This paper explores filter Schauder bases in Banach spaces, providing new examples beyond standard bases, and characterizing filters through these bases, thereby deepening understanding of their structure and relationships.
Contribution
It introduces novel examples of filter Schauder bases in classical Banach spaces and characterizes filters via these bases, expanding the theoretical framework.
Findings
01
New examples of filter Schauder bases in classical spaces
02
Characterization of filters using Schauder bases
03
Analysis of relationships between basic sequences and filters
Abstract
We investigate the notion of filter (equivalently: ideal) Schauder basis of a Banach space. We do so by providing bunch of new examples of such bases that are not the standard ones, especially within classical Banach spaces (ℓp, c0, James' space). Those examples lead to distinguishing and characterizing filters (equivalently: ideals) in terms of Schauder bases. We investigate the relationship between possibly basic sequences and filters (equivalently: ideals) on the set of natural numbers.
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 Banach Space Theory · Holomorphic and Operator Theory · Advanced Topology and Set Theory
We investigate the notion of filter (equivalently: ideal) Schauder basis of a Banach space. We do so by providing bunch of new examples of such bases that are not the standard ones, especially within classical Banach spaces (ℓp, c0, James’ space). Those examples lead to distinguishing and characterizing filters (equivalently: ideals) in terms of Schauder bases. We investigate the relationship between possibly basic sequences and filters (equivalently: ideals) on the set of natural numbers.
Key words and phrases:
Filter bases in Banach spaces, ideal bases in Banach spaces, generalised bases, Borel and analytic ideals, ideal convergence of series
The second-named author acknowledges with thanks funding received from NCN project SONATA BIS 13 No. 2023/50/E/ST1/00067
1. Preliminaries
We aim to keep our paper readable for both set theorists and functional analysts; therefore, we recall some of the basic definitions from both fields.
Throughout the paper, we use standard set-theoretic notation and identify each natural number n∈ω={0,1,2,…} with the set {0,1,…,n−1}.
1.1. Ideals
We will be concerned with ideals I on the set of natural numbers ω. By an ideal on a countable set M we mean a family I⊆P(M) such that:
•
I contains all finite subsets of M;
•
if A,B∈I, then also A∪B∈I;
•
if A∈I and B⊆A, then also B∈I.
We will focus primarily on non-trivial ideals, that is, ideals I such that I=P(M), and our ideals will typically be defined on M=ω.
Remark 1.1**.**
Clearly, the notion of ideal is dual to the notion of filter: I is an ideal if and only if the family of complements of elements of I forms a filter. Therefore, choice between working in terms of ideal bases and filter bases is purely aesthetic.
We treat the power set P(M) as the space 2M of all functions f:M→2 (equipped with the product topology, where each space 2={0,1} carries the discrete topology) by identifying subsets of M with their characteristic functions. All topological and descriptive notions in the context of ideals will refer to this topology.
An ideal I on M is tall if for any infinite A⊆M there is an infinite B⊆A such that B∈I. Equivalently, I is tall if I↾A=[A]<ω, for any A∈/I, where
[TABLE]
We say that an ideal I on M is generated by a family A⊆P(M) if
[TABLE]
An ideal I is called a P-ideal if for each sequence (An)⊆I there is a set A∈I such that An∖A is finite for all n∈ω. By a result of Solecki, every analytic P-ideal is Fσδ (see [19]).
If {Xm:m∈M} is a family of sets, then ∑m∈MXm={(m,x):m∈M,x∈Xm} is its disjoint sum. The vertical section of a set A⊆∑m∈MXm at a point m∈M is defined
by A(m)={x∈Xm:(m,x)∈A}. Let I and J be ideals on M and N, respectively, and Im, for each m∈M, be an ideal on Xm. We define the following new ideals:
•
∑m∈MIm={A⊆∑m∈MXm:∀m∈MA(m)∈Im};
•
{∅}⊗I={A⊆ω×M:A(n)∈I for all n∈ω};
•
I⊕J={A⊆({0}×M)∪({1}×N):A(0)∈I and A(1)∈J}.
