0

I'm trying to prove that if $X$ is a topological vector space over $\mathbb{R}$ and $f:X\to \mathbb{R}$ is a nonzero continuous linear map, then $f$ is open in the sense that if $G$ is open so is $f(G)$. Here's my idea so far. Let $G$ be open in $X$, and let $\alpha\in f(G)$. Then $\alpha=f(x)$ for some $x\in G$. Since $G$ is open, there exists an open neighborhood $V$ of the origin such that $V+x\subset G$. This gave me the idea that I should really be proving that if $V$ is an open neighborhood of the origin in $X$, then $f(V)$ is an open neighborhood of the origin in $\mathbb{R}$, since if this were true, we would have that $f(V+x)=f(V)+\alpha$ is an open subset of $f(G)$ containing $\alpha$, so we'd be done. Is this the right direction to go? I just want a hint, please don't solve the problem for me. (I also wonder if the surjectivity of $f$ comes into play here) Thank you!

EDIT: I have an idea. We have a lemma that says that any nonempty balanced subset of $\mathbb{R}$ is a symmetric interval, and also that if $V$ is a neighborhood of the origin, then there exists a balanced neighborhood $U$ of the origin such that $U\subset U+U\subset V$. So if $V$ is an open neighborhood of $0$, find a balanced open neighborhood $U\subset V$. Then $f(U)$ is a nonempty balanced subset of $\mathbb{R}$ by linearity of $f$, so it is a symmetric interval by the lemma, say with endpoints $\pm\epsilon$. This shows $(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\subset f(U)\subset f(V)$, so $f(V)$ is an open neighborhood of $0$. Does this work?

  • 1
    You need to show that if $g \in G$ then $f(G)$ contains a non trivial interval that contains $f(g)$. You need to use the fact that $f(x^*) \neq 0$ for some $x \in X$. – copper.hat Jan 22 '24 at 04:47
  • There is a proof in Rudin's FA. – geetha290krm Jan 22 '24 at 04:49
  • @copper.hat Ok that makes sense. I'm guessing my idea in the edit doesn't work, as we don't know if $U\subset\ker(f)$. – blakedylanmusic Jan 22 '24 at 04:51
  • If $U$ is open and $U \subset \ker f$ then necessarily $f=0$. – copper.hat Jan 22 '24 at 04:52
  • @copper.hat Oh, that makes sense. Does that come from the fact that $U$ is absorbing because it is an open neighborhood of $0$? i.e. if $x\in X$, we can find nonzero $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $\lambda x\in U$, and so since $f(\lambda x)=\lambda f(x)=0$, we have that $f(x)=0$? – blakedylanmusic Jan 22 '24 at 05:00
  • 1
    It comes from the fact that multiplication is continuous (and implicitly that $\mathbb{R}$ is connected). See https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1962588/27978 – copper.hat Jan 22 '24 at 05:36

0 Answers0