1. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space, and let K\subset X be precompact. Prove that K is separable.

  • According to the Step 1 and Step 2 in the necessary part proof of Theorem 1.1, we know that K is precompact can get K is totally bounded. So \forall \epsilon>0\exists m\in \N^*,x_i\in K,s.t.\enspace K\subset\bigcup_{i=1}^mB(x_i,\epsilon). Let \epsilon=\frac{1}{n},X_n=\{x_i\},S=\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty X_i. As |X_n| is finite, S\subset K is countable. And for any x\in K, we know \forall n>0 \exists x_n\in X_n\subset S,s.t.\enspace x\in B(x_n,\frac{1}{n}). So \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}d(x_n,x)=0, which means S is dense subset. Therefore S is a countable dense subset of K, hence K is separable.

2. Denote \R^n =\{(x^1, \dots ,x^n)^T : x^k \in \R\}.

(i) Let M be a symmetric positive definite n\times n matrix. Prove that (x,y) := x^TMy, x,y \in \R^n, defines an inner product.

  • Let x_i,x,y\in \R^n,\lambda_i\in \R.
    Symmetric: (x,y)=x^TMy=(x^TMy)^T=y^TM^Tx=y^TMx=(y,x).
    Positive definite: (x,x)=x^TMx\ge0, and (x,x)=x^TMx=0 iff x=0. (As M is positive definite.)
    Linear: (\lambda_1x_1+\lambda_2x_2,y)=(\lambda_1x_1+\lambda_2x_2)^TMy=\lambda_1x_1^TMy+\lambda_2x_2^TMy=\lambda_1(x_1,y)+\lambda_2(x_2,y).
    Q.E.D.

(ii) Suppose (\cdot,\cdot) is an inner product on \R^n. Prove that there is a unique symmetric positive definite n\times n matrix M, such that (x, y) = x^TMy, x,y \in \R^n.

  • Consider a matrix M, and M_{ij}=(e_i,e_j). As x=\sum_{i=1}^nx_ie_i,y=\sum_{i=1}^ny_ie_i, we know x^TMy=(\sum_{i=1}^nx_ie_i)^TM(\sum_{i=1}^ny_ie_i)=\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j=1}^nx_iy_je_i^TMe_j=\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j=1}^nx_iy_jM_{ij}=\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j=1}^nx_iy_j(e_i,e_j)=(\sum_{i=1}^nx_ie_i,\sum_{i=1}^ny_ie_i)=(x,y). And as (\cdot,\cdot) is symmetric and positive definite, M is symmetric positive definite.
    Now suppose that M' such that x^TMy=x^TM'y. Therefore x^T(M-M')y=0,\forall x,y\in\R^n, which means M-M' must be 0. So M is unique.

3. Let H be a Hilbert space. Let D \subset H be a subset such that the linear space spanned by D is dense in H. Let (E_n)_{n\ge1} be a sequence of closed subspaces in H that are mutually orthogonal. Assume that \sum_{n=1}^\infty|P_{E_n}u|^2=|u|^2,\forall u\in D. Prove that H is the Hilbert sum of the E_n's.

  • Suppose that h_k=u-\sum_{n=1}^k P_{E_n}u. As E_n is mutually orthogonal, P_{E_n}u must be orthogonal with each other. And \langle h_k,P_{E_i}u\rangle=\langle u-\sum_{n=1}^k P_{E_n}u,P_{E_i}u\rangle=\langle u,P_{E_i}u\rangle-\langle P_{E_i}u,P_{E_i}u\rangle=0 for all 1\leq i\leq k, which means h_k is orthogonal with P_{E_i}u for all 1\leq i\leq k. So |u|^2=|\sum_{n=1}^k P_{E_n}u+h_k|^2=\sum_{n=1}^k|P_{E_n}u|^2+|h_k|^2. Notice that \sum_{n=1}^\infty|P_{E_n}u|^2=|u|^2, therefore \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}|h_k|^2=0, which means \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}h_k=0. Therefore u=\sum_{n=1}^\infty P_{E_n}u, which means D\subseteq\operatorname{Span}\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty E_n. As the linear space spanned by D is dense in H means that H=\overline{\operatorname{Span}D}, we have H=\overline{\operatorname{Span}D}\subseteq\overline{\operatorname{Span}\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty E_n}\Rightarrow\overline{\operatorname{Span}\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty E_n}=H. So, H is the Hilbert sum of the E_n's.

4. Let E be an n.v.s., and F be a Banach space. Show that \mathcal L(E,F) is a Banach space.

  • It's obvious that \mathcal L(E,F) is an n.v.s., now consider a Cauchy sequence (f_i) in \mathcal L(E,F), which means \forall\epsilon>0\exists N_0\in \N^*\forall m,n>N_0,s.t.\enspace d(f_m,f_n)=\|f_m-f_n\|_{\mathcal L(E,F)}=\sup_{\|u\|_E\leq1}\|(f_m-f_n)u\|_F<\epsilon. As \|f_m(u)-f_n(u)\|_F\leq\|f_m-f_n\|\|u\|, (f_i(u)) must be a Cauchy sequence in F. And notice that F is a Banach space, which means it's complete, we have \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}f_k(u)\in F. Therefore we can let f:u\mapsto\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}f_k(u). Because f_i is linear, f must be linear too. Now consider \|f-f_m\|=\sup_{\|u\|\leq1}\|\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}f_k(u)-f_m(u)\|\leq\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty,\|u\|\leq1}\|f_k(u)-f_m(u)\|\leq\lim\sup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\|f_n-f_m\|\leq\epsilon, which means f-f_m\in\mathcal L(E,F). Notice that \mathcal L(E,F) is a vector space, we get f\in\mathcal L(E,F). At last, we check that \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}d(f,f_n)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\|f-f_n\|\leq\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\limsup_{m\rightarrow\infty}\|f_m-f_n\|=0, which means f=\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}f_k\in\mathcal L(E,F). Therefore, \mathcal L(E,F) is a Banach space.

5. Let E,F,G be Banach spaces.

(1) Let A \in \mathcal L(E,F). A \in \mathcal K(E,F) is equivalent to that \overline{A(D)} is compact for any bounded set D\subset E. In other words, A \in\mathcal K(E,F) is equivalent to that the sequence (Ax_n) in F has a convergent subsequence for every bounded sequence (x_n) in E.

  • \Rightarrow: As A\in\mathcal K(E,F) means that for a sequence (y_i) in A(B_E), it has a convergent subsequence. Now consider a bounded sequence (x_i) in E, let \lambda=\sup_{i\ge1}\|x_i\|\in \R. Therefore (\frac{x_i}{\lambda}) is a sequence in B_E, and (A\frac{x_i}{\lambda}) is a sequence in A(B_E) that has a convergent subsequence. Notice that Ax_i=\lambda A\frac{x_i}{\lambda} and \lambda<\infty. So, (Ax_i) must has a convergent subsequence too.
    \Leftarrow: Consider a sequence (y_i) in A(B_E), there must exist a sequence (x_i) in B_E such that Ax_i=y_i. As x_i\in B_E, we get (x_i) is a bounded sequence. By the assumption, (y_i)=(Ax_i) must has a convergent subsequence. Therefore, A(B_E) is precompact, hence A\in\mathcal K(E,F).
    Q.E.D.

(2) If A \in \mathcal L(E,F) and B\in\mathcal L(F,G), and at least one of A or B is compact, then B \circ A is compact.

  • First consider that A is compact. By (1), we know for every bounded sequence (x_i) in E, (Ax_i) in F has a convergent subsequence (Ax_{i_j})\rightarrow Ax_{i_0}. As \|B\circ A(x_{i_j})-B(Ax_{i_0})\|=\|B(A(x_{i_j})-A(x_{i_0}))\|\leq\|B\|\|Ax_{i_j}-Ax_{i_0}\|\rightarrow0, (B\circ A x_i) has a convergent subsequence (B\circ A x_{i_j}). Therefore, by (1), B\circ A is compact.
    Then consider that B is compact. Consider a bounded sequence (x_i) in E. As \|Ax_i\|\leq\|A\|\|x_i\|, (Ax_i) is also a bounded sequence. By (1), (B(Ax_i))=(B\circ A(x_i)) has a convergent subsequence, which means B\circ A is compact.
    Q.E.D.

(3) Let (T_n) be a sequence in \mathcal K(E,F) that converges to T \in\mathcal L(E,F). Prove that T is compact.

