This paper investigates the structure of Gleason parts within the maximal ideal space of algebras of bounded holomorphic functions on the unit ball of c_0, revealing insights into their complex geometry.
Contribution
It provides a detailed analysis of Gleason parts for algebras of holomorphic functions on the ball of c_0, extending understanding of their maximal ideal spaces.
Findings
01
Characterization of Gleason parts for $\
02
on the ball of c_0
03
Identification of the structure of the maximal ideal space $\
Abstract
For a complex Banach space X with open unit ball BX, consider the Banach algebras H∞(BX) of bounded scalar-valued holomorphic functions and the subalgebra Au(BX) of uniformly continuous functions on BX. Denoting either algebra by A, we study the Gleason parts of the set of scalar-valued homomorphisms M(A) on A. Following remarks on the general situation, we focus on the case X=c0.
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
TopicsHolomorphic and Operator Theory · Advanced Banach Space Theory · Advanced Operator Algebra Research
Full text
Gleason parts for algebras of holomorphic functions on the ball of c0
Richard M. Aron
,
Verónica Dimant
,
Silvia Lassalle
and
Manuel Maestre
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, (OH 44242) USA
For a complex Banach space X with open unit ball BX, consider the Banach algebras
H∞(BX) of bounded scalar-valued holomorphic functions and the subalgebra
Au(BX) of uniformly continuous functions on BX. Denoting either algebra
by A, we study the Gleason parts of the set of scalar-valued homomorphisms M(A)
on A. Following remarks on the general situation, we focus on the case X=c0.
Key words and phrases:
Gleason parts, spectrum, algebras of holomorphic functions, bounded analytic functions
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
46J15, 30H50,46E50, 30H05
Partially supported by PAI-UdeSA. The first and fourth authors were partially supported by MINECO and FEDER Project MTM2017-83262-C2-1-P. The second and third
authors were partially supported by Conicet PIP 11220130100483 and ANPCyT PICT 2015-2299. The fourth author was also supported by Project Prometeo/2017/102 of the Generalitat Valenciana.
Introduction
Let X be a complex Banach space with open unit ball BX and unit sphere SX. Using standard notation, Au(BX) denotes the Banach
algebra of holomorphic (complex-analytic) functions f:BX→C that are uniformly continuous on BX. This algebra is clearly
a subalgebra of H∞(BX), the Banach algebra of all bounded holomorphic mappings on BX both endowed with the supremum norm ∥f∥=sup{∣f(x)∣∣∥x∥<1}. Also each
function in Au(BX) extends continuously to BX. Then, the maximal ideal space (the spectrum for short) of Au(BX), that is the set of all nonzero C−valued homomorphisms M(Au(BX))
on Au(BX), contains the point evaluations δx for all x∈X,∥x∥≤1. Our primary interest here
will be in the structure of the set of such homomorphisms, and our specific focus will be on the Gleason parts of M(Au(BX)) and M(H∞(BX)) when X=c0. Classically, in the case of Banach algebras of holomorphic functions on a finite dimensional space, the study of Gleason parts was motivated by the search for analytic structure in the spectrum. That remains true in our case, in which the holomorphic functions have as their domain the (infinite dimensional) ball of X. However, in infinite dimensions the situation is more complicated and more interesting. For instance, in this case, we will exhibit non-trivial examples of Gleason parts intersecting more than one fiber; this phenomenon holds in the finite dimensional case in only simple, uninteresting cases.
Unlike the situation when dim X<∞,
it is well-known (see, e.g., [3]) that M(Au(BX)) usually contains much more than
mere evaluations at points of BX. As we will see, the study of Gleason parts of
M(Au(BX)) in the case of an infinite dimensional X is considerably more difficult than in the easy, finite dimensional situation. Now, when the algebra considered is H∞(D) the seminal paper of Hoffman [16] evidences the complicated nature of the Gleason parts for its spectrum (see also [15, 21, 18]). So, it is not surprising that our results when D is replaced by
BX are incomplete. However, as we will see, much information about Gleason parts for both the Au and H∞ cases can be obtained when X=c0.
As just mentioned, we will concentrate on the case X=c0, which is the natural extension of the polydisc Dn. After a review in Section 1 of necessary background and some general
results, the description of Gleason parts for M(Au(Bc0)) will constitute Section 2. Finally, in Section 3 we will discuss what we have learned about Gleason parts for M(H∞(Bc0)).
For general theory of holomorphic functions we refer the reader to the monograph of Dineen [11] and for further information on uniform algebras and Gleason parts we suggest the books of Bear [5], Gamelin [13], Garnett [14] and Stout [20].
1. Background and general results
In this section, we will discuss some simple results concerning Gleason parts for M(A) where A is an algebra of holomorphic functions defined on the open unit ball of a general Banach space X.
Namely, A will denote either Au(BX) or H∞(BX).
For a Banach space X, as usual X∗ and X∗∗ denote the dual and the bidual spaces, respectively. We begin with very short reviews of:
(ii) the particular Banach algebras of holomorphic functions that we are interested in.
(i) Let A be a uniform algebra and let
M(A) denote the compact set of non-trivial homomorphisms φ:A→C endowed with the w(A∗,A) topology (w∗ for short).
For φ,ψ∈M(A), we set the pseudo-hyperbolic distance
[TABLE]
Recall that when A=A(D) or A=H∞(D), the pseudo-hyperbolic metric for λ and μ in the unit disc D is given by
[TABLE]
Also, the formula given above remains true if A=A(D) for λ,μ∈D, if ∣λ∣=1 and λ=μ. Clearly, in this case, ρ(δλ,δμ)=1.
The following very useful relation is well known (see, for instance, [5, Theorem 2.8]):
[TABLE]
Noting that it is always the case that ∥φ−ψ∥(≡sup∥f∥≤1∣φ(f)−ψ(f)∣)≤2, the main point here being that ∥φ−ψ∥<2
if and only if ρ(φ,ψ)<1. From this (with some work), it follows that by defining φ∼ψ
to mean that ρ(φ,ψ)<1 leads to a partition of M(A) into equivalence classes, called Gleason parts. Specifically,
for each φ∈M(A), the Gleason part containing φ is
the set
[TABLE]
We remark that it was perhaps König [17] who coined the phrase Gleason metric for the metric ∥φ−ψ∥.
