3
$\begingroup$

Reading Wojtaszczyk's Banach spaces for analysts, I'm trying to understand his proof that the space of all continuous linear functionals on $(X^\star,\sigma(X^\star, X))$ is $X$.

To show the $ \subseteq$ part, he says let $\varphi$ be any linear functional on $X^\star$ continuous in $\sigma(X^\star, X)$. Then $\{x^\star \in X^\star : |\varphi(x^\star)| < 1\} \supset \{x^\star \in X^\star : |x_j(x^\star)| < \epsilon, j=1,\ldots,n\}$ for some $\epsilon >0$ and some $x_1, \ldots, x_n \in X$. (Isn't this just saying since $\varphi^{-1}((-1,1))$ is open, it contains a neighborhood of 0?)

Then--- this is where I get lost--- he says that the result follows from the fact that if $\varphi_0, \ldots, \varphi_n$ are linear forms on a linear space $X$ (without any topology), then $\varphi_0 \in \text{span}\{\varphi_j\}_{j=1}^n$ iff $\text{ker}\varphi_0 \supset \cap_{j=1}^n \text{ker} \varphi_j$.

How is this fact relevant?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

Yes to your first question. As for the second, regard the $x_j$-s as linear functionals on $X^*$. If you have $x_j(x^*)=0$ for all $j$, then every multiple of $x^*$ is in the the first set you have in your second paragraph; i.e., $|\phi(tx^*)| <1$ for all $t$ and hence $\phi(x^*)=0$. Thus $\phi$ is a linear combination of the $x_j$-s and hence is continuous.

Tell Joel hello for me.

$\endgroup$
0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.