Let $H$ be a Hilbert space, $a \in H$ and $(x_n)_n$ a bounded sequence in $H$ such that every subsequence of $H$ that converges weakly converges to $a$. How do you prove that $(x_n)_n$ converges weakly to $a$? The only thing I know is that there is indeed at least one subsequence of $(x_n)_n$ that converges weakly.
-
Something's wrong, or this is trivial. – Aweygan May 17 '18 at 04:25
-
2It does not say that every subsequence is $w$-convergent, only that those that are, they converge to the same limit. – Theo May 17 '18 at 04:29
-
@Theo Oh I read this incorrectly. – Aweygan May 17 '18 at 04:31
3 Answers
If $(x_n)_n$ does not converge weakly to $a$, then there is a subsequence of $(x_n)_n$ with the property that for some $v \in H$, there is some $\varepsilon > 0$ such that $|\langle x_n ,v \rangle - \langle a , v \rangle| \geq \varepsilon$ for every $n$ indexing the subsequence. But that subsequence is bounded and therefore admits a weakly convergent subsubsequence that weakly converges to $a$, which is a contradiction to the fact that the subsequence stayed away from $a$.

- 2,706
Note that every subsequence of $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is also a bounded sequence and therefore has a weakly convergent subsequence which converges to $a$ by hypothesis. As every subsequence of $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ has a further subsequence that converges to $a$, $x_n\rightharpoonup a$.

- 5,521
This works in general in reflexive Banach spaces. Let $y^*\in X^*$ be a bounded functional. We have that $y^{*}(x_n)$ is a bounded sequence, so if it is not convergent it must have at least two distinct accumulation points. Say $(y_n)$ and $(z_n)$ are subsequences of $(x_n)$ such that $y^{*}(y_n)\to \alpha$ $y^{*}(z_n)\to \beta$. Since $(y_n)$ and $(z_n)$ are bounded and $X$ is reflexive (so bounded sets are relatively weakly compact), each must contain a $w$-convergent subsequence. However any $w$-convergent subsequence converges to $a$, hence $\alpha=\beta=y^*(a)$. This shows that $y^{*}(x_n)$ is convergent, and it must converge to $y^*(a)$. Since $y^*$ was arbitrary, this shows $(x_n)$ is $w$-convergent.

- 2,335
-
1Even better, this is true in any topology where boundedness implies sequential compactness. – Michael L. May 17 '18 at 05:06
-
That is, relative sequential compactness (i.e. the sequential closure of a bounded set is sequentially compact). – Michael L. May 17 '18 at 05:13
-
-
In Banach spaces, yes, but there are far more general settings where this is true. – Michael L. May 17 '18 at 05:14
-
I see, your second comment clarified your first, not what I wrote in the proof. Of course, you are right. – Theo May 17 '18 at 05:17