Let $X$ be a separable Banach space and $1<p<\infty$. We say that a sequence $(x_{n})_{n}$ in $X$ is weakly $p$-convergent to $x\in X$ if the sequence $(x_{n}-x)_{n}$ is weakly $p$-summable. A subset $K$ of $X$ is said to be relatively weakly $p$-compact if $K$ is contained in $S(B_{l_{p^{*}}})$ for some operator $S$ from $l_{p^{*}}$ into $X(\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p^{*}}=1)$. My question is: A subset $K$ of $X$ is relatively weakly $p$-compact if and only if every sequence in $K$ admits a weakly $p$-convergent subsequence? Thank you.

  • $\begingroup$ You should add that $X$ is separable or replace "$B_{\ell_p^*}$" by "$B_{\ell_p^*(\Gamma)}$ for some $\Gamma$". $\endgroup$ – Bill Johnson Nov 15 '15 at 15:49
  • $\begingroup$ Is my question is true if $X$ is separable? $\endgroup$ – Dongyang Chen Nov 15 '15 at 16:00

The answer is no even for separable $X$. Let $X=(\sum_{n=1}^\infty \ell_1^n)_{p^*}$. $B_X$ has your $p$-subsequence property (same argument as for the unit ball of $\ell_{p^*}$). It is not relatively weakly $p$-compact because $X$ is not isomorphic to a quotient space of $\ell_{p^*}$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ If $B_{X}$ is relatively weakly $p$-compact, then it seems that $X$ is only isomorphic to a complemented subspace of a quotient of $l_{p^{*}}$. Moreover, I do not understand why $X$ is not isomorphic to a quotient of $l_{p^{*}}$. $\endgroup$ – Dongyang Chen Nov 16 '15 at 15:27
  • $\begingroup$ If $TB_Y \supset B_X$ then $T$ is surjective and $X$ is isomorphic to quotient of $Y$. What is there not to understand? $\endgroup$ – Bill Johnson Nov 16 '15 at 16:18
  • $\begingroup$ If $X$ is isomorphic to a quotient of $Y$, then $X^*$ is isomorphic to a subspace of $Y^*$. That is not the case here--the relevant $Y$ is super reflexive and the relevant $X$ is not. $\endgroup$ – Bill Johnson Nov 16 '15 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ Does every sequence in $B_{c_{0}}$ admit a weakly $1$-summable subsequence? $\endgroup$ – Dongyang Chen Nov 16 '15 at 22:55
  • $\begingroup$ I guess you mean weakly 1-convergent rather than weakly 1-summable. The answer is no; consider the summing basis for $c_0$. $\endgroup$ – Bill Johnson Nov 17 '15 at 22:44

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.