  • As \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\|T-T_n\|=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{\|u\|\leq1}\|T(u)-T_n(u)\|=0, we have \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\|T(u)-T_n(u)\|=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\|u\|\|(T-T_n)(\frac{u}{\|u\|})\|\leq\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\|u\|\sup_{\|u\|\leq1}\|T(u)-T_n(u)\|=0, hence T(u)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}T_n(u). Consider a bounded sequence (x_i) in E. For T_1, there exists a subsequence (x_i^{(1)}) in E such that (T_1x_i^{(1)}) converges. And for T_{n+1}, there exists a subsequence (x_{i}^{(n+1)}) of (x_i^{(n)}) in E such that (T_{n+1}x_i^{(n+1)})_{i\ge1} converges. Notice that by this way, (x_i^{(n)}) is a subsequence of (x_i^{(k)}), and (T_kx_i^{(n)})_{i\ge1} is convergent for all k\leq n. Now consider the sequence (x_i^{(i)}) is a subsequence of (x_i), and \|Tx_i^{(i)}-T x_j^{(j)}\|=\|(T-T_n)(x_i^{(i)}-x_j^{(j)})+T_n(x_i^{(i)}-x_j^{(j)})\|\leq\|T-T_n\|\|x_i^{(i)}-x_j^{(j)}\|+\|T_nx_i^{(i)}-T_nx_j^{(j)}\|. Let n\rightarrow\infty, we have \|Tx_i^{(i)}-T x_j^{(j)}\|\leq\|T_nx_i^{(i)}-T_nx_j^{(j)}\|. As (T_nx_i^{(i)}) is convergent, (Tx_i^{(i)}) must be convergent, hence T is compact.

6.

(1) The inclusion map i : \ell^2 \rightarrow \ell^\infty is defined by i(x) = x for all x \in\ell^2. Show that the inclusion map i : \ell^2 \rightarrow \ell^\infty is bounded but not compact.

  • As \sup_{x\in\ell^2,x\neq0}\frac{\|i(x)\|_{\ell^\infty}}{\|x\|_{\ell^2}}=\sup_{x\in\ell^2,x\neq0}\frac{\sup_{n\ge1}|x_n|}{\sqrt{\sum_{n\ge1}{|x_n|^2}}}=\sup_{x\in\ell^2,x\neq0}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sum_{n\ge1}{(\frac{|x_n|}{\sup_{n\ge1}|x_n|})^2}}}\leq1, i is bounded. Consider the sequence (e_i) in \ell^2, such that e_i=(0,\cdots,1,\cdots), (e_i) is also a sequence in \ell^\infty, and \|e_i-e_j\|_{\ell^\infty}=\delta_{ij} shows that (i(e_i)) has no convergent subsequence in \ell^\infty, hence i is not compact.

(2) Let E be a Banach space. Show that the identity operator I : E \rightarrow E is compact if and only if E is finite-dimensional.

  • P\Leftarrow Q: Suppose that E is finite-dimensional, which means there exists (e_i)_{1\leq i\leq n} to be a basis of E and \|e_i\|=1. Then consider a bounded sequence (u_i)=(\sum_{j=1}^n x_{i_j}e_j) in E. Notice that (u_i) is bounded shows that (x_{i,j})_{i\ge1} is bounded. Therefore, there exists a subsequence (u_i^{(1)}) of (u_i) such that (x_{i,1}^{(1)}) is convergent by the precompactness of a bounded set in \R. So following the choosing strategy in 5.(3), we can get a subsequence (u_i^{(n)})_{i\ge1} such that (x_{i,j}^{(n)})_{i\ge1} is convergent for all j. Therefore, (u_i^{(n)})_{i\ge1} is convergent, hence I is compact.
    \overline P\Leftarrow \overline Q: Suppose that E is infinite-dimensional. Consider u_0\in E, such that \|u_0\|=1, and U_0=\operatorname{Span}\{u_0\}. As U_0\neq E and U_0 is closed, there exists x_1\in E\setminus U_0 and d_1=d(x_1,U_0)>0. Choose a point v_1\in U_0 such that d_1<\|x_1-v_1\|<2d_1, and let u_1=\frac{x_1-v_1}{\|x_1-v_1\|}, we have d(u_1,U_0)=\inf_{v\in U_0}\|u_1-v\|=\inf_{v\in U_0}\frac{1}{\|x_1-v_1\|}\|x_1-v_1-(\|x_1-v_1\|)v\|\ge\frac{1}{\|x_1-v_1\|}d(u_1,U_0)\ge\frac{d_1}{2d_1}=\frac{1}{2}. By this strategy, let U_i=\operatorname{Span}\{u_1,\cdots,u_i\}, we can get a sequence (u_i) in E such that \|u_i\|=1 and d(u_i,u_j)\ge\frac{1}{2} for all i\neq j. Therefore, I is not compact by this bounded sequence (u_i).
    Q.E.D.

