2

Consider a family $\{p_i\}_{i\in I}$ of seminorms defined on $X$ and consider for each $i\in I$ the quotient mapping $q_i:X\rightarrow X/\ker(p_i)$. I know, that each quotient $X/\ker(p_i)$ is a vector space (turning the quotient map into a linear map) and has a norm, defined by $$\lVert q_i(x)\rVert:=\inf_{y\in \ker(p_i)}p_i(x+y)$$

Now, the author states:

For $i\in I$, $\epsilon> 0$ and $x\in E$, the sets $$B_{\epsilon}^i(x)=\{ z\in X : p_i(x-z)<\epsilon \}$$ form a subbase of the initial topology of the family $\{q_i:X\rightarrow X/\ker(p_i)\}_{i\in I}$, where each quotient carries the normed topology.

My attempt is the following:

The normed topology on $X/\ker(p_i)$ has a base consisting of sets

$$B_\epsilon(q_i(x))=\{z\in X/\ker(p_i):\lVert q_i(x)-z\rVert<\epsilon\}$$

and it's preimage (by linearity of $q_i$) is

$$q_i^{-1}(B_\epsilon(q_i(x)))=\{z\in X:\lVert q_i(x-z)\rVert<\epsilon\}.$$

Now, it holds $B^i_\epsilon(x)\subseteq q_i^{-1}(B_\epsilon(q_i(x)))$, since $0\in\ker(p_i)$ and therefore

$$\epsilon > p_i(x-z)=p_i((x-z)+0)\ge\inf_{y\in\ker(p_i)}p_i((x-z)+y)=\lVert q_i(x-z)\rVert.$$

Unfortunately, I am stuck here. Can I possibly even show equality? Or can I describe $q_i^{-1}(B_\epsilon(q_i(x)))$ as union of these $B^i_\epsilon(y)$'s?

Any hint or help is appreciated! Thank you in advance!

EDIT: For $B^i_\epsilon(x)\supseteq q_i^{-1}(B_\epsilon(q_i(x)))$, one can observe that

$$\epsilon>\lVert q_i(x-z)\rVert\ge p_i(x-z).$$

Suppose the contrary, i.e. $\inf_{y\in\ker(p_i)}p_i((x-z)+y)=\lVert q_i(x-z)\rVert< p_i(x-z)$. Then there exists a $y\in\ker(p_i)$, such that $p_i((x-z)+y)< p_i(x-z)$ and therefore $$ \begin{aligned} 0<p_i(x-z)-p_i((x-z)+y) &=|p_i(x-z)-p_i((x-z)+y)|\\ &\le|p_i(x-z-(x-z)-y)|\\ &=|p_i(y)|=0, \end{aligned}$$ by using the reversed triangle inequality and the fact that $y\in \ker(p_i)$. This is contradictory and therefore it holds $$\lVert q_i(x-z)\rVert\ge p_i(x-z).$$

In fact, from the calculations above, one can also just observe, that

$$\lVert q_i\rVert=p_i,$$ such that

$$B_\epsilon^i(x)=\{z\in X: p_i(x-z)<\epsilon\}=\{z\in X: \lVert q_i(x-z)\rVert<\epsilon\}=q_i^{-1}(B_\epsilon(q_i(x))).$$

Since the $\epsilon$-balls are a base of $\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$, the collection of its preimages is even a base (and therefore in fact a subbase).

user408858
  • 3,470
  • 1
    https://math.stackexchange.com/q/1284692

    Does this help? (I don't have time to read your question too closely atm)

    – FShrike Jun 22 '23 at 17:39
  • 1
    Yes, I was fortunate to see, that it was linked to my question. I am running out of time myself right now, but I will have a look at it later. Thank you for the reply! – user408858 Jun 22 '23 at 17:57
  • I think my question is still slightly different, since it incorporates the $\inf$. – user408858 Jun 22 '23 at 21:39
  • I think one can show $\lVert q_i(x)\rVert=p_i(x)$ and then the topologies are clearly the same. $\inf_{z\in\ker(p_i)}p_i(x+z)\le p_i(x)$ is clear, since $0\in\ker(p_i)$. Now, suppose $\inf_{z\in\ker(p_i)}p_i(x+z) < p_i(x)$. There must be at least one $z\in\ker(p_i)$, such that $p_i(x+z) < p_i(x)$. Then it holds $0<p_i(x)-p_i(x+z)=|p_i(x)-p_i(x+z)|\le |p_i(x-x-z)|=0$, which is contradictory. – user408858 Jun 23 '23 at 13:02

