6
$\begingroup$

A bornologigal topological vector space is such that any bounded linear function on it is continuous. It is a standard result [Jarchow, Locally convex spaces, 1981] that if the dual $E'$ of a Mackey space $E$ is complete for the topology $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{B}_0}$ of uniform convergence on bipolars of null sequences, then the Mackey space is bornological.

In a report thesis [Gach, Topological versus Bornological Concepts in Infinite Dimensions, 2004, Thm 6.1.16], this result even in stated for the strong topology on $E'$. Does this result appears anywhere else ? It seems quite strong to me, and I am not sure I understand the proof.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Please add theorem and page number references for what you are referring to in Gach's thesis. It's 155 pages. $\endgroup$ – Robert Furber Apr 28 at 15:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This seems to be Theorem 6.1.16 on page 106 of Gach's diploma thesis (which is easy to find). $\endgroup$ – Jochen Wengenroth Apr 29 at 6:17
  • $\begingroup$ In case anyone else wants to look there, in Jarchow, the relevant part is Section 13.2 Theorem 4 on page 275. $\endgroup$ – Robert Furber Apr 30 at 23:44
3
$\begingroup$

If I understand properly, I doubt very much that this is true.

I the article On different types of non-distinguished Frechet spaes (Note di Mat. 10 (1990), 149-165), Bonet, Dierolf, and Fernandez write that for a Frechet space $X$ with dual $(X',\beta(X',X))$ the Mackey topology $\mu(X',X'')$ is bornological if and only if every linear form on $X'$ which is bounded on bounded sets is already continuous. Moreover, they show examples that this not always the case. It thus seems to me that $(E,\tau)=(X',\mu(X',X''))$ is a counterexample.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Jochen is quite right. I have another example, just using any irreflexive Banach space $A$. The space $E = (A^*,\mu(A^*,A))$ is Mackey, by definition. The bounded sets in $E$ are the same as the norm-bounded sets, because $A$ is Banach, and therefore barrelled, so all dual topologies on $A^*$ have the same bounded sets (because $\sigma(A^*,A)$-bounded $\Leftrightarrow$ equicontinuous). So the canonical embedding $i(A)$ of $A$ in the strong dual of $E$ is an isomorphism, and so $E^* \cong A$ is complete.

But $E$ is not bornological, because by the same characterization of the bounded sets of $E$, the bounded linear functionals on $E$ are exactly $A^{**}$, which contains $E^* = i(A)$ as a proper subspace by the assumption that $A$ be irreflexive.

I think this also shows that Gach's proof of (4) $\Rightarrow$ (1) is at fault when he says "apply (4.1.5)", because if we apply his proof to $E$, the $F$ obtained in the proof will be $A^*$ with its norm topology, and $A^*$ and $E$ don't have the same set of continuous linear functionals.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It occurs to me that I should emphasize that I use $A^*$ to mean the continuous dual space, notated $A'$ in the question and in Jochen Wengenroth's answer. I do this because of my operator algebra background, where $A'$ means the commutant. Usually when $A'$ is the notation for the continuous dual, $A^*$ means the algebraic dual, but this is not the case in my answer (I never find that I need the algebraic dual, except for when I want to point out that the weak-* topology is not complete). $\endgroup$ – Robert Furber Sep 22 at 23:55

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.