Proof that the following map $Phi:ell^1to(ell^infty)'$ is not surjective












2












$begingroup$


I am working on the dual spaces of sequence spaces, and I want to show that the map $$
Phi:ell^1to(ell^infty)',qquad(Phi y)(x)=sum_{iinmathbb{N}}y_ix_i
$$



is not surjective. I have already shown it is a linear isometry. Can I use the Hahn-Banach theorem to find $y'in (ell^infty)'$ such that there is no $yinell^1$ with $Phi y=y'$.



I have written my own answer the following way (corollary 4.14 is a corollary in my lecture notes stating that $X$ is seperable if $X'$ is. I have proven earlier that $ell^infty$ is inseperable)



Proposition 2: The map $$Phi_infty:ell^1to(ell^infty)',qquad(Phi_infty y)(x)=sum_{iinmathbb{N}}x^iy^i$$ is not surjective.



The proof is based on the following lemma, which consists of two parts.
Lemma 1. Let $X$ and $Y$ be normed spaces. Then the following claims are true:




  1. If $f:Xto Y$ is a surjective linear isometry, then $f$ is a homeomorphism.


  2. Let $f: Xto Y$ be a homeomorphism. If $X$ is a seperable space, then $Y$ is a seperable space.



Proof of 1: We remark that every isometry is automatically injective. Since $f$ is also surjective, $f$ is a bijection. Now, we calculate
$|f|_{op}=sup{||f(x)||_Y,big|,||x||_Xleq 1}=sup{||x||_X,big|,||x||_Xleq 1 }=1<infty$, hence $f$ is bounded. Since $f$ is linear, $f$ is continuous. We will now show that $f^{-1}$ is continuous. We remark that $f^{-1}$ is linear. We also remark that for all $yin Y$, $||y||_Y=||f(f^{-1}(y))||_Y=||f^{-1}(y)||_X$, hence $f^{-1}$ is an isometry, too. Then, $|f^{-1}|_{op}=sup{||f^{-1}(y)||_X,big|,||y||_Yleq 1}=sup{||y||_Y,big|,||y||_Yleq 1}=1<infty$, hence $f^{-1}$ is bounded. It follows that $f^{-1}$ is continuous, hence $f$ is a homeomorphism.

Proof of 2: Let $X$ be a seperable normed space and let $f:Xto Y$ be a homeomorphism. Since $X$ is seperable, there exists a countable dense subset $Asubseteq X$. Then, $f(A)$ is a countable subset of $Y$. We will show that $f(A)$ is dense in $Y$.

Let $V$ be an open set in $Y$. By continuity of $f$, $f^{-1}(V)$ is open in $X$, so $Acap f^{-1}(V)neqemptyset$. By bijectivity, we see that
$emptysetneq f(Acap f^{-1}(V))=f(A)cap f(f^{-1}(V))=f(A)cap V$. This holds for all open sets in $Y$, hence $f(A)$ is dense in $Y$. It follows that $Y$ is seperable.



We can now prove proposition 2.



By theorem 4.6, $Phi_infty$ is a well-defined linear isometry. We remark that $ell^1$ is seperable. It follows by corollary 4.14 that $(ell^infty)'$ is inseperable since $ell^infty$ is inseperable.

We will give a proof by contradiction. Suppose that $Phi_infty$ is surjective. Then, $Phi_infty$ is a surjective linear isometry and by lemma 1 part textit{i}, a homeomorphism. Since $ell^{1}$ is seperable, it follows by lemma 1 part textit{ii} that $Phi_infty(ell^{1})=(ell^infty)'$ is seperable, but this is a contradiction since we know by corollary 4.14 that $(ell^infty)'$ is inseperable. Therefore, our assumption that $Phi_infty$ was surjective is false, hence $Phi_infty$ is not surjective










