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-*. $\endgroup$ Commented 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 $f$. $\endgroup$ Commented 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. $\endgroup$ Commented 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-*. $\endgroup$ Commented 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. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2016 at 12:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .