Coarse embeddings into $c_0(\Gamma)$
Petr Hajek, Thomas Schlumprecht

TL;DR
This paper investigates the conditions under which large Banach spaces can be coarsely embedded into $c_0( ext{cardinality})$, revealing limitations related to cotype and isomorphism properties.
Contribution
It establishes that large Banach spaces admitting coarse embeddings into $c_0( ext{cardinality})$ lack nontrivial cotype and are linearly isomorphic to $c_0( ext{density})$ if they have a symmetric basis.
Findings
Spaces with large density fail to have nontrivial cotype.
Such spaces contain $ ext{ extlangle} ext{infty}^n ext{ extrangle}$ uniformly.
Spaces with symmetric bases are linearly isomorphic to $c_0( ext{density})$.
Abstract
Let be a large enough cardinal number (assuming GCH it suffices to let ). If is a Banach space with , which admits a coarse (or uniform) embedding into any , then fails to have nontrivial cotype, i.e. contains -uniformly for every . In the special case when has a symmetric basis, we may even conclude that it is linearly isomorphic with .
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Topology and Set Theory · Advanced Banach Space Theory · Advanced Operator Algebra Research
Coarse embeddings into
Petr Hájek The first named author was supported by GAČR 16-073785 and RVO: 67985840. Institute of Mathematics, Academy of Science of the Czech Republic, Žitná 25 115 67 Prague 1, Czech Republic, and Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Zikova 4, 160 00 Prague, Czech Republic. *email: *[email protected]
Th. Schlumprecht The second named author was supported by the National Science Foundation under the Grant Number DMS–1464713.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification Primary 46B26; Secondary 54E15, 54D20 Department of Mathematics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA and Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Zikova 4, 160 00 Prague, Czech Republic. *email: *[email protected]
Abstract
Let be a large enough cardinal number (assuming GCH it suffices to let ). If is a Banach space with , which admits a coarse (or uniform) embedding into any , then fails to have nontrivial cotype, i.e. contains -uniformly for every . In the special case when has a symmetric basis, we may even conclude that it is linearly isomorphic with .
1 Introduction
The classical result of Aharoni states that every separable metric space (in particular every separable Banach space) can be bi-Lipschitz embedded (the definition is given below) into .
The natural problem of embeddings of metric spaces into , for an arbitrary set , has been treated by several authors, in particular Pelant and Swift. The characterizations that they obtained, and which play a crucial role in our argument, are described below.
Our main interest, motivated by some problems posed in [3], lies in the case of embeddings of Banach spaces into .
We now state the main results of this paper. We first define the following cardinal numbers inductively. We put , and, assuming for , has been defined, we put . Then we let
[TABLE]
It is clear that assuming the generalized continuum hypothesis (GCH) .
Theorem A**.**
If is a Banach space with density , which admits a coarse (or uniform) embedding into any , then fails to have nontrivial cotype, i.e. contains -uniformly for some (equivalently, every ).
Our method of proof gives a much stronger result for Banach spaces with a symmetric basis. Namely, under the assumptions of Theorem A, such spaces are linearly isomorphic with (Theorem (4.2)).
Theorem A will follow from the following combinatorial result which is of independent interest.
Theorem B**.**
Assume that is a set whose cardinality is at least , , and is a map into an arbitrary set . Then (at least) one of the following conditions holds:
There is a sequence of pairwise disjoint elements of , so that , for all . 2. 2.
There is an so that \sigma\big{(}\big{\{}F\cup\{\gamma\}:\gamma\in\Lambda\big{\}}\big{)} is infinite.
The above Theorem B was previously deduced in [6] from a combinatorial result of Baumgartner, provided is a weakly compact cardinal number (whose existence is not provable in ZFC, as it is inaccessible [5] p. 325, p. 52). The authors in [6] pose a question whether assuming that is uncountable is sufficient in Theorem B.
Theorem B is used in order to obtain a scattered compact set of height , such that does not uniformly embed into . It is easy to check that our version of Theorem B implies a ZFC example of such a space. It is further shown in [6] that the space does not uniformly embed into any .
Let us point out that a special case of Theorem A was obtained by Pelant and Rodl [8], namely it was shown there that , spaces (which are well known to have nontrivial cotype) do not uniformly embed into any .
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we recall Pelant’s [7, 6] amd Swift’s [10] conditions for Lipschitz, uniform, and coarse embeddability into . In Section 3 we provide a proof for Theorem B. Finally, in Section 4, we provide a proof of Theorem A as well as the symmetric version of the result.