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The standard approach here is to prove that $ell^1$ is separable, whereas $ell^infty$ and $(ell^infty)^*$ are not. There is a very over-the-top argument where you show that the multiplicative linear functionals on $ell^infty$ coming from $ell^1$ are just evaluations at a point, but there must be more functionals because $mathbb N$ is not compact, but the pure states of a von Neumann algebra must be compact in the weak star topology.
    $endgroup$
    – Ashwin Trisal
    Jan 14 at 7:48












  • $begingroup$
    Related: Dual of $l^infty$ is not $l^1$
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Jan 19 at 1:34
















2












$begingroup$


I am working on the dual spaces of sequence spaces, and I want to show that the map $$
Phi:ell^1to(ell^infty)',qquad(Phi y)(x)=sum_{iinmathbb{N}}y_ix_i
$$



is not surjective. I have already shown it is a linear isometry. Can I use the Hahn-Banach theorem to find $y'in (ell^infty)'$ such that there is no $yinell^1$ with $Phi y=y'$.



I have written my own answer the following way (corollary 4.14 is a corollary in my lecture notes stating that $X$ is seperable if $X'$ is. I have proven earlier that $ell^infty$ is inseperable)



Proposition 2: The map $$Phi_infty:ell^1to(ell^infty)',qquad(Phi_infty y)(x)=sum_{iinmathbb{N}}x^iy^i$$ is not surjective.



The proof is based on the following lemma, which consists of two parts.
Lemma 1. Let $X$ and $Y$ be normed spaces. Then the following claims are true:




  1. If $f:Xto Y$ is a surjective linear isometry, then $f$ is a homeomorphism.


  2. Let $f: Xto Y$ be a homeomorphism. If $X$ is a seperable space, then $Y$ is a seperable space.



Proof of 1: We remark that every isometry is automatically injective. Since $f$ is also surjective, $f$ is a bijection. Now, we calculate
$|f|_{op}=sup{||f(x)||_Y,big|,||x||_Xleq 1}=sup{||x||_X,big|,||x||_Xleq 1 }=1<infty$, hence $f$ is bounded. Since $f$ is linear, $f$ is continuous. We will now show that $f^{-1}$ is continuous. We remark that $f^{-1}$ is linear. We also remark that for all $yin Y$, $||y||_Y=||f(f^{-1}(y))||_Y=||f^{-1}(y)||_X$, hence $f^{-1}$ is an isometry, too. Then, $|f^{-1}|_{op}=sup{||f^{-1}(y)||_X,big|,||y||_Yleq 1}=sup{||y||_Y,big|,||y||_Yleq 1}=1<infty$, hence $f^{-1}$ is bounded. It follows that $f^{-1}$ is continuous, hence $f$ is a homeomorphism.

Proof of 2: Let $X$ be a seperable normed space and let $f:Xto Y$ be a homeomorphism. Since $X$ is seperable, there exists a countable dense subset $Asubseteq X$. Then, $f(A)$ is a countable subset of $Y$. We will show that $f(A)$ is dense in $Y$.

Let $V$ be an open set in $Y$. By continuity of $f$, $f^{-1}(V)$ is open in $X$, so $Acap f^{-1}(V)neqemptyset$. By bijectivity, we see that
$emptysetneq f(Acap f^{-1}(V))=f(A)cap f(f^{-1}(V))=f(A)cap V$. This holds for all open sets in $Y$, hence $f(A)$ is dense in $Y$. It follows that $Y$ is seperable.



We can now prove proposition 2.



By theorem 4.6, $Phi_infty$ is a well-defined linear isometry. We remark that $ell^1$ is seperable. It follows by corollary 4.14 that $(ell^infty)'$ is inseperable since $ell^infty$ is inseperable.

