$y in mathbb{K^N}$ a scalar sequence, if $sum_{n geq 1} x(n)y(n)$ is bounded,does $x in l_{p^*}$?
Given $y in mathbb{K^N}$ a scalar sequence, and $1<p<infty$.
Suppose that, $forall x in l_p$, the series $sum_{n geq 1} x(n)y(n)$ is bounded. Show that $x in l_{p^*}$.
With $l_{p^*}$ I mean the dual of $l_p$, if I am not wrong, we have $(l_p)^*=l_{p^*}$.
Any suggestion? I'm not really keen in dual... what should I demonstrate?
sequences-and-series functional-analysis lp-spaces dual-spaces
add a comment |
Given $y in mathbb{K^N}$ a scalar sequence, and $1<p<infty$.
Suppose that, $forall x in l_p$, the series $sum_{n geq 1} x(n)y(n)$ is bounded. Show that $x in l_{p^*}$.
With $l_{p^*}$ I mean the dual of $l_p$, if I am not wrong, we have $(l_p)^*=l_{p^*}$.
Any suggestion? I'm not really keen in dual... what should I demonstrate?
sequences-and-series functional-analysis lp-spaces dual-spaces
so you mean $p^*=frac{p}{1-p}$? In that case, you are right, $l_p^*=l_{p^*}$ and you want to show that $yin l_{p^*}$ right?
– Pink Panther
2 days ago
1
@PinkPanther Yes!
– Maggie94
2 days ago
add a comment |
Given $y in mathbb{K^N}$ a scalar sequence, and $1<p<infty$.
Suppose that, $forall x in l_p$, the series $sum_{n geq 1} x(n)y(n)$ is bounded. Show that $x in l_{p^*}$.
With $l_{p^*}$ I mean the dual of $l_p$, if I am not wrong, we have $(l_p)^*=l_{p^*}$.
Any suggestion? I'm not really keen in dual... what should I demonstrate?
sequences-and-series functional-analysis lp-spaces dual-spaces
Given $y in mathbb{K^N}$ a scalar sequence, and $1<p<infty$.
Suppose that, $forall x in l_p$, the series $sum_{n geq 1} x(n)y(n)$ is bounded. Show that $x in l_{p^*}$.
With $l_{p^*}$ I mean the dual of $l_p$, if I am not wrong, we have $(l_p)^*=l_{p^*}$.
Any suggestion? I'm not really keen in dual... what should I demonstrate?
sequences-and-series functional-analysis lp-spaces dual-spaces
sequences-and-series functional-analysis lp-spaces dual-spaces
edited 2 days ago
Bernard
118k639112
118k639112
asked 2 days ago
Maggie94Maggie94
966
966
so you mean $p^*=frac{p}{1-p}$? In that case, you are right, $l_p^*=l_{p^*}$ and you want to show that $yin l_{p^*}$ right?
– Pink Panther
2 days ago
1
@PinkPanther Yes!
– Maggie94
2 days ago
add a comment |
so you mean $p^*=frac{p}{1-p}$? In that case, you are right, $l_p^*=l_{p^*}$ and you want to show that $yin l_{p^*}$ right?
– Pink Panther
2 days ago
1
@PinkPanther Yes!
– Maggie94
2 days ago
so you mean $p^*=frac{p}{1-p}$? In that case, you are right, $l_p^*=l_{p^*}$ and you want to show that $yin l_{p^*}$ right?
– Pink Panther
2 days ago
so you mean $p^*=frac{p}{1-p}$? In that case, you are right, $l_p^*=l_{p^*}$ and you want to show that $yin l_{p^*}$ right?
– Pink Panther
2 days ago
1
1
@PinkPanther Yes!
– Maggie94
2 days ago
@PinkPanther Yes!