All set theoretic concepts and results used in our note can be found in [5], whereas for facts concerning nonseparable Banach spaces [4] can be consulted.
2 Pelant’s and Swift’s criteria for Lipschitz, uniform, and coarse embeddability into
In this section we recall some of the notions and results by Pelant [7, 6] and Swift [10] about embeddings into .
For a metric space a cover is a set of subsets of such that . A cover of is called uniform if there is an so that for all there is a , so that . It is called uniformly bounded if the diameters of the are uniformly bounded, and it is called point finite if every lies in only finitely many . A cover of is a *refinement * of a cover , if for every there is a , for which .
Definition 2.1**.**
[6] A metric space is said to have the Uniform Stone Property if every uniform cover of has a point finite uniform refinement.
Definition 2.2**.**
[10] A metric space is said to have the Coarse Stone Property if every bounded cover is the refinement of a point finite uniformly bounded cover.
Definition 2.3**.**
Let and be two metric spaces. For a map we define the modulus of uniform continutiy , and the modulus of expansion as follows
[TABLE]
The map is called *uniform continuous * if , and it is called a uniform embedding if moreover for every . It is called coarse if , for all and it is called a coarse embedding, if . The map is called Lischitz continuous if
[TABLE]
and a bi-Lipschitz embedding, if is injective and is also finite.
The following result recalls results from [6](for (i)(ii)) and [10] (for (ii)(iii)(iv)(v)).
Theorem 2.4**.**
For a Banach space the following properties are equivalent.
- (i)
* has the uniform Stone Property.* 2. (ii)
* is uniformly embeddable into , for some set .* 3. (iii)
* has the coarse Stone Property.* 4. (iv)
* is coarsely embeddable into , for some set .* 5. (v)
* is bi-Lipschitzly embeddable into , for some set .*
It is easy to see, and was noted in [6, 10], that the uniform Stone property and the coarse Stone property are inherited by subspaces. The equivalence (i)(ii) was used in [6] to show that does not uniformly embed in any . It was also used to prove that certain other -spaces do not uniformly embed into : Let be any set and denote for by and the subsets of which have cardinality at most and exactly , respectively. Endow with the restriction of the product topology on (by identifying each set with its characteristic function). Then define to be the one-point Alexandroff compactification of the topological sum of the spaces , . It was shown in [6] that if satisfies Theorem B then is not uniformly Stone and thus does not embed uniformly into any .
3 A combinatorial argument
We start by introducing property for a cardinal as follows.
[TABLE]
As remarked in Section 2, if is an uncountable weakly compact cardinal number, then holds. But the existence of weakly compact cardinal numbers requires further set theoretic axioms, beyond ZFC [5]. In [6, Question 3] the authors ask if is true.
Theorem 3.1**.**
For defined by (1), holds.
For our proof of Theorem 3.1 it will be more convenient to reformulate it into a statement about -tuples, instead of sets of cardinality . We will first introduce some notation.
Let and , be sets of infinite cardinality, and put . For and we denote the -the coordinate of by . We say that two points and in are diagonal, if , for all .
Let for . For we call the set
[TABLE]
the Hyperplane through the point orthogonal to . We call the set
[TABLE]
the Line through the point in direction of .
For a cardinal number , we define recursively the following sequence of cardinal numbers \big{(}\exp_{+}(\beta,n):n\!\in\!\mathbb{N}_{0}): , and, assuming has been defined for some , we put
[TABLE]
Here denotes the successor cardinal, for a cardinal , i.e., the smallest cardinal number with . Note that since , it follows for the above defined cardinal number , that
[TABLE]
Secondly, successor cardinals are regular [5], and thus every set of cardinality , with being a successor cardinal, can be partitioned for into disjoint sets , , all of them having also cardinality , and the map \Gamma_{1}\times\Gamma_{2}\times\ldots\times\Gamma_{n}\to\big{[}\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}\Gamma_{i}\big{]}^{n}, , is injective. We therefore deduce that the following statement implies Theorem 3.1.
Theorem 3.2**.**
Let and a assume that the sets , have cardinality at least . For any function
[TABLE]
where is an arbitrary set, at least one of the following two conditions hold
[TABLE]
We will make the following observation before proving Theorem 3.2.
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let and , be non empty sets. Let
[TABLE]
be a function that fails both conditions (4) and (5).
Then there is a set and a function
[TABLE]
that fails both (4) and (5) and moreover has the property that
[TABLE]
Proof.
