For e.g., is $\ell^2$ self-dual like $L^2$? If some $x[n]\in\ell^1\cap\ell^2$, then does it have a Fourier transform in $\ell^2$?
2 Answers
Both $\ell^p$ and $L^p$ spaces are special cases of the Lebesgue function spaces $\mathcal{L}^p$.
Given a measure space $(X,\mu)$, we can consider the collection of all measurable functions $f$ from $X$ to $\mathbb{R}$ (or $\mathbb{C}$, or $\mathbb{R}^n$, or $\mathbb{C}^n$, or any Banach space) such that $$||f||_p = \left(\int_X |f|^p d\mu\right)^{1/p}\lt\infty.$$ These functions form a pseudo-normed vector space; we mod out by functions with $||f||_p = 0$ to get a normed vector space.
The usual real-valued $L^p$ spaces are just the case where $(X,\mu) = (\mathbb{R},\lambda)$, the Lebesgue measure. The sequence spaces $\ell^p$ are the case with $(X,\mu) = (\mathbb{N},\mu)$, where $\mu$ is the counting measure.
Many of the abstract properties of $L^p$ spaces (like the fact that for $p\gt 1$, $L^q\cong (L^p)^*$, where $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1$) are proven in the abstract setting of Lebesgue function spaces. As such, they hold for $\ell^p$ spaces as special cases of the general construction.
In particular, yes, $\ell^2$ is self-dual; and the dual of $\ell^3$ is $\ell^{3/2}$, etc.

- 398,050
-
2As a complement, the wikipedia page on $L^p$-spaces is quite good. – t.b. Apr 09 '11 at 05:16
-
thanks a lot. I guess my main concern was how can I interpret theorems and results that specifically are stated/proven for $L^p$ spaces into $\ell^p$ spaces, which is where I need to apply them. I'm not a mathematician, so I'm trying to understand if there is an intuitive way to do it. Specifically, the theorem I'm trying to go through now is Plancharel's. I know that sequences in $\ell^2$ have F.T. in $\ell^2$ (e.g. discretely sampled sinc$\leftrightarrow$rect). But how do I say this follows from Plancharel's when it is originally defined for $L^2$ space? – Apr 09 '11 at 14:57
-
1@Axiom: Basically, there are some results that do transfer, because they are "really" results about the Lebesgue function spaces, and not specifically about $L^p$ or $\ell^p$ spaces. On the other hand, as dissonance rightly points out, other results don't transfer because they are specifically about $L^p$ (or $\ell^p$ spaces) using specific properties about those measure spaces rather than general properties. In the case of Plancherel, it seems like it might be (at least originally) specifically about $L^p$ spaces rather than Lebesgue spaces, but I don't know enough to help you. Sorry. – Arturo Magidin Apr 09 '11 at 19:13
-
thanks arturo. I'll post a new question about Plancherel. – Apr 09 '11 at 19:48
To complement what Arturo said, I would like to point out that there are some properties of $\ell^p$ spaces that have no correspondence in $L^p(\Omega)$ spaces. The easiest of such regards inclusion: we have
$$\ell^1 \subset \ell^2 \subset \ldots \subset \ell^\infty$$
but, if $\Omega$ is an open subset of some $\mathbb{R}^n$, it's certainly not true that
$$L^1(\Omega) \subset L^2(\Omega) \subset \ldots L^\infty(\Omega).$$
In fact, if $\Omega$ is bounded (or, more generally, if it is a finite measure space) then
$$L^\infty(\Omega) \subset \ldots \subset L^2(\Omega) \subset L^1(\Omega),$$
that is, inclusions are reversed.
Another specific property of $\ell^p$ spaces regards duality. Riesz theorem asserts that, for $1 < p < \infty$ and $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p'}=1$, the mapping
$$f\in L^{p'}(\Omega) \mapsto T_f \in [L^p(\Omega)]',\quad \langle T_f, g \rangle= \int_{\Omega}f(x)g(x)\, dx;$$
is an isometric isomorphism. This holds true for every measure space and so for $\ell^p$ also. However, this theorem gives no information about extreme cases $p=+\infty, p'=1$, which have to be studied separately, yielding various results. One of those is the following.
