yn)ll-+ 1, so (b) does not hold.

It follows easily from the preceding proposition that weak uniform ro-
tundity lies between uniform rotundity and rotundity.

5.3.10 Proposition. Every uniformly rotund normed space is weakly uni-

formly rotund, and every weakly uniformly rotund normed space is rotund.
In symbols, (UR) =* (wUR) =* (R).
PROOF. Suppose that X is a uniformly rotund normed space. If (xn)
and (Yn) are sequences in Sx such that 11~(Xn + Yn)ll-+1, thenxn-Yn -+ 0
by Proposition 5.2.8, so Xn - Yn ~ O. It follows from Proposition 5.3.9 that
X is weakly uniformly rotund.
Now suppose that X is a normed space that is not rotund. Then there
are distinct elements x and Y of X such that Ilxll = Ilyll = II ~(x + y) I = 1.
Let x* be a member of X* such that x* (x - y) =I- 0 and let Xn = x and
Yn = Y for eaeh positive integer n. Then x* (xn - Yn) does not tend to 0,
which implies that Xn - Yn does not tend weakly to O. An application of
Proposition 5.3.9 shows that X is not weakly uniformly rotund.

Mark Smith's paper [219] contains examples of Banach spaces (l2' II lid
and (l2' 11llw), each formed by putting a norm on l2 equivalent to its orig-
inal norm, such that (l2' II IlL) is (LUR) but not (wUR) while (l2' 11llw)
is (wUR) without being (LUR). This shows that neither of the conditions
(LUR) and (wUR) implies the other, and also shows that weak uniform ro-
tundity does not imply uniform rotundity. Smith also shows that (l2' 1Illw)
lacks the Radon-Riesz property, so (wUR) does not imply (H).
Incidentally, it turns out that the Banach space (i1' II liE) of Exam-
ple 5.3.6 is another Banach space that is (LUR) but not (wUR), since
V. E. Zizler showed in a 1971 paper [248J that II cannot be equivalently
renormed to be (wUR).
There is an obvious analog of weak uniform rotundity for dual spaces
that is obtained by exchanging the roles of the normed space and its dual
in the definition of the wUR modulus. This analog will be examined only
briefly here, but will have an important application in Section 5.6.
466 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

5.3.11 Definition. (V. L. Smulian, 1939, 1940 [223, 224]). Suppose that
X is a normed space. Define a function OX, : [0,2] x Sx ----> [0,1] by the
formula

OX(f,X) = inf {1-11~(x* +y*)II: x*,y* E Sx*, I(x* - y*)(x)1 ~ f}.

Then OX, is the w*UR modulus of X*. The space X* is weakly* uniformly
rotund or weakly* uniformly convex if O' x (f,x) > 0 whenever 0 < I' :S 2
and x E Sx. The abbreviation w*UR is used for this property.

Notice that unlike what was done for the wUR modulus, there is no 1
explicitly included in the set whose infimum is being taken to obtain the
w' UR modulus. This is not needed to assure that 8x- (2, x) is finite when
xESx, since for each x in S X there is an x* in S X' such that x* x = 1
and therefore such that I(x' - (-x')) (x) I = 2.
It should be noted that some sources say that if X is a normed space
such that X* satisfies the above definition of weak* uniform rotundity,
then it is X instead of X' that is called weakly* uniformly rotund. See
[107, p. 71] for an instance of the use of the term in this alternative sense,
and [239, p. 48J for an example of the use of the term the way it has been
defined here.

5.3.12 Proposition. Suppose that X is a normed space. If X* is weakly

uniformly rotund, then it is weakly* uniformly rotund, and if X* is weakly*
uniformly rotund, then it is rotund. In symbols, (wUR) => (w*UR) => (R)
for dual spaces of normed spaces.
PROOF. Let Q be the natural map from X into X". Then the w*UR
modulus of X* is given by the formula

OX- (I', x) = inf {1 -II ~(x' + y*)11 : x', y' E Sx, I(Qx)(x* - Y*)I ~ f}
whenever 0 :S I' :S 2 and xESx. Comparing this to the formula for the
wUR modulus of X* shows that X* is weakly* uniformly rotund if it is
weakly uniformly rotund.
Now suppose that X* is not rotund. Let xi and x~ be different elements
of Sx- such that ~(xi + x 2) E Sx' and let Xo be an element of Sx such
that xixo =I- xzxo. Let 1'0 = I(xi -xz)(xo)l Then OX*(EO,XO) = 0, so X* is
not weakly* uniformly rotund.

Local uniform rotundity and weak uniform rotundity have a common

generalization stronger than simple rotundity. Given the definitions of local
and weak uniform rotundity, the definition of this new property could be
deduced from its name.

5.3.13 Definition. (A. R. Lovaglia, 1955 [159]). Suppose that X is a

normed space. Define a function 8x : [0,2J x Sx x Sx* ----> [O,lJ by the
 5.3 Generalizations of Uniform Rotundity 467

formula

bX(E,X,X*) = inf ({I} U {l-II~(x + y)11 : y E Sx, Ix*(x - y)1 ~ E}).

Then bx is the wLUR modulus of X. The space X is weakly locally uni-
formly rotund or weakly locally uniformly convex if bX(E,X,X*) > 0 when-
ever 0 < E:::; 2, x E Sx, and x E Sx" The abbreviation wLUR is used for
this property.

A glance at the definitions of local, weak, and weak local uniform rotun-
dity shows that each of the first two properties implies the third. Also, if X
is a normed space with wLUR modulus bx and there are distinct elements
x and y of X such that Ilxll = liyll = 11~(x+Y)11 = 1, then there is an x
in Sx' such that x*(x-y) ~ 0, which implies that bx (lx*(x-y)l, x,x*) = O.
It follows that weak local uniform rotundity implies rotundity. These ob-
servations are summarized in the following proposition.

5.3.14 Proposition. Every normed space that is either locally uniformly

rotund or weakly uniformly rotund is weakly locally uniformly rotund, and
every weakly locally uniformly rotund normed space is rotund. In symbols,
(LUR) =} (wLUR) and (wUR) =} (wLUR) =} (R).

Mark Smith's paper [219] has examples showing that none of the impli-
cations in the preceding proposition is reversible.
The next generalization of uniform rotundity is defined in terms of ge-
ometric properties of convex sets instead of the behavior of a modulus.
Recall that the diameter of a nonempty subset A of a metric space is given
by the formula diam(A) = sup{ d(x, y) : x, yEA }.

5.3.15 Definition. (V. L. Smulian, 1940 [224]; K. Fan and 1. Glicksberg,

1958 [77]). Suppose that X is a normed space such that whenever C is a
nonempty convex subset of X, the diameter of C n tBx tends to 0 as t
decreases to d(O, C). Then X is strongly rotund or strongly convex. The
abbreviation K is used for this property.

The abbreviation D is sometimes used for the combination of strong

rotundity and completeness; that is, (D) {:} (K) & (B).

5.3.16 Proposition. Every uniformly rotund normed space is strongly

rotund, and every strongly rotund normed space is rotund. In symbols,
(UR) =} (K) =} (R).
PROOF. Suppose first that X is a normed space that is not strongly rotund.
Let C be a nonempty convex subset of X such that diam( CntBx) does not
tend to 0 as t decreases to d(O, C). Clearly d(O, C) =1= 0, so it may be assumed
that d(O, C) = 1. It follows that there must be a positive E such that for
468 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

each positive integer n there are elements Xn and Yn of en (1 + n- 1 )Ex

such that Ilxn - Ynll ::::> L Now ~(xn + Yn) E en (1 + n- 1)Ex for each n
by convexity, from which it follows that Ilxnll, IIYnll, and 11~(Xn + Yn)1I all
tend to 1 even though Ilxn - Yn II does not tend to O. By Proposition 5.2.8,
the space X is not uniformly rotund.
Now suppose instead that X is a nonrotund normed space. Then there
are distinct elements x and Y of Sx such that {tx + (1 - t)y : 0 ::; t ::; 1 }
lies in S x. This line segment is a nonempty convex subset L of X such that
diam(L n tEx) does not tend to 0 as t decreases to d(O, L), so X is not
strongly rotund.

Each of the two characterizations of strong rotundity in the following

theorem is sometimes used as its definition. In fact, the condition given
in (c) is essentially Smulian's original formulation of the property.

5.3.17 Theorem. (K. Fan and 1. Glicksberg, 1958 [77]). Suppose that X
is a normed space. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The space X is strongly rotund.
(b) Whenever x* E Sx+, the diameter of {x: x E Ex, Rex*x::::> 1- 15}
tends to 0 as 6 decreases to O.
(c) Whenever (x n ) is a sequence in Sx for which there is an element x'
of Sx' such that Rex'x n --t 1, the sequence (xn) is Cauchy.
PROOF. Suppose first that (b) does not hold. This implies the existence of
an x* in Sx' and a positive E such that for each positive integer n there
are elements Xn and Yn of Ex for which Re x*xn 2: (1 + n- 1)-1, Re X*Yn ::::>
(1+n- 1)-1, and Ilxn-Ynll 2: E. Let A = {x: x E X,Rex*x::::> 1},
a nonempty convex subset of X. It is clear that d(O, A) ::::> 1. Since there
is a sequence (zn) of members of Ex such that Re x' Zn > 0 for each n
and Rex'zn --t 1, and since ((Rex*zn)-1Zn) is a sequence in A such that
II(Rex'zn)-lznll -> 1, it follows that d(O,A) = 1. Let Un = (1 + n- 1)xn
and Vn = (1 + n- 1 )Yn for each n. Then Un, Vn E An (1 + n- 1 )Ex and
Ilu n - vnll > E for each positive integer n, so diam(A n tEx) does not tend
to 0 as t decreases to d(O, A). Therefore X is not strongly rotund, which
shows that (a) =} (b).
It is clear that (b) =} (c). To see that (c) =} (a), suppose that X is not
strongly rotund. Then there is a nonempty convex subset C of X such that
d(O, C) = 1 and diam( C n tEx) does not tend to 0 as t decreases to 1.
Therefore there must be a positive I and a sequence (w n ) in C such that
Ilwnll -> 1 and Ilw2n-1 -w2nll 2: I for each positive integer n. By Eidelheit's
separation theorem, there is an x* in X* and a positive real number s such
that Rex*x ::::> s whenever x E C and Rex'x ::; s whenever x E Ex. It may
be assumed that s = 1. Then Ilx"11 = IIRex'll::; 1, and in faet Ilx'll = 1
since Rex*(lIwnll-1w n ) -> 1; for this, notice that
1::::> Rex*(llwnll-1wn) 2: Ilwnll- 1
 5.3 Generalizations of Uniform Rotundity 469

for each n. Now (1Iwnll-1w n ) is a sequence in Sx that cannot be Cauchy

since Ilwnll -; 1 and (w n ) is not Cauchy. Since Rex*(lIwnll-1wn) -; 1, it
follows that (c) does not hold. Therefore (c) =} (a).

A normed space that satisfies condition (b) of the preceding theorem

is sometimes said to be (v). Day's wonderful description of this property
in [56] is that "thin nibbles are small nibbles."

5.3.18 Corollary. Suppose that X is a normed space. Then the following

are equivalent.
(a) The space X is a strongly rotund Banach space.
(b) Whenever (xn) is a sequence in Sx for which there is an element x*
of Sx' such that Rex*xn -; 1, the sequence (xn) converges.
PROOF. It follows immediately from the preceding theorem that (a) =} (b)
and that (b) implies that X is strongly rotund. All that needs to be shown
is that (b) implies that X is complete. Suppose that (b) holds and that (Yn)
is a Cauchy sequence in X. It may be assumed that IIYnl1 does not tend to 0
and therefore that II Yn II -; 1 and no Yn is zero. Since there is a norm-one
element of the completion of X to which (Yn) converges, and since there is a
norm-one member of the dual space of the completion of X that maps this
limit to 1, there is an x* in Sx' such that Rex*(IIYnll-1Yn) -; 1. Therefore
(1IYnll-1Yn) has a limit, and so (Yn) has the same limit.

In the branch of approximation theory known as nearest point theory in

Banach spaces, it is often useful to know when a Banach space is strongly
rotund. This is because of several characterizations of the property that
use the terms of the following definition.

5.3.19 Definition. Suppose that A is a nonempty subset of a metric

space M, that x E M, and that (Yn) is a sequence in A such that d(x, Yn) -;
d(x, A). Then (Yn) is a minimizing sequence in A with respect to x. The
set A is appmximatively compact if each minimizing sequence in A has a
convergent subsequence whose limit is in A.

The word "approximatively" is occasionally misspelled "approximately"

in the literature, since that is what the eye tends to see at a rapid glance.
While the idea of a minimizing sequence is an old one, the notion of ap-
proximative compactness was introduced in a 1961 paper by N. V. Efimov
and S. B. Stechkin [72].
One of the reasons for the importance of approximative compactness in
approximation theory is that every approximatively compact set A is a
set of existence, and therefore for each element x of the space there is at
least one point of A that is a best approximation to x from the set in the
sense that it is at least as close to x as every other member of A. To see
470 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

that approximatively compact sets are always sets of existence, suppose

that A is an approximatively compact subset of a metric space M and that
x E M. Then there is a minimizing sequence (Yn) in A with respect to x;
just select each Yn from A so that d(x, Yn) :::; d(x, A) + n-l. Then (Yn) has
a subsequence that converges to some Y in A, and d(x, y) = d(x, A).

5.3.20 Theorem. (K. Fan and 1. Glicksberg, 1958 [77]). Suppose that X
is a normed space. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The space X is strongly rotund.
(b) Whenever C is a nonempty convex subset of X and (Yn) is a mini-
mizing sequence in C with respect to some x in X, the sequence (Yn)
is Cauchy.
PROOF. It is very easily seen that (b) is equivalent to the following state-
ment.
(b o) Whenever C is a non empty convex subset of X and (Yn) is a mini-
mizing sequence in C with respect to 0, the sequence (Yn) is Cauchy.
The equivalence of (a) and (b o) follows almost immediately from the defi-
nition of strong rotundity.

A space that satisfies part (b) of the preceding theorem is sometimes

said to be (Kw).

5.3.21 Theorem. (K. Fan and 1. Glicksberg, 1958 [77]). Suppose that X
is a normed space. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The space X is a strongly rotund Banach space.
(b) Whenever C is a nonempty convex subset of X and (Yn) is a mini-
mizing sequence in C with respect to some x in X, the sequence (Yn)
converges.
(c) Whenever C is a nonempty closed convex subset of X and (Yn) is
a minimizing sequence in C with respect to some x in X, the se-
quence (Yn) converges to an element Y of C.
(d) Every nonempty closed convex subset of X is an approximativcly
compact Chebyshev set.
If (c) holds and C, x, (Yn), and yare as in the statement of (c), then Y is
the unique point of C closest to x.
PROOF. It follows immediately from Theorem 5.3.20 that (a) =? (b), and it
is obvious that (b) =? (c). Suppose next that (c) holds and that C, x, (Yn),
and yare as in the statement of (c). Then Ilx - yll = d(x, C). Furthermore,
if y' is any member of C such that Ilx - y'll = d(x, C), then (c) implies
that the sequence (y, y', y, y', . .. ) eonverges, which shows that Y = y'. This
establishes the last statement in the theorem. It is now clear that (c) =? (d)
 5.3 Generalizations of Uniform Rotundity 471

since for every nonempty closed convex subset C of X and every x in X

there is a minimizing sequence in C with respect to x.
Finally, suppose that (d) holds. Let (zn) be a sequence in Sx for which
there is an element z* of S X. such that Re z* Zn - 1. The goal is to

show that (zn) converges, so, after perhaps discarding some terms from the
beginning of the sequence, it may be assumed that Re Z Zn > for each n.
Let A = {x : x EX, Re z* x = 1 }, a nonempty closed convex subset of X,
and let Wn = (Re z* zn)-l Zn for each n. It is clear that d(O, A) ~ 1, and
thus that d(O, A) = 1 since the sequence (w n ) lies in A and IlwnII - 1. Since
every subsequence of (w n ) is a minimizing sequence in A with respect to 0,
it follows that every subsequence of (w n ) has a subsequence that converges
to the unique point W of A closest to 0, so Wn - w. Therefore Zn - W,
which by Corollary 5.3.18 proves that X is a strongly rotund Banach space.
This shows that (d) '* (a).

The property given in part (c) of Theorem 5.3.17 might seem to have
some of the flavor of the Radon-Riesz property. In fact, it implies the
Radon-Riesz property.

5.3.22 Theorem. (K. Fan and I. Glicksberg, 1958 [77]). Every strongly ro-
tund normed space has the Radon-Riesz property. In symbols, (K) (H).'*
PROOF. Suppose that X is a strongly rotund normed space and that (x n ) is
a sequence in X and x an element of X such that Xn ~ x and IIxnll -llxll.
Since the goal is to prove that Xn - x, it may be assumed that x =I- o. It is
easy to see that it may then be assumed that x and each Xn lie in Sx. Let x*
be a member of Sx. such that x*x = Rexx = 1. Then Rexx n -> 1, so by
Theorem 5.3.17 the sequence (x n ) is Cauchy. Therefore (x n ) converges in
the completion of X to some y, which together with the fact that Xn ~ x
implies that Xn -> x.

Combining the Radon-Riesz property with a few other conditions pro-

duces a partial converse for the preceding result.

5.3.23 Theorem. (K. Fan and I. Glicksberg, 1958 [77]). Every reflexive
rotund normed space having the Radon-Riesz property is strongly rotund.
In symbols, (Rf) & (R) & (H) '*
(K).
PROOF. Suppose that X is a normed space that is (Rf) & (R) & (H). Let C
be a nonempty closed convex subset of X. Then C is a Chebyshev set
by Corollary 5.1.19. By Theorem 5.3.21, it is enough to show that C is
approximatively compact. Let (Yn) be a minimizing sequence in C with
respect to some x in X and let y be the unique element of C closest to x.
It is enough to show that (Yn) has a subsequence converging to y. By the
reflexivity of X, there is a subsequence (YnJ of (Yn) that c:onverges weakly
to some element Y' of the weakly closed set C, and Ilx - Y'II = d(x, C) since
472 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

d(x,C) :::; Ilx - y/ll :::; liminfjllx - YnJ = d(x,C). Therefore y' = y. Since
x - Ynj ~ X - Y and Ilx - Ynj II -4 Ilx - YII, it follows that x - Yn] -4 X - Y
and therefore that Yn J -4 y.

5.3.24 Corollary. Every reflexive locally uniformly rotund normed space

is strongly rotund. In symbols, (Rf) & (LUR) =} (K).

It follows from what has already been proved that (Rf) & (R) & (H) =}
(K) & (B) =} (R) & (H). If it could be shown that every strongly rotund
Banach space is reflexive, then a nice characterization of the strongly rotund
Banach spaces would follow: They would be precisely the normed spaces
that are reflexive and rotund and have the Radon-Riesz property.
This characterization does in fact hold since every strongly rotund Ba-
nach space is reflexive, as was first shown by Fan and Glicksberg in their
1958 paper [77J. However, this does not seem to be all that easy to prove
from elementary principles. The known proofs (or at least the ones known
to this author at the time of this writing) all use some form of James's theo-
rem or, in one case, the Bishop-Phelps 8ubreflexivity theorem; see [168J and
Exercises 5.33 and 5.65. Both of these results appear in optional sections
of this book, and neither i8 particularly trivial. Though Fan and Glicks-
berg published their result several years before the general case of James's
theorem appeared in James's 1964 paper [112], they did use a weak form
of James's theorem from his 1957 paper [111J.
Though reflexive locally uniformly rotund normed spaces are strongly
rotund, it follows from the remarks of the preceding paragraph that nonre-
flexive locally uniformly rotund Banach spaces, such as the one of Exam-
ple 5.3.6, cannot be strongly rotund, so (LUR) does not imply (K). Mark
Smith's paper [219J contains additional examples to show that (K) neither
implies nor is implied by any of the properties (LUR), (wUR), and (wLUR).
For more on strong rotundity, see [224J and [226], and in particular Fan
and Glicksberg'8 paper [77J in which a number of reformulations of the
property are given in addition to the ones obtained above.
The last generalization of uniform rotundity to be studied in the body of
this section is obtained by starting with the first sequential characterization
of uniform rotundity in Proposition 5.2.8 and then stiffening the hypotheses
on the sequences (x n ) and (Yn) by requiring not just that 11~(Xn + Yn)11
tend to 1, but that there actually be an element of Sx to which ~(xn +Yn)
converges.

5.3.25 Definition. (K. W. Anderson, 1960 [5]). Suppose that X i8 a

normed space such that whenever (xn) and (Yn) are sequences in Sx and
~(xn +Yn) converges to some member of Sx, it follows that Ilx n -Ynll --> O.
Then X is midpoint locally uniformly rotund or midpoint locally uniformly
convex. The abbreviation MLUR is used for this property.
 5.3 Generalizations of Uniform Rotundity 473

Notice that if (Xn) and (Yn) are sequences in the unit sphere of a normed
space X that is (MLUR), and if ~(xn + Yn) converges to some z in Sx,
then both Xn and Yn also converge to z. In fact, a moment's thought shows
that an equivalent definition of midpoint local uniform rotundity would
have been obtained if in Definition 5.3.25 it were required that Xn and Yn,
or for that matter just Xn, tend to the same limit as ~(xn + Yn), rather
than requiring that II Xn - Yn I --> O. There is a large number of such ways
to make small modifications to the conclusion about (xn) and (Yn) in Def-
inition 5.3.25 without changing the property being defined. The following
result gives one simple one that will be useful in what is to follow.

5.3.26 Proposition. Suppose that X is a normed space. Then the follow-

ing are equivalent.
(a) The space X is midpoint locally uniformly rotund.
(b) Whenever (xn) and (Yn) are sequences in X such that Ilxnll and IIYnl1
tend to 1 and ~(xn +Yn) converges to some member of Sx, it follows
that Ilxn - Ynll --> O.
PROOF. All that needs to be proved is that (a) =} (b). Suppose that X
is (MLUR) and that (xn) and (Yn) are sequences in X such that IlxnI
and IIYnl1 tend to 1 and ~(Xn + Yn) converges to some z in Sx. It may be
assumed that no Xn or Yn is zero. Then

0:::; IIHllxnll-1xn + IIYnll-1Yn) - zll

:::; ~ 1lllxnll-1xn - Xnll + ~ 1111Ynll-1Yn - Ynll + II ~(Xn + Yn) - zll
for each n, from which it follows that Hllxnll-1xn+ llYn 11-1Yn) --> z. There-
fore 1lllxnll-1xn - IIYnll-1Ynll--> O. This and the fact that

0:::; IIxn - Ynll

:::; IIXn -llxnll-1Xnll + 1lllxnll-1xn -IIYnll-1Ynll + 1111Ynll-1Yn - Ynll
for each n together show that Ilxn - Ynll --> 0, as required.

It is clear from Proposition 5.2.8 that every uniformly rotund normed
space is midpoint locally uniformly rotund. In fact, two of the other gener-
alizations of uniform rotundity studied in this section also imply midpoint
local uniform rotundity.

5.3.27 Proposition. Every normed space that is either strongly rotund or

locally uniformly rotund is midpoint locally uniformly rotund, a.nd every
midpoint locally uniformly rotund normed space is rotund. In symbols,
(K) =} (MLUR) and (LUR) =} (MLUR) =} (R).
PROOF. Suppose first that the normed space X is not rotund. Then there
are distinct members x and Y of S x such that ~ (x + y) E S x, which allows
474 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

the construction in the obvious way of trivial sequences (xn) and (Yn) in Sx
such that ~ (xn + Yn) converges to the element ~ (x + y) of Sx even though
IIx n ~Ynll does not tend to O. Therefore X is not midpoint locally uniformly
rotund.
Now suppose instead that X is strongly rotund and that (xn) and (Yn)
are sequences in Sx such that ~(xn + Yn) converges to some member Z
of Sx. Then there is some z* in Sx* such that z* Z = Re z* Z = 1. Since
Rez*x n ::; 1 and Rez*Yn ::; 1 for each n and ~(Rez*xn + Rez*Yn) -> 1,
it follows that Re z*x n -> 1 and Re z*Yn -> 1. Let (zn) be the sequence
(Xl, YI, X2, Y2' .. ')' Then Re z* Zn -> 1, so (z,,) is Cauchy by Theorem 5.3.17.
Therefore Ilx n - Ynll -> 0, which shows that X is (MLUR).
Finally, suppose that X is locally uniformly rotund instead of strongly
rotund, and again suppose that (xn) and (Yn) are sequences in Sx such
that ~ (xn + Yn) converges to some Z in S x. Since

as n --+ 00, it follows that 11~(Xn + z)ll--+ 1. Therefore Ilx" - zil --+ 0 by
Proposition 5.3.5. Similarly, it follows that llYn - zll --+ 0, so Ilx n- Yn I -> O.
This establishes that X is (MLUR).

As was mentioned above, it is known that every strongly rotund Banach

space is reflexive. Since the Banach space of Example 5.3.6 is (MLUR)
but not reflexive, it follows that (MLUR) does not imply (K). Smith's pa-
per [219] contains other examples to show that (R) does not imply (MLUR)
and that (MLUR) does not imply (LUR). His paper also has examples
to show that (MLUR) neither implies nor is implied hy either (wUR) or
(wLUR). Smith later settled the question of whether midpoint local uniform
rotundity implies the Radon-Riesz property by equivalently renorming Co
to be (MLUR) but not (H); sec his 1981 paper [220].
Midpoint locally uniformly rotund normed spaces have a characterization
in terms of approximative compactness analogous to the one for strongly
rotund Banach spaces given in Theorem 5.3.21.

5.3.28 Theorem. (R. E. Megginson, 1984 [168]). A normed space X is

midpoint locally uniformly rotund if and only if every closed ball in X is
an approximativeiy compact Chebyshev set.
PROOF. Suppose first that X is (MLUR), that X is a point in X, that
C is a closed ball in X with center c and radius r, and that (Yn) is a
minimizing sequence in C with respect to x. The immediate goal is to
prove that there is a unique point of C closest to x and that (Yn) has a
subsequence convergent to a member of C, so it may be assumed that x = 0
and that d(O, C) = 1. First of all, there cannot be two different points of C
at distance 1 from 0, for it would then follow from the convexity of C n Bx
that the entire straight line segment connecting the two points would lie
 5.3 Generalizations of Uniform Rotundity 475

in Sx, a contradiction to the rotundity of X. Let Y be the point where the

straight line segment connecting 0 to e intersects the boundary of C. Then
the triangle inequality implies that y is the unique point of C closest to O.
Notice that !lYII = d(O, C) = 1 and that e= (1 + r)y.
It will now be shown that (Yn) has a subsequence converging to an ele-
ment of C, and in fact that Yn -+ y.
Case 1: r = 1. For each positive integer n, let y~ = 2y - Yn' and observe
that ~(Yn + y~) = y. Since e = 2y,

2 = 112yII ::; 112y - Ynll + IIYnl1 ::; 1 + IIYnl1

for each n, so IIY~ II = 112y - Yn II -+ 1 because llYn II -+ 1. It then follows
from Proposition 5.3.26 that llYn - y~ I -+ 0, so Yn ---> y.
Case 2: r < 1. In this case lie - 2yII = II(r - l)YII = 1 - r. For each
member z of C,

liz - 2yII ::; liz - ell + lie - 2yII ::; r + 1 - r = 1,

which shows that C is included in the closed ball of radius 1 centered at 2y.
Therefore (Yn) is a minimizing sequence in this larger ball with respect to 0,
so all that is needed to show that Yn -+ Y is an appeal to case 1.
Case 3: r > 1. Let C' be Lhe closed ball of radius 1 centered at 2y. For
each positive integer n, let Zn = Y + r- 1 (Yn - y) and observe that Zn E C'
because

Since

1::; Ilznll ::; 11(1- r- 1)yll + IIr-1Ynll = (1 - r- 1 ) + r- 111Ynll

for each n, and since (1- 1'-1) + r- 1 11Ynll -+ 1, it follows that Ilznll
-+ 1
and therefore, by case 1, that Zn -+ y. Therefore Yn -+ y.
In any case, there is a unique point of C closest to 0, and the minimizing
sequence (Yn) in C with respect to 0 converges to the element Y of C, so
every closed ball in X is an approximatively compact Chebyshev set.
Now suppose conversely that every closed ball in X is an approxima-
tively compact Chebyshev set. Let (un) and (v n ) be sequences in Sx such
that there is an element w of S x to w hich ~ (un + v n ) converges. Then
d(2w, Bx) = 1 and w is the unique point of Bx closest to 2w. Since

for each n and since Ilu n + Vn - 2wll ---> 0, each subsequence of (un) is a
minimizing sequence in Bx with respect to 2w and therefore must have
a convergent subsequence whose limit is necessarily the unique point w
of Bx closest to 2w. It follows that Un -+ w, and similarly that Vn -+ w,
and therefore that Ilu n - vnll -+ 0. This proves that X is (MLUR).
476 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

(K)

l~
(H) (MLUR)

( U R ) - - - - - . (LUR)
i/ ~
(R)

~
(wLUR)

(wUR)
/
FIGURE 5.3. An implication diagram for generalizations of uniform rotundity.

Figure 5.3 shows all of the implications between single properties proved
in this section, except for those involving weak* uniform rotundity that
apply only to dual spaces; however, see also Theorem 5.3.23 and Corol-
lary 5.3.24. Notice that (H) does not imply any of the other properties in
the diagram, since i
is not rotund but, like all finite-dimensional normed
space8, has the Radon-Riesz property. It follows from this and Smith's
examples already mentioned above that no arrows can be added to this
diagram showing relationships not already implied by the diagram.
Extensive lists of other generalizations of uniform rotundity as well as
some of their characteristics and the relationships between them can be
found in [56, pp. 145-147] and [107, pp. 71-93]. A few of these general-
izations can be found in the exercises for this scction. Two of the general-
izations from the exercises, namely, uniform rotundity in weakly compact
sets of directions and uniform rotundity in every direction, as well as weak
uniform rotundity and uniform rotundity itself, are directionalizations of
uniform rotundity in the sense that they can be defined in terms of the
following modulus. See Exercises 5.29-5.32.

5.3.29 Definition. Suppose that X is a normed space. Define a function

6x: [0,2] x (X \ {O}) --> [0,1] by the formula
OX(E, -->z) = inf{ 1 -11~(x + y)11 : x, y E Sx, Ilx - yll 2: E,
x- Y = az for some scalar a}.
Then {j x is the directional modulus of rotundity of X. If A is a nonempty
subset of X \ {O}, thcn
oX(E,-->A) = inf{6x(E,-->z): z E: A}
whenever 0 ::; E ::; 2.
 5.3 Generalizations of Uniform Rotundity 477

A good starting point for discovering more about approximative com-

pactness and other approximative properties of sets in normed spaces is
L. P. Vlasov's 1973 survey article [238J. Those interested in the subject
of equivalently renorming spaces to have desired properties should read
Mark Smith's articles [219J and [220J to learn about the art from one of its
masters.

Exercises
5.24 Prove the parallelogram law for 2 mentioned in Example 5.3.6.
5.25 Give at least one sequential characterization of weak local uniform rotun-
dity.
5.26 Find a sequential characterization of weak* uniform rotundity.
5.27 (a) Prove that every approximatively compact set is closed.
(b) Give an example of an approximatively compact set that is not com-
pact, or even weakly compact.
5.28 (K. Fan and 1. Glicksberg, 1958 [77)). Suppose that k is a positive integer
such that k :2: 2. A normed space X is k-rotund if each sequence (Xn) in X
such that limnl, .. ,nk~(X)lIk-1 2:;=1 Xnj II = 1 is Cauchy. (The notation
limnl, ... ,nk~(X)llk-l 2:;=1 Xnj II = 1 means that for every positive t there
is a positive integer N< such that Illk- ' 2:;=1 Xnj II - 11 < E whenever
n" ... , nk :2: N,.) The abbreviation kR is used for the property of k-
rotundity.
(a) Prove that every uniformly rotund normed space is k-rotund, and
that every k-rotund normed space is (k + I)-rotund. That is, show
that (UR) =} (kR) =} ((k + I)R).
(b) Prove that every k-rotund normed space is strongly rotund. That
is, show that (kR) =} (K).
5.29 Prove that a normed space X is (UR) if and only if 6X(E, ~A) > 0
whenever 0 < E ~ 2 and A is a nonempty bounded closed subset of X\ {OJ.
5.30 Prove that a normed space X is (wUR) if and only if 6X(E, --+A) > 0
whenever 0 < E ~ 2 and A is a nonempty bounded weakly closed subset
of X \ {OJ.
5.31 (M. A. Smith, 1975, 1977 [217, 218]). A normed space X is uniformly
rotund in weakly compact sets of directions if 6x (E, --+A) > 0 whenever
o < E ~ 2 and A is a nonempty weakly compact subset of X \ {OJ. The
abbreviation URWC is used for this property.
(a) Prove that a normed space X is (URWC) if and only if it has this
property: Whenever (Xn) and (Yn) are sequences in Sx such that
II ~(Xn + Yn)11 ~ 1 and Xn - Yn ~ v for some v in X, it follows that
v =0.
(b) Show that (wUR) =} (URWC) =} (R).
478 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

(c) Show that (Rf) & (wUR) {=> (Rf) & (URWC); that is, that weak
uniform rotundity and uniform rotundity in weakly compact sets of
directions are equivalent properties for reflexive normed spaces.
Smith has shown in [219J that the nonreflexive Banach space (1, II liE)
of Example 5.3.6 is (URWC) but not (wUR).
5.32 (A. L. Garkavi, 1962 [84]). A normed space X is uniformly rotund in
every direction or uniformly convex in every direction or directionally
uniformly rotund if OX(E, ->z) > 0 whenever 0 < E ::; 2 and z E Sx. The
abbreviation URED is used for this property.
(a) Prove that a normed space X is (URED) if and only if it has this
property: Whenever (Xn) and (Yn) are sequences in Sx such that
11~(Xn + Yn)11 -> 1 and such that Xn - Yn E ({v}) for some v in X
and each n, it follows that Xn - Yn -> O.
(b) Show that (wUR) =} (URED) =} (R).
(c) (This uses material from Exercise 5.31). Show that (URWC) =}
(URED).
Smith gave an example in [219] of a Banach space that is (URED) but not
(URWC) , and another Banach space that is (R) but not (URED); both
examples are formed by equivalently renorming 2. It can be shown that
a normed space X is (URED) if and only if OX(E, ->A) > 0 whenever 0 <
E ::; 2 and A is a nonempty compact subset of X \ {O}; see [218]. Another
good source of information on uniform rotundity in every direction is the
paper of Day, James, and Swaminathan [57] devoted to the property.
5.33 This exercise requires James's theorem from either of the optional Sections
1.13 and 2.9. Prove that a normed space is a strongly rotund Banach space
if and only if it is a reflexive rotund normed space with the Radon-Riesz
property. That is, show that (K) & (B) {=> (R) & (Rf) & (H).
5.34 (Ivan Singer, 1964 [215]). A normed space X has the Efimov-Stechkin
property if, whenever (xn) is a sequence in Sx for which there is an
element x' of Sx* such that Rex'x n -> 1, the sequence (Xn) has a
convergent subsequence. The abbreviation CD is used for this property.
(a) Show that a normed space X has the Efimov-Stechkin property if
and only if every nonempty closed convex subset of X is approxi-
matively compact.
(b) Prove that every strongly rotund Banach space has the Efimov-
Stechkin property.
(c) Show by example that not every Banach space with the Efimov-
Stechkin property is rotund.
(d) Prove that every normed space with the Efimov-Stechkin property
is a Banach space.
(e) Prove that every normed space with the Efimov-Stechkin property
has the Radon-Riesz property.
(f) The rest of this exercise requires James's theorem from either of the
optional Sections 1.13 and 2.9. Prove that every normed space with
the Efimov-Stechkin property is reflexive.
 5.4 Smoothness 479

(g) Prove that a normed space has the Efimov-Stechkin property if and
only if it is reflexive and has the Radon-Riesz property. That is,
show that (CD) :} (Rf) & (H).
(h) Conclude from the results of this exercise and Exercise 5.33 that a
normed space is a strongly rotund Banach space if and only if it is
rotund and has the Efimov-Stechkin property. That is, show that
(K) & (B) :} (R) & (CD).
5.35 The purpose of this exercise is to present a technique that can be used
to design a real normed space having ]R2 as its underlying vector space
such that the closed unit ball of the space has certain specified geometric
properties.
(a) Prove that if a subset C of ]R2 is balanced (which in this case is
equivalent to being symmetric about the origin), convex, and closed,
and has nonempty interior with respect to the Euclidean topology
for IR2, then C is the closed unit ball for some norm on ]R2 that is
equivalent to the Euclidean norm of ]R2.
(b) Use (a) to construct a Banach space X with the property that for
some clement x of S x there can be found a different element y of S x
such that ~ (x + y) E Sx, but for some other element x' of Sx there
is no y' in Sx such that x' oj y' and ~(x' + y') E ."ix .
5.36 (R. C. James, 1964 [113]). Suppose that X is a normed space and that
fix is the modulus of rotundity of X. Then X is in quadrate or uniformly
nonsquare if there existll an E such that 0 < E < 2 and fiX(E) > O. The
abbreviation NQ is used for this property. It is obvious that this property
is implied by uniform rotundity. Show that it does not imply rotundity.
The method of Exercise 5.35 might be helpful.
James has shown in [113] that every inquadrate Banach space is reflexive.
Notice that it follows from this and Exercise 5.14 that if fiy is the modulus
of rotundity for a rotund nonreflexive Banach space Y, then

if 0 < E < 2;
fiY(E)={~ if E = 2.