We will give a proof by contradiction. Suppose that $Phi_infty$ is surjective. Then, $Phi_infty$ is a surjective linear isometry and by lemma 1 part textit{i}, a homeomorphism. Since $ell^{1}$ is seperable, it follows by lemma 1 part textit{ii} that $Phi_infty(ell^{1})=(ell^infty)'$ is seperable, but this is a contradiction since we know by corollary 4.14 that $(ell^infty)'$ is inseperable. Therefore, our assumption that $Phi_infty$ was surjective is false, hence $Phi_infty$ is not surjective










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The standard approach here is to prove that $ell^1$ is separable, whereas $ell^infty$ and $(ell^infty)^*$ are not. There is a very over-the-top argument where you show that the multiplicative linear functionals on $ell^infty$ coming from $ell^1$ are just evaluations at a point, but there must be more functionals because $mathbb N$ is not compact, but the pure states of a von Neumann algebra must be compact in the weak star topology.
    $endgroup$
    – Ashwin Trisal
    Jan 14 at 7:48












  • $begingroup$
    Related: Dual of $l^infty$ is not $l^1$
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Jan 19 at 1:34














2












2








2





$begingroup$


I am working on the dual spaces of sequence spaces, and I want to show that the map $$
Phi:ell^1to(ell^infty)',qquad(Phi y)(x)=sum_{iinmathbb{N}}y_ix_i
$$



is not surjective. I have already shown it is a linear isometry. Can I use the Hahn-Banach theorem to find $y'in (ell^infty)'$ such that there is no $yinell^1$ with $Phi y=y'$.



I have written my own answer the following way (corollary 4.14 is a corollary in my lecture notes stating that $X$ is seperable if $X'$ is. I have proven earlier that $ell^infty$ is inseperable)



Proposition 2: The map $$Phi_infty:ell^1to(ell^infty)',qquad(Phi_infty y)(x)=sum_{iinmathbb{N}}x^iy^i$$ is not surjective.



The proof is based on the following lemma, which consists of two parts.
Lemma 1. Let $X$ and $Y$ be normed spaces. Then the following claims are true:




  1. If $f:Xto Y$ is a surjective linear isometry, then $f$ is a homeomorphism.


  2. Let $f: Xto Y$ be a homeomorphism. If $X$ is a seperable space, then $Y$ is a seperable space.



Proof of 1: We remark that every isometry is automatically injective. Since $f$ is also surjective, $f$ is a bijection. Now, we calculate
$|f|_{op}=sup{||f(x)||_Y,big|,||x||_Xleq 1}=sup{||x||_X,big|,||x||_Xleq 1 }=1<infty$, hence $f$ is bounded. Since $f$ is linear, $f$ is continuous. We will now show that $f^{-1}$ is continuous. We remark that $f^{-1}$ is linear. We also remark that for all $yin Y$, $||y||_Y=||f(f^{-1}(y))||_Y=||f^{-1}(y)||_X$, hence $f^{-1}$ is an isometry, too. Then, $|f^{-1}|_{op}=sup{||f^{-1}(y)||_X,big|,||y||_Yleq 1}=sup{||y||_Y,big|,||y||_Yleq 1}=1<infty$, hence $f^{-1}$ is bounded. It follows that $f^{-1}$ is continuous, hence $f$ is a homeomorphism.

Proof of 2: Let $X$ be a seperable normed space and let $f:Xto Y$ be a homeomorphism. Since $X$ is seperable, there exists a countable dense subset $Asubseteq X$. Then, $f(A)$ is a countable subset of $Y$. We will show that $f(A)$ is dense in $Y$.

Let $V$ be an open set in $Y$. By continuity of $f$, $f^{-1}(V)$ is open in $X$, so $Acap f^{-1}(V)neqemptyset$. By bijectivity, we see that
$emptysetneq f(Acap f^{-1}(V))=f(A)cap f(f^{-1}(V))=f(A)cap V$. This holds for all open sets in $Y$, hence $f(A)$ is dense in $Y$. It follows that $Y$ is seperable.



We can now prove proposition 2.



By theorem 4.6, $Phi_infty$ is a well-defined linear isometry. We remark that $ell^1$ is seperable. It follows by corollary 4.14 that $(ell^infty)'$ is inseperable since $ell^infty$ is inseperable.