Proposition Let $c_0$ be the subspace of $\ell^{\infty}$ consisting of all sequences $x=(x_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ s.t.
$$\lim_{n \to \infty}x_n=0.$$
Then the mapping
$$y=(y_n) \in \ell^1 \mapsto T_y \in [c_0]',\quad \langle T_y, x \rangle=\sum_{n \in \mathbb{N}}y_nx_n;$$
is an isometric isomorphism and we can write
$$\ell^1 \simeq [c_0]'.$$
As far as I know, we have no direct generalization of this to $L^1(\Omega)$ spaces. One may conjecture, for example, that the following is an isomorphism:
$$f \in L^1(\mathbb{R}) \mapsto T_f \in [C_0(\mathbb{R})]'$$
(here $C_0(\mathbb{R})$ stands for: "continuous functions on the line vanishing at infinity"). But this is not true, because that mapping is not surjective: $[C_0(\mathbb{R})]'$ contains $\delta$, the linear functional defined by the equation
$$\langle \delta, g \rangle=g(0),\quad g \in C_0(\mathbb{R});$$
and we have no representation for $\delta$ as $\delta=T_f$ for some $f \in L^1(\mathbb{R})$. In fact, suppose a $f$ as such exists. Then, for all $g\in C_0(\mathbb{R})$ whose support does not contain $\{0\}$, we would have
$$\int_\mathbb{R}f(x)g(x)\, dx=0,$$
so that, for every open subset $A$ of $\mathbb{R}-\{0\}$, $f=0$ a.e. on $A$. But this forces $f=0$ a.e. on $\mathbb{R}$ and so $T_f=0$, which is a contradiction since $\delta$ certainly is not null.

- 32,319
-
In fact, if $\mu$ is a non-atomic measure then it is easy to see that $L^1{(\Omega,\mu)}$ is not a dual space at all. One way to prove this (certainly not the easiest one) is to show that the unit ball has no extremal points (this is easy). If it were the case $L^1(\Omega,\mu) = X^{*}$ then the unit ball would be compact in the weak$^{\ast}$-topology by Alaoglu's theorem and Krein-Milman's theorem would yield the existence of extremal points, a contradiction. – t.b. Apr 09 '11 at 11:23
-
@Theo: Sounds like a nice exercise for me. Unfortunately you use functional analytic tools that I do not know, but I think I can salvage the main idea. I'll let you know. – Giuseppe Negro Apr 09 '11 at 12:10
-
Well, this is the standard argument to show that a Banach space is not a dual space. It also applies to $c_{0}$. As I said, you only need to prove that there are no extremal points at all. Explicitly, you need to exhibit each $f$ with $|f| \leq 1$ as $f = (1-\alpha)g + \alpha h$ with $|g|, |h| \leq 1$ and $g \neq f \neq h$. This is easy from the hypothesis that the space have no atoms. Krein-Milman and Alaoglu are beautiful and extremely useful theorems, and it is good to know about them. – t.b. Apr 09 '11 at 12:54
-
Ok, I'll gather some information then. I was trying to follow another avenue (for the special case $L^1(\mathbb{R})$), namely:
should $L^1(\mathbb{R})$ be isomorphic to $X^\star$ for some separable Banach space $X$, from every bounded sequence in $L^1(\mathbb{R})$ we should be able to extract a weakly convergent subsequence ($\star$) and this is false, as $\chi_{[n, n+1]}$ shows. I don't know if this may work, though: I'm dubious about ($\star$). Oh well.
