Abstract
For \(1\le p<\infty \), we prove that the dense subspace \(\mathcal {Y}_p\) of \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) comprising all elements y such that \(y \in \ell _q(\Gamma )\) for some \(q \in (0,p)\) admits a \(C^{\infty }\)-smooth norm which locally depends on finitely many coordinates. Moreover, such a norm can be chosen as to approximate the \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _p\)-norm. This provides examples of dense subspaces of \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) with a smooth norm which have the maximal possible linear dimension and are not obtained as the linear span of a biorthogonal system. Moreover, when \(p>1\) or \(\Gamma \) is countable, such subspaces additionally contain dense operator ranges; on the other hand, no non-separable operator range in \(\ell _1(\Gamma )\) admits a \(C^1\)-smooth norm.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The present paper is a continuation of the research of the authors [4, 5, 12], dedicated to the study of smoothness in (incomplete) normed spaces. The main question that we face in this ongoing project is the following: given a Banach space \(\mathcal {X}\) and \(k\in \mathbb {N}\cup \{\infty ,\omega \}\) is there a dense subspace \(\mathcal {Y}\) of \(\mathcal {X}\) such that \(\mathcal {Y}\) admits a \(C^k\)-smooth norm? (By definition, \(C^\omega \)-smooth means analytic; however, the case \(k=\omega \) will not be considered in this article.) Such a line of research can be traced back at least to the papers [9, 20] from the early Nineties, where it is proved that every separable Banach space admits a dense subspace with a \(C^\infty \)-smooth norm. In particular, for a separable normed space \(\mathcal {X}\) the existence of a \(C^1\)-smooth norm does not imply that \(\mathcal {X}^*\) is separable, a result that is possibly surprising at first sight. Our goal in [4, 5] was to push such a theory to the non-separable context and it culminated in the main result of [5] asserting that every Banach space with a fundamental biorthogonal system has a dense subspace with a \(C^\infty \)-smooth norm (let us also refer to the same paper for a more thorough introduction to the subject).
As it turns out, in most of the above results, the dense subspace \(\mathcal {Y}\) of \(\mathcal {X}\) is the linear span of a certain biorthogonal system in \(\mathcal {X}\) (the unique exception being [4, Theorem 3.1] where an analytic norm is constructed in the dense subspace \(\ell _\infty ^F=\textrm{span}\{{\varvec{1}}_A:A\subseteq \mathbb {N}\}\) of \(\ell _\infty \)). In particular, when \(\mathcal {X}\) is separable, the subspace \(\mathcal {Y}\) has countable dimension (namely, it is the linear span of a countable set). In this paper we focus on the classical (long) sequence spaces and we show that it is possible to go beyond this limitation; in particular, we build \(C^\infty \)-smooth norms on dense subspaces that are ‘large’ in a sense that we specify below. More precisely, the following is our main result (for the necessary notation, we refer the reader to Sect. 1.1 below).
Main Theorem
Let \(1\le p <\infty \) and \(\Gamma \) be any infinite set. Then
is a dense subspace of \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) which admits a \(C^{\infty }\)-smooth and LFC norm that approximates the \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _p\)-norm.
Plainly, when p is an even integer, the canonical norm of \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) is \(C^\infty \)-smooth, hence the \(C^\infty \)-smoothness part of the theorem is obvious. On the other hand, if \(p\notin 2\mathbb {N}\), \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) does not have any \(C^{\big \lceil p \big \rceil }\)-smooth norm (\(\big \lceil p \big \rceil \) denotes the ceiling of p) [10, p. 295]. Moreover, no \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) has an LFC norm [18], so in order to obtain an LFC norm in the main theorem it is indeed necessary to pass to the subspace \(\mathcal {Y}_p\). Finally, recall that \(c_0(\Gamma )\) has a \(C^\infty \)-smooth and LFC norm [10, p. 284], for which reason we do not consider \(c_0(\Gamma )\) in our result. Also, notice that we don’t consider \(\ell _\infty (\Gamma )\) in our result simply because the corresponding subspace \(\mathcal {Y}_\infty \) is not dense in \(\ell _\infty (\Gamma )\).
