4

I want to prove that the geometric Hahn Banach theorem implies the analytic one.

Edit: To avoid confusion I will state the vesion of H.B theorems im familiar with:

Analytic H.B:

Let $X$ be a linear space(over $\Bbb R$) and $Y\subset X$ a subspace. Let $p:X \to \Bbb R$ be a sub-additive function. Suppose $f:Y\to \Bbb R$ is a linear map s.t $f(y) \le p(y)$ for all $y\in Y$ then there exists an extention $g:X\to \Bbb R$ of $f$ s.t. $g(x)\le p(x) $ for all $x\in X$.

Geometric H.B:

Let $X$ be a linear space. $K \subset X$ convex s.t. each point in $K$ is an internal point. Let $D$ be a plane disjoint from $K$ then there exists hyperplane that contains $D$ and disjoint from $K$.

In my problem $X$ is NOT a normed space so there are no open sets.

Given $X$ a linear space and $Y\subset X$ a subspace $p:X\to \Bbb R$ sub-additive, and $f:Y\to \Bbb R$ linear s.t $f(y)\le p(y)$ for $y\in Y$ we need to extend $f$ to $g:X\to \Bbb R $ and $g(x)\le p(x)$ fo r all $x\in X$

So, we look at $X \times \Bbb R $and define $K = \{(x,t) : t>p(x)\}$.

The fact that $K$ is convex is easy. How can I show directly that every point in $K$ is internal? (can't say that $K$ is open).

Now after showing that, we can look at $Graph(f)$ and observe that $Graph(f)\cap K = \emptyset$.

So by the geometric H.B theorem we have a hyperplane (which is a maximal subspace in this case because $(0,0)\in Graph(f)$ ) M containing $Graph(f) $ and disjoint from $K$.

Now my problem is to show that each $x\in X$ has a unique $t\in \Bbb R$ s.t. $(x,t) \in M$. (I need it in order to extend $f$).

I know that if we take $v_0\notin M$ then each $v \in X \times \Bbb R$ has a unique representation as $v = \alpha v_0 + m$ for $m \in M$ , this is because $M$ is a maximal subspace. not sure if that helps.

Thanks for helping!

  • 1
    How are you defining an interior point without reference to a topology? – user293794 Dec 25 '18 at 13:01
  • 1
    https://planetmath.org/internalpoint –  Dec 25 '18 at 13:02
  • 3
    @Liad You already posted this question, got an answer, then deleted that post, only to ask it yet again, here. Do not delete a post after receiving an answer to it, and above all, do not delete a post, only to ask the same equation. You are free to edit and improve the original post, but not to repost the same question you yourself deleted for whatever reason. – amWhy Dec 28 '18 at 23:05
  • @amWhy you are right, i got an answer based on the wrong fact that $X$ is a normed space, so i thought re-posting the question empathizing the fact that $X$ is just a linear space. –  Dec 29 '18 at 09:33
  • I think some of the confusion between the versions arises from a mistake in the phrasing of the Geometric H.B. for a general vector space: it should read "each point in K is an INTERNAL point" rather than "interior". Then the condition makes sense without any topology on X. Later on in the second step of the proof ("The fact that K...") you refer to the fact that we need to prove all of K's points are internal points (as the phrasing that I'm familiar with goes), and not interior points (as the current phrasing of your question reads), which makes more sense. – et_l Jan 19 '19 at 17:55
  • @et_l i corrected the statement (i really meant internal and not interior point) thanks! –  Jan 20 '19 at 11:19

2 Answers2

2

Here's another approach, according to guidance in the book Functional Analysis by Prof.s Weiss, Lindenstrauss and Pazi (there's no English translation as far as I'm aware of, sorry) in page 217, Q.13:

Using the notation of the analytical H.B. you've written above, define $K:=\{x\in X:p(x)<1\}$, $\alpha:=\sup_{y\in Y\cap K}\{f(y)\}$ and $D:=\{y\in Y:f(y)=\alpha\}$.

Note that $K$ is convex, and that every point of $K$ is an internal point (take $k\in K$ and you can write explicit $\epsilon$ for any $y\in X$ to show the definition in the link you referred to holds).

If $f\equiv 0$ it's easy to extend $f$ to be identically $0$ on all of $X$. Otherwise, there is a $y\in Y$ for which $f(y)>0$, and as $Y$ is a vector space and $f$ is linear, we can scale this point to get $f(y_0)=\alpha$. Note that $D=\ker(f)+y_0$ so it is a plane (an affine subspace).

Lastly note that $D\cap K=\emptyset$ (this is true thanks to the definition of $\alpha$ as a supremum and $K$ as a preimage of an open interval).

