2
$\begingroup$

Let $F$ be a Banach space with the closed unit ball $B$. Let $E\subset F^*$ be a total subspace such that $B$ is complete with respect to the norm $|||f|||=\sup \limits_{e\in E,~e\ne 0} \frac{|\left<f,e\right>|}{\|e\|}$. Note that $|||\cdot|||$ is the norm of $F^{**}/E^{\bot}$, restricted on the image of $F$, and so my condition tells that the canonical inclusion from $F$ into $F^{**}/E^{\bot}$ is a semi-embedding.

Does it follow that $E$ is norming?

i.e. there is $r>0$ such that $|||f|||\ge r\|f\|$ for all $f\in F$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Have you checked whether the classical examples of total non-norming subspaces give a counterexample? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 21, 2017 at 20:21

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

I think that the answer is "Not necessarily" and can be shown as follows. Let $F=\ell_1=\left(\oplus_{n=1}^\infty \ell_1\right)_1$. In each summand $\ell_1$ we pick a unit vector $e_n$ (which can be regarded as the first vector of the unit vector basis in that space). The space $G:=\left(\oplus_{n=1}^\infty \ell_1^{**}\right)_1$ is canonically embedded into $F^{**}$

We construct $E^\perp$ as the weak$^*$ closure of the linear span of $e_n+p_n$, where $||p_n||\downarrow 0$ and $p_n$ has nonzero component only in $n$th summand of $G$ and the component is in $(\ell_1)^{**}\backslash \ell_1$.

Now consider any non-convergent sequence $\{f_k\}$ in the unit ball of $F$. We need to show that the limit of this sequence in $|||\cdot|||$, if exists, is in the unit ball of $F$. Passing to a subsequence we may assume that it is convergent coordinate-wise and subtracting its coordinate-wise limit we may assume that the coordinate-wise limit is $0$. By approximation we may assume that the sequence $\{f_k\}$ has finite disjoint supports. We need to show that the limit of the image of such sequence in $|||\cdot|||$ can be only $0$.

This can be done as follows. We split $f_k=s_k+t_k$, where $s_k$ is supported on $\{e_n\}$ (used above) and $t_k$ is supported on the rest of the unit vector basis of $\ell_1$. But since $\{f_n\}$ are uniformly bounded, it is easy to see that $|||s_k|||\downarrow 0$. Also it is not difficult to observe that if $|||t_k|||$ does not go to $0$, then the sequence $\{f_k\}$ is not convergent in $|||\cdot|||$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I am sorry, but could you please elaborate on the second part of the answer? Namely, why can we approximate $\{f_{k}\}$ in the way that you suggest (and it has to be with respect to $|||\cdot|||$, right?), and also the very last claim about the convergence of $|||t_k|||$? $\endgroup$
    – erz
    Commented Aug 23, 2017 at 10:49
  • $\begingroup$ As for $\{f_n\}$ it will suffice to approximate $f_n$, say, up to $1/n$ in $||\cdot||$, the new norm is only smaller. As for estimate of the norm of $t_k$, one can show that up to some constant $|||t_k|||$ and $||t_k||$ are equivalent. All this is standard techniques, which is developed in, for example, Lindenstrauss-Tzafriri, Classical Banach spaces, volume 1. Writing this in detail should take a rather nontrivial amount of time. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 24, 2017 at 4:44
  • $\begingroup$ @erz Why do not you accept the answer? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19, 2017 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ @AugustCleaner I was not able to understand it, after applying some efforts, and so decided leave this thing aside for a while $\endgroup$
    – erz
    Commented Nov 19, 2017 at 20:15
0
$\begingroup$

It is rather common for a Banach space to have a weaker norm for which the unit ball is complete. A historically important example is the $L^1$ norm on $L^\infty$. This provides a counterexample to your conjecture---take for $E$ the space $L^\infty$ regarded as a subspace of its own dual in the usual way. This example was used by Saks (more precisely, the fact that the unit ball of $L^\infty$ has the Baire property under the $L^1$ norm) in his proof of what is now known as the Vitali-Hahn-Saks theorem.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Could you please elaborate? Isn't $L^{\infty}$ dense in $L^1$? $\endgroup$
    – erz
    Commented Aug 21, 2017 at 12:58
  • $\begingroup$ Your answer has nothing to do with the question posed. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 21, 2017 at 20:19

You must log in to answer this question.

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