Hahn-Banch theorem in Rudin functional analysis

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












On page 59, in the first part of the geometric form of Hahn-Banach theorem, it only assumed that $X$ is a topological space and it says




there exists $Lambdain X^*$ and ...




Here $X^*$ is the continuous dual.



But we know when the topological vector space is not locally convex, the continuous dual space might be trivial, $L^p[0,1]$ where $0<p<1$ is such example. How is this possible?



In the second part of the theorem, we have the additional assumption that $X$ is locally convex.










share|cite|improve this question



























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    On page 59, in the first part of the geometric form of Hahn-Banach theorem, it only assumed that $X$ is a topological space and it says




    there exists $Lambdain X^*$ and ...




    Here $X^*$ is the continuous dual.



    But we know when the topological vector space is not locally convex, the continuous dual space might be trivial, $L^p[0,1]$ where $0<p<1$ is such example. How is this possible?



    In the second part of the theorem, we have the additional assumption that $X$ is locally convex.










    share|cite|improve this question

























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      On page 59, in the first part of the geometric form of Hahn-Banach theorem, it only assumed that $X$ is a topological space and it says




      there exists $Lambdain X^*$ and ...




      Here $X^*$ is the continuous dual.



      But we know when the topological vector space is not locally convex, the continuous dual space might be trivial, $L^p[0,1]$ where $0<p<1$ is such example. How is this possible?



      In the second part of the theorem, we have the additional assumption that $X$ is locally convex.










      share|cite|improve this question















      On page 59, in the first part of the geometric form of Hahn-Banach theorem, it only assumed that $X$ is a topological space and it says




      there exists $Lambdain X^*$ and ...




      Here $X^*$ is the continuous dual.



      But we know when the topological vector space is not locally convex, the continuous dual space might be trivial, $L^p[0,1]$ where $0<p<1$ is such example. How is this possible?



      In the second part of the theorem, we have the additional assumption that $X$ is locally convex.







      real-analysis functional-analysis dual-spaces






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 4 hours ago









      Clayton

      18.5k22983




      18.5k22983










      asked 5 hours ago









      Xiao

      4,53711334




      4,53711334




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted










          The theorem never in any way asserts that a nontrivial element of $X^*$ must exist for arbitrary $X$. It only asserts that given disjoint, nonempty convex sets $A,Bsubset X$ with $A$ open, then there exists a $Lambdain X^*$ satisfying the stated inequalities. It's entirely possible that for some $X$, no such sets $A$ and $B$ exist.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















            Your Answer




            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2939917%2fhahn-banch-theorem-in-rudin-functional-analysis%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest






























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            4
            down vote



            accepted










            The theorem never in any way asserts that a nontrivial element of $X^*$ must exist for arbitrary $X$. It only asserts that given disjoint, nonempty convex sets $A,Bsubset X$ with $A$ open, then there exists a $Lambdain X^*$ satisfying the stated inequalities. It's entirely possible that for some $X$, no such sets $A$ and $B$ exist.






            share|cite|improve this answer
























              up vote
              4
              down vote



              accepted










              The theorem never in any way asserts that a nontrivial element of $X^*$ must exist for arbitrary $X$. It only asserts that given disjoint, nonempty convex sets $A,Bsubset X$ with $A$ open, then there exists a $Lambdain X^*$ satisfying the stated inequalities. It's entirely possible that for some $X$, no such sets $A$ and $B$ exist.






              share|cite|improve this answer






















                up vote
                4
                down vote



                accepted







                up vote
                4
                down vote



                accepted






                The theorem never in any way asserts that a nontrivial element of $X^*$ must exist for arbitrary $X$. It only asserts that given disjoint, nonempty convex sets $A,Bsubset X$ with $A$ open, then there exists a $Lambdain X^*$ satisfying the stated inequalities. It's entirely possible that for some $X$, no such sets $A$ and $B$ exist.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                The theorem never in any way asserts that a nontrivial element of $X^*$ must exist for arbitrary $X$. It only asserts that given disjoint, nonempty convex sets $A,Bsubset X$ with $A$ open, then there exists a $Lambdain X^*$ satisfying the stated inequalities. It's entirely possible that for some $X$, no such sets $A$ and $B$ exist.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 4 hours ago









                Eric Wofsey

                169k12196313




                169k12196313



























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2939917%2fhahn-banch-theorem-in-rudin-functional-analysis%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest













































































                    Comments

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    What does second last employer means? [closed]

                    Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

                    One-line joke