We will give a proof by contradiction. Suppose that $Phi_infty$ is surjective. Then, $Phi_infty$ is a surjective linear isometry and by lemma 1 part textit{i}, a homeomorphism. Since $ell^{1}$ is seperable, it follows by lemma 1 part textit{ii} that $Phi_infty(ell^{1})=(ell^infty)'$ is seperable, but this is a contradiction since we know by corollary 4.14 that $(ell^infty)'$ is inseperable. Therefore, our assumption that $Phi_infty$ was surjective is false, hence $Phi_infty$ is not surjective










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I am working on the dual spaces of sequence spaces, and I want to show that the map $$
Phi:ell^1to(ell^infty)',qquad(Phi y)(x)=sum_{iinmathbb{N}}y_ix_i
$$



is not surjective. I have already shown it is a linear isometry. Can I use the Hahn-Banach theorem to find $y'in (ell^infty)'$ such that there is no $yinell^1$ with $Phi y=y'$.



I have written my own answer the following way (corollary 4.14 is a corollary in my lecture notes stating that $X$ is seperable if $X'$ is. I have proven earlier that $ell^infty$ is inseperable)



Proposition 2: The map $$Phi_infty:ell^1to(ell^infty)',qquad(Phi_infty y)(x)=sum_{iinmathbb{N}}x^iy^i$$ is not surjective.



The proof is based on the following lemma, which consists of two parts.
Lemma 1. Let $X$ and $Y$ be normed spaces. Then the following claims are true:




  1. If $f:Xto Y$ is a surjective linear isometry, then $f$ is a homeomorphism.


  2. Let $f: Xto Y$ be a homeomorphism. If $X$ is a seperable space, then $Y$ is a seperable space.



Proof of 1: We remark that every isometry is automatically injective. Since $f$ is also surjective, $f$ is a bijection. Now, we calculate
$|f|_{op}=sup{||f(x)||_Y,big|,||x||_Xleq 1}=sup{||x||_X,big|,||x||_Xleq 1 }=1<infty$, hence $f$ is bounded. Since $f$ is linear, $f$ is continuous. We will now show that $f^{-1}$ is continuous. We remark that $f^{-1}$ is linear. We also remark that for all $yin Y$, $||y||_Y=||f(f^{-1}(y))||_Y=||f^{-1}(y)||_X$, hence $f^{-1}$ is an isometry, too. Then, $|f^{-1}|_{op}=sup{||f^{-1}(y)||_X,big|,||y||_Yleq 1}=sup{||y||_Y,big|,||y||_Yleq 1}=1<infty$, hence $f^{-1}$ is bounded. It follows that $f^{-1}$ is continuous, hence $f$ is a homeomorphism.

Proof of 2: Let $X$ be a seperable normed space and let $f:Xto Y$ be a homeomorphism. Since $X$ is seperable, there exists a countable dense subset $Asubseteq X$. Then, $f(A)$ is a countable subset of $Y$. We will show that $f(A)$ is dense in $Y$.

Let $V$ be an open set in $Y$. By continuity of $f$, $f^{-1}(V)$ is open in $X$, so $Acap f^{-1}(V)neqemptyset$. By bijectivity, we see that
$emptysetneq f(Acap f^{-1}(V))=f(A)cap f(f^{-1}(V))=f(A)cap V$. This holds for all open sets in $Y$, hence $f(A)$ is dense in $Y$. It follows that $Y$ is seperable.



We can now prove proposition 2.



By theorem 4.6, $Phi_infty$ is a well-defined linear isometry. We remark that $ell^1$ is seperable. It follows by corollary 4.14 that $(ell^infty)'$ is inseperable since $ell^infty$ is inseperable.