7. Denote B_E = \{x \in E : \|x\| \leq 1\} to be the unit ball of a normed vector space (E,\|\cdot\|). Prove that B_E is compact if and only if E is of finite dimension. (Hints: Prove and use the following Riesz’s Lemma.)

Lemma(Riesz). Suppose E_0 \subset E is a closed subspace with E_0\neq E. Then for every 0 < \epsilon < 1, there exists x_0 \in E,s.t.\enspace\|x_0\| = 1 and \|x_0 −x\| > \epsilon for all x \in E_0.

  • As E_0\neq E, there exists y\in E\setminus E_0. As E_0 is closed, we get d:=d(y,E_0)>0. Choose z\in E_0, such that d\leq \|y-z\|\leq\frac{d}{\epsilon}. Now let x_0:=\frac{y-z}{\|y-z\|}. Notice that for all x\in E_0, \|x_0-x\|=\frac{1}{\|y-z\|}\|y-(z+\|y-z\|x)\|\ge\frac{1}{\|y-z\|}d(y,E_0)\ge\frac{\epsilon}{d}\cdot d=\epsilon and \|x_0\|=1. Hence we have proved the Lemma.
  • P\Leftarrow Q: Suppose that E is finite-dimensional, which means there exists (e_i)_{1\leq i\leq n} to be a basis of E and \|e_i\|=1. Then consider a sequence (u_i)=(\sum_{j=1}^n x_{i_j}e_j) in B_E. Notice that (u_i) in B_E shows that (x_{i,j})_{i\ge1} is bounded. Therefore, there exists a subsequence (u_i^{(1)}) of (u_i) such that (x_{i,1}^{(1)}) is convergent by the precompactness of a bounded set in \R. So following the choosing strategy in 5.(3), we can get a subsequence (u_i^{(n)})_{i\ge1} such that (x_{i,j}^{(n)})_{i\ge1} is convergent for all j. Therefore, (u_i^{(n)})_{i\ge1} is convergent, hence B_E is precompact. As B_E is also closed, B_E is compact.
    \overline P\Leftarrow \overline Q: Suppose that E is infinite-dimensional. Consider u_0\in E, such that \|u_0\|=1, and U_0=\operatorname{Span}\{u_0\}. As U_0\neq E and U_0 is closed, there exists u_1\in E,s.t.\enspace\|u_1\|=1 and d(u_1,U_0)>\frac{1}{2}. By this strategy, let U_i=\operatorname{Span}\{u_1,\cdots,u_i\}, we can get a sequence (u_i) in E such that \|u_i\|=1 and d(u_i,u_j)\ge\frac{1}{2} for all i\neq j. Therefore, B_E is not precompact by this sequence (u_i) in B_E, hence B_E is not compact.
    Q.E.D.

8. Let H be a Hilbert space, and K : H \rightarrow H be a compact operator. Suppose x_n \rightharpoonup x_0 and y_n \rightharpoonup y_0 as n \rightarrow\infty, prove that (x_n,Ky_n) \rightarrow (x_0,Ky_0), as n \rightarrow\infty.

  • As \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(x,y_n)=(x,y_0), (y_n) must be bounded. Notice that \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(x,Ky_{n})=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(K^*x,y_{n})=(K^*x,y_0)=(x,Ky_0), which means Ky_n\rightharpoonup Ky_0, and Ky_{n_i}\rightarrow Ky_0. Now assume that K y_{n} is not strongly convergent to Ky_0, which means there exists a subsequence (Ky_{n}^{(1)}),s.t.\|Ky_{n}^{(1)}-Ky_0\|>\epsilon,\forall i. But as (y_{n_i}) is bounded and K is compact, (Ky_{n}^{(1)}) must have a strongly convergent subsequence that converging to z. Notice that Ky_n^{(1)}\rightharpoonup Ky_0 and Ky_n^{(1)}\rightarrow z, we have Ky_n^{(1)}\rightarrow Ky_0, which is a contradiction. Therefore, Ky_n\rightarrow Ky_0. Now consider |(x_n,Ky_n)-(x_0,Ky_0)|=|(x_n-x_0,Ky_n)+(x_0,Ky_n-Ky_0)|=|(x_n-x_0,Ky_n-Ky_0)+(x_n-x_0,Ky_0)+(x_0,Ky_n-Ky_0)|\leq\|x_n-x_0\|\|Ky_n-Ky_0\|+|(x_n-x_0,Ky_0)|+|(x_0,Ky_n-Ky_0)|\rightarrow0 when n\rightarrow\infty, we get (x_n,Ky_n) \rightarrow (x_0,Ky_0).

