0
$\begingroup$

Let $Q$ be a locally compact Hausdorff space and $E$ be a Banach space. Let $C(Q)$ be the collection of all real-valued continuous functions on $Q$ while $C_b(Q,E)$ be the collection of all $E$-valued bounded continuous functions on $Q.$

Clearly $Q$ is completely regular. Let $\beta Q$ to be the Stone-Cech compactification, where $\beta Q = \overline{e(Q)}$ and $e:Q\to \prod_{f\in C_b(Q),[0,1])}[0,1]$ is an embedding.

Question: Is $C_b(Q,E)$ linearly isometric isomorphic to $C(\beta Q,E)?$

It is known that $C_b(Q)$ is linearly isometric isomorphic to $C(\beta Q),$ thanks to the following proposition. The following extension theorem is taken from Carothers's A Short Course in Banach Space Theory, Chapter $15$ Theorem $15.1.$

Theorem $15.1$: Every $f\in C_b(Q)$ extends to a continuous function $F:\beta Q\to\mathbb{R}$ such that $F\circ e = f.$

The theorem provides a linear isometry from $C_b(X)$ onto $C(\beta Q)$ by the mapping $F\mapsto F\circ e.$

However, I do not know whether there exists a Stone-Cech compactification for 'Banach space-valued' mapping, that is,

Question: For every $f\in C_b(Q,E),$ does there exists a continuous extension $F:\beta Q\to E$ such that $F\circ e = f?$

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

You probably mean for the extension $F$ to be continuous. Since its image is then compact, this can only happen if the image of $f$ is relatively compact. And this condition is sufficient by the universal property of the compactification.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, you are right. Edited. $\endgroup$ – Idonknow May 8 '18 at 13:49
  • $\begingroup$ Parschallen's answer means that the canonical map $\rho: C(\beta Q,E)\to C_b(Q,E)$, $f\mapsto f|_Q$ is hardly ever surjective: Continuous functions $\beta Q\to E$ have compact range but bounded continuous functions $f:Q\to E$ need not have compact range. $\endgroup$ – Jochen Wengenroth May 8 '18 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ Then why would $C_b(Q)$ be linearly isometric isomorphic to $C(\beta Q),$ as the functions in latter set have compact range while the former may not. $\endgroup$ – Idonknow May 8 '18 at 15:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In the one dimensional case, boundedness and relative compactness are the same thing. $\endgroup$ – Parschallen May 8 '18 at 16:13
  • $\begingroup$ @Parschallen Do you mean finite dimensional case? Because relative compactness always implies boundedness (as $A\subseteq \overline{A}$ and $\overline{A}$ is bounded). In finite dimensional case, bounded and totally bounded are equivalent notions and totally boundedness implies relative compact in a complete metric space. $\endgroup$ – Idonknow May 8 '18 at 23:06

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.