We may assume without loss of generality that is surjective. Since (4) is not satisfied for each there exists an and a (finite) sequence , which is pairwise diagonal, and maximal, with this property. Hence
[TABLE]
Indeed, from the maximality of , it follows that each must have at least one coordinate in common with at least one element of .
We define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
It is clear that satisfies (6). Since for every ,
[TABLE]
does not satisfy (4). In order to verify that (5) is not satisfied, assume is a line, and let be the image of under . By construction,
[TABLE]
which is also finite. ∎
Proof of Theorem 3.2.
We assume that is a map which fails both (4) and (5). By Lemma 3.3 we may also assume that satisfies (6). For each we fix an so that \sigma^{-1}\big{(}\{\sigma(a)\}\big{)}\subset H(a,i(a)). It is important to note that, since (5) is not satisfied, it follows that each line , whose direction is some , can only have finitely many elements for which . Indeed, if then is uniquely determined by the value . To continue with the the proof the following Reduction Lemma will be essential.
Lemma 3.4**.**
Let be an uncountable regular cardinal. Assume that , are such that , for all .
Then, for any there are a number , and subsets with , so that
[TABLE]
Proof.
We assume without loss of generality that . Abbreviate , for . We choose subsets , for which \big{|}\tilde{\Gamma}^{(0)}_{j}\big{|}=\beta_{n+1-j}.
Since the ’s are regular, it follows for each that
[TABLE]
Abbreviate for .
[TABLE]
and consider the function
[TABLE]
For fixed , , and the cardinality of is by the above estimates smaller than the cardinality of , which is regular. Therefore we can find a function and a subset of cardinality so that for all . We continue the process and find , for of cardinality and functions , for , so that for all and , we have
[TABLE]
Then, since is valued, we can finally choose an and a subset , of cardinality at least , so that , which finishes our argument. ∎
Continuation of the proof of Theorem 3.2. We apply Lemma 3.4 successively to all , and the cardinals . We obtain numbers in and infinite sets , for , so that for all and all
[TABLE]
In order to deduce a contradiction choose for each a subset of of cardinality . Then it follows that
[TABLE]
which is a contradiction and finishes the proof of the Theorem. ∎
We can now state the ZFC version of Theorem 4.1. in [6], in which it was shown that for weakly compact cardinalities the space , where was defined at the end of Section 2, cannot be uniformly (or coarsely) embedded into any , where has any cardinality. Since the only property of , which is needed in [6], is the fact that holds, we deduce
Corollary 3.5**.**
* does not coarsely (or uniformly) embed into , for any cardinality .*
4 Proof of Theorem A
In this section we use our combinatorial Theorem B from Section 3 to show Theorem A.
Recall that a long Schauder basis of a Banach space is a transfinite sequence such that for every there exists a unique transfinite sequence of scalars such that . Similarly, a long Schauder basic sequence in a Banach space is a transfinite sequence which is a long Schauder basis of its closed linear span. Recall that the is the smallest cardinal such that there exists a -dense subset of . Analogously to the classical Mazur construction of a Schauder basic sequence in a separable Banach space we have the following result, proved e.g. in [4, p.135] (the fact that the basis is normalized, i.e. , is not a part of the statement in [4], but it is easy to get it by normalizing the existing basis).
Theorem 4.1**.**
Let be a Banach space with . Then contains a monotone normalized long Schauder basic sequence of length .
Proof of Theorem A.
Using the Hahn-Banach theorem it is easy to see that . On the other hand, since every is uniquely determined by its values on a -dense subset of , it is clear that
[TABLE]
It follows that for defined in (1) we get that holds if and only if . In order to prove Theorem A we may assume without loss of generality that has a long normalized and monotone Schauder basis , of length , i.e. .
Set
[TABLE]
Suppose that where are elements of arranged in an increasing order. Consider the corresponding finite set , containing distinct vectors of , and put a linear order on this set according to the arrangement of the signs , setting
[TABLE]
if and only if for the minimal , such that , it holds . In order to prove Theorem A it suffices to show that if has the coarse Stone property then fails to have nontrivial cotype. To this end, starting with we find a uniform bounded cover , which is point finite and so that refines , i.e., for all there is a with . Let be such that each is a subset of a ball of radius .