9. Let H be a Hilbert space. For each u \in H\setminus\{0\}, and \alpha \in \R, define the hyperplane M_{u,α} by M_{u,α} = \{v \in H :(u,v) = \alpha\}. Suppose K is a closed convex subset of H, and x_0 \notin K. Prove that (without the use of Hahn-Banach Theorem) there is a hyperplane M_{u,\alpha} strictly separates K and \{x_0\}: \exists\epsilon > 0, such that (u, x_0) > \alpha+\epsilon, and (u,v) < \alpha−\epsilon, \forall v \in K. (Hint: Use the projection mapping to find a “normal vector”.)

  • As x_0\notin K and K is closed, let x_1=\operatorname{Proj}_K(x_0),s.t.\enspace\|x_0-x_1\|=\inf_{v\in K}\|x_0-v\|, u:=x_0-x_1\neq0 and \alpha_0=(u,x_1). Therefore, (u,x_0)-\alpha_0=\|u\|^2>0. Consider for all v\in K, and a real function f(t)=\|x_0-x_1-t(v-x_1)\|^2=\|u\|^2-2t(u,v-x_1)+t^2\|v-x_1\|^2. As we know that \|x_0-x_1\|=\inf_{v\in K}\|x_0-v\|, we have f'(0)=0, which means (u,v-x_1)\leq0. Therefore, (u,v)-\alpha_0=(u,v-x_1)\leq0. So, we have (u,x_0)>\alpha_0 and (u,v)\leq\alpha_0. Now let \alpha=\frac{1}{2}((u,x_0)+\alpha_0)>\alpha_0, 0<\epsilon<\min\{\alpha-\alpha_0,(u,x_0)-\alpha\}, we can get (u,x_0)>\alpha+\epsilon and (u,v)\leq\alpha_0<\alpha-\epsilon, which means M_{u,\alpha} strictly separates K and \{x_0\}.

10. Suppose A[a,b] is the space of absolutely continuous functions on [a,b]. Define \|f\| = \|f\|_1 +\|f'\|_1, where f \in A[a,b] and f' denotes its derivative. Prove that (A[a,b],\| \cdot \|) is a separable Banach space.

  • It's obvious that A[a,b] is a vector space. Let f,g\in A[a,b], \lambda\in\R.
    Triangle Inequality: \|f+g\|=\|f+g\|_1+\|f'+g'\|_1=\|f\|_1+\|f'\|_1+\|g\|_1+\|g'\|_1=\|f\|+\|g\|.
    Positive Homogeneity: \|\lambda f\|=\|\lambda f\|_1+\|\lambda f'\|_1=|\lambda|(\|f\|_1+\|f'\|_1)=|\lambda|\|f\|.
    Positive Definiteness: \|f\|=\|f\|_1+\|f'\|_1=\int_a^b|f(x)|\mathrm d x+\int_a^b|f'(x)|\mathrm dx>0 if f\neq 0.
    Therefore, (A[a,b],\|\cdot\|) is a n.v.s.
    Now consider a Cauchy sequence (f_i) in A[a,b]. As A[a,b]\subset L^1([a,b]) and \|f\|\rightarrow0\Rightarrow\|f\|_1\rightarrow0,\|f'\|_1\rightarrow0, (f_i) and (f'_i) are also Cauchy sequences in L^1[a,b]. Notice that L^1[a,b] is complete, let f=\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}f_k,g=\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}f'_k. Now we consider f_0(x):=f(a)+\int_a^xg(t)\mathrm dt is an absolutely continuous function in A[a,b], by the theorm in Real Analysis. As \|f_k\|_1\rightarrow \|f_0\|_1 and \|f_k'\|_1\rightarrow\|f_0'\|_1, we have f_k\rightarrow f_0 in (A[a,b],\|\cdot\|). Therefore, (A[a,b],\| \cdot \|) is complete, hence a Banach space.
    Following the instruction in *Remark 10*, consider simple functions of the form g_i=\sum_{k=1}^m q_k\chi_{R_k}, where R_k =\prod_{i=1}^n(a_{i_k},b_{i_k}) and q_k,a_{i_k},b_{i_k}\in \mathbb Q. By the theorms of measure theory in Real Analysis, we know that \{g_i\} is dense and countable in L^1[a,b]. Now consider that A[a,b] can be defined as \{f\in C[a,b]|\exists f'\in L^1[a,b],f(x)=f(a)+\int_a^xf'(t)\mathrm dt\}. Therefore, let \mathcal D=\{f_n(x)=c_n+\int_a^xg_n(t)\mathrm dt|c_n\in \mathbb Q\}. As \forall f\in A[a,b],\exists c_n\in\mathbb Q,g_n,s.t.\enspace c_n\rightarrow f(a),g_n\rightarrow f', we have f_n\rightarrow f, hence \mathcal D is countable and dense in A[a,b] and (A[a,b],\| \cdot \|) is separable.
    Finally, we get (A[a,b],\| \cdot \|) is a separable Banach space.