(ii) We first recall [9] that any f∈H∞(BX) can be extended in a canonical way to f~∈H∞(BX∗∗). Moreover,
the extension f⇝f~ is a homomorphism of Banach algebras. A standard
argument shows that the canonical extension
takes functions in Au(BX) to functions in Au(BX∗∗). Consequently, each point z0∈BX∗∗ (resp. BX∗∗) gives rise to an element δ~z0∈M(H∞(BX)) (resp.
M(Au(BX))). Here, for a given function f,δ~z0(f)=f~(z0). Note that for f∈Au(BX) and z0∈X∗∗, with ∥z0∥=1, we are allowed to compute f~(z0) and we will use this fact without further mention. Also, in order to avoid unwieldy notation we will omit the tilde over the δ, simply writing δz0(f). We recall that either for A=Au(BX) or A=H∞(BX) there is a mapping π:M(A)→BX∗∗ given by π(φ):=φ∣X∗. Note that this makes sense since X∗⊂A. It is not difficult to see
that π is surjective [3]. As usual, for any z∈BX∗∗, the fiber over z, will be denoted by
[TABLE]
As we will see, knowledge of the fiber structure is useful in the study of Gleason parts, in the context of the Banach algebras Au(BX) and H∞(BX).
The first instance of this occurs in part (b) of Proposition 1.1 below.
Proposition 1.1**.**
Let X be a Banach space and M=M(A) be as above.
(a)
The set {δz:z∈BX∗∗} is contained in GP(δ0). In fact, ρ(δ0,δz)=∥z∥ for each z∈BX∗∗.
2. (b)
Let z∈SX∗∗ and w∈BX∗∗. Then, for any φ∈Mz and ψ∈Mw, ρ(φ,ψ)=1. That is, φ and ψ lie in different Gleason parts.
Proof.
(a) Fix z∈BX∗∗,z=0, and f∈A, such that ∥f∥≤1 and f(0)=δ0(f)=0.
By an application of the Schwarz lemma to f~∈A(X∗∗), we see that ∣δz(f)∣=∣f~(z)∣≤∥z∥. Therefore ρ(δ0,δz)≤∥z∥<1, or in other words δz is in the same
Gleason part as δ0. In addition, if we apply the definition of ρ to a sequence (xn∗)⊂BX∗⊂A such that ∣z(xn∗)∣→∥z∥, we get that ρ(δ0,δz)≥∥z∥.
(b) As in part (a) and using that φ∈Mz, we may choose a sequence (xn∗) of norm one functionals on X such that φ(xn∗)=z(xn∗)→∥z∥=1. Observe
that ∣ψ(xn∗)∣=∣w(xn∗)∣≤∥w∥<1. For each n,m∈N, the function gn,m:BX→C defined as
[TABLE]
is in A=Au(BX) or H∞(BX). Evidently, ∥gn,m∥=1 and ψ(gn,m)=0. In addition,
[TABLE]
which approaches 1 with n and m. Then, ρ(ψ,φ)=1 and ψ and φ are in different parts.
∎
In the classical situation of M(H∞(D)), the Gleason part containing the evaluation at the origin, δ0,
consists of the set {δz∣z∈D}. This known fact is made evident in view of Proposition 1.1 and the fact that fibers over points in D are singletons. In the case of an infinite dimensional space X, it can happen that fibers (over interior points) are bigger than single evaluations and also the Gleason part of δ0 could properly contain BX∗∗.
The following, which uses part (a) of Proposition 1.1,
gives a glimpse at this situation.
Proposition 1.2**.**
Let X be a Banach space. Fix r, 0<r<1 and consider BX∗∗(0,r)≈{δz∣z∈X∗∗,∥z∥<r}⊂M(A).
Then the closure of BX∗∗(0,r) in M(A) is contained in GP(δ0).
Proof.
Fix φ∈M(A), φ in the closure of BX∗∗(0,r), and choose any f∈A,f(0)=0,∥f∥=1. By definition, for fixed ε>0 such that r+ε<1 there is z∈BX∗∗(0,r) such that ∣φ(f)−δz(f)∣<ε.
Then,
[TABLE]
Thus, ρ(φ,δ0)<1, which concludes the proof.
∎
In many common situations, there are norm-continuous polynomials P acting on the Banach space X whose restriction to BX is not weakly continuous. To give
one very easy example, the 2−homogeneous polynomial P:ℓ2→C,P(x)=∑nxn2 is such that 1=P(22[e1+en])=1/2=P(22e1).
In these cases, the following corollary shows that the exact composition of GP(δ0) is somewhat more complicated.
Corollary 1.3**.**
Let X be a Banach space which admits a (norm) continuous polynomial that is not weakly continuous when restricted to the unit ball. Then BX∗∗⫋GP(δ0).
Proof.
Combining [6, Corollary 2] and [6, Proposition 3] if X admits a polynomial which is not weakly continuous when restricted to the unit ball, then there is a homogeneous polynomial P on X whose canonical extension P~ to X∗∗ is not weak-star continuous at [math] when restricted to any ball BX∗∗(0,r),0<r<1. Fix any r and choose a net (zα)⊂BX∗∗(0,r) that is
weak-star convergent to [math] and P~(zα)↛0. Choosing a subnet if necessary, we may assume that P~(zα)→b=0. Applying
Proposition 1.2, if φ∈M(A) is a limit point of {δzα}, then φ∈GP(δ0). Note that
δ0(P)=0=b=φ(P), so that δ0=φ. Finally, φ∈M0, since π(φ)=φ∣X∗, which shows
that φ∈GP(δ0)\BX∗∗.
∎
Remark 1.4*.*
Note that, under the hypothesis of the above result, by Proposition 1.1, each homomorphism φ∈GP(δ0)\BX∗∗ should be in some fiber over points in BX∗∗.
In the rest of this section, we will focus on the calculation of the pseudo-hyperbolic distance in some special, albeit important, situations. Here, we will have
to distinguish between the cases A=Au(BX) and A=H∞(BX).
Proposition 1.5**.**
Let X be a Banach space and
A=Au(BX) or A=H∞(BX). Suppose that there exists an automorphism Φ:BX→BX and in addition for the case of Au(BX), assume Φ is uniformly continuous. Then, given x∈BX such that Φ(x)=0, for any y∈BX we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
We only prove the case A=Au(BX). Let f∈Au(BX),∥f∥≤1, such that δx(f)=f(x)=0. As f∘Φ−1 is in H∞(BX), we can apply the Schwarz lemma to obtain
[TABLE]
Thus, from the definition of ρ, we see that ρ(δx,δy)≤∥Φ(y)∥.