It even turns out that a normed space is (NQ) if and only if it is (UR),
that is, if and only if it is superreflexive. See [56, pp. 169-173] for a proof
of this and for references concerning the history of the result.

5.4 Smoothness
In the introduction to this chapter, it was said that a normed space's closed
unit ball is smooth if the unit sphere has no "corners" or "sharp bends." It
is time to make this "definition" a bit more rigorous. One clue as to how
this could be done is given by the illustration of the unit sphere of real Pi
in Figure 5.4. Through each of the four corners of this unit sphere, it is
480 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

FIGURE 5.4. Multiple support hyperplanes for Be? at a point of Ser

possible to pass more than one line that does not penetrate the interior of
the closed unit ball, while this is not possible at any of the other points
of S,i' Since the support hyperplanes for B~ are precisely the straight lines
in fi that intersect S21 but not B~2'
<1
this suggests the following definition.

5.4.1 Definition. Suppose that Xu is an element of the unit sphere of a

normed space X. Then Xu is a point of smoothness of B x if there is no
more than one support hyperplane for Ex that supports Bx at Xu. The
space X is smooth if each point of Sx is a point of smoothness of Bx.

By Corollary 1.9.8, each point Xo of the unit sphere of a normed space X

is a support point for Bx and therefore gives rise to at least one support
hyperplane for Bx that supports Bx at Xo. It would therefore be equiv-
alent to replace "no more than one support hyperplane" in the preceding
definition by "exactly one support hyperplane."
If the closed unit ball of a normed space X is supported at some point Xo
of Sx by elements xi and X2 of Sx*, and if xi and x2 induce the same
support hyperplane H for B x, then

H = {x: x E X, Rcxix = I} = {x: x E X, Rex;x = I},

from which it follows that Re xi = Re x 2 and therefore that xi = x;. The

following characterizations of points of smoothness and the smoothness
property follow easily.

5.4.2 Proposition. Suppose that X is a normed space and that Xo E Sx.

Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The element Xo is a point of smoothness of B x .
(b) There is exactly one element xC; of Sx* that supports Bx at Xo.
(c) There is exactly one element xC; of S x' such that Re xC;xo = 1.
(d) There is exactly one clement xC; of Sx' sl1ch that xC;xo = 1.
 5.4 Smoothness 481

5.4.3 Corollary. Suppose that X is a normed space. Then the following

are equivalent.
(a) The space X is smooth.
(b) For each x in Sx, there is a unique x* in Sx' that supports Ex at x.
(c) For each x in S x, there is a unique x* in Sx' such that Re x* x = 1.
(d) For each x in Sx, there is a unique x* in Sx' such that x* x = 1.

The following result is essentially obvious, and in any case is an easy

consequence of the preceding corollary.

5.4.4 Proposition. Every normed space that is isometrically isomorphic

to a smooth normed space is itself smooth.

This does not generalize to isomorphisms. For example, real C~ is ob-

viously smooth even though it is isomorphic to the nonsmooth normed
space ci.
As will be apparent from the examples given below, the classical Banach
spaces studied earlier in this book tend to be both rotund and smooth when
they have either property. However, neither property actually implies the
other; see Exercise 5.37. It is true that the presence of either one in a
normed space is implied by the existence of the other in the dual space.

5.4.5 Proposition. A normed space is smooth if its dual space is rotund.

PROOF. Suppose that X is a nonsrnooth normed space. Then for some x
in Sx there are two different elements xi and x 2 of Sx' such that xix =
x2x = 1. Therefore ~(xi +x;)(x) = 1, so 1::;: 11~(xi +x 2)11::;: I, and thus
11~(xi +x~;)11 = 1. It follows that X* is not rotund.

5.4.6 Proposition. A normed space is rotund if its dual space is smooth.

PROOF. Suppose that X is a nonrotund normed space and that Q is the
natural map from X into X**. Then there are two different clements Xl
and X2 of Sx and an element x of Sx' such that 1 = x* (~(XI + X2)) =
X*XI "'" X*X2 = (QxI}(x*) = (QX2)(X*). The space X* is therefore not
smooth.

An obvious argument based on the preceding three propositions then

yields the following result.

5.4.7 Proposition. A reflexive normed space is rotund if and only if its

dual space is smooth, and is smooth if and only if its dual space is rotund.

The implications in Propositions 5.4.5 and 5.4.6 cannot in general be

reversed for nonrefiexive normed spaces. The rotund Banach space CI,T of
482 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

Example 5.1.8 obtained by equivalently renorming f\ has its dual space

isomorphic to Roo, but it was shown by M. M. Day in a 1955 paper [51J
that Roo cannot be equivalently renormed to be smooth. See Exercise 5.41
for another proof that Rr T is not smooth. Also, see S. L. Troyanski's 1970
paper [231J for an example of a smooth Banach space whose dual is not
rotund, and [107, pp. 130-132J for an English exposition of the example.

5.4.8 Example. The scalar field IF, viewed a..') a normed space over IF,
is obviously smooth. The same holds for every zero- or one-dimensional
normed space.

5.4.9 Example. Suppose that /1 is a positive measure on a O"-algebra 2::

of subsets of a set ~ and that 1 < P < 00. Let q be the real number such
that p-l + q-l = 1. Then (Lp(~, 2::, /1))' is isometrically isomorphic to the
rotund normed space Lq(~, 2::, /1), so Lp(n, 2::, /1) is smooth.

5.4.10 Example. As in the last example, suppose that JL is a positive

measure on a O"-algebra 2:: of subsets of a set ~, but suppose also that there
are disjoint measurable subsets Al and A2 of 0, each with finite positive
measure. Let lA, and IA2 be the respective indicator functions of these
sets, and let II = (JL(AdrlIAl' 12 = (JL(A 2 )r lI A2 , gl = lA, + I A"
and g2 = lA, - I A2 . Then gl and g2 can be identified in the usual way
with different norm-one bounded linear fllnctionals on Ll (0,,2::, /1), and
similarly hand 12 can be identified with different norm-one bounded linear
functionals on Loo(0., 2::, JL). Notice that this can be proved directly; it does
not require that (L 1(0.,2::,JL))' be identifiable with L oo (0.,2::,JL) through
some assumption such as that the measure space is O"-finite. Since

inr hg2 = inr hg1 = 1

n
hg1 = 1,
neither Ll(0., 2::, JL) nor Loo(0., 2::,JL) is smooth. In particular, the spaces R1
and 00 are not smooth, nor are f and ~ when n :::: 2. Notice that the
spaces Rf and ~ are smooth when n < 2 by Example 5.4.8.

5.4.11 Example. Let xi and x; be the members of SC a identified in the

usual way with the first two standard unit vectors of 1, and let x be the
member (1,1,0,0,0, ... ) of SCD' Then xix = X2X = 1, so Co is not smooth.
Since xi and x 2 can be viewed in the obvious way as members of Sf':x" it
also follows that Roo is not smooth.

5.4.12 Example. Suppose that K is a compact Hausdorff space with more

than one element. Let k1 and k2 be different members of K. For j = 1,2,
let 6j be the member of Srca(K) defined by the formula

if k j E A;
if kj 1:. A.
 5.4 Smoothness 483

Let f be the member of SC(K) that takes on the value 1 everywhere on K.

Since 81 and 82 can be viewed in the usual way as norm-one bounded linear
functionals on C (K), and since

[fd81 = [fd82 = 1,

the normed space C(K) is not smooth.

5.4.13 Example. This is an example of a nonreflexive smooth Banach

space. Define T: 2 --> Co by the formula T((a n ) = (an). Then T is a one-
to-one bounded linear map having norm 1, and T(2) is dense in Co since
T(2) includes the vector space of finitely nonzero sequences. Therefore the
adjoint T* of T is a one-to-one weakly* continuous bounded linear map
from Co into the rotund normed space i, and IIT*II = 1. Let Ilx*lla =
Ilx*11 + IIT'x*11 for each x* in co.
Then Ilx*11 S; Ilx*lla S; 211x*11 whenever
x* E Co, from which it follows easily that 1Illa is a norm on c~ equivalent
to its original dual norm.
Suppose that xi, xi E Co and that Ilxi + xilla = Ilxilla + Ilxilla Then
IITxi +Txill = IITxil1 + IITxill, so it follows from the rotundity of i that
one of the two vectors Txi and Txi is a nonnegative multiple of the other.
Since T* is one-to-one, this implies that one of the vectors xi and xi must
be a nonnegative multiple of the other, so 11lla is a rotund norm.
It follows from the weak* lower semicontinuity of the original norms of
c~ and i and the weak*-to-weak* continuity ofT* that Ilw*-limCl'x~lla S;
liminfCl'llx~lla whenever (x~.) is a weakly* convergent net in co. By Theo-
rem 2.6.15, there is a norm II lib on eo equivalent to its original norm such
that 1IlIa is the dual norm on (co, 1Illb)*. Since 11lla is a rotund norm, the
Banach space (eo, II lib) is smooth, but is not reflexive since it is isomorphic
to eo.

Just as there is a connection between the smoothness of the graph of a

real-valued function of a real variable and the differentiability of the func-
tion, so is there a connection between the smoothness of the unit sphere of
a normed space and the Gateaux differentiability of the norm. In the inter-
est of sticking to the subject at hand, the following treatment of Gateaux
differentiability is done specifically for norm functions. A far more general
and extensive discussion of Gateaux differentiability can be found in [88].

5.4.14 Lemma. Suppose that X is a normed space and that Xo E Sx.

Then for each y in X, the iunction 3

t Ilxo + tY11 - IIxoll

f---7 -"----'---::....:.:..--"--"-"-
t

3The reason for not substituting 1 for IIxo II in the following quotient or in similar
quotients in the rest of this chapter is to make the point that these expressions represent
difference quotients for the norm function.
484 5, Rotundity and Smoothness

from ~ \ {O} into ~ is non decreasing, so both

'
I lIIl Ilxo + tY11 -llxull
"'-----"--'-"--'-'---'"
t->O~ t
and
Ilxo + tY11 - Ilxoll
' ---'------'---'-'-
I1m
t->o+ t
exist, and
'
I1m Ilxo + tY11 - Ilxo I < I'1m Ilxo + tY11 - Ilxo I ,
t->U- t - t--->O+ t
Furthermore, the function
'
Y f-t l 1m
Ilxo + tYII- Ilxoll
t->O+ t
is a sublinear functional on X,
PROOF, For the moment, consider the element Y of X to be fixed, and let

f(t) = Ilxo + tyll- Ilxoll

t
whenever t E ~\ {O}, Suppose that 0 < tl < t2' Then

Ilxo + tlyil-lixoll = (1- ~:) xoll-"xoll

II ~~ (xo + t 2 y) +
::; ~ Ilxo + t yll + (1 - ~) Ilxoll - Ilxoll
t2
2
t2

= ~~ (1lxu + t 2 yII - Ilxoll),

so
Ilxo + tlyll - Ilxoll < Ilxo + t2 yII - Ilxoll
tl t2

and
Ilxo - t2 yll - Ilxoll Ilxo + t2( -Y)II - Ilxull
-tz t2

<
Ilxo + tJ (-Y)II - Ilxoll
tl
Ilxo - tlyll - Ilxoll
-tl
Since Ilxoll ::; Hllxo - tlyll + Ilxo + tlyll), it is also true that
Ilxo - t1yll- Ilxoll Ilxo + t1YII-llxoll ,
~--~~~~<
-tl - tl
 5.4 Smoothness 485

It follows from all of this that J is nondecreasing, so limt->o- J(t) and

limt->o+ J(t) both exist and limt-+o- J(t) ::; limt-+o+ JU)
Now drop the assumption that Y is fixed, and let

. Ilxo + tY11 - Ilxoll

9 ()
Y 11m
= t-+o+ t

whenever Y E X. Suppose that S > 0 and that Yl, Y2 EX. Then

. IIxo
I1m + tSYlll - Ilxoll = S I'1m Ilxo + tSYl11 -- Ilxoll = sg ()
9 ( SYI ) = Yl .
t-+o+ t t->o+ ts
The function 9 is therefore positive-homogeneous. Also, if t > 0 then
Ilxo + t(Yl + Y2)11 -lixoll Ilxo + 2tyIiI- Ilxoll Ilxo + 2tY211 - Ilxo ll
t :S 2t + 2t '

so letting t tend to 0 through positive values shows that g(Yl + Y2) <
g(Yd + g(Y2)' Therefore 9 is finitely subadditive and so is sublinear.

5.4.15 Definition. Suppose that X is a normed space, that Xo E Sx, and

that Yo EX. Let

G_(Xo,Yo) = lim Ilxo +tYoll-lixoll

t->O- t
and

Then G_(XO,Yo) and G+(xo, Yo) are, respectively, the left-hand and right-
hand Gateaux derivative oj the norm at Xo in the direction Yo. The norm is
Gateaux differentiable at Xo in the direction Yo if G - (xo, Yo) = G + (xo, Yo),
in which case the common value of G-(xo,Yo) and G+(xo, Yo) is denoted
by G(xo, Yo) and is called the Gateaux derivative oj the norm at Xo in the
direction Yo. If the norm is Gateaux differentiable at :Z:o in every direc-
tion y, then the norm is Gateaux differentiable at Xo. Finally, if the norm
is Gateaux differentiable at every point of the unit sphere, then it is simply
said that the norm is Gateaux differentiable.

Notice that the norm of a normed space X is Gateaux differentiable at

a point Xo of the unit sphere in a direction Yo if and only if

1. Ilxo + tyo II - Ilxo I

Im~----~--~~

t->O t
exists, in which case G(xo, Yo) is the limit. Therefore the norm of the space
is Gateaux differentiable if and only if the above limit exists for each Xo
486 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

in the unit sphere and each Yo in the space. Notice also that if Xo E S x,
then G~(xo, y) = -G+(xo, -y) whenever y E X, which together with the
sub linearity of G+(xo,) implies that G~ (xo,) is positive-homogeneous.

5.4.16 Lemma. Suppose that X is a normed space, that Xo E Sx, and

that Xo E Sx. Then Xo supports Ex at Xo if and only jf

whenever y EX.
PROOF. Suppose first that Xo supports Ex at Xo and that y EX. If t > 0,
then

Rex~(ty) = Rex~(xo + tV) - Rex~xo

= Rex~(xo + tV) -Ilxoll
<S: Ilxu + tY11 - Ilxull,

and so

Ilxo - tYII-llxull Ilxu + t( -y)ll- Ilxoll

-t t
<S:-Rex~(-y)
= Rex~y
< Ilxo + tY11 - Ilxoll
- t '
from which it follows that G~(xo,Y) <S: RexoY s:: G+(xo,Y).
For the converse, suppose that G~(xo, y) <S: RexoY <S: G+(xo, y) when
y E Y. Since the norm is Gateaux differentiable at Xo in the direction Xo
and G(xo,xo) = 1, it follows that Rexoxo = 1 and therefore that xC;
supports B x at Xo.

5.4.17 Theorem. (S. Banach, 1932 [13]). Suppose that X is a normed

space and that Xo E S x. Then Xo is a point of smoothness of B x if and
only if the norm of X is Gateaux differentiable at Xo. Furthermore, if Xo
is a point of smoothness of Bx and x(j is the unique member of Sx' that
supports Bx at xo, then the Gateaux derivative of the norm of X at Xo
in each direction y is given by the formula G(xo, y) = Re xoY.
PROOF. Suppose first that the norm of X is not Gateaux differentiable
at Xo. Then there is a Yo in X i:luch that G~(xo,yo) < G+(XO,yo). Fix a
real number s such that G~(xo,yo) <S: s <S: G+(XO,yo), and let !..(ryo) = rs
for each real number r. Then Is is a real-linear functional on the real vector
space V consisting of all real multiples of Yo, and Is(ryu) <S: G+(xu, ryo)
whenever r E lR; this uses the positive-homogeneity of G+(xo,) and the
 5.4 Smoothness 487

fact that G+(xo,ryo) = -G_(xo,-ryo) for each real r and in particular for
each negative r. By the vector space version of the Hahn- Banach extension
theorem, there is a linear functional x;on X such that the restriction
of Re x; to V is Is and Rex;y S; G+(xo, y) whenever y E X. Notice that
this implies that

for each y in X. It also follows that

whenever y EX, so x; is bounded and has norm at most 1. The norm

of x; is in fact 1 since Re x;xo = G(xo, xo) = 1. Therefore x; is a member
of Sx' that supports Bx at Xo. Now s can be anyone of the infinitely
many real numbers in the interval [G _ (xo, Yo), G + (xo, Yo) J, and each such s
gives rise to a different x; in Sx' supporting Bx at Xo since Re x;Yo = s.
Therefore Xo is not a point of smoothness of B x .
Now suppose conversely that the norm of X is Gateaux differentiable
at Xo and that Xo is a member of Sx' that supports Bx at Xo. It follows
from the preceding lemma that Rexoy = G(xo,Y) whenever y E X, so
every other member of Sx' that supports Bx at Xo has the same real part
as Xo and thus equals xo. Therefore Xo is a point of smoothness of Bx by
Proposition 5.4.2, which finishes the proof of the equivalence that is the
first conclusion of this theorem. The argument given at the beginning of
this paragraph then produces the formula for the Gateaux derivative that
is the other conclusion.

5.4.18 Corollary. A normed space is smooth if and only if its norm is

Gateaux differentiable.

There is another characterization of points of smoothness that is histori-

cally related to Gateaux differentiability. Smulian first stated the following
result as a characterization of points at which the norm is Gateaux differ-
entiable rather than as a characterization of points of smoothness.

5.4.19 Theorem. (V. L. Smulian, 1939 [222]). Suppose that X is a normed

space and that Xo E Sx. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The element Xo is a point of smoothness of Bx.
(b) Whenever (x~) is a sequence in Sx' such that x;,xo --+ 1, the se-
quence (x~) is weakly* convergent.
If Xo is a point of smoothness of B x, then the weak* limit in (b) is the
unique member of Sx' that supports Bx at Xo.
488 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

PROOF. Suppose that Xo is not a point of smoothness of B x. Let xi and X2

be two different members of Sx' that support Bx at Xo. Then the se-
quence (xi, X2, xi,xz, ... )is not weakly* convergent, so (b) fails. Therefore
(b) => (a).
Suppose conversely that Xo is a point of smoothness of B x. Let x~ be
the element of Sx* that supports Bx at xo and let (x~) be a sequence
in Sx' such that x~xo --+ 1. Let (x~) be a subnet of (x~). By the Banach-
Alaoglu theorem, the net (x~) has a subnet (x~) weakly* convergent to
some y* in Bx . Now y*xo = limf3 x~xo = I, so y* = xo. Since every
subnet of (x~) has a subnet that is weakly* convergent to xo, it follows
that (x~) is weakly* convergent to xo' This proves that (a) => (b) and
establishes the final conclusion in the statement of the theorem.

As is true for rotundity, smoothness is inherited by subspaces.

5.4.20 Proposition. If a normed space is smooth, then so is each of its

subspaces.
PROOF. Suppose that M is a subspace of a smooth normed space X, that
x E SM, and that y EM. The left-hand Gateaux derivatives of the norms
of M and X at x in the direction yare obviously equal, and the same
is true for the corresponding right-hand Gateaux derivatives. It follows
immediately that every point of SM is a point of smoothness of BM, so M
~smo~h.

Another characteristic that smoothness shares with rotundity is that the

existence of the property for a normed space is determined by its presence
in the two-dimensional subspaces of the space.

5.4.21 Proposition. A normed space is smooth if and only if each of its

two-dimensional subspaces is smooth.
PROOF. Suppose that X is a nonsmooth normed space. Then there is an x
in Sx and a y in X such that the norm of X is not Gateaux differentiable
at x in the direction y. Since X is neither zero- nor one-dimensional, there
is a two-dimensional subspace M of X that contains both x and y. The
norm of M is not Gateaux differentiable at x in the direction y, so M is
not smooth.

Though smoothness is inherited by subspaces, it is not always inherited

by quotient spaces. S. L. Troyanski gave an example in his 1970 paper [231]
of a smooth Banach space with a closed subspace M such that X/M is not
smooth.
It is true that smoothness is inherited by direct sums of normed spaces
when it is present in each of the summands.
 5.4 Smoothness 489

5.4.22 Theorem. Suppose that Xl"'" Xn are normed spaces. Then

Xl EEl EEl Xn is smooth if and only if each Xj is smooth.
PROOF. It may be assumed that n = 2, for then an obvious induction
argument proves the general case. Since each of Xl and X 2 is isometrically
isomorphic to a subspace of Xl EEl X 2, each is smooth when Xl EEl X 2 is so.
Suppose conversely that Xl and X 2 are smooth. Let (Xl, X2) be an element
of SX 1 ffiX 2 and X* and y* elements of S(X 1 ffi X 2)* such that X*(Xl,X2) =
Y*(Xl' X2) = 1. Then there are elements xi and Yi of Xi and elements x 2
and Yz of X2' such that X*(Zl' Z2) = xi Zl +X2Z2 and Y' (Zl, Z2) = yi Zl +y::i Z2
whenever (Zl, Z2) E Xl EElX z; see Theorem 1.10.13. It follows from Cauchy's
inequality for real Euclidean 2-space that

1= xixl + X~X2
:S Ilxillllxlll + Ilx~llllx211
:S (11xi1l2 + Ilx~1I2)l/2(llxlI12 + Ilx2112)1/2
= Ilx*IIII(Xl,X2)11
= 1,

and, since there must actually be equality throughout, that (1lxi II, IIX21i)
is a real multiple of (1Ixrli, Ilx211) Therefore Ilxill = Ilxlll and IIx211 =
Ilx211. It also follows that xixl = IIxillllxtll = IIxll12 and x2x2 = Ilx2112.
The same argument applied to y* shows that Ilyi II = IlxrIl, Ily::i11 = Ilx211,
yiXl = IIxIil 2 , and yiX2 = Ilx2112. However, it is an easy consequence of
the smoothness of Xl that there is a unique member z* of Xi such that
Ilz*11 = Ilxlll and Z'XI = Ilxll12. Therefore xi = yi, and similarly xi = yi,
so x* = y*. By Corollary 5.4.3, the normed space Xl EEl X z is smooth.

The rest of this section is devoted to a closer look at the relationship

hetween the points of the unit sphere of a normed space X and the memhers
of Sx* that support Bx at those points, 3.'l well as the connection between
that relationship and smoothness. In this context it is natural to study the
hehavior of the following set-valued map.

5.4.23 Definition. Suppose that X is a normed space. For each X in Sx,

let

1/(X) = {x*: x* E Sx*, x*x = I};

that is, let 1/(x) be the subset of Sx* whose members are the support
functionals for Ex that support Ex at x. Then 1/ is the spherical image
map for Sx.

The convention will be adopted that with all notation as in the preceding
definition, when the map 1/ is everywhere singleton-valued it will be treated
490 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

in this text as if its values were members of Sx' rather than singleton sub-
sets of Sx" The following result, which is essentially just a restatement of
Corollary 5.4.3, says that this convention will be invoked precisely when X
is smooth.

5.4.24 Proposition. A normed space is smooth if and only if the spherical

image map for the unit sphere of the space is singleton-valued.

Rotundity can also be characterized in terms of this map. The following

is just a restatement of Corollary 5.1.16.

5.4.25 Proposition. Suppose that X is a normed space and that v is

the spherical image map for Sx. Then X is rotund if and only if v(xd
and V(X2) are disjoint whenever Xl and X2 are different members of Sx.

5.4.26 Corollary. A normed space is rotund and smooth if and only if the
spherical image map for its unit sphere is singleton-valued and one-ta-one.

Spherical image maps for unit spheres of normed spaces are always
weakly* -compact-valued.

5.4.27 Proposition. Suppose that X is a normed space, that v is the

spherical image map for Sx, and that x E Sx. Then v(x) is weakly*
compact.
PROOF. Since Ex' is weakly* compact, all that needs to be shown is that
v(x) is weakly* closed. Suppose that (x~) is a net in v(x), that x* E X*,
and that x~ ~. x'. Then x* E Ex . Since x'x = lima x~x = 1, it follows
that x* E Sx' and therefore that x* E v(x), so v(x) is weakly* closed.

When a normed space is smooth and the spherical image map for its unit
sphere is treated as point-valued rather than set-valued, it is natural to ask
if the map has any continuity properties. More generally, one might ask
if the set-valued spherical image map for the unit sphere of an arbitrary
normed space has any properties analogous to continuity. In fact, it does.

5.4.28 Theorem. Suppose that v is the spherical image map for the unit
sphere of a normed space X and that G is a weakly* open subset of X*.
Then {x: x E Sx, v(x) ~ G} is an open subset of Sx.
PROOF. Suppose to the contrary that {x : X E Sx, v(x) ~ G} is not open
in Sx. Then there is an Xo in Sx and a sequence (xn) in Sx converging
to Xu such that v(xu) ~ G but v(x n ) %G whenever n E N. For each n,
let x~ be a member of v(xn) \ G. By the weak* compactness of Ex., there
 5.4 Smoothness 491

is some sub net (x~) of (x~) that is weakly* convergent to some Xo in Ex-.
For each 0:,

so passing to the limit shows that xi)xo = 1 and therefore that x(j E Sx-.
It follows that x(j E v(xo), so xi) is in the weakly* open set G even though
the net (x~) that is weakly* convergent to xi) lies entirely outside G. This
contradiction finishes the proof.

5.4.29 Corollary. The spherical image map for the unit sphere of a smooth
normed space is norm-to-weak* continuous.

It follows from this corollary that the spherical image map for the unit
sphere of a smooth normed space is norm-to-weak continuous if the space
is reflexive, and is even norm-to-norm continuous if the space is finite-
dimensional. These stronger continuity conditions can be used to define
and characterize strengthened smoothness conditions for normed spaces,
as will be seen in Section 5.6.

Exercises
5.37 (a) Give an example of a rotund Banach space that is not smooth.
Exercise 5.35 might help.
(b) Give an example of a smooth Banach space that is not rotund.
5.38 This exercise is based on the results of Exercise 5.1. Suppose that (Xn)
is a sequence of normed spaces.
(a) Let t'oo((Xn)) be the collection of all sequences (Xn) such that
Xn E Xn for each nand sUPnllXnll is finite. Let II(xn)lloo = sUPnllxnl1
for each member (Xn) of t'oo((Xn)). Show that 00 ((Xn)) is a vec-
tor space when given the obvious vector space operations and that
1111= is a norm on this vector space. Show also that = ((Xn)) is a
Banach space if and only if each Xn is a Banach space.
(b) Suppose that 1 S p < 00 and that q is conjugate to p. For each
member (x;,) of q((X;;)), let

whenever (Xn) E p ((Xn )). Show that T is an isometric isomorphism

from q ((X;;)) onto p ((Xn)r. A look at the proof of Theorem C.12
could be helpful.
5.39 This exercise is based on Exercise 5.38. Suppose that (Xn) is a sequence
of normed spaces and that 1 < p < 00. Prove that p((Xn)) is smooth if
and only if each (Xn) is smooth.
492 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

5.40 Suppose that X is a normed space.

(a) Prove that X* is rotund if and only if XjM is smooth whenever Ai
is a closed subspace of X SHch that XjI'vi is two-dimensional.
(b) Prove that X' is smooth if and only if XjM is rotund whenever M
is a closed subspace of X such that XI"\{ is two-dimensional.
(c) Conclude from (a) and (b) that for X to be rotund (respectively,
smooth) it is sufficient that every two-dimensional quotient space
of X be rotund (respectively, smooth). (However, sufficient cannot
be replaced by necessary as can be seen from the examples cited in
this section of rotund (respectively, smooth) Banach spaces whose
duals are not smooth (respectively, rotund).)

5.41 Let l.T be the nonreflexive rotund Banach space constructed 1Il Exam-
ple fl. 1.8 and studied further in Example 5.1.22. Usc Exercise 5.40 t.o prove
that i,T is not smooth.

5.42 Suppose that K is a compact Hausdorff space with more than OIle element.
Show that rca(K) is not smooth,

5.43 This exercise assumes some knowledge of inner product spaceb and their
duals; see, for example, [24]. Prove that every inner product space is
smooth. Exercise 5.4 might help.

5.44 (V. L. Smulian, 1939 [222]). Suppose that X is a normed space and that
Xo E Sx" Show that the following are equivalent.
(a) The dCIIlfmt. Xo is a point. of smoothness of Bx.
(bl Whenever (Xn) is a sequence in Sx such that x~Xn -> 1, the se-
quence (Xn) is weakly Cauchy.

5.45 This exercise depends on Exercise 5.44 and on James's theorem from ei-
ther of the optional Sections 1.13 and 2.9. Show that a weakly sequentially
complete normed "pace is reflexive if its dual space is smooth. Conclude
that. there is no norm II lis on 1 equivalent to its standard norm such
that (1, IIII~) * is smooth.
5.46 (D. F. Cu<iia, 1964 [44]). Suppose that X is a normed space and that Q is
the natural map from X into X'*. Then X' is Q(X)-rotund if, whenever
Xi,X2 E Sx' and there is an x" in SQ(X) such that x*'xr = x**x.~ = 1,
it follow" that xr = X2' Also, the space X' is Q(X)-srnooth if, whenever
xi', x~' E SQ(X) and there is an x* in Sx' such that xi'x' = x;*x' = 1,
it follows that xi' = x~*.
(al Prove that X is rotund if and only if X* is Q(X)-smooth.
(b) Prove that X is smooth if and only if X* is Q(X)-rotund.

5.47 Characterize the members (an) of Seo that are points of smoothness of Bco
by means of some property of the terms of (an). Do the same for the
members of Sf l that are points of smoothness of Bt"
5.48 Prove t.hat if X is a Banach space that is not zero- or one-dimensional,
then there is a nonsmooth norm on X equivalent to its original norm.
 5.5 Uniform Smoothness 493

5.49 Suppose that Xo is an element of the unit sphere of a normed space X.

Prove that Xo is a point of smoothness of Ex if and only if the map
y r-> G+ (xo, y) is a real-linear functional on X.

5.50 (a) This exercise requires James's theorem from either of the optional
Sections 1.13 and 2.9. Find a characterization of the reflexive Banach
spaces among all Banach spaces in terms of the behavior of the
spherical image map for the unit sphere.
(b) Find a characterization of the reflexive, rotund, smooth Banach
spaces among all Banach spaces in terms of the behavior of the
spherical image map for the unit sphere.

5.51 Suppose that X is a normed space, that Q is the natural map from X
into X**, and that v and v* are the spherical image maps for Sx and Sx*
respectively.
(a) Prove that X is rotund if and only ifQ-1 (v*(v(x))) = {x} whenever
x E Sx. (If A is a set and <1> is a set-valued map with domain A,
then <1>(S) = U{ <1>(8) : 8 E S} whenever S ~ A.)
(b) Prove that X is smooth if and only if v( Q-1 (v*(x*))) = {x*} when-
ever x' E Sx*.

5.5 Uniform Smoothness

This section and the next are based on strengthenings of the notion of
Gateaux differentiability of a norm. The following result is a good starting
point for understanding the basis for the strengthenings.

5.5.1 Proposition. Suppose that X is a normed space. Then the following

are equivalent. (The variable t in the expressions is real-valued.)

(a) The space X is smooth.

(b) hm
. Ilx + tY11 - Ilxll .
eXlsts whenever x E Sx and Y E: X.
t~O t

(c) lim
.! (11x
2
+ tY11 + Ilx - tyll)
.
- 1
= 0 whenever x E Sx and Y E X.
t~O+ t
Now suppose that X is smooth. Then the expression whose limit is being
taken in (b) converges to its limit uniformly for x in Sx when Y is a fixed
element of S x, or for y in S x when x is a fixed element of S x, or for (x, y)
in S x x S x, if and only if the expression whose limit is being taken in (c)
converges to its limit uniformly under the same condition on x and y.

PROOF. The equivalence of (a) and (b) is just a restatement of the fact
that X is smooth if and only if its norm is Gateaux differentiable. Observe
494 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

next that if x E Sx and y E X, then

G+(x, y) - G_(x, y) = ~ lim (11x + tyll- Ilxll _ Ilx - tYII- IIXII)

2 2 t->O+ t -t
. ~ (11x + tY11 + Ilx - tyll) - 1
= hm ,
t-->O+ t
from which it follows that the limit in (c) exists, and furthermore that the
limit is 0 if and only if the norm of X is Gateaux differentiable at x in the
direction y. The equivalence of (a) and (c) follows immediately.
Suppose that X is smooth, that x, y E Sx, and that t > O. It follows
from Lemma 5.4.14 that

Illx + tY~1 -llxll _ G(x, y)1 + Illx - t~~ -llxll _ G(x, y)1

= Ilx + tY~1 - Ilxll _ G(x, y) + G(x, y) _ Ilx - t~~ - Ilxll

=2~1(~II_x_+_tY_II_+_I_lx_-_t_YI~I)_-_1
t
= 21 Hllx + tY11 +tllx - tyll) - 1 _ 01,

from which the claims about uniform convergence follow easily.

With all notation as in the statement of the preceding proposition, it is

reasonable to say that X is uniformly smooth if the expression whose limit
is being taken in (c) converges to 0 uniformly for (x,y) in Sx x Sx; that
is, if, for every positive E, there is a positive 8, depending only on E such
that
~ (11x + tY11 + Ilx - tyll) - 1
-"--'-"---..::...:..:-"-----'--'''"----- < E (5.1)
t
whenever 0 < t < 8, and x, y E Sx. Notice that the expression on the left
side of (5.1) is positive since

1(11x + tYIl + Ilx - tyll) - 1 2: 1112xll - 1 = 0,

and therefore no absolute value symbols are needed around it.
The actual definition of uniform smoothness to be used in this book will
be given in a form equivalent to the one stated in the preceding paragraph.
To set the stage for this definition, suppose for the moment that X is a
normed spaee that is not zero-dimensional, and let

px(t) = sup{ ~ (11x + tY11 + IIX - tyll) - 1 : x, y E S'x}

whenever t > O. Then 0 ::; px(t) ::; t for each positive t. It is clear after
only a moment's thought that the following are equivalent.
 5.5 Uniform Smoothness 495

(a) For every positive f there is a positive Of such that (5.1) holds when-
ever 0 < t < Of and x, yESx.
(b) For every positive f there is a positive 0< such that Px(t)/t < f
whenever 0 < t < 8f
Consequently, the formal definition of uniform smoothness about to be
given is equivalent to the one stated above in terms of uniform convergence.

