A Hahn-Banach separation theorem argument, claryfying the details











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I have a question regarding the proof of proposition 6.1. in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.01870.pdf, how exactly Hahn-Banach separation theorem has been used.



Proposition 6.1: A discrete group is $C^*$-simple iff for every bounded linear functional $phicolon C_r^*(G)tomathbb{C}$ and every $ain C_r^*(G)$ $$inf_{bin K}|phi(b)-phi(1)tau_{lambda}(a)|=0,$$ where $K$ denotes the norm closed conex hull of ${lambda_galambda_{g^{-1}}mid gin G}$.



Proof: By a result stated in the paper, $G$ is not $C^*$-simple if and only if there is a bounded linear functional $phicolon C_r^*(G)tomathbb{C}$ such that $phi(1)tau_lambda$ does not belong to the weak* closed convex hull of the orbit $Gphi$. By the Hahn-Banach separation theorem, this is equivalent to the existence of $ain C_r^*(G)$ such that $$inf_{bin K}|phi(b)-phi(1)tau_{lambda}(a)|>0,$$ where $K$ denotes the norm closed conex hull of ${lambda_galambda_{g^{-1}}mid gin G}$. (QED)



Note that ${lambda_galambda_{g^{-1}}mid gin G}$ is the G-orbit of $a$ in $C_r^*(G)$.
It's clear to me that if $phi(1)tau_lambda$ does not belong to the weak* closed convex hull of the orbit $Gphi$, that the functionals must have strictly positive disctance somewhere. But how precisly is that Hahn-Banach's separation theorem? I see it is applied to the convex disjoint sets A={the weak* closed convex hull of the orbit $Gphi$} and $B={phi(1)tau_lambda}$ right? But then there must be a functional which seperated $A$ and $B$. And here it doesn't look to me as an application of Hahn-Banach.










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    I have a question regarding the proof of proposition 6.1. in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.01870.pdf, how exactly Hahn-Banach separation theorem has been used.



    Proposition 6.1: A discrete group is $C^*$-simple iff for every bounded linear functional $phicolon C_r^*(G)tomathbb{C}$ and every $ain C_r^*(G)$ $$inf_{bin K}|phi(b)-phi(1)tau_{lambda}(a)|=0,$$ where $K$ denotes the norm closed conex hull of ${lambda_galambda_{g^{-1}}mid gin G}$.



    Proof: By a result stated in the paper, $G$ is not $C^*$-simple if and only if there is a bounded linear functional $phicolon C_r^*(G)tomathbb{C}$ such that $phi(1)tau_lambda$ does not belong to the weak* closed convex hull of the orbit $Gphi$. By the Hahn-Banach separation theorem, this is equivalent to the existence of $ain C_r^*(G)$ such that $$inf_{bin K}|phi(b)-phi(1)tau_{lambda}(a)|>0,$$ where $K$ denotes the norm closed conex hull of ${lambda_galambda_{g^{-1}}mid gin G}$. (QED)



    Note that ${lambda_galambda_{g^{-1}}mid gin G}$ is the G-orbit of $a$ in $C_r^*(G)$.
    It's clear to me that if $phi(1)tau_lambda$ does not belong to the weak* closed convex hull of the orbit $Gphi$, that the functionals must have strictly positive disctance somewhere. But how precisly is that Hahn-Banach's separation theorem? I see it is applied to the convex disjoint sets A={the weak* closed convex hull of the orbit $Gphi$} and $B={phi(1)tau_lambda}$ right? But then there must be a functional which seperated $A$ and $B$. And here it doesn't look to me as an application of Hahn-Banach.










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      I have a question regarding the proof of proposition 6.1. in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.01870.pdf, how exactly Hahn-Banach separation theorem has been used.



      Proposition 6.1: A discrete group is $C^*$-simple iff for every bounded linear functional $phicolon C_r^*(G)tomathbb{C}$ and every $ain C_r^*(G)$ $$inf_{bin K}|phi(b)-phi(1)tau_{lambda}(a)|=0,$$ where $K$ denotes the norm closed conex hull of ${lambda_galambda_{g^{-1}}mid gin G}$.



      Proof: By a result stated in the paper, $G$ is not $C^*$-simple if and only if there is a bounded linear functional $phicolon C_r^*(G)tomathbb{C}$ such that $phi(1)tau_lambda$ does not belong to the weak* closed convex hull of the orbit $Gphi$. By the Hahn-Banach separation theorem, this is equivalent to the existence of $ain C_r^*(G)$ such that $$inf_{bin K}|phi(b)-phi(1)tau_{lambda}(a)|>0,$$ where $K$ denotes the norm closed conex hull of ${lambda_galambda_{g^{-1}}mid gin G}$. (QED)



      Note that ${lambda_galambda_{g^{-1}}mid gin G}$ is the G-orbit of $a$ in $C_r^*(G)$.
      It's clear to me that if $phi(1)tau_lambda$ does not belong to the weak* closed convex hull of the orbit $Gphi$, that the functionals must have strictly positive disctance somewhere. But how precisly is that Hahn-Banach's separation theorem? I see it is applied to the convex disjoint sets A={the weak* closed convex hull of the orbit $Gphi$} and $B={phi(1)tau_lambda}$ right? But then there must be a functional which seperated $A$ and $B$. And here it doesn't look to me as an application of Hahn-Banach.










      share|cite|improve this question













      I have a question regarding the proof of proposition 6.1. in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.01870.pdf, how exactly Hahn-Banach separation theorem has been used.



      Proposition 6.1: A discrete group is $C^*$-simple iff for every bounded linear functional $phicolon C_r^*(G)tomathbb{C}$ and every $ain C_r^*(G)$ $$inf_{bin K}|phi(b)-phi(1)tau_{lambda}(a)|=0,$$ where $K$ denotes the norm closed conex hull of ${lambda_galambda_{g^{-1}}mid gin G}$.