Let be the set consisting of all finite tuples , where . We now define the function as follows. If where , we let
[TABLE]
where are the elements of arranged in the increasing order. Applying Theorem B to the function , for a fixed , yields one of two possibilities. Either there is an , where , so that \sigma\big{(}\big{\{}F\cup\{\tau\}:\tau\in\lambda\setminus F\big{\}}\big{)} is infinite. In this case, pick an infinite sequence of distinct witnessing the desired property. By passing to a subsequence, we may assume without loss of generality that either there exists , so that for all , , or for all , or for all . For simplicity of notation, assume the last case, i.e. holds for all . Denoting , we conclude that there exists a fixed selection of signs such that the set
[TABLE]
is infinite. Indeed, otherwise the set of values , which are determined by the definition (9), would have only a finite set of options for each coordinate, and would therefore have to be finite. This is a contradiction with the point finiteness of the system , because
[TABLE]
It remains to consider the other case when there is a sequence of pairwise disjoint elements of , with , for any . In fact, it suffices to choose just a pair of such disjoint elements (written in an increasing order of ordinals) , , such that . This means, in particular, that for every fixed selection of signs ,
[TABLE]
By our assumption, the elements of are contained in a ball of radius , hence
[TABLE]
holds for any selection of signs . Let , . Because is a monotonne normalized long Schauder basis, we have the trivial estimate . The equation (10) means that
[TABLE]
holds for any selection of signs . Since norm functions are convex, this means that for the unite vector ball of of it follows that
[TABLE]
which means that is -equivalent to the unit vector basis of . ∎
In fact, our proof gives a much stronger condition than just failing cotype, because our copies of are formed by vectors of the type . This fact can be used to obtain much stronger structural results for spaces with special bases. Recall that a long Schauder basis is said to be symmetric if
[TABLE]
for any selection of , and any pair of sets , . It is well-known (c.f. [9, Prop. II.22.2]), that each symmetric basis is automatically unconditional, i.e. there exists such that
[TABLE]
In particular,
[TABLE]
whenever .
Theorem 4.2**.**
Let be a Banach space of density , with a symmetric basis , which coarsely (or uniformly) embeds into some .
Then is linearly isomorphic with .
Proof.
By the proof of the above results, if embeds into , there exists an , such that for each there are some vectors of the form satisfying the conditions
[TABLE]
Using the fact that the basis is unconditional, (and symmetric) we obtain by an easy manipulation that there exist some constants such that
[TABLE]
Combining (12) and (13) we finally obtain that for some , and any ,
[TABLE]
for all , which proves our claim. ∎
5 Final comments and open problems
Let us mention in this final section some problems of interest.
First of all, we do not know whether or not Theorem A is true if we replace by smaller cardinal numbers.
Problem 1**.**
Assume that is a Banach space with , and assume that coarsely embeds into for some cardinal number . Does have trivial co-type? If moreover has a symmetric basis, must it be isomorphic to ?
Of course Problem 1 would have a positive answer if the following is true.
Problem 2**.**
Is Theorem B true for ?
Connected to Problems 1 and 2 is the following
Problem 3**.**
Does coarsely embed into for some uncountable cardinal number .
Another line of interesting problems asks which isomorphic properties do non separable Banach spaces have which coarsely embed into
Problem 4**.**
Does a non separable Banach space which coarsely embeds into some , being uncountable, contain copies , or even .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] J. E. Baumgartner, Canonical partition relations , J. Symbolic Logic 40 (1975), 541–554.
- 2[2] J. Diestel, H. Jarchow, and A. Tonge, Absolutely Summing Operators , Cambridge University Press (1993).
- 3[3] G. Godefroy, G. Lancien, and V. Zizler, The non-linear geometry of Banach spaces after Nigel Kalton , Rocky Mtn. J. Math. 44 (2014), 1529–1583.
- 4[4] P. Hájek, V. Montesinos, J. Vanderwerff, and V. Zizler, Biorthogonal Systems in Banach Spaces , CMS Books in Mathematics, Springer 2008.
- 5[5] Th. Jech, Set Theory , Springer Monographs in Mathematics, fourth edition, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2006.
- 6[6] J. Pelant, P. Holický, and O. Kalenda, C ( K ) 𝐶 𝐾 C(K) spaces which cannot uniformly embedded into c 0 ( Λ ) subscript 𝑐 0 Λ c_{0}(\Lambda) . Fund.Math. 192 (2006), 245 – 254.
- 7[7] J. Pelant, Embeddings into c 0 subscript 𝑐 0 c_{0} , Topol. Appl. 57 (1994), 259 – 269.
- 8[8] J. Pelant, and V. Rodl, On coverings of infinite-dimensional metric spaces . Discrete .Math. 108 (1992), 75–81.