For the reverse inequality, choose a norm one functional x∗∈X∗ such that x∗(Φ(y))=∥Φ(y)∥,
and set
f=x∗∘Φ. Since f∈Au(BX) has norm at most 1 and satisfies f(x)=0, we get that
[TABLE]
∎
Note that the proof of Proposition 1.5 shows that ρ(δx,δy) is independent of the particular choice of the automorphism Φ.
For subsequent embedding results, for a Banach space X and A=Au(BX) or A=H∞(BX) we will use the Gleason metric on M(A). As we have already noted in (i) at the beginning of this section, this metric is the restriction of the usual distance given by the norm on A∗. When we refer to the Gleason metric for elements of BX∗∗, the open unit ball BX∗∗ will be regarded as a subset of M(A). As we will see in the next proposition, under certain conditions, the automorphism Φ of Proposition 1.5 induces an isometry (for the Gleason metric) in the spectrum that sends some fibers onto different fibers. This type of isometry allows us to transfer information relative to Gleason parts intersecting one fiber to other fibers. Recall that a finite type polynomial on X is a function in the algebra generated by X∗. Also, a Banach space X is said to be symmetrically regular if every continuous linear mapping T:X→X∗ which is symmetric (i. e. T(x1)(x2)=T(x2)(x1) for all x1,x2∈X) turns out to be weakly compact.
Proposition 1.6**.**
Let X be a Banach space and A=Au(BX) or A=H∞(BX). Suppose that there exists an automorphism Φ:BX→BX and in addition for the case of Au(BX), assume Φ and Φ−1 are uniformly continuous.
(i)
The mapping Φ induces a composition operator CΦ:A→A, CΦ(f)=f∘Φ such that ΛΦ:=CΦt∣M(A):M(A)→M(A),
the restriction of its transpose to M(A), is an onto isometry for the Gleason metric with inverse ΛΦ−1=ΛΦ−1.
2. (ii)
If for every x∗∈X∗, x∗∘Φ and x∗∘Φ−1 are uniform limits of finite type polynomials then for any x∈BX, ΛΦ(Mx)=MΦ(x). If in addition X is symmetrically regular, then, for any z∈BX∗∗, ΛΦ(Mz)=MΦ(z).
Proof.
To prove (i), just notice that for f∈A and φ∈M(A),
[TABLE]
Through this equality it is easily seen that ∥ΛΦ(φ)−ΛΦ(ψ)∥=∥φ−ψ∥, for all φ,ψ∈M(A).
It is enough to prove (ii) in the case X is symmetrically regular. Fix z∈BX∗∗ and take φ∈Mz. Given x1∗,…,xn∗ in X∗ as φ is multiplicative, we have that
[TABLE]
Thus, since any polynomial Q of finite type is a linear combination of elements as above, we have
[TABLE]
By hypothesis, for any x∗∈X∗ there exists a sequence (Qk) of polynomials of finite type that converges uniformly to x∗∘Φ on BX. Hence, the sequence (Qk) converges to x∗∘Φ uniformly on BX∗∗ and Φ admits a unique extension to BX∗∗ through weak-star continuity. Thus,
[TABLE]
Consequently, ΛΦ(Mz)⊂MΦ(z). Now, the reverse inclusion follows from (i) because, since X is symmetrically regular and arguing as in the proof of [7, Corollary 2.2], we know that Φ−1∘Φ=Id. Therefore,
ΛΦ(Mz)=MΦ(z).
∎
To conclude this section, we give three examples of these results.
Example 1.7**.**
Let X=c0 and fix a point x=(xn)∈Bc0. Define the mapping Φx:Bc0→Bc0 as follows:
[TABLE]
where ηα(λ)=1−αλα−λ,α,λ∈D. In this case Φx is a uniformly continuous automorphism (Φx−1=Φx) with Φx(x)=0 and so, for any y∈Bc0,
[TABLE]
Also, ΛΦx is an onto isometry for the Gleason metric in M(A) both for A=Au(Bc0) or A=H∞(Bc0). Moreover, ΛΦx(Mz)=MΦx(z) for any z∈Bℓ∞.
In the next section, we will discuss the more complicated, more interesting extension of the previous example to z∈Bℓ∞; see Theorem 2.4.
Example 1.8**.**
([2, Lemma 4.4])
Let X=ℓ2 and fix a point x∈Bℓ2. Define the mapping βx:Bℓ2→Bℓ2 as follows:
[TABLE]
(y∈Bℓ2). From [19, Proposition 1, p.132], we know that βx is an automorphism from Bℓ2 onto itself, with inverse map βx−1=βx and βx(x)=0.
Also, by expanding 1/[1−⟨y,x⟩] as a geometric series ∑⟨y,x⟩n and noting that the series converges uniformly on Bℓ2, we see that
βx(y)=g(y)x+h(y)y, where the functions g and h are in
Au(Bℓ2). Thus, βx is uniformly continuous.
Applying Proposition 1.5, we see that for all x,y∈Bℓ2,ρ(δx,δy)=∥βx(y)∥. Also, by Proposition 1.6, Λβx is an onto isometry for the Gleason metric in M(A), both for A=Au(Bℓ2) or A=H∞(Bℓ2). Moreover, as Proposition 1.6 (ii) holds (see [2, Lemma 4.3]) Λβx(My)=Mβx(y) for all y∈Bℓ2.
Example 1.9**.**
Let H be an infinite dimensional Hilbert space and let X=L(H) be the Banach space of all bounded linear operators from H into itself. Fix R∈BL(H) and denote by R∗ its adjoint operator. Define the mapping ΦR on BL(H) as follows:
[TABLE]
(T∈BL(H)). Note that ΦR:BL(H)→BL(H) is an automorphism with inverse map Φ−R and ΦR(R)=0. As in the example above, it can be seen that ΦR is uniformly continuous. Then, by Proposition 1.5, for R,S∈BL(H) we obtain ρ(δR,δS)=∥ΦR(S)∥. Again, by Proposition 1.6, ΛΦR is an onto isometry for the Gleason metric in M(A), both for A=Au(BL(H)) or A=H∞(BL(H)).
2. Gleason parts for M(Au(Bc0)).
Compared to other infinite dimensional Banach spaces, what is unusual about X=c0 is that, in relative terms, there are very few continuous polynomials P:c0→C. All
such polynomials are norm limits of finite linear combinations of elements of c0∗=ℓ1. As a consequence, there are very few holomorphic functions on c0 [11]. In
particular, every f∈Au(Bc0) is a uniform limit of such polynomials.
