3
$\begingroup$

Let $\mu$ be a Gaussian measure on a separable Banach space $X$ and $q$ is the covariance operator of $\mu$. I am reading a proof for

$$\operatorname {supp} \mu = \bigcap_{q(f, f) = 0} \ker f =: E$$

but there is a step I don't understand. So far I understand that the intersection is over an uncountable number of sets all having measure $1$ so the real issue is showing that the "measure $1$" property doesn't get lost in the uncountable intersection.

As we have separability, we can find a dense set $\{x_n\}$ of $E^c$, thus: $\forall n\in\mathbb N~ \exists f_n:~ q(f_n,f_n) = 0$ but $f_n(x_n) \neq 0$.

Now as $\{f_n\}_n$ is a subset of all of the linear functionals having the property $q(f,f) = 0$, we obviously have

$$E = \bigcap_{q(f, f) = 0} \ker f \subset \bigcap_{n} \ker f_n $$

What I don't understand is the other inclusion, i.e.

$$\bigcap_{n} \ker f_n \subset E$$

I was trying to show the contrapositive, i.e. that for any $y\in E^c$ we find a $f_n$ such that $f_n(y) \neq 0$.

Using separability, for any $\epsilon > 0$ we find a $x_m$ such that $\|y-x_m\| < \epsilon$. Then

$$f_m(y) = f_m(x_m) + f_m(y-x_m)$$

Now I know that the first term is non-zero (and I could have easily set $f_n(x_n) = 1$ above). But how can I be sure that the norms $\|f_m\|$ don't grow like $1/\epsilon$ such that both $f_m(x_m) = 1$ and $\|y-x_m\| < \epsilon$ but $f_m(y) = 0$?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

I think I might be to blame for this question. It looks very similar to something I once wrote, with the same gap. If so, sorry!

The result is true, but the approach described will not work. We have to choose the $f_n$ with more care.

(Indeed, suppose $x$ is outside the linear span of your $x_n$. Note that $E$ is closed, hence so is $E+x$. You could thus choose the functionals $f_n$ perversely using Hahn-Banach so that they all vanish on $E +x$; if it does in fact turn out to be the case that $\mu(E)=1$ then you'll still have $q(f_n, f_n)=0$. Then $x$ is in $\bigcap_n \ker f_n$ but not in $E$.)

I think the following should work instead. Let $F = \{f \in X^* : q(f,f) = 0\}$. Since $X$ is separable, the unit ball $B^*$ of $X^*$ is weak-* separable metrizable, hence so is $B^* \cap F$. So pick your sequence $\{f_n\}$ to be weak-* dense in $B^* \cap F$. Suppose $f_n(x) = 0$ for all $n$ and take any $f \in F$, renormalized so that $\|f\| \le 1$. Pass to a subsequence so that $f_n \to f$ weak-*. Then $0 = f_n(x) \to f(x)$. Since $f$ was arbitrary we have $x \in E$.

$\endgroup$
15
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! So, just to make sure I got this: With "weak-* separable metrizable" you just mean that $B^*$, being in a separable space, is metrizable in the weak-* topology, right? And metrizability is needed for "weak-* sequential compactness" of $(f_n)_n$ in order to be able to extract a subsequence converging weak-*. $\endgroup$ Jun 24, 2016 at 14:08
  • $\begingroup$ @FasEtNefas: I mean that if $X^*$ is equipped with the weak-* topology, the subset $B^*$ is both separable and metrizable. And I am not using weak-* (sequential) compactness here, but simply the fact that $\{f_n\}$ is weak-* dense. Thanks to metrizability it is also sequentially dense. So it is possible to extract a subsequence which not only converges, but converges to the given $f$. $\endgroup$ Jun 24, 2016 at 14:14
  • $\begingroup$ Alright. Could you maybe provide me with a suggestion for further reading, especially on the statement "weak-* dense sequence + metrizable space = weak-* sequentially dense sequence"? I fear my textbook skips this. $\endgroup$ Jun 24, 2016 at 14:38
  • $\begingroup$ The fact that $B^*$ is separable and metrizable in the weak-* topology (whenever $X$ is separable) is pretty standard; I think I first saw it in Conway's A Course in Functional Analysis. Given this, "weak-* sequentially dense" is easy: choose a weak-* dense sequence $\{f_n\}$ (by separability) and fix a compatible metric $d$. Given $f$, by density, for each $k$ there is an $f_{n_k}$ with $d(f,f_{n_k}) < 1/k$. So $f_{n_k} \to f$ weak-*. $\endgroup$ Jun 24, 2016 at 15:09
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry to bother again but after a careful look into Conway's book (and also Brezis) I could only find statements regarding the metrizability of the unit ball in X∗ with the weak- * -topology, but I couldn't find anything about the separability. Without that I don't see how we can choose a subsequence weak-*-dense in $B^*\cap F$ of $(f_n)_n$ in the first place. $\endgroup$ Jun 27, 2016 at 12:39

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.