11. Prove the Arzela-Ascoli Theorem: Let X be a compact metric space. If a sequence (f_n) in C(X) is uniformly bounded and equicontinuous, then it has a uniformly convergent subsequence.

  • First, we know that (f_n) is uniformly bounded means that \exists M>0,s.t.\enspace\forall n\in\N,x\in X,|f_n(x)|\leq M, and equicontinuous means that \forall\epsilon>0\exists\delta>0,s.t.\enspace\forall f_n,d(x,y)<\delta\Rightarrow|f_n(x)-f_n(y)|<\epsilon. As X is compact, we know it's totally bounded, hence there exists a countable dense subset D=\{x_k\}. For a point x_k, let's consider (f_n(x_m))_{n\ge1}, which is bounded and hence precompact. Therefore, there exists (f_n^{(k)})_{n\ge1} such that (f_n^{(k)}(x_k))_{n\ge1} is convergent. Let f_n^{(k+1)} choose from f_n^{(k)}, and g_m=f_m^{(m)}, we have that (g_m) is uniformly bounded, equicontinuous and convergent for all x_k. Then, for all \epsilon>0, there exists \delta>0,s.t.\enspace d(x,y)<\delta\Rightarrow|g_k(x)-g_k(y)|<\epsilon/3 (by equicontinuous), a finite group U=\{x_k\} such that \forall x\in X,\exists x_k\in U,s.t.\enspace d(x,x_k)<\delta (by X is totally bounded), and \exists N_0\in\mathbb N^*,s.t.\enspace\forall m,n>N_0,x_k\in U,|g_m(x_k)-g_n(x_k)|<\epsilon/3 (by (g_m(x_k))_{m\ge 1} is convergent and k is finite). Now we have |g_m(x)-g_n(x)|\leq|g_m(x)-g_m(x_k)|+|g_m(x_k)-g_n(x_k)|+|g_n(x_k)-g_n(x)|\leq\epsilon, which means g_k is uniformly Cauchy sequence, hence a uniformly convergent subsequence.

12. Let K : [a,b]^2 \rightarrow \R be continuous, where a < b. Define an operator T : L^1 \rightarrow L^1 as follows: Tf(x)=\int_a^bK(x,y)f(y)\mathrm dy. Show that T is a compact operator. (Hint: use the Arzela-Ascoli Theorem.)

  • Consider a bounded sequence (f_n) in L^1, we have \exists M>0,s.t.\enspace\forall f_n,\|f_n\|<M. Notice that K is continuous on a close and compact set, hence K must be bounded and uniformly continuous.Therefore, \|Tf_k\|=\int_a^b\int_a^bK(x,y)f_k(y)\mathrm dy\mathrm dx\leq\int_{a}^b\int_a^bK(x,y) M\mathrm dx\mathrm dy\leq(b-a)^2M\sup K, which means (Tf_n) is uniformly bounded. As K is uniformly countinuous , we have \forall \epsilon>0,\exists\delta>0,s.t.\enspace \|x_1-x_2\|<\delta,\|y_1-y_2\|<\delta\Rightarrow|K(x_1,y_1)-K(x_2,y_2)|<\epsilon. So, |Tf_n(x_1)-Tf_n(x_2)|=|\int_a^b (K(x_1,y)-K(x_2,y))f(y)\mathrm dy|\leq|\int_a^b\epsilon M\mathrm dy|=(b-a)M\epsilon, which means (Tf_n) is equicontinuous. Therefore, according to Arzela-Ascoli Theorem, we have (Tf_n) has a uniformly convergent subsequence, hence T is compact.