Two ideals I and J on M and N, respectively, are isomorphic (I≅J) if there is f:N→M such that:
[TABLE]
for all A⊆M. Two isomorphic ideals have the same descriptive complexity (see for instance [6, Lemma 7.2]).
Lemma 1.2** (Folklore).**
Let I be an ideal.
(a)
If I is not tall, then I≅I⊕Fin.
(b)
If I=Fin, then I≅I⊕P(ω).
Proof.
Without loss of generality, we may assume that I is an ideal on ω.
Since I is not tall (I=Fin, respectively), there is A∈/I such that I↾A=Fin↾A (an infinite A∈I, respectively). Let g:(({0}×A)∪({1}×ω))→A be any bijection. Then f:2×ω→ω given by:
[TABLE]
for all (i,n)∈2×ω, witnesses I≅I⊕Fin (I≅I⊕P(ω), respectively).
∎
Example 1.3**.**
The following is a list of some well-known ideals:
•
The smallest ideal is Fin=[ω]<ω. It is an Fσ non-tall P-ideal.
•
Fin⊕P(ω)* is an ideal on 2×ω consisting of all A⊆2×ω such that A∩({0}×ω) is finite. It is an Fσ non-tall P-ideal.*
•
A summable ideal is an ideal of the form
[TABLE]
where \mathbbmr=(rn) is a sequence of positive reals such that ∑n∈ωrn=∞. Each summable ideal is an Fσ P-ideal. The most well-known summable ideal is
[TABLE]
It is a tall ideal. Note that Fin is a summable ideal (given, eg. by any constant sequence \mathbbmr) and Fin⊕P(ω) is isomorphic to the summable ideal {A⊆ω:A∩{2n:n∈ω}∈Fin} given by the sequence:
[TABLE]
•
The ideal of asymptotic density zero is given by:
[TABLE]
(here we use the standard set-theoretic convention and treat a number n∈ω as the set {0,1,…,n−1}). It is an Fσδ, but not Fσ, tall P-ideal.
•
{∅}⊗Fin* is an ideal on ω2 consisting of all A⊆ω2 such that A(n)={k∈ω:(n,k)∈A}∈Fin for all n∈ω. It is an Fσδ, but not Fσ, non-tall P-ideal.*
A function ϕ:P(ω)→[0,∞] is called a submeasure if ϕ(∅)=0, ϕ({n})<∞, for each n∈ω, and
[TABLE]
for all A,B⊆ω. A submeasure ϕ is lower semicontinuous (lsc, in short) if ϕ(A)=limn→∞ϕ(A∩n) for all A⊆ω. The support of a submeasure ϕ is defined as supp(ϕ)={n∈ω:ϕ({n})=0}.
Mazur in [17, Lemma 1.2] proved that an ideal on ω is Fσ if and only if it is of the form:
[TABLE]
for some lower semicontinuous submeasure ϕ such that ω∈/Fin(ϕ) (see also [8, Theorem 1.2.5]). Similarly, Solecki in [20, Theorem 3.1] showed that an ideal on ω is an analytic P-ideal if and only if it is of the form:
[TABLE]
for some lower semicontinuous submeasure ϕ such that ω∈/Exh(ϕ) (see also [8, Theorem 1.2.5]).
A submeasure ϕ is non-pathological, if
[TABLE]
for all A⊆ω. We say that an Fσ ideal (analytic P-ideal) is non-pathological, if it is of the form Fin(ϕ) (Exh(ϕ), respectively), for some non-pathological submeasure ϕ.
1.3. Ideal convergence
Following [16], for an ideal I on ω and a sequence (xn) of elements of some metric space (X,d), we say that (xn) is I-convergent to some x∈X if almost all xn’s in the sense of I, are arbitrarily close to x, that is, for every ε>0 we have {n∈ω:d(xn,x)>ε}∈I. In such a case, we write xn→Ix or limn,Ixn=x. Note that for the particular ideal of asymptotic density zero, ideal convergence has been previously considered under the name of statistical convergence (see e.g. [9], [10], [18], [21]).
