An introduction to the Hahn-Banach extension theorem: Part VI

In this post we sketch a second proof of the Hahn-Banach Extension Theorem for continuous linear functionals on real normed spaces, this time using transfinite induction. We omit some of the details, which the reader can fill in. In particular, some of the details are similar to those involved in proving the claim made in Part V (when we obtained an upper bound for a chain).

For a non-zero ordinal γ, recall that, with ordinal interval notation, we have γ=[0,γ). That is, γ is equal to the set of all ordinals which are strictly less than γ. However, we use ordinal interval notation throughout. If you prefer to use γ instead of [0,γ) that is fine, of course!

Looking at the Wikipedia page on the Hahn-Banach Theorem, apparently both Hahn and Banach (independently) used transfinite induction in their proofs, rather than Zorn's Lemma.

Theorem (Hahn-Banach Extension Theorem for linear functionals on normed spaces over R

Let (E,) be a normed space over R, and let F be a linear subspace of E. Let ψF. Then there exists ϕE with ϕop=ψop and such that ϕ is an extension of ψ.

Sketch of a proof using transfinite induction

[The reader should fill in any details of claims which appear unobvious.]

We may assume that FE. Let B be a non-empty subset of E with the property that F+linB is dense in E.

[For example, we could take B to be E, or EF, or a Hamel basis for E, etc.]

Then there exists a non-zero ordinal γ such that there is a surjection αvα from the ordinal interval [0,γ) to B

[Here we use the Well Ordering Principle if (as is generally the case) B doesn't come with a natural well order.]

We then have

B={vα:α[0,γ)}.

We set F0=F and, more generally, we define linear subspaces Fα (α[0,γ]) of E by

Fα=lin(F{vβ:β[0,α)})=F+lin{vβ:β[0,α)}.

Note that, for all α[0,γ), we have Fα+1=Fα+lin{vα}. Also, for every non-zero limit ordinal δγ, we have

Fδ=α[0,δ)Fα.

Note that Fγ is dense in E.

We now choose/define inductively linear functionals ψαEα (α[0,γ]) satisfying the following two conditions:

(i)αψαop=ψop

and

(ii)αfor all β[0,α], we have ψα|Fβ=ψβ.

Here is a sketch of how the induction works.

We set ψ0=ψF=F0. Clearly (i)0 and (ii)0 hold.

Now let δ(0,γ] and suppose that, for all α[0,δ), we have chosen ψα satisfying  (i)α and (ii)α.

If δ=α+1 for some ordinal α, then we have Fδ=Fα+lin{vα}. We can use the Hahn-Banach key lemma to extend ψα to ψδFδ with ψδop=ψαop. Then it is clear that (i)δ and (ii)δ hold.

If, instead, δ is a non-zero limit ordinal, then we have 

Fδ=α[0,δ)Fα.

There is then a unique function ψδ:FδR  such that, for all α[0,δ), we have ψδ|Fα=ψα

[Here we use the "consistency" provided by (ii)α for all α[0,δ).]

Moreover, ψδFδ and ψδop=ψop.

[Here the details are similar to the proof of the claim in Part V, this time using both (i)α and (ii)α for α[0,δ).]

It is now clear that (i)δ and (ii)δ are satisfied.

The induction may proceed.

This now gives us ψγFγ with ψγ|F=ψ and ψγop=ψop.

Depending on how we chose B at the start, we might have Fγ=E, in which case we can just take ϕ=ψγ.

Otherwise, we still have that Fγ is dense in E. Thus ψγ has a unique extension to ϕE, and we have ϕop=ψγop=ψop, as required.

This is the last post in this series. However, I may return to the Hahn-Banach topic later in order to discuss a more general version in terms of  sublinear functions. See the Wikipedia page on the Hahn-Banach Theorem. In particular, see the section on the Geometric Hahn-Banach separation theorems.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A rule of thumb for when to use the Ratio Test

Discussion of the proof that the uniform norm really is a norm