There are various principles in Banach space theory that allow one to pass from a given sequence of vectors $(x_n)$, to a subsequence $(x_{n_k})$ with some desired property. I'm thinking here, in particular, of the Bessaga-Pelczynski selection principle which, given a Schauder basis $(e_n)$ for a Banach space $X$, allows the passage from a normalized sequence $(x_n)$ in $X$ which converges weakly to $0$, to a subsequence $(x_{n_k})$ which is congruent to a block basic sequence.

What I am wondering is if, given a non-principal ultrafilter $\mathcal{U}$ on $\mathbb{N}$, and a sequence $(x_n)$ of unit vectors weakly converging to 0, can we find such a subsequence $(x_{n_k})$ as above so that the index set $\{n_k:k\in\mathbb{N}\}$ is in $\mathcal{U}$?

I would also be interested any related selection principles which can be done "along an ultrafilter", or reasons why one cannot hope for results like this.

  • $\begingroup$ I'm a bit confused here: is the point that you have fixed your ultrafilter beforehand, and then someone hands you a sequence, and you want to have a nice subsequence that corresponds to an element of the ultrafilter? $\endgroup$ – Yemon Choi Jul 6 '16 at 22:45
  • $\begingroup$ @YemonChoi Yes, that is what I'm looking for. $\endgroup$ – Iian Smythe Jul 6 '16 at 22:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Possibly related: mathoverflow.net/questions/111842/… $\endgroup$ – Will Brian Jul 7 '16 at 13:20

A (non-trivial) ultrafilter $\mathcal{U}$ on $\mathbb{N}$ is a p-point if and only if every bounded sequence $(a_n)$ of real numbers contains a convergent subsequence $(a_{n_k})$ such that $\{n_k\}\in \mathcal{U}$.

See the Introduction of [Israel J. Math. 122 (2001), 189-206 DOI: 10.1007/BF02809899] for an application of a subclass of these ultrafilters to obtain an ultrapower version of the subsequence splitting property for the Banach space $L_1(\mu)$, some discussions related with the question, and proper references.


I'll post a partial answer (it should probably be checked) to my question here, but I welcome additional answers and examples. I also sense that selective might be overkill here, and perhaps this can be done with a p-point.

My $\mathbb{N}$ is a set theorist's $\mathbb{N}$, so $\mathbb{N}=\{0,1,2,\ldots\}$ and $1=\{0\}$, $2=\{0,1\}$, etc.

Recall that an ultrafilter $\mathcal{U}$ on $\mathbb{N}$ is selective (or Ramsey) if and only if for every $2$-coloring of the pairs of $\mathbb{N}$, $\pi:[\mathbb{N}]^2\to2$, there is a homogeneous set $U\in\mathcal{U}$ for $\pi$. In addition, such ultrafilters satisfy that whenever $(U_n)$ is a decreasing sequence of sets in $\mathcal{U}$, there is a $U=\{k_0<k_1<k_2<\cdots\}\in\mathcal{U}$ (called a diagonalization) for which $U\setminus k_n\subseteq U_n$ for all $n$.

Let's call the following a "selective Ramsey's theorem for analysts", in the spirit of Francois Dorais' answer to Applications of infinite Ramsey's Theorem (on N)?.

Lemma: Let $\mathcal{U}$ be a selective ultrafilter on $\mathbb{N}$. If $(a_{i,j})_{i,j=0}^\infty$ is an infinite matrix of real numbers such that $a_i = {\displaystyle\lim_{j\to\infty} a_{i,j}}$ exists for each $i$, and $a = {\displaystyle\lim_{i\to\infty} a_i}$ exists, then there is a set $\{k_0<k_1<k_2<\cdots\}\in\mathcal{U}$ such that $a = {\displaystyle\lim_{i<j} a_{k_i,k_j}}$.

I'll omit the proof; I believe it's the same as the one for the non-selective version, except that you take homogenous sets in $\mathcal{U}$ at each step, and then diagonalize within $\mathcal{U}$ to get the desired set.

Proposition: Let $\mathcal{U}$ be a selective ultrafilter on $\mathbb{N}$, and $(e_n)$ a Schauder basis of a Banach space $X$, with basis constant $K$. If $(x_n)$ is a normalized weakly null sequence in $X$, then there is a set $V=\{n_0<n_1<n_2<\cdots\}\in\mathcal{U}$ such that $(x_{n_k})$ is congruent to some block basic sequence $(y_k)$ of $(e_n)$. Moreover, for $\varepsilon>0$, $V$ can be chosen so that $(x_{n_k})$ has basis constant $K+\varepsilon$.

Proof. This is based on the proof of the selection principle in Albiac & Kalton. For $i,j\in\mathbb{N}$, let $$ a_{i,j}=\max\{\|S_jx_i\|,\|x_i-S_jx_i\|\}$$ where $S_jx=\sum_{k=0}^j e_k^*(x)e_k$ for $x\in X$. Note that $\lim_{j\to\infty}a_{i,j}=0$ for all $i$. Let $U$ be as in the Lemma above, and take $0<\nu<1/4$.

Let $U_0=U\setminus N_0\in\mathcal{U}$, where $N_0$ is such that $$\max\{\|S_jx_i\|,\|x_i-S_jx_i\|\}<\frac{\nu}{2K}$$ for all $N_0<i<j\in U$. Inductively, we define $U_{k+1}=U_k\setminus N_{k+1}\in\mathcal{U}$ so that $$\max\{\|S_jx_i\|,\|x_i-S_jx_i\|\}<\frac{\nu^{k+2}}{2K}$$ for all $N_{k+1}<i<j\in U$.

As $\mathcal{U}$ is selective, we may choose $V=\{n_0<n_1<n_2<\cdots\}\in\mathcal{U}$ such that $U\setminus n_k\subseteq U_k$ for all $k$. Let $y_k=S_{n_{k+2}}x_{n_k}-S_{n_{k+1}}x_{n_k}$, a block sequence of $(e_n)$, thus having basis constant $\leq K$. Observe, $$\|y_k-x_{n_k}\|=\|S_{n_{k+2}}x_{n_k}-S_{n_{k+1}}x_{n_k}-x_{n_k}\|<\frac{\nu^{k+1}}{K},$$ as $n_k<n_{k+1}<n_{k+2}$ are all in $U_k$. Hence $\|y_k\|>1-\frac{\nu}{K}\geq 1-\nu$, and $$2K\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{\|y_k-x_{n_k}\|}{\|y_k\|}<2(1-\nu)^{-1}\sum_{k=0}^\infty\nu^{k+1}=2\nu(1-\nu)^{-2}<1.$$ The result follows by the principle of small perturbations. Taking $\nu$ smaller will control the basis constant of $(x_{n_k})$. QED.


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.

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