Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

For 1 < p < oo l^p

  1. Oct 25, 2008 #1
    For 1 < p < oo it is true that:
    If we have a sequence ( x_n )_(n >= 1) in l^p that converges weakly to zero then that implies the x_n are uniformly bounded and that ((x^{m})_n) -> 0 in C (as n -> oo) for each fixed m.
    (where l^p is the space of p-summable sequences of complex numbers, and I wrote x_n = ((x^{m})_n )_(m >= 1) , couldn't think of a better notation...)

    Is the converse true? Why would that be? It doesn't look too obvious... at least not for me.
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 25, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Re: l^p

    Provided I've read your post correctly, then yes, the converse is true.

    So basically you want to show that [itex]|f(x_n) - f(0)| \to 0[/itex] for all [itex]f \in (\ell^p)^\ast = \ell^q[/itex] given pointwise convergence and uniform boundedness. First consider the space [itex]\ell[/itex] of finite sequences. For every [itex]f \in \ell^\ast[/itex], we have that [itex]\lim_n f(x_n) = 0[/itex] (why?). Now use the fact that [itex]\ell[/itex] is dense in all the [itex]\ell^p[/itex] spaces.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: For 1 < p < oo l^p
  1. L^p Spaces (Replies: 17)

  2. L^p derivative (Replies: 1)