1 Answers1

1

Fix $y=q_i(x)\in X_i=X/\ker p_i$ and $\epsilon>0$. We first want to show that $U:=q_i^{-1}(B_\epsilon(y))$ is open in the topology generated by the $(B^i_\epsilon(x))_{i\in I,\epsilon>0,x\in X}$.

Take $a\in U$. I know $\inf_{b\in\ker p_i}p_i(a+b-x)<\epsilon$ so in particular there must be at least one $b\in\ker p_i$ with $\delta:=p_i(a+b-x)<\epsilon$. Define $\eta:=\frac{\epsilon-\delta}{2}>0$. I claim $B^i_\eta(a)\subseteq U$: take $a'\in B^i_\eta(a)$.

We are told $p_i(a'-a)<\eta$, and we want to show $p_i(a'+b'-x)<\epsilon$ for some $b'\in\ker p_i$. Well, I can choose $b'=b$ and have $p_i(a'+b-x)\le p_i(a'-a)+p_i(a+b-x)<\epsilon$, so the claim holds. Great! It follows that $U$ is open since $a$ was arbitrary.

Now we want to show that every single $B^i_\epsilon$ is open in the topology generated by the sets of the form of $U$ (the initial topology). Fix $x\in X$ and $i,\epsilon$ and some $x'\in B^i_\epsilon(x)$. Define $\delta:=p_i(x-x')<\epsilon$ and $\eta:=\frac{\epsilon-\delta}{2}>0$.

Take $z\in q_i^{-1}(B_\eta(q_i(x')))$. That means $p_i(z+b-x')<\epsilon$ for some $b\in\ker p_i$ and it follows that $p_i(z-x)\le p_i(z+b-x')+p_i(x'-x-b)\le p_i(z+b-x')+p_i(x'-x)<\epsilon$. Hence $q_i^{-1}(B_\eta(q_i(x')))\subseteq B^i_\epsilon(x)$ and because $x'$ was arbitrary we conclude $B^i_\epsilon(x)$ is open in the initial topology.

Therefore the two topologies coincide.

FShrike
  • 46,840
  • 3
  • 35
  • 94
  • I think it is a bit easier to just show $\lVert q_i \rVert=p_i$ and go from there. However, I appreciate the effort and accept your answer, such that the question is resolved. Thank you! – user408858 Jun 23 '23 at 17:57
  • @user408858 Not sure how you mean, $|q_i|=p_i$ (the business with the $+y$ with $y\in\ker p_i$ is necessary). But you're welcome. – FShrike Jun 23 '23 at 21:22
  • I mean, that the mappings are the same. $\forall x\in E: \lVert q_i(x) \rVert = p_i(x)$. You can see a proof for this in my edit. – user408858 Jun 23 '23 at 21:57
  • @user408858 I'm not sure of this. Because if that were true, there would be absolutely no need, whatsoever, to define $|q_i(x)|$ in the way your authors did. I'm now confused. You're suggesting $p_i(x+y)=p_i(x)$ for all $y\in\ker p_i$, at first glance that seems wrong. But, I can't find any fault in your proof. Weird. I guess your authors wasted their breath, then – FShrike Jun 23 '23 at 22:59
  • Oh, I see, by taking $p_i(x)=\lVert q_i(x)\rVert \le p_i(x+y)\le p_i(x)+p_i(y)=p_i(x)$ for any $y\in \ker(p_i)$. It seems wrong at first glance, but it's also somehow something you would hope for? Because it's "just" the kernel. It's not supposed to change anything, in some sense. Well... Maybe its meaning is, that the seminorm can be thought of as norm on the quotient space $X/\ker(p_i)$, and I think $\lVert q_i \rVert =p_i$ actually captures that idea nicely. – user408858 Jun 24 '23 at 01:17