5.5.2 Definition. Suppose that X is a normed space. Define a function

px: (0, +00) - ? [0, +00) by the formula
px(t) = sup{ ~ (lix + tY11 + Ilx - tyll) - 1 : x, y E Sx}
if X i {O}, and by the formula

Px(t) = {ot- 1
ifO<t<1;
if t ;::: 1

if X = {O}. Then Px is the modulus of smoothness of X. The space X is

uniformly smooth if limt_o+ px(t)/t = O. The abbreviation US is used for
this property.

Here are a few simple properties of the modulus of smoothness that will
shed some light on portions of the preceding definition.

5.5.3 Proposition. Suppose that Px is the modulus of smoothness of a

normed space X. Then px(t)/t is non decreasing as t increases. Also,
max{O, t - 1} :S Px(t) :S t
whenever t > O.
PROOF. It may be assumed that X i {O}. Suppose that 0 < tl < t2 and
that x, y E Sx. By Lemma 5.4.14,

~ (ilx + tlyll + Ilx - tlyll) - 1 = ~ (IIX + hyll - Ilxll _ Ilx - tlyll - Ilxll)
tl 2 t1 -tl
< ~ (IIX + t2yll - Ilxll _ Ilx - t2yll - Ilxll )
- 2 t2 -t2
~ (11x + t2yll + Ilx - t2yll) - 1
t2
from which it follows that PX(tl)/t l :S PX(t2)/t2.
Now fix a positive t. Since 0 :S Px (t) :S t, all that remains to be proved
is that p x (t) ;::: t - 1. However, this is an immediate consequence of the
fact that if x, y E Sx, then

Hllx + tyll + Ilx - tyll) - 1 ;::: ~ 112tyll - 1 = t - 1,

which finishes the proof.

496 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

With all notation as in the statement of the preceding proposition, it

follows that px(t)/t converges to some nonnegative real number as t ---+ 0+,
so the content of the requirement that limt->o+ Px(t)/t = 0 for X to be
uniformly smooth is that the limit be 0; existence of the limit is not an issue.
Also, it follows from Proposition 5.5.3 that the modulus of smoothness of
a zero-dimensional normed space has been defined to be as small as it can
be while still satisfying the inequalities of that proposition.
An approach to uniform smoothness only slightly different from the one
taken above is based on condition (b) of Proposition 5.5.1 and involves the
last differentiability criterion in the following definition. The other forms
of differentiability in this definition will not be used until Section 5.6 but
arc included here for comparison.

5.5.4 Definition. Suppose that X is a normed space. Then the norm of X

is
(a) uniformly Gateaux differentiable if

Ilx + tyll - Ilxll

. "'-_--.C:."'----"----"-
11m
t->O t
exists for every x in Sx and y in X, where the variable t is real-valued,
and furthermore the convergence is uniform for x in Sx whenever y
is a fixed element of Sx;
(b) Prechet differentiable if the limit in (a) exists for every x in Sx and y
in X and the convergence is uniform for y in Sx whenever x is a fixed
clement of S x;
(c) uniformly Frechet differentiable if the limit in (a) exists for every x
in S x and y in X and the convergence is uniform for (x, y) in S x x S x.

5.5.5 Definition. A normed space is uniformly Frechet smooth if its norm

is uniformly Frechet differentiable. The symbol UF is used for this property.

The following result is an immediate consequence of the equivalence of (b)

and (c) in Proposition 5.5.1, the observations about uniform convergence
in that proposition, and the discussion preceding Definition 5.5.2.

5.5.6 Proposition. A normed space is uniformly smooth if and only if it

is uniformly Frechet smooth. In symbols, (US) {:} (UF).

Of course, every uniformly Frechet differentiable norm is Gateaux differ-

entiable, which proves the most basic property of uniformly smooth normed
spaces.

5.5.7 Proposition. Every uniformly smooth normed space is smooth.

 5.5 Uniform Smoothness 497

Another very basic property of uniform smoothness follows immediately

from its definition.

5.5.8 Proposition. Every normed space that is isometrically isomorphic

to a uniformly smooth normed space is itself uniformly smooth.

As one might suspect, the preceding result does not generalize to isomor-
phisms. For example, the space i is not uniformly smooth since it is not
even smooth, but it is isomorphic to ~ which will be shown to be uniformly
smooth in Corollary 5.5.17.
Uniform smoothness implies stronger continuity properties for the spher-
ical image map than does smoothness. In fact, uniformly smooth normed
spaces can be characterized among all smooth normed spaces in terms of
the continuity of this map, as is apparent from the following lemma. This
lemma will have a further application in Section 5.6.

5.5.9 Lemma. Suppose that X is a smooth normed space and that v is

the spherical image map for Sx. Then v, treated as a point-valued map, is
norm-to-norm continuous if and only if the norm of X is Fnkhet differen-
tiable, and is uniformly norm-to-norm continuous on Sx if and only if the
norm of X is uniformly Fnkhet differentiable.
PROOF. It follows from the smoothness of X that if x E Sx, then the
Gateaux derivative G(x, y) of the norm at x in the direction Y exists when-
ever Y E X, and the map y f-+ G(x, y) is Re v(x).
Suppose first that the norm of X is uniformly Fnkhet differentiable but
that v is not uniformly norm-to-norm continuous on Sx. This implies the
existence of a positive s and sequences (zn) and (x n ) in Sx such that
Ilzn - xnll ~ 0 but Ilv(zn) - v(xn)11 > s for each n. It follows that there is
a sequence (Yn) in Sx such that Re(v(zn) - v(Xn)) (Yn) > s for each n. By
the uniform Frechet differentiability of the norm of X, there is a positive t
such that whenever n E N,

jllxn + tY~" - Ilxnll _ Re(V(Xn))(Yn)j = jllXn + tY~" - IIXnl1 _ G(Xn' Yn)\

S
<-
2

and therefore

For each positive integer n,

Re(v(zn))(xn + tYn - zn) = Re(v(zn))(xn + tYn) - 1

s:: IIxn +tYnll-lIxnll,
498 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

which implies that

and therefore that

ts < Re(v(zn) - v(Xn)) (tYn)

::; Ilx n + tYnll-IIXnll- Re(v(x n )) (tYn) + Rc(v(Zn))(Zn - Xn)
ts
< "2 + Ilzn - Xnll

It follows that Ilzn - xnll does not tend to 0, a contradiction. Therefore

the uniform Frechet differentiability of the norm of X implies the uni-
form norm-to-norm continuity of v on Sx. A similar argument, with the
sequence (xn) replaced by a single element x of S x, shows that v is norm-
to-norm continuous whenever the norm of X is Frechet differentiable.
Now suppose conversely that v is uniformly norm-to-norm continuous
on S x. Fix a positive E. Then there is a Of such that 0 < Of ::; 1 for which
Ilv(llx + tyll-1(x + ty)) - v(x)11 < E when x, Y E Sx and 0 < t < Of; notice
that x + ty -I- 0 since 0 < t < L If x, Y E Sx and 0 < t < Of' then

Re(v(x))(ty) = Re(v(x))(x + ty) - 1

::; Ilx + tyll - Ilxll
::; Ilx + tyll Re(v(llx + tyll-l(x + ty)))
(11x + tyll-l(x + ty) - Ilx + tyll-Ix)
= Re(v(llx + tyll-l (x + ty)) ) (ty),

which in turn implies that

0::; Ilx + tyll-Ilxll- Re(v(x)) (ty)

::; Re(v(llx + tyll-l(X + ty))) (ty) - Re(v(x)) (ty)
::; tllv(llx + tyll-l(X + ty)) - v(x)11 < tf

and therefore that

\llx + tY~I- Ilxll _ G(x, y)\ = \IIX + tY~1 - Ilxll _ Re(v(x))(y)\ < E.

It follows that the norm of X is uniformly Frechet differentiable. Fixing x

but otherwise applying the same argument also proves that the norm of X
is Frechet differentiable whenever v is norm-to-norm continuous.

The preceding lemma and the equivalence of uniform Frechet smoothness

and uniform smoothness immediately produce the following result.
 5.5 Uniform Smoothness 499

5.5.10 Theorem. Suppose that X is a normed space and that II is the

spherical image map for Sx. Then X is uniformly smooth if and only if II
is singleton-valued and, when viewed as a point-valued map, is uniformly
norm-to-norm continuous on Sx.

It was seen in Section 5.4 that if the dual space of a normed space X is
either rotund or smooth, then X has the other property, but the presence of
one of the properties in X does not imply that of the other in X . It turns
out that there is a more nearly complete duality between uniform rotundity
and uniform smoothness, since a normed space has either property if and
only if its dual space has the other. Early proofs of this or of results that
readily imply this can be found in [50] and [224]. The proof to be given
here is from [157] and is based on an interesting relationship between the
moduli of rotundity and smoothness of a normed space and of its dual.

5.5.11 Lemma. (J. Lindenstrauss, 1963 [154]). Suppose that Ox and Px

are, respectively, the modulus of rotundity and modulus of smoothness of
a normed space X and that Ox' and Px- are the corresponding moduli
of X*. Then

PX' (t) = sup { t; - ox() : 0 s:; s:; 2 }

and

px(t) = sup {t; - ox-() : 0 s:; f s:; 2 }

when t > O.
PROOF. It is easy to check that the formulas work if X = {O}, so it will be
assumed that X =1= {O}. For each positive t,

2px' (t) = sup{Ilx + ty II + Ilx - ty* II - 2 : x, y* E Sx- }

= sup{ Rexx + t Rey*x + Rex*y - t Rey*y - 2 :
x,y E Sx, x,y* E Sx-}
= sup{ Ilx + yll + tllx - yll - 2 : x, y E Sx }
= sup{ Ilx + yll + tf - 2: x, y E Sx, IIx - yll 2: E, 0 s:; f s:; 2}
= sup { tf - 2 inf { 1 - II ~ (x + y) II : x, y E Sx, IIx- yll 2: f } :

OS:;fS:;2}
= sup{ tf - 20X(f) : 0 s:; s:; 2}.
Dividing through by 2 gives the first ofthe two claimed formulas. The other
is proved exactly the same way after exchanging the roles of X and X.
500 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

Smulian's 1940 version of the following result is actually that uniform

Frechet differentiability of the norm is the condition dual to uniform ro-
tundity.

5.5.12 Theorem. (V. L. Smulian, 1940 [224]). A normed space is uniformly

rotund if and only if its dual space is uniformly smooth, and is uniformly
smooth if and only if its dual space is uniformly rotund.
PROOF. Let X be a normed space and let 8x and PX' be, respectively, the
modulus of rotundity of X and the modulus of smoothness of X'. By the
preceding lemma,

px(t) =sup{~_h(E) :0<E<2}

t 2 t --
when t > O. Suppose first that X is uniformly rotund, and let s be a
positive number. To prove that X* is uniformly smooth, it is enough to
find a positive ts such that px' (ts)/ts ::; s, because px' (t)/t is nonnegative
for each positive t and is non increasing as t --+ 0+. To this end, let (s
min{2,2s} and let ts = 8X (E s ).1f0::; E::; fs, then

E 8X (E) E Es
----<-<-<8
2 ts - 2 - 2 - ,
while if 1' .. < to ::; 2, then the fact that 8x is nondecreasing assures that
(h(E) 8 (E .. )
- - - - < 1 - -X - - = 0 < 8.
2 ts - ts
It follows that px(t .. )/t s ::; 8, so X* is uniformly smooth. An analogous
argument with the roles of X and X* exchanged proves that X is uniformly
smooth when X* is uniformly rotund.
Now suppose that X* is uniformly smooth and that 0 < I' ::; 2. Let the
positive number t, be such that PX' (t,)/t, ::; 1'/4. It follows that

~ _ h(f) < PX' (t,) < ~

2 t, - t, - 4'
so 8X(f) :::: t E E/4 > O. Therefore X is uniformly rotund. The argument
just given, with the roles of X and X* exchanged, then proves that X* is
uniformly rotund when X is uniformly smooth.

It follows from the preceding result and the Milman-Pettis theorem that
if X is a uniformly smooth normed space, then X* is uniformly rotund and
therefore reflexive, which in turn implies the reflexivity of X provided that
X is complete.

5.5.13 Theorem. (V. L. Smulian, 1940 [224]). Every uniformly smooth

Banach space is reflexive.
 5.5 Uniform Smoothness 501

It is finally time to give some examples.

5.5.14 Example. Since every zero- or one-dimensional normed space has

a uniformly rotund dual space, each such space is uniformly smooth. The
uniform smoothness of zero-dimensional normed spaces also follows trivially
from the definition of the property.

5.5.15 Example. The Banach space (co, II lib) of Example 5.4.13 is smooth
but not reflexive, and therefore is an example of a smooth Banach space
that is not uniformly smooth.

The main examples of uniformly smooth Banach spaces arise from the
following theorem.

5.5.16 Theorem. Suppose that p, is a positive measure on a u-algebra I;

of subsets of a set n and that 1 < p < 00. Then Lp(n, I;, p,) is uniformly
smooth.
PROOF. Let q be such that p~l + q~l = 1. Then (Lp(n, L:, p,)* is isomet-
rically isomorphic to the uniformly rotund normed space Lq(n, I;,IL) and
is therefore itself uniformly rotund, so Lp(rl, L:, p,) is uniformly smooth .

5.5.17 Corollary. Suppose that 1 < p < 00. Then f.p is uniformly smooth,
as is f.; whenever n is a nonnegative integer.

It is probably becoming obvious that much of the theory of uniform

smoothness can be obtained from the theory of uniform rotundity and the
duality between the two properties. This lode will be mined several more
times in the rest of this section. Here is another application of the method.

5.5.18 Proposition. If a normed space is finite-dimensional, then it is

uniformly smooth if and only if it is smooth.
PROOF. Suppose that X is a finite-dimensional smooth normed space. Then
X* is finite-dimensional and rotund, and so is uniformly rotund, which
implies that X is uniformly smooth.

As with smoothness, uniform smoothness is inherited by subspaces. The

reason for this is that thinning a normed space to a subspace cannot in-
crease the modulus of smoothness.

5.5.19 Lemma. Suppose that M is a subspace of a normed space X and

that PM and px are the respective moduli of smoothness of the two spaces.
Then PM(t) <::: Px(t) when t > O.
PROOF. This follows directly from the definition of PM, with a little help
from Proposition 5.5.3 when M = {O}.
502 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

5.5.20 Proposition. Every subspace of a uniformly smooth normed space

is uniformly smooth.

Unlike smoothness but like uniform rotundity, uniform smoothness is

always inherited by quotient spaces.

5.5.21 Lemma. Suppose that M is a closed subspace of a normed space X

and that PX/M and Px are the moduli of smoothness of X/M and X
respectively. Then PX/M(t) ::; px(t) when t > O.
PROOF. Fix a positive t and let 8M .l. and OX' be the respective moduli of
rotundity of Ml.. and X*. Since 8M .l. (E) 2': 8X' (f) when 0 ::; f ::; 2 and since
(X/ M)* is isometrically isomorphic to M'L, it follows from Lemma 5.5.11
that

PX/M(t) = sup { ~- 8 M .!. (f) : 0 ::; 10 ::S 2 }

::; sup { ~- 8x , (E) : 0 ::; I' ::; 2}

= px(t),
as claimed.

5.5.22 Theorem. If M is a closed subspace of a uniformly smooth normed
space X, then X/M is uniformly smooth.

Uniform smoothness is also inherited by direct sums from the summands.

5.5.23 Theorem. Suppose that Xl,"" Xn are normed spaces. Then

Xl EEl . E8 Xn is uniformly smooth if and only if each Xj is uniforIIlly
smooth.
PROOF. If Xl EEl' .. EEl Xn is uniformly smooth, then each Xj is uniformly
smooth since it is isometrically isomorphic to a subspace of Xl EEl .. EEl X n .
Suppose conversely that each Xj is uniformly smooth. By Theorem 5.2.25,
the normed space Xr EEl ... EEl X~ is uniformly rotund because each of its
summands is uniformly rotund, so (Xl EEl EEl Xn)* is uniformly rotund
since it is isometrically isomorphic to Xi EEl EElX~. Therefore Xl EEl EElXn
is uniformly smooth.

It is apparent from the results of this section that there are many analo-
gies between the behavior of uniformly smooth normed spaces and that
of uniformly rotund Hormed spaces. In fact, there is a much stronger con-
nection between the two properties than their duality and these analogies
would suggest. It turns out that a normed space has a uniformly smooth
norm equivalent to its original norm if and only if it has a uniformly ro-
tund norm equivalent to its original norm; that is, that (US) } (UR); and
therefore that the (US) norrned spaces are exactly the snperrefiexive ones.
A proof and references can be found in [56, pp. 169-173].
 5.5 Uniform Smoothness 503

Exercises

5.52 Recall that a real-valued function f defined on a possibly unbounded

subinterval I of 1R is convex if

f(stt + (1- s)h) :::; sf(td + (1 - S)f(t2)

whenever tl, t2 E I and 0 < s < 1. Prove that for every normed space X,
the modulus of smoothness of X is a convex function.
5.53 Prove that for every normed space X, the modulus of smoothness of X
is a continuous function. (It is not at all necessary to base the argument
on the result of Exercise 5.52, but feel free to use that result if you have
proved it.)
5.54 The modulus of smoothness of a normed space X is sometimes defined
by the formula

px(t) = sup{ ~ (lix + yll + IIx - yll) - 1 : x E Ex, Y E X, lIyll :::; t}

when X t= {a}. Show that this definition is equivalent to the one given in
this section for normed spaces that are not zero-dimensional.
5.55 Suppose that X is a normed space. Prove that the following are equivalent.
(a) The space X is uniformly smooth.
(b) For each positive TJ there is a positive tTl such that if xESx, Y EX,
and Ilx - yll :::; f'7' then Ilx + yll ~ Ilxll + Ilyll - TJllx - yll
The condition given in (b) is sometimes used as the definition of uniform
smoothness. See, for example, [56, p. 147].
5.56 Suppose that X is a normed space that is neither zero- nor one-dimen-
sional. Let PM represent the modulus of smoothness of M whenever M is
a subspace of X. For each positive t, let

f(t) = sup{ PM(t) : M is a two-dimensional subspace of X}.

Prove that X is uniformly smooth if and only if f(t)/t ----+ 0 as t -> 0+.
5.57 (M. M. Day, 1944 [50]). Prove that a normed space X is uniformly rotund
if and only if

inf{ 8X / M (f) : M is a closed subspace of X

and X / M is two-dimensional} > 0

whenever 0 < f :::; 2, where 8X / M is the modulus of rotundity of the

quotient space X/M. Exercise 5.56 could be helpful.
5.58 Prove that every uniformly rotund normed space has a uniformly rotund
completion and that every uniformly smooth normed space has a uni-
formly smooth completion.
504 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

5.59 Find an explicit formula, in terms only of functions one might encounter in
a precalculus course, for the modulus of smoothness of Euclidean 2-space.
The result of Exercise 5.15 could help, but it is not crucial.
5.60 This exercise assumes some knowledge of inner product spaces and their
duals; see, for example, [24]. Prove that every inner product space is
uniformly smooth. Exercise 5.16 might help.
5.61 Prove that, for every normed space, the modulus of smoothness of the
space is the same as the modulus of smoothness of its second dual.

5.6 Generalizations of Uniform Smoothness

The purpose of this section is to examine several conditions that lie be-
tween smoothness and uniform smoothness, primarily by seeing what hap-
pens when the norm is Gateaux differentiable in some uniform sense that
is not quite so strong as the uniform Frechet sense characterizing uniform
smoothness. For example, requiring the norm to be only Frechet differen-
tiable as in Definition 5.5.4 (b) results in the following generalization of
uniform smoothness.

5.6.1 Definition. A normed space is Fn!chet smooth if its norm is Frechet

differentiable. The symbol F is used for this property.

It is clear that every uniformly Frechet differentiable norm is Frechet

differentiable and that every Frechet differentiable norm is Gateaux differ-
entiable. This can be restated in the language of smoothness as follows.

5.6.2 Proposition. Every uniformly smooth normed space is Frechet

smooth, and every Frechet smooth normed space is smooth. In symbols,
(US) =? (F) =* (S).

As has already been proved in Lemma 5.5.9, Frechet smoothness can

be characterized in terms of the continuity of the spherical image map for
the unit sphere. The following result is just a restatement of the pertinent
portion of that lemma.

5.6.3 Theorem. Suppose that X is a normed space and that 1/ is the

spherical image map for S x. Then X is Frechet smooth if and only if 1/ is
singleton-valued and, when viewed as a point-valued map, is norm-to-norm
continuous.

Since smoothness of the dual space of a normed space X implies that X

is rotund, and since uniform smoothness of X* implies that X is uniformly
rotund, one would expect that Frechet smoothness of X* would imply
 5.6 Generalizations of Uniform Smoothness 505

some rotundity condition for X lying between simple rotundity and uniform
rotundity. In fact, it turns out that Frechet smoothness of X* is equivalent
to X being strongly rotund, a fact due to SmuIian. The proof to be given
here will closely follow SmuIian's, and is based on four lemmas concerning
Cauchy and weakly* Cauchy norming sequences.

5.6.4 Definition. Suppose that X is a normed space and that Z is a

subspace of X* such that
Ilxll = sup{ Iz*xl : z* E Sz}
whenever x E X. Then Z is a nanning subspace for X in X*. If x E X
and (z~) is a sequence in Sz such that z~x - t Ilxll, then (z~) is a nanning
sequence for x in S z.

5.6.5 Lemma. (V. L. Smulian, 1939 [221]). Suppose that X is a normed

space, that x E Sx, that Z is a norming subspace for X in X*, that (z~)
is a weakly* Cauchy norming sequence for x in Sz, that y E Sx, and
that t is a nonzero real number such that It I :s; 1/4. Then there exists a
sequence (Y~('; y, t)) in Sz, where the notation indicates that the linear
functionals y~ depend on y and t, such that
(1) limnRey~(x;y,t) and limnRey~(y;y,t) both exist;
(2) Illx + tY~1 - Ilxll - Ii;,n Re z~y I :s; Ilimn Re z~y - limn Re y~ (y; y, t)l;
and
(3) IlimnRey~(x;y,t) -11:S; 21tl
PROOF. Let (Y~('; y, t)) be a sequence in Sz such that
Ilx + tY11 = limy~(x
n
+ ty; y, t) = lim(Rey~(x; y, t) + tRey~(y; y, t)).
n

By thinning the sequence (y~ ( . ; y, t)) if necessary, it may be assumed that

limn Re y~ (x; y, t) and limn Re y~(y; y, t) both exist. Then
limRey~(x;y,t) = Ilx+tyll-tlimRey~(y;y,t)
n n

::::: Ilxll - Itlllyll-ltlllimRey~(y;

n
y, t)1

::::: 1- 21tl,
so
O:S; 1 -limRey~(x; y, t) :s; 21tl,
n

which proves that (3) holds. Notice next that

Ilx+tyll-llxll ~ IlimRez~(x+ty)I-1
n
= (1 + t lim Re z~y) - 1
n

= t lim Re z~y.
n
506 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

Also,

Ilx + tYII- Ilxll = limRey~(x; y, t)

n
+ tlimRey~(y;
n
y, t) - 1

:::; tlimRey~(y;y,t).
n

Therefore

0:::; Ilx + tyll-Ilxll- tlimRez~y:::; tlimRey~(y; y, t) - tlimRez~y.

n n n

Taking absolute values and dividing through by It I proves that (2) holds .
5.6.6 Lemma. (V. L. Smulian, 1939 [221]). Suppose that X is a normed
space, that Z is a norming subspace for X in X*, and that a sequence
in Sz is Cauchy if there is an element of Sx for which the sequence is a
norming sequence. Then X is Frechet smooth.
PROOF. Throughout this proof, references to (1), (2), and (3) are to the
conditions in the conclusion of Lemma 5.6.5. Fix an element x of Sx and a
norming sequence (z~) for x in Sz. For each y in Sx and each nonzero real
number t such that It I :::; 1/4, let (y~(.; y, t)) be a sequence in Sz satisfying
(1), (2), and (3). A moment's thought about (2) and the definition of a
FrE3chet differentiable norm shows that it suffices to prove that

IlimRez~y -limRey~(y; y, t)1

n n

converges to 0 as t -+ 0 uniformly for y in S x. Suppose to the contrary that

this does not happen. Then there must be a sequence (tm) of nonzero real
numbers such that Itml :::; 1/4 for each m and limm tm = 0, a sequence (Ym)
in S x, and a positive E such that

(5.2)

for every m. Let (jm) be an increasing sequence of positive integers such

that

and

for each m. Then Rey;~ (x; y"", t'Tn) -+ 1 by (3) and the fact that (5.3) holds
for each m, so (y;~ (.; Y'Tn' t'Tn)) is a norming sequence for x in Sz. Since
(5.2) and (5.4) hold for each m, it also foHows that

Ili;nRez~y",,-ReY;~(Ym;Y'Tn,t'Tn)1 > ~
 5.6 Generalizations of Uniform Smoothness 507

for all sufficiently large m, which together with the fact that (z~) is Cauchy
implies that

Ilz~-y;=(,;ym,tm)11 ~ IRez~ym-ReY;m(Ym;ym,tm)1 > ~

whenever nand m are greater than some positive integer no. However, this
cannot be, since the sequence

is a norming sequence for x in S z and therefore is itself Cauchy.

5.6.7 Lemma. (V. L. Smulian, 1940 [224]). Suppose that X is a normed

space, that x E Sx, that Z is a norming subspace for X in X*, and that
(z~) is a weakl.Y* Cauch'y norming sequence for x in Sz. Then

(Rez*y)(Rez*x) -limRez~y

+Ilx+t[y- (limn~ez~y)xlil-Ilxli
n

:s (l-IRez*xl) (~+2)

whenever z* E Sz, Y E Sx, and t > O.

PROOF. For each real number s, let

signs = {+1 -1
if s 2: 0;
if s < O.

Fix a z* in Sz, a y in Sx, and a positive t. Then

(Rez'y)(Rez'x) -limRez~y
n
= (Rcz*y)(signRez*x) -IRez'xllimRez~y
n
+ (Rez*y)(Rez'x - sign Rez*x) + (IRez*xl- 1) limRez~y
n

:s (Re z'y)(sign Re z*x) - IRe z*xllim Re z;,y

n

+ IRez*x - signRez'xl + (1 -IRez'xl)

= [Re z'y - (Rez*x) limRez~yl signRez'x + 2(1 --IRez'xl)
n

= 2(1 _ IRe z*xl) + 1 - IRe z*xl

t
(Rez*x + t[Rez*y - (Rez*x) limn Rez~y]) sign Rez*x -llxll
+ t
:s (1 _ IRe z'xl) (~ +2) + +tty - Ilx (limn ~e z~y)xlll - Ilxll ,

as claimed.

508 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

5.6.8 Lemma. (V. L. Smulian, 1940 [224]). Suppose that X is a Fnkhet

smooth normed space, that x E Sx, that Z is a norming subspace for X
in X*, and that (z~) i8 a norming sequence for x in Sz. Then (z~) is
Cauchy.
PROOF. Let x* be the unique element of Sx' that supports Ex at x. Then
'w
z~ --> x* by Theorem 5.4.19. By Theorem 5.4.17,

. Ilx
I1m + tYII - Ilxll
= Rex*y
t~O t
whenever y EX. Therefore

. Ilx
11m + try - (Rex*y)xlll - Ilxll
=0
t~O t
whenever yESx. Fix a positive f and let bE be a positive real number such
that
IIx+t[y- (Rex*y)xlil-Ilxli < -E
~--~--~----~~~~
t - 4
whenever 0 < t :::; b, and y E Sx; the Fnchet differentiability of the norm
of X guarantees the existence of such a bE. It follows from Lemma 5.6.7
that

(Rez~y)(Rez~x) - Rex*y:::; (l-IRez~xl) (;, + 2) + ~

for each y in Sx and each positive integer n. Since -y E Sx whenever
yESx, it even follows that

I(Re z~y)(Rez~x) - Rex*YI :::; (1 - IRe z~xl) (;E + 2) + ~

for each y in S x and each n. It is an easy consequence of this and the
convergence of Re z~x to 1 that there is a positive integer no such that

whenever yES x and nl, n2 ~ no, and therefore that

Ilz~, - z~211 = sup{ IRe z~,y - Re z;'2 y l : y E Sx} :::; f

whenever nl, n2 ~ no. The sequence (z~) is therefore Cauchy.

5.6.9 Theorem. (V. L. Smulian, 1940 [224]). A normed space is strongly
rotund if and only if its dual space is Frechet smooth.
PROOF. Let X be a Hormed space and let Q be the natural map from X
into X**. It may be assumed that X I- {O}. Then Q(X) is a norming
 5.6 Generalizations of Uniform Smoothness 509

subspace for X* in X**. By Theorem 5.3.17, the space X is strongly rotund

if and only if the following condition holds: Whenever x* E Sx' and (xn) is
a sequence in X such that (Qxn) is a norming sequence for X* in SQ(X), the
sequence (Qxn) is Cauchy. By Lemmas 5.6.6 and 5.6.8, this last condition
is equivalent to X* being Frechet smooth.

Since Frechet smoothness is obviously preserved by isometric isomor-

phisms, a reflexive normed space is Frechet smooth if and only if its second
dual is Frechet smooth, which together with the preceding theorem pro-
duces the following result.

5.6.10 Corollary. A reflexive normed space is Fnkhet smooth if and only

if its dual space is strongly rotund.

As will be seen in a moment, this corollary does not in general extend

to nonreflexive Banach spaces.
Since the dual space of a normed space X is a norming subspace for X
when X =I- {O}, the following result is another immediate consequence of
Lemmas 5.6.6 and 5.6.8 when X =I- {O}, and is trivially true when X = {O}.
Notice that the Cauchy property of the lemmas has been replaced by con-
vergence since X* is complete.

5.6.11 Theorem. (V. L. Smulian, 1940 [224]). Suppose that X is a normed

space. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The space X is Frechet smooth.
(b) Whenever (x~) is a sequence in Sx' for which there is an element x
of Sx such that Re x~x -r 1, the sequence (x~) converges.

By Theorem 5.3.17, the dual space of a normed space X is strongly ro-

tund if and only if the following holds: Whenever (x~) is a sequence in Sx'
for which there is an element x** of Sx" such that Rex**x~ --> 1, the
sequence (x;,) converges. Condition (b) of Theorem 5.6.11 is analogous,
except that the only members of Sx" considered are those that come
from Q(X), whcre Q is the natural map from X into X". In fact, this con-
dition (b) is properly weaker than the strong rotundity of X*, since there
are Frechet smooth Banach spaces whose duals are not strongly rotund.
One example of this follows from the fact that there is a Frechet smooth
norm IIIIF for Co equivalent to the usual norm for co; see [56, p. 160]. As
was mentioned in Section 5.3 at the end of the discussion of strong rotun-
dity, it can be shown that every strongly rotund Banach space is reflexive,
so (co, Ii IIF)* cannot be strongly rotund.
The following, at least, does hold, by an easy argument based on the
observations about sequential characterizations given at the beginning of
the preceding paragraph.
510 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

5.6.12 Theorem. If the dual space of a normed space X is strongly rotund,

then X is Fnkhet smooth.

The example (eo, IIIIF) given above can also be used to show that Frechet
smoothness is different from uniform smoothness, since the Banach space
(co, II I F) is Frechet smooth but cannot be uniformly smooth because it is
not reflexive. In fact, the three properties of uniform smoothness, Frechet
smoothness, and smoothness are distinct even in the presence of reflexivity,
as can be shown by applying Theorem 5.6.9 to some examples by Mark
Smith from [219]. Among Smith's examples are two reflexive normed spaces
(2, II I d and (2, II II w), each formed by giving 2 a norm equivalent to
its original norm, such that (2, II IlL) is (K) but not (UR) and (2, 11llw)
is (R) but not (K). It follows that (2, IIIIL)* is (F) but not (US), while
(2, IHw)* is (S) but not (F).
It is time to move on to the other major generalization of uniform
smoothness to be examined in this section.

5.6.13 Definition. A normed space is uniformly Gateaux smooth if its

norm is uniformly Gateaux differentiable. The symbol UG is used for this
property.

It is clear from the definitions that every uniformly Frechet differentiable

norm is uniformly Gateaux differentiable and that every uniformly Gateaux
differentiable norm is Gateaux differentiable, which translates into the lan-
guage of smoothness as follows.

5.6.14 Proposition. Every uniformly smooth normed space is uniformly

Gateaux smooth, al1d every uniformly Gateaux smooth normed space is
smooth. In symbols, (US) =} (UG) =} (S).

The main fact to be proved here about uniform Gateaux smoothness is

a characterization of the property in terms of a rotundity property of the
dual space. The proof is, essentially, Smulian's original one.

5.6.15 Theorem. (V. L. Smulian, 1940 [224]). A normed space is uniformly

Gateaux smooth if and only if its dual space is weakly* uniformly rotund.

PROOF. Let X be a normed space, which may be assumed not to be {O}.

Suppose first that X is uniformly Gateaux smooth, that f is a fixed real
number such that 0 < f ::; 2, and that y is a fixed element of S x. Let x
be an arbitrary element of Sx, let z* be an arbitrary element of Sx" and
let x* be the unique clement of Sx' that supports Ex at x. Since X* is a
nonning subspace for X in X' , it follows from Lemma 5.6.7 that whenever
 5.6 Generalizations of Uniform Smoothness 511

t> 0,

(Rez*y)(Rez*x) - Rex*y

:S (1 -IRez*xl) (~+ 2) + + Ilx try - (R~x*y)xlll - IIxli.

By Theorem 5.4.17,

IIx
11m + tyll - IIxll
= R ex *y,
t-->O t

so the uniform Gateaux differentiability of the norm of X implies the exis-

tence of a B"y, not dependent on the member x of Sx, such that 0 < B"y < 1
and

IIx + try - (Rex*y)xlll -lIxll

t
= 1I(I-tRex*y)x+tyll-lI(l-tRex*y)xll_Rex*y
t
= IIx + (1- tRex*y)-ltyll-lIxll _ Rex*y
(1 - tRex*y)-lt
E
<-
- 16

whenever 0 < t :S BE,y' Thus,

(Rez*y)(Rez*x) - Rex*y 'S (l-IRez*xl) (_(jl + 2) +~.

E,y 16

Replacing x and x* by their negatives in this inequality then shows that

ICRez*y)(Rez*x) - Rex*yl 'S (l-IRez*xl) (_(jl + 2) +~.

',y 16

It is worth pointing out again that (jE,y does not depend on the member x
of Sx or the member z* of Sx" Therefore

I(Rez;y)(Rez]"x) - (Rez;y)(Rez;x)1

:S (2 - IRe z;xl - IRe z;xl) (~=-

(jE,y
+ 2) + ~
8

whenever zr, zi E Sx' and x E Sx. It follows that there is a. 8 ,y such that E

0< 8 ,y < 1/4 and

E

ICRez~y)(Rez;x) - (Rez;y)(Rez;x)1 'S ~

512 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

whenever zi,zi E Sx*, x E Sx, and Rezix,Rezix > 1 - 4D"y. After

decreasing 8f ,y a bit if necessary, it follows that

whenever zi, Z2 E Sx*, x E Sx, and Re zix, Re zix ?:: 1 - 48f ,y.
For the moment, fix two elements zi and Z2 of Sx' such that

Then there is an x in Sx such that ~(Rezix + Rezix) ?:: 1- 2D"y, which

in turn implies that Re zix, Re Z2X ?:: 1 - 48"y and thus that

IRez;y - Rez2yl < ~.

