Recall that a metric space is separable if it contains a countable dense subset.
Prove that ℓ1(N) and ℓ2(N) are separable Banach spaces but ℓ∞(N) is not.
Prove that there exists no linear bounded surjective map T:ℓ2(N)→ℓ1(N).
Solution.
Let D⊆C be a countable, dense set (e.g., rational linear combinations of 1 and i). Then
A={{an}n∣an∈D and an=0 for only finitely many terms}
is a countable union of countable sets, hence countable itself. We will show that A is dense in both ℓ1(N) and ℓ2(N): let p∈{1,2}, {xn}n∈ℓp(N), and ε>0. Then there exists N∈N such that
n=N+1∑∞∣xn∣p<ε.
For each 1≤n≤N, there exists qn such that ∣xn−qn∣p<Nε, by density. Set qn=0 for n>N which means {qn}n∈A. Then
To show that ℓ∞(N) is not separable, consider the set A of infinite binary strings, i.e., {xn}n so that xn∈{0,1} for all n≥1. Certainly A⊆ℓ∞(N), and if x=y are elements of A, there exists some n0 so that xn0=yn0. Hence, ∥xn0−yn0∥ℓ∞=1.
Suppose {an}n is dense in ℓ∞(N). Then for each x∈A, there exists an(x) such that ∥∥an(x)−x∥∥ℓ∞<21. But x↦n(x) is an injective function from an uncountable set to a countable one, which is impossible. Thus, ℓ∞ is not separable.
We first prove the following lemma: if T:X→Y is a continuous linear map between Banach spaces, then T† is injective if and only if the range of T is dense in Y, where T† is the transpose of T.
Suppose T† is injective, but the range of T is not dense. Let M=rangeT, which is not all of Y by assumption. Hence, there exists some y∈Y∖M with distance δ>0 away from M. By Hahn-Banach, there exists f∈Y∗ such that f(x)=0 on M and f(y)=δ. Thus, T†(f)=f∘T∈X∗, but by construction f(T(x))=0 for all x∈X. Hence, T†(f)=0, but f=0, a contradiction.
Conversely, suppose rangeT is dense in Y, and suppose f∈Y∗ is such that T†(f)=0. Since f∘T=T†(f) and rangeT is dense, it follows that f(y)=0 for any y∈Y, by continuity, so f=0 and hence T† is injective.
In our problem, our T is surjective, in particular dense in ℓ1(N). Thus, T†:ℓ∞(N)→ℓ2(N) is an injective bounded linear map, so T† is an isomorphism ℓ∞(N)→T†(ℓ2(N)), and so we have a continuous linear map T†(ℓ2(N))→ℓ∞(N). But ℓ2(N) is separable, which would imply by continuity that ℓ∞(N) is also separable, a contradiction. Hence, no continuous surjection could have existed to begin with, which completes the proof.