Thus, since any homomorphism is automatically continuous, its action on Au(Bc0) is completely determined by
its action on c0∗. In other words, M(Au(Bc0))
is precisely {δz∣z∈Bℓ∞}. Note that if c0 were replaced by ℓp, this
approximation result would be false, and in fact M(Au(Bℓp)) is considerably larger and more complicated than
Bℓp≈{δz∣z∈Bℓp} (see, e.g., [12]).
Our aim here will be to get a reasonably complete description of the Gleason parts of M(Au(Bc0)). As just mentioned, our work is
greatly helped by the fact that we know exactly what M(Au(Bc0)) is, namely that it can be associated with
Bℓ∞. A special role is played by homomorphisms δz where z belongs to the distinguished boundary TN, the set of all elements z=(zn) such that ∣zn∣=1 for all n. Also, notice that compared with the finite dimensional situation, there is a new and interesting “wrinkle” here
in that there are unit vectors z=(zn)n∈Bℓ∞ all of whose coordinates have absolute value smaller than 1. We begin with
a straightforward lemma.
Lemma 2.1**.**
For any ∅=N0⊂N, let Γ:ℓ∞→ℓ∞(N0) be the projection mapping taking z=(zj)j∈N↦Γ(z)=(zj)j∈N0. Then for all z,w∈Bℓ∞, the following inequality holds:
[TABLE]
Proof.
Clearly, Γ is a linear operator having norm 1, and Γ(c0)=c0(N0). Thus each f∈Au(Bc0(N0))
generates a function g∈Au(Bc0) given by g=f∘Γ∣c0 having the same norm as f. An easy verification shows that
the extension of g to Au(Bℓ∞) is given by g~=f~∘Γ. Therefore for all z,w∈ℓ∞,∥z∥,∥w∥≤1,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
∎
Another way to restate Lemma 2.1 is as follows: if δz∈GP(δw), then δΓ(z)∈GP(δΓ(w)). Since N0 is allowed to be finite, say of cardinal k, if δz and δw are in the same Gleason part, then their projections onto finite coordinates (viewed as being in Dk) are also in the same Gleason part. Our next result examines the situation: Suppose that z,w∈Bℓ∞ are such that δz and δw are in the same Gleason part. What can we say about the coordinates where these points differ and where these points are identical?
Lemma 2.2**.**
For z,w∈Bℓ∞, let N0={n∈N∣zn=wn} and Γ:ℓ∞→ℓ∞(N0) be the projection as in Lemma 2.1. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Fix z∈Bℓ∞ and define Θz:ℓ∞(N0)→ℓ∞ by:
[TABLE]
Given g∈Au(Bc0),∥g∥≤1, let f=g~∘Θz∣c0(N0). Note that f is well-defined since
whenever u∈Bℓ∞(N0) then Θz(u)∈Bℓ∞. It is easy to check that f∈Au(Bc0(N0)),∥f∥≤1, and that f~=g~∘Θz∈Au(Bℓ∞(N0)). From the definition of N0, we see that
[TABLE]
and this, with the previous lemma, completes the proof.
∎
One consequence of this result is that if z∈Bℓ∞ with ∣zn∣<1, for some n, then any w∈Bℓ∞ such that wj=zj, for all j=n, and ∣wn∣<1, satisfies that δz and δw are in the same Gleason part. In particular, the only Gleason parts that are singleton points are the evaluations at points in the distinguished boundary TN of Bℓ∞, i.e. the points in the Shilov boundary of M(Au(Bc0)).
Lemma 2.3**.**
For each n∈N, let Γn:ℓ∞→ℓ∞({1,2,…,n}) be the natural projection. If z and w are both in Bℓ∞, then
[TABLE]
Proof.
First, Lemma 2.1 implies that the sequence (∥δΓn(z)−δΓn(w)∥) is increasing and bounded by ∥δz−δw∥. Note also that for each u∈Bℓ∞,Γn(u)⟶w(ℓ∞,ℓ1)u, and if f is in Au(Bc0), it follows that f~∈Au(Bℓ∞) is weak-star continuous. Consequently,
f~(Γn(u))→f~(u) as n→∞. Therefore, for any ε>0 take f∈Au(Bc0),∥f∥≤1, such that ∣f~(z)−f~(w)∣>∥δz−δw∥−2ε. Then,
we can find n0∈N such that both of the following hold:
[TABLE]
Hence, we see that
[TABLE]
From this, we obtain that ∥δz−δw∥≤∥δΓn0(z)−δΓn0(w)∥+ε, and the lemma follows.
∎
For the subsequent description of the Gleason parts for M(Au(Bc0)) we introduce the following notation.
For each λ∈D and 0<r<1, we denote the pseudo-hyperbolic r-disc centered at λ by
[TABLE]
Theorem 2.4**.**
Let z=(zn) and w=(wn) be vectors in Bℓ∞. Then
[TABLE]
Moreover, if N0={n∈N∣zn=wn} then
[TABLE]
Hence, given z=(zn)∈Bℓ∞ we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Lemma 2.3, it is enough to see that ∥δΓn(z)−δΓn(w)∥=sup1≤k≤n∥δzk−δwk∥ for all n, where Γn:ℓ∞→ℓ∞({1,2,…,n}) is the natural projection. By Lemma 2.2, we may also assume that zk=wk for k=1,…,n.
First, suppose that there exists k, 1≤k≤n, such that ∣zk∣=1 or ∣wk∣=1. Then, ∥δzk−δwk∥=2 and Lemma 2.1 gives the equality. Now, assume that ∣zk∣,∣wk∣<1 for all 1≤k≤n. Note that (1.1) describes ∥δΓn(z)−δΓn(w)∥ in terms of ρ(δΓn(z),δΓn(w)) by an increasing function. Using Example 1.7 we see that ρ(δΓn(z),δΓn(w))=sup1≤k≤nρ(δzk,δwk) and both equalities (2.1) and (2.2) follow from this.
Now, from ρ(δz,δw)=supn∈Nρ(δzn,δwn), we have
[TABLE]
The conclusion trivially holds.
∎
Notice that if the algebra is H∞(Bc0) and the vectors z,w belong to the open unit ball Bℓ∞, equation (2.1) coincides with equation (6.1) of [8, Theorem 6.6]. The next example illustrates how Theorem 2.4 can be used.
