In this post we prove the general Hahn-Banach Extension Theorem for continuous linear functionals on real normed spaces. (As we saw in Part IV, the result for complex normed spaces then follows from this.)
Here we give the usual proof using Zorn's Lemma. In the next post we will give a second proof using transfinite induction, similar to the proof we gave for separable normed spaces.
Let (E,‖⋅‖) be a normed space over R, and let F be a linear subspace of E. Let ψ∈F∗. Then there exists ϕ∈E∗ with ‖ϕ‖op=‖ψ‖op and such that ϕ is an extension of ψ.
Proof using Zorn's Lemma
Let set S to be the set of all ordered pairs (Y,θ) of the following form:
- Y is a linear subspace of E with F⊆Y and
- θ∈Y∗, θ|F=ψ, and ‖θ‖op=‖ψ‖op.
Certainly (F,ψ)∈S, and so S≠∅.
We need to show that there exists ϕ∈E∗ such that (E,ϕ)∈S. To show this, we introduce a suitable partial order ≲ on S, and then apply Zorn's Lemma.
We define ≲ as follows. Let (Y1,θ1).(Y2,θ2)∈S. Then
(Y1,θ1)≲(Y2,θ2)⇔Y1⊆Y2 and θ2|Y1=θ1.
A routine set of checks shows that ≲ really is a partial order on S: we leave these checks to the reader!
Now let C be a non-empty chain in (S,≲). We show that C has an upper bound in S.
[Since S≠∅, we do not need to consider the empty chain.]
In fact we prove a bit more, and this will be something that we can also use in the second proof (in our next post).
Set
Y0=⋃(Y,θ)∈CY.
We attempt to define θ0:Y0→F as follows.
Let x∈Y0. Then there exists (Y,θ)∈C with x∈Y. We wish to define θ0(x)=θ(x).
We claim:
- θ0 is well defined on Y0;
- (Y0,θ0)∈S;
- (Y0,θ0) is an upper bound for C.
[We will refer back to this claim in our second proof in the next post.]
1. To check that θ0 is well defined, let x∈Y0, and suppose that (E1,θ1) and (E2,θ2) are in C with x∈E1 and x∈E2. We show that θ1(x)=θ2(x).
Since C is a chain in S, by symmetry we may assume that (E1,θ1)≲(E2,θ2). But then θ2|E1=θ1, and so θ1(x)=θ2(x). this proves the first part of our claim.
2. None of this is hard, but it takes a while to write it out in full!
It is relatively standard (and routine) that, with respect to the usual partial order (by inclusion), the union of a non-empty chain of linear subspaces of E is a linear subspace of E.
[The reader may check the details, which are similar to the linearity check below.]
From this, and the definition of S, it is clear that Y0 is a linear subspace of E, and that F⊆Y0.
We next check that θ0 is a linear map from S0 to F. This is again relatively routine, but let's look at the details this time.
Let x1,x2∈S0 and let α1,α2∈F. Then there exist (E1,θ1) and (E2,θ2) in C such that x1∈E1 and x2∈E2.
Again (since C is a chain in S), by symmetry, we may assume that (E1,θ1)≲(E2,θ2). But then x1, x2 and α1x1+α2x2 are all in the linear subspace E2, and we have, since θ2 is linear,
θ0(α1x1+α2x2)=θ2(α1x1+α2x2)=α1θ2(x1)+α2θ2(x2)=α1θ0(x1)+α2θ0(x2).
Thus θ0 is a linear map from Y0 to F.
We next check that θ0 is continuous, and satisfies ‖θ0‖op≤‖ψ‖op. This is easy from the definition of θ0 and S.
Let x∈Y0. Then there exists (Y,θ)∈C with x∈Y. By definition of θ0, we have θ0(x)=θ(x).
By the definition of S, we know that ‖θ‖op=‖ψ‖op. Thus
|θ0(x)|=|θ(x)|≤‖ψ‖op‖x‖.
This shows that θ0∈Y∗0, and ‖θ0‖op≤‖ψ‖op.
Next we check that θ0|F=ψ. This is again easy. Since C is non-empty, take any (Y,theta)∈C.
Let x∈F. Then, by definition of S, we have x∈Y and θ(x)=ψ(x). Also, by definition of θ0, θ0(x)=θ(x)=ψ(x). This holds for all x∈F, and so we have θ0|F=ψ.
From this we also obtain ‖θ0‖op≥‖ψ‖op, and so equality holds.
This (finally!) completes the proof of 2.: (Y0,θ0)∈S.
3. Given the work above, it is now almost immediate that (S0,θ0) is an upper bound for C. The only comment that might be worth making is the fact that, for all (E,θ)∈C, θ0|E=θ by the definition of θ0.
We now know that every chain (including the empty chain) in the non-empty partially ordered set S has an upper bound. So by Zorn's Lemma, S has a maximal element (Ymax.
We claim that Y_\max=E. If not, then, there exists y \in E \setminus Y_\max, and, by the Hahn-Banach key lemma, \theta_\max can be extended to a bounded linear functional on Y_\max \oplus \lin\{y\} with the same operator norm. But this would contradict the maximality of (Y_\max,\theta_\max) in S.
[Again, the reader seeing this for the first time may wish to fill in a few extra details.]
Thus we must have Y_\max = E, and we may take \phi = \theta_\max \in E^*. This \phi has the desired properties.\quad\quad\square
In the next post (the final post in this series, I think) we use the claim we proved above along with transfinite induction to prove the theorem again, in a similar way to the proof of the separable case from an earlier post.
All that we really need for this is, for some ordinal \gamma, vectors v_\alpha (\alpha<\gamma) in E such that F+\lin\{v_\alpha:\alpha<\gamma\} is dense in E. On the other hand, assuming the axiom of choice, E itself can be well-ordered, and we can actually find an ordinal \gamma and vectors v_\alpha (\alpha<\gamma) such that \{v_\alpha:\alpha<\gamma\}=E. Or we might prefer to arrange that \{v_\alpha:\alpha<\gamma\} is a Hamel basis for E.
Without some form of the axiom of choice, if E is not separable, we would not usually expect to find such vectors v_\alpha explicitly, unless there is something special about E and/or the subspace F.
Comments
Post a Comment