5
$\begingroup$

Given a real vector space $V$ which is the union of a totally ordered family of vector subspaces $V=\bigcup_{i\in I} V_i$. By that I mean that we assume that $(I,\leq)$ is a totally ordered set and that $V_i\subseteq V_j$ whenever $i \leq j$.

Furthermore, assume that on each $V_i$ there is a norm $\|\cdot\|_{i}$ turning it into a Banach space. And lastly, assume that for each $i\leq j$ the inclusion from $V_i$ to $V_j$ is a topological embedding.

My question is:

Is it always possible to change the norms $\|\cdot\|_{i}$ to equivalent norms $\|| \cdot |\|_i$ such that the inclusion maps become isometric embeddings instead of only topological ones ?

My thoughts so far:

If $I$ consists only of two elements $I=\{1,2\}$, then this is always possible: I found two essentially different approaches here: The hard way: Keep the norm on $V_1$ and adjust the norm on $V_2$ such that the inclusion is an isometric embedding. This is a bit tricky but always posible.

The easy way: Keep the norm on $V_2$ and restrict it to $V_1$ to obtain a new norm on $V_1$. It is equivalent to the given norm on $V_1$ since we assumed that the inclusion is a topological embedding.

Both methods work.

More generally, if $I$ has a maximum, then the "easy way" method above directly generalizes and solves this case.

And if $I=\mathbb N$, one can keep the first norm and then recursively use the "hard way" method to adjust the other norms one at a time.

What about other totally ordered sets, like $I=(\mathbb R,\leq)$ ? I would guess that one could use the "hard way" to go recursively through all the natural numbers and then use the "easy way" method to take care of all the other numbers, but I am not sure about the details here.

For more general totally ordered sets, I have no clue. It would be very interesting to see a counter-example as I have no idea where it should come from...

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Did you consider the Banach space which is the direct limit of $(V_j)_{j\in I}$ as you described? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 16, 2022 at 19:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @OnurOktay How are you defining this direct limit, if the transition maps are not already assumed to be norm-decreasing? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 17, 2022 at 0:27
  • $\begingroup$ @YemonChoi Sir, it is a great question to ponder when $\limsup$ of the norms of the connecting maps $=\infty$. Would you recommend this expository paper to a newcomer? eweb.unex.es/eweb/extracta/Vol-25-2/25J2Castillo.pdf Specifically section 4.2 is about the direct limits of Banach spaces. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 17, 2022 at 11:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @OnurOktay: Thank you for the expository paper. By the way: Could this limsup also become zero and wouldn't that also blow everything up? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 17, 2022 at 18:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I wrote up some notes at github.com/MatthewDaws/Mathematics/tree/master/Inductive-Limits about inductive limits of Banach Algebras (but it also works for spaces, obviously) at the generality of allowing the limsup to be finite, but the connecting maps not necessarily contractions (as is usually assumed in e.g. the notes Onur Oktay links to). I cannot shed light on the question away from this condition. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 18, 2022 at 11:01

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.