      Proof: By a result stated in the paper, $G$ is not $C^*$-simple if and only if there is a bounded linear functional $phicolon C_r^*(G)tomathbb{C}$ such that $phi(1)tau_lambda$ does not belong to the weak* closed convex hull of the orbit $Gphi$. By the Hahn-Banach separation theorem, this is equivalent to the existence of $ain C_r^*(G)$ such that $$inf_{bin K}|phi(b)-phi(1)tau_{lambda}(a)|>0,$$ where $K$ denotes the norm closed conex hull of ${lambda_galambda_{g^{-1}}mid gin G}$. (QED)



      Note that ${lambda_galambda_{g^{-1}}mid gin G}$ is the G-orbit of $a$ in $C_r^*(G)$.
      It's clear to me that if $phi(1)tau_lambda$ does not belong to the weak* closed convex hull of the orbit $Gphi$, that the functionals must have strictly positive disctance somewhere. But how precisly is that Hahn-Banach's separation theorem? I see it is applied to the convex disjoint sets A={the weak* closed convex hull of the orbit $Gphi$} and $B={phi(1)tau_lambda}$ right? But then there must be a functional which seperated $A$ and $B$. And here it doesn't look to me as an application of Hahn-Banach.







      functional-analysis operator-algebras c-star-algebras






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 15 at 7:45









      toto

      471212




      471212






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          Let $A := C^*_r(G)$. Equip $A^*$, the topological dual of $A$, with the weak*-topology. Let us denote, as you already did,
          $$
          K := overline{mathrm{co}}^{w*}(Gphi), qquad F := {phi(1)tau_lambda}.
          $$



          Then, as you noted, by Hahn-Banach you find a continuous functional
          $$
          varphi in (A^*,text{weak*})^*,
          $$

          which separates $K$ and $F$. Now, the crucial point is that $varphi$ is given by some point evaluation, where we use that $A^*$ is equipped with the weak*-topology.



          That gives you the required $a$, which does the job. Furthermore, one has to note that the weak* closure of a convex set in a normed space equals its norm-closure, which again invokes Hahn-Banach.






          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: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            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%2f2999384%2fa-hahn-banach-separation-theorem-argument-claryfying-the-details%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            2
            down vote



            accepted










            Let $A := C^*_r(G)$. Equip $A^*$, the topological dual of $A$, with the weak*-topology. Let us denote, as you already did,
            $$
            K := overline{mathrm{co}}^{w*}(Gphi), qquad F := {phi(1)tau_lambda}.
            $$



            Then, as you noted, by Hahn-Banach you find a continuous functional
            $$
            varphi in (A^*,text{weak*})^*,
            $$

            which separates $K$ and $F$. Now, the crucial point is that $varphi$ is given by some point evaluation, where we use that $A^*$ is equipped with the weak*-topology.



            That gives you the required $a$, which does the job. Furthermore, one has to note that the weak* closure of a convex set in a normed space equals its norm-closure, which again invokes Hahn-Banach.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              2
              down vote



              accepted










              Let $A := C^*_r(G)$. Equip $A^*$, the topological dual of $A$, with the weak*-topology. Let us denote, as you already did,
              $$
              K := overline{mathrm{co}}^{w*}(Gphi), qquad F := {phi(1)tau_lambda}.
              $$



              Then, as you noted, by Hahn-Banach you find a continuous functional
              $$
              varphi in (A^*,text{weak*})^*,
              $$

              which separates $K$ and $F$. Now, the crucial point is that $varphi$ is given by some point evaluation, where we use that $A^*$ is equipped with the weak*-topology.



              That gives you the required $a$, which does the job. Furthermore, one has to note that the weak* closure of a convex set in a normed space equals its norm-closure, which again invokes Hahn-Banach.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                2
                down vote



                accepted







                up vote
                2
                down vote



                accepted






                Let $A := C^*_r(G)$. Equip $A^*$, the topological dual of $A$, with the weak*-topology. Let us denote, as you already did,
                $$
                K := overline{mathrm{co}}^{w*}(Gphi), qquad F := {phi(1)tau_lambda}.
                $$



                Then, as you noted, by Hahn-Banach you find a continuous functional
                $$
                varphi in (A^*,text{weak*})^*,
                $$

                which separates $K$ and $F$. Now, the crucial point is that $varphi$ is given by some point evaluation, where we use that $A^*$ is equipped with the weak*-topology.



                That gives you the required $a$, which does the job. Furthermore, one has to note that the weak* closure of a convex set in a normed space equals its norm-closure, which again invokes Hahn-Banach.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                Let $A := C^*_r(G)$. Equip $A^*$, the topological dual of $A$, with the weak*-topology. Let us denote, as you already did,
                $$
                K := overline{mathrm{co}}^{w*}(Gphi), qquad F := {phi(1)tau_lambda}.
                $$



                Then, as you noted, by Hahn-Banach you find a continuous functional
                $$
                varphi in (A^*,text{weak*})^*,
                $$

                which separates $K$ and $F$. Now, the crucial point is that $varphi$ is given by some point evaluation, where we use that $A^*$ is equipped with the weak*-topology.



                That gives you the required $a$, which does the job. Furthermore, one has to note that the weak* closure of a convex set in a normed space equals its norm-closure, which again invokes Hahn-Banach.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 15 at 9:04









                André S.

                1,965314




                1,965314






























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded



















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2999384%2fa-hahn-banach-separation-theorem-argument-claryfying-the-details%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Plaza Victoria

                    Puebla de Zaragoza

                    Musa