3

I am trying to understand the topological direct sum in normed vector spaces, i.e. the algebraic sum of two subspaces where the projections (or equivalently one of them) are continuous. I ran into some confusion when I read the Wikipedia article on complemented subspaces ($M$ for this purpose being a subspace of a normed vector space X over $\mathbb{K}=\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$):

$M$ is called complemented if it has a topological complement $N$ (and uncomplemented if not). The choice of $N$ can matter quite strongly: every complemented vector subspace $M$ has algebraic complements that do not complement $M$ topologically.

I believe this is wrong and I would claim the following. Let $X$ be a normed vector space, $M$ a closed subspace of codimension 1. Then each algebraic complement of $M$ is topological. If further $M$ is complete and has finite codimension, then also each algebraic complement is topological.

First, for codimension 1, let $x_0 \in X\setminus M$ and set $N=span(x_0)$. Then $X = M \oplus N$ algebraically and I claim that the projection $\pi_M: X \to M$ is continuous, which means that the sum is topological. But this implies, that each algebraic complement of $M$ is topological. We can carry on this argument to arbitrary finite codimension by induction if M is complete.

My proof: Without loss of generality, assume $\mathbb{K}=\mathbb{R}$. Assume first, that $M$ has codimension 1. The singleton $\{x_0\}$ is compact and convex, $M$ is closed and convex, so by geometric Hahn-Banach there exists a bounded linear functional $\lambda \in X^*$ and $c\in \mathbb{R}$ such that $$\sup_{x \in M}\lambda(x)<c<\lambda(x_0),$$ but since M is a vector space, we must have $\lambda|_{M}\equiv 0$. By scaling, assume $\lambda(x_0)=1$. All together, we obtain the functional $\lambda: M \oplus N \to \mathbb{R}$ where for $x\in M$, $t\in \mathbb{R}$ $$\lambda(x+tx_0) = t.$$ But composing this with the obvious isomorphism $\mathbb{R} \to N$, $t \mapsto tx_0$, we obtain that the projection $$\pi_M: M \oplus N \to N$$ $$x+tx_0 \mapsto tx_0$$ is continuous.

Until here, we only needed closedness of M. To proceed by induction, we need completeness: Since the topological sum of two subspaces is always closed two complete subspaces is always complete (see my own answer below), we can conclude by induction for any finite codimension of $M$.

So, is this wrong? I might be missing something essential here, so I would be happy about any comment.

EDIT: If Wikipedia is indeed incorrect, is there a version of the statement which is true and can someone provide a reference?

2 Answers2

1

You are correct, and what the Wikipedia page is saying is wrong. I'm not seeing any flaw in your proof.

One can also prove your claim using the Banach isomorphism theorem. Indeed, we have this lemma:

Lemma: Let $A$ and $B$ be two algebraically complemented closed subspaces in a Banach space $X$.
Then, $A$ and $B$ are topologically complemented.

Proof of the lemma: First, note that we shall choose $\|(u,v)\| := \|u\| + \|v\|$ as the product norm on $A \times B$.
Consider the application $T : x =: (u,v) \in A \times B \mapsto u + v \in X = A \oplus B$.
$T$ is linear, bijective since $A \oplus B = X$, bounded of norm less than $1$ for the chosen product norm because $\|u + v\| \leq \|u\| + \|v\|$, and is defined between Banach spaces (due to $A$ and $B$ being closed in $X$ Banach hence Banach themselves), hence by the Banach isomorphism theorem $\pi := T^{-1}$ is also continuous. Let $\pi =: (\pi_1, \pi_2)$.
It is clear that $\pi_1$ is the projection $x = u + v \mapsto u$. This means that we want to show that $\pi_1$ is continuous.
We can observe that $\pi_1 = P \circ \pi$, where $P$ is the application $P: (u, v) \in A \times B \mapsto u \in X$. Since $\pi$ is continuous by what we've just said, and $P$ is bounded of norm less than $1$ because $\|u\| \leq \|u\| + \|v\|$, $\pi_1$ is indeed continuous.
Therefore, $A$ and $B$ are topologically complemented.

With this lemma in hand, your claim follows quite easily when $X$ is a Banach space: any algebraic complement $N$ of a finite-codimensional subspace $M$ is finite-dimensional hence closed, thus if $M$ is closed, by the lemma they are topologically complemented.

Wikipedia's claim probably holds for infinite-codimensional spaces, but I have no clue whether there does exist another class of closed subspaces such that all their algebraic complements have to be closed.

