2

Suppose $X$ and $Y$ are topological vector spaces, $dim(Y) < \infty$, $\Lambda : X \rightarrow Y$ is linear, and $\Lambda (X) = Y$. Prove that $\Lambda$ is an open mapping.

Thanks in advance.

Edit:

Definition of TVS: Here, a Topological Vector Space is a vector space such that vector addition and scalar multiplication are continuous and also singletons are closed.

  • 1
    There's something missing in your statement. Take $X= Y$ and $\Lambda$ to be the identity. Two different topologies on $X$ might make the identity map non-open. (In fact, this example shows that even continuity of $\Lambda$ is not sufficient, by taking two topologies on $X$ where one is finer than the other, making the map continuous but not an homeomorphism.) – Patrick Da Silva Jun 18 '15 at 19:47
  • @PatrickDaSilva If we suppose that your statement is true, then we can give two different topologies on $X$ such that make the identity map not continuous. But this is not true, because $dim(Y) < \infty$. For proof see the answer to this question. – Hossein Moradi Jun 18 '15 at 20:09
  • For Banach spaces (also for Fréchet spaces), this is the open mapping theorem, whose proof requires the hypothesis of complete topological vector spaces. – Bernard Jun 18 '15 at 20:16
  • @Bernard The difference is that here we have $dim(Y) < \infty$. – Hossein Moradi Jun 18 '15 at 20:31
  • Are your vector spaces over any valued field, or over $\mathbf R/\mathbf C$? – Bernard Jun 18 '15 at 20:34
  • @Bernard It is not stated in the question so it can be any field, but it is would be OK if we assume the field is $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$. – Hossein Moradi Jun 18 '15 at 20:43

1 Answers1

1

I guess I should explicit my comment here since it is a bit big. I insist that there are details missing in the question, as the current statement is false. (The question you referred to has an answer concerning normed vector spaces. We are talking about topological vector spaces here, this is different.) Think for instance of a field $K$ and the map $K_1 \to K_2$ where both $K_i$ are $K$ as vector spaces, $K_1$ is a topological vector space with the discrete topology and $K_2$ with the trivial topology (the axioms of topological vector spaces are trivially checked since the product of two discrete/trivial topologies are discrete/trivial). This is not an open map.

This is what I had in mind when I said "pick two topologies where one is finer than the other". Since I don't need them to be induced by norms, they can be quite horrible. But this can also happen in practice (of functional analysis) when using semi-norms.

EDIT : Now that you say that the exercise is in Rudin, I started worrying about the details.

Here they are. Put the discrete topology on $K$. Let $K_1 \overset{def}= K^n$ with the discrete topology, and let $K_2 \overset{def}= K^n$ with the trivial topology. The product topologies on $K \times K_1$ and $K_1 \times K_1$ are both discrete, so any map with them as the domain is continuous ; it follows that addition and scalar multiplication on $K_1$ is continuous, making it into a topological vector space.

On $K_2$, since the topology is trivial, any map with $K_2$ as a codomain is continuous. Therefore addition $+ : K_2 \times K_2 \to K_2$ and scalar multiplication $K \times K_2 \to K_2$ are both continuous.

The identity map is definitely linear and of finite rank (it is an isomorphism of finite-dimensional vector spaces.

If you don't like this generic example, here is the argument if you take semi-norms. For example, turn $\mathbb R^n$ into an $\mathbb R$-topological vector space with its usual Euclidean norm and let $\mathbb R^n_0$ be $\mathbb R^n$ with the semi-norm $\|x\| = 0$ for all $x \in \mathbb R^n$ (this gives $\mathbb R^n$ the trivial topology since any open ball centered at $p \in \mathbb R^n$ will consist of all $\mathbb R^n$). The identity map $\mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n_0$ is linear, but not open (since $\mathbb R^n_0$ has only two open sets).

EDIT 2 : The discussion with OP in the comments clarified that the topological spaces we deal with should be $T_1$ ; it is a general theorem in topological groups that they are $T_0$ if and only if they are $T_1$ if and only if they are $T_2$ ; so we might as well assume they are Hausdorff. With this assumption, the result is true.

Any finite-dimensional Hausdorff topological vector space $V$ over the topological field $K$ is isomorphic (i.e. an isomorphism which is also an homeomorphism) to $K^n$ where $n = \dim_K V$ (exercise ; I don't remember how to do this and I don't feel like digging in details).

Therefore, the map $\Lambda : X \to Y$ factors through a linear projection map $\pi : X \to X/\ker \Lambda$ followed by $\Lambda' : X/\ker \Lambda \to Y$. It is a general result of topological groups that $\pi$ is an open map ; this is because $X/\ker \Lambda$ is equipped with the quotient topology and $U \subseteq X/\ker \Lambda$ is open if and only if $\pi^{-1}(U)$ is open in $X$ ; but for $V \subseteq X$, $$ \pi^{-1}(\pi(V)) = \bigcup_{v \in \ker \Lambda} v + V, $$ which is continuous since translation by $v$ is an homeomorphism in $X$. Therefore it suffices to show that $\Lambda' : X/\ker \Lambda \to Y$ is an open map ; it is an isomorphism (because we assumed it surjective and we factored out its kernel), so this is trivial since both spaces are Hausdorff (all there is to show here is that linear isomorphisms of $K^n$ are also homeomorphisms).

Hope that helps,

  • This question is an exercise from Rudin's Functional Analysis book, and I think there should not be any missing details. I think your example is not true for some reason but I can not detect its bug. Maybe the operator in your example can not be linear map, or is not finite rank. Can you check these? – Hossein Moradi Jun 18 '15 at 22:06
  • @HosseinMoradi : I added details to convince you. I insist, there is a detail missing in the question. Try reading Rudin, maybe he added some assumption around the question. But the example I took using semi-norms tells me that there should be a strong assumption on the topology for it to work. Perhaps normed space or something ; on a finite-dimensional real vector space, all norms are equivalent, which would remove my semi-norm example from the options. – Patrick Da Silva Jun 19 '15 at 00:12
  • Thank you for your help. I think I detect your mistake: In the definition of Topological Vector Spaces, there is another condition that is "Every singleton is closed". Thus, the sets that you consider with Trivial Topology, is NOT a TVS, because in trivial topology the only closed sets are empty set and entire space. Am I correct? – Hossein Moradi Jun 19 '15 at 00:39
  • @HosseinMoradi : This is not my "mistake", but rather a convention of Rudin to assume that topological vector spaces should be $T_1$ (see this link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_vector_space ; the $T_1$ property of a topological space is precisely that singletons are closed). – Patrick Da Silva Jun 19 '15 at 02:33
  • Yes, you are right, thanks a lot for your help and patience. I edited my question, so do you have any idea now? – Hossein Moradi Jun 19 '15 at 02:42
  • @HosseinMoradi : I sketched it ; see my edit. – Patrick Da Silva Jun 19 '15 at 02:48
  • very nice, thanks. Do you write $\Lambda$ as $\Lambda = \pi \Lambda '$? Can you explain (or give me a link about it) what is the definition of $\Lambda '$? or why can you do that? – Hossein Moradi Jun 19 '15 at 02:58
  • To be used by other users: I found it: Universal Property of the Quotient. Thank you @Patrick for your solution. – Hossein Moradi Jun 19 '15 at 04:31
  • Patrick I think there is another problem here in your solution. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think if $ker \Lambda$ be closed then the space $X / ker \Lambda$ is Hausdorff, but we are not assuming that $ker \Lambda$ is closed. Thus $\Lambda'$ can not be homeomorphism. Furthermore, in the second part of this question we want to prove that IF $ker \Lambda$ be closed, then $\Lambda$ is continuous, BUT if your solution be correct then we do not need closeness of $ker \Lambda$. – Hossein Moradi Jun 19 '15 at 21:50
  • @HosseinMoradi : You're right, I should have assumed continuity of $\Lambda$ for the kernel. Otherwise $X/ \ker \Lambda$ is not Hausdorff, which doesn't make it a topological vector space in Rudin's sense. And yes $\Lambda' \circ \pi = \Lambda$, so $\Lambda'$ is the map obtained after modding out $\ker \Lambda$. – Patrick Da Silva Jun 20 '15 at 17:39
  • 1
    Yes thanks. I think the solution Here is correct and your solution is just applicable in the second part of the question where $ker \Lambda$ is assumed to be closed. Are you agree? – Hossein Moradi Jun 20 '15 at 17:49
  • @Hossein Moradi Yes I agree – Patrick Da Silva Jun 20 '15 at 20:13
  • So I flag the question as duplicate. Thanks a lot for your help Patrick :) – Hossein Moradi Jun 21 '15 at 00:55