If IF = C, then 11~(izi + iz2)11 ?:: 1 - 8"y, from which it follows that

IImz;y - 1m z2yl = IRe(iz2Y) - Re(iz;y)1 < ~.

In any case, it follows that IziY - z2yl < E whenever zi, Z2 E Sx' and
11~(zi + z2)11 ?:: 1- D"y. Let Dx' be the w*UR modulus of X*. Then

OX*(E,y) = inf {l-II~(zi + z2)11 : Z~,Z2 E Sx*, Iz;y - z2yl ?:: E}

?:: D"y
> 0,
and so X* is weakly* uniformly rotund.
Now suppose conversely that X* is weakly* uniformly rotund. Then X*
is rotund, so X is smooth. As in the first part of this proof, let y be a fixed
element of .'ix . Let x be an arbitrary member of .'ix, let t be an arbitrary
real number such that 0 < It I ::; 1/4, and let x~ be the unique element
of Sx* that supports Ex at x. By Lemma 5.6.5, there exists a sequence
(y~(;y,x,t)) inSx* such that
(4) limnRey~(x;y,x,t) and limnRey~(y;y,x,t) both exist;

(5) I "x+ ty"t - "x" - * I ::; IRex;y - lImn

Rexxy . Rey~(y; y, x, t)l; and
(6) IlimnRey~(x;y,x,t) -11::; 21tl.
By (5), the theorem will be proved once it is shown that

IRex~y -limRey~(y; y,x, t)1

n

converges to 0 as t -> 0 uniformly for x in Sx Suppose to the contrary that

this does not occur. Then there is a sequence (t m ) of nonzero real numbers
 5.6 Generalizations of Uniform Smoothness 513

such that Itml :::; 1/4 for each m and limm tm = 0, a sequence (xm) in Sx
and a corresponding sequence (x~) in Sx' such that each x~ supports Ex
at X m , and a positive E such that

(5.5)

for each m. Let (jm) be an increasing sequence of positive integers such

that

and

for each m. Since (5.5) and (5.6) hold for each m, it follows that

whenever m 2: 2/t. Consequently,

whenever m 2: 2/E. However, it also follows from (6) that

which together with the fact that (5.7) holds for every m implies that

whenever m is sufficiently large. Therefore for large values of m,

IIHX~ +Yj=( ;y,x m ,tm ))II2: HRex;"x m + ReYj,Jxm;y,xm,tm ))

> HI + 1- OX'(E/2,y))
> 1 - OX' (E/2, y)
2: IIHx;"+Yj,J';y,xm,tm))II,
which is the contradiction needed to finish the proof.

It takes only a few moments' reflection on the wUR and w*UR moduli
of the dual space of a reflexive normed space X to see that X* is weakly
uniformly rotund if and only if it is weakly* uniformly rotund. The following
result is therefore an immediate consequence of Theorem 5.6.15.
514 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

5.6.16 Corollary. A reflexive normed space is uniformly Gateaux smooth

if and only if its dual space is weakly uniformly rotund.

5.6.17 Corollary. A reflexive normed space is weakly uniformly rotund if

and only if its dual space is uniformly Gateaux smooth.
PROOF. Let X be a reflexive normed space. Then X* is uniformly Gateaux
smooth if and only if X** is weakly uniformly rotund, which happens if
and only if X is weakly uniformly rotund since weak uniform rotundity is
preserved by isometric isomorphisms.

One implication in the preceding corollary survives even in the absence

of reflexivity.

5.6.18 Corollary. If the dual space of a normed space X is uniformly

Gateaux smooth, then X is weakly uniformly rotund.
PROOF. Since X* is (UG), the space X** is (w*UR) by Theorem 5.6.15.
An obvious argument based on the way that X naturally embeds in X**
and on the forms of the wUR modulus of X and the w*UR modulus of X**
then shows that X is (wUR).

Corollary 5.6.17, along with the two examples by Mark Smith men-
tioned in the discussion following Theorem 5.6.12, can be used to show that
uniform Gateaux smoothness is genuinely different from both smoothness
and uniform smoothness, even for reflexive normed spaces. Smith showed
in [219J that (t'2, 11llw) is (wUR) but not (UR) and that (2, II IlL) is (R)
but not (wUR). It follows that (2, 11'llw)* is (UG) but not (US), while
(2, IIIIL)* is (S) but not (UG). As was previously mentioned, the space
(2, II'IIL)* is (F) while (2, 11'llw)* is not, so this also shows that neither
of the properties of Frechet smoothness and uniform Gateaux smoothness
implies the other.
One further generalization of uniform smoothness deserves mention be-
fore leaving the subject. It has been shown in Proposition 5.4.24, Corol-
lary 5.4.29, and Theorems 5.6.3 and 5.5.10 that a normed space X is
(a) smooth,
(b) Frechet smooth, or
(c) uniformly smooth
if and only if the spherical image map for Sx is singleton-valued and, when
viewed as a point-valued map, is
(a) norm-to-weak* continuous,
(b) norm-to-norm continuous, or
(c) uniformly norm-to-norm continuous,
 5.6 Generalizations of Uniform Smoothness 515

respectively. The following definition fills the one conspicuous gap in this
list of continuity conditions.

5.6.19 Definition. A normed space is very smooth if the spherical image

map for its unit sphere is singleton-valued and, when viewed as a point-
valued map, is norm-to--weak continuous. The symbol VS is used for this
property.

The final result of this section then follows immediately from the obser-
vations made just before the preceding definition.

5.6.20 Proposition. If a normed space is Frechet smooth then it is very

smooth, and if it is very smooth then it is smooth. In symbols, (F) =}
(VS) =} (8).

Several conditions equivalent to the property of being very smooth can

be inferred from the results in J. R. Giles's article [87], which is a good
starting point for the reader interested in this condition.

Exercises
5.62 (A. R. Lavaglia, 1955 [159]). Prove that a normed space is Fhkhet smooth
if its dual space is locally uniformly rotund.
5.63 (V. L. Smulian, 1940 [224]). Show that a Banach space is reflexive if
its dual space is both strongly rotund and Frechet smooth. Do not use
James's theorem or any result based on it, such as Exercise 5.33, in your
argument. (In fact, it follows from Exercise 5.33 and Theorem 5.6.9 that
a Banach space is reflexive if its dual space is either strongly rotund or
Frechet smooth.)
5.64 (V. L. Smulian, 1940 [224]). Suppose that X is a weakly sequentially
complete normed space with Schur's property (as is the case for every
normed space isomorphic to i\ j see Example 2.5.24). Prove that if X' is
smooth, then X' is Frechet smooth.
In particular, it follows from this exercise that if there is a norm 11lls*
on 1 equivalent to the standard norm of 1 such tha.t (1, II lis r is
smooth, then (1, II lis' ) is strongly rotund. However, this is a contradic-
tion since it would imply that 1 is reflexive; see Exercise 5.33. See also
Exercise 5.45. As was mentioned in Section 5.4, M. M. Day showed in a
1955 paper [51 J that 00 cannot be equivalently renormed to be smooth,
which is a stronger statement than saying that 1 cannot be equivalently
renormed to make its dual space smooth.
5.65 (a) Suppose that X is a strongly rotund Banach space, that Q is the
natural map from X into X", that x" E Sx'" tha.t x E Sx" and
that x"x' = 1. Prove that there is an x in Sx such that Qx = x".
Do not use any material from any optional sections of this book in
your argument.
516 5. Rotundity and Smoothness

(b) Use an argument based on the Bishop-Phelps subreflexivity theo-

rem from optional Section 2.11 to prove that every strongly rotund
Banach space is reflexive.
5.66 (L. P. Vlasov, 1972, 1973 [236, 238]). A normed space X has the semi-
Radon-Riesz property if it satisfies the following condition: Whenever
(x n ), x, and (x;') are, respectively, a sequence in Sx, an element of Sx,
and a sequence in Sx' such that x;'xn = 1 for each nand Xn ~ x,
it follows that x;'x - 7 1. (This condition was previously encountered in
Exercise 2.65, but that exercise is not needed for this one.) Show that ev-
ery uniformly Gateaux smooth normed space has the semi-Radon-Riesz
property.
5.67 (J. R. Giles, 1975 [87]). Suppose that X is a normed space, that Q is the
natural map from X into X, and that every point of SQ(X) is a point
of smoothness of Bx. Prove that X is very smooth.
Appendix A
Prerequisi tes

This book is intended primarily as a text for Banach space courses taught
to graduate students in mathematics. The following are the prerequisites
for a course taught from this book at that level.

1. A first course in linear algebra that covers bases, linear transforma-

tions, dual vector spaces, and related topics in the theory of real and
complex vector spaces. The course should not treat just the finite-
dimensional theory.

2. An acquaintance with elementary properties of the complex plane. To

understand all of the examples, some knowledge is needed of analytic
functions and integrals of complex-valued functions of a real variable.
However, the actual theory presented in this book does not require
properties of complex numbers much beyond elementary facts about
moduli and conjugates and the fact that the complex numbers form
a complete field.

3. Courses covering elementary measure theory and the Lebesgue spaces

Lp(fl, 'L., f.t), where 1 ::; P ::; 00 and f.t is a nonnegative-extended-real-
valued measure on a (I-algebra 'L. of subsets of the set fl. The material
covered should include the completeness of Lebesgue spaces as well
as the duality between Lp and Lq when 1 ::; p < 00, the "exponents"
p and q are conjugate, and the measure space is (I-finite. The reader
should also have seen the Riesz representation theorem for bounded
linear functionals on the real and complex Banach spaces C(K),
where K is a compact Hausdorff space. However, the Riesz repre-
518 Appendix A. Prerequisites

sentation theorem is actually needed only to understand examples

involving the dual space of C(K), not for the main development of
the theory.

4. A first course in general topology that includes product topologies,

metric topologies, the separation axioms, and related topics. Much of
the topology needed for this course is presented at the beginning of
Section 2.1, but in a condensed fashion that is probably not ideal for
someone seeing the material for the first time.

A course in functional analysis is not a prerequisite. The results from func-

tional analysis required for this book, such as the Hahn-Banach theorems,
open mapping theorem, closed graph theorem, and uniform boundedness
principle, are stated and proved as they are needed.
Chapter 1 can be used as the basis for an undergraduate Banach space
course having the following reduced set of prerequisites.

1. The linear algebra course mentioned above.

2. A first course in real analysis. This course should cover the topology
of the real line, continuous real-valued functions on the real line,
properties of the Riemann integral, and convergence of sequences and
series of real numbers and real-valued functions on the real line.

3. An introduction to metric spaces. This introduction should cover most

of the material outlined in Appendix B.

The following is a section-by-section description of the changes that should

be made to the presentation in Chapter 1 for such a course. Notice that
after Section 1.1, most of the changes are modifications or omissions of
examples, exercises, and comments that depend on material not covered
by the above three prerequisites.
Section 1.1. If complex vector spaces arc not to be treated, then use the
symbollF to represent only the field IR and replace the paragraph on page 2
that begins with "It is worth emphasizing ... " by "Since all vector spaces
will have IR as their scalar ficld, the terms vector space and real vector space
will be treated as being synonymous. Similarly, the adjective real is to be
considered to be redundant whenever it is used to describe some special
type of vector space, such as the normed spaces and Banach spaces to
be defined in the next section." In the definitions of closure and interior,
replace "topological spacc" by "metric space." In the definitions of closed
convex hull and closed linear hull, replace "topology" by "metric." After
covering the definition of a metric space, review the properties of metric
spaces listed in Appendix B, perhaps treating some of the less-standard
ones as exercises. Notice in particular that the term "topology" is defined
for metric spaces in Definition 13.5, allowing its use in Chapter 1 in the
context of metric spaces. Omit Exercise 1.12. If complex vector spaces are
 Appendix A. Prerequisites 519

not to be treated, then omit Exercises 1.9 and 1.10 and the first part of
Exercise 1. 7.
Section 1.2. If complex vector spaces are not to be treated, then omit
the reference to en in Example 1.2.5. Omit Example 1.2.6, and replace the
paragraph following it by the single sentence "The roles of subscripts and
superscripts are often exchanged in the notations for the normed spaces
of the next three examples." Cover Appendix C through Definition C.9
before covering Examples 1.2.7-1.2.9, and omit the paragraph following
Example 1.2.7 as well as the last two sentences of Example 1.2.9. In Ex-
ample 1.2.10, replace "Hausdorff space" by "metric space" and omit the
reference to Lp[O, IJ. Omit Example 1.2.11, and in the paragraph follow-
ing it replace "topological space" by "metric space" and omit everything
after the argument that C(K) is complete. Cover Theorem C.lO and Corol-
lary C.ll after covering Definition 1.2.12. Omit Example 1.2.14. Delete the
reference to the Banach spaces Lp[O, 1] in the last sentence before the ex-
ercises. Omit Exercises 1.22, 1.23, and 1.28.
Section 1.3. In Corollary 1.3.4, replace "topological space" by "metric
space." Omit the paragraph immediately preceding Theorem 1.3.10. In
Exercise 1.30, replace "Hausdorff space" by "metric space."
Section 1.4. If complex vector spaces are not to be treated, then omit
part (c) of Exercise 1.48.
Section 1.5. Delete the last sentence of the second paragraph of the
section. In the third paragraph of the section, leave "topological meaning"
as it is, since this reference makes sense in the context of the topology of
a metric space, but change "topological space" to "metric space." In the
collection of definitions following this paragraph, change the first occurrence
of "topological space" to "metric space" and change the last sentence to "In
particular, the set A is of the first or second category in itself if A has that
category as a subset of the metric space (A, d A ), where dA is the restriction
of the metric of X to A x A." In Proposition 1.5.3, change "topological
space" to "metric space." Omit the first sentence of the last paragraph
before the exercises. In Exercises 1.53-1.57, replace "topological space"
or "topological spaces" by "metric space" or "metric spaces" respectively.
Omit Exercises 1.58, 1.62, and 1.63.
Section 1.6. In Definition 1.6.4, replace "topological space" by "metric
space." In the paragraph following that definition, omit all but the last
sentence. In the paragraph preceding Corollary 1.6.6, replace "topologi-
cal space" by "metric space." In Exercise 1.68, replace "topological space"
and "Hausdorff space" by "metric space." Omit Exercise 1.70. In Exer-
cise 1.71, replace "Hausdorff space" by "metric space." In Exercise 1.74,
replace "topological space" by "metric space."
Section 1.7. Omit Example 1. 7.2 and the last sentence of the paragraph
preceding it. In the paragraph following the proof of Theorem 1.7.4, omit
the three references to a topology. In the last sentence of the paragraph
preceding Definition 1.7.10, delete everything following "a quotient map."
520 Appendix A. Prerequisites

Omit the first two paragraphs following the proof of Proposition 1.7.12.
If it cannot be assumed that the student has seen the isomorphism theo-
rems for groups, omit the paragraph preceding Theorem 1.7.14 and skip
Exercise 1.87.
Section 1.8. Omit Exercise 1.92.
Section 1.9. If complex scalars are not to be treated, then omit the
following: beginning with the second sentence of the paragraph preceding
Definition 1.9.2, all material through Proposition 1.9.3; the last paragraph
of the proof of Theorem 1.9.6; the occurrence of "real-" in the paragraph
preceding Definition 1.9.13; the two occurrences of "Re" in the statement of
Proposition 1.9.15; the first sentence of the proof of Proposition 1.9.15; and
the single occurrence of "Re" in Exercise 1.109 as well as its two occurrences
in Exercise 1.110.
Section 1.10. Omit Example 1.10.2 and the two paragraphs following
it. Cover Theorem C.12 before covering Example 1.10.3, and replace the
first three sentences of that example with the following: "Suppose that
1 :S p < 00 and that q is conjugate to p. Then ; can be identified with q
in a natural way; see Theorem C.12." Omit the last two sentences of the
first paragraph of Example 1.10.4. Cover Theorem C.13 before covering
Example 1.10.5, then replace the entire text of that example with the fol-
lowing: "Suppose that n is a positive integer, that 1 :S p :S 00, and that q
is conjugate to p. Then (~)* can be identified with ~ in a natural way;
see Theorem C.13." Omit Example 1.10.6. Omit the last two sentences of
the paragraph following Theorem 1.10.7. If complex scalars are not to be
treated, then omit Exercise 1.113. Omit Exercise 1.121.
Section 1.11. Replace the statement of Theorem 1.11.10 by that of The-
orem C.14, and the proof of Theorem 1.11.10 by the statement "See The-
orem C.14." Omit the paragraph following the proof of Theorem 1.11.10.
Omit Examples 1.11.24 and 1.11.25. Omit Exercises 1.124-1.126, 1.129,
and 1.130.
Section 1.12. In the introductory paragraph of the section and in the
statement and proof of Proposi tion 1.12.9, replace each occurrence of "topo-
logical space" by "metric space." If complex scalars are not to be treated,
then replace the third sentence of the proof of Proposition 1.12.1 by "Let
lQo be the rationals." Omit Examples 1.12.3-1.12.5. In the paragraph fol-
lowing the proof of Corollary 1.12.12, omit the references to LdO, 1], C[O, 1],
L(XJ[O, 1], and rca[O, 1J. Omit Exercises 1.142, 1.143, and 1.145.
Section 1.13. Omit the first sentence of the paragraph following Defi-
nition 1.13.2. Omit Example 1.13.7 and Exercise 1.149. If complex scalars
are not to be treated, then omit the following: all occurrences of the sym-
bol "Re"; the second paragraph of the section; Proposition 1.13.1; the first
sentence of the proof of Theorem 1.13.4; the third sentence of the sec-
ond paragraph following the proof of Theorem 1.13.4; the proof of Theo-
rem 1.13.15; and Exercise 1.146.
Appendix B
Metric Spaces

The only results from topology that are used in a crucial way in Chapter 1
are about metric spaces. These results are standard fare in most general
topology texts, but a development of metric spaces independent of gen-
eral topology, such as can be found in Kaplansky's Set Theory and Metric
Spaces [129] and in many elementary real analysis texts, is sufficient. For
reference, here are the definitions and results from metric space theory
needed for Chapter 1.

B.l Definition. A metric space is a set M with a metric or distance

function d: M x M -+ lR such that the following three conditions are
satisfied by all x, y, and z in M:
(1) d(x, y) :::: 0, and d(x, y) =
if and only if x = y;
(2) d(x,y) = d(y,x);
(3) d(x, z) ~ d(x, y) + dey, z) (the triangle inequality).

For the rest of this appendix, let M, M 1 , ... ,MN be sets with respective
metrics d, d 1 , ... ,d N .
B.2 Proposition. If S is a subset of M, then S is itself a metric space
with the metric inherited from M.

B.3 Proposition. If x,y,z E M, then Id(x,z) - d(y,z)1 ~ d(x,y).

BA Definition. If x E M and r > 0, then the open ball in M with center x

and radius r is {y : y E M, d(x, y) < r }. The corresponding closed ball is
{y : y E M, d(x, y) ~ r}.
522 Appendix B. Metric Spaces

B.5 Definition. A subset S of M is open if, for every x in S, there is an

entire open ball centered at x included in S. The topology induced by the
metric d is the collection of all open subsets of M.

B.6 Proposition. The following subsets of M are open.

(1) The empty set.
(2) The entire set M.
(3) Every open ball.
(4) Every intersection of finitely many open sets.
(5) Every union of open sets, whether or not there are finitely many.

B.7 Definition. A neighborhood of an element x of M is an open set

containing x.

B.8 Proposition. Let S be a subset of M. Then the following are equiv-

alent.
(a) The set 5 is open.
(b) The set 5 can be written as the union of a (possibly empty) collection
of open balls.
(c) For each x in 5, there is an entire neighborhood of x included in 5.

B.9 Definition. A subset S of M is closed if its complement is open.

B.10 Proposition. The following subsets of M are closed.

(1) The empty set.
(2) The entire set M.
(3) Every dosed ball.
(4) Every finite set.
(5) Every intersection of closed sets, whether or not there are finitely
many.
(6) Every union of finitely many closed sets.

B.ll Definition. Let (x n ) be a sequence in M. Then (x n ) is Cauchy if,

for every positive E, there is a positive integer NE such that d(xn, x m ) < f'
whenever n, m ;::. N E The sequence (xn) converges to an element x of M,
and x is called the limit of (x n ), if, for every positive E, there is a positive
integer NE such that d(xn' x) < E whenever n ;::. N E If (xn) converges to x,
then this is denoted by writing xn --> x or limn Xn = X.

B.12 Proposition. A sequence (xn) in M converges to an element x of M

if and only if the following is true: For every neighborhood U of x, there
is a positive integer Nu such that Xn E U whenever n ;::. N u .
 Appendix B. Metric Spaces 523

B.13 Proposition. No sequence in M has more than one limit.

B.14 Proposition. If a sequence in M converges to a limit, then every

subsequence of that sequence converges to that same limit.

B.15 Proposition. Every convergent sequence in M is Cauchy.

B.16 Proposition. If a Cauchy sequence in M has a convergent subse-

quence, then the entire sequence converges to the limit of the subsequence.

B.17 Definition. A subset of M is bounded if it is either empty or included

in some open ball.

In the preceding definition, there is no need to make a special case of the

empty set unless M is itself empty.

B.18 Proposition. Every Cauchy sequence in M (and hence every con-

vergent sequence in M) is bounded.

B.19 Proposition. If Xn -4 x and Yn -4 yin M, then d(xn, Yn) -4 d(x, y).

B.20 Proposition. A subset S of M is closed if and only if every sequence

in S that converges in M has its limit in S.

B.2I Definition. The closure of a subset S of M, denoted by S, is the

smallest closed set that includes S, that is, the intersection of all closed
sets that include S. The interior of S, denoted by So, is the largest open
subset of S, that is, the union of all open subsets of S. The boundary of S,
denoted by as, is the set S n M \ s.

B.22 Proposition. Let S be a subset of M and x an element of M. Then

the following are equivalent.
(a) XES.
(b) Every neighborhood of x intersects S.
(c) There is a sequence in S converging to x.

B.23 Proposition. Let S be a subset of M. Then as = S \ So. An

element x of M is in as if and only if every neighborhood of x intersects
both Sand M \ s.

B.24 Definition. A subset S of ]",1 is complete if each Cauchy sequence

in S has a limit in S. If the entire space M is complete, then d is a complete
metric.

B.25 Proposition. Every complete subset of M is closed.

524 Appendix B. Metric Spaces

B.26 Proposition. Every closed subset of a complete subset of M is itself

complete.

B.27 Definition. Let S be a subset of M. Then 5 is compact if, for each

collection Qj of open subsets of M whose union includes S, there is a finite
subcollection of Qj whose union includes S. That is, the set 5 is compact if
each open covering of 5 can be thinned to a finite subcovering.

B.28 Definition. Let 5 be a subset of M. Consider 5 to be a metric

space with the metric inherited from M. Then 5 has the finite intersection
property if n{ F : F E ~} is nonempty whenever ~ is a collection of
closed subsets of 5 such that each finite sub collection of ~ has nonempty
intersection.

In the preceding definition, the set 5, not M, should really be consid-

ered to be the universal set when taking intersections of empty families ~.
However, the property being defined is the same either way.

B.29 Proposition. Let 5 be a subset of M. Then the following are equiv-

alent.
(a) The set 5 is compact.
(b) The set 5 has the finite intersection property.
(c) Each sequence in 5 has a convergent subsequence whose limit is in 5.

B.30 Proposition. Every closed subset of a compact subset of M is itself

compact.

B.31 Proposition. Every compact subset of M is complete, hence closed.

B.32 Proposition. Every compact subset of M is bounded.

B.33 Definition. Suppose that D ~ 5 ~ M. Then D is dense in 5 if

D~ S.

B.34 Proposition. Suppose that D ~ 5 ~ M. Then the following are

equivalent.
(a) The set D is dense in 5.
(b) For every x in 5 and every positive E, there is a y in D such that
d(x, y) < E.
(c) Every clement of S is the limit of a sequence from D.

B.35 Definition. A subset of M is separable if it has a countable dense

subset.
 Appendix B. Metric Spaces 525

B.36 Proposition. Every subset of a separable subset of M is itself sep-

arable.

B.37 Proposition. Every compact subset of M is separable.

B.38 Definition. Let f be a function from Ml into M 2 Then J is

(a) continuous at the point x of Ml if, for each neighborhood V of J(x),
there is a neighborhood U of x such that J(U) ~ V;
(b) continuous on Ml or just continuous if, for each open subset V of M 2 ,
the set f- l (V) is open.

B.39 Proposition. Suppose that J is a function from Ml into M2 and

that x is an element of MI. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The function J is continuous at x.
(b) For every positive E there is a positive 6, such that d 2 (J(x), f(y)) < E
whenever y E MI and dl(x, y) < 6..
(c) Whenever a sequence (x n ) inMl convergestox, the sequence (J(x n ))
converges to J(x).

B.40 Proposition. Let J be a function from Ml into M 2. Then f is

continuous on MI if and only if J is continuous at every point of MI.

B.41 Proposition. Suppose that f and 9 are continuous functions from

Ml into M 2. If J and 9 agree on a dense subset of M I , then f and 9 agree
on all of MI.

B.42 Proposition. Suppose that S is a subset of MI and that J is a

continuous function from MI into M 2. If S is compact or separable, then
f(S) has that same property.

B.43 Proposition. Suppose that S is a non empty compact subset of M

and that f is a continuous real-valued function on M. Then f is bounded
on S, and furthermore there are points Xl and X2 in S such that f(xd =
inf{ f(x) : xES} and J(X2) = sup{ f(x) : xES}.

B.44 Definition. A function J from MI into M2 is uniformly continuous

on MI or just uniformly continuous if, for every positive E, there is a posi-
tive 8, such that d 2 (J(x),f(y)) < E whenever x,y E MI and dl(x,y) < 6,.

B.45 Proposition. Every uniformly continuous function from MI into M2

is continuous.

B.46 Proposition. If MI is compact, then every continuous function

from MI into M2 is uniformly continuous.
526 Appendix B. Metric Spaces

B.47 Definition. Let (In) be a sequence of functions from Ml into M 2.

Then (In) is uniformly Cauchy if, for every positive E, there is a positive
integer N, such that d2 (jn(x), fm(x)) < whenever n, m 2: N, and x E MI'
The sequence (In) converges uniformly to a function f from MI into M 2 ,
and f is called the uniform limit of (In), if, for every positive , there is a
positive integer N, such that d2 (Jn (x), I (x)) < whenever n 2: N,.

B.48 Proposition. Suppose that (In) and I are, respectively, a sequence

of functions and a function, all mapping MI into M 2 . If each In is contin-
uous and (In) converges uniformly to I, then I is continuous.

B.49 Corollary. Suppose that (In) is a uniformly Cauchy sequence of

continuous functions from MI into M2 and that M2 is complete. Then
there is a continuous function I from MI into M2 to which (In) converges
uniformly.

B.50 Definition. For each pair (XI, ... ,XN),(YI, ... ,YN) of elements of
the Cartesian product M1 x ... X MN, let

N 1/2
dp ((X1,". ,XN), (YI, ... , YN)) = (~(dj(XJ' YJ))2)

Then dp is the product metric on Ml x '" X MN induced by d 1 , ,d N ,

and the corresponding topology is the product topology for Ml x ... X MN
induced by d 1 , ... ,dN.

B.51 Proposition. The product metric on Ml x ... X MN induced by

d 1 , ... , d N is a metric.

It is a standard convention that whenever reference is made to an un-

specified metric or topology for the Cartesian product of a non empty finite
list of metric spaces, for example by saying that a subset of the Cartesian
product is open without indicating the relevant metric or topology, it is the
product metric or product topology that is being assumed. In that spirit,
all references in the rest of this section to Ml x ... X MN as a metric space
imply the metric dp of Definition B.50.

B.52 Proposition. Suppose that ((x~n), ... , x~)) ~=l is a sequence in

Ml x ... X 1I.1N and that (Xl, ... ,XN) E Ml x '" X M N . Then

. (x n)
11m (n) )
l ' ... , X N = ( Xl, .. , X N )
n

if and only if limn x~n) = Xj when j = 1, ... , N.

 Appendix B. Metric Spaces 527

B.53 Proposition. A subset of Ml x ... X MN is open if and only if it

is the union of sets of the form U1 x ... x UN, where each Uj is an open
subset of the corresponding M j .

B.54 Proposition. Suppose that M 1 , .. , MN are all nonempty. Then

Ml x .,. X MN is complete, or compact, or separable, or bounded, if and
only if each M j has that same property.

B.55 Definition. Two metrics on the same set are (topologically) equiva-
lent if they induce the same topology.

Clearly, a set that is closed with respect to a metric d is also closed with
respect to every metric equivalent to d. Such properties that depend not
on the particular metric but rather only on the topology induced by the
metric are called topological properties. It is easy to see that convergence of
a sequence to a particular limit, compactness, separability, and continuity
are topological properties. Cauchyness, completeness, and boundedness are
not. See Exercise 1.42 for an example of a metric don lR that is equivalent
to the usual metric on lR and yet has the property that lR is bounded and
incomplete under d; the incompleteness implies the existence of a sequence
of reals that is not Cauchy in the usual sense but that is d-Cauchy.

B.56 Definition. Suppose that I is a one-to-one map from Ml onto M2

such that both I and 1-1 are continuous. Then I is a homeomorphism,
and Ml and M2 are homeomorphic.

Notice that two metrics on the same set are equivalent if and only if
the identity map on the set, treated as a function between the two metric
spaces, is a homeomorphism.

B.57 Proposition. Suppose that I is a homeomorphism from Ml onto M 2

Then a subset S of Ml is open, or closed, or compact, or separable, if and
only if I(S) has that same property. A sequence (xn) in Ml converges to
an element x of Ml if and only if the sequence (J(xn)) converges to I(x)
in M 2 .

Basically, a homeomorphism is a one-to-one function from one metric

space onto another that preserves topological properties in both directions.
Homeomorphisms do not have to preserve Cauchyness, completeness, and
boundedness. For example, if lR. is treated as a metric space Ml with its
usual metric and as another metric space M2 with the metric of Exer-
cise 1.42, then the identity function on lR can be viewed as a homeomor-
phism from Ml onto M2 that does not preserve Cauchyness, completeness,
and boundedness. See the comments following Definition B.55.
528 Appendix B. Metric Spaces

One way to force a homeomorphism to preserve properties closely related

to the metric as well as topological properties is to require it to preserve
distances.

B.58 Definition. Suppose that 1 is a map from MI onto M2 such that

d2 (J(x),j(y)) = dl(x, y) whenever x, y E MI. Then 1 is an isometry, and
MI and M2 are isometric.

B.59 Proposition. Suppose that 1 is an isometry from Ml onto M 2 . Then

1 is a homeomorphism. A subset 8 of Ml is complete or bounded if and
only if 1(8) has that same property. A sequence (x n ) in Ml is Cauchy if
and only if the sequence (J(xn)) in M2 is Cauchy.

B.60 Definition. The metric space M2 is a completion of Ml if there is

an isometry from Ml onto a dense subset of M 2 .

The following result can be proved by isometrically embedding the met-

ric space M into the metric space of all bounded real-valued continuous
functions on M. See, for example, [129, pp. 90-92].

B.61 Theorem. Every metric space has a completion.

Appendix C
The Spaces Rp and R;, 1 < P < 00

The spaces fp and f;, where 1 :::; p :::; 00 and n E N, are treated in Chapter 1
as the Lebesgue spaces Lp(0., '., J-t), where 0. is N or the set {I, ... , n} and J-t
is the counting measure on the a-algebra'. of all subsets of 0.. The purpose
of this section is to provide a more elementary development of the spaces
fp and f; paralleling that given in Chapter 1 but requiring only as much
knowledge of analysis as would come from a first undergraduate course in
real analysis without measure theory, and no knowledge of general topology
beyond the basic facts about metric spaces from Appendix B. For the sake
of completeness, a few words will also be said about the trivial normed
space f~.
In the following definition, the pth root of infinity is to be interpreted to
be infinity when 1 :::; p < 00.

C.l Definition. Suppose that 1 :::; P :::; 00 and that X is the vector space of
all sequences of scalars with the usual vector space operations, that is, with
addition of sequences and multiplication of sequences by scalars performed
term by term. For each member (OJ) of X, let

( I:lajIP)1/P if 1:::; p < 00;

II(aj)llp = { j=1
sup{ laj I : j EN} if P = 00.

Then the p-norm on X is the function II lip : X --7 [0,00]. The collection
of all sequences (aj) of scalars such that II(aj)llp is finite is denoted by fp
(pronounced "little ell p" ).
530 Appendix C. The Spaces t p and t;, 1 ::; P ::; 00

The p-norms are not really norms on the vector space X of the preceding
definition. For example, if aj = j for each j, then lI(aj)llp = 00 when
1 ::; p ::; 00. It does turn out that each of the spaces fp is a subspace of X
and has the corresponding p-norm as a norm. To show this, the first order
of business is to obtain some classical inequalities.

C.2 Definition. Suppose that 1 ::; P ::; 00. Define q as follows. If p = 1,

then let q = 00. If p = 00, then let q = 1. If 1 < p < 00, then let q be
such that p-l + q-l = 1; that is, let q = p/(p - 1). Then q is the exponent
conjugate to p, and p and q are conjugate exponents.

Notice that 1 ::; q ::; 00 for each conjugate exponent q, and that if q is
conjugate to p, then p is conjugate to q. Notice also that q = 2 when p = 2,
and that 2 is the only value of p that is its own conjugate exponent.

C.3 Lemma. Suppose that 1 < p < 00 and that q is conjugate to p. Then
rP sq
rs < -
- p
+-q
for all nonnegative real numbers rand s.
PROOF. Suppose that 0 < a < 1 and that f(t) = t a - at when t > O. It is a
straightforward calculus exercise to show that f takes on its maximum value
when t = 1, so t a - at ::; 1- a when t > O. Substituting the quotient u/v of
two positive numbers for t, multiplying by v, and rearranging the resulting
inequality shows that

uav 1 - a ::; au + (1 - a)v

when u, v > O. It is clear that this inequality holds, in fact, when u, v ;::: O.
Finally, let rand s be nonnegative reals, let u = r P , let v = sq, let a = p-l
(so that 1 - a = q-l), and substitute into the above inequality to finish
the proof.

The interpretation of one special case of the following result relies on the
usual convention that 0 . 00 = O.

C.4 Holder's Inequality for Sequences. Suppose that 1 ::; p ::; 00 and
that q is conjugate to p. Then

for all sequences (a) and (;3j) of scalars.

PROOF. It may be assumed that neither (aj) nor (;3j) is the zero sequence,
and therefore that II(aj)llp and 11(;3j)llq are both nonzero. It may also be
assumed that lI(aj)llp and 11(;3)llq are finite, and therefore are positive
 Appendix C. The Spaces Pp and P;, 1 ::; p ::; 00 531

reals. Now suppose that the conclusion of Holder's inequality holds when
II(aj)l!p = 11(,8j )llq = 1. For the general case, let, = II(aj)llp and 0 =
IIC8j)llq, so that ,,0 E (0,00). It is easy to check that

which implies that

II (aj) II; 111 (fJj) 11;111 (ajfJj )Ih = II b- 1ajo-l fJj) III
::; I!b-1aj)llp II(o-lfJj)llq
=1.

Multiplying through by II(aj)l!p 11(.8j)llq then yields the desired result. It

may therefore be assumed that II(aj)llp = II(fJj)llq = 1. The proof will be
complete once it is shown that II(aj.8j)111 ::; 1.
Suppose first that either p or q is 1. It may be assumed that p = 1 and
therefore that q = 00. Since I (fJj) 1100 = 1, it follows that IfJj I ::; 1 for each j,
and therefore that

j j

as required.
Finally, suppose that 1 < p < 00. It follows from the lemma that

::; Lj
(~+
p
IfJjl q )
q

= II(aj)ll~ + l!(fJj)ll~
p q
1 1
=-+-
p q
= 1,

which finishes the proof.