Let us now discuss the novelty of the result. First of all, for every \(1\le p<\infty \), the dense subspace \(\mathcal {Y}_p\) of \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) has the same linear dimension of \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\), hence it is as large as possible in the linear sense. In particular, in the case of \(\ell _p\), i.e., when \(\Gamma \) is countable, we obtain a dense subspace of dimension continuum. This is in sharp contrast with the results in [4, 5, 9, 20], where the dense subspaces had dimension equal to the density character of the Banach space \(\mathcal {X}\). Comparing this result with [9], it seems conceivable to conjecture that for every separable Banach space \(\mathcal {X}\) there is a dense subspace \(\mathcal {Y}\) of dimension continuum and with a \(C^\infty \)-smooth norm. We leave the validity of such a conjecture as an open problem.
Moreover, if \({\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \cdot \right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| }\) is a norm on \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) that coincides with the \(C^\infty \)-smooth and LFC one on \(\mathcal {Y}_p\), then it is standard to verify (see, e.g., the proof of [5, Corollary 3.5]) that the norm \({\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \cdot \right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| }\) is \(C^\infty \)-smooth and LFC at every point of \(\mathcal {Y}_p\) (as a function on \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\)). In lineability terms, this assertion can be restated as stating that the set of points in \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) where the norm \({\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \cdot \right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| }\) is \(C^\infty \)-smooth and LFC is maximal densely lineable in \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\). Let us refer to [1, 2, 17] and the references therein for information on lineability in Banach spaces and for the relevant definitions.
Finally, there is a second sense in which the subspace \(\mathcal {Y}_p\) can be considered to be ‘large’, which is connected to the notion of operator ranges, [3, 7, 8]. Recall that a normed space \(\mathcal {Y}\) is an operator range if there are a Banach space \(\mathcal {Z}\) and a surjective bounded linear operator \(T:\mathcal {Z}\rightarrow \mathcal {Y}\) (and, up to passing to a suitable quotient, one can assume that T is injective); in other words, \(\mathcal {Y}\) is the linear (injective) image of a Banach space. Notice that operator ranges bear a certain form of completeness, since, for instance, they satisfy the Baire Category Theorem, even if in a finer linear topology. When \(p>1\), it is clear that \(\mathcal {Y}_p\) contains a dense operator range, since the Banach space \(\ell _1(\Gamma )\) injects in \(\mathcal {Y}_p\). Hence, when \(p>1\), our theorem also implies the existence of a dense operator range in \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) that admits a \(C^\infty \)-smooth and LFC norm. On the other hand, the situation is different when \(p=1\) (and \(\Gamma \) is uncountable): indeed, it is a folklore result, essentially due to Rosenthal [19], that every non-separable operator range in \(\ell _1(\Gamma )\) contains an isomorphic copy of \(\ell _1(\omega _1)\), hence it admits no \(C^1\)-smooth norm (see Proposition 3.1). This result is extremely relevant to the topic of the paper, since it is one of the few instances where an incomplete normed space is proved not to admit any \(C^1\)-smooth norm. Moreover it is also the first occurrence where \(\ell _1(\Gamma )\) behaves worse than \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) (\(1<p<\infty \)) for what concerns the existence of smooth norms on dense subspaces. Such behaviour was to be expected, but it was not present in the literature so far; quite surprisingly, there are in fact instances of the opposite situation (see the discussion concerning Theorem A(iii) in [4]).
1.1 Definitions and notation
All the spaces that we consider in the paper are real normed spaces. If \(\mathcal {X}\) is a normed space, then the norm \(\left\| \cdot \right\| \) of \(\mathcal {X}\) is said to be \(C^k\)-smooth if its k-th Fréchet derivative exists and it is continuous at every point of \(\mathcal {X}\setminus \{0\}\). When this holds for every \(k \in \mathbb {N}\), the norm is \(C^\infty \)-smooth. The norm \(\left\| \cdot \right\| \) locally depends on finitely many coordinates (is LFC, for short) on \(\mathcal {X}\) if for each \(x\in \mathcal {X}\setminus \{0\}\) there exist an open neighbourhood \(\mathcal {U}\) of x, functionals \(\varphi _1,\dots ,\varphi _k \in \mathcal {X}^*\), and a function \(G:\mathbb {R}^k\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) such that
We say that a norm \(\left\| \cdot \right\| \) on \(\mathcal {X}\) can be approximated by norms with a certain property P if, for every \(\varepsilon >0\), there is an equivalent norm \({\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \cdot \right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| }\) on \(\mathcal {X}\) with property P and such that \((1-\varepsilon ){\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \cdot \right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| }\le \left\| \cdot \right\| \le (1+\varepsilon ){\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \cdot \right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| }\). For further information concerning smoothness we refer to the monographs [6, 10].