We will give a proof by contradiction. Suppose that $Phi_infty$ is surjective. Then, $Phi_infty$ is a surjective linear isometry and by lemma 1 part textit{i}, a homeomorphism. Since $ell^{1}$ is seperable, it follows by lemma 1 part textit{ii} that $Phi_infty(ell^{1})=(ell^infty)'$ is seperable, but this is a contradiction since we know by corollary 4.14 that $(ell^infty)'$ is inseperable. Therefore, our assumption that $Phi_infty$ was surjective is false, hence $Phi_infty$ is not surjective







sequences-and-series functional-analysis linear-transformations dual-spaces separable-spaces






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 19 at 1:36









Martin Sleziak

44.8k9118272




44.8k9118272










asked Jan 14 at 7:44









JamesJames

863318




863318








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The standard approach here is to prove that $ell^1$ is separable, whereas $ell^infty$ and $(ell^infty)^*$ are not. There is a very over-the-top argument where you show that the multiplicative linear functionals on $ell^infty$ coming from $ell^1$ are just evaluations at a point, but there must be more functionals because $mathbb N$ is not compact, but the pure states of a von Neumann algebra must be compact in the weak star topology.
    $endgroup$
    – Ashwin Trisal
    Jan 14 at 7:48












  • $begingroup$
    Related: Dual of $l^infty$ is not $l^1$
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Jan 19 at 1:34














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The standard approach here is to prove that $ell^1$ is separable, whereas $ell^infty$ and $(ell^infty)^*$ are not. There is a very over-the-top argument where you show that the multiplicative linear functionals on $ell^infty$ coming from $ell^1$ are just evaluations at a point, but there must be more functionals because $mathbb N$ is not compact, but the pure states of a von Neumann algebra must be compact in the weak star topology.
    $endgroup$
    – Ashwin Trisal
    Jan 14 at 7:48












  • $begingroup$
    Related: Dual of $l^infty$ is not $l^1$
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Jan 19 at 1:34








1




1




$begingroup$
The standard approach here is to prove that $ell^1$ is separable, whereas $ell^infty$ and $(ell^infty)^*$ are not. There is a very over-the-top argument where you show that the multiplicative linear functionals on $ell^infty$ coming from $ell^1$ are just evaluations at a point, but there must be more functionals because $mathbb N$ is not compact, but the pure states of a von Neumann algebra must be compact in the weak star topology.
$endgroup$
– Ashwin Trisal
Jan 14 at 7:48






$begingroup$
The standard approach here is to prove that $ell^1$ is separable, whereas $ell^infty$ and $(ell^infty)^*$ are not. There is a very over-the-top argument where you show that the multiplicative linear functionals on $ell^infty$ coming from $ell^1$ are just evaluations at a point, but there must be more functionals because $mathbb N$ is not compact, but the pure states of a von Neumann algebra must be compact in the weak star topology.
$endgroup$
– Ashwin Trisal
Jan 14 at 7:48














$begingroup$
Related: Dual of $l^infty$ is not $l^1$
$endgroup$
– Martin Sleziak
Jan 19 at 1:34




$begingroup$
Related: Dual of $l^infty$ is not $l^1$
$endgroup$
– Martin Sleziak
Jan 19 at 1:34










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

One way of showing this is to use the fact that If $X^{*}$ is separable then so is $X$. Take $X=ell^{infty}$. If the given map is surjective then $X^{*}$ is isometrically isomorphic to $ell^{1}$ which makes it separable. But $X=ell^{infty}$ is not separable.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I have already proven that $X$ is seperable if $X'$ is seperable, sosince $ell^infty$ is not seperable $(ell^infty)^*$ is not seperable.
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Jan 14 at 7:54












  • $begingroup$
    Is an isometric isomorphism naturally a homeomorphism?
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Jan 14 at 8:23






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @James Of course, it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 14 at 8:24



















5












$begingroup$

Here is a different approach. Consider the subspace
$$c := { x in ell^infty mid lim_{ntoinfty}x_n text{ exists}}.$$



Can you imagine a functional on $c$ which (if extended to all of $ell^infty$ via Hahn-Banach) is not of the form $Phi y$?






