11
$\begingroup$

Let $V$ and $I$ be two closed subsets of a Banach space $A$.

The set $V$ is a convex cone, and $I$ is a linear subspace of $A$. I also know that $V\cap I=\{0\}$.

I would like to know whether $I+V$ is closed. I've seen that there is a criterion of Dieudonné which I can't use here because I know that neither $V$ nor $I$ is locally compact.

So my question is : are there any other criteria that I could try to use ?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe I should add that by "criterion" I mean a sufficient condition. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 14, 2012 at 15:51

5 Answers 5

8
$\begingroup$

When $V$ is also a subspace, the standard equivalence to the sum being closed is that the unit spheres of $V$ and $I$ are a positive distance apart. I bet this is true when $V$ is just a convex cone but don't have time right now to think about it (the given condition is clearly sufficient for closedness of the sum; necessity is the direction that requires thought).

EDIT: It will come to no surprise to those who know me that I lose my bet. Let $A$ be $\ell_p$, $1\le p < \infty$ ($c_0$ is also OK with suitable notational changes) and $x^*$ the linear functional $\sum 2^{-n} e_n$, where $e_n$ is the unit vector basis for $A^* = \ell_q$, $1/p + 1/q = 1$. $I$ is the kernel of $x^*$ and $V$ are the non negative vectors in $A$. In Pietro's notation, $\pi(V)$ is closed because it is a cone which contains its base point in a one dimensional space and hence, as Pietro remarked, $V+I$ is closed in $A$. For $n>1$ let $x_n=e_n-2^{-n+1}e_1 \in I$ and observe that $e_n-x_n\to 0$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, I managed to show that if the unit spheres of the subspaces $V-V$ and $I$ are a positive distance apart then $V+I$ is closed under the hypotheses I have given. The subspace $V-V$ need not be closed, only $V$ has to be. The sufficient condition was all I cared for, and this one works in the case I have at hand. So I thank you and accept your answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 20, 2012 at 16:32
7
$\begingroup$

In general, there is no easy criterion. I recall the construction of two closed subspaces of a Banach space whose sum is not closed: Let $T:X\to Y$ be a linear map between Banach spaces with closed graph $G= \{ (x,T(x)): x\in X \}$. Then $L=\{(\xi,0): \xi\in X\}$ is another closed (even complemented) subspace such that $G+L= X\times T(X)$ which is closed if and only if $T(X)$ is closed in $Y$. Moreover, $G\cap L=0$ if $T$ is injective. A concrete example is obtained for the inclusion $\ell_1 \hookrightarrow \ell_2$ (in this case the sum is dense).

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

I'd like to mention the following, even though it is just a reformulation: For $V\subset X $ and $I\subset X$ a closed linear subspace, the sum $V+I$ is closed in $X$ if and only if $\pi(V)$ is closed in the quotient $X/I\\ $, $\pi:X\to X/I$ being the quotient map.

(Reason: Indeed, if $\pi(V)$ is closed, so is $V+I=\pi^{-1}\pi(V)$. On the other hand, if $V+I$ is closed and $\xi\in \overline{ \pi(V) }$, then $\xi$ is limit of a sequence $\xi_n\in \pi(V) $ with $\| \xi_n - \xi_{n+1}\|_{X/I}\le 2^{-n}$ and by definition of the quotient norm there exists an inductively defined sequence $w_n\in V+I$ such that $\xi_n=\pi w_n$ and $\|w_n -w_{n+1}\| _ X < 2^{-n}$; therefore $(w_n)_n $ is a Cauchy sequence in the closed set $V + I$ and converges to an element $w\in V + I$ such that $\pi w=\xi$, which proves that $\pi(V)$ is closed in $X/I$).

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

In finite dimensional space, your result is true. Take a linear functional with $\text{ker } T = I$. It is not hard to prove, using $I\cap V={\boldsymbol 0}$, that $T(V)$ is closed by seeing that $$\text{inf }_{\begin{array}{c}\boldsymbol x \in V \\ \|\boldsymbol x\| = 1\end{array}} \|T(\boldsymbol x)\| > 0,$$ with the minimum achieved. Thus, by Lemma H1 of the book Geometric Functional Analysis and its Applications, $I+V$ is closed.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Wait, now I'm confused. Doesn't this answer to your question imply that $V+I$ is closed for all vector subspaces $I$ only if the cone $V$ is polyhedral? $\endgroup$ Commented May 25, 2022 at 15:49
  • $\begingroup$ @JochenGlueck indeed, take the cone in $\mathbb{R}^3$ whose intersection with the plane $z=c$, for $c \geq 0$, is the closed disc of radius $c$ centered at $(c,0,c)$. Its projection onto the $xy$-plane is the open half-space $x > 0$ plus the origin. $\endgroup$
    – Nik Weaver
    Commented May 25, 2022 at 23:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In infinite dimensional space, the criterion may fail. Basically because balls are not compact sets. $\endgroup$ Commented May 26, 2022 at 9:11
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, yes, I was afraid that I was overlooking something - apparently I didn't see the assumption $I \cap V= \{0\}$. Thanks for the clarification, @R.W.Prado! By the would, could you make the reference a bit more precise? I only found one book with this title (by Holmes, 1975), but the theorems and lemmas there are not enumerated, and there are various subsections enumerated as "H". $\endgroup$ Commented May 26, 2022 at 9:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hmm, I browsed through the book for a while and could now find the closedness statement itself (of $I+V$, when $I \cap V = \{0\}$ and $I$ is finite dimensional) in the corollary on page 105. Very nice book! $\endgroup$ Commented May 26, 2022 at 9:32
2
$\begingroup$

Please, have a look at Sections 22 and 35 in G.J.O. Jameson, "Topology and Normed Spaces", Chapman and Hall, 1974.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It would be even more helpful if you included the relevant statements found therein. $\endgroup$
    – Alex M.
    Commented Aug 19, 2021 at 12:27
  • $\begingroup$ While I agree with @AlexM., I would like to add that, anyway, this reference is really great! (I just looked it up, and it contains a lot of interesting stuff, in particular if one is interested in ordered Banach spaces). $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 19, 2021 at 14:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .