-4
$\begingroup$

In a metrizable topological vector space X with the metric d, a subset A is said to be bounded if it can be absorbed by any neighbourhood of 0 and a subset A is said to be d-bounded if its diameter with respect to the metric d is finite. Boundedness always implies d-boundedness, but the converse is not true.

I am looking for a condition for which d-boundedness implies boundedness. In the Wikipedia, in the section "Topological vector spaces'', there is a statement, "The two notions of boundedness coincide for locally convex spaces''. But there is no reference for it there. Can somebody give some reference or some hint to prove this statement?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ The Wikipedia quote you mention is about boundedness for linear operators, not for sets. Your statement is false if $X$ is not normed, see Bourbaki's Topological Vector Spaces, ch. III, §1, Remark 1. $\endgroup$
    – abx
    Feb 13, 2019 at 5:04

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

For boundedness of sets the statement is false. The Wikipedia quote is for linear operators.

A counterexample for sets: $X=\mathbb{R}^\omega$ in the product topology is a metric locally convex TVS. No neighbourhood of $0$ (like the open balls which are $d$-bounded) can be "absorbing-bounded" (Because it contains a product basic open set which has almost all factors equal to $\mathbb{R}$), so $X$ is not normable.

$\endgroup$

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