Example 2.5**.**
Consider the following points in the sphere of ℓ∞:z=(1−n1)n,w=(1−n21)n, and u=(1−2n1)n. Then δz and δw
are in different Gleason parts, while δz and δu are in the same part.
To see this, observe that
[TABLE]
which shows the first assertion. Similarly,
[TABLE]
Thus, δz and δu belong to the same Gleason part.
In order to give a more descriptive insight of the size of the Gleason parts, let us introduce some notation.
Given z=(zn)∈Bℓ∞, let N1 be the (possibly empty) set N1={n∈N∣∣zn∣=1}. Now, N∖N1 can be split into two disjoint sets N2∪N3 such that
[TABLE]
Note that N2 and N3 could be empty and that they are not uniquely determined. For instance, if N3 is infinite and N2 is finite, we may redefine N3 as the union of N3 and N2 and redefine N2 to be empty. Also, N3 cannot be finite.
In this way we write N as a disjoint union satisfying the above conditions: N=N1∪N2∪N3 and, therefore, the Gleason part containing δz satisfies:
[TABLE]
Now, taking into account all the possibilities for the sets N1, N2 and N3 we obtain a more specific description of the different Gleason parts.
Corollary 2.6**.**
Given z∈Bℓ∞ and N1, N2, N3 defined as above, the Gleason part GP(δz) satisfies one of the following:
(i)
If N=N2 then z∈Bℓ∞ and GP(δz)=GP(δ0)={δw∣w∈Bℓ∞}. This produces the identification GP(δz)≈Bℓ∞.
2. (ii)
If N=N1 then z=(zn)∈TN. So, GP(δz)={δz}.
3. (iii)
If N3=∅ and N1,N2=∅ then GP(δz)={δw∣wn=znifn∈N1andsupn∈N2∣wn∣<1}. So,
•
if #(N2)=k then GP(δz)≈Dk,
•
if N2 is infinite, GP(δz)≈Bℓ∞.
Both identifications are isometries with respect to the Gleason metric.
4. (iv)
If N3 is infinite and N2=∅, then GP(δz) contains Dk for every k∈N and this inclusion is an isometry for the Gleason metric. There is also a continuous injection of Bℓ∞ into GP(δz).
5. (v)
If both N2 and N3 are infinite, then GP(δz)
contains an isometric copy of Bℓ∞, for the Gleason metric.
Proof.
The results concerning isometries follow from Lemma 2.3 and Theorem 2.4. We only have to show the continuous injection of Bℓ∞ in item (iv).
If we write N3={nk}k, for each k there exists rk>0 such that whenever ∣znk−wnk∣<rk we have wnk∈D and
[TABLE]
Then, denoting Cnk=rkD and Cn={0} for n∈N3 we obtain that if w∈z+∏n=1∞Cn then δw∈GP(δz). Since it is clear how to inject Bℓ∞ onto the set z+∏n=1∞Cn, we derive the injection of Bℓ∞ into GP(δz).
∎
3. Gleason parts for M(H∞(Bc0))
Some of our knowledge about the Gleason parts of M(Au(BX)) passes to M(H∞(BX)) if we consider the restriction mapping Υu:MH∞(BX)→MAu(BX). With obvious notation, it is clear that for any φ,ψ∈MH∞(BX),
[TABLE]
Therefore, if GPAu(Υu(φ))=GPAu(Υu(ψ)) we also have GPH∞(φ)=GPH∞(ψ).
Remark 3.1*.*
Let X=c0 and consider z,w∈Sℓ∞ such that GPAu(δz)=GPAu(δw). Then, for any φ∈Mz(H∞(Bc0)) and ψ∈Mw(H∞(Bc0)), as Υu(φ)=δz and Υu(ψ)=δw, we also have GPH∞(φ)=GPH∞(ψ). In particular, if z∈Bℓ∞ belongs to the distinguished boundary TN, every φ∈Mz(H∞(Bc0)) satisfies GPH∞(φ)⊂Mz(H∞(Bc0)). That is, the Gleason part of φ is contained in the fiber over z.
The following is somehow a counterpart to the above remark.
Proposition 3.2**.**
Let z,w∈Sℓ∞ be such that GPAu(δz)=GPAu(δw).
Then there exist φ∈Mz(H∞(Bc0)) and ψ∈Mw(H∞(Bc0)) satisfying GPH∞(φ)=GPH∞(ψ).
Proof.
Fix real numbers (rk), with ∣rk∣<1 and rk↗1. Consider the sequences in Bℓ∞:
[TABLE]
Now, as Mz(H∞(Bc0)) is w∗-compact, both (δxk) and (δyk)
admit w∗-convergent subnets (δxk(α))α, (δyk(α))α in M(H∞(Bc0)). Say
[TABLE]
It is clear that φ∈Mz(H∞(Bc0)) and ψ∈Mw(H∞(Bc0)). Now, as GPAu(δz)=GPAu(δw), by Theorem 2.4 we have
[TABLE]
Then, given f∈H∞(Bc0), ∥f∥≤1, we can find α0 so that for any α≥α0,
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
where the last equality, which is a version of the statement of Theorem 2.4 for the spectrum M(H∞(Bc0)), appears in the proof of [8, Theorem 6.5]. Now, using the pseudo-hyperbolic distance for the unit disc D and the Schwarz–Pick theorem applied to the function f(z)=rk(α)z, for each fixed n such that zn=wn we have
Finally, ∣φ(f)−ψ(f)∣≤22−C+C=22+C, for any f∈H∞(Bc0) with ∥f∥≤1. Therefore, ∥φ−ψ∥M(H∞(Bc0))≤22+C<2 and the proof is complete.
∎
We next prove a kind of extension of the previous proposition. In [4, Lemma 2.9] it is shown that for w∈Bℓ∞ and b∈D the fibers over w and (b,w) are homeomorphic. To recall the homeomorphism let us consider
Λb:Bc0→Bc0 given by Λb(z)=(b,z) and let us denote by S:Bc0→Bc0, the shift mapping S(z)=(z2,z3,…). Now, the homomorphism between the fibers is given by
[TABLE]
Since both Λb and S map the unit ball into the unit ball and S∘Λb=Id it is easy to see that Rb is an isometry for the Gleason metric. Therefore, the fiber over w and the fiber over (b,w) (for any w∈Bℓ∞) intersect the same “number” of Gleason parts.
