Let $\chi_A(x)$ denote an indicator function on $A\subset [0,1]$. Consider the set $$K=\{\chi_A(x): \text{ A is Lebesgue measurable in }[0,1]\}.$$ Is this set compact in $L^\infty(0,1)$ with respect to weak-* topology? How about weak topology on $L^\infty(0,1)$?

Using Banach-Alaoglu, the set $K$ is bounded and closed in $L^\infty(0,1)$ so it is compact with respect to weak-* topology. It is closed, because if $\chi_{A_1}$ converges to $f$ in $L^\infty(0,1)$, then $f$ has to be an indicator function.


1 Answer 1


This set is not closed in the weak* topology. Indeed, for each $n$ consider the set $A_n=: [0, \frac{1}{2n})\cup [\frac{2}{2n}, \frac{3}{2n}] \cup\dots\cup [\frac{2n-2}{2n}, \frac{2n-1}{2n})$, i.e. the sum of intervals that covers half of the interval. I claim that the sequence $\chi_{A_n}$ converges to the function $\frac{1}{2}$ in the weak* topology. Indeed, since the sequence is uniformly bounded, it suffices to check the convergence on a dense subset of $L^1$; we will take the continuous functions. Continuous functions on $[0,1]$ are uniformly continuous, so if we fix a function $f$, then for sufficiently big $n$ it will be almost constant on every interval of the form $[\frac{k}{n}, \frac{k+1}{n})$, so the integral on $[\frac{2k}{2n}, \frac{2k+1}{2n})$ will be almost equal to the integral on $[\frac{2k+1}{2n}, \frac{2k+2}{2n})$, up to $\frac{\varepsilon}{n}$, where $\frac{1}{n}$ is coming from the length of the interval. It follows that the integral on $A_n$ is, up to $\varepsilon$, equal to $\frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{1} f(x) dx$.

On the other hand, this sequence does not have a convergent subnet in the weak topology. Indeed, if it did, it would have to converge to $\frac{1}{2}$. Recall that the weak closure of a convex set is equal to its norm closure. It means that if I take the convex hull of the functions $\chi_{A_n}$, then I can find a sequence of elements converging uniformly to $\frac{1}{2}$. Note that $\chi_{A_n}$ vanishes on the interval $[\frac{2n-1}{2n}, 1]$, so any element of the convex hull vanishes on an interval containing $1$. It follows that the distance of any element in the convex hull to $\frac{1}{2}$ is at least $\frac{1}{2}$, so there can be no convergence.

  • $\begingroup$ In the first sentence, do you mean to say that the set is not closed in the weak (and not weak-*) topology? $\endgroup$ Mar 14, 2019 at 14:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @WillieWong No, I really wanted to say weak*, to correct the erroneous claim from the OP that this set is compact in the weak*-topology. The second part of the answer was devoted to the weak topology; it was not really necessary, but I thought that an explicit counterexample in this setting would be illuminating. Maybe I will edit the answer later to make it clearer. $\endgroup$ Mar 14, 2019 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ After re-reading your answer four times, I finally figure out what I misunderstood: I kept thinking of the constant function 1/2 as being just like a characteristic function, but of course it is not in the set K since the OP is not allowing changing the coefficient. $\endgroup$ Mar 15, 2019 at 14:40

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.