In a sense, Holder's inequality is just a generalization of Cauchy's in-
equality for the spaces lF n such that n E N, and in fact Cauchy's inequality
follows easily from Holder's. Suppose that n E N, that (al,"" an) and
(.81, ... ,.8n) are ordered n-tuples of scalars, and that (aj) and (.8j) are the
corresponding extensions of (aI, ... ,an) and (fJl,"" .8,,) to sequences of
scalars formed by letting aj = .8j = 0 when j > n. Then Holder's inequality
532 Appendix C. The Spaces p and e;, 1 ::; p ::; 00

with p set to 2 implies that

l~aj;Jjl ::; ~laj{3jl

= II(aj{3j)1I1
::; II (a j) 112 II ({3j) 112
n ) 1/2 ( n ) 1/2
= ( ~lajl2 ~1!JjI2 ,

which is the conclusion of Cauchy's inequality.

Just as the triangle inequality for the norm of Euclidean n-space follows
from Cauchy's inequality, a triangle inequality for the p-norm follows from
Holder's inequality.

C.5 Minkowski's Inequality for Sequences. Suppose that 1 ::; P ::; 00.
Then

for all sequences (aj) and ({3j) of scalars.

PROOF. If P = 1, then

j j

If p= 00, then lak + (3kl ::; lakl + l!Jkl ::; II(aj)lloo + 11({3j)lloo for each k, so
IICaj) + ({3j) 1100 ::; lI(aj)lloo + IIC!Jj)lloo.
Finally, suppose that 1 < p < 00, and let q be conjugate to p. It may be
assumed that II(aj) + ({3j)llp is nonzero and that both II(aj)llp and 1I({3j)llp
are finite. Since

j j

::; 2P('LlajIP+ 'L 1{3jIP),

J J
 Appendix C. The Spaces e p and e;, 1 S; p S; 00 533

the finiteness of II (OJ) lip and II (,Bj) lip implies that of II (O:j) + (,Bj) lip, and so
0< II(aj) + (,Bj) lip < 00. Next, notice that

II(aj) + (,Bj)ll~ = :~:)aj + ,BjiP

j

j j

Now apply Holder's inequality to the sequences (Iaj I) and (Iaj + ,Bj IP-l),
which yields the inequality

2)ajllaj + ,Bjlp-l S; (2)ajIP) lip (2)a j + ,Bjl(P-l)q) l/q

J J J

= (L::lajIPY/P (L::laj +,BjIPYP-l)/P

J J

II(aj)l!p II(aj) + (,Bj)II~-l.

=

Since an analogous inequality holds for I:),Bj Ilaj +,Bj IP--l,

IICaj) + C,Bj)ll~ 5 (11(aj)l!p + 11(,Bj)llp)lI(aj) + (,Bj)II~-l.

Dividing both sides by IICaj) + C,Bj)II~-l yields the desired result.

C.6 Theorem. Suppose that 1 S; P S; 00. Then 1!p is a vector space when
the sum of two sequences of scalars and the product of a scalar and a
sequence of scalars are defined in the usual way. The p-norm is a norm on
this vector space.
PROOF. It is easy to check that 0:( aj) E 1!p whenever (aj) E 1!p and a
is a scalar. Also, each sum of two elements of 1!p is in 1!p by Minkowski's
inequality. Since the zero sequence is in 1!p, it follows that 1!p is a subspace
of the vector space of all sequences of scalars with the usual operations.
Minkowski's inequality provides a triangle inequality for the p-norm, while
the other properties that the p-norm must have to be a norm on 1!p follow
quickly from the definitions.

Henceforth, when 1 5 p S; 00 and 1!p is treated as a norrned space without

the norm being specified, the p-norm is implied.

C.7 Definition. Suppose that 1 S; P S; 00 and that n is a positive integer.

For each member (0:1, ... ,O:n) of][fn, let
534 Appendix C. The Spaces fp and f;, 1 ::::: p ::::: 00

Then the p-norm on lF n is the function II lip : lF n -+ [0,00). By conven-

tion, the p-norm is defined on the zero-dimensional vector space lF o by the
formula 1I01lp = o.

C.B Theorem. Suppose that 1 ::::: p :s: 00 and that n is a nonnegative

integer. Then the p-norm is a norm on the vector space IFn.
PROOF. This is obvious when n = 0, so it will be assumed that n :::: l.
Extend each element (al, ... ,an) of IFn to an element (aj) of Pp by letting
aj = 0 when] > n. Then
II(al, ... , an) + ((h, ... , ~n)llp = IICaj)+ (~j)llp
:s: II(aj)llp + 11(~j)llp
= II(al, .. ,an)ll p + 1I(~1' ... '~n)llp
whenever (al' ... , an), (~l' ... , ~n) E IF'', so the p-norm satisfies the trian-
gle inequality. It is easily checked that the p-norm has the other properties
required of a norm.

C.9 Definition. Suppose that 1 :s: p :s: 00 and that n is a nonnegative

integer. Then e;
(pronounced "little ell p n") is the normed space formed
by the vector space lF n with the p-norm.

C.lO Theorem. Suppose that 1 ::::: p ::::: 00. Then Pp is a Banach space, as
is e; for each nonnegative integer n.
PROOF. Let ((ajk));:'=l be a Cauchy sequence of elements of ep- Since

la;~) - a;; I :s: II(ajk)) - (ayJ)llp

whenever ]0, k, lEN, each of the sequences (a;~))k=l such that ]0 E N
is Cauchy, hence convergent in IF. For each positive integer ]0, let ajD =
limk aj~). The proof for Pp will be finished once it is shown that (aj) E Pp
and that II(ajk)) - (aj)llp -> 0 as k -> 00.
Suppose first that p = 00. Let E be a positive real number and let N,
be a positive integer such that II(ajk)) - (aY))IICXJ :s: E when k, 1 :::: N E It
follows that la;:) - a;; I ::::: E for each]o when k, 1 2: Nfl and therefore that

la(k)
Jo
- a
Jo
I= lim la(k) - a O) I <
I Jo Jo-
E

for each ]0 when k :::: N E Taking the supremum over all ]0 shows that
II(a;k) - (aj)ll= :::; E when k :::: N(. Then

(aj) = _((ajN,)) - (aj)) + (a;N,) E Po""

and II(ajk)) - (aj)IICXl -> 0 as k -> 00.

 Appendix C. The Spaces fp and f;, 1 :::; P :::; 00 535

Now suppose that 1 ::; p < 00. Let f be a positive real number and let N.
be a positive integer such that II(ajkl) - (ojll)lIp ::; f when k, I ;::: N . It
follows that for each positive integer )0,

when k, I ;::: N . Leaving jo fixed and letting I tend to infinity shows that

for each positive integer )0 when k 2: N . Letting ]0 tend to infinity shows

that

when k 2: N,. Therefore (OJ) E fp by the argument used for foo, and
II(a;kl) - (aj)lIp -7 0 as k -7 00. This completes the proof for f p.
Suppose that n is a positive integer and that ((a~k), ... , a~k)):l is a
Cauchy sequence in f;.
Then each sequence (o;k)k'=l such that] = 1, ... , n
is a Cauchy sequence of scalars and so has a limit aj. Depending on whether
or not p is finite, either

or

II (ai k), ... ,a~k) - (a1, ... ,an )lIoo

= max{la~k) - all, ... , lo~k) - ani} -70

as k -7 00, and so

. (a (k)
hm 1 , . .. , an(k) -_ (a1,., On ) .
k

This proves that f; is complete. Since f~ is obviously complete, the theorem

is proved.

C.II Corollary. For each nonnegative integer n, Euclidean n-space is a

Banach space.
536 Appendix C. The Spaces p and ;, 1 ::; p ::; 00

The following two results are necessary for Examples 1.10.3 and 1.10.5
if the duality theory for p and e e;
is not to be obtained from the more
general duality theory for Lebesgue spaces.

C.12 Theorem. Suppose that 1 ::; p < 00 and that q is conjugate to p.

e
For each element ((3j) of q , let T({3j) be the scalar-valued function on p e
defined by the formula

(T({3j) (O'j) = L O'j{3j.

j

Then T is an isometric isomorphism from eq onto e;.

PROOF. If (O'j) E ep and ({3j) E eq , then
L IO'j {3j I ::; II(O'j)llp 11({3j)llq< 00
j

by Holder's inequality, so Lj O'j{3j converges. This shows that the definition

of T makes sense and that
(C.1)
whenever (O'j) E ep and ({3j) E eq . For each ((3j) in eq , the function T({3j) is
e
clearly a linear functional on p , and (C.l) implies that this linear functional
is bounded and satisfies the inequality
(C.2)
It is easy to check that the function T: q -> e e;
is a linear operator. The
theorem will be proved once it is shown that T maps eq onto e; and that
equality holds in (C.2) whenever ({3j) E eq .
Suppose that x* E e;. For each standard unit vector ej of ep , let {3j = x*ej
and let 'Yj be a scalar such that bj I = 1 and l{3j I = 'Yj{3j. Suppose for the
moment that p -11, so that 1 < q < 00. Then for each positive integer k,
k k
LI{3jlq = L 'Yj!3jl!3jIQ-1
j=l j=l

= x* (t 'Y l!3jIQ-1 ej )
J=l
j

::; Ilx*IIIIt,'Yjl{3jIQ- l eJ llp

= Ilx*11 (tl{3jl(Q-l)P) lip

J=l

= Ilx* I (t, l{3j Iq) liP,

 Appendix C. The Spaces f.p and f.;, 1 ::; p ::; 00 537

which implies that

Letting k tend to infinity shows that ({3j) E Cq and that

(C.3)

Now suppose that p = 1, so that q = 00. For each positive integer j,

which, by taking the supremum over all j, again shows that ({3j) E Cq and
that (C.3) holds. Thus, whether or not p = 1, it follows that ({3j) E Cq and
therefore that T({3i) E C;. For every element (OJ) of Cp ,

x*(aj) = x* (Laje j ) = L ajx*ej = L aj{3j = (T({3j))(aj),

J J J

so T({3j) = x*. The operator T therefore maps Cq onto f.;.

All that remains to be shown is that IIT({3j)1f = 11({3j)ll q when ({3j) E Cq
First notice that T({3j) is nonzero if ({3j) is a nonzero element of q, so
T is one-to-one. Now fix an element ({3j) of q and let :r* = T({3j). The
argument of the preceding paragraph yields an element ({3;) of q such that
T({3;) = x*, and ({3;) must equal ({3j) since T is one-to-one. It follows
from (C.3) that

(C.4)

Combining (C.2) and (C.4) yields the desired equality.

C.13 Theorem. Suppose that 1 ::; p -:; 00, that q is conjugate to p,
and that n is a positive integer. For each element ({31, ... ,(3n) of C~, let
T({31,"" (3n) be the scalar-valued function on C;
defined by the formula
n

(T(31, ... ,{3n))(al'''',O!n) = LO!J{3j

j=1

Then T is an isometric isomorphism from ~ onto (C~) * .

PROOF. For each element (31, ... ,{3n) of ~, the map T({31, ... ,{3n) is
clearly a linear functional on the finite-dimensional normed space ;, and
so is automatically bounded. It follows that T is a linear operator from ~
into (1:;)*. It is easy to check that ker(T) = {(o, ... , On,
so T is one-to-
one. Since ~ and (;)* both have dimension n, the operator T maps ~
onto (;)*.
538 Appendix C. The Spaces Cp and C;, 1 :S p :S 00

Let ((31, ... , (370) be an element of e~. All that remains to be shown is that
IIT((31,..,(3n)11 = 11((31, ... ,(3n)llq Suppose that (01, ... ,070 ) E and e;
that (01, ... , On) and ((31, ... , (370) are extended to the respective sequences
(OJ) and ((3j) by letting OJ = (3j = 0 when j > n. Holder's inequality
implies that

70

I(T((31, ... , (3n)) (01, ... , On) I :s 2) OJ (3j I

j=1
:S II (OJ) lip II ((3j) Ilq
= 11(01, ... ,on)llpll((31, ... ,(3n)lIq,

and so

(C.5)

Now let {e1"'" en} be the standard basis for the vector space lF n and let
11, ... "n be scalars of absolute value 1 such that l(3jl = Ij(3j for each j.
If 1 < p < 00, then

n n
LI(3jlq = L Ij(3jl(3jlq-l
j=l j=1

which implies that

If p = 1, then

II ((31, ... , (3,,)1100 = max{I(311, ... , IOnl}

I
= max{ (T((31, ... ,(3n)) (et) I, ... ,I(T((31' ... ,(3n)) (en) I}
:S IIT((311'" ,,(70 )11.
 Appendix C. The Spaces R.p and R.;, 1 :-::; p :-::; 00 539

If p = 00, then
n
IICBI, ... ,,Bn)lh = 'Elj,Bj
j=l

= (T(,BI, ... , ,Bn)) (rI, ... , In)

:-::; IIT(,BI,.,,Bn)IIII(r1,,ln)lloo
= IIT(,BI' ... ,,Bn) II
Therefore 11(,111, ... , ,Bn) IIq :::; IIT(,BI,' .. ,,Bn)11 whatever the value of p, which
when combined with (C.5) yields the equality needed to finish the proof.

This next result should replace Theorem 1.11.10 if the reflexivity of ip

when 1 < p < 00 is not to be obtained from the theory of Lebesgue spaces.

C.14 Theorem. Suppose that 1 < p < 00. Then ip is reflexive.

PROOF. Let q be conjugate to p, let Tq: iq --+ i; and Tp: ip --+ i~ be the
usual isometric isomorphisms as in Theorem C.12, and let Q: ip --+ i;* be
the natural map. Suppose that x** E e;*. Then x**Tq E e~, so there is a
member (aj) of ip such that x**Tq = Tp(aj). If x* E e;;, then there is a
member (,Bj) of iq such that x* = Tq (,Bj), so

x**x' = x'*Tq(,Bj) = (Tp(aj)) (,Bj) = 'Eaj,Bj = (Tq(,Bj)) (aj) = x*(aj).

j

It follows that x*' = Q( a J ), so Q maps ip onto i;*.

Appendix D
Ultranets

This appendix is an optional addendum to Section 2.1. Except for Proposi-

tion D.lO, which requires Proposition 2.1.40 and the material on topological
groups preceding it, this appendix uses no material past Proposition 2.1.37.
In addition to the characterizations of compactness and relative compact-
ness in terms of the behavior of nets given in Propositions 2.1.37 and 2.1.40,
there are further characterizations of these properties in terms of the be-
havior of special nets called ultmnets that can be particularly useful in
simplifying compactness arguments involving the axiom of choice. For the
definition of ultranets, it is useful to have the following two terms.

D.l Definition. A net (XoJ"EI is said to frequent a set S or to be in S

frequently if, for each a in I, there is a /3" in I such that a :::S /3" and
xfJ", E S. The net is said to be in the set ultimately if there is an a in J
such that xfJ E S whenever a :::S /3.

These terms could have been used to define net convergence and accu-
mulation, since a net converges to (respectively, accumulates at) a point if
and only if the net is ultimately (respectively, frequently) in U whenever U
is a neighborhood of the point. However, these terms would not have con-
tributed much to the discussion of convergence and accumulation, while
they will greatly streamline the presentation of ultranets that is to follow.
Notice that a net is in a set S frequently if and only if it is not ultimately
in the complement of S. Clearly, every net has the property that if it is
ultimately in a set, then it must be frequently in that set. Ultranets are
nets having the converse property.
542 Appendix D. Ultranets

D.2 Definition. An ultmnet or universal net or maximal net is a net with

the property that if it is frequently in a set, then it must be ultimately in
that set.

Suppose that (xc is a net in a set X. If S c::; X, then (xc must frequent
either S or X \ S, from which it follows immediately that an ultranet in X
must be either ultimately in S or ultimately in X \ S. Conversely, suppose
that (x o.) has the property that for each subset S of X, the net is either
Ultimately in S or ultimately in X \ S. Since no net can be frequently in
a set and ultimately in the complement of that set, it follows that (xc is
ultimately in a set whenever it is frequently in that set, and so is an ultranet.
This gives the following result, which is often used to define ultranets.

D.3 Proposition. A net in a set X is an ultranet if and only if it has the

following property: For each subset S of X, the net is either ultimately
in S or ultimately in X \ S.

D.4 Example. Let x be an clement of a set X and let 9J1 x be the collection
of all subsets of X containing x. Let I be the set of all ordered pairs (a, A)
such that A E 9J1 x and a E A, directed by declaring that (a, A) ~ (b, B)
whenever A :.2 B. Let X(a,A) = a whenever (a, A) E I. Then (X(a,A)) is a
net in X. Notice that for each subset S of X, the net (X(a,A)) lies either
entirely inside or entirely outside S from some term onward, depending OIl
whether or not xES. The net (X(a,A)) is therefore an ultranet.

It will be useful to study ultranets a bit before punming their relationship

to compactncss. Thc following result is an immcdiate consequence of the
fact that an ultranet in a topological space that is in a neighborhood of a
point frequently must be in that neighborhood ultimately.

D.5 Proposition. If an ultranet in a topological space accumulates at a

point, then it converges to that point.

Functions preserve ultranets.

D.6 Proposition. Suppose that (xo,) is an u1tranet in a set X and that 1

is a function from X into a set Y. Then (J (x a)) is an ultranet in Y.
PROOF. Suppose that the net (J(xa)) is frequently in the subset S of Y.
Then (xc is frequently in 1-1 (S), hence ultimately in 1-1 (S), and so
(J(xa)) is ultimately ill S.

It turns out that every net has a subnet that is an ultranet. The proof of
that to be given here depends on the following technical lemma. Readers
familiar with the theory of filters will recognize this lemma as a statement
about ultrafilters.
 Appendix D. Ultranets 543

D.7 Lemma. Suppose that (Xl\:) is a net in a set X. Then there is a

family 9Jt of subsets of X such that
(1) the net (x,,) frequents every member of 9Jtj
(2) if M 1 , M2 E 9Jt, then MI n M2 E 9Jt;
(3) if 8 ~ X, then either 8 or X \ 8 is in 9Jt.
PROOF. Let ~ be the collection of all families 3' of subsets of X that
satisfy (1) and (2) when "9Jt" is replaced by "3'." Then ~ is nonempty
since {X} E ~. Let :::5'<1 be the preorder on ~ obtained by declaring that
3'1 :::5'<1 ~2 when ~1 ~ ~2. Then every nonempty chain in ~ has an upper
bound, namely, the union of the members of the chain, and of course {X} is
an upper bound for the empty chain. By Zorn's lemma, there is a maximal
element 9Jt in ~. Notice that 9Jt f 0, since 0 :::5'<1 {X} but {X} ~'<I 0. To
finish the proof, it is enough to show that 9Jt satisfies (3).
Let 9Jto be the collection of all subsets of X that have a member of 9Jt
included in them. It is easy to see that 9Jto E ~ and that m :::5'<1mO, from
which it follows that m = mo. That is, the family m cont.ains with each
of its elements every superset of that element.
For the rest of this proof, let 8 be a fixed subset of X. The proof will be
done once it is shown that either 8 or X \ 8 is in m. To this end, suppose
that M I , M2 Em and that (xa) frequents neither M1 n8 nor M2 \8. Then
(x,,) frequents neither (Ml n M 2 ) n 8 nor (MI n M 2 ) \ 8, so (x,,) does not
frequent MI n M 2. Since M1 n M2 Em, this is a contradiction.
Thus, the net (x,,) either frequents every member of {M n 8: ME m}
or frequents every member of {M \ 8: ME m}. By exchanging the roles
of S and its complement if necessary, it can be assumed that (x,,) frequents
every member of { M n 8 : M E 9Jt}. Let 9Jt 1 = m U { M n S : M Em}.
It is easy to check that 9Jt 1 E~. Since 9Jt :::52(9Jt I , it follows that 9Jt = mI'
Finally, let M be any member of the nonempty set 9Jt and observe that 9Jt
must contain every superset of its element M n S. It follows that 8 E 9Jt.

D.8 Theorem. Every net has a subnet that is an ultranet.

PROOF. Let (X")"EI be a net in a set X and let m be a family of subsets
of X such that m has the properties listed in the preceding lemma. Let
J = {(a, M) : M E 9Jt, a E I, x" EM} with the relation :::5J given
by declaring that (aI, Mr) :::51 (a2' M 2) when a1 :::5 a2 and MI ;:.2 M 2. It
is easy to check that J with the relation :::5J is a directed set and that
{a : (a, M) E J} is cofinal in I. Let g(a, M) = a for each (a, M) in J.
Then (Xg(".M) is a sub net of (x,,). If Mo E m, then the fact that (xa)
frequents Mo produces an aD such that (ao, Alo) E J, and the definition
of :::5J then guarantees that Xg(",M) E Mo whenever (ao, Mo) :::5J (a, M).
Thus, for each member Mo of m, the net (Xg(a,M) is ultimately in Mo.
Since each subset of X either is in 9Jt or has its complement in m, it follows
from Proposition D.3 that (Xg(a,M) is an ultranet.
544 Appendix D. Ultranets

The next two results are the promised characterizations of compactness

and relative compactness in terms of ultranet behavior. The proof of the
second is essentially the same as that of the first with the obvious modifi-
cations and with the references to Proposition 2.1.37 replaced by references
to Proposition 2.1.40. Both results use the axiom of choice in their proofs,
since the proofs are based on Theorem D.S which in turn is obtained from
a lemma that uses Zorn's lemma in its proof.

D.9 Proposition. A subset S of a topological space is compact if and

only if each ultranet in S has a limit in S.
PROOF. If S is compact, then Proposition 2.1.37 assures that every ultranet
in S has an accumulation point in S and so has a limit in S. Conversely,
suppose that every ultranet in S has a limit in S. Since every net in S has a
subnet that is an ultranet, every net in S has a subnet with a limit in S, and
so another application of Proposition 2.1.37 shows that S is compact.

Notice that the following result is stated only for topological groups.

D.lO Proposition. A subset S of a topological group is relatively compact

if and only if each ultranet in S has a limit in X.

As an application of the results of this section, a very short proof of

Alexander's subbasis theorem will now be given.

D.ll Alexander's Subbasis Theorem. (J. W. Alexander, 1939 [4]).

Suppose that (5 is a subbasis for the topology of a topological space X and
that S is a subset of X. If every covering of S by elements of (5 can be
thinned to a finite subcovering, then S is compact.
PROOF. Suppose that S is not compact. Then some ultranet (xc in S has
no limit in S. It follows from Proposition 2.1.15 that for each x in S there is
a member Ux of (5 containing x such that (xc is ultimately in X \ Ux . Let
<!: = { Ux : XES}. Then ([ is a covering of S by clements of (5. For every
finite subcollection of <!:, the net (xc ultimately lies in the complement of
the union of the members of the subcollection, so <!: cannot be thinned to
a finite sub covering of S.

It is instructive to compare this proof of Alexander's sub basis theorem to

one based directly on the definition of compactness and some form of the
axiom of choice, as can be found, for example, in [200, p. 368]. It is equally
instructive to compare the following proof of Tychonoff's theorem to stan-
dard ones that directly apply the axiom of choice in one of its equivalent
forms.

D.l2 Tychonoff's Theorem. (A. N. Tychonoff, 1930 [234]; E. Cech,

1937 [40]). Every topological product of compact topological spaces is
compact.
 Appendix D. Ultranets 545

PROOF. Suppose that {X(< : Q E I} is a collection of compact topological

spaces and that X is their topological product. It may be assumed that
1# 0. Let (xf3) be an ultranet in X. Since functions preserve ultranets, it
follows that (x~<) is an ultranet for each Q in I, so there is an x in X such
that x~< -+ x(< whenever Q E I. Therefore xfJ -+ x, from which it follows
that X is compact.
References

MR citations refer to reviews published in Mathematical Reviews. Over

the years, Mathematical Reviews has used three different citation systems.
For example: MR 1, 241 refers to a review on page 241 of volume 1;
MR 21 #3766 refers to review #3766 in volume 21; and MR 8lf:46001
refers to review #46001 in the sixth issue (issue f) of 1981.

[1] Naum I. Akhiezer and Mark G. Krein, Some questions in the theory of
moments, Gosudarstv. Naucno-Tehn. Izdat. Ukrain., Kharkov, 1938
(Russian, translated into English as [2]).

[2] ___ , Some questions in the theory of moments, Translations of

Mathematical Monographs, vol. 2, American Mathematical Society,
Providence, R.I., 1962 (English translation of [1]); MR 29 #5073.
[3] Leonidas Alaoglu, Weak topologies of normed linear spaces, Ann. of
Math. (2) 41 (1940),252-267; MR 1, 241.

[4] James W. Alexander, Ordered sets, complexes and the problem of

compactijication, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 25 (19:39), 296-298.

[5] Kenneth W. Anderson, Midpoint local uniform convexity, and other

geometric properties of Banach spaces, Ph.n thesis, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1960.

[6] Cesare Arzela, Funzioni di linee, Atti della R. Accad. dei Lincei Ren-
diconti della Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Nat. (4) 5 [1 0 Sem.] (1889),342-348.
548 References

[7] Giulio Ascoli, Le curve limite di una varietiL data di curve, Atti della
R. Accad. dei Lincei Memorie della Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Nat. (3) 18
(1882-1883), 521-586.

[8] Guido Ascoli, Sugli spazi lineari metrici e le loro varieta lineari, Ann.
Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 10 (1932),33-81,203-232.

[9] Louis Rene Baire, Sur les fonctions de variables n~elles, Ann. Mat.
Pura Appl. (3) 3 (1899), 1-122.

[10] Stefan Banach, Sur les operations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur
application aux equations integrales, Fund. Math. 3 (1922), 133-18l.

[11] _ _ , Sur les fonctionelles lineaires, Studia Math. 1 (1929), 211-

216, 223-239.

[12] ___ , Uber die Baire'sche Kategorie gewisser Funktionenmengen,

Studia Math. 3 (1931),174-179.

[13] ___ , Theorie des operations lineaires, Monografje Matematyczne,

Warsaw, 1932. See [15] for an English translation.

[14] _ _ , (Euvres, Volume II, PWN, Warsaw, 1979; MR 81f:46001. In-

cludes a reprint of [13] along with comments by Aleksander Pelczynski
and Czeslaw Bessaga summarizing much of the progress in Banach
space theory from the appearance of [13] to 1979.

[15] ___ , Theory of linear operations, North-Holland Mathematical Li-

brary, vol. 38, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987; MR 88a:01065. An
English translation of [13] that includes the comments by Pelczynski
and Bessaga from [14] on the progress in Banach space theory to
1979.

[16] Stefan Banach and Stanislaw Mazur, Zur Theorie der linearen Di-
mension, Studia Math. 4 (1933), 100-112.

[17] Stefan Banach and Hugo Steinhaus, Sur le principe de la condensa-

tion de singularites, Fund. Math. 9 (1927), 50-6l.

[18] Robert G. Bartle, Nets and filters in topology, Amer. Math. Monthly
62 (1955), 551-557; MR 17, 39l.

[19] ___ , The elements of real analysis, second ed., Wiley, New York,
1976; MR 52 #14179.

[20] Robert G. Bartle, Nelson Dunford, and Jacob T. Schwartz, Weak

compactness and vector measures, Canad. J. Math. 7 (1955), 289
305; MR 16, 1123.
 References 549

[21] Bernard Beauzamy, Introduction to Banach spaces and their geome-

try, Notas de Matematica [86], Mathematics Studies, vol. 68, North-
Holland, Amsterdam, 1982; MR 84g:46017.
[22] Paul R. Beesack, Edward Hughes, and Marvin Ortel, Rotund com-
plex normed linear spaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 75 (1979),42-44;
MR 81e:46013.
[23] Albert A. Bennett, Newton's method in geneml analysis, Proc. Nat.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2 (1916), 592-598.
[24] Sterling K. Berberian, Introduction to Hilbert space, second ed.,
Chelsea, New York, 1976; MR 25 #1424, MR 54 #3342.
[25] Czeslaw Bessaga and Aleksander Pelczyitski, A genemlization of re-
sults of R. C. James concerning absolute bases in Banach spaces,
Studia Math. 17 (1958), 165-174; MR 22 #5874.
[26] ___ , On bases and unconditional convergence of series in Banach
spaces, Studia Math. 17 (1958), 151-164; MR 22 #5872.
[27] Garrett Birkhoff, A note on topological groups, Compositio Math. 3
(1936), 427-430.
[28] Errett Bishop and Robert R. Phelps, A proof that every Banach space
is subreflexive, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 67 (1961), 97-98; MR 23
#A503.
[29] ___ , The support functionals of a convex set, Convexity (Victor L.
Klee, ed.), Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 7,
American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1963, pp. 27-35;
MR 27 #4051.
[30] Jorg Blatter, Reflexivity and the existence of best approximations,
Approximation Theory, II (George G. Lorentz, Charles K. Chui, and
Larry L. Schumaker, eds.), Proc. Internat. Sympos., Univ. Texas,
Austin, Tex., Academic Press, New York, 1976, pp. 299-301; MR 54
#13423.
[31] Ralph P. Boas, Jr., A primer of real functions, third ed., Carus Math-
ematical Monographs, vol. 13, Mathematical Association of America,
Washington, D.C., 1981; MR 22 #9550, MR 83d:26002.
[32J Henri Frederic Bohnenblust and Andrew Sobczyk, Extensions of
functionals on complex linear spaces, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 44
(1938), 91-93.
[33] Nicolas Bourbaki, Elbnents dp~it(;,thematique, Hermann et Cie.,
Paris, 1939 and later, various volumes; MR 3, 55 is a review of the
introductory volume.
550 References

[34] ___ , Elements de mathematique, XV, Premiere partie: Les struc-

tures fondamentales de I'analyse, Livre V: Espaces vectoriels topo-
logiques, Chapitres I et II, Hermann et Cie., Act. Sci. et Ind. 1189,
Paris, 1953; MR 14, 880.

[35] Jean Bourgain, On dentability and the Bishop-Phelps property, Israel

J. Math. 28 (1977),265 271; MR 58 #2164.

[36] David G. Bourgin, Linear topological spaces, Amer. J. Math. 65

(1943),637-659; MR 5, 103.

[37] Richard D. Bourgin, Geometric aspects of convex sets with the Radon-
Nikodym property, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 993, Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, 1983; MR 85d:46023.

[38] Carl B. Boyer and Uta C. Merzbach, A history of mathematics, sec-

ond ed., Wiley, New York, 1989; MR 38 #3105, MR 90f:Ol001.

[39] Peter G. Casazza, "Classical sequences in Banach spaces," by Sylvie

Guerre-Delabriere, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 30 (1994), 117-124;
book review.

[40] Eduard tech, On bicompact spaces, Ann. of Math. (2) 38 (1937),

823-844.

[41] James A. Clarkson, Uniformly convex spaces, Trans. Amer. Math.

Soc. 40 (1936), 396- 414.

[42] John B. Conway, Functions of one complex variable, Graduate Texts

in Mathematics, vol. l1, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1973; MR 56
#5843.

[43] ___ , A course in functional analysis, Graduate Texts in Mathe-

matics, vol. 96, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985; MR 86h:46001.

[44] Dennis F. Cudia, The geometry of Banach spaces, smoothness, Trans.

Amer. Math. Soc. 110 (1964), 284314; MR 29 #446.

[45] Alexander M. Davie, The approximation problem for Banach spaces,

Bull. London Math. Soc. 5 (1973), 261-266; MR 49 #3499.

[46] Mahlon M. Day, The spaces LP with 0 < p < 1, Bull. Amer. Math.
Soc. 46 (1940), 816-823; MR 2, 102, MR 2, 419.

[47] ___ , Reflexive Banach spaces not isomorphic to uniformly convex

spaces, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 47 (1941), 313-317; MR 2, 221.

[48] ___ , Some more uniformly convex spaces, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.
47 (1941), 504-507; MR 2,314.
 References 551

[49] _ _ , Uniform convexity, III, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 49 (1943),

745-750; MR 5, 146.

[50] ___ , Uniform convexity in factor and conjugate spaces, Ann. of

Math. (2) 45 (1944), 375-385; MR 6, 69.

[51] ___ , Strict convexity and smoothness of normed spaces, Trans.

Amer. Math. Soc. 78 (1955), 516-528; MR 16, 716.

[52] ___ , Every L-space is isomorphic to a strictly convex space, Proc.

Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1957), 415-417; MR 19, 868.

[53] ___ , Normed linear spaces, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer
Grenzgebiete, vol. 21, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1958; MR 20 #1187.

[54] ___ , Normed linear spaces, second (corrected) ed., Ergebnisse der
Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, voL 21, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1962; MR 20 #1187, MR 26 #2847.

[55] ___ , On the basis problem in normed spaces, Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 13 (1962), 655-658; MR 25 #1435.

[56] ___ , Normed linear spaces, third ed., Ergebnisse der Mathematik
und ihrer Grenzgebiete, voL 21, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1973; MR 20
#1187, MR 26 #2847, MR 49 #9588.

[57] Mahlon M. Day, Robert C. James, and Srinivasa Swaminathan,

Normed linear spaces that are uniformly convex in every direction,
Canad. J. Math. 23 (1971), 1051-1059; MR 44 #4492.

[58J Joseph Diestel, Sequences and series in Banach spaces, Graduate

Texts in Mathematics, vol. 92, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1984;
MR 85i:46020.

[59] Joseph Diestel and J. Jerry Uhl, Vector measures, Mathematical Sur-
veys, vol. 15, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1977;
MR 56 #12216.

[60] Jean Dieudonne, Sur le tMoreme de Hahn-Banach, Revue Sci. (Rev.

Rose Illus.) 79 (1941),642-643; MR 7, 124.

[61J ___ , Sur la separation des ensembles convexes dans un espace de

Banach, Revue Sci. (Rev. Rose Illus.) 81 (1943),277-278; MR 7,124.

[62] ___ , Sur La completion des groupes topologiques, C. R. Acad. Sci.

Paris 218 (1944), 774-776; MR 7, 241.

[63J ___ , Natural homomorphisms in Banach spaces, Proc. Amer.

Math. Soc. 1 (1950), 5459; MR 11, 524.
552 References

[64] ___ , History of functional analysis, Notas de Matematica [77],

Mathematics Studies, voL 49, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1981;
MR 83d:46001.

[65] James Dugundji, Topology, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1966; MR 33

#1824.

[66] Nelson Dunford and Billy James Pettis, Linear operations on sum-
mable functions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 47 (1940), 323-392; MR I,
338.

[67] Nelson Dunford and Jacob T. Schwartz, Linear operators, part I:

General theory, Interscience, New York, 1958; MR 22 #8302.

[68] Peter L. Duren, Theory of HP spaces, Academic Press, New York,

1970; MR 42 #3552.

[69] Peter 1. Duren, Bernhard W. Romberg, and Allen L. Shields, Linear

functionals on HP spaces with 0 < p < I, J. Reine Angew. Math.
238 (1969), 32-60; MR 41 #4217.

[70] Aryeh Dvoretzky and Claude A. Rogers, Absolute and unconditional

convergence in normed linear spaces, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 36
(1950), 192-197; MR 11, 525.

[71] William F. Eberlein, Weak compactness in Banach spaces, J, Proc.

Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 33 (1947),51-53; MR 9,42, MR 10, 855.

[72] Nikolai V. Efimov and Sergei B. Stechkin, Approximative compact-

ness and Chebyshev sets, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 140 (1961), 522-
524 (Russian, translated into English as [73]); MR 25 #424.

[73] ___ , Approximative compactness and Chebyshev sets, Soviet

Math. Dokl. 2 (1961), 1226-1228 (English translation of [72]).

[74] M. Eidelheit, Zur Theorie der konvexen Mengen in linearen norm-

ierten Riiumen, Studia Math. 6 (1936), 104-111.

[75] Per Enfto, A Banach space with basis constant> 1, Ark. Mat. 11
(1973), 103-107; MR 49 #7736.

