Let $E, \left \| \right \|$ be a Banach space, $\mathfrak{M}_E$ indicate a family of all nonempty bounded subset of $E$, $\mathfrak{N}_E$ the familly of all relatively compact sets, and $Ker \mu=\{X\in \mathfrak{M}_E$ such that: $\mu(X)=0\}$.

Definition: A mapping $\mu:\mathfrak{M}_E\rightarrow \mathbb R^+$ is said to be a measure of noncompactness in $E$ if it satisfies the following conditions:

1) The family $\operatorname{ker} \mu $ is nonempty and $\operatorname{ker} \mu \subset \mathfrak{N}_E$.

2) $X\subseteq Y\Rightarrow \mu (X)\leq \mu (Y)$.

3) $\mu (\bar{X})=\mu (X)$.

4) $\mu (\operatorname{Conv}(X))=\mu (X)$.

5) $\mu (\lambda X+(1-\lambda) Y)\leq \lambda \mu (X)+(1-\lambda) \mu(Y)$ for $\lambda\in [0,1]$.

6)If $\{X_n\}\subset \mathfrak{M}_E^c$, such that $X_{n+1}\subset X_n$ for $n=1,2,...$ and if $\displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \mu(X_n)=0$ then $X_{\infty}=\bigcap_{n=1}^{\infty}X_n\neq \emptyset$.

Now, I have to prove this this:

Suppose $\mu_1,\mu_2$ are two measures of noncompactness in $E_1,E_2$ respectively. Moreover, assume that the function $F:\mathbb [0,\infty)^2\rightarrow \mathbb R^+$ is a convex function and $F(x_1,x_2)=0\Leftrightarrow (x_1,x_2)=0$. Then $\mu (X)=F(\mu_1(X_1),\mu_2(X_2))$ defines a measure of noncompactness in $E_1\times E_2$ where $X_i$ denote the natural projection of $X$ into $E_i$ for $i=1,2$.

It's okay with 1, 3, 4 and 6 of the definition. How can we prove 2 and 5?

EDIT: This result (without proof) comes from : Bana’s, J., Goebel, K., Measures of Noncompactness in Banach Spaces. Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 60, New York: Dekker 1980

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What I mean is, how do you know it's true? It's from homework, or an article, or …? If an article, which one? $\endgroup$ – LSpice Apr 24 '18 at 15:45
  • $\begingroup$ What are $\mathfrak{M}_E$ and $\mathfrak{N}_E$, and what is $\ker \mu$? $\endgroup$ – Pietro Majer Apr 24 '18 at 17:08

Property 2 and 5 hold, provided $F:\mathbb{R}_+^2\to\mathbb{R}_+$ is increasing in each variable (which I think the authors implicitly assumed). Indeed:

(2) $X\subset Y$ implies $X_1\subset Y_1$ and $X_2\subset Y_2$, thus $\mu_1(X_1)\le \mu_1(Y_1)$ and $\mu_2(X_2)\le \mu_2(Y_2)$ and finally $F(\mu_1(X_1),\mu_2(X_2))\le F(\mu_1(Y_1),\mu_2(Y_2))$.

Moreover, by the monotonicity and by the convexity of $F$:

(5) $\mu(\lambda X+(1-\lambda)Y)=F\big(\mu_1(\lambda X_1+(1-\lambda)Y_1),\mu_2(\lambda X_2+(1-\lambda)Y_2)\big)$ $\le F\big(\lambda\mu_1( X_1)+(1-\lambda)\mu_1(Y_1),\lambda\mu_2( X_2)+(1-\lambda)\mu_2(Y_2)\big)$ $\le \lambda F\big(\mu_1( X_1),\mu_2( X_2)\big)+(1-\lambda)F\big(\mu_1(Y_1),\mu_2(Y_2)\big)=\lambda\mu(X)+(1-\lambda)\mu(Y).$

About the necessity of this condition. Note that a convex positive function on $\mathbb{R}_+^2$, vanishing exactly at the origin need not to be increasing in each variable: e.g. $F(x,y)=(x-y)^2+ y^2$ has $F(0,1)=2>F(1,1)=1$. Also note that the definition implies that the range of a measure of non-compactness on a Banach space of infinite dimension is a set of positive real numbers that accumulates at $0$. Therefore, apart the trivial case of $E_1$ and $E_2$ both finite dimensional, the above monotonicity condition on $F$ is necessary in order that $F(\mu_1,\mu_2)$ satisfy 2.

Details. (In case it wasn't clear enough) Suppose you have a pair $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ of measures of noncompactness on infinite dimensional Banach spaces resp. $E_1$ and $E_2$, with unit balls $B_1$ and $B_2$, and suppose your 2-variables convex $F:\mathbb{R}_+^2\to\mathbb{R}_+$, with $F^{-1}(0)=(0,0)$, produces via your construction a measure of non-compactness $\mu$ at least for this pair $\mu_1,\mu_2$. Then by 2, $$\mathbb{R}_+^2\ni (x,y)\mapsto \mu(xB_1\times yB_2):=F(\mu_1(xB_1),\mu_2(yB_2))$$ is increasing separately wrto $x$ and wrto $y$. But both
$\mathbb{R}_+ \ni t\mapsto \mu_i(tB_i),$ for $i=1$ and $i=2$, are increasing (maybe with jumps), not identically zero, and $o(1)$ for $t\to0$. This implies that $F(x,y)$ itself must be increasing separately in both variables everywhere in the rectangle $[0,\sup \mu_1]\times[0,\sup\mu_2]$, being convex.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your feedback @Pietro Majer, I agree with you in all what you have written, PROVIDED THAT $F$ is partially increasing which is not supposed by the author in the paper. I do not know if we can use the convexity to deduce a particular type of increase ! $\endgroup$ – Motaka Apr 27 '18 at 9:58
  • $\begingroup$ "I do not know if we can use the convexity to deduce a particular type of increase": what do you mean? Il a convex function $F$ on $\mathbb{R}^2_+$, for just one pair of measures of non-compactness $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ on infinite dimensional spaces, gives rise to a $F( \mu_1,\mu_2)$ satisfying (2), then $F$ must be increasing in both variables. $\endgroup$ – Pietro Majer Apr 27 '18 at 11:22
  • $\begingroup$ I mean that, for example IF $F$ was like that: $F:\mathbb R^+\rightarrow \mathbb R^+$ with the conditions above , we will have the result ($F$ will be increasing here), but in $ \mathbb R^2_+$ I can't see why it 's okay. . If I get your idea: "we have to suppose that $F$ is be increasing in $ \mathbb R^2_+$ to have the result, otherwise we can't" $\endgroup$ – Motaka Apr 27 '18 at 14:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm saying, $F$ must be increasing in both variables, otherwise it is false that it produces a measure of non compactness. Added details. $\endgroup$ – Pietro Majer Apr 27 '18 at 21:11
  • $\begingroup$ I get it! Thank you very much Sir Even if it seems very strange because this definition and this theorem was from a classical paper of Jonas, which is used by others.. $\endgroup$ – Motaka Apr 28 '18 at 10:43

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.