– Maggie94
2 days ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Note that can strenghthen the assumption to
$$
sum_{n =1}^infty |x(n)||y(n)| <infty, quadforall xin l^p.
$$ by considering $widehat{x}(n) = |x(n)|e^{-itheta_n}$ where $y(n) = |y(n)|e^{itheta_n}$. Define $$
F_k ={xin l^p;|; sum_n |x(n)||y(n)|le k}.$$ We can show by Fatou's lemma(or directly) that $F_k$ is closed in $l^p$ for all $k$. Now, since $l^p = cup_k F_k$, by Baire category theorem, there exists $k$, $zin l^p$ and $delta>0$ such that
$$
z'in l^p,;|z-z'|_pleq delta Rightarrow z'in F_k.
$$ Let $xin l^p$ be $|x|_ple 1$. Then from
$$
sum_n |z(n)+delta x(n)||y(n)|le k,
$$ we have
$$
deltasum_n |x(n)||y(n)| leq sum_n |z(n)||y(n)|+k le 2k.
$$ Now, if we take $x(n) = frac{|y(n)|^{p^*-1}}{(sum_{n=1}^N |y(n)|^{p^*})^{1/p}}1_{nleq N}$ , then $|x|_ple 1$ and it follows that
$$
left(sum_{nle N}|y(n)|^{p^*}right)^{1-1/p} = sum_{nle N}|x(n)||y(n)| le sum_{n}|x(n)||y(n)| lefrac{2k}{delta}.
$$ Take $Ntoinfty$ to get
$$
|y|_{p^*}le frac{2k}{delta}<infty.
$$
What do you mean by $z’$?
– Maggie94
2 days ago
I used $z'$ as another generic element of $l^p$.
– Song
2 days ago
Ok thank you... and I don’t unterstand the final part... we get that $Vert yVert_{p^*} leq infty$, why this implies that $x in l_{p^*}$?
– Maggie94
2 days ago
Your question is stated misleadingly. Please check that. Either $forall xin l^p$ or $xin l^{p^*}$ should be fixed.
– Song
2 days ago
What don’t you understand? $x in l_p$ is fixed, so $forall x in l_p$ I want to show that $x in l_{p^*}$, i think the question is well written. What I don’t understand in the final part of your answer is how can I say that $x in l_{p*}$ because you get $Vert y Vert _{p^*} < infty$
– Maggie94
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062693%2fy-in-mathbbkn-a-scalar-sequence-if-sum-n-geq-1-xnyn-is-bounded%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Note that can strenghthen the assumption to
$$
sum_{n =1}^infty |x(n)||y(n)| <infty, quadforall xin l^p.
$$ by considering $widehat{x}(n) = |x(n)|e^{-itheta_n}$ where $y(n) = |y(n)|e^{itheta_n}$. Define $$
F_k ={xin l^p;|; sum_n |x(n)||y(n)|le k}.$$ We can show by Fatou's lemma(or directly) that $F_k$ is closed in $l^p$ for all $k$. Now, since $l^p = cup_k F_k$, by Baire category theorem, there exists $k$, $zin l^p$ and $delta>0$ such that
$$
z'in l^p,;|z-z'|_pleq delta Rightarrow z'in F_k.
$$ Let $xin l^p$ be $|x|_ple 1$. Then from
$$
sum_n |z(n)+delta x(n)||y(n)|le k,
$$ we have
$$
deltasum_n |x(n)||y(n)| leq sum_n |z(n)||y(n)|+k le 2k.
$$ Now, if we take $x(n) = frac{|y(n)|^{p^*-1}}{(sum_{n=1}^N |y(n)|^{p^*})^{1/p}}1_{nleq N}$ , then $|x|_ple 1$ and it follows that
$$
left(sum_{nle N}|y(n)|^{p^*}right)^{1-1/p} = sum_{nle N}|x(n)||y(n)| le sum_{n}|x(n)||y(n)| lefrac{2k}{delta}.
$$ Take $Ntoinfty$ to get
$$
|y|_{p^*}le frac{2k}{delta}<infty.
$$
What do you mean by $z’$?
– Maggie94
2 days ago
I used $z'$ as another generic element of $l^p$.
– Song
2 days ago
Ok thank you... and I don’t unterstand the final part... we get that $Vert yVert_{p^*} leq infty$, why this implies that $x in l_{p^*}$?
– Maggie94
2 days ago
Your question is stated misleadingly. Please check that. Either $forall xin l^p$ or $xin l^{p^*}$ should be fixed.