[76] ___ , A counterexample to the approximation problem in Banach

spaces, Acta Math. 130 (1973), 309-317; MR 53 #6288.

[77] Ky Fan and Irving Glicksberg, Some geometric properties of the

spheres in a normed linear space, Duke Math. J. 25 (1958), 553-568;
MR 20 #5121.
 References 553

[78] Tadeusz Figiel and William B. Johnson, The approximation prop-

erty does not imply the bounded approximation property, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 41 (1973), 197-200; MR 49 #5782.
[79] Klaus Floret, Weakly compact sets, Lecture Notes in Mathematics,
vol. 801, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980; MR 82b:46001.

[80] Maurice Rene Frechet, Generalisation d'un theoreme de Weierstrass,

C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 139 (1904), 848-850.
[81] ___ , Sur quelques points du calcul fonctionnel, Rend. Circ. Mat.
Palermo 22 (1906), 1-74.
[82] Robert E. Fullerton, Geometric structure of absolute basis systems in
a linear topological space, Pacific J. Math. 12 (1962), 137-147; MR 26
#5401.
[83] Vera Gantmacher, Uber schwache totalstetige Operatoren, Mat. Sb.
(N.S.) 7 (1940), 301-308; MR 2, 224.
[84] Aleksandr L. Garkavi, The best possible net and the best possible
cross-section of a set in a normed space, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser.
Mat. 26 (1962), 87-106 (Russian, translated into English as [85]);
MR 25 #429.
[85] ___ , The best possible net and the best possible cross-section of a
set in a normed space, Amer. Math. Soc. Trans!., Ser. 2 39 (1964),
111-132 (English translation of [84]).

[86] Bernard R. Gelbaum, Notes on Banach spaces and bases, An. Acad.
Brasil. Cimc. 30 (1958), 29-36; MR 20 #5419.
[87] John R. Giles, On smoothness of the Banach space embedding, Bull.
Austral. Math. Soc. 13 (1975),69-74; MR 52 #1268.
[88] ___ , Convex analysis with application in the differentiation of
convex functions, Research Notes in Mathematics, vol. 58, Pitman,
Boston, 1982; MR 83g:46001.
[89] Herman H. Goldstine, Weakly complete Banach spaces, Duke Math.
J.4 (1938), 125131.
[90] W. Timothy Gowers, Symmetric block bases of sequences with large
average growth, Israel J. Math. 69 (1990), 129-151; MR 91i:4601O.
[91] ___ , A Banach space not containing co, 1 or a reflexive subspace,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 344 (1994), 407-420; MR 94j:46024.
[92] ___ , A solution to Banach's hyperplane problem, Bull. London
Math. Soc. 26 (1994), 523-530; MR 96a:46025.
554 References

[93] ___ , A solution to the Schroeder-Bernstein problem for Banach

spaces, Bull. London Math. Soc. 28 (1996), 297-304; MR 97d:46009.

[94] W. Timothy Cowers and Bernard Maurey, The unconditional ba-

sic sequence problem, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 6 (1993), 851-874;
MR 94k:46021.

[95] Alexandre Crothendieck, Sur les applications lineaires faiblement

compactes d'espaces du type C(K), Canad. J. Math. 5 (1953), 129-
173; MR 15, 438.

[96] ___ , Produits tensoriels topologiques ef espaces nucieaires, Mem.

Amer. Math. Soc. 16 (1955), 1-140; MR 17, 763.

[97] V. I. Curari'l, The index of sequences in C and the existence of

infinite-dimensional separable Banach spaces having no orthogonal
basis, Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl. 10 (1965),967-971 (Rus-
sian); MR 34 #3282.

[98] Hans Hahn, tiber Folgen linearer Operationen, Monatsh. Math. Phys.
32 (1922), 3-88.

[99] ___ , Uber lineare Gleichungssysteme in linearen Riiumen, J.

Reine Angew. Math. 157 (1927), 214-229.

[100] Paul R. Halmos, "Nicolas Bourbaki," Sci. Amer. 196 (1957), no. 5,
88-99; MR 18, 709.

[101] Felix Hausdorff, Grundzuge der Mengenlehre, Verlag von Veit, Leip-
zig, 1914.

[102] Eduard Reily, tiber Systeme linearer Gleichungen mit unendlich viel-
en Unbekannten, Monatsh. Math. Phys. 31 (1921),60-91.

[103] David Hilbert, Grundzuge einer allgemeinen Theorie der linearen In-
tegralgleichungen, IV, N achr. Kg!. Gesells. Wiss. Gottingen Math.-
Phys. Kl. (1906), 157 -227.

[104] Theophil Henry Hildebrandt, On uniform limitedness of sets of func-

tional operations, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 29 (1923), 309-315.

[105] Kenneth Hoffman and Ray Kunze, Linear algebra, second ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1971; MR 43 #1998.

[106] Thomas W. Hungerford, Algebra, Graduate Texts in Mathemat-

ics, vo!' 73, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980; MR 50 #6693, MR
82a:00006.
 References 555

[107] Vasile I. Istriitescu, Strict convexity and complex strict convexity:

Theory and applications, Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathe-
matics, vol. 89, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1984; MR 86b:46023.

[108] Robert C. James, Bases and reflexivity of Banach spaces, Bull. Amer.
Math. Soc. 56 (1950), 58, Abstract 80.

[109] _ _ , Bases and reflexivity of Banach spaces, Ann. of Math. (2)

52 (1950), 518-527; MR 12, 616.

[110] _ _ , A non-reflexive Banach space isometric with its second

conjugate space, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 37 (1951), 174-177;
MR 13, 356.

[111] _ _ , Reflexivity and the supremum of linear functionals, Ann. of

Math. (2) 66 (1957), 159-169; MR 19, 755.

[112J _ _ , Characterizations of reflexivity, Studia Math. 23 (1964),

205-216; MR 30 #431.

[113J _ _ , Uniformly non-square Banach spaces, Ann. of Math. (2) 80

(1964), 542-550; MR 30 #4139.

[114] _ _ , Weak compactness and reflexivity, Israel J. Math. 2 (1964),

101-119; MR 31 #585.

[115J _ _ , Weakly compact sets, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 113 (1964),
129-140; MR 29 #2628.

[116J _ _ , A counterexample for a sup theorem in normed spaces, Israel

J. Math. 9 (1971), 511-512; MR 43 #5287.

[117J _ _ , Reflexivity and the sup oj linear Junctional8, Israel J. Math.

13 (1972), 289-300; MR 49 #3506.

[118] _ _ , Bases in Banach spaces, Amer. Math. Monthly 89 (1982),

625-640; MR 84h:46019.

[119] Mikhail 1. Kadets, On strong and weak convergence, Dokl. Akad.

Nauk SSSR 122 (1958), 13-16 (Russian); MR 20 #5422.

[120] _ _ , Spaces isomorphic to a locally uniJormly convex space, Izv.

Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved. Mat. 1959 (1959), no. 6, 51-57 (Russian);
MR 23 #A3987. See [121] for a correction to this paper.

[121] _ _ , Letter to the editor, Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved. Mat. 1961
(1961), no. 6, 186-187 (Russian); MR 25 #3342. This contains a
correction to [120].
556 References

[122] ___ , A proof of the topological equivalence of all separable infinite-

dimensional Banach spaces, Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. 1 (1967),
61-70 (Russian, translated into English as [123]); MR 35 #700.

[123] ___ , A proof of the topological equivalence of all separable infinite-

dimensional Banach spaces, Functional Anal. Appl. 1 (1967), 53-62
(English translation of [122]).

[124] Shizuo Kakutani, Uber die Metrisation der topologischen Gruppen,

Proc. Imp. Acad. Tokyo 12 (1936), 82-84.

[125] ___ , Iteration of linear operations in complex Banach spaces,

Proc. Imp. Acad. Tokyo 14 (1938), 295-300.

[126] Nigel J. Kalton, Basic sequences in F-spaces and their applications,

Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. (2) 19 (1974), 151-167; MR 54 #3350.

[127] ___ , The Orlicz-Pettis theorem, Proceedings of the Conference

on Integration, Topology, and Geometry in Linear Spaces held at
the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, May 17-19, 1979
(William H. Graves, ed.), Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 2, Amer-
ican Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1980, pp. 91-100;
MR 82g:46027.

[128] Nigel J. Kalton, N. Tenney Peck, and James W. Roberts, An F-space

sampler, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 89,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984; MR 87c:46002.

[129J Irving Kaplansky, Set theory and metric spaces, Allyn and Bacon,
Boston, 1972; MR 56 #11795.

[130J Samuel Karlin, Bases in Banach spaces, Duke Math. J. 15 (1948),

971-985; MR 10, 548.

[131J John L. Kelley, Convergence in topology, Duke Math. J. 17 (1950),

277-283; MR 12, 194.

[132J Victor L. Klee, Some characterizations of reflexivity, Rev. Cienc.

(Lima) 52 (1950), 15-23; MR 13, 250.

[133] ___ , Convex sets in linear spaces, Duke Math. J. 18 (1951), 443-
466; MR 13, 354.

[134J ___ , Convex sets in linear spaces, II, Duke Math . .1. 18 (1951),
875-883; MR 13, 849.

[135J ___ , Invariant metrics in groups (solution of a problem of Ba-

nach), Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 3 (1952), 484-487; MR 13, 848.
 References 557

[136] _ _ , Extremal structure of convex sets, II, Math. Z. 69 (1958),

90-104; MR 19, 1065.

[137] ___ , Some new results on smoothness and rotundity in normed

linear spaces, Math. Ann. 139 (1959), 51-63; MR 22 #5879.

[138] ___ , Mappings into normed linear spaces, Fund. Math. 49

(1960/61), 25-34; MR 23 #A3985.

[139] ___ , A conjecture on weak compactness, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.

104 (1962), 398-402; MR 25 #3345.

[140] Konrad Knopp, Infinite sequences and series, Dover, New York, 1956;
MR 18, 30.

[141] Gottfried Kothe, Topological vector spaces I, Grundlehren der math-

ematischen Wissenschaften, vol. 159, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983;
revised second printing of volume reviewed earlier as MR 40 #1750.

[142] Vladimir Ya. Kozlov, On bases in the space L2[0, 1], Mat. Sb. (N.S.)
26 (1950),85-102 (Russian); MR 11, 602.

[143] Mark G. Krein, Sur quelques questions de la geometrie des ensem-

bles convexes situes dans un espace lineaire norme et complet, C. R.
(Doklady) Acad. Sci. URSS (N.S.) 14 (1937), 5-7.

[144] Mark G. Krein, Mark A. Krasnoselskil, and David P. Milman, On

the deficiency indices of linear operators in Banach spaces and some
geometrical questions, Sbornik Trudov Mat. lnst. Akad. Nauk Ukr.
SSR 11 (1948), 97-112 (Russian).

[145] Mark G. Krein and David P. Milman, On extreme points of regular

convex sets, Studia Math. 9 (1940), 133-137; MR 3,90.

[146] Mark G. Krein and Vitold L. Smulian, On regularly convex sets in

the space conjugate to a Banach space, Ann. of Math. (2) 41 (1940),
556-583; MR 1, 335.

[147] Stanislaw Kwapien, On Banach spaces containing co, Studia Math.

52 (1974), 187-188; MR 50 #8627.

[148] Ronald Larsen, Banach algebras: An introduction, Marcel Dekker,

New York, 1973; MR 58 #7010.

[149] Henri Lebesgue, Sur la divergence et la convergence non-uniforme des

series de Fourier, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 141 (1905), 875-877.

[150] ___ , Ler;ons snr les series trigonometriqnes, Gauthier-Villars,

Paris, 1906.
558 References

[151] ___ , Sur les integrales singulier-es, Ann. Fac. Sci. Univ. Toulouse
(3) 1 (1909), 25-117.

[152] Jonathan Lewin, A simple proof of Zorn's lemma, Amer. Math.

Monthly 98 (1991),353-354.

[153] Joram Lindenstrauss, On operators which attain their norm, Israel J.

Math. 1 (1963), 139-148; MR 28 #3308.

[154] ___ , On the modulus of smoothness and divergent series in Ba-

nach spaces, Michigan Math. J. 10 (1963), 241-252; MR 29 #6316.

[155] Joram Lindenstrauss and Lior Tzafriri, On the complemented sub-

spaces problem, Israel J. Math. 9 (1971), 263-269; MR 43 #2474.

[156] ___ , Classical Banach spaces I: Sequence spaces, Ergebnisse der

Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, vol. 92, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1977; MR 58 #17766.

[157] ___ , Classical Banach spaces II: FUnction spaces, Ergebnisse der
Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, vol. 97, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1979; MR 81c:46001.

[158] Edgar R. Lorch, On a calculus of operators in reflexive vector spaces,

Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 45 (1939), 217-234.

[159] A. R. Lovaglia, Locally uniformly convex Banach spaces, Trans. Amer.

Math. Soc. 78 (1955), 225-238; MR 16, 596.

[160] R. Daniel Mauldin (ed.), The Scottish book: Mathematics from the
Scottish Cate, Birkhauser, Boston, 1981; MR 84m:00015.

[1611 Stanislaw Mazur, Uber die kleinste konvexe Menge, die eine gegebene
kompakte Menge enthiilt, Studia Math. 2 (1930), 7-9.

[162] ___ , Uber konvexe Mengen in linearen normierlen Riiumen, Stu-

dia Math. 4 (1933), 70-84.

[163] ___ , Uber schwache Konvergenz in den Riiumen (LP), Studia

Math. 4 (1933), 128-133.

[164] Stanislaw Mazur and Wladyslaw Orlicz, Uber Folgen linearer Opera-
tionen, Studia Math. 4 (1933), 152-157.

[165] Stanislaw Mazur and L. Sternbach, Uber die Borelschen Typen von
linearen Mengen, Studia Math. 4 (1933),48-53.

[166] Edward J. McShane, Linear functionals on certain Banach spaces,

Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 1 (1950), 402-408; MR 12, 10.
 References 559

[167] _ _ , A theory of limits, Studies in Modern Analysis (R. Creighton

Buck, ed.), MAA Studies in Mathematics, vol. 1, Mathematical As-
sociation of America, Washington, D.C., 1962, pp. 7-29.

[168] Robert E. Megginson, The semi-Kadec-Klee condition and nearest-

point properties of sets in normed linear spaces, Ph.D. thesis, Uni-
versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1984.

[169] David P. Milman, On some criteria for the regularity of spaces of

the type (B), C. R. (Doklady) Acad. Sci. URSS (N.S.) 20 (1938),
243-246.

[170] ___ , Characteristics of extremal points of regularly convex sets,

Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 57 (1947), 119-122 (Russian); MR 9, 192.

[171] Eliakim H. Moore and Henry L. Smith, A general theory of limits,

Amer. J. Math. 44 (1922), lO2-121.

[172] James R. Munkres, Topology: A first course, Prentice-Hall, Engle-

wood Cliffs, N.J., 1975; MR 57 #4063.

[173] Masahiro Nakamura, Complete continuities of linear operators, Proc.

Japan Acad. 27 (1951), 544-547; MR 14, 183.

[174] Masahiro Nakamura and Shizuo Kakutani, Banach limits and the
eech compactification of a countable discrete set, Proc. Imp. Acad.
Tokyo 19 (1943), 224-229; MR 7, 306.

[175] Otton M. Nikodym, Contribution a la theorie des fonctionnelles

lineaires en connexion avec la theorie de la mesure des ensembles
abstraits, Mathematica (Cluj) 5 (1931), 130-141.

[176] G6te Nordlander, The modulus of convexity in normed linear spaces,

Ark. Mat. 4 (1960), 15-17; MR 25 #4329.

[177] Wladyslaw Orlicz, Beitriige zur Theorie der Orthogonalentwicklungen

II, Studia Math. 1 (1929), 241-255.
[178] John C. Oxtoby, Measure and category, second ed., Graduate Texts
in Mathematics, vol. 2, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980; MR 52
#14213, MR 81j:28003.

[179] Aleksander Pelczynski, A note on the paper of I. Singer "Basic se-

quences and reflexivity of Banach spaces," Studia Math. 21 (1962),
371-374; MR 26 #4156.

[180] Aleksander Pelczynski and Vladimir N. Sudakov, Remark on non-

complemented subspaces of the space m(S), Colloq. Math. 9 (1962),
85-88; MR 25 #2441.
560 References

[181] Billy James Pettis, A note on regular Banach spaces, Bull. Amer.
Math. Soc. 44 (1938), 420-428.
[182] ___ , On integration in vector spaces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 44
(1938), 277-304.

[183] ___ , A proof that every uniformly convex space is reflexive, Duke
Math. J. 5 (1939), 249~253.

[184] Robert R. Phelps, Subreflexive normed linear spaces, Arch. Math.

(Basel) 8 (1957), 444-450; MR 20 #6027. See [185] for a correction
to this paper.
[185] ___ , Correction to "Subreflexive normed linear spaces," Arch.
Math. (Basel) 9 (1958), 439-440; MR 21 #2175. This contains a
correction to [184].
[186] ___ , A representation theorem for bounded convex sets, Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 11 (1960), 976-983; MR 23 #A501.
[187] ___ , The Bishop~Phelps theorem in complex spaces: An open prob-
lem, Function Spaces (Krzysztof Jarosz, ed.), Lecture Notes in Pure
and Applied Mathematics, vol. 136, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1992,
pp. 337-340; MR 93e:46022.
[188] Ralph S. Phillips, Integration in a convex linear topological space,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 47 (1940), 114-145; MR 2, 103.
[189] ___ , On linear transformations, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 48
(1940), 516-541; MR 2, 318.
[190] Mauro Picone, Lezioni di analisi infinitesimale, vol. 1, Circolo
Matematico di Catania, Catania, Italy, 1923; preface reproduced
in [191].
[191] ___ , Lezioni di analisi infinitesimale: Prefazione al vol. I, Es-
ercitazioni Matematiche: Pubblicazione del Circolo Matematico di
Catania 3 (1923), 118-122.
[192] Johann Radon, Theorie und Anwendungen der absolut additiven
Mengenfunktionen, S.-B. Akad. Wiss. Wien 122 (1913), 1295-1438.
[193] Frederic Riesz, Untersuchungen iiber Systeme integrierbarer Funktio-
nen, Math. Ann. 69 (1910), 449-497.
[194] ___ , Les systemes d'equations lineaires aune infinite d'inconnues,
Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1913.
[195] - - - , Uber lineare Funktionalgleichungen, Acta Math. 41 (1918),
71~98.
 References 561

[196) ___ , Sur la convergence en moyenne, I, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged)

4 (1928-1929), 58-64.
[197) ___ , Sur la convergence en moyenne, II, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged)
4 (1928-1929), 182-185.

[198) Ira Rosenholtz, Another proof that any compact metric space is the
continuous image of the Cantor set, Amer. Math. Monthly 83 (1976),
646-647; MR 54 #6064.
[199) Haskell P. Rosenthal, A characterization of Banach spaces contain-
ing e1 , Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 71 (1974), 2411-2413; MR 50
#10773.
[200) Walter Rudin, Functional analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973;
MR 51 #1315.
[201) ___ , Principles of mathematical analysis, third ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1976; MR 52 #5893.
[202) ___ , Real and complex analysis, third ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1987; MR 88k:00002.
[203) Anthony F. Ruston, A note on convexity in Banach spaces, Proc.
Cambridge Philos. Soc. 45 (1949), 157-159; MR 10, 197.

[204) Donald Sarason, The exact answer to a question of Shields, Math.

Intelligencer 12 (1990), no. 2, 18-19; MR 91d:01006h.
[205) Helmut H. Schaefer, Topological vector spaces, Macmillan, New York,
1966; MR 33 #1689.
[206) Juliusz Schauder, Zur Theorie stetiger Abbildungen in Funktion-
alriiumen, Math. Z. 26 (1927), 47-65.
[207) ___ , Eine Eigenschaft des Haarschen Orthogonalsystems, Math.
Z. 28 (1928), 317-320.
[208) ___ , Uber die Umkehrung linearer, stetiger Funktionaloperatio-
nen, Studia Math. 2 (1930), 1-6.
[209) ___ , Uber lineare, vollstetige Funktionaloperationen, Studia Math.
2 (1930), 183-196.
[210) Thomas Schlumprecht, An arbitrarily distortable Banach space, Israel
J. Math. 76 (1991), 81-95; MR 93h:46023.
[211] Erhard Schmidt, Uber die Aufiosung linearer Gleichungen mit un-
endlich vielen Unbekannten, Rend. Cire. Mat. Palermo 25 (1908),
53-77.
562 References

[212] J. Schur, Uber lineare Transformationen in der Theorie der un-

endlichen Reihen, J. Reine Angew. Math. 151 (1920), 79~111.

[213] Wadaw Sierpinski, Sur les ensembles complets d'un espace (D), Fund.
Math. 11 (1928), 203~205.

[214] ___ , Cardinal and ordinal numbers, Polska Akademia Nauk, Mon-
ografie Matematyczne, vol. 34, Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe,
Warsaw, 1958; MR 20 #2288.

[215] Ivan Singer, Some remarks on approximative compactness, Rev.

Roumaine Math. Pures Appl. 9 (1964), 167~177; MR 31 #2707.

[216] ___ , Bases in Banach spaces I, Die Grundlehren der mathema-

tischen Wissenschaften in Einzeldarstellungen, vol. 154, Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, 1970; MR 45 #7451.

[217] Mark A. Smith, Directional uniform rotundity in Banach spaces,

Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1975.

[218] ___ , Banach spaces that are uniformly rotund in weakly compact
sets of directions, Canad. J. Math. 29 (1977), 963~970; MR 56 #9232.

[219] ___ , Some examples concerning rotundity in Banach spaces,

Math. Ann. 233 (1978), 155~161; MR 58 #2168.

[220] ___ , A Banach space that is ML UR but not HR, Math. Ann. 256
(1981), 277~279; MR 82h:46032.

[221] Vi told L. Smulian, On some geometrical properties of the sphere in

a space of the type (B), C. R. (Doklady) Acad. Sci. URSS (N.S.) 24
(1939), 648~652; MR 1, 242.

[222] ___ , On some geometrical properties of the unit sphere in the

space of the type (B), Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 6 (1939), 77~94 (Russian,
English summary); MR 1, 242.

[223] ___ , On the principle of inclusion in the space of the type (B),
Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 5 (1939), 317 328 (Russian, English summary);
MR 1, 335.

[224] ___ , Sur La derivabilite de La norme dans l'espace de Banach, C. R.

(Doklady) Acad. Sci. URSS (N.S.) 27 (1940), 643~648; MR 2, 102.

[225] _ _ , Uber lineare topologische Riiume, Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 7 (1940),

425~448 (German, Russian summary); MR 2, 102.

[226] ___ , Sur la structure de La sphere unitaire dans l'espace de Ba-

nach, Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 9 (1911), 545~561; MR 3,205.
 References 563

[227] G. A. Soukhomlinoff, Uber Fortsetzung von linearen Funktionalen in

linearen komplexen Riiumen und linearen Quaternionriiumen, Mat.
Sh. (N.S.) 3 (1938), 353-358 (Russian, German summary).

[228] Lynn A. Steen and J. Arthur Seebach, Jr., Counterexamples in topol-

ogy, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1970; MR 42 #1040.

[229] Stefan Straszewicz, Uber exponierte Punkte abgeschlossener Punkt-

mengen, Fund. Math. 24 (1935), 139--143.

[230] Stanislaw J. Szarek, A Banach space without a basis which has the
bounded approximation property, Acta Math. 159 (1987), 81-98;
MR 88f:46029.

[231] Stanimir L. Troyanski, An example of a smooth space whose dual

is not strictly normed, Studia Math. 35 (1970), 305-309 (Russian);
MR 42 #6589.

[232] ___ , On locally uniformly convex and differentiable norms in cer-

tain non-separable Banach spaces, Studia Math. 37 (1971),173-180;
MR 46 #5995.

[233] John W. Tukey, Some notes on the separation of convex sets, Portu-
gal. Math. 3 (1942),95--102; MR 4, 13.

[234] Andrei N. Tychonoff, Uber die topologische Erweiterung von Riiumen,

Math. Ann. 102 (1930), 544-561.

[235] J. Jerry Uhl, Pettis's measurability theorem, Proceedings of the Con-

ference on Integration, Topology, and Geometry in Linear Spaces
held at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, May 17-19,
1979 (William H. Graves, ed.), Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 2,
American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1980, pp. 135-144;
MR 82m:28020.

[236] Leonid P. Vlasov, Some theorems on Chebyshev sets, Mat. Zametki

11 (1972), 135-144 (Russian, translated into English as [237]); MR 45
#9046.

[237] _ _ , Some theorems on Chebyshev sets, Math. Notes 11 (1972),

87-92 (English translation of [236]).

[238] ___ , Approximative properties of sets in normed linear spaces,

Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 28 (1973), 3-66 (RUSSian, translated into English
as [239]); MR 53 #8761.

[239] ___ , Approximative properties of sets in normed linear spaces,

Russian Math. Surveys 28 (1973), 1-66 (English translation of [238]).
564 References

[240] RudolfVyborny, On the weak convergence in locally uniformly convex

spaces, Casopis Pest. Mat. 81 (1956), 352-353 (Czech).

[241] John V. Wehausen, Transformations in linear topological spaces,

Duke Math. J. 4 (1938), 157-169.

[242] Richard L. Whccden and Antoni Zygmund, Measure and integral: An

introduction to real analysis, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1977; MR 58
#11295.
[243] Robert F. Wheeler, The equicontinuous weak* topology and semi-
reflexivity, Studia Math. 41 (1972), 243-256; MR 46 #4150.
[244] Robert J. Whitley, Projecting m onto co, Amer. Math. Monthly 73
(1966), 285-286.

[245] K6saku Yosida, Mean ergodic theorem in Banach spaces, Proc. Imp.
Acad. Tokyo 14 (1938), 292-294.

[246] Petr P. Zabrelko, A theorem for semiadditive functionals, Funkt-

sional. Anal. i Prilozhen. 3 (1969), 86-88 (Russian, translated into
English as [247]); MR 39 #3283.
[247] ___ , A theorem for semiadditive functionals, Functional Anal.
Appl. 3 (1969), 70-72 (English translation of [246]).

[248] Vaclav E. Zizler, On some rotundity and smoothness properties of

Banach spaces, Dissertationes Math. (Rozprawy Mat.) 87 (1971),
33 pp. + errata insert; MR 45 #9108.
[249] Max A. Zorn, A remark on method in transfinite algebra, Bull. Amer.
Math. Soc. 41 (1935), 667-670.
List of Symbols

Fraktur Letters
Here are the uppercase Roman letters, each followed by its Fraktur equiv-
alent:

A,~,B,~, C,~,D,~,E, ~,F,6,G,,H,n,I,J,J,J,K,~,L,,

M, 9)1, N, lJl, 0, D, P, $, Q, .0, R, 9\, S, 6, T, 'T, U, il, V, W, W, , X, 1:,
Y,~, Z, 3.

Other Symbols
Symbols used as the names of particular spaces, such as co, have in most
cases been placed in the Index rather than here. Also, most symbols in-
vented for temporary use, such as those in the discussion of arrow vectors
at the beginning of Section 1.2, have been omitted from this list.

Blackboard Bold Symbols

e .............................. 1 N .............................. 1
en ............................ 11 IR ...... _....................... 1
][)) ............................ 119 IRn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
IF ............................... 1 1I' ............................. 14
IFn ............................ 11
566 List of Symbols

Symbols for Norms

1111 ..... .. ............... .9 II(al, ... ,an )lip ........... 12,533
11II(x n ) 354 II (an) lip' ................. 12, 529
11llbrnu-(x n ) . . . . . 373 II(an)lloo ................. 12,529
11llu-(xn ) 386 II(a n )lla ...................... 415
11/11p, 1 E Lp(n,~,J.l) .......... ll II(a n )llb ...................... 41 5
11/11 p, 1 E Lp('JI') ............... 14 II (xn) lip, ..................... 439
IIflioo, 1 E C(K) .............. 13 II(xn)lloo ..................... 491
11/1100, 1 E C(K, X) ........... 23 Ilx*ll(m) ...................... 403
II(al, ... ,an )II11

Symbols for Dual Spaces and N armed Spaces Formed from

Other N ormed Spaces
X/M ...... .................... 49 X** ........................... 97
Xl EB EB X n . . . . . 59 X*** .......................... 97
Xr ............................ 71 x(n) .......................... 97
X* ....................... 84,174

Symbols for Properties of Normed Spaces

(P) .......................... 460 (v) . ......................... .469
(P) .......................... 460 (R) .......................... 460
(P) & (Q) .................... 460 (Rf) ......................... 460
(B) .......... " .............. 460 (UF) ......................... 496
(CD) ......................... 478 (UC) ........................ 5lO
(D) .......................... 467 (UR) ........................ .460
(F) .......................... 504 (URED) ..................... 478
(H) .......................... 460 (URWC) ..................... 477
(K) .......................... 467 (US) ......................... 495
(Kwl ......................... 470 (VS) ......................... 515
(kR) ......................... 477 (wLUR) ..................... .467
(LUR) ....................... 460 (wUR) ....................... 464
(MLUR) ..................... 472 (w*UR) ...................... 466
(NQ) ........................ 479

Symbols for Moduli of Rotundity and Smoothness

h(E) ........................ 441 8X (E,X,X*) ................... 467
h(E, x) ...................... 460 8X (E, ----+z) .................... 476
h(E, x*) ..................... 464 h(E, ----+A) ................... 476
h (I:": x) ..................... 466 Px(t) ........................ 494
 List of Symbols 567

Symbols for Spaces of Linear Operators

B(X) .................... 24, 196 KW(X) ...................... 339
B(X,Y) .................. 24, 196 KW(X,Y) .................... 339
K(X) ........................ 319 L(X, Y) ........................ 5
K(X, Y) ..................... 319 X# ............................ 5

Other Symbols Involving Linear Operators

T# .......................... 283 Pn ........................... 354
T* ........................... 284 PA ......................... 378
T S (T, S linear operators) ...... 4 Q ............................. 98
Tl EB .. EB Tn .................. 66 ac(T) ........................ 315
J .............................. 26 ap(T) ........................ 315
J* ........................... 314 ar(T) ........................ 315
ker(T) .......................... 4

Symbols Used as Technical Notation for Algebra'ic, Analytic,

and Topological Systems
(X, II II) .............. 9 (X, 'I, . ) ..................... 153
(X, 'I) ................... 138, 161 (X, +,., . ) ................... 305
(X,) ........................ 153 (X, +,.,', 11'11) ............... 305

Symbols for Convergence, Limits, and Sums

xn -> x . ................. 141, 522 w-lim", x", .................... 213
x" -> x ...................... 144 w*-lim" x~ ................... 223
x" ~ x ...................... 213 liminf"'t"' .................... 217
x~ ~. x* .................... 223 lim sup", trY. ................... 217
x~ ~ x* ................... 236 LnXn ......... ............ 18, 19
limn x n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141, 522 LnEAXn ......... ............ 371
lim" x" ...................... 144

Symbols for Metrics and Other Distance Functions

d(x,y) ... ....................... 5 dH(A,B) ....................... 8
d(x,A) ......................... 5 dp((Xl'''' ,XN), (Yl,'" ,YN 526
d(A, B) ........................ 5

Symbols for Sets Formed from Other Sets

-w'
A .. ................... 1, 140, 523 A ......................... 223
AW 213 AO .................. .. 1, 140, 523
568 List of Symbols

8A ..................... . 140, 523 A+ B ..... ................ 3,153

(A) ............................. 3 A-B .......................... 3
[A] ............................. 4 Al + ... + An ................. 64
A~ ............................ 93 2::7=1 A j
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

~A ............................ 93 X A ......................... 153

A~~ ......................... 101 A x ......................... 153
A~~~ ........................ 101 A B ......................... 153
A~(n) ...... 0 101 xA ........................... 322
-A ....................... . 3,153 Ax ........................... 322
A- I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 o:A ............................. 3
X + A ..................... 3,153 bal(A) ......................... 7
A + x ........................ 153 co(A) .......................... 3
x - A .......................... 3 co(A) .......................... 3

Symbols for Binary Relations and Unary and Binary

Operations
go f ........................... 4 x- n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
a j b ........................... 5 x Vy ......................... 376
X ~ y ........................ 30 x 1\ y ......................... 376
x-I ............... ........... 307 Ixl .... ...... .. .... 377
xll ........................... 307

Miscellaneous Symbols
0 .......................... 2, 153 G(x,y) ....................... 485
j(n) .......................... 14 lmo: .......................... 71
(x,!) ......................... 89 K(x*, t) ...................... 274
[f satisfies P] ............... 162 L(x~) ........... ............. 127
I-llf satisfies Pl .... .... 162 v(x) ......................... 489
f'(a) ........................ 311 Rea .......................... 71
'I~ ........................... 203 r,,(x) ........................ 312
(x o,) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Rx .................... . .309
A(IOl) ......................... 119 p(x) ......................... 309
Bx ........................... 10 Sx ............................ 10
B(x,r) ......................... 5 cr(x) ......................... 309
B(x, (x~)) ................... 244 cr(X, J) ...................... 203
B(x*, (x n )) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 cr(X,X*) ..................... 212
e ............................. 152 cr(X*, X) ..................... 223
G _ (x, y) ..................... 485 V(x;J ........................ 127
G+(x, y) ..................... 485
Index

References to the basic material on topology and metric spaces in Sec-

tion 2.1 and Appendices Band D have been put in separate subindices
following the main index. For example, references to the basic proper-
ties of open sets given in these background sections can be found under
"metric space theory, open set" and "topological theory, open set" in these
subindices, while references outside these sections to properties of open sets
in settings more specific to the subject of this book appear under the sep-
arate entry for "open set" in the main index.

absolute polar set, 235 isomorphism, 293

absolute value in a vector lattice, isomorphism onto, 290
377 one-to-one, 290
absorbing set, 3, 5, 7, 22, 80-81, onto, 293
167, 202 weakly*-closed-range, 292
additive function, 34 conditions implying:
adjoint operator, 90-91, 283-295, isometric isomorphism onto, 90
314, 316, 323-324, 343 isomorphism onto, 90
algebraic, 283-284 one-to-one, 291
is bounded, 284 weak*-to-weak* homeomor-
bounded-weak *-to- norm phism onto, 294
continuous, 324 examples of, 285-286
compact, 323 as generalized matrix transpose,
conditions equivalent to being: 284-290
closed-range, 292 of inverse of an onto
isometric isomorphism onto, isomorphism, 289
290 kernel of, 289, 294
570 Index

normed-space, 284 B(X), 24, 196, see also B(X, Y)

product, 286 as a Banach algebra, 306,
scalar multiple of, 285 314~316
sum, 285 B(X, Y), 24, 26-28, 96, 196, 285,
weakly compact, 343 294
weak*-to-norm continuous, 324, norm for, see operator norm
338 Baire, L. R., 36, 37
weak*-to-weak* continuity of, Baire category theorem, 22, 35,
287 37-40,47
weak*-to-weak continuous, 343 balanced hull, 7
affine set, see flat set balanced set, 3, 5, 7, 80, 167, 183,
Akhiezer, N. 1., 426 187, 202, 280
Alaoglu, L., 229 B* -algebra, 318-319
Alaoglu's theorem, see ball, 5, 21~23
Banach-Alaoglu theorem closed, 5, 15~16, 440, 474
Alexander, J. W., 544 closed unit, 10, 24, 84, 137,
Alexander's subbasis theorem, 544 266~267, 273, 425-427, 431,
algebra, 305 434~435, 440-441, 480~481,
Banach, see Banach algebra 489
basic properties of, 307~308 of the dual, 229, 231, 266
complex, 318 rotund, see rotundity
embeds in an algebra with of the second dual, 232~233
identity, 317 smooth, see smoothness
with identity, 305~306 strictly convex, see rotundity
normed, see normed algebra open, 5, 15-16, 216
Anderson, K. W., 472 open unit, 10
annihilator, 93~95, 97, 224~225, Banach, S., x, 38, 44-46, 73, 74,
304~305 107~ 108, 113, 186, 197~ 199,
higher-order, 101~1O2, 108 216, 229, 234, 284, 336, 356,
approximation problem, 335-336 358, 361, 368, 385, 393, 423,
approximation property, 329~336, 486
361, 364~365, 367 Banach-Alaoglu theorem, 229-231,
bounded, 365, 367 234~235, 245
Grothendieck's characterization generalized, 235
of, 334-336 Banach algebra, 305, 309-314, 338,
metric, 365, 367 375376, see also algebra;
t-, 365 normed algebra
approximation theory, 121, commutative, 376
435~436, 469~470 embeds in a Banach algebra
approximatively compact set, with identity, 317
469~470, 474, 477~478 examples of, 306
is closed, 477 with identity, 309-314, 317-318
is a set of existence, 469~470 complex, 311 314, 318
arrow vector, 9 continuity of inversion in, 310
Arzela, C., 322, 323 real, 311
Arzela-Ascoli theorem, 322~323, set of invertible elements of, is
338 open, 310
Ascoli, G., 176, 322, 323 Banach lattice, 377~378
axiom of choice, 6 Banach limit, 82~83
 Index 571

