I am studying certain quadratic forms on $L^0(m)$ equipped with the topology of (local) convergence in measure which in general is not locally convex. I am also interested in the situation where $m$ is not $\sigma$-finite and so $L^0(m)$ is not metrizable. It would be very nice to have a variant of the following elementary observation for the space $L^0(m)$.

When $(V,\tau)$ is a locally convex vector space the convergence of a net implies the convergence of suitable convex combinations. Namely, the following holds.

Proposition 1: Let $(V,\tau)$ be a locally convex vector space and let $(u_i)_{i\in I}$ be a net in $V$ with limit $u$. Furthermore, for each $i,j \in I$ let $ 0 \leq \lambda_{i,j} \leq 1$ be given such that

  • for each $i$ we have $\lambda_{i,j} = 0$ for all but finitely many $j$,
  • $\sum_{ j \geq i} \lambda_{i,j} = 1.$

Then the net

$$\left(\sum_{ j \geq i} \lambda_{i,j} u_j\right)_{i \in I}$$

converges to $u$.

Of course, the previous proposition in this strong form does not hold in general topological vector spaces. Nevertheless, it may hold for suitable subnets.

Question: Does the convergence statment of Proposition 1 hold in general topological vector spaces (in $L^0(m)$) for suitable subnets of $(u_i)$?

If $(V,\tau)$ is a metrizable topological vector space I do have the following result. To keep notation somewhat simpler I state it for Cesaro means.

Lemma 2: Let $(V,\tau)$ be a metrizable topological vector space and let $(u_n)$ be a convergent sequence with limit $u$. Then there exists a subsequence $(u_{n_k})$ such that for all of its subsequences $(u_{n_{k_l}})$ we have

$$\lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{l = 1}^N u_{n_{k_l}} = u.$$

Proof: Without loss of generality we may assume $u=0$. We choose a translation invariant metric $d$ with balanced balls around $0$ which induces $\tau$. Furthermore, we choose a subsequence $(u_{n_k})$ such that

$$\sum_{k = 1}^\infty d(u_{n_k},0) < \infty.$$

Now let $(u_{n_{k_l}})$ be an arbitrary subsequence of $(u_{n_k})$. The translation invariance of $d$ then implies

$$d\left(\frac{1}{N} \sum_{l = 1}^N u_{n_{k_l}}, 0\right) \leq d\left(\frac{1}{N} \sum_{l = 1}^M u_{n_{k_l}},0\right) + \sum_{l = M + 1} ^N d\left(\frac{1}{N}u_{n_{k_l}},0\right).$$

From this inequality and the balancedness of $d$-balls around $0$ we infer

$$d\left(\frac{1}{N} \sum_{l = 1}^N u_{n_{k_l}}, 0\right) \leq d\left(\frac{1}{N} \sum_{l = 1}^M u_{n_{k_l}},0\right) + \sum_{l = M + 1} ^\infty d\left(u_{n_{k_l}},0\right).$$

Choosing $M$ large enough and then using the continuity of the multiplication with scalars at $0$ finishes the proof.

  • $\begingroup$ Isn't there a family of so-called F-norms (look at Köthe's or Jarchow's book) which induces the topology? Perhaps you can then use the idea of Lemma 2. $\endgroup$ – Jochen Wengenroth Sep 24 '15 at 20:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Jochen Wengenroth Thanks for the advice, I have already tried that. In fact, in the $L^0(m)$ case there is a very explicit description of a system of topology generating F-norms. For a set of finite $m$-measure $U$ one lets $$\|f\|_U = \int_U |f|\wedge 1\, {\rm d} m $$ These $\|\cdot\|_U$ then induce the topology. However, I do not really see how to apply the idea of Lemma 2 to an arbitrary convergent net and all these $F$-norms at once. $\endgroup$ – Marcel Schmidt Sep 25 '15 at 9:36
  • $\begingroup$ You probably know that the notion of a subnet is quite different from that of a subsequence. In particular, the index set of the subnet can be very different. I don't know however, if this is helpful. $\endgroup$ – Jochen Wengenroth Sep 25 '15 at 10:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Jochen Wengenroth I am quite aware that subnets are much more flexible. Unfortunately, I was not able to employ this. $\endgroup$ – Marcel Schmidt Sep 25 '15 at 12:04

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.