– Song
2 days ago
What don’t you understand? $x in l_p$ is fixed, so $forall x in l_p$ I want to show that $x in l_{p^*}$, i think the question is well written. What I don’t understand in the final part of your answer is how can I say that $x in l_{p*}$ because you get $Vert y Vert _{p^*} < infty$
– Maggie94
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
Note that can strenghthen the assumption to
$$
sum_{n =1}^infty |x(n)||y(n)| <infty, quadforall xin l^p.
$$ by considering $widehat{x}(n) = |x(n)|e^{-itheta_n}$ where $y(n) = |y(n)|e^{itheta_n}$. Define $$
F_k ={xin l^p;|; sum_n |x(n)||y(n)|le k}.$$ We can show by Fatou's lemma(or directly) that $F_k$ is closed in $l^p$ for all $k$. Now, since $l^p = cup_k F_k$, by Baire category theorem, there exists $k$, $zin l^p$ and $delta>0$ such that
$$
z'in l^p,;|z-z'|_pleq delta Rightarrow z'in F_k.
$$ Let $xin l^p$ be $|x|_ple 1$. Then from
$$
sum_n |z(n)+delta x(n)||y(n)|le k,
$$ we have
$$
deltasum_n |x(n)||y(n)| leq sum_n |z(n)||y(n)|+k le 2k.
$$ Now, if we take $x(n) = frac{|y(n)|^{p^*-1}}{(sum_{n=1}^N |y(n)|^{p^*})^{1/p}}1_{nleq N}$ , then $|x|_ple 1$ and it follows that
$$
left(sum_{nle N}|y(n)|^{p^*}right)^{1-1/p} = sum_{nle N}|x(n)||y(n)| le sum_{n}|x(n)||y(n)| lefrac{2k}{delta}.
$$ Take $Ntoinfty$ to get
$$
|y|_{p^*}le frac{2k}{delta}<infty.
$$
What do you mean by $z’$?
– Maggie94
2 days ago
I used $z'$ as another generic element of $l^p$.
– Song
2 days ago
Ok thank you... and I don’t unterstand the final part... we get that $Vert yVert_{p^*} leq infty$, why this implies that $x in l_{p^*}$?
– Maggie94
2 days ago
Your question is stated misleadingly. Please check that. Either $forall xin l^p$ or $xin l^{p^*}$ should be fixed.
– Song
2 days ago
What don’t you understand? $x in l_p$ is fixed, so $forall x in l_p$ I want to show that $x in l_{p^*}$, i think the question is well written. What I don’t understand in the final part of your answer is how can I say that $x in l_{p*}$ because you get $Vert y Vert _{p^*} < infty$
– Maggie94
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
Note that can strenghthen the assumption to
$$
sum_{n =1}^infty |x(n)||y(n)| <infty, quadforall xin l^p.
$$ by considering $widehat{x}(n) = |x(n)|e^{-itheta_n}$ where $y(n) = |y(n)|e^{itheta_n}$. Define $$
F_k ={xin l^p;|; sum_n |x(n)||y(n)|le k}.$$ We can show by Fatou's lemma(or directly) that $F_k$ is closed in $l^p$ for all $k$. Now, since $l^p = cup_k F_k$, by Baire category theorem, there exists $k$, $zin l^p$ and $delta>0$ such that
$$
z'in l^p,;|z-z'|_pleq delta Rightarrow z'in F_k.
$$ Let $xin l^p$ be $|x|_ple 1$. Then from
$$
sum_n |z(n)+delta x(n)||y(n)|le k,
$$ we have
$$
deltasum_n |x(n)||y(n)| leq sum_n |z(n)||y(n)|+k le 2k.
$$ Now, if we take $x(n) = frac{|y(n)|^{p^*-1}}{(sum_{n=1}^N |y(n)|^{p^*})^{1/p}}1_{nleq N}$ , then $|x|_ple 1$ and it follows that
$$
left(sum_{nle N}|y(n)|^{p^*}right)^{1-1/p} = sum_{nle N}|x(n)||y(n)| le sum_{n}|x(n)||y(n)| lefrac{2k}{delta}.
$$ Take $Ntoinfty$ to get
$$
|y|_{p^*}le frac{2k}{delta}<infty.
$$
Note that can strenghthen the assumption to
$$
sum_{n =1}^infty |x(n)||y(n)| <infty, quadforall xin l^p.
$$ by considering $widehat{x}(n) = |x(n)|e^{-itheta_n}$ where $y(n) = |y(n)|e^{itheta_n}$. Define $$
F_k ={xin l^p;|; sum_n |x(n)||y(n)|le k}.$$ We can show by Fatou's lemma(or directly) that $F_k$ is closed in $l^p$ for all $k$. Now, since $l^p = cup_k F_k$, by Baire category theorem, there exists $k$, $zin l^p$ and $delta>0$ such that
$$
z'in l^p,;|z-z'|_pleq delta Rightarrow z'in F_k.