Banach norm, 13 Bishop-Phelps subreflexivity

Banach space, 13, see also normed theorem, 96, 278-279, 472,
space 516
complex, 280, 315, 366, 423 Bishop-Phelps support functional
finite-dimensional, 316, see also theorem, 278
normed space, Bishop-Phelps support point
finite-dimensional theorem, 275
has the Dunford-Pettis Blatter, J., 436, 441
property, 344 block basic sequence, see Schauder
hereditarily indecomposable, 38G basic sequence, block
infinite-dimensional, 316, bmu norm, see bounded multiplier
328-329, 344, 346, 349-350, unconditional norm
361-363, 365, 367, 410-411, Boas, R. P., 40
423 Bohnenblust, H. F., 74
nonreflexive, 286 Bolzano, B., 38
nontrivial, 314 boundary of a set, 275
real, 280, 423 bounded multiplier test, 371-372
with a Schauder basis, 349-423
bounded multiplier unconditional
is infinite-dimensional, 352
norm, 373-378
is isometrically isomorphic to a
Banach algebra induced by,
sequence space, 351-352
375-376
is separable, 352
Banach lattice induced by, 377
Banach-Steinhaus theorem, see
order properties of, 374-375
uniform boundedness
bounded set, 24, 213-214, 275-278,
principle
280
barrel, 202
in a dual space, 225-226, 230,
barreled space, 202
233-234, 243
Bartle, R. G., xii, 143, 346
basic sequence, see Schauder basic in a metric space, 24
sequence examples of, 24
basis, see Schauder basis; in a topological vector space,
topological theory, basis for a 166-167, 170-171, 183, 184,
topology; vector space basis 193-194
basis constant, 356-357, 366, 380 bounded weak property, 244, see
for a Banach space, 363 also the corresponding
characterizations of, 357 b-weak property
unconditional, see unconditional bounded weak* property, 236, see
basis constant also the corresponding
basis problem, 361 b-weak* property
Beesack, P. R., 440 bounded weak topology, 244-245
Bennett, A. A., x characterization of, 244
Bessaga, C., 361, 364, 365, 384, relative, on bounded sets, 244
393, 396, 408, 410 is a subtopology of the norm
Bessaga-Pelczynski selection topology, 244
principle, 395 -397 bounded weak* topology, 235245
bidual, see second dual basis for, 235-236, 238-239
biorthogonal sequence, 368 characterizations of, 239
Birkhoff, C., 188 is completely regular, 236
Bishop, E., 272-279 completeness of, 240
572 Index

dual space with respect to, conditions equivalent to its

240-241, 243 embedding in a Banach
is locally convex, 236 space, 392-393, 398
metrizability of, conditions dual space of, 86, 96, 224, 243,
equivalent to, 243 285-286, 288, 294, 415
relative, on bounded sets, 236 weak* convergence in, 233
is a subtopology of the norm has the Dunford-Pettis property,
topology, 236 347
Bourbaki, N., 158, 268 is infinite-dimensional, 15
Bourgain, J., 279 is not isometrically isomorphic
Bourgin, D. G., 176 to a dual space, 267
Bourgin, R. D., 279 is not isomorphic to a dual
B-space, see Banach space space, 303
b-weakly* bounded set is not reflexive, 101, 113, 135,
is norm bounded when the 255
predual is complete, 243 is not rotund, 428
b-weakly* Cauchy net, 243 does not have Schur's property,
b-weakly closed set, 222
characterization of, 244 second dual of, 97-98, 415
b-weakly* closed set, 240 does not have the semi-Radon-
characterizations of, 239 Riesz property, 222
b-weakly* continuous linear is separable, 110
functional, 241, 243 is not smooth, 482
b-weakly convergent net, 244 smooth equivalent norm for, 483
b-weakly* convergent net, 236, 239 is not uniformly smooth, 501
standard unit vector basis for,
b-weakly open set, characterization
351
of, 244
basic sequences equivalent to,
b-weakly* open set, 243
388391, 394-395
characterizations of, 239
block basic sequences taken
from, 394-395
c, 16,34 is not boundedly complete, 404
is complete, 16 coordinate functionals for, 399
dual space of, 95 is monotone, 357
Schauder basis for, 366, 386 permutations of, 394-395
summing basis for, 386 is shrinking, 403
Co, 14-16, 18-19, 34, 68, 71, 105, is not strictly monotone, 358
114, 221, 244-245, 285-286, subsequences of, 394-395
293--294, 301-303, 337, 344, is unconditional, 372
347, 350, 397, 407-411, 474, is not weakly sequentially
492, 509-510 complete, 222
has the approximation property, weak reordered convergence and
330 weak subseries convergence of
as a Banach algebra, 306, 377 series in, 392
as a Banach lattice when IF = JR, C[O, 1], 13, 38, 40, 234, 338,
377 352-354, 361, 367, see also
closed unit ball of, 264-265 C(K)
is not complemented in f. oo , 301 classical Schauder basis for,
is complete, 14 352 354, 360, 366
 Index 573

is conditional, 382-383 characteristic root, see eigenvalue

is normalized, 354 characteristic value, see eigenvalue
dual space of, weak* Chebyshev set, 435-436, 441, 453,
convergence in, 234 470, 474
is infinite-dimensional, 15 Clarkson, J. A., 426, 441, 448, 450,
is not isomorphic to a dual 458,459
space, 411 closed graph theorem, 41-42,
polynomial basis for, 397 46-48, 197, 199
real, 27(}--272 closed mapping, 46, 48
is not reflexive, 113 closed mapping theorem, see closed
is separable, 110 graph theorem
C[a,b], ix closed set, 18, 48, 167, 179, 184
C(K), 13, 211, 230-231, 322-323, boundary of, 41
338 bounded, 32
as a Banach algebra, 306 closure of a set, 1, 167, 183
is complete, 13 weak, 247, 250
dual space of, 87, 97 weak*, 247
has the Dunford-Pettis property, codimension, 300, 421
345346 compact operator, 319-339, 347
reflexivity or nonreflexivity of, is bounded, 319
106, 109 characterizations of, 320,
relatively compact subset of, 323 323-324, 337, 346-347
is not rotund when K has at is completely continuous, 336
least two elements, 428 conditions implying, 324
is not smooth when K has at eigenspaces of, 328
least two elements, 482-483 eigenvalues of, 327-329
weak sequential completeness of, not having finite rank, 320-321
conditions equivalent to, 222 on an infinite-dimensional
C(K,X),23 Banach space, 328-329
(C, I)-limit, 82 range of, 321
ca(fl, E), 16-17 is separable, 321
C* -algebra, see B* -algebra spectrum of, 324, 327-329
canonical embedding map from a is weakly compact, 340
normed space into its second compact set, 18, 32-33, 167, 179,
dual, see natural map from a 184
normed space into its second approximatively, see
dual approximatively compact set
Cantor set, 41, 234 is bounded, 24, 170
Casazza, P., 385 closed convex hull of, 252-255
Cauchy net in a normed space, 157 conditions implying
Cauchy net in a topological vector metrizability of topology of,
space, 170, 209 207, 211
Cauchy sequence in a topological convex hull of, 255
vector space, 171 extreme points of closed convex
Cauchy's inequality for Euclidean hull of, 267-269
n-space, 531-532 relatively, 330-:333
Cech, E., 544 completely continuous operator,
Cesaro summability, 82 336-339, 344-347
chain, 5 is bounded, 336
574 Index

characterizations of, 336, 337 for a Schauder basis, see

completeness of an abelian Schauder basis, coordinate
topological group, 185-186, functionals for
193 for a vector space basis, 349,
complete norm, see Banach norm 365-366
complete normed space, see core, 24
Banach space coset, 50
complete topological vector space, countable set, 2
170 countably infinite set, 301
complex homomorphism, 318 countably subadditive function, 42
composite of functions, 4 counting measure, 12
cone, 273 Cudia, D. F., 492
characterization of, 279 Cyrillic names, transliteration of,
conjugate exponents, 85, 530 xiii
conjugate space, see dual space
continuous function, 18, 167 Davie, A. M., 336
on a subspace of a Banach Day, M. M., x, xii, 118, 178, 221,
space, extensibility of, 304 247, 255, 270, 357, 361,
uniformly, 184 426-427, 435, 439, 453, 457,
convex combination, 3 459,469,478,482,503,515
convex function, 503 Day-James theorem, 436
convex hull, 3, 268 Day's lemma, 247-248
closed, 3, 8, 21, 23, 167, 216, decreasing sequence of sets, 263
252-255, 268-270 derivative of a normed-space-valued
weakly closed, 216 function, 311
weakly* closed, 269 diagonal set, 159
convex set, 3, 5, 7, 8(}-81 , 167, diameter of a set, 201-202, 467
175-176, 179, 187, 216, 263, Diestel, J., 222, 279, 346, 393, 408
268, 273, 279, 435, 467, 470 Dieudonne, J., x, 179, 192, 235, 239
closed, 22, 24, 84, 116, 119, 122, difference of two sets
135-136, 180-181, 184, 202, algebraic, 3
216, 228, 243, 264-265, 267, set-theoretic, 3
270, 272, 275-278, 280, differentiability of the norm
435-436, 440-441, 453, 470, Frechet, see Frechet differ-
478 entiability of the norm
boundary of, 275, 279-280 Gateaux, see Gateaux
closure of, 21, 167, 18(}-181, 184, differentiability of the norm
216 differentiable normed-space-valued
compact, 180, 184, 265-266, 268, function, 311
280 directional modulus of rotundity,
interior of, 21, 167 see rotundity, directional
open, 216 modulus of
weak closure of, 216 direct product of normed spaces,
weakly closed, 216, 243 see direct sum of normed
weakly* closed, 228, 242-244 spaces
weakly* sequentially closed, 242 direct sum norm, 59
convex span, see convex hull alternative formulations for, 60,
Conway, J. B., 337 68-69, 93, 96
coordinate functional metric induced by, 61
 Index 575

topology induced by, 61 of a separable normed space,

direct sum of linear operators, 66 112, 230, 234
direct sum of normed spaces, smoothness properties of,
59-70,366 481-482, 492, 499-500, 508,
"alge braic" properties of, 61--63 514-515
alternative notations for, 60 of a vector space with a
dual space of, 91 topology, 174
norm for, see direct sum norm Dunford, N., xii, 344-346
is reflexive when each summand Dunford-Pettis operator, see
is reflexive, 105 completely continuous
is rotund when each summand is operator
rotund, 438 Dunford-Pettis property, 344-347
is separable when each characterizations of, 344-345
summand is separable, 111 Duren, P. L., 201
is smooth when each summand Dvoretzky, A., 20
is smooth, 488-489
is uniformly rotund when each Eberlein, W. F., 246,248
summand is uniformly Eberlein-Smulian theorem, 135,
rotund, 456 246-252, 340
is uniformly smooth when each Efimov, N. V., 469
summand is uniformly Efimov-Stechkin property, 478-479
smooth,502 Eidelheit, M., 179
is weakly compactly generated Eidelheit's separation theorem,
when each summand is 179, 184
weakly compactly generated, eigenspace, 315-316
256 eigenvalue, 315-316, 327-329
direct sum of subspaces, see eigenvector, 315-316
internal direct sum embedding, 30
disc algebra, 119 isometric, 30
is not reflexive, 119, 135 empty union or intersection, 4
distance Enfio, P., 335, 336, 361, 363, 365
function, see metric equicontinuity, 322--323, 338
from a point to a set, 5, 8 equivalent bases, see Schauder
between sets, 5, 121 bases, equivalent
Hausdorff, 8 equivalent basic sequences, see
division algebra, 318 Schauder basic sequences,
double dual, see second dual equivalent
dual space, 84-97,184,223-245, equivalent norms, 45, 477
267 conditions implying, 32, 45
algebraic, 84-85 constructing, 479
is complete, 87 Euclidean 2-space, 264, 425-426,
is reflexive when the main space 430-431, 447, 460, 481, 497
is reflexive, 104 modulus of rotundity of, 457
rotundity properties of, 465-466, modulus of smoothness of, 504
481-482,492, 499-500, Euclidean 3-space, 425
509-510, 513-515 Euclidean norm, 11
second, see second dual Euclidean n-space, 11-12, 32,
of a separable Banach space, 361-362, 456
113, 235, 241-242, 295 is complete, 13, .535
576 Index

Euclidean topology, 11 compactness with respect to,

existence, set of, 435-436, 440--441 210--211
is closed, 441 conditions implying
exposed point, 270, 440 metrizability of, 206-207
extended real numbers, 217 continuity with respect to, 204
external direct sum, see direct sum net convergence with respect to,
of normed spaces 204
extremal set, 264-265 separation axioms for, 205-206
extreme point, 264-270 standard basis for, 203
characterization of, 269 standard subbasis for, 203

IF as a Banach algebra, 306 Gantmacher, V., 341, 343

IF as a normed space, 11 Gantmacher's theorem, 343, 347
is complete, 13 Garkavi, A. L., 478
is rotund, 427 Gateaux derivative of the norm,
is smooth, 482 485-486, see also Gateaux
factor space, see quotient space differentiability of the norm
Fan, K., 121, 221, 467, 468, in a direction, 485
470--472,477 left-hand at a point, 485-486
Figiel, T., 365 in a direction, 485
filter, 158 159 right-hand at a point, 485-486,
filterbase, 158-159 493
finitely subadditive function, 73, 84 in a direction, 485
first category set, 36-41, 191 is a sublinear functional, 484
first isomorphism thcorem for Gateaux differentiability of the
Banach spaces, 56-58 norm, 483-487, 504, 510, see
flat set, 175-176 also Gateaux derivative of
Floret, K., 255 the norm
Fourier coefficient, 14 conditions equivalent to,
Fraktur letters 485-487
list of, 565 in a direction, 485
use of, 6 conditions equivalent to, 485
Frechet, M. R., ix uniform, 496, 510
Frechet differentiability of the gauge functional, see Minkowski
norm, 496, 504 functional
conditions equivalent to, 497 Go set, 41, 190, 192
uniform, 496, 510 Gelbaum, B. R., 361
conditions equivalent to, Gelfand-Mazur theorem, 318
496-497 Giles, J. R, 515, 516
Frechet smoothness, see Glicksberg, 1., 121, 221, 467, 468,
smoothness, Frechet 470-472, 477
Frechet space, 186, 193, 201 gliding hump argument, 47, 49
Fredholm alternative, 329, 338 Goldstine, H. H., 232
Fredholm, 1., 325 Goldstine's theorem, 232-233, 235,
F-space, 186-187, 193, 197-203, 304 245
~ topology, 203-207, see also X' Gowers, W. T., 279, 384-385, 410
topology of a vector space X, greatest lower bound in a partially
where X' is a subspace of X# ordered set, 376-377
 Index 577

Grothendieck, A., 330, 334-336, Hilbert, D., 319, 336, 337

344, 346 Hilbert space, 301, 337
group, 152-153 is reflexive, 458
abelian, 153, 156 is rotund, 440
addition, 153 is smooth, 492
identity element, 152, 153 is uniformly rotund, 458
inverse of an element, 152 is uniformly smooth, 504
multiplication, 152 Hildebrandt, T. H., 45, 199
operation, 152 Holder's inequality for sequences,
Guraril, V. 1., 363 530-532
homeomorphism
H p ,14 between metric spaces, 31
Hahn, H., x, xiii, 45, 47, 49, 74, 77, between normed spaces, 18, 31
84, 99, 199 between topological vector
Hahn-Banach extension, 75 spaces, 167
uniqueness of, 75, 83-84 Hughes, E., 440
Hahn-Banach extension property, hyperplane problem, 385
201-202
Hahn-Banach extension theorem, ideal, 322, 338
70-84, 87-88 identity of an algebra, 305-306
analytic form, see Hahn-Banach identity operator, 26, 297-299, 314
extension theorem, normed infinite sum, see series, convergent
space version inner product space
historical roots, 76 modulus of rotundity of, 458
normed space version, 74-76, is rotund, 440
177, 201, 299 is smooth, 492
vector space version, 73-74, 81, is uniformly rotund, 458
175 is uniformly smooth, 504
Hahn-Banach separation theorem, interior mapping principle, see
79-81, 175 open mapping theorem
Hahn-Banach theorem, 73, see also interior of a set, 1, 167, 183
Hahn-Banach extension internal direct sum, 64-65, 69,
theorem; Hahn-Banach 295-296, 298
separation theorem algebraic, 64, 295-296, 298-299
halfspace is reflexive when the main space
closed,84 is complete and each
separating, 280 summand is reflexive, 105
open, 433 is separable when each
Halmos, P., 158 summand is separable, 111
Hamel, G. K. W., 351 inverse mapping theorem, 44, 198
Hamel basis, see vector space basis inverse of an element of an algebra
Hardy space, see Hp with identity, 307
Hausdorff, F., 8 invertible element of an algebra
Hausdorff's maximal principle, 8 with identity, 307
Heine-Borel property, 32-33, 137 involution, 318
Heily, E., x, 78 isolated point, 41
Heily's theorem, 77-79, 96-97 isometric isomorphism, 295
hereditarily indecomposable isometry, linear, see isomorphism,
Banach space, 385 isometric
578 Index

isomorphism, 30-31, 90, 295 is a closed subspace of B(X, Y),

conditions equivalent to, 31, 66, 342
109, 214, 290, 293 Kadets, M. 1., 220-221
conditions implying, 31, 32, 44, Kadets- Klee property, see
56, 58, 67, 70 Radon-Riesz property
isometric, 30--31, 90, 102-103 Kakutani, S., 188, 301, 339
conditions equivalent to, 66, Kalton, N. J., 201
109, 290 Karlin, S., 372
conditions implying, 67, 70, 95 Katznelson, Y., 271
Istratescu, V. 1., 439 Kelley, J _ L., 143
kernel of a linear operator, 4, 56,
J, see James's space J 57, 109, 175, 289
Klee, V. L., 63, 121, 180, 186,
James, R. C., 107, 117, 120 122,
125, 128, 132, 134, 251, 192-193, 220-221, 256-257,
264, 270, 275, 437, 441
256-257, 260-262, 271, 272,
Kozlov, V. Ya., 357
35~ 372, 402, 411, 423, 472,
Krasnoselskii, M. A., 358
478, 479
Krein, M. G., 235, 242, 252, 254,
James's sequential characterization
265, 358, 426-427
of reflexivity, 117-118
Krein-Milman theorem, 265-267
James's space J, 107, 411, 415-423
Milman's partial converse of,
is isometrically isomorphic to its
267-269
second dual, 422-423
Krein-Smulian theorem on weakly*
is not isomorphic to JEll J, 423
closed convex sets, 242-244,
is not reflexive, 421
291
second dual of, 419-423
analogs of, for the norm and
standard unit vector basis for,
weak topologies, 243
417-421
Krein-Smulian weak compactness
is monotone, 417
theorem, 252-255, 264
is shrinking, 417
Kruse, A., 301
has no unconditional basis, 423
Kwapien, S., 393
James's theorem, 89, 101, 115,
121-134, 136, 256-257,
0, 183
262-263, 270-271, 281, 436,
p, 0 < p < 1, 165-166, 178, 183,
440, 458, 472, 478, 492, 493
186, 201
for separable Banach spaces, 121 dual space of, 184
James's weak compactness is not locally convex, 166
theorem, 121-122, 136,
~,0<p<1,183
256264, 270 1,16,23,47,86,113-111,135,
Johnson, W. B., 365, 385 221, 222, 285-286, 304, 337,
339, 340, 347, 367, 397,
K(X), 319, 341, see also K(X, Y) 407-411, 415, 462-463, 465,
is a closed ideal in B(X), 322 481-482, 492, 515, see also
K(X, Y), 319, ;{41 p, 1 -s: p < 00
is a closed subspace of B(X, Y), closed unit ball of, 270
322 compact subsets of, 255
KW(X), 339, 341 dual space of, 285-286, 295, see
is a closed ideal in B(X), 342 also p, 1 -s: p < 00, dual
KW(X, Y), 339, 341 space of
 Index 579

has the Dunford-Pettis property, is complete, 13, 534

344 dual space of, 85, 536
infinite-dimensional subspaces weak* convergence in, 233
of, are not reflexive, 255 is infinite-dimensional, 15
is not reflexive, 106, 113 is reflexive when 1 < p < =,
is not rotund, 428 101,539
rotund equivalent norm for, does not have Schur's property
428-430 when 1 < p < =,222
is not uniformly rotund, 453 second dual of, when
has Schur's property, 219-220 1 < p < =,98
is not smooth, 482 is separable, 111
standard unit vector basis for, standard unit vector basis for,
398, see also fp, 1 ::; p < =, 351
standard unit vector basis for when 1 < p < 00, 397, 403
basic sequences equivalent to, is boundedly complete, 404
388, 394 coordinate functionals for, 399
block basic sequences taken is monotone, 357
from, 394 is shrinking when 1 < p < =,
coordinate functionals for, 403
399--400 is strictly monotone, 358
permutations of, 394 is unconditional, 372
is not shrinking, 403 is uniformly rotund when
subsequences of, 394 1 < p < 00, 448, 451
weakly compact subsets of, 255 is uniformly smooth when
is weakly sequentially complete, 1 < p < =,501
218-219 is weakly sequentially complete,
i, 425-426, 430, 447, 460, 476, 218-219, 222
479 481, 497 p((Xn)), 1 ::; p < 00, 439-440,
f, 428, 482 459, 491
is not rotund when n ~ 2, 428 dual space of, 491
is not smooth when n ~ 2, 482 fp sum of normed spaces,
2, ix, 69, 116, 212, 217, 284, 1::; p < =, see fp((Xn)) ,
319-320, 328-329, 337, 340, 1::;p<=
346, 462, 465, 477, 478, 510, f;, 1 ::; p ::; 00, 12, 16, 529, 533-536
514, see also p, 1 ::; p < = is complete, 13, 534
has the approximation property, dual space of, 86-87, 537
329 330 is uniformly rotund when
has the Radon- Riesz property, 1 < p < 00, 448, 451
220 is uniformly smooth when
does not have Schur's property, 1 < p < 00, 501
220 00, 12, 15, 16, 19, 47, 68, 71,
f p , 1 ::; p < 00, 12, 15, 16, 18-19, 82-83, 135-136, 183, 184,
68, 221, 293, 529--534, 536, 285-286, 295, 297, 301-302,
539 319, 351, 371-373, 375, 378,
has the approximation property, 386, 408, 415, 529-534
330 as a Banach algebra, 306,
as a Banach algebra, 377 317-318
as a Banach lattice when IF = JR, closed unit ball of, 270
377 is complete, 13, 534
580 Index

dual space of, 85-86, 235 has the Dunford-Pettis property

is infinite-dimensional, 15 when JL is finite, 345-346
is not reflexive, 106, 113 reflexivity or nonreflexivity of,
is not rotund, 428 101, 106
is not separable, III rotundity or nonrotundity of,
is not smooth, 482 427-428
is not smoothable, 482, 515 smoothness or nonsmoothness
is not weakly compactly of,482
generated, 256 Lp[O, l], 1 ::; p < 00, 11, 16, 48, 68,
weakly compact subsets of, 256 see also Lp(n, E, JL),
ao(Xn),491 l~p<oo

~, 264, 425-426 Haar basis for, 359--361, 366, 384

~, 428,482
is infinite-dimensional, 15
is not rotund when n 2: 2, 428 polynomial basis for, 397
is not smooth when n 2: 2, 482 is separable, 110
Lo [0,1]' 163-164, 186, 304, see also Lp[O,oo), 11, 16, see also
Lo(n,E,JL) Lp(n, E, JL) for appropriate p
has dual space {O}, 178
Lp(n, E, JL), 1 ::; p < 00, 11, 50,
109, 183
is not locally bounded, 202
is complete, 13
is not locally convex, 164
dual space of, 85
Lo(n,E,JL), 162-164, 182-183,186
has the Radon-Riesz property
is complete, 163
when 1 < p < 00, 220,
is a topological group under
453-454
vector addition, 163
is reflexive when 1 < p < 00, 101
is a topological vector space
is rotund when 1 < p < 00, 427
when JL(n) < 00, 163
is smooth when 1 < p < 00, 482
L1'[O,1], 0 < p < 1, 165, 186,201, is uniformly rotund when
202, 304, see also Lp(n, E, JL), 1 < p < 00, 448-450, 458
O<p<1 is uniformly smooth when
has dual space {O}, 178 1 < p < 00,501
is not locally convex, 165 Lp('ll') , 14
Lp(n, E,JL), 0 < p < 1, 164-165, Lao [0,1], 11, 16, 48, 68, see also
183, 186 Loo(n,E,JL)
is complete, 164-165 is infinite-dimensional, 15
is locally bounded, 202 is not reflexive, 106, 113
is a topological vector space, 165 is not separable, 110
LIlO,I], see also Ll(n,E,JL); Loo(n, E, JL), 11, 50, 109, 183
Lp[O, 1], 1 ~ p < 00 as a Banach algebra, 306
closed unit ball of, 270 is complete, 13
has the Dunford-Pettis property, dual space of, 85
346 reflexivity or nonreflexivity of,
Haar basis for, 398 101, 106
is conditional, 383-384 rotundity or nonrotundity of,
is not isometrically isomorphic 427-428
to a dual space, 267 separability or nonseparability
is not reflexive, 106, 108, 113 of, 115
LIfn, E, JL), see also Lp(n, E, JL), smoothness or nonsmoothness
l::;p<oo of, 482
 Index 581

latent root, see eigenvalue noncontinuous, 210, see also

latent value, see eigenvalue linear functional, unbounded
LCS, see locally convex space positive, on C(K), 97
least upper bound in a partially real-, 71-72, 95, 432-433
ordered set, 37&-377 unbounded, 29, 34, 57, 202
Lebesgue, R., 49 weakly continuous, see weakly
Lebesgue space, 11, 12 continuous linear functional
is complete, 13 weakly* continous, see weakly*
Lewin, J., 6 continuous linear functional
limit inferior of a net of real linear hull, 3
numbers, 217, 221-222 closed, 4, 8, 21, 23, 93, 167
limit superior of a net of real weakly* closed, 225
numbers, 217, 221-222 linearly independent
Lindenstrauss, J., x, xi, 279, 301, finite list, 2, 367
499 sequence, 2
linear combination, 4 linear operator, 4-5, 24-35,43-49,
linear equations, simultaneous 196-200, 283-306, 314-347
solutions of, 76-77, 329, 338 algebraically invertible, 314
linear form, see linear functional bounded, 24, 196, 222, 228-229,
linear function, see linear operator 283-295, 297, 306, 314-347,
linear functional, 4 see also linear operator,
bounded, 276, see also linear continuous
functional, continuous adjoint of, see adjoint operator
adjoint of, 293 vs. bounded function, 24-25
conditions equivalent to, 57, closed-range, 55-56, 292
212, 320 conditions equivalent to, 25,
conditions implying, 83 55, 57, 66, 89, 196, 214, 320,
extensibility of, 71, 75, 202, see 339
also linear operator, conditions implying, 24, 29, 34,
bounded, extensibility of 46, 48, 70, 196, 198-200
norm-attaining, 89, 95, 101, extensibility of, 59, 67-68,
121122, 134-135, 262 263, 70-71, 82, 299-300, see also
271-273, 281 linear functional, bounded,
norming, 76, 426 extensibility of
separating, 75, 76, 80-81, 84, kernel of, 289
87-88, 276-277, 280 norm-attaining, 278-279, see
complex-, 71-72, 95 also linear functional,
conditions implying one is a bounded, norm-attaining
linear combination of others, one-to-one, conditions
78 equivalent to, 289, 290
continuous, 266, see also linear one-to-one, conditions
functional, bounded implying, 291
conditions equivalent to, 175 onto, conditions equivalent to,
extensibility of, 177, 201 289, 293
separating, 175-180, 184, 201 compact, see compact operator
support, see support functional completely continuous, see
multiplicative, see complex completely continuous
homomorphism operator
582 Index

continuous, 222, 297, see also Hausdorff, 178, 195, 201,210,

linear operator, bounded 264-266, 268-270, 300-301
conditions equivalent to, 196 infinite-dimensional,210-211
conditions implying, 182 locally convex topology, 161, see
Dunford-Pettis, see completely also locally convex space
continuous operator local uniform convexity, see
finite-rank, 4, 57, 58, 69-70, 82, rotundity, local uniform
109, 319-320, 330, 340 local uniform rotundity, see
graph of, 47-48 rotundity, local uniform
norm of, see operator norm Lorch, E. R, 99
one-to-one, conditions Lovaglia, A. R, 460, 466, 515
equivalent to, 66 lower semicontinuous function, 217
onto, conditions equivalent to, LTS, see topological vector space
66 LUR modulus, see rotundity,
open, 43 modulus of local uniform
conditions equivalent to, 55
conditions implying, 34, 43, Maurey, B., 384-385, 410
197 maximal element, 5
product, 4, 28-29 Mazur, S., 113, 121, 176, 192, 199,
shift-invariant, on a sequence 200, 216, 252, 254, 335-336,
space, 83 361, 363-364, 384
unbounded, 26, 29, 202 Mazur's compactness theorem,
weakly compact, see weakly 252-255
compact operator Mazur's separation theorem,
weak-to-norm continuous, 337, 176-178, 201
339 McShane, E. J., 143, 448
weak*-to-norm continuous, 338 meager set, see first category set
weak-to-norm sequentially Megginson, R E., 223, 474
continuous, 336 metric, 5, 521
weak-to-weak continuous, 214 complete, conditions implying,
weak*-to-weak* continuous, 192
228-229, 287-288 invariant, 186-189, 192-193,
linear space, see vector space 197, 201-202
linear span, see linear hull left-invariant, 192
linear topological space, see metric induced by a norm, 10
topological vector space metric space, 5, 435, 469-470, 521
linear topology, see vector topology complete, 37-38
linear transformation, see linear completion of, 98, 108
operator incomplete, 38, 63
lipp, 17 metric space theory, see special
Lipp,17 subindex on p. 594
Lipschitz condition, 17 midpoint local uniform convexity,
local basis for a vector topology, see rotundity, midpoint local
187-189 uniform
countable, 187-189 midpoint local uniform rotundity,
locally convex space, 161, 162, 167, see rotundity, midpoint local
177-178, 180-181, 187-189, uniform
201 Milman, D. P., 265, 268, 358, 452
 Index 583

