0

For context I am in the first week of a linear analysis course.

Consider the following:

Consider $\ell_p$ for $p\in [1, \infty)$. What is $\ell_p^*$? Suppose $q$ is the \textcolor{\autocolortwo}{conjugate exponent} of $p$, i.e. $$ \frac{1}{q} + \frac{1}{p} = 1. $$ (if $p = 1$, define $q = \infty$) It is easy to see that $\ell_q \subseteq \ell_p^*$ by the following: Suppose $(x_1, x_2, \cdots) \in \ell_p$, and $(y_1, y_2, \cdots)\in \ell_q$. Define $y(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_{i = 1}^\infty x_i y_i$. We will show that $y$ defined this way is a bounded linear map. Linearity is easy to see, and boundedness comes from the fact that $$ \|y\|_{\ell_p^*} = \sup_{\mathbf{x}}\frac{\|y(\mathbf{x})\|}{\|\mathbf{x}\|_{\ell_p}} = \sup_{\mathbf{x}} \frac{\sum x_i y_i}{\|\mathbf{x}\|_{\ell_p}} \leq \sup \frac{\|\mathbf{x}\|_{\ell_p}\|\mathbf{y}\|_{\ell_q}}{\|\mathbf{x}\|_{\ell_p}} = \|\mathbf{y}\|_{\ell_p}, $$ by the H"older's inequality. So every $(y_i) \in \ell_q$ determines a bounded linear map. In fact, we can show $\ell_p^*$ is isomorphic to $\ell_q$.

I am OK with everything up to "In fact". For the last part, I assume that the map discussed before will give us the isomorphism. However, I do not immediately see how this is an isomorphism. Is this something trivial or is this something I should revisit later on after I have finished the course?

J. W. Tanner
  • 63,683
  • 4
  • 43
  • 88
  • The nontrivial thing is that this map from $\ell^q$ to $(\ell^p)^$ is surjective. This is not* proven in this derivation. A way to prove that is to define the inverse (with the codomain just being all sequences, a priori) and show that its range is contained in $\ell^q$. The injectivity and the norms being preserved under the isomorphism are both straightforward. – Ian Jul 07 '23 at 15:21
  • Does this answer your question? – Chad K Jul 07 '23 at 19:09

1 Answers1

0

The explicit isomorphism is $$l_p^*\to l_q;f\mapsto (f(e_1),f(e_2), f(e_3), \ldots), $$ where the $(e_n)$ is the basis of unitary vectors. The previous proof is the justification of this map being an isomorphism.

  • Hi, I think I am misunderstanding something. The given proof shows that the map is well-defined. It (I think) says nothing about injectivity/surjectivity. Am I missing something? – Maths Wizzard Jul 07 '23 at 15:19