Decomposition of a continuous linear functional on $L^p$ into two positive continuous l.f.











up vote
0
down vote

favorite













Let $(X,mathcal{F},mu)$ be a $sigma$-finite measure space. Prove that if $I: L^p(mu) to mathbb{R}$ is a continuous linear functional then there exists $I^+$, $I^-$ continuous positive linear functionals such that $I=I^+ + I^-$.




I know the proof for the case that $I$ is a bounded linear functional. We define $I^+(f):=sup{I(g) : g in L^p, 0leq g leq f}$ and $I^-=I^+ - I$ and prove the statement.



But in this case I don't know what to do, and I can't link the proof for the bounded case because, of course, $I^+$ is defined with a supremum, which just make sense if we assume boundness of $I$ ... and I don't think that's a way to fix it.



My attempt was based on: try to define a continuous $I^+$ for simple functions and then use the fact that given $fin L^p$ exist a sequence of simple functions $varphi_n to f$ and use continuity of $I^+$ to give $I^+ (f)$, but I can't do this in a useful way .



Anyone can help me?










share|cite|improve this question






















  • $1leq p<infty$
    – Robson
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Continuity is the same as bounded? $I$ is a linear map between normed spaces, so being continuous is the same as being bounded.
    – Lucas
    2 days ago















up vote
0
down vote

favorite













Let $(X,mathcal{F},mu)$ be a $sigma$-finite measure space. Prove that if $I: L^p(mu) to mathbb{R}$ is a continuous linear functional then there exists $I^+$, $I^-$ continuous positive linear functionals such that $I=I^+ + I^-$.




I know the proof for the case that $I$ is a bounded linear functional. We define $I^+(f):=sup{I(g) : g in L^p, 0leq g leq f}$ and $I^-=I^+ - I$ and prove the statement.



But in this case I don't know what to do, and I can't link the proof for the bounded case because, of course, $I^+$ is defined with a supremum, which just make sense if we assume boundness of $I$ ... and I don't think that's a way to fix it.



My attempt was based on: try to define a continuous $I^+$ for simple functions and then use the fact that given $fin L^p$ exist a sequence of simple functions $varphi_n to f$ and use continuity of $I^+$ to give $I^+ (f)$, but I can't do this in a useful way .



Anyone can help me?










share|cite|improve this question






















  • $1leq p<infty$
    – Robson
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Continuity is the same as bounded? $I$ is a linear map between normed spaces, so being continuous is the same as being bounded.
    – Lucas
    2 days ago













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Let $(X,mathcal{F},mu)$ be a $sigma$-finite measure space. Prove that if $I: L^p(mu) to mathbb{R}$ is a continuous linear functional then there exists $I^+$, $I^-$ continuous positive linear functionals such that $I=I^+ + I^-$.




I know the proof for the case that $I$ is a bounded linear functional. We define $I^+(f):=sup{I(g) : g in L^p, 0leq g leq f}$ and $I^-=I^+ - I$ and prove the statement.



But in this case I don't know what to do, and I can't link the proof for the bounded case because, of course, $I^+$ is defined with a supremum, which just make sense if we assume boundness of $I$ ... and I don't think that's a way to fix it.



My attempt was based on: try to define a continuous $I^+$ for simple functions and then use the fact that given $fin L^p$ exist a sequence of simple functions $varphi_n to f$ and use continuity of $I^+$ to give $I^+ (f)$, but I can't do this in a useful way .



Anyone can help me?










share|cite|improve this question














Let $(X,mathcal{F},mu)$ be a $sigma$-finite measure space. Prove that if $I: L^p(mu) to mathbb{R}$ is a continuous linear functional then there exists $I^+$, $I^-$ continuous positive linear functionals such that $I=I^+ + I^-$.




I know the proof for the case that $I$ is a bounded linear functional. We define $I^+(f):=sup{I(g) : g in L^p, 0leq g leq f}$ and $I^-=I^+ - I$ and prove the statement.



But in this case I don't know what to do, and I can't link the proof for the bounded case because, of course, $I^+$ is defined with a supremum, which just make sense if we assume boundness of $I$ ... and I don't think that's a way to fix it.



My attempt was based on: try to define a continuous $I^+$ for simple functions and then use the fact that given $fin L^p$ exist a sequence of simple functions $varphi_n to f$ and use continuity of $I^+$ to give $I^+ (f)$, but I can't do this in a useful way .



Anyone can help me?







integration measure-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 2 days ago









Robson

591221




591221












  • $1leq p<infty$
    – Robson
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Continuity is the same as bounded? $I$ is a linear map between normed spaces, so being continuous is the same as being bounded.
    – Lucas
    2 days ago


















  • $1leq p<infty$
    – Robson
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Continuity is the same as bounded? $I$ is a linear map between normed spaces, so being continuous is the same as being bounded.
    – Lucas
    2 days ago
















$1leq p<infty$
– Robson
2 days ago




$1leq p<infty$
– Robson
2 days ago




2




2




Continuity is the same as bounded? $I$ is a linear map between normed spaces, so being continuous is the same as being bounded.
– Lucas
2 days ago




Continuity is the same as bounded? $I$ is a linear map between normed spaces, so being continuous is the same as being bounded.
– Lucas
2 days ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










I am assuming that $1<p<infty$.By a well known result there exists $g in L^{q}$ ($q=frac p {p-1}$) such that $I(f)=int fg$ for all $f in L^{p}$ and all you have to do is define $I^{pm}(f)=int fg^{pm}$. The same idea works for $p=1$ also.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Hmm... but if $f$ is negative can I conclude that $I^+(f) geq 0$ ?
    – Robson
    2 days ago