If \(x:\Gamma \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) and \(p\in (0,\infty )\), we write as usual
When \(p\ge 1\), \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) is obviously a Banach space with the norm \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _p\), while for \(p\in (0,1)\) it is only a quasi-Banach space and \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _p\) is a quasi-norm. When \(0<q<p<\infty \), we sometimes write \(\ell _q(\Gamma ) \subseteq \ell _p(\Gamma )\), by which we mean the inclusion of the corresponding underlying vector spaces (which is also a continuous injection of (quasi-)Banach spaces).
We write \(\mathbb {N}\) for the set of positive natural numbers and \(\mathbb {N}_0{:}{=}\mathbb {N}\cup \{0\}\). We write \(\omega _1\) for the smallest uncountable ordinal. We denote by |A| the cardinality of a set A. Given a set \(\Gamma \), we use the standard set-theoretic notation \([\Gamma ]^{<\omega } {:}{=}\{A\subseteq \Gamma :|A|<\infty \}\).
2 Proof of the main theorem
In this section we provide the proof of our main theorem. The argument is inspired by the proof of [4, Theorem 4.1]; in particular, the formula for the norm and the scheme of the argument are essentially the same. Nevertheless, the similarity between the two proofs is more formal than substantial due to the crucial part of the proof (Claim 2.1 below, that corresponds to [4, Claim 4.2]) which is rather different in the two papers: indeed, in the present paper we require some new ingredients, including combinatorial ones and finer estimates.
In what follows, we occasionally write \(a_k \sim b_k\) to mean that the scalar sequences \((a_k)_{k=1}^\infty \) and \((b_k)_{k=1}^\infty \) are asymptotic (i.e., \(a_k/b_k\rightarrow 1\) as \(k\rightarrow \infty \)).
Proof of the Main Theorem
Let us start by choosing some parameters. Let \((\delta _k)_{k=0}^{\infty } \subseteq \mathbb {R}\) be a decreasing sequence with
Next, let \((\theta _k)_{k=0}^{\infty } \subseteq \mathbb {R}\) be another decreasing sequence such that
Additionally, fixed \(\varepsilon >0\), the sequences are chosen so that
Next, we fix some notation we will be using throughout the proof. For \(A\in [\Gamma ]^{<\omega }\), we identify \(\ell _p(A)\) with the finite-dimensional subspace of \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) comprising all vectors with support contained in A. Moreover, when \(x\in \ell _p(\Gamma )\), we define \(Ax\in \ell _p(A)\) as
In other words, we also denote by A the canonical projection from \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) onto \(\ell _p(A)\). Since \(\ell _p(A)\) is finite-dimensional, \(C^\infty \)-smooth norms are dense in \(\ell _p(A)\), hence there exists a \(C^\infty \)-smooth norm \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _{s,A}\) on \(\ell _p(A)\) that \(\frac{1}{1 + \theta _{|A|}}\)-approximates the \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _p\)-norm (\(\left\| \cdot \right\| _{s,A}\) is also trivially LFC). In particular, for every \(y\in \mathcal {Y}\) we have
Finally, in several computations it will be more convenient to use, instead of \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _p\), the following auxiliary equivalent norm on \(\mathcal {Y}\)
The norm \(\nu \) approximates the norm \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _p\) on \(\mathcal {Y}\); more precisely,
We now come to the crucial part of the proof, where we prove the following ‘strong maximum’ result.
Claim 2.1
Let \(x \in \mathcal {Y}\) be such that \(\nu (x) \le 1\). Then there exist an open neighbourhood \(\mathcal {O}_{x}\) of x and a finite collection of subsets \({\mathfrak {F}}_{x} \subseteq [\Gamma ]^{<\omega }\) such that, for each \(y \in \mathcal {O}_{x}\) and each \(A \in [\Gamma ]^{<\omega } {\setminus } {\mathfrak {F}}_{x}\), we have
Proof of Claim 2.1
In fact, we prove a stronger estimate that only involves the point x. Indeed, we show that there exist a finite collection of subsets \({\mathfrak {F}}_x \subseteq [\Gamma ]^{<\omega }\) and \(k_0 \in \mathbb {N}\) such that, for every \(A \in [\Gamma ]^{<\omega } \setminus {\mathfrak {F}}_x\), we have
Let us show first that (2.7) is indeed stronger than (2.6). Suppose that we have proved (2.7). Define the following open neighbourhood of x:
Then, for every \(A \in [\Gamma ]^{<\omega } \setminus {\mathfrak {F}}_x\) and \(y \in \mathcal {O}_x\), we have that
If \(|A|\le k_0\), we use (2.7) and continue from the above inequalities
Similarly, if \(|A| > k_0\),
Therefore to prove Claim 2.1 all we need to do is to prove (2.7). In order to do so, let us consider the sequence \((\phi _k(x))_{k=1}^{\infty }\) defined by
Note that the supremum above is actually attained. Indeed, if \((\gamma _j)_{j=1}^{\infty } \subseteq \Gamma \) is an injective sequence such that \({{\,\textrm{supp}\,}}(x) \subseteq \{\gamma _j\}_{j=1}^{\infty }\) and \(\big (|x(\gamma _j)| \big )_{j=1}^{\infty }\) is non-increasing, it is clear that
Claim 2.2
There exists \(k_0\in \mathbb {N}\) such that \(\phi _{k+1}(x)\le \phi _k(x)\) for every \(k \ge k_0\).
Proof of Claim 2.2
Clearly, \(\phi _{k+1}(x)\le \phi _k(x)\) is equivalent to
which is in turn equivalent to
Thus, it is enough to check that (2.8) is true for all large enough k. By using first-order Taylor expansions and (2.1) we readily get
As the sequence \(\left( \sum _{j=1}^k |x(\gamma _j)|^p \right) _{n=1}^{\infty }\) is non-decreasing and bounded, for some constant \(C > 0\) we thus have that
We now estimate the left-hand side of (2.8). Since \(x \in \mathcal {Y}\), there exists \(q < p\) such that \(x \in \ell _q(\Gamma )\). By definition of the sequence \((\gamma _j)_{j=1}^\infty \), for every \(k \in \mathbb {N}\), we have thatFootnote 1
In other words, there exists \({\tilde{C}} > 0\) such that
Comparing (2.9) and (2.10) and recalling that \(\frac{p}{q}>1\), it is clear that (2.8) is true for k sufficiently large, which proves Claim 2.2 as desired. \(\square \)
We now return to the proof of Claim 2.1. Note first that \((1+\delta _k)\phi _k(x)\le \nu (x)\), for every \(k\in \mathbb {N}\). Let \(k_0\in \mathbb {N}\) be as in Claim 2.2. Then, for every set \(A\in [\Gamma ]^{<\omega }\) with \(|A|>k_0\), we have
It remains to prove that there exists a finite subset \({\mathfrak {F}}_x\) of \([\Gamma ]^{<\omega }\) such that, for each \(A \in [\Gamma ]^{<\omega } {\setminus } {\mathfrak {F}}_x\) with \(|A| \le k_0\), we have that \((1 + \delta _{|A|})^2 \Vert Ax\Vert _p \le 1 - 2 \theta _{|A|}\). Suppose that this is not the case. Then, there exists a sequence of mutually distinct sets \((A_j)_{j=1}^{\infty } \subseteq \Gamma \) with \(|A_j|\le k_0\) for every \(j\in \mathbb {N}\) and such that
Up to passing to a subsequence, we can assume that there is \(k\in \mathbb {N}\) such that \(|A_j|=k\) for every \(j\in \mathbb {N}\). Hence, since all the sets \(A_j\) have the same cardinality, we can apply the Delta System Lemma for countable families (see, for instance, [16, p. 167]). Therefore, there exist a subsequence of \((A_j)_{j=1}^{\infty }\), still denoted by \((A_j)_{j=1}^{\infty }\), and a set \(\Delta \in [\Gamma ]^{<\omega }\) (possibly empty) such that \(A_i\cap A_j=\Delta \) for every \(i\ne j\). Notice that \(|\Delta | \le k-1\) because the sets \(A_j\) are mutually distinct. Now, since the elements of the sequence \((A_j \setminus \Delta )_{j=1}^{\infty }\) are disjoint and \(x \in \ell _p(\Gamma )\), we have that
Thus, taking the limit when \(j \rightarrow \infty \) in (2.11), we get that
which will yield a contradiction. Indeed, since \((1+\delta _{|\Delta |})^2 \Vert \Delta (x)\Vert _p \le \nu (x) \le 1\) and \(|\Delta | \le k-1\), (2.12) yields
which is absurd. This concludes the proof of Claim 2.1. \(\square \)
From this point on, we just have to glue together the ingredients in the standard way. Even if the argument is the same as in [4, Theorem 4.1], we give the details for the sake of being self-contained.
For every \(n\in \mathbb {N}_0\), let \(\rho _n:\mathbb {R}\rightarrow [0,\infty )\) be a \(C^{\infty }\)-smooth, even, and convex function such that \(\rho _n\equiv 0\) on \([0,1- \theta _n^2]\) and \(\rho _n(1)=1\). Then, for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}_0\), we have that \(\rho _n(t) \le 1\) if and only if \(|t|\le 1\). Define \(\Psi :\mathcal {Y}\rightarrow [0,\infty ]\) by
Let \(x \in \mathcal {Y}\) with \(\nu (x) \le 1\) and take \(\mathcal {O}_x\) and \({\mathfrak {F}}_x\) as in Claim 2.1. If \(y\in \mathcal {O}_x\) and \(A \in [\Gamma ]^{<\omega } {\setminus } {\mathfrak {F}}_x\), we have that
which implies that \(\rho _{|A|} \Big ((1+\delta _{|A|})^2 \cdot (1+\theta _{|A|})\cdot \Vert Ay\Vert _{s,A} \Big ) = 0\). Hence, on the set \(\mathcal {O}_x\), only the finitely many summands with \(A\in {\mathfrak {F}}_x\) are different from 0. Also, note that each summand in (2.13) is \(C^\infty \)-smooth on \(\mathcal {Y}\) (each summand vanishes in a neighbourhood of 0, so \(\Psi \) is also differentiable there). Therefore, \(\Psi \) is (real-valued and) \(C^\infty \)-smooth and LFC on the open set \(\mathcal {O}\) defined by
Next, we note that the convex and symmetric set \(\{\Psi <1\}\) is contained in \(\{\nu \le 1\} \subseteq \mathcal {O}\) (hence it is also open, as \(\Psi \) is continuous on \(\mathcal {O}\)). Indeed, if \(\Psi (x)<1\), then \(\rho _{|A|} \Big ((1+\delta _{|A|})^2 \cdot (1+\theta _{|A|})\cdot \Vert Ax\Vert _{s,A} \Big ) \le 1\) for every \(A \in [\Gamma ]^{<\omega }\). So the properties of the functions \(\rho _n\) give
and \(\nu (x)\le 1\). Moreover, the set \(\{\Psi \le 1-\theta _1\}\) is closed in \(\mathcal {Y}\) by the lower semi-continuity of \(\Psi \). Hence, a standard consequence of the Implicit Function Theorem (see [4, Lemma 2.5] or [10, Chapter 5, Lemma 23]) implies that the Minkowski functional \({\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \cdot \right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| }\) of \(\{\Psi \le 1-\theta _1\}\) is an equivalent \(C^\infty \)-smooth and LFC norm on \(\mathcal {Y}\).
It remains to check that \({\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\left| \cdot \right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| \hspace{-1.0625pt}\right| }\) approximates \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _p\). For this aim, we first show that \(\Psi (x)=0\) whenever \(\nu (x)\le \frac{1-\theta _1}{1+\theta _1}\). Indeed, if \(x\in \mathcal {Y}\) satisfies \(\nu (x)\le \frac{1-\theta _1}{1+\theta _1}\), then for every \(A \in [\Gamma ]^{<\omega }\), we have that
Hence \(\Psi (x) = 0\). Combining this inclusion with the inclusion \(\{\Psi \le 1\} \subseteq \{\nu \le 1\}\), which was proved above, we have that
Together with (2.5) we finally reach the conclusion that
\(\square \)
3 Operator ranges in \(\ell _{1}(\Gamma )\)
In this short section, we discuss the problem of whether \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) (for \(1\le p<\infty \)) contains a dense operator range with a \(C^\infty \)-smooth and LFC norm. As we mentioned already in the Introduction, operator ranges bear a certain form of completeness, that is not shared by all normed spaces (for example, recall the standard fact that there is no complete norm on a normed space of dimension less than continuum). For this reason, building a smooth norm on an operator range is more complicated than building one on a general normed space.
