4
$\begingroup$

I have this problem at the moment which the strong topology $\beta (E;E^* )$ is defined, when $E$ is a locally convex space. This topology is generated by the basic open sets: $$U=\{x \in E : \sup_{f \in B} |\langle f,x \rangle|<\varepsilon\},$$

where $B\subset E^* $ is bounded. In this way, we say that $B$ is bounded if for all $x\in E, \ \sup_{f\in B} |\langle f,x \rangle|<\infty,$ which is equivalent to the $\omega^* -$boundless. If we consider the strong topology $\beta(E^* ; E),$ now in $E^* , $ the basic open sets are $$V=\{f \in E^* : \sup_{x \in A} |\langle f,x \rangle|<\varepsilon\},$$ where $A\subset E$ is bounded. It is well known that a set $A$ is bounded if, and only if, is weakly bounded, and because of that, we have $\sup_{x \in A}|\langle f,x \rangle|<\infty, \ \forall f \in E^* . $ So, my question is: when we say that $B\subset E^* $ is bounded, do we mean that it is bounded in the strong topology or in the weak* topology? Or are they equivalent?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

8
$\begingroup$

In general, $\sigma(E^*,E)$-bounded sets need not be $\beta(E^*,E)$-bounded. For an example, let $E$ be the set of scalar sequences with only finitely many non-zero terms endowed with the norm $\|x\|_\infty=\sup\{|x_n|:n\in\mathbb N\}$. For the evaluations $\delta_n(x)=x_n$, the set $B=\{n\delta_n:n\in\mathbb N\}$ is $\sigma(E^*,E)$-bounded but not $\beta(E^*,E)$-bounded.

A sufficient condition for the coincidence of weak$^*$- and strongly bounded sets is barrelledness of the locally convex space $E$ since then $\sigma(E^*,E)$-bounded sets are even equi-continuous.

I am not sure whether there is a standard what is meant by just boundedness and I would always specify to pointwise boundedness or uniform boundedness on $E$-bounded sets.

$\endgroup$

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.