– Giuseppe Negro Apr 09 '11 at 14:01 -
$(\star)$ is correct and it follows from Alaoglu (which is easy to prove in this situation using a diagonal argument - which should be an easy adaptation of my proof of the Lemma in this answer). What I don't see at the moment is how you can guarantee that $\chi_{[n,n+1]}$ has no weak$^{\ast}$-convergent subsequence if $X$ is arbitrary. – t.b. Apr 09 '11 at 14:12
-
Thank you for suggestions on ($\star$)! In fact I was thinking exactly at the diagonal trick, the one you use. As for $\chi_{[n, n+1]}$, I thought: for every interval $I$, the mapping $f \mapsto \int_I f(x), dx$ is a continuous linear functional on $L^1(\mathbb{R})$. So if $(f_n)$ is a subsequence of $(\chi_{[n, n+1]})$ weakly convergent to a function $f$, then $\int_a^b f(x)dx=0$ for all $a < b$. This means that $f$ needs be null a.e. and this is a contradiction, because on the other hand $\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x), dx=1$. – Giuseppe Negro Apr 09 '11 at 15:49
-
What you say is correct but it doesn't prove that $L^{1} = X^{\ast}$ can't be true. There is an isometric embedding $X \to L^{\infty} = X^{\ast\ast}$ and you're using the pairing $L^1 \times L^\infty \to \mathbb{R}$ given by $(f,\phi) \mapsto \int f \phi$, so you prove two things, in fact: 1. The constant function $\phi = 1$ can't be in the image of $X$, 2. The unit ball of $L^1$ is not weakly compact. However, you want to prove that the unit ball of $L^1$ can't be weak$^{\ast}$-compact (to be continued)... – t.b. Apr 09 '11 at 15:56
-
If $L^1 = X^\ast$ we have a tautological pairing $L^1 \times X \to \mathbb{R}$ given by identifying $f \in L^1$ with a linear functional $\phi_{f}: X \to \mathbb{R}$. Given a sequence $f_{n}$ this sequence converges to $f$ in the weak$^{\ast}$-topology iff for each $x \in X$ we have $\phi_{f_{n}}(x) \to \phi_{f}(x)$. Alaoglu's theorem asserts that for every bounded sequence $f_n$ there is a subsequence $f_{n_k}$ and $f$ such that for all $x \in X$ we have $\phi_{f_n}(x) \to \phi_{f}(x)$. As you have almost no control about $X$ it seems difficult to prove that no subsequence can converge. – t.b. Apr 09 '11 at 16:01
-
@Theo: Err yes, I see the subtlety now. In fact this is what I vaguely smelled when I said that ($\star$) left me dubious. Ok, so if you believe this approach leads nowhere I'll cease thinking about it and read something about Krein-Millman theorem instead. BTW... Can you give me a hint on how to prove that the unit ball of $L^1$ hasn't any extremal points? Not even on the boundary? This must be a consequence of infinite dimension, I think, because in $\mathbb{R}^3$ the ball has the boundary as extremal, if I see well. Also, thank you very much for this conversation. I'm finding it very useful – Giuseppe Negro Apr 09 '11 at 16:27
-
Glad to hear that you find it useful! First let me address Krein-Milman. I've recently given a sketch of its proof in this answer. You only need one more ingredient, and this is the separation version of Hahn-Banach. Concerning no extremal points, infinite dimensionality is not enough, as the example of $\ell^1$ shows. You need to use that the measure is non-atomic. (to be continued)... – t.b. Apr 09 '11 at 16:45
-
If $f \neq 0$, for $\varepsilon \gt 0$ small enough at least one of the sets $X_{\gt \varepsilon} = {f \gt \varepsilon}$ or $X_{\lt - \varepsilon} = {f \lt -\varepsilon}$ has positive measure. Let's assume it's $X_{\gt \varepsilon}$. We can thus write $X_{\gt \varepsilon} = A \cup B$ with $A$ and $B$ disjoint and of positive measure. Perturb $f$ on $A$ and $B$ without changing its norm by adding and subtracting appropriately scaled versions of the characteristic functions $\chi_{A}$ and $\chi_{B}$. In other words, write $f = \frac{1}{2}(f+h) + \frac{1}{2}(f-h)$ with carefully chosen $h$. – t.b. Apr 09 '11 at 16:54
-
@Theo: It is easier than I thought! Using your previous notations, I think that $h=(\mu(A))^{-1}\chi_A-(\mu(B))^{-1}\chi_B$ will do. And this does not work in $L^p$ with $1<p<\infty$, right? It shouldn't, since those are reflexive spaces and so their unit ball is weakly-compact. By Krein-Milman, then, this unit ball is the convex hull of its extreme points and, in particular, some extreme point need exist. Correct? I'm just mimicking what you did before, in fact. – Giuseppe Negro Apr 09 '11 at 18:37
-
Well, almost. Multiply your $h$ by $\frac{\varepsilon}{2}$ just to be sure. You're absolutely right about the rest. In fact, by Clarkson's inequalities all functions with $|f|_{p} = 1$ are extremal points for $1 \lt p \lt \infty$. – t.b. Apr 09 '11 at 18:42
-
Clarkson, yes. Because if $f=\frac{1}{2}f_1+\frac{1}{2}f_2$ and $\lVert f \rVert_p=1$ then by Clarkson we get $\lVert \frac{f_1-f_2}{2} \rVert_p^p \le 0$ and so $f_1=f_2$ a.e. In conclusion we may say: not all balls are round! $L^p$ ones are but $L^1$ ones have a flat-flat surface. – Giuseppe Negro Apr 09 '11 at 19:39
-
So, it seems like everything's settled, then, right? You might want to have a look at uniform convexity, as well. See you around, buona serata! – t.b. Apr 09 '11 at 20:03