$$ Let $xin l^p$ be $|x|_ple 1$. Then from
$$
sum_n |z(n)+delta x(n)||y(n)|le k,
$$ we have
$$
deltasum_n |x(n)||y(n)| leq sum_n |z(n)||y(n)|+k le 2k.
$$ Now, if we take $x(n) = frac{|y(n)|^{p^*-1}}{(sum_{n=1}^N |y(n)|^{p^*})^{1/p}}1_{nleq N}$ , then $|x|_ple 1$ and it follows that
$$
left(sum_{nle N}|y(n)|^{p^*}right)^{1-1/p} = sum_{nle N}|x(n)||y(n)| le sum_{n}|x(n)||y(n)| lefrac{2k}{delta}.
$$ Take $Ntoinfty$ to get
$$
|y|_{p^*}le frac{2k}{delta}<infty.
$$
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
SongSong
6,025318
6,025318
What do you mean by $z’$?
– Maggie94
2 days ago
I used $z'$ as another generic element of $l^p$.
– Song
2 days ago
Ok thank you... and I don’t unterstand the final part... we get that $Vert yVert_{p^*} leq infty$, why this implies that $x in l_{p^*}$?
– Maggie94
2 days ago
Your question is stated misleadingly. Please check that. Either $forall xin l^p$ or $xin l^{p^*}$ should be fixed.
– Song
2 days ago
What don’t you understand? $x in l_p$ is fixed, so $forall x in l_p$ I want to show that $x in l_{p^*}$, i think the question is well written. What I don’t understand in the final part of your answer is how can I say that $x in l_{p*}$ because you get $Vert y Vert _{p^*} < infty$
– Maggie94
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
What do you mean by $z’$?
– Maggie94
2 days ago
I used $z'$ as another generic element of $l^p$.
– Song
2 days ago
Ok thank you... and I don’t unterstand the final part... we get that $Vert yVert_{p^*} leq infty$, why this implies that $x in l_{p^*}$?
– Maggie94
2 days ago
Your question is stated misleadingly. Please check that. Either $forall xin l^p$ or $xin l^{p^*}$ should be fixed.
– Song
2 days ago
What don’t you understand? $x in l_p$ is fixed, so $forall x in l_p$ I want to show that $x in l_{p^*}$, i think the question is well written. What I don’t understand in the final part of your answer is how can I say that $x in l_{p*}$ because you get $Vert y Vert _{p^*} < infty$
– Maggie94
yesterday
What do you mean by $z’$?
– Maggie94
2 days ago
What do you mean by $z’$?
– Maggie94
2 days ago
I used $z'$ as another generic element of $l^p$.
– Song
2 days ago
I used $z'$ as another generic element of $l^p$.
– Song
2 days ago
Ok thank you... and I don’t unterstand the final part... we get that $Vert yVert_{p^*} leq infty$, why this implies that $x in l_{p^*}$?
– Maggie94
2 days ago
Ok thank you... and I don’t unterstand the final part... we get that $Vert yVert_{p^*} leq infty$, why this implies that $x in l_{p^*}$?
– Maggie94
2 days ago
Your question is stated misleadingly. Please check that. Either $forall xin l^p$ or $xin l^{p^*}$ should be fixed.
– Song
2 days ago
Your question is stated misleadingly. Please check that. Either $forall xin l^p$ or $xin l^{p^*}$ should be fixed.
– Song
2 days ago
What don’t you understand? $x in l_p$ is fixed, so $forall x in l_p$ I want to show that $x in l_{p^*}$, i think the question is well written. What I don’t understand in the final part of your answer is how can I say that $x in l_{p*}$ because you get $Vert y Vert _{p^*} < infty$
– Maggie94
yesterday
What don’t you understand? $x in l_p$ is fixed, so $forall x in l_p$ I want to show that $x in l_{p^*}$, i think the question is well written. What I don’t understand in the final part of your answer is how can I say that $x in l_{p*}$ because you get $Vert y Vert _{p^*} < infty$
– Maggie94
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062693%2fy-in-mathbbkn-a-scalar-sequence-if-sum-n-geq-1-xnyn-is-bounded%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
so you mean $p^*=frac{p}{1-p}$? In that case, you are right, $l_p^*=l_{p^*}$ and you want to show that $yin l_{p^*}$ right?
– Pink Panther
2 days ago
1
@PinkPanther Yes!
– Maggie94
2 days ago