When \(p>1\) we have observed before that \(\mathcal {Y}_p\) contains a dense operator range, since there is a continuous linear injection of \(\ell _1(\Gamma )\) in \(\mathcal {Y}_p\). Therefore, \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) contains a dense operator range with a \(C^\infty \)-smooth and LFC norm (by the Main Theorem). Here it is perhaps worth noting that, by the Closed Graph Theorem, \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) is not an operator range in \(\ell _1(\Gamma )\), for \(p<1\). (Indeed, if \(T:\mathcal {Z}\rightarrow (\ell _p(\Gamma ),\left\| \cdot \right\| _1)\) is a continuous bijection, where \(\mathcal {Z}\) is a Banach space, then \(T:\mathcal {Z}\rightarrow (\ell _p(\Gamma ),\left\| \cdot \right\| _p)\) has closed graph. Hence, by the Closed Graph Theorem for Fréchet spaces, \(T:\mathcal {Z}\rightarrow (\ell _p(\Gamma ),\left\| \cdot \right\| _p)\) would be continuous, hence an isomorphism, which is impossible.)
Thus when \(p=1\) the situation is different and the result actually depends on the cardinality of \(\Gamma \). If \(\Gamma \) is countable, then \(\mathcal {Y}_1\) still contains a dense operator range. In fact, it is sufficient to find a continuous linear injection of \(\ell _\infty \) into \(\mathcal {Y}_1\), which is simply given by the map \(T:\ell _\infty \rightarrow \ell _{1/2}\) defined by
Hence, \(\ell _1\) also contains a dense operator range with a \(C^\infty \)-smooth and LFC norm. This ceases to be true for uncountable \(\Gamma \), as the next result shows. It is essentially due to Rosenthal [19] and, in a slightly weaker form, it can also be found in [13, Lemma 3.8]. Yet, a direct proof is so short that we give it here for the sake of completeness.
Proposition 3.1
Let \(\mathcal {Y}\) be a non-separable operator range in \(\ell _1(\Gamma )\). Then \(\mathcal {Y}\) contains an isomorphic copy of \(\ell _1(\omega _1)\); in particular, \(\mathcal {Y}\) admits no Fréchet smooth norm.
Proof
Let \(\mathcal {Z}\) be a Banach space and \(T:\mathcal {Z}\rightarrow \ell _1(\Gamma )\) be a bounded linear operator such that \(\mathcal {Y}=T[\mathcal {Z}]\). Then \({\overline{\mathcal {Y}}}\) is a non-separable closed subspace of \(\ell _1(\Gamma )\), hence it contains an isomorphic copy of \(\ell _1(\omega _1)\), [15, (5) on p.185]. Let \((y_\alpha )_{\alpha <\omega _1}\) be equivalent to the canonical basis of \(\ell _1(\omega _1)\), fix \(\varepsilon >0\), and take \(z_\alpha \in \mathcal {Z}\) with \(\Vert y_\alpha - Tz_\alpha \Vert <\varepsilon \). If \(\varepsilon >0\) is sufficiently small, the sequence \((Tz_\alpha )_{\alpha <\omega _1}\) is also equivalent to the canonical basis of \(\ell _1(\omega _1)\) (see, e.g., [11, Lemma 5.2], or [14, Example 30.12]). Moreover, up to passing to an uncountable subset of \(\omega _1\) and relabelling, we can assume that \((z_\alpha )_{\alpha <\omega _1}\) is a bounded set. Consequently, the linear map \(S:\textrm{span}\{Tz_\alpha \} _{\alpha<\omega _1} \rightarrow \textrm{span}\{z_\alpha \} _{\alpha <\omega _1}\) defined by \(Tz_\alpha \mapsto z_\alpha \) (\(\alpha <\omega _1\)) is bounded. So \(T\mathord {\upharpoonright }_{\overline{\textrm{span}} \{z_\alpha \} _{\alpha <\omega _1}}\) is an isomorphic embedding, and we are done. \(\square \)
Notes
This is essentially the Chebyshev–Markov inequality.