13. Let E be a Banach space, and let F \subset E be a closed subspace. Prove that the quotient space E/F, equipped with the norm \|u +F\|:= \inf_{v\in F}\|u +v\|_E, is also a Banach space.

  • It's obvious that E/F is a vector space, let u+F,u_1+F,u_2+F\in E/F,\lambda\in\R.
    Triangle Inequality: \|u_1+F+u_2+F\|=\|u_1+u_2+F\|=\inf_{v_1,v_2\in F}\|u_1+u_2+v_1+v_2\|_E\leq\inf_{v_1,v_2\in F}(\|u_1+v_1\|_E+\|u_2+v_2\|_E)=\|u_1+F\|+\|u_2+F\|.
    Positive Homogeneity: \|\lambda (u+F)\|=\|\lambda u+F\|=\inf_{v\in F}\|\lambda u+v\|_E=\inf_{v\in F}\|\lambda u+\lambda v\|_E=|\lambda|\inf_{v\in F}\|u+v\|_E=|\lambda|\|u+F\|.
    Positive Definiteness: \|u+F\|=\inf_{v\in F}\|u+v\|_E>0 if u+F\neq 0+F.
    Therefore, (E/F,\|\cdot\|) is a n.v.s.
    Now consider a Cauchy sequence (u_n+F) in E/F, which means \forall\epsilon>0\exists N_0\in\mathbb N^*,s.t\enspace m,n>N_0\Rightarrow\|(u_n+F)-(u_m+F)\|<\epsilon. As \|(u_n+F)-(u_m+F)\|=\inf_{v\in F}\|u_n-u_m+v\|_E<\epsilon, let x_1=u_1 and x_n=u_n+v_n defined by \exists v_{n}\in F,s.t.\enspace\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|_E=\|u_n-u_{n-1}+v_n-v_{n-1}\|_E<\epsilon+\frac{1}{n}. Therefore, (x_n) is a Cauchy sequence in E and it converges to x\in E. Notice that \|(u_k+F)-(x+F)\|=\|(x_k+F)-(x+F)\|=\inf_{v\in F}\|x_k-x+v\|_E\rightarrow0 as 0\in F and x_k\rightarrow x. So, u_k+F\rightarrow x+F\in E/F, hence (E/F,\|\cdot\|) is a Banach space.

14. Let E be an n.v.s. Let V \subset E be a closed subspace, and let W \subset E be a finite-dimensional subspace. Prove that V + W is closed.

  • Consider a map \varphi:E\rightarrow E/V,x\mapsto x+V. According to 13, we know that E/V is a n.v.s. Notice that \|\varphi\|=\sup_{\|x\|=1}\|\varphi(x)\|=\sup_{\|x\|=1}\inf_{v\in V}\|x+v\|\leq\sup_{\|x\|=1}\|x\|=1, which means \varphi is continuous. As V+W=\varphi^{-1}\circ\varphi(W), and W is finite-demensional gives that W is closed, we have V+W is closed.

15. Let E be a n.v.s. Let L \subset E be a closed subspace, and let M \subset E be a finite-dimensional subspace, such that E = L\oplus M. Suppose T : E \rightarrow E is a bounded linear map, and denote N to be the kernel of T. Prove that L+N is closed.

  • Consider a map \varphi:E\rightarrow E/L,x\mapsto x+L. According to 14, we have E/L is a n.v.s, and \varphi is continuous. As T is a bounded linear map, N=\ker(T) is a subspace of E. Notice that E/L\cong M, by E=L\oplus M and a bijective linear map \sigma:M\rightarrow E/L,m\mapsto m+L;\sigma(m_1)=\sigma(m_2)\Rightarrow m_1-m_2\in L\Rightarrow m_1=m_2;P_E(x)\in E,\sigma(P_E(x))=P_E(x)+L=x+L. Therefore \varphi(N)\subseteq E/L\cong M must be a finite-dimensional subspace, hence \varphi (N) is closed. So, L+N=\varphi^{-1}(\varphi(N)) is closed.