Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $V$ and $I$ be two closed subsets of a Banach space $A$.

The set $V$ is a convex cone, and $I$ is a linear subspace of $A$. I also know that $V\cap I=\{0\}$.

I would like to know whether $I+V$ is closed. I've seen that there is a criterion of Dieudonné which I can't use here because I know that neither $V$ nor $I$ is locally compact.

So my question is : are there any other criteria that I could try to use ?

share|improve this question
    
Maybe I should add that by "criterion" I mean a sufficient condition. –  Fabien Besnard Feb 14 '12 at 15:51

3 Answers 3

up vote 4 down vote accepted

When $V$ is also a subspace, the standard equivalence to the sum being closed is that the unit spheres of $V$ and $I$ are a positive distance apart. I bet this is true when $V$ is just a convex cone but don't have time right now to think about it (the given condition is clearly sufficient for closedness of the sum; necessity is the direction that requires thought).

EDIT: It will come to no surprise to those who know me that I lose my bet. Let $A$ be $\ell_p$, $1\le p < \infty$ ($c_0$ is also OK with suitable notational changes) and $x^*$ the linear functional $\sum 2^{-n} e_n$, where $e_n$ is the unit vector basis for $A^* = \ell_q$, $1/p + 1/q = 1$. $I$ is the kernel of $x^*$ and $V$ are the non negative vectors in $A$. In Pietro's notation, $\pi(V)$ is closed because it is a cone which contains its base point in a one dimensional space and hence, as Pietro remarked, $V+I$ is closed in $A$. For $n>1$ let $x_n=e_n-2^{-n+1}e_1 \in I$ and observe that $e_n-x_n\to 0$.

share|improve this answer
    
Ok, I managed to show that if the unit spheres of the subspaces $V-V$ and $I$ are a positive distance apart then $V+I$ is closed under the hypotheses I have given. The subspace $V-V$ need not be closed, only $V$ has to be. The sufficient condition was all I cared for, and this one works in the case I have at hand. So I thank you and accept your answer. –  Fabien Besnard Feb 20 '12 at 16:32

I'd like to mention the following, even though it is just a reformulation: For $V\subset X $ and $I\subset X$ a closed linear subspace, the sum $V+I$ is closed in $X$ if and only if $\pi(V)$ is closed in the quotient $X/I\\ $, $\pi:X\to X/I$ being the quotient map.

(Reason: Indeed, if $\pi(V)$ is closed, so is $V+I=\pi^{-1}\pi(V)$. On the other hand, if $V+I$ is closed and $\xi\in \overline{ \pi(V) }$, then $\xi$ is limit of a sequence $\xi_n\in \pi(V) $ with $\| \xi_n - \xi_{n+1}\|_{X/I}\le 2^{-n}$ and by definition of the quotient norm there exists an inductively defined sequence $w_n\in V+I$ such that $\xi_n=\pi w_n$ and $\|w_n -w_{n+1}\| _ X < 2^{-n}$; therefore $(w_n)_n $ is a Cauchy sequence in the closed set $V + I$ and converges to an element $w\in V + I$ such that $\pi w=\xi$, which proves that $\pi(V)$ is closed in $X/I$).

share|improve this answer

In general, there is no easy criterion. I recall the construction of two closed subspaces of a Banach space whose sum is not closed: Let $T:X\to Y$ be a linear map between Banach spaces with closed graph $G= \{ (x,T(x)): x\in X \}$. Then $L=\{(\xi,0): \xi\in X\}$ is another closed (even complemented) subspace such that $G+L= X\times T(X)$ which is closed if and only if $T(X)$ is closed in $Y$. Moreover, $G\cap L=0$ if $T$ is injective. A concrete example is obtained for the inclusion $\ell_1 \hookrightarrow \ell_2$ (in this case the sum is dense).

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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