From Remark 3.1 we know that if z∈TN, then every φ∈Mz(H∞(Bc0)) satisfies that the Gleason part of φ is contained in the fiber over z. The next proposition will show us not only that this does not hold for the fibers over points outside TN, but also that any Gleason part outside TN must have elements from different fibers (in fact, at least from a disc of fibers).
Proposition 3.3**.**
Given b∈D, there exists rb>0 such that if ∣c−b∣<rb then, for all φ∈M(H∞(Bc0)), Rb(φ) and Rc(φ) are in the same Gleason part.
Proof.
By the Cauchy integral formula, BH∞(D) is an equicontinuous set of functions. Therefore, there exists rb>0 such that, if ∣c−b∣<rb then c∈D and ∣g(b)−g(c)∣<1, for all g∈BH∞(D).
Hence, for f∈H∞(Bc0) with ∥f∥≤1 we have
[TABLE]
Therefore, for every φ∈M(H∞(Bc0)),
[TABLE]
∎
It is clear that the previous result is also valid between the fibers of w and (w1,b,w2,…) or (w1,w2,b,w3,…) and so on. That means that the Gleason part of any morphism in the fiber over a point outside TN, must have elements from other fibers. In particular, there cannot be singleton Gleason parts outside the fibers over the points in TN.
Thus far, the above results show that in M(H∞(Bc0)) there are Gleason parts intersecting different fibers (Propositions 3.2 and 3.3) and there are Gleason parts completely contained in a fiber (Remark 3.1). These results do not provide information on the size of the Gleason parts. In order to understand this feature we appeal to the following result whose statement covers several versions appearing for instance in [14, Lemma 1.1, p. 393], [16, Lemma 2.1] and [20, p. 162].
Proposition 3.4**.**
Let X,Y be Banach spaces and ΩX⊂X,ΩY⊂Y be open convex subsets. Let A be a uniform algebra of analytic functions defined on ΩX. Suppose that Φ:ΩY→M(A) is an analytic inclusion. Then Φ(ΩY) is contained in only one Gleason part.
Remark 3.5*.*
Combining the above proposition with results of [4] and [8] we derive that most of the fibers of M(H∞(Bc0)) contain analytic copies of Bℓ∞ (or D) and each of these copies should be in a single Gleason part. Specifically, we have the following:
(i)
By [8, Theorem 6.7], for each z∈Bℓ∞ the fiber over z contains a copy of Bℓ∞. Hence, there is a thick intersection of the fiber over z with a Gleason part. This result can be extended to the case of the fibers over z∈Sℓ∞ such that ∣zn∣=1 for n in a finite set N1 and supn∈N1∣zn∣<1 (see [10]).
2. (ii)
By [4, Theorem 2.2], for each z∈Sℓ∞ with ∣zn∣=1 for all n (or for infinitely many n’s [10]) the fiber over z contains a copy of Bℓ∞. Hence, there is a thick intersection of the fiber over z with a Gleason part.
3. (iii)
By [4, Proposition 2.1], for each z∈Sℓ∞ that attains its norm in Bℓ1 the fiber over z contains an analytic copy of the disc D (which clearly is inside a single Gleason part).
Note that the only case not covered by the previous items corresponds with that of those z∈Sℓ∞ with ∣zn∣<1 for all n.
Recall that given a compact set K and a uniform algebra A contained in C(K) a point x∈K is called a strong boundary point for A if for every neighborhood V of x there exists f∈A such that ∥f∥=f(x)=1 and ∣f(y)∣<1 if y∈K∖V. We see in the next result that in the fiber over each z∈TN there is a strong boundary point. Since the Gleason part of a strong boundary point is just a singleton set, by (ii) of the above remark, we derive that the fiber over any z∈TN intersects a thick Gleason part and also a singleton Gleason part.
Proposition 3.6**.**
If S is the set of strong boundary points of M(H∞(Bc0)) then π(S)=TN.
Proof.
Denoting by SB the Shilov boundary of M(H∞(Bc0)), we have that S⊂SB (see, e.g., [20, Corollary 7.24]) and thus π(S)⊂π(SB). Therefore, in order to prove π(S)=TN it is enough to see π(SB)⊂TN and TN⊂π(S).
To prove the first inclusion, for each n∈N, let us consider the map jn:Bℓ∞→D given by jn(z)=zn. Then, Pn=jn∘π is a weak-star continuous mapping from M(H∞(Bc0)) into D.
Given a∈Bℓ∞∖TN, we want to show that a∈π(SB). Since a∈TN, there is n such that ∣an∣<1. The set Cn=D∖D(an,21−∣an∣) is a closed subset of C, so Pn−1(Cn) is weak-star closed in M(H∞(Bc0)). Also, since Cn contains spheres of radius r, with r approaching to 1, for each f∈H∞(Bc0) we should have
[TABLE]
Hence, Pn−1(Cn) is a boundary, which implies that SB⊂Pn−1(Cn). Thus, π(SB)⊂π(Pn−1(Cn)). Since a∈π(Pn−1(Cn)), we obtain that a∈π(SB).
For the second inclusion, let a=(an)∈TN be given by an=eiθn, for all n. As (2ne−iθn)∈ℓ1 its associated function
[TABLE]
belongs to c0∗. Hence f(x)=1+x∗(x) is holomorphic on c0, bounded and uniformly continuous when restricted to Bℓ∞. Observe that
[TABLE]
Associating f with its Gelfand transform f and noting that f attains its norm at a strong boundary point [20, Theorem 7.21], there is φ∈S such that ∣f(φ)∣=∣φ(f)∣=2.
Finally
[TABLE]
Therefore, π(φ)=a, and so a∈π(S).
∎
Up to now our study about the relationships between fibers and Gleason parts gives information about in which fibers there are singleton Gleason parts, which fibers intersect thick Gleason parts and which Gleason parts contain elements of different fibers. To complete this picture we now wonder about how many Gleason parts intersect a particular fiber. Should it always be more than one?
With respect to this question note that we have already seen that in the fiber over any z∈TN there is a singleton Gleason part and also a copy of Bℓ∞. So, at least two Gleason parts are inside each of these fibers. By translations through mappings Rb (as in Proposition 3.3 and the subsequent comment) we also obtain that there are at least two Gleason parts intersecting the fiber over z for each z∈Sℓ∞ with all but finitely many coordinates of modulus 1.