Bruno B
  • 5,027
  • 1
    Why can you assume the product topology on the algebraic direct sum? I think to show this would be the whole point. – bananananabatman Jul 26 '23 at 21:26
  • I thought first that this (https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/339892/are-projections-onto-closed-complemented-subspaces-of-a-topological-vector-space) would be a counterexample, but it is only defined on a dense but not closed subspace of a Hilbert space, thus not Banach. – bananananabatman Jul 26 '23 at 21:30
  • @bananananabatman That's what I get for doing maths this late to be fair (late for my timezone). If this edit is still incorrect, do let me know. – Bruno B Jul 26 '23 at 21:37
  • I think you would need to replace $A\times B$ with the inner (algebraic) direct sum $A\oplus B$ and take on that the same topology. But then your argument wouldn't quite work: you have $((u_n + v_n), u_n) \to ((u+v), w)$ but this doesn't imply $w=u$ as far as I can see... – bananananabatman Jul 26 '23 at 21:45
  • @bananananabatman I don't think there's any problem now. $A \times B$ with one of the product norms I mentioned is Banach regardless of the link between $A$ and $B$ in $X$ thanks to $A$ and $B$ being Banach spaces of their own (we can essentially temporarily forget $X$ once we have $A$ and $B$ complete). – Bruno B Jul 26 '23 at 21:56
  • Ah yes it works! $(u_n+v_n) \to (u+v)$, $u_n \to w$ thus $v_n \to u+v-w$. But $A$ is closed, so $w \in A$. By the direct sum composition and since $B$ is closed $u-w = 0$ and $v_n \to v$ :) – bananananabatman Jul 26 '23 at 22:00
  • Thank you very much, I will accept your answer if you correct the proof. – bananananabatman Jul 26 '23 at 22:03
  • @bananananabatman I don't know what I would correct, do you mean that I should add more details? – Bruno B Jul 26 '23 at 22:11
1

EDIT: This is not a direct answer but a summary of some thoughts I had wondering when an algebraic sum is a topological sum.

As Bruno pointed out, in the case of $X$ being a Banach space, all finite direct algebraic sums of closed subspaces that span the whole space are indeed topological sums. Since closed subspaces of Banach spaces are again Banach, it is also true that a finite direct algebraic sum which is closed is a topological direct sum in this setting.

But as can be seen by the following argument I found here, we can see that the algebraic sum of two complete subspaces of a normed space $X$ (not necessarily Banach) that is topological is always complete (so also closed). The inverse then holds by the Lemma stated by Bruno, i.e. if the algebraic sum of two complete subspaces is complete, it is topological.

Proof: Assume that $N, M \subseteq X$ are complete subspaces of a normed vector space $X$, $M\oplus N$ is a topological direct sum. Then the projection onto $N$ $$\pi_N: M\oplus N \to N$$ $$x+y \mapsto y$$ is bounded and can be extended to a bounded operator on the closure some completion of $M\oplus N$ which we denote by $\overline{M\oplus N}$ (note: X might not be Banach, so the closure might not be complete and the completion might not lie in X). This uses that N is complete: $$\tilde{\pi}_N: \overline{M\oplus N} \to N$$

But now for all $x \in M\oplus N$ we have $x-\tilde{\pi}_N(x) \in M$ , therefore by closedness of M (since M is complete also in $\overline{M \oplus N}$) same holds for all $x \in \overline{M\oplus N}$.

We obtain for all $x \in \overline{M\oplus N}$: $$x = x-\tilde{\pi}_N(x) +\tilde{\pi}_N(x) \in M\oplus N, $$ therefore the sum must be complete in X.

  • I was going to ask how this answered your question but I just noticed your last edit. Hopefully someone can figure out the last mystery, aka whether or not every (complemented) infinite-codimensional subspace has an algebraic complement that's not a topological complement. – Bruno B Jul 27 '23 at 10:08
  • 1
    I only wanted to add some more interesting details in the non-Banach case, but it seems to be reducing itself back to the Banach case since the topological sum of a closed and a finite dimensional ($\implies$ complete) subspace seems to be complete, if my argument is correct. I also stated first in my post that the topological sum of closed subspaces is always closed in normed vector spaces, which I doubt by now. – bananananabatman Jul 27 '23 at 10:26
  • $M$ might be closed in $X$ and thus in $M \oplus N$ but it does not have to be closed in the completion $\overline{M \oplus N}$. In general, if we have $A \subset B \subset C$ three vector spaces with $A$ closed in $B$, we don't necessarily have that $A$ is closed in $C$ if $B$ is not closed in $C$. For example, consider $C := \ell^2$, $B := \mathrm{span}(e_n \mid n \in \mathbb{N})$ and $A := \mathrm{span}(e_{2n} \mid n \in \mathbb{N})$, with $(e_n)_n$ the usual Schauder basis of $\ell^2$, $e_n := (0, \cdots, 0, 1, 0, \cdots, 0, \cdots)$ with $1$ at the $n$-th position. – Bruno B Jul 27 '23 at 12:01
  • (Just to clarify, this is about your usage of the "closedness of $M$" towards the end). – Bruno B Jul 27 '23 at 12:05
  • you are right, actually I was just noticing the same thing. I will change everything to complete and so it seems it might only work if M is complete from the beginning. – bananananabatman Jul 27 '23 at 12:20
  • corrected it, thanks! – bananananabatman Jul 27 '23 at 12:49