Similarly, for a Banach space X, we say that a series (\mathbbmxn) is I-convergent to some \mathbbmx∈X, if the sequence (\mathbbman) of partial sums, given by \mathbbman=∑i=0n\mathbbmxn, is I-convergent to X. In such a case we write
[TABLE]
Note that it means ”almost all partial sums are close to \mathbbmx” rather than ”sums of almost all elements are close to \mathbbmx”. In fact, even though the second statement might be more intuitive on the first thought, it does not make sense at all.
1.4. Schauder bases
Given a Banach space X over the real or complex field K, by a Schauder basis of X we usually mean such a sequence (\mathbbmun)⊆X that for any \mathbbmx∈X there exists exactly one sequence of scalars (αn)⊆K such that \mathbbmx=∑n=0∞αn\mathbbmun. In such a case we can associate with it a sequence of functionals \mathbbmun⋆:X→K such that \mathbbmui⋆:∑n=0∞αn\mathbbmun↦αi. From Banach Space Theory, it is a standard yet nontrivial fact that all \mathbbmun⋆’s are continuous and linear (see eg. [1, Theorem 1.1.3]). Throughout the paper we will be dealing with specific examples of bases and we find fixing coordinate functionals convenient, so by a Schauder basis of X we mean the sequence of pairs \mathbbmu^=(\mathbbmun,\mathbbmun⋆).
A Schauder basis \mathbbmu^=(\mathbbmun,\mathbbmun⋆) of a Banach space X is unconditional, if the series ∑n=0∞\mathbbmun⋆(\mathbbmx)\mathbbmun converges unconditionally, for every \mathbbmx∈X.
Throughout the whole paper by \mathbbme^=(\mathbbmen,\mathbbmen⋆) we will denote the standard Schauder basis of c0. Note that \mathbbme^ is also a Schauder basis of each ℓp, 1≤p<∞. It is known that \mathbbme^ is unconditional in c0 and in each ℓp, 1≤p<∞.
Lemma 1.4** (Folklore).**
Let \mathbbmu^ be an unconditional Schauder base of X. If ∑nan\mathbbmun∈X and (bn)⊆K is such that ∣bn∣≤∣an∣, for every n∈ω, then ∑nbn\mathbbmun∈X.
Proof.
Since \mathbbmu^ is unconditional, by [1, Proposition 3.1.3], there is K≥1 such that
[TABLE]
for all n∈ω and scalars c0,…,cn,d0,…,dn such that ∣ci∣≤∣di∣, for i≤n.
Fix n∈ω. Then for any m>n
[TABLE]
Therefore ∑n=0∞bn\mathbbmun is convergent.
∎
2. Ideal Schauder bases
2.1. Definition
Natural way for considering ideal version of Schauder bases is to simply demand \mathbbmx=∑n,Iαn\mathbbmen instead of \mathbbmx=∑nαn\mathbbmen in which case linear coordinate functionals also appear, yet their continuity is not so clear anymore (see [5, 7, 14, 15] for more detailed discussion of this issue). Since throughout the presented paper we find fixing coordinate functionals convenient, therefore we consider the following definition.
If X is a Banach space and \mathbbma^=(\mathbbman,\mathbbman⋆)⊆X×KX are such that:
[TABLE]
(which represents equality \mathbbman=\mathbbman+∑m=n0⋅\mathbbmam), then we denote:
[TABLE]
for all \mathbbmx∈X and n∈ω. For an ideal I on ω, we say that \mathbbma^ is an I-Schauder basis of X if
[TABLE]
that is \mathbbmx=∑n,I\mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmx)\mathbbman, for every \mathbbmx∈X and ε>0.