References
Aron, R., Bernal-González, L., Pellegrino, D.M., Seoane-Sepúlveda, J.B.: Lineability: The Search for Linearity in Mathematics. Monographs and Research Notes in Mathematics. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2016)
Bernal-González, L., Pellegrino, D.M., Seoane-Sepúlveda, J.B.: Linear subsets of nonlinear sets in topological vector spaces. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 51, 71–130 (2014)
Cross, R.W., Ostrovskii, M.I., Shevchik, V.V.: Operator ranges in Banach spaces. I. Math. Nachr. 173, 91–114 (1995)
Dantas, S., Hájek, P., Russo, T.: Smooth norms in dense subspaces of Banach spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 487, 123963 (2020)
Dantas, S., Hájek, P., Russo, T.: Smooth and polyhedral norms via fundamental biorthogonal systems. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rnac211
Deville, R., Godefroy, G., Zizler, V.: Smoothness and Renormings in Banach Spaces. Pitman Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 64. Longman, Essex (1993)
Fonf, V.P., Johnson, W.B., Plichko, A.M., Shevchyk, V.V.: Covering a compact set in a Banach space by an operator range of a Banach space with basis. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 358, 1421–1434 (2006)
Fonf, V.P., Lajara, S., Troyanski, S., Zanco, C.: Operator ranges and quasicomplemented subspaces of Banach spaces. Stud. Math. 246, 203–216 (2019)
Hájek, P.: Smooth norms that depend locally on finitely many coordinates. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 123, 3817–3821 (1995)
Hájek, P., Johanis, M.: Smooth Analysis in Banach Spaces. de Gruyter, Berlin (2014)
Hájek, P., Kania, T., Russo, T.: Separated sets and Auerbach systems in Banach spaces. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 373, 6961–6998 (2020)
Hájek, P., Russo, T.: On densely isomorphic normed spaces. J. Funct. Anal. 279, 108667 (2020)
Horváth, B., Kania, T.: Surjective homomorphisms from algebras of operators on long sequence spaces are automatically injective. Q. J. Math. 72, 1167–1189 (2021)
Jameson, G.J.O.: Topology and Normed Spaces. Chapman and Hall Ltd., London (1974)
Köthe, G.: Hebbare lokalkonvexe Räume. Math. Ann. 165, 181–195 (1966)
Kunen, K.: Set Theory. Studies in Logic (London), vol. 34. College Publications, London (2011)
Leonetti, P., Russo, T. and Somaglia, J. (2023), Dense lineability and spaceability in certain subsets of. Bull. London Math. Soc.. https://doi.org/10.1112/blms.12858
Pechanec, J., Whitfield, J.H.M., Zizler, V.: Norms locally dependent on finitely many coordinates. An. Acad. Brasil Ci. 53, 415–417 (1981)
Rosenthal, H.P.: On relatively disjoint families of measures, with some applications to Banach space theory. Stud. Math. 37, 13–36 (1970)
Vanderwerff, J.: Fréchet differentiable norms on spaces of countable dimension. Arch. Math. 58, 471–476 (1992)
Acknowledgements
The third-named author is indebted to Bence Horváth for several conversations concerning [19]. Besides, the authors would like to thank Rubén Medina for fruitful discussions on previous versions of the paper. During the preparation of this manuscript, the first-named author was visiting the Department of Mathematics of the Faculty of Electrical Engineering of the Czech Technical University in Prague and he is grateful for all the hospitality he had received there. Finally, we wish to thank the anonymous referees for their helpful report.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Innsbruck and Medical University of Innsbruck.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
S. Dantas was supported by the Spanish AEI Project PID2019 - 106529GB - I00/AEI / 10.13039/501100011033 and also by Spanish AEI Project PID2021-122126NB-C33 / MCIN /AEI / 10.13039/501100011033 (FEDER) and Generalitat Valenciana project CIGE/2022/97. P. Hájek was supported in part by OPVVV CAAS CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16\(\_\)019/0000778, by GA23-04776S, and by the project SGS22/053/OHK3/1T/13. T. Russo was supported by Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM), Italy.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Dantas, S., Hájek, P. & Russo, T. Smooth norms in dense subspaces of \(\ell _p(\Gamma )\) and operator ranges. Rev Mat Complut (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13163-023-00479-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13163-023-00479-w
Keywords
- Smooth norm
- Local dependence on finitely many coordinates
- Long sequence spaces
- Lineability
- Operator range
- Implicit function theorem