The following results show that the fiber over any z∈Bℓ∞ intersects 2c Gleason parts.
First, relying on the proof of [8, Theorem 5.1] (see also [8, Corollary 5.2]) we obtain the desired result for the fiber over [math]. For our purposes, we use the construction and notation given in [8].
Theorem 3.7**.**
Let X be an infinite dimensional Banach space. Then there is an embedding Ψ:(β(N)∖N)×D→M0 that is analytic on each slice {θ}×D and satisfies:
(a)
Ψ(θ,λ)∈GP(δ0)* for each (θ,λ).*
2. (b)
GP(Ψ(θ,λ))∩GP(Ψ(θ~,λ~))=∅* for each θ,θ~∈β(N)∖N with θ=θ~ and any λ,λ~∈D.*
Proof.
The existence of the analytic embedding Ψ:(β(N)∖N)×D→M0 is given in [8, Theorem 5.1]. Below, we summarize the main ingredients used in its construction.
•
There exists a sequence (zk)⊂BX∗∗ such that ∥zk∥<∥zk+1∥ and ∥zk∥ is convergent to 1.
•
The sequence of norms (∥zk∥) increases so rapidly that there exists an increasing sequence (rk), such that 0<rk<∥zk∥ and ∑(1−rk) is finite.
•
For a fixed sequence (ak) so that 0<ak<1 and (ak)∈ℓ1, there exists (Lk)⊂X∗ such that ∥Lk∥<1 and
⋅
Lk(zk)=rk, for all k,
⋅
Lj(zk)=0, 1<k<j,
⋅
∣Lj(zk)∣<aj, for all k>j.
•
There exists 0<r<1 such that for all k, if wk:D→X is defined as w_{k}(\lambda)=\big{(}\frac{r_{k}-\lambda}{1-r_{k}\,\lambda}\big{)}\frac{z_{k}}{r_{k}}, then ∥wk(λ)∥<1 for all ∣λ∣<r.
•
The Blaschke product G:BX∗∗→C, given by G(z)=∏j=1∞1−rjLj(z)rj−Lj(z) belongs to H∞(BX∗∗) and ∣G(z)∣<1 if ∥z∥<1.
•
For ∣λ∣<r/2 and each k there exists a unique ξk(λ) such that ∣ξk(λ)∣<r and G(wk(ξk(λ)))=λ for all ∣λ∣<r/2.
•
For every k the function zk(λ):=wk(ξk(λ)) for ∣λ∣<r/2 is a multiple of zk, depends analytically on λ and satisfies ∥zk(λ)∥<1 if ∣λ∣<r/2 with zk(0)=zk.
Note that replacing D by D={λ∈C∣∣λ∣<r/2}, it is enough to show the result for β(N)∖N×D. The function Ψ:N×D→M defined by Ψ(k,λ)=δzk(λ) extends to a map Ψ:β(N)×D→M which is continuous on β(N) for each fixed λ. Moreover, by [8, Theorem 5.1], we know that Ψ(β(N)∖N×D) lies in the fiber over [math], M0.
Now, let us prove that (a) holds. As Ψ is analytic on each slice, to show that Ψ(θ,λ)∈GP(δ0) for each (θ,λ) it is enough to see that Ψ(θ,0)∈GP(δ0), for any θ.
Given N∈N, consider fN∈H∞(BX∗∗) defined by
[TABLE]
Then, δ0(fN)=∏j>Nrj→1 as N→∞. On the other hand, as Ψ(k,0)=δzk, for k>N,
[TABLE]
Now, take θ∈β(N)∖N. Then, there is a net (j(α))⊂N, such that θ=limαj(α). Thus,
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
which shows that Ψ(θ,0)∈GP(δ0).
To prove (b) let us see that if θ=θ~ then GP(Ψ(θ,D))∩GP(Ψ(θ~,D))=∅. Indeed, for θ=θ~ there exists an infinite set J⊂N such that N∖J is also infinite and θ∈{j:j∈J}, θ~∈{j:j∈N∖J}.
Here, for N∈N consider f(J,N)∈H∞(BX∗∗) given by
[TABLE]
Then, ∥f(J,N)∥≤1 and f(J,N)(zk)=0 for all k∈J,k>N. Hence, as before, we obtain that Ψ(θ,0)(f(J,N))=0.
On the other hand, θ~=limα~k(α~). For these indexes k(α~)∈J with k(α~)>N, the corresponding factor does not appear in f(J,N) and
[TABLE]
Notice that \Big{|}\frac{r_{j}-L_{j}(z_{k(\tilde{\alpha})})}{1-r_{j}L_{j}(z_{k(\tilde{\alpha})})}\Big{|}>\frac{r_{j}-a_{j}}{1+r_{j}a_{j}}, for k(α)>j.
Since 1−1+rjajrj−aj<(1−rj)+2aj, the series
∑j≥1(1−1+rjajrj−aj) converges, implying that the infinite product ∏j≥11+rjajrj−aj is convergent as well as the infinite product over {j∈J}.
Now, given 0<ε<1 we can find k0∈N such that for all k≥k0,
[TABLE]
Then, for N>k0 and α~ such that k(α~)>k0,
we have
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
and ∣Ψ(θ~,0)(f(J,N))∣≥(1−ε)2.
Finally, for any 0<ε<1
[TABLE]
and the result follows.
∎
Next, we will see that there is a bijective biholomorphic mapping from Bℓ∞ into Bℓ∞ which is an isometry for the Gleason metric and transfers each fiber over an interior point to a different fiber. We use this fact to extend the conclusions in Theorem 3.7 to the fiber Mz(H∞(Bc0)) for any z∈Bℓ∞.
Lemma 3.8**.**
Let α∈D and let ηα:D→D be the Moebius transformation,
[TABLE]
Given ∣α∣≤s<1, for any λ∈D with ∣λ∣≤s the following inequality holds:
[TABLE]
Proof.
Notice that
[TABLE]
Hence, the result follows for any ∣λ∣≤s since
[TABLE]
∎
Proposition 3.9**.**
Fix a=(an)∈Bℓ∞. The mapping Φa:Bℓ∞→Bℓ∞, defined by
[TABLE]
is bijective and biholomorphic. Moreover, for any x∗∈ℓ1, the function x∗∘Φa is uniformly continuous.
Proof.
First, let us check that Φa(Bℓ∞)⊂Bℓ∞. Fix z=(zn)∈Bℓ∞ and take s=max{∥a∥,∥z∥}<1.