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I think this is the best approach. It does not require knowledge of $C^*$ algebras. And of course showing $(l^infty)^*$ is not separable is much more than showing it is not equal to $l^1$.
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Jan 14 at 11:58










  • $begingroup$
    Which functional is it?
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Jan 14 at 12:12










  • $begingroup$
    The functional is the one assumed to exist in the definition of $c$.
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Jan 15 at 15:37



















1












$begingroup$

Similarly to gerw's answer. Just use that, as a $C^ast$-algebra $ell^infty(mathbb N)$ is isomorphic to $C(beta mathbb{N})$, the continuous function over the compact space given by $beta mathbb{N}$, the Stone-Cech compactification of $mathbb{N}$. By Riesz theorem $(ell^infty)^ast = M(beta mathbb{N})$, the finite Radon measures over $beta mathbb{N}$. The points in $beta mathbb{N} setminus mathbb{N}$ are proper ultrafiters and evaluating on them gives functionals that are not in the image of $ell^1$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3072954%2fproof-that-the-following-map-phi-ell1-to-ell-infty-is-not-surjective%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    One way of showing this is to use the fact that If $X^{*}$ is separable then so is $X$. Take $X=ell^{infty}$. If the given map is surjective then $X^{*}$ is isometrically isomorphic to $ell^{1}$ which makes it separable. But $X=ell^{infty}$ is not separable.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I have already proven that $X$ is seperable if $X'$ is seperable, sosince $ell^infty$ is not seperable $(ell^infty)^*$ is not seperable.
      $endgroup$
      – James
      Jan 14 at 7:54












    • $begingroup$
      Is an isometric isomorphism naturally a homeomorphism?
      $endgroup$
      – James
      Jan 14 at 8:23






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @James Of course, it is.
      $endgroup$
      – Kavi Rama Murthy
      Jan 14 at 8:24
















    3












    $begingroup$

    One way of showing this is to use the fact that If $X^{*}$ is separable then so is $X$. Take $X=ell^{infty}$. If the given map is surjective then $X^{*}$ is isometrically isomorphic to $ell^{1}$ which makes it separable. But $X=ell^{infty}$ is not separable.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I have already proven that $X$ is seperable if $X'$ is seperable, sosince $ell^infty$ is not seperable $(ell^infty)^*$ is not seperable.
      $endgroup$
      – James
      Jan 14 at 7:54












    • $begingroup$
      Is an isometric isomorphism naturally a homeomorphism?
      $endgroup$
      – James
      Jan 14 at 8:23






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @James Of course, it is.
      $endgroup$
      – Kavi Rama Murthy
      Jan 14 at 8:24














    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    One way of showing this is to use the fact that If $X^{*}$ is separable then so is $X$. Take $X=ell^{infty}$. If the given map is surjective then $X^{*}$ is isometrically isomorphic to $ell^{1}$ which makes it separable. But $X=ell^{infty}$ is not separable.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    One way of showing this is to use the fact that If $X^{*}$ is separable then so is $X$. Take $X=ell^{infty}$. If the given map is surjective then $X^{*}$ is isometrically isomorphic to $ell^{1}$ which makes it separable. But $X=ell^{infty}$ is not separable.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Jan 14 at 7:50









    Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy

    57.7k42160




    57.7k42160












    • $begingroup$
      I have already proven that $X$ is seperable if $X'$ is seperable, sosince $ell^infty$ is not seperable $(ell^infty)^*$ is not seperable.
      $endgroup$
      – James
      Jan 14 at 7:54












    • $begingroup$
      Is an isometric isomorphism naturally a homeomorphism?
      $endgroup$
      – James
      Jan 14 at 8:23






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @James Of course, it is.
      $endgroup$
      – Kavi Rama Murthy
      Jan 14 at 8:24


















    • $begingroup$
      I have already proven that $X$ is seperable if $X'$ is seperable, sosince $ell^infty$ is not seperable $(ell^infty)^*$ is not seperable.
      $endgroup$
      – James
      Jan 14 at 7:54