Milman-Pettis theorem, 452-453, conditions equivalent to the

458,500 topology of a vector space
minimizing sequence, 469-470 being induced by a norm, 195
Minkowski functional, 80-81, 84 continuity of, 17
Minkowski's inequality for formula for, in terms of bounded
sequences, 532-533 linear functionals, 88
modulus of convexity, see rotund, see rotundity
rotundity, modulus of induced by a Schauder basis,
modulus of rotundity, see 354,358
rotundity, modulus of smooth, see smoothness
modulus of smoothness, see strictly convex, see rotundity
smoothness, modulus of topology, 10, 32, 35, 137
moment problem, 426 is locally convex, 162
Moore, E. H., 143 weak continuity of, conditions
equivalent to, 217
Nakamura, M., 301, 341, 343 weak lower semicontinuity of,
natural map from a normed space 217
into its second dual, 98-99, weak* lower semicontinuity of,
232, 286, 295 on a dual space, 227
adjoint of, 295 normed algebra, 305, see also
image of a normed space in its algebra; Banach algebra
second dual with respect to, basic properties of, 307-308
223, 232-233, 255, 288-289, completion of, 317
303 complex, 318
natural projection for a Schauder continuity of multiplication in,
basis, see Schauder basis, 308
natural projections for; with identity
Schauder basis, continuity of inversion in, 318
unconditional, natural normalization of identity of,
projections for 317
nearest point theory, 121, 435--436, normed lattice, 377
469-470 normed linear space, see normed
nearly open set, 41 space
neighborhood normed space, 9
of 0 in a topological vector compactly generated, 114, 254,
space, 167, 175, 187, 202 see also separability
of a point in a topological vector completion of, 98-99, 108, 503
space, 167 complex, 34, 115, 432-433, 440
net, see also topological theory, net conditions equivalent to
limits in a topological vector completeness of, 20, 63, 158,
space, 167 193
weakly convergent, 217 conditions implying
weakly* convergent, 227 completeness of, 31, 32, 99,
Nikodym, O. M., xii, 178 441, 478
nonmeager set, see second category conditions implying
set incompleteness of, 34, 40
Nordlander, G., 457 continuity of vector space
norm, 9,15 operations of, 17
584 Index

finite-dimensional, 20, 31-34, 69, open mapping theorem, 41-45, 48,

137, 349-350, 452, 501, see 197-198
also Banach space, open set, 18, 34, 37, 43, 167, 184,
finite-dimensional 210
is complete, 32 operator norm, 26-28
conditions equivalent to, 33, characterizations of, 27
88,215,217,226 formulas for, 27, 89
dual space of, 88, 99 ordered vector space, 376
nth dual of, 99 order-preserving function, 87
is reflexive, 100 Orlicz, W., 199, 200, 393
is separable, 111 Orlicz-Pettis theorem, 392-393
incomplete, 63, 243-244, for weak reordered convergence,
278-279, 294, 349 393
infinite-dimensional, 35, 137, Onel, M., 440
211, 214, 221, 226, 243, 338, orthodox set, 280
349 Oxtoby, J. C., 40
inquadrate, 479
Radon-Riesz, see Radon-Riesz parallelogram law, 462, 477
property partially ordered set, 6, 8, 143, 376
real, 34, 115, 127-132, 276, Pelczynski, A., 301, 361, 363-365,
432-433, 442 384,393,396,408,410
reflexive, see reflexivity perfect set, 41
regular, see reflexivity Pettis, B. J., 104,344, 345, 393,452
rotund, see rotundity Phelps, R. R., 271-280
separable, see separability Phillips, R. S., 207, 301
smooth, see smoothness Picone, M., 143
strictly convex, see rotundity pointwise boundedness of a family
strictly normed, see rotundity of linear operators, 46, 200
uniformly nonsquare, 479 polar set, see absolute polar set
weakly compactly generated, polygon, 264, 267, 270
254-256, 347, 464 positive-homogeneous function, 73,
weakly sequentially complete, 80,84
see weak sequential positive measure, 11
completeness prenorm, see seminorm
normed vector space, see normed preorder,5
space preordered set, 5-6, 8, 143
norming functional, see linear prerefiexive normed space, 99
functional, bounded, norming prerequisites, xi, 517-518
norming sequence, 505-508 for an undergraduate Banach
Cauchy, 506, 508 space course, 518-520
weakly* Cauchy, 505, 507 product metric, 61
norming subspace, 505-508 product topology, 61, 63, 204-205
nowhere dense set, 36, 40, 41 projection, 296-299
nth dual, 97 algebraic adjoint of, 297
null space of a linear operator, see bounded, 67, 297, 304, see also
kernel of a linear operator projection, continuous
adjoint of, 297
open mapping, 43, see also linear conditions implying, 299
operator, open finite-rank, 304
 Index 585

compact, 337 Radon-Nikodym property, 279

continuous, 297, see also Radon-Riesz property, 220--221,
projection, bounded 453-454, 460, 463-465,
kernel of, 298 471-472, 474, 476, 478-479
range of, 298 conditions equivalent to, 222
onto equivalence classes, 54 conditions implying, 453, 463,
in ]F2, 304 471,478
kernel of, 298 rank of a linear operator, 4
range of, 298 rca[O, 1],271, see also rca(K)
from a topological product to a is not reflexive, 113
factor, 204 is not separable, 110
unbounded, 299 rca(K), 13, 17, 87, 97
proper value, see eigenvalue is complete, 13, 87
property (H), see Radon-Riesz reflexivity or nonreflexivity of,
property 106, 109
property (SA), see semi-Radon- is not rotund when K has at
Riesz property least two elements, 440
proximinal set, see existence, set of separability or nonseparability
of, 114
quotient map, 54-55, 286, 291-292 is not smooth when K has at
topological, 54-55 least two elements, 492
quotient norm, 51-53 reflexivity, 99--109, 113, 115-136,
characterizations of, 51-52 271, 286, 294, 337, 339--341,
quotient space, 49-59, 294, 300, 344, 346, 347, 402, 406-407,
437-438, 488, 492 410-411, 423, 435-436,
of a Banach space, 53, 366 440--441, 458, 460, 463-464,
dual space of, 95, 286, 291 471-472, 478-479, 481, 493,
modulus of rotundity of, 509--510, 513-514
454-455, 458 care needed in the definition of,
modulus of smoothness of, 502 106-108
norm for, see quotient norm implies completeness, 99
nth dual of, 108 conditions equivalent to, 117,
is reflexive when the main space 119--120, 125, 132, 134-136,
is reflexive, 105 223-224, 245, 251, 262-263,
rotundity of, conditions 347,406,410,411,436,493
implying, 441 conditions implying, 99, 100,
is separable when the main 104-105, 108, 121, 134, 263,
space is separable, 111 281, 347, 440--441, 452, 478,
is uniformly rotund when the 479, 492, 500, 515-516
main space is uniformly and separability, 115, 121, 136
rotund, 455 is separably determined, 120,
is uniformly smooth when the 251
main space is uniformly super-, see superreflexivity
smooth,502 implies weak compact
quotient topology, 55, 184 generation, 255
implies weak sequential
hyperplanes and hyperspaces
]R2, completeness, 251
in, 433-434 resolvent, see resolvent function
Radon, J., 220, 453, 454 resolvent equation, 311
586 Index

resolvent function, 309, 311-312, alternative formulas for, 445

314 properties of, 442
resolvent set, 309-310, 314 of a quotient space, 454-455,
Riemann partition, 160 458
Riesz, F., x, 33, 220, 284, 319, of a subspace, 454
324-325, 328, 337, 453, 454 upper bound for, 457
Riesz representation theorem for modulus of local uniform, 460
bounded linear functionals on modulus of weak local uniform,
C(K),87 466-467
Riesz's lemma, 325 modulus of weak uniform, 464
for reflexive spaces, 338 modulus of weak* uniform, 466
Rogers, C. A., 20 Q(X)-, 492
Romberg, B. W., 201 and smoothness, 481-482,
Rosenholtz, 1., 234 491-492
Rosenthal, H. P., 222 strong, 467-472, 474, 476, 478,
Rosenthal's 1 theorem, 222
510,515
rotundity, 426-479, 493, 504-505,
conditions equivalent to,
510, 514
468-470, 472, 478-479,
conditions equivalent to, 427,
508-509
431, 434-436, 440, 457, 481,
conditions implying, 467,
490, 492-493
471-472, 477
conditions implying, 431, 447,
and Frechet smoothness,
460, 465-467, 473, 477, 478,
508-510
481, 492
implies midpoint local uniform
directional modulus of, 476
rotundity, 473
is not isomorphism-invariant,
implies the Radon-Riesz
430
property, 471
k-, 477
implies reflexivity for Banach
local uniform, 220, 460 465, 472,
spaces, 472, 515-516
474, 476
conditions equivalent to, 461 implies rotundity, 467
conditions implying, 460, 461 uniform, 426, 441-460, 462-465,
and Frechet smoothness, 515 476, 479, 510, 514
is not isomorphism-invariant, conditions equivalent to, 447,
460 452, 459, 477, 499-500, 503
implies midpoint local uniform conditions implying, 447
rotundity, 473 directional, see rotundity,
implies the Radon-Riesz uniform, in every direction
property, 463 directionalizations of, 476
implies rotundity, 460 in every direction, 476, 478
implies weak local uniform is not isomorphism-invariant,
rotundity, 467 447
midpoint local uniform, implies k-rotundity, 477
472474,476 implies local uniform
conditions equivalent to, rotundity, 460
473-474 implies midpoint local uniform
conditions implying, 473 rotundity, 473
implies rotundity, 473 implies the Radon-Riesz
modulus of, 441-445, 448, 457 property, 453
 Index 587

implies reflexivity for Banach Schauder basic sequence, 350,

spaces, 452 361-364, 367, 386, see also
implies rotundity, 447 Schauder basis
implies strong rotundity, 467 block, 393-398
and uniform smoothness, 500, basis constant for, 394
502 bounded, 351
in weakly compact sets of conditions equivalent to a
directions, 476-478 sequence being, 359
implies weak uniform existence of, in a Banach space,
rotundity, 465 361-363
weak local uniform, 466-467, is linearly independent, 352
472, 474, 476-477 monotone, 357, 398
conditions implying, 467 normalized, 351, 363
implies rotundity, 467 subsequence of, is basic, 359
weak uniform, 464-465, 472, unconditional, 373, 384-385,
474, 476, 514 398, 410-411
conditions equivalent to, 464, conditions equivalent to a
477, 478, 513-514 sequence being, 381-382
conditions implying, 465, 514 weak limit points of, 367
implies rotundity, 465
Schauder basic sequences,
and uniform Gateaux
equivalent, 387
smoothness, 514
Schauder basis, 121, 349-423, see
implies uniform rotundity in
also Schauder basic sequence;
every direction, 478
Banach space with a
implies uniform rotundity in
Schauder basis
weakly compact sets of
absolute, see Schauder basis,
directions, 477
unconditional
implies weak local uniform
bounded,351
rotundity, 467
implies weak* uniform boundedly complete, 404-406,
408-410
rotundity in dual spaces, 466
weak* uniform, 465-466, 477 conditions equivalent to a basis
conditions equivalent to, 510, being, 405-406
513 conditional, 372, 382-384
conditions implying, 466 conditions equivalent to a
implies rotundity, 466 sequence being, 358, 366, 368
and uniform Gateaux constant, see basis constant
:;moothness, 510 coordinate functionals for, ~50,
Rudin, W., xi 354, 366-368, 399-407
Ruston, A. F., 434 form a basic sequence, 399
basis constant for, 399
scalar, 1 are bounded, 356
scalar multiple of a set, 3, 7, 18, 167 form a weak* basis for the
scalar operator, 26 dual space, 400
Schauder, J., 43, 197, 323, 350, 352, is linearly independent, 352
361 monotone, 356-358, 363,
Schauder bases, equivalent, 386-398 366-367, 402, 406, 411-415
conditions equivalent to two characterizations of, 357-358
bases being, 387 strictly, 358
588 Index

natural projections for, 354, 356, semi-Radon- Riesz property,

366, 368, 378 222-223
are bounded, 356 conditions implying, 516
nonmonotone, 366 separability, 109-115, 230, 234-235,
normalized, 351, 373 241-242,252,254-256,271,
norm induced by, see norm, 295, 338, 361, 365, 367, 408,
induced by a Schauder basis 411,423
orthogonal, 356-357, see also conditions equivalent to, 111,
Schauder basis, monotone 113, 114, 231
shrinking, 402-406, 408-415 conditions implying, 109,
has a boundedly complete dual 111-112, 114
basis, 404 conditions precluding, 109
conditions equivalent to a basis and reflexivity, 115, 121, 136
being, 403, 405-406 implies weak compact
unconditional, 368-387, 409--411 generation, 255
bounded multiplier separating family of functions,
unconditional norm induced 205-207
by, see bounded multiplier separation of convex sets, 79--81,
unconditional norm 84,175-180,184,280
conditions equivalent to a separation theorem, 275-277, see
sequence being, 381, 386 also Hahn-Banach separation
natural projections for, theorem; separation of
378-379 convex sets
normalized, 375-376 sequence, indexing of, 3
series, 18--20
unconditional basis constant
convergent, 18-20
for, see unconditional basis
absolutely, 20, 23
constant
conditionally, 20
unconditional constant for, see
unconditionally, 20, 23,
unconditional constant
368-372, 385, 398
unconditional norm induced
weakly reordered, 392-393, 398
by, 386
weakly subseries, 392-393, 398
weak*, 400
weakly unconditionally, 392
Schauder's theorem, 323, 343
formal, 19
Schlumprecht, T., 385
partial sum of, 18
Schmidt, E., ix sum of, 18
Schur, J., 220 weakly unconditionally Cauchy,
Schur's property, 219-220, 222, 390-392
251, 347, 515 conditions equivalent to a
Schwartz, J. T., xii, 346 series being, 390, 398
Scottish Book, 336 Shields, A. L., 201
second category set, 36-41, 192 shift operator, 319, 346
second dual, 97 adjoint of, 293
modulus of smoothness of, 504 Sierpinski, W., 190
secular value, see eigenvalue Singer, Ivan, 478
self-adjoint element of an algebra Smith, H. L., 143
with involution, 319 Smith, M. A., 462, 463, 465, 467,
seminorm, 42-43, 73, 80 472, 474, 476-478, 510, 514
induced by a linear operator, 42 smoothness, 280-281, 479-516
 Index 589

conditions equivalent to, 481, conditions equivalent to, 510,

487, 488, 490, 492-493 514
conditions implying, 481, 492, conditions implying, 510
496, 504, 510 implies the semi-Radon-Riesz
Frechet, 504-510, 514-515 property, 516
conditions equivalent to, 504, implies smoothness, 510
508-509 and weak uniform rotundity,
conditions implying, 504, 506, 514
510,515 and weak* uniform rotundity,
and local uniform rotundity, 510
515 very, 280-281, 514-515
implies smoothness, 504 conditions implying, 516
and strong rotundity, 508-510 implies smoothness, 515
implies very smoothness, 515 Smulian, V. L., xiii, 119, 235, 242,
is not isomorphism-invariant, 246, 248, 252, 254, 263, 464,
481 467, 468, 487, 492, 500,
modulus of, 494-496, 504 505-510, 515
alternative formulas for, 499, Sobczyk, A., 74
503 Soukhomlinoff, G. A., 74
is continuous, 503 spectral radius, 312-314, 318
is convex, 503 spectral radius formula, 313, 317
properties of, 495 spectral value, see eigenvalue
of a quotient space, 502 spectrum, 309, 311-319, 328-329,
of a subspace, 501 346
point of, 480 continuous, 315
characterizations of, 480, point, 315-316, 319, 327-329,
486-487, 492-493 346
Q(X)-,492 residual, 315
and rotundity, 481-482, 491-492 sphere, 15-16
uniform, 493-504, 510, 514 unit, 10, 33, 273, 425-427, 431,
conditions equivalent to, 434-435, 440, 442-444,
494495, 499-501, 503 479-481, 489-491
conditions implying, 497 spherical image map, 489-491, 493
implies Frechet smoothness, continuity properties of,
504 490--491, 497-499, 504,
is not isomorphism-invariant, 514- 515
497 is weakly* -compact-valued, 490
implies reflexivity for Banach standard coordinate vector, 15
spaces, 500 basis, 351-352
implies smoothness, 496 standard unit vector, 15
is equivalent to uniform basis, 351
Frechet smoothness, 496 Stechkin, S. B., 469
implies uniform Gateaux Steenrod, N. E., 143
smoothness, 510 Steinhaus, R., 45, 200
and uniform rotundity, 500, Sternbach, L., 192
502 Straszewicz, S., 270
uniform Frechet, see strict convexity, see rotundity
smoothness, uniform strong convexity, see rotundity,
uniform Gateaux, 510-514 strong
590 Index

strong rotundity, see rotundity, is uniformly rotund when the

strong main space is uniformly
subadditive function, see finitely rotund, 454
subadditive function is uniformly smooth when the
subgroup, 192 main space is uniformly
sublinear functional, 73, 80-81, 84 smooth, 502
subreflexivity, 271-272, 278-280 weak closure of, 216
subseries, 370 weak* closure of, 225
unordered, 371 weakly closed, 216
subspace, 2, 5, 13, 23, 64, 279, see weakly* closed, 242,294
also quotient space weakly* sequentially closed, 242
closed, 13, 32, 64-65, 75, 120, weak topology of, 218
177, 181, 182, 211, 216, substitution principle for
295-296, 300-301, 325 isometrically isomorphic
is reflexive when the main normed spaces, 102-103
space is reflexive, 104 Sudakov, V. N., 301
sum, 58 sum of sets, algebraic, 3, 7, 18, 63,
closure of, 21, 83, 93, 167, 216 167, 183-184
complementary, 67, 295, 304, see superreflexivity, 452-453, 459--460
also subspace, complemented conditions equivalent to, 479,
complemented, 67, 295-296, 502
299--305, 347 conditions implying, 459
algebraically, 295-296, 298-299 support cone, 272, 273
conditions equivalent to, support functional, 272-273,
299--300 275-278, 280, 432
conditions implying, 300-301 characterizations of, 486
dual space of, 94 modulus, 280
finite-codimensional, 300 support hyperplane, 432-434, 480
finite-dimensional, 32, 58, 84, support point, 272-275, 279, 280,
182, 246, 300, 362 432
modulus of rotundity of, 454 conical, 273-275
modulus of smoothness, 501 modulus, 280
norming, see norming subspace
Swaminathan, S., 478
nth dual of, 102, 108
Sylvester, J. J., 315
reflexive, 441
Szarek, S. J., 365
infinite-dimensional, 410-411
is a set of existence, 441
relative topology of, 167 tensor product, 63
is rotund when the main space third dual, 97
is rotund, 436 three-space property, 53
second dual of, 102 completeness is, 54
separable, 120 finite-dimensionality is, 58
is separable when the main reflexivity is, 105
space is separable, 111 separability is, 112
is smooth when the main space topological completeness, 63, 186,
is smooth, 488 190, 192-193
sum, 64 topological group, 162, 189,
uncomplemented closed, 191-192
301-302 topological product, 40, 204-205
 Index 591

topological theory, see special unconditional norm, 386

subindex on pp. 595-596 uniform boundedness of a family of
topological vector space, 161-203, linear operators, 46, 199-200
264-265, 268, 272-273, 275, uniform boundedness principle,
279-280, 295-297, 305, 378, 41-42, 45-46, 48-49, 197,
432-434 199-200
basic properties, 167 uniform convexity, see rotundity,
is completely regular when To, uniform
174 uniform Frechet smoothness, see
finite-dimensional, 181-182, 185, smoothness, uniform
211 uniform Gateaux smoothness, see
Hausdorff, 174, 178,181-182, smoothness, uniform Gateaux
184-185, 187-189, 194, 195, uniform rotundity, see rotundity,
200, 202, 211, 222, 264, 267, uniform
270, 298-301,440 uniform smoothness, see
locally bounded, 194-195,201 smoothness, uniform
metrizable, 185-203 uniqueness, set of, 435
conditions implying, 188, 194 upper bound, 5
topologizing family of functions,
203-207 vector lattice, 377-378
topology of convergence in
vector space, 1-2, 8-9, 49-51,
measure, 163
63-64, 273, 279, 283-284,
topology of termwise convergence,
295-300, 432-433
194-195
complex, 2, 71-72
topology of uniform convergence on
existence of a basis for, 6, 8
compact sets, 201
finite-dimensional, 181
total family of functions, see
infinite-dimensional, 35
separating family of functions
operations, 1--2, 17
totally bounded set, 320
ordered, 279-280, 376
translate of a set, 3, 7, 18, 167
positive cone of, 280
triangle inequality
positive elements of, 280
for metric spaces, 5
positive wedge of, 280
for normed spaces, 9, 432
real, 2, 71-72
Troyanski, S. L., 464, 482, 488
sum, 59
Tukey, J. W., 180
TVS, see topological vector space vector space basis, 6, 8, 349-351
Tychonoff, A. N., 544 for a Banach space, 34, 40,
Tychonoff's theorem, 544-545 365-366
Tzafriri, L., x, xi, 301 for an F -space, 202
for a normed space, 366
Uhl, J. J., 279, 346 vector space of finitely nonzero
Ulam, S., 336 sequences, 15-16, 34
ultranet, 223 vector topology, 161, see also
unconditional basis constant, topological vector space
379-380 Vlasov, L. P., 223, 477, 516
characterizations of, 379 Vyborny, R., 46a
unconditional constant, 379-380,
386 weak compactness, 245--264, see
characterizations of, 380 also weakly compact set
592 Index

conditions equivalent to, 257, characterizations of, 249-250

260-261, 263 is a set of existence, 441
is separably determined, 250 weakly* compact set, 229-230,
weak* completeness, 230 234-235
weak local uniform convexity, see is bounded when the predual is
rotundity, weak local uniform complete, 226
weak local uniform rotundity, see extreme points of weakly* closed
rotundity, weak local uniform convex hull of, 269
weakly bounded set, 213 is a set of existence, 441
is norm bounded, 213 weakly continuous linear
weakly* bounded set, 225, 233 functional, 212
is norm bounded when the weakly* continuous linear
predual is complete, 225 functional, 223-224, 241, 243
weakly Cauchy net, 213, 223, 235 weakly convergent net, 213, 244
weakly* Cauchy net, 224, 243 weakly* convergent net, 224, 234,
weakly Cauchy sequence, 218 239
it; bounded, 214 weakly convergent sequence, 116,
weakly* Cauchy sequence, 234 119, 220, 251, 364
is bounded when the predual is is bounded, 214
complete, 226 norm convergent sequence is,
is weakly* convergent when the 116
predual is complete, 230 uniqueness of limits for, 116
weakly closed set, 257, 260-261, 263 weakly* convergent sequence, 234
weakly* closed set, 230, 240, is bounded when the predual is
242-244, 263 complete, 226
weakly compact operator, 339-347 weakly countably compact set, 248
is bounded, 340 relatively, 249
characterizations of, 340-341, weakly limit point compact set, 248
343, 346-347 relatively, 246--247, 249
conditions implying, 340 weakly open set, 214
on an infinite-dimensional weakly* open set, 226
Banach space, 346 weakly sequentially closed set, 135
range of, 340-341 weakly* sequentially closed set, 242
has weakly compactly weakly sequentially compact set,
generated closure, 341 248
spectrum of, 346 relatively, 249
weakly* compact operator, 347 weakly* sequentially compact set,
weakly compact set, see also weak 235
compactness weakly* sequentially continuous
is bounded, 214 linear functional, 241
characterizations of, 245, 248, weak property, 212
250 weak* property, 223
closed convex hull of, 252-255 weak sequential completeness,
closed linear hull of, 254-255 218-219, 492, 515
in a dual space, 255 weak* sequential completeness, 230
extreme points of closed convex weak topology, 137,211-223
hull of, in a Banach space, Baire category of a normed
269 space with respect to, 222
relatively, 250 basis for, 213
 Index 593

is completely regular, 212 weak* uniform rotundity, see

completeness of, conditions rotundity, weak* uniform
equivalent to, 215 wedge, 273
dual space with respect to, 212 characterizations of, 279
induced by an arbitrary family Wehausen, J. V., 222
of functions, see ~ topology Weierstrass, K. T. W., 38
is locally convex, 212 Weierstrass approximation
metrizability of, conditions theorem, 110, 271
equivalent to, 215 Wheeler, R. F., 245
and norm topology, conditions Whitley, R. J., 301
equivalent to equality of, 215 wLUR modulus, see rotundity,
relative, on bounded sets, 244 modulus of weak local
is a subtopology of the bounded uniform
weak topology, 244 wUR modulus, see rotundity,
is a subtopology of the norm modulus of weak uniform
topology, 212 wUR modulus, see rotundity,
weak* topology, 137, 223-235 modulus of weak* uniform
basis for, 224
of the closed unit ball of the X topology of the dual space of a
dual normed space X, see weak*
is compact, 229 topology
metrizability of, conditions X' topology of a vector space X,
equivalent to, 231 where X' is a subspace
is completely regular, 223-224 of X#, 207-210
completeness of, conditions basis for, 208
equivalent to, 226 bounded ness of sets with respect
dual space with respect to, to, 209-210
223-224, 241, 243 Cauchyness of nets with respect
generalized, 235 to, 209
is locally convex, 223-224 dual space of, 207
metrizability of, conditions is locally convex, 207
equivalent to, 226 subbasis for, 208
and norm topology, conditions X topology of a normed space X,
equivalent to equality of, 224 see weak topology
relative, on bounded sets, 236
of the second dual, 232-233 Yosida, K., 339
is a subtopology of the bounded
weak* topology, 236 Zabre'iko, P. P., 42
is a subtopology of the weak Zabre'iko's lemma, 41-43, 47, 48,
topology, 223-224 202
and weak topology, conditions zero operator, 26
equivalent to equality of, Zizler, V. E., 46.5
223-224 Zorn, M., 6
weak uniform convexity, see Zorn's lemma, 6, 8
rotundity, weak uniform
weak* uniform convexit.y, see
rotundity, weak* uniform
weak uniform rotundity, see
rotundity, weak uniform
594 Index

metric space theory, 5, 155-156, homeomorphism, 527-528

158-159, 161, 521-528, see interior of a set, 523
also separate entries for isometric metric spaces, 528
certain individual topics isometry, 528
boundary of a set, 523 limit of a sequence, 522-523
bounded set, 523, 527, 528 inheritance by subsequences,
Cauchy net, 155-156, 161 523
Cauchy sequence, 161, 522-523, uniqueness of, 523
527,528 metric, 5, 521
is bounded, 523 complete, 158, 523, 527
inherits limits from invariant, on a group, 156
subsequences, 523 left-invariant, on a group, 156
closed ball, 521 right-invariant, on a group, 156
closed set, 522, 527 translation-invariant, on an
inherits compactness from abelian group, 156
supersets, 524 metric space, 5, 521
inherits completeness from complete, 528
supersets, 524 neighborhood, 522
closure of a set, 523 open ball, 521
compact set, 524, 527 open set, 522, 527
is bounded, 524 product metric, 526
is closed, 524 product topology, 526-527
is complete, 524 separable set, 524-525, 527
is separable, 525 has separable subsets, 525
complete set, 523, 527, 528 sequential conditions for:
is closed, 523 closed, set being, 523
completion, 528 closure, point lying in, 523
continuity of a metric, 521 compactness, 524
continuous function, 525-527 continuity, 525
on a compact set is bounded, density, 524
525 topological property, 527
on a compact set is uniformly lists of conditions that are and
continuous, 525 ones that are not, 527
at a point, 525 topology induced by a metric,
preserves compactness, 525 522
preserves separability, 525 triangle inequality, 521
uniformly, 525 uniform limit of a sequence of
convergent sequence, 522-523, functions, 526
527 uniformly Cauchy sequence of
is bounded, 523 functions, 526
is Cauchy, 523 uniformly convergent sequence
dense set, 524 of functions, 526
equivalent metrics, topologically,
527
finite int.ersection property, 524
equival.ence to compactness,
524
homeomorphic metric spaces,
527
 Index 595

topological theory, 137-161, connected space, 160

541-545, see also separate continuity, relationships between
entries for certain individual types of, 142
topics continuous function, 142, 146,
accumulation point of a net, 159
151-152 at a point, 142, 146
acclUnulation point of a set, see sequentially, 142
topological theory, limit sequentially, at a point, 142
point of a set convergent net, 144, 151
basis for a topology, 138-139 in a topological product, 145
at a point, 138-139 convergent sequence, 141
Bolzano-Weierstrass property, dense set, 140
see topological space, sequentially, 141
compact set, limit point directed set, 143
boundary of a set, 140 discrete topology, 160
Cauchy net in an abelian filter, 158-159
topological group, 155-157, filterbase, 158-159
161 first countability axiom, 142
closed set, 139, 142, 146, 151, Hausdorff space, 139, 141, 145,
159 159
sequentially, 141, 142, 159 homeomorphism, 142
closure of a set, 140, 146 index set for a net, 143
sequential, 141 induced topology, see
cluster point of a set, see topological theory, relative
topological theory, limit topology
point of a set inherited topology, see
cofinal subset of a directed set, topological theory, relative
147 topology
compact Hausdorff space, 148 interior of a set, 140
is normal, 159 limit of a net, 144
compactness, relationships limit of a sequence, 141
between types of, 141 limit point of a set, 140, 146
compact set, 140-141, 152, Lindelof set, 160
159-161 local basis for a topology at a
count ably, 140, 141 point, see topological theory,
Frechet, see topological theory, basis for a topology, at a
compact set, limit point point
limit point, 141, 159, 161 locally compact space, 140
relatively, 140, 141, 152, 154 maximal net, see topological
relatively count ably, 140, 141 theory, ultranet
relatively limit point, 141, 159, Moore-Smith sequence, 143, see
161 also topological theory, net
relatively sequentially, 141, neighborhood, 139
159, 161 net, 137, 142-161, 541-545
sequentially, 141, 159-161 frequently in a set, 541
complete abelian topological nonsequential characteristics
group, 157-158 of, 143-144
completely regular space, 140, sequence is a, 143
141 ultimately in a set, 541
596 Index

net conditions for: generated by a sub basis,

accumulation at a point, 151 138-139
closed, set being, 146, 151 induced by an invariant metric
closure, point lying in, 146 on a group, 156, 158
compactness, 152, 544 Tychonoff space, see topological
completeness of a metric space, theory, completely regular
158 space
continuity, 146 ultranet, 541--545
Hausdorff, space being, 145 accumulation implies
limit point of a set, point convergence, 542
being, 146 characterization of, 542
relative compactness, 154, 544 ultranet conditions for:
topologies, equality of, 147 compactness, 544
normal space, 140, 141, 159 relative compactness, 544
open function, 142 universal net, see topological
open set, 138 theory, ultranet
preceding terms in a net, 143
product topology, 139, 159
regular space, 140, 141, 159
relative topology, 140
separated space, see topological
theory, Hausdorff space
separation axiom, 141
subbasis for a topology,
138-139,144-145
subnet, 147 152
properties, 150
of a sequence need not be a
sequence, 149
To space, 139, 141
Tl space, 139, 141, 159
T2 space, see topological theory,
Hausdorff space
T3 space, see topological theory,
regular space
T 3! space, see topological
theory, completely regular
space
T 4 space, see topological theory,
normal space
term of a net, 143
topological group, 153-158
Hausdorff, 153
is Hausdorff when To, 161
topological product, 139, 159
topological space, 138
topology, 138
generated by a basis, 138 -139
Graduate Texts in Mathematics
(continued from page ii)

62 KARGAPOLOV/MERLZJAKov. Fundamentals 93 DUBROVIN/FoMENKoiNoVIKOV. Modem

of the Theory of Groups. Geometry-Methods and Applications.
63 BOLLOBAS. Graph Theory. Part I. 2nd ed.
64 EDWARDS. Fourier Series. Vol. I 2nd ed. 94 WARNER. Foundations of Differentiable
65 WELLS. Differential Analysis on Complex Manifolds and Lie Groups.
Manifolds. 2nd ed. 95 SHIRYAEV. Probability. 2nd ed.
66 WATERHOUSE. Introduction to Affine 96 CONWAY. A Course in Functional
Group Schemes. Analysis. 2nd ed.
67 SERRE. Local Fields. 97 KOBLITZ. Introduction to Elliptic Curves
68 WEIDMANN. Linear Operators in Hilbert and Modular Forms. 2nd ed.
Spaces. 98 BROCKER/ToM DIECK. Representations of
69 LANG. Cyclotomic Fields II. Compact Lie Groups.
70 MASSEY. Singular Homology Theory. 99 GRovE/BENSON. Finite Reflection Groups.
71 FARKAS/KRA. Riemann Surfaces. 2nd ed. 2nd ed.
72 STILLWELL. Classical Topology and 100 BERG/CHRISl1lNSEN/REsSEL. Harmonic
Combinatorial Group Theory. 2nd ed. Analysis on Semi groups: Theory of
73 HUNGERFORD. Algebra. Positive Definite and Related Functions.
74 DAVENPORT. Multiplicative Number 101 EDWARDS. Galois Theory.
Theory. 2nd ed. 102 VARADARAJAN. Lie Groups. Lie Algebras
75 HOCHSCHILD. Basic Theory of Algebraic and Their Representations.
Groups and Lie Algebra~. 103 LANG. Complex Analysis. 3rd ed.
76 lITAKA. Algebraic Geometry. 104 DUBROVINlFoMENKoINoVIKOV. Modem
77 HECKE. Lectures on the Theory of Geometry-Methods and Applications.
Algebraic Numbers. Part II.
78 BURRIsiSANKAPPANAVAR. A Course in 105 LANG. SL 2(R).
Universal Algebra. 106 SILVERMAN. The Arithmetic of Elliptic
79 WALl1lRS. An Introduction to Ergodic Curves.
Theory. 107 OLVER. Applications of Lie Groups to
80 ROBINSON. A Course in the Theory of Differential Equations. 2nd ed.
Groups. 2nd ed. 108 RANGE. Holomorphic Functions and
81 FORSl1lR. Lectures on Riemann Surfaces. Integral Representations in Several
82 Borr/Tu. Differential Forms in Algebraic Complex Variables.
Topology. 109 LEHTO. Univalent Functions and
83 WASHINGTON. Introduction to Cyclotomic Teichmiiller Spaces.
Fields. 2nd ed. 110 LANG. Algebraic Number Theory.
84 IRELAND/ROSEN. A Classical Introduction III HUSEMOLLER. Elliptic Curves.
to Modern Number Theory. 2nd ed. 112 LANG. Elliptic Functions.
85 EDWARDS. Fourier Series. Vol. II. 2nd ed. 113 KARATZAS/SHREVE. Brownian Motion and
86 VAN LINT. Introduction to Coding Theory. Stochastic Calculus. 2nd ed.
2nd ed. 114 KOBLITZ. A Course in Number Theory
87 BROWN. Cohomology of Groups. and Cryptography. 2nd ed.
88 PIERCE. Associative Algebras. 115 BERGERIGOSTIAUx. Differential Geometry:
89 LANG. Introduction to Algebraic and Manifolds. Curves. and Surfaces.
Abelian Functions. 2nd ed. 116 KELLEy/SRINIVASAN. Mea~ure and
90 BR0NDSTED. An Introduction to Convex Integral. Vol. I.
Polytopes. 117 SERRE. Algebraic Groups and Cla~s
91 BEARDON. On the Geometry of Discrete Fields.
Groups. 118 PEDERSEN. Analysis Now.
92 DIESTEL. Sequences and Series in Banach 119 RarMAN. An Introduction to Algebraic
Spaces. Topology.
120 ZIEMER. Weakly Differentiable Functions: 149 RATCLIFFE. Foundations of
Sobolev Spaces and Functions of Hyperbolic Manifolds.
Bounded Variation. ISO EISENBUD. Commutative Algebra
121 LANG. Cyclotomic Fields I and II. with a View Toward Algebraic
Combined 2nd ed. Geometry.
122 REMMERT. Theory of Complex Functions. 151 SILVERMAN. Advanced Topics in
Readings in Mathematics the Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves.
123 EBBINGHAUsfHERMES et al. Numbers. 152 ZIEGLER. Lectures on Polytopes.
Readings in Mathematics 153 FuLTON. Algebraic Topology: A
124 DUBROVINfFoMENKOlNoVIKOV. Modem First Course.
Geometry-Methods and Applications. 154 BROWN/PEARCY. An Introduction to
Part III. Analysis.
125 BERENSTEIN/GAY. Complex Variables: An 155 KASSEL. Quantum Groups.
Introduction. 156 KECHRIS. Classical Descriptive Set
126 BOREL. Linear Algebraic Groups. 2nd ed. Theory.
127 MASSEY. A Basic Course in Algebraic 157 MALLIAVIN. Integration and
Topology. Probability.
128 RAUCH. Partial Differential Equations. 158 ROMAN. Field Theory.
129 FULTON/HARRIS. Representation Theory: 159 CONWAY. Functions of One
A Fi rst Course. Complex Variable II.
Readings in Mathematics 160 LANG. Differential and Riemannian
no DODSON/POSTON. Tensor Geometry. Manifolds.
131 LAM. A First Course in Noncommutative 161 BORWEIN/ERDELYI. Polynomials and
Rings. Polynomi aI Inequalities.
132 BEARDON. Iteration of Rational Functions. 162 ALPERIN/BELL. Groups and
133 HARRIS. Algebraic Geometry: A First Representations.
Course. 163 DIXON/MORTIMER. Permutation
134 ROMAN. Coding and Information Theory. Groups.
135 ROMAN. Advanced Linear Algebra. 164 NATIIANSON. Additive Number Theory:
136 ADKINS/WEINTRAUB. Algebra: An The Classical Bases.
Approach via Module Theory. 165 NATIIANSON. Additive Number Theory:
137 AXLER!BOURDONIRAMEY. Harmonic Inverse Problems and the Geometry of
Function Theory. Sumsets.
138 COHEN. A Course in Computational 166 SHARPE. Differential Geometry: Cartan's
Algebraic Number Theory. Generalization of Klein's Erlangen
139 BREDON. Topology and Geometry. Program.
140 AUBIN. Optima and Equilibria. An 167 MORANDI. Field and Galois Theory.
Introduction to Nonlinear Analysis. 168 EWALD. Combinatorial Convexity and
141 BECKERIWEISPFENNING/KREDEL. Grabner Algebraic Geometry.
Bases. A Computational Approach to 169 BHATIA. Matrix Analysis.
Commutative Algebra. 170 BREDON. Sheaf Theory. 2nd ed.
142 LANG. Real and Functional Analysis. 171 PETERSEN. Riemannian Geometry.
3rd ed. 172 REMMERT. Classical Topics in Complex
143 DOOB. Measure Theory. Function Theory.
144 DENNIS/FARB. N oncommutati ve 173 DIESTEL. Graph Theory.
Algebra. 174 BRIDGES. Foundations of Real and
145 VICK. Homology Theory. An Abstract Analysis.
Introduction to Algebraic Topology. 175 LICKORISH. An Introduction to Knot
2nd ed. Theory.
146 BRIDGES. Compmability: A 176 LEE. Riemannian Manifolds.
Mathematical Sketchbook. 177 NEWMAN. Analytic Number Theory.
147 ROSENBERG. Algebraic K-Theory 178 CLARKEiLEDY AEV/STERN/WOLENSKI.
and Its Applications. Nonsmooth Analysis and Control
148 ROTMAN. An Introduction to the Theory.
Theory of Groups. 4th cd. 179 DOUGLAS. Banach Algebra Techniques in
Operator Theory. 2nd ed.
180 SRIVASTAVA. A Course on Borel Sets. 186 RAMAKRISHNANN ALENZA. Fourier
181 KRESS. Numerical Analysis. Analysis on Number Fields.
182 WALTER. Ordinary Differential 187 HARRIS/MoRRISON. Moduli of Curves.
Equations. 188 GOLDBLATT. Lectures on the Hyperreals:
183 MEGGINSON. An Introduction to Banach An Introduction to Nonstandard Analysis.
Space Theory. 189 LAM. Lectures on Modules and Rings.
184 BOLLOBAS. Modern Graph Theory.
185 CoxILITTLElO'SHEA. Using Algebraic
Geometry.