Using Lemma 3.8 we obtain
[TABLE]
To check that Φa is holomorphic, by Dunford’s theorem it is enough to check that Φa is weak-star holomorphic, i.e. that x∗∘Φa∈H(Bℓ∞) for every x∗=(bn)∈ℓ1. Notice that
x∗∘Φa(z)=∑n=1∞bnηan(zn), and
[TABLE]
for every z∈Bℓ∞ and every n. By the Weierstrass M-test, the series ∑n=1∞bnηan(zn) converges absolutely and uniformly on Bℓ∞ and as each z↦ηan(zn) belongs to Au(Bℓ∞) we have actually proved that x∗∘Φa∈Au(Bℓ∞), for every x∗∈ℓ1. Thus Φa∈H(Bℓ∞,Bℓ∞).
Finally as Φa∘Φa(z)=z for every z∈Bℓ∞, we obtain that Φa has inverse Φa−1=Φa and Φa is biholomorphic.
∎
Remark 3.10*.*
Observe that if we consider a∈Bc0 and we restrict Φa to z∈Bc0, then we obtain the biholomorphic mapping of Example 1.7.
Given a∈Bℓ∞ the restriction of Φa to Bc0 will be denoted by {\Phi_{a}}\big{|}_{c_{0}}.
Theorem 3.11**.**
Given a∈Bℓ∞, the mapping CΦa:H∞(Bc0)→H∞(Bc0) defined by
[TABLE]
where f~:Bℓ∞→C is the canonical extension of each f∈H∞(Bc0), is an isometric isomorphism of Banach algebras.
Moreover, ΛΦa:=CΦat∣M(H∞(Bc0)):M(H∞(Bc0))→M(H∞(Bc0)),
the restriction of its transpose to M(H∞(Bc0)), is a surjective isometry for the Gleason metric with inverse ΛΦa−1=ΛΦa that satisfies
[TABLE]
for every z∈Bℓ∞.
Proof.
Clearly CΦa is well-defined, ∥CΦa∥≤1 and it is an algebra homomorphism.
Next we claim that given f∈H∞(Bc0),
[TABLE]
Let us observe that ℓ∞=C(βN) is a symmetrically regular space. Moreover, by Lemma 3.8, if 0<s<1, then m=sup∥z∥≤s∥Φa(z)∥<1. With this in mind, by the method of proof of [7, Corollary 2.2], we have
[TABLE]
By Proposition 3.9, {\Phi_{a}}\big{|}_{c_{0}} is w(c0,ℓ1)-uniformly continuous on Bc0. Hence it has a unique extension to Bℓ∞ that is w(ℓ∞,ℓ1)-uniformly continuous on Bℓ∞ and it coincides with its canonical extension \widetilde{{\Phi_{a}}\big{|}_{c_{0}}}. On the other hand, also by Proposition 3.9, Φa is w(ℓ∞,ℓ1)-uniformly continuous on Bℓ∞ and it is obviously an extension of {\Phi_{a}}\big{|}_{c_{0}} to Bℓ∞. Thus, \widetilde{{\Phi_{a}}\big{|}_{c_{0}}}(z)=\Phi_{a}(z), for all z∈Bℓ∞.
From this equality we derive that CΦa∘CΦa(f)=f for every f∈H∞(Bc0). Indeed,
[TABLE]
for every z∈Bc0. As a consequence CΦa is an isomorphism of algebras. Also we have ∥f∥≤∥CΦa∥∥CΦa(f)∥≤∥CΦa(f)∥ for every f, and therefore CΦa is an isometry.
Hence its transpose CΦat when restricted to M(H∞(Bc0)) is well-defined and its range is again in M(H∞(Bc0)).
Moreover, ΛΦa∘ΛΦa(φ)=φ for every φ∈M(H∞(Bc0)). Finally, for each x∗∈ℓ1, the function \widetilde{x^{*}}\circ{\Phi_{a}}\big{|}_{c_{0}} belongs to Au(Bc0) (as we have already observed) and so it is a uniform limit of finite type polynomials. Hence, as in the proof of Proposition 1.6, we obtain that ΛΦa(Mz)=MΦa(z),
for every z∈Bℓ∞.
∎
Combining this last theorem with Theorem 3.7 we obtain that for each z∈Bℓ∞, the fiber Mz(H∞(Bc0)) contains 2cdiscs lying in different Gleason parts.
Corollary 3.12**.**
Let z∈Bℓ∞. Then, there is an embedding of Ψ:(β(N)∖N)×D→Mz(H∞(Bc0)) that is analytic on each slice {θ}×D and satisfies:
(a)
Ψ(θ,λ)∈GP(δz)* for each (θ,λ).*
2. (b)
GP(Ψ(θ,λ))∩GP(Ψ(θ~,λ~))=∅* for each θ,θ~∈β(N)∖N with θ=θ~ and any λ,λ~∈D.*
Acknowledgements. This work was initiated while the first and fourth
authors visited the Departamento de Matemática, Universidad de San Andrés during September of 2016. Both of them wish to thank the hospitality they received during their visit.
Bibliography21
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] R. M. Aron and P. D. Berner, A Hahn-Banach extension theorem for analytic mappings . Bull. Soc. Math. France 106 (1978), 3–24.
2[2] R. M. Aron, D. Carando, T. W. Gamelin, S. Lassalle and M. Maestre, Cluster values of analytic functions on a Banach space . Math. Ann. 353 (2012), 293–303.
3[3] R. M. Aron, B. Cole and T. W. Gamelin, Spectra of algebras of analytic functions on a Banach space . J. Reine Angew. Math. 415 (1991), 51–93.
4[4] R. M. Aron, J. Falcó, D. García and M. Maestre, Analytic structure in fibers . Studia Math. 240 (2018), no. 2, 101–121.
5[5] H. S. Bear, Lectures on Gleason parts. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Math, 1970.
6[6] C. Boyd and R. A. Ryan, Bounded weak continuity of homogeneous polynomials at the origin . Arch. Math. 71 (1998), no. 3, 211–218.
7[7] Y. S. Choi, D. García, S. G. Kim and M. Maestre, Composition, numerical range and Aron-Berner extension . Math. Scand. 103 (2008) 97–110.
8[8] B. Cole, T. W. Gamelin and W. Johnson, Analytic disks in fibers over the unit ball of a Banach space . Michigan Math. J. 39 (1992), no. 3, 551–569.