    • $begingroup$
      Is an isometric isomorphism naturally a homeomorphism?
      $endgroup$
      – James
      Jan 14 at 8:23






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @James Of course, it is.
      $endgroup$
      – Kavi Rama Murthy
      Jan 14 at 8:24
















    $begingroup$
    I have already proven that $X$ is seperable if $X'$ is seperable, sosince $ell^infty$ is not seperable $(ell^infty)^*$ is not seperable.
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Jan 14 at 7:54






    $begingroup$
    I have already proven that $X$ is seperable if $X'$ is seperable, sosince $ell^infty$ is not seperable $(ell^infty)^*$ is not seperable.
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Jan 14 at 7:54














    $begingroup$
    Is an isometric isomorphism naturally a homeomorphism?
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Jan 14 at 8:23




    $begingroup$
    Is an isometric isomorphism naturally a homeomorphism?
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Jan 14 at 8:23




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @James Of course, it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 14 at 8:24




    $begingroup$
    @James Of course, it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 14 at 8:24











    5












    $begingroup$

    Here is a different approach. Consider the subspace
    $$c := { x in ell^infty mid lim_{ntoinfty}x_n text{ exists}}.$$



    Can you imagine a functional on $c$ which (if extended to all of $ell^infty$ via Hahn-Banach) is not of the form $Phi y$?






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I think this is the best approach. It does not require knowledge of $C^*$ algebras. And of course showing $(l^infty)^*$ is not separable is much more than showing it is not equal to $l^1$.
      $endgroup$
      – GEdgar
      Jan 14 at 11:58










    • $begingroup$
      Which functional is it?
      $endgroup$
      – James
      Jan 14 at 12:12










    • $begingroup$
      The functional is the one assumed to exist in the definition of $c$.
      $endgroup$
      – GEdgar
      Jan 15 at 15:37
















    5












    $begingroup$

    Here is a different approach. Consider the subspace
    $$c := { x in ell^infty mid lim_{ntoinfty}x_n text{ exists}}.$$



    Can you imagine a functional on $c$ which (if extended to all of $ell^infty$ via Hahn-Banach) is not of the form $Phi y$?






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I think this is the best approach. It does not require knowledge of $C^*$ algebras. And of course showing $(l^infty)^*$ is not separable is much more than showing it is not equal to $l^1$.
      $endgroup$
      – GEdgar
      Jan 14 at 11:58










    • $begingroup$
      Which functional is it?
      $endgroup$
      – James
      Jan 14 at 12:12










    • $begingroup$
      The functional is the one assumed to exist in the definition of $c$.
      $endgroup$
      – GEdgar
      Jan 15 at 15:37














    5












    5








    5





    $begingroup$

    Here is a different approach. Consider the subspace
    $$c := { x in ell^infty mid lim_{ntoinfty}x_n text{ exists}}.$$



    Can you imagine a functional on $c$ which (if extended to all of $ell^infty$ via Hahn-Banach) is not of the form $Phi y$?






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Here is a different approach. Consider the subspace
    $$c := { x in ell^infty mid lim_{ntoinfty}x_n text{ exists}}.$$



    Can you imagine a functional on $c$ which (if extended to all of $ell^infty$ via Hahn-Banach) is not of the form $Phi y$?







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Jan 14 at 10:48









    gerwgerw

    19.3k11334




    19.3k11334












    • $begingroup$
      I think this is the best approach. It does not require knowledge of $C^*$ algebras. And of course showing $(l^infty)^*$ is not separable is much more than showing it is not equal to $l^1$.
      $endgroup$
      – GEdgar
      Jan 14 at 11:58










    • $begingroup$
      Which functional is it?
      $endgroup$
      – James
      Jan 14 at 12:12










    • $begingroup$
      The functional is the one assumed to exist in the definition of $c$.
      $endgroup$
      – GEdgar
      Jan 15 at 15:37


















