It's a duplicate of this question, since I really want to get an explanation.

Let $\left(V_{n},\phi_{n,n+1}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be an inductive sequence of LCTV spaces. A locally convex inductive limit of $\left(V_{n},\phi_{n,n+1}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is it's algebraic inductive limit $V=\lim_{\to}V_{n}$, equipped with final locally convex topology w.r.t. $\phi_{n}:V_{n}\to V$.

$V$ can also be described as a quotient of the locally convex direct sum $\bigoplus V_{n}$ by the subspace $D$ , generated by vectors $\left\{ \left(\dots,v_{n},-\phi_{n,n+1}\left(v_{n}\right),\dots\right)|v_{n}\in V_{n}\right\} $. We denote by $\pi:\bigoplus V_{n}\to V\simeq\bigoplus V_{n}/D$ the quotient map. The universal property of V follows from the universal properties of $\bigoplus V_{n}$ and of the quotient.

A map $f:V\to U$ in LCTV is continuous iff maps $f\circ\phi_{n}$ are continuous. Taking $f=\mathrm{id}_V$ one get that if subspace $F\subset V$ is closed then $F_n=\phi_{n}^{-1}\left(F\right)$ is closed. Clearly $F\cong\lim_\to F_n$ as linear space.

The question I am trying to understand is the following: if $F$ is a closed subspace, why it does not have to be the locally convex inductive limit of $F_n$ (why topologies can be different)?

We clearly have $\pi^{-1}(F)=\bigoplus F_n$, which is a closed subspace of $\bigoplus V_n$. Doesn't this force the quotient topology on $\pi^{-1}(F)/\pi^{-1}(F)\cap D$ (which is the locally convex inductive limit topology) be the subspace topology of $F$?

Would it matter if $V_n$ are Banach spaces?

  • $\begingroup$ "...if subspace $F\subset V$ is open (closed) then..." -- this must be a mistake? An open subspace $F$ in a locally convex space $V$? $\endgroup$ – Sergei Akbarov Sep 6 '13 at 7:39
  • $\begingroup$ @SergeiAkbarov: I edited to avoid confusion. $\endgroup$ – user35953 Sep 6 '13 at 8:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In this science if you can't prove something immediately, this means that there must be a counterexample... Your words - "why topologies can be different" - do they mean that you saw this counterexample before? $\endgroup$ – Sergei Akbarov Sep 6 '13 at 9:48
  • $\begingroup$ @SergeiAkbarov: there is an exercise in Bourbaki's TVS book, but it is pretty involved and in more general situation than LB(limits of Banach)-spaces. $\endgroup$ – user35953 Sep 6 '13 at 11:56

Here is my favorite example which is very natural and simple: Let $\mathscr E (\Omega)$ be the Frechet space of smooth functions on an open set in $\Omega\subseteq\mathbb R^d$ so that it dual $\mathscr E'(\Omega)$ is the space of compactly supported distributions. This is a nice inductive limit of Banach spaces. Hence $V= \mathscr E(\Omega)\times \mathscr E'(\Omega)$ is an inductive limit of Frechet spaces. Now, the "diagonal" $F$ is closed and algebraically isomorphic to the space of test functions $\mathscr D(\Omega)$ but the subspace topology of $V$ on $F$ is much coarser than the topology of $\mathscr D(\Omega)$: the dual of the former is the space of distributions with compact singular support whereas the dual of the latter is the space of all distributions.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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