Apply Geometric H.B. and achieve a hyperplane $\hat D$ that contains $D$ and does not intersect with $K$ (specifically, $0\notin\hat D$). So $\hat D-y_0$ is a maximal subspace which contains $\ker(f)$ and does not contain $y_0$, so we may define the extension of $f$ as $0$ on $\hat D-y_0$ and extend linearly. (Note that $Y=\ker(f)\oplus span\{y_0\}$ so this definition actually extends $f$).

et_l
  • 136
  • In the defintion of $\alpha$, did you mean to intersect $K$ instead of $M$? – S. R Jan 21 '19 at 12:47
  • Yes! Thanks for spotting that. In the book, K is written as M and I started writing it the same way just to change all the M's to K's (or so I thought I did) after realising it would be more readable that way. – et_l Jan 21 '19 at 15:32
  • This indeed extends $f$, but you cannot guarantee that the extension is dominated by $p(x)$, unless you assume to begin with that $p(x)$ is non-negative. As stated, it seems that Q. 13 on p. 217 of WLP is not precisely formulated. – uniquesolution Jan 26 '23 at 13:06
1

To apply geometric Hahn-Banach, you need that the space in question is more than just a vector space - it must be a topological vector space, meaning a vector space with a topology such the vector space operations are continuous. So, if we hope to apply geometric Hahn-Banach to the space $X\times \mathbb{R}$ we better figure out what its open sets are. We know what the topology on $\mathbb{R}$ ought to be so what about the topology on $X$? When a vector space has a norm, we may give it a topology via that norm by defining open balls. Here, we are not lucky enough to have a norm but we do have the sub-additive functional $p$, which we should think of as "almost" a norm. This functional $p$ gives us a natural topology on $X$ that makes $K$ open in the product. One way to think about the way in which a norm $||\cdot||:Y\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ gives $Y$ a topology is to declare that the open sets of $Y$ are just $||\cdot ||^{-1}(U)$ where $U$ is open in $\mathbb{R}$. You should think about why this does in fact give a topology and why it is the same topology given by defining a basis of open balls. This is called the topology induced by the function $||\cdot||$, and it works for any function. Thus, in the same way, we may define a topology on $X$ by declaring the open sets to be $p^{-1}(U)$, where $U$ is open in $\mathbb{R}$. Now, we have a vector space with a topology, but we need to check that it is a topological vector space, so the extra requirement mentioned above that the vector space operations are compatible (i.e. continuous w/r/t) the topology. This should come from the fact that $p$ is not any old map, but a sub-additive linear functional. Once we have this we are free to apply geometric Hahn-Banach.

user293794
  • 3,668
  • I learned a version of H.B theorem which do not use topological spaces.. –  Dec 25 '18 at 12:37
  • both versions (geometric and analytic one ) assumes only that $X$ is a linear space. –  Dec 25 '18 at 12:38
  • 1
    That is not true. Please look up geometric Hahn-Banach again, for instance on wikipedia or the math overflow post you linked. It requires a topology on the space - after all the statement of the theorem refers to open sets. Analytic Hahn-Banach does not require that the space begins with a topology, but to prove it from geometric we endow the space with a topology, which is the only way we can apply geometric. – user293794 Dec 25 '18 at 12:40
  • what's not true? this is how i learned it, and what im trying to prove.. –  Dec 25 '18 at 12:41
  • first statement is : $X$ is a linear space and $p$ sub-additive and $Y$ a subspace with $f$ linear on $Y$ dominated by $p$ then there exists a linear extension to f that is still dominated by p .. –  Dec 25 '18 at 12:42
  • Also the geometric one do not state that $X$ is a normed space, only linear. –  Dec 25 '18 at 12:43
  • I think there is some confusion: there are two statements that are called geometric Hahn-Banach. The one in the math overflow post above is the one I was referring to. On Wikipedia it is called the "Hahn-Banach separation theorem" (though I refer to it as geometric Hahn-Banach). This is the statement I appealed to in this post because it is the one used in the math overflow post you wanted explained. – user293794 Dec 25 '18 at 12:44
  • The geometric version is : $X$ linear K convex nonempty s.t. each point in K is interior and D is a plane that is disjoint from K then there is hyperplane that contains D and disjoint form K.. –  Dec 25 '18 at 12:45
  • i just used the post in the link as a guidance to proving my version of the statement. maybe it was a bit confusing, sorry. but your answer really dont help me :/ –  Dec 25 '18 at 12:46
  • ( i tried avoiding the confusion by stating X is not a norm space) –  Dec 25 '18 at 12:48
  • Can you provide a citation for this statement? I am very confused because I don't understand how you can define the interior of a set without a topology. Either way, you should edit your question because I have answered the one you asked in the body by explaining the proof you found online. – user293794 Dec 25 '18 at 12:50
  • I edited the question. –  Dec 25 '18 at 12:55
  • The HB separation theorem does not require a topology, but it does require the notion of an "internal point", which can be defined without a topology. – uniquesolution Jan 26 '23 at 13:08