    • $begingroup$
      I think this is the best approach. It does not require knowledge of $C^*$ algebras. And of course showing $(l^infty)^*$ is not separable is much more than showing it is not equal to $l^1$.
      $endgroup$
      – GEdgar
      Jan 14 at 11:58










    • $begingroup$
      Which functional is it?
      $endgroup$
      – James
      Jan 14 at 12:12










    • $begingroup$
      The functional is the one assumed to exist in the definition of $c$.
      $endgroup$
      – GEdgar
      Jan 15 at 15:37
















    $begingroup$
    I think this is the best approach. It does not require knowledge of $C^*$ algebras. And of course showing $(l^infty)^*$ is not separable is much more than showing it is not equal to $l^1$.
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Jan 14 at 11:58




    $begingroup$
    I think this is the best approach. It does not require knowledge of $C^*$ algebras. And of course showing $(l^infty)^*$ is not separable is much more than showing it is not equal to $l^1$.
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Jan 14 at 11:58












    $begingroup$
    Which functional is it?
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Jan 14 at 12:12




    $begingroup$
    Which functional is it?
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Jan 14 at 12:12












    $begingroup$
    The functional is the one assumed to exist in the definition of $c$.
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Jan 15 at 15:37




    $begingroup$
    The functional is the one assumed to exist in the definition of $c$.
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Jan 15 at 15:37











    1












    $begingroup$

    Similarly to gerw's answer. Just use that, as a $C^ast$-algebra $ell^infty(mathbb N)$ is isomorphic to $C(beta mathbb{N})$, the continuous function over the compact space given by $beta mathbb{N}$, the Stone-Cech compactification of $mathbb{N}$. By Riesz theorem $(ell^infty)^ast = M(beta mathbb{N})$, the finite Radon measures over $beta mathbb{N}$. The points in $beta mathbb{N} setminus mathbb{N}$ are proper ultrafiters and evaluating on them gives functionals that are not in the image of $ell^1$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      Similarly to gerw's answer. Just use that, as a $C^ast$-algebra $ell^infty(mathbb N)$ is isomorphic to $C(beta mathbb{N})$, the continuous function over the compact space given by $beta mathbb{N}$, the Stone-Cech compactification of $mathbb{N}$. By Riesz theorem $(ell^infty)^ast = M(beta mathbb{N})$, the finite Radon measures over $beta mathbb{N}$. The points in $beta mathbb{N} setminus mathbb{N}$ are proper ultrafiters and evaluating on them gives functionals that are not in the image of $ell^1$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        Similarly to gerw's answer. Just use that, as a $C^ast$-algebra $ell^infty(mathbb N)$ is isomorphic to $C(beta mathbb{N})$, the continuous function over the compact space given by $beta mathbb{N}$, the Stone-Cech compactification of $mathbb{N}$. By Riesz theorem $(ell^infty)^ast = M(beta mathbb{N})$, the finite Radon measures over $beta mathbb{N}$. The points in $beta mathbb{N} setminus mathbb{N}$ are proper ultrafiters and evaluating on them gives functionals that are not in the image of $ell^1$.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Similarly to gerw's answer. Just use that, as a $C^ast$-algebra $ell^infty(mathbb N)$ is isomorphic to $C(beta mathbb{N})$, the continuous function over the compact space given by $beta mathbb{N}$, the Stone-Cech compactification of $mathbb{N}$. By Riesz theorem $(ell^infty)^ast = M(beta mathbb{N})$, the finite Radon measures over $beta mathbb{N}$. The points in $beta mathbb{N} setminus mathbb{N}$ are proper ultrafiters and evaluating on them gives functionals that are not in the image of $ell^1$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Jan 14 at 11:41









        Adrián González-PérezAdrián González-Pérez

        1,086139




        1,086139






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3072954%2fproof-that-the-following-map-phi-ell1-to-ell-infty-is-not-surjective%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Mario Kart Wii

            What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

            Antonio Litta Visconti Arese