  • 1




    The usual definition of a positive operator on a function space is $I^{+}f geq 0$ if $f geq 0$. There is no (non-zero) linear operator $T$ on $L^{p}$ for which $Tf geq 0$ for all $f$, so you have to go back to your source and find the correct definitions.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    2 days ago












  • that's right, because $T(f)=T(-(-f))=-T(-f)$ and can't be the case that both of them are positive! Thanks
    – Robson
    2 days ago













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%2f3000586%2fdecomposition-of-a-continuous-linear-functional-on-lp-into-two-positive-conti%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
1
down vote



accepted










I am assuming that $1<p<infty$.By a well known result there exists $g in L^{q}$ ($q=frac p {p-1}$) such that $I(f)=int fg$ for all $f in L^{p}$ and all you have to do is define $I^{pm}(f)=int fg^{pm}$. The same idea works for $p=1$ also.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Hmm... but if $f$ is negative can I conclude that $I^+(f) geq 0$ ?
    – Robson
    2 days ago






  • 1




    The usual definition of a positive operator on a function space is $I^{+}f geq 0$ if $f geq 0$. There is no (non-zero) linear operator $T$ on $L^{p}$ for which $Tf geq 0$ for all $f$, so you have to go back to your source and find the correct definitions.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    2 days ago












  • that's right, because $T(f)=T(-(-f))=-T(-f)$ and can't be the case that both of them are positive! Thanks
    – Robson
    2 days ago

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










I am assuming that $1<p<infty$.By a well known result there exists $g in L^{q}$ ($q=frac p {p-1}$) such that $I(f)=int fg$ for all $f in L^{p}$ and all you have to do is define $I^{pm}(f)=int fg^{pm}$. The same idea works for $p=1$ also.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Hmm... but if $f$ is negative can I conclude that $I^+(f) geq 0$ ?
    – Robson
    2 days ago






  • 1




    The usual definition of a positive operator on a function space is $I^{+}f geq 0$ if $f geq 0$. There is no (non-zero) linear operator $T$ on $L^{p}$ for which $Tf geq 0$ for all $f$, so you have to go back to your source and find the correct definitions.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    2 days ago












  • that's right, because $T(f)=T(-(-f))=-T(-f)$ and can't be the case that both of them are positive! Thanks
    – Robson
    2 days ago















up vote
1
down vote



accepted







up vote
1
down vote



accepted






I am assuming that $1<p<infty$.By a well known result there exists $g in L^{q}$ ($q=frac p {p-1}$) such that $I(f)=int fg$ for all $f in L^{p}$ and all you have to do is define $I^{pm}(f)=int fg^{pm}$. The same idea works for $p=1$ also.






share|cite|improve this answer














I am assuming that $1<p<infty$.By a well known result there exists $g in L^{q}$ ($q=frac p {p-1}$) such that $I(f)=int fg$ for all $f in L^{p}$ and all you have to do is define $I^{pm}(f)=int fg^{pm}$. The same idea works for $p=1$ also.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered 2 days ago









Kavi Rama Murthy

39.6k31749




39.6k31749












  • Hmm... but if $f$ is negative can I conclude that $I^+(f) geq 0$ ?
    – Robson
    2 days ago






  • 1




    The usual definition of a positive operator on a function space is $I^{+}f geq 0$ if $f geq 0$. There is no (non-zero) linear operator $T$ on $L^{p}$ for which $Tf geq 0$ for all $f$, so you have to go back to your source and find the correct definitions.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    2 days ago












  • that's right, because $T(f)=T(-(-f))=-T(-f)$ and can't be the case that both of them are positive! Thanks
    – Robson
    2 days ago




















  • Hmm... but if $f$ is negative can I conclude that $I^+(f) geq 0$ ?
    – Robson
    2 days ago






  • 1




    The usual definition of a positive operator on a function space is $I^{+}f geq 0$ if $f geq 0$. There is no (non-zero) linear operator $T$ on $L^{p}$ for which $Tf geq 0$ for all $f$, so you have to go back to your source and find the correct definitions.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    2 days ago












  • that's right, because $T(f)=T(-(-f))=-T(-f)$ and can't be the case that both of them are positive! Thanks
    – Robson
    2 days ago


















Hmm... but if $f$ is negative can I conclude that $I^+(f) geq 0$ ?
– Robson
2 days ago




Hmm... but if $f$ is negative can I conclude that $I^+(f) geq 0$ ?
– Robson
2 days ago




1




1




The usual definition of a positive operator on a function space is $I^{+}f geq 0$ if $f geq 0$. There is no (non-zero) linear operator $T$ on $L^{p}$ for which $Tf geq 0$ for all $f$, so you have to go back to your source and find the correct definitions.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
2 days ago






The usual definition of a positive operator on a function space is $I^{+}f geq 0$ if $f geq 0$. There is no (non-zero) linear operator $T$ on $L^{p}$ for which $Tf geq 0$ for all $f$, so you have to go back to your source and find the correct definitions.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
2 days ago














that's right, because $T(f)=T(-(-f))=-T(-f)$ and can't be the case that both of them are positive! Thanks
– Robson
2 days ago






that's right, because $T(f)=T(-(-f))=-T(-f)$ and can't be the case that both of them are positive! Thanks
– Robson
2 days ago




















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3000586%2fdecomposition-of-a-continuous-linear-functional-on-lp-into-two-positive-conti%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

Bundesstraße 106

Verónica Boquete

Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten