8

As the title says, the question is how to prove

Let $X,Y$ be normed spaces. A linear map $S:Y^*\to X^*$ is weak$^*$ continuous if and only if $S=T^*$ for some $T\in B(X,Y)$

Martin Argerami
  • 205,756
  • I am sorry to hear about that. I have the feeling something similar happened with this question: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1830609/prove-that-t-sup-x-1-langle-x-tx-rangle/1830624#1830624, which I answered. –  Jun 23 '16 at 18:00

1 Answers1

10

If $S=T^*$, and $f_j\to f$ weak$^*$ in $Y^*$, then for any $x\in X$ $$ Sf_j(x)=f_j(Tx)\to f(Tx)=T^*f(x)=Sf(x). $$ So $S$ is weak$^*$-continuous.

Conversely, assume that $S$ is weak$^*$-continuous. We know what our $T$ should satisfy if it exists: $Sf(x)=f(Tx)$. So let us use this to define $T$.

For any $x\in X$, consider the functional on $Y^*$ given by $\alpha_x:f\longmapsto Sf(x)$. By hypothesis this is weak$^*$-continuous; the weak$^*$-continuous functionals are bounded, so $\alpha_x\in Y^{**}$. But, also, a weak$^*$-continuous functional on the dual is in the predual (the question there is stated for Banach spaces, but the linked proof works for any locally convex space). So there exists $y\in Y$ with $\alpha_x(f)=f(y)$ for all $f\in Y^*$. Define $Tx=y$. Note that $y$ is unique because $Y^*$ separates points in $Y$. From there we deduce that $T$ is linear. Finally, we have that $S $ is bounded; indeed, if $f_j\to f $ in $Y^* $ and $Sf_j\to g $ in $X^*$ (both in norm), then $f_j\to f $ in the weak$^*$ topology, so $Sf_j\to Sf $ weak$^*$; thus $Sf=g $ and $S $ is bounded by the Closed Graph Theorem. Then $S=T^*$ and \begin{align} \|Tx\|&=\sup\{|f(Tx)|:\ f\in Y^*,\ \|f\|=1\}\\ \ \\ &=\sup\{|Sf(x)|:\ f\in Y^*,\ \|f\|=1\}\leq\|S\|\,\|x\|. \end{align}So $T$ is bounded with $\|T\|\leq\|S\|$. In fact, since $T^*=S$, we have $\|T\|=\|T^*\|=\|S\|$.

It is important to note that the Closed Graph Theorem was applied on the duals $Y^*$ and $X^*$ which are Banach regardless of whether $Y$ and $X$ are.

Martin Argerami
  • 205,756
  • So your proof even shows that, if $S$ is weak*-continuous, then $S$ is automatically bounded. – Hamilton Jul 17 '23 at 01:44
  • Why is it enough to show sequential continuity? The weak*-topology need not be second countable, does it? – ym94 Dec 18 '23 at 16:36
  • @ym94: I never mentioned sequences. – Martin Argerami Dec 18 '23 at 18:09
  • @MartinArgerami: You used sequences in order to show that T being bounded implies that T* is weak* continuous. I think one should rather use the weak* topology in order to show that T* is weak* continuous (this, in fact, follows directly from the definition of the topology, just as your argument using sequences; but still using sequences to show weak* continuity is not valid in general if I am not mistaken). Do you know what I mean? – ym94 Dec 18 '23 at 22:21
  • @ym94: if you mean the first paragraph, ${f_j}$ is a net. – Martin Argerami Dec 19 '23 at 02:41
  • @MartinArgerami: ah okay, I could have thought of this, but I am not used to using nets. Anyways, thanks for the clarification! :) – ym94 Dec 19 '23 at 19:30