Normed space and its double dual

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmuthuk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dual Space
dmuthuk
Messages
41
Reaction score
1
Hi, I am trying to sort out a few things about the dual and double dual of a normed space which has got me a little confused.

Given a normed space X over \mathbb{R}, if Y is a subspace of X, what is the relationship between Y^* and X^*? Can Y^* be identified with some subspace of X^*?

Also, we have the natural embedding of X into X^{**} given by the map x\mapsto\hat{x} where \hat{x}:X^*\to\mathbb{R} is evaluation at x. How do we use this to define the natural embedding of Y into Y^{**}? Here is my idea: We want to send y to \hat{y}_Y:Y^*\to\mathbb{R}. So, we define \hat{y}_Y as follows. For y^*\in Y^*, choose an arbitrary extension x^*\in X^* (we can use Hahn-Banach here). Then, we say \hat{y}_Y(y^*):=\hat{y}(x^*). Does this depend on the choice of extension x^*?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dmuthuk said:
Given a normed space X over \mathbb{R}, if Y is a subspace of X, what is the relationship between Y^* and X^*? Can Y^* be identified with some subspace of X^*?
Elements of X* are linear maps X->R, so can also be considered as elements of Y* by restriction to Y.
This gives a canonical map X*->Y*.

The kernel of the map, say K, consists of those elements of X* which map all of Y to 0. Also, the Hahn-Banach theorem says that any element of Y* can be extended to a continuous linear map X->R. So, X*->Y* is onto.

These facts are enough to conclude that Y* is isomorphic to X*/K. i.e. a quotient, not a subspace, of X*.

If X is a Hilbert space, then X* will also be a Hilbert space (isomorphic to X), in which case X* can be decomposed as the sum of K and its orthogonal complement K', which will be isomorphic to Y*. Don't think that X* can be decomposed like this in general though.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top