It is a natural question if our definition is equivalent to the original one, i.e. if the sequence (\mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmx)) is the only possible sequence of coordinates. Now we will explain why uniqueness of coefficients is not a big deal in the context of presented paper (however, note that in general there might be an issue if some of \mathbbman⋆’s would not be continuous). Our reasoning is the same as in the case of standard bases (see eg. [1, Definition 1.1.2, Theorem 1.1.3]).
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let (\mathbbman) be such a sequence in some Banach space X that \mathbbman∈/span{\mathbbmam:m=n} for every n∈ω. Fix two sequences of scalars (αn) and (βn). Then for every l∈ω such that αl=βl there exists ε>0 such that ∥∑i=0kαi\mathbbmai−∑i=0k′βi\mathbbmai∥X>ε for every k,k′>l.
Proof.
Note that ∑i=0kαi\mathbbmai−∑i=0k′βi\mathbbmai=(αl−βl)\mathbbmal−\mathbbmb for some \mathbbmb∈span{\mathbbmam:m=l}. Thus
[TABLE]
Note that the distance above does not depend on k and k′.
∎
Proposition 2.2**.**
Let \mathbbma^=(\mathbbman,\mathbbman⋆)⊆X×X⋆ be such that \mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmam)=δnm for all n,m∈ω. Fix \mathbbmx∈X and a sequence of scalars (βn). Assume there are two nontrivial ideals I and J such that:
[TABLE]
Then \mathbbman⋆(x)=βn for every n∈ω.
Proof.
Note that if n=m then the condition \mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmam)=0 implies \mathbbmam∈Ker(\mathbbman⋆). By the continuity of \mathbbman⋆, Ker(\mathbbman⋆) is closed, so span{\mathbbmam:m=n}⊆Ker(\mathbbman⋆). Since \mathbbman⋆(\mathbbman)=1, we obtain \mathbbman∈/ker\mathbbman⋆ for every n. If βn=\mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmx) for some \mathbbmx∈X and n∈ω, then, by Lemma 2.1, there is some ε>0 such that
[TABLE]
for every k,k′>n. But since \mathbbmx=∑n,I\mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmx)\mathbbman and I=P(ω), there exists k>n such that
[TABLE]
hence
[TABLE]
for all k′>n, contradicting \mathbbmx=∑n,Jβi\mathbbman.
∎
Above considerations leads us to some useful Corollaries.
Corollary 2.3**.**
Let X be a Banach space and I be a nontrivial ideal. Assume that \mathbbma^=(\mathbbman,\mathbbman⋆)⊆X×X⋆ is an I-Schauder basis of X such that \mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmam)=δnm for all n,m∈ω. If \mathbbma^ is also a J-Schauder basis of X, for some nontrivial ideal J (in particular, for J=I), then for every \mathbbmx∈X there exists a unique sequence of scalars (αn) (=(\mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmx)))) such that \mathbbmx=∑n,Jαn\mathbbman.
Let X be a Banach space and I be a nontrivial analytic ideal. Assume that (\mathbbman)⊆X is such that for every \mathbbmx∈X there exists a unique sequence of scalars (αn,\mathbbmx) such that \mathbbmx=∑n,Iαn,\mathbbmx\mathbbman. If for a nontrivial ideal J and \mathbbmx∈X there is a sequence of scalars (βn) such that \mathbbmx=∑n,Jβn\mathbbman, then (βn)=(αn,\mathbbmx).
Proof.
Follows from Proposition 2.2 and [7, Theorem A].
∎
Clearly the definition of Schauder basis may be considered also in a normed vector spaces, and we will do so in Section 10.
2.2. Critical ideal
It is known (see [7, Proof of Theorem B]) that for each Banach space X and each \mathbbma^=(\mathbbman,\mathbbman⋆)⊆X×KX there is an ideal CR(X,\mathbbma^) on ω such that the following are equivalent for every ideal I on ω:
•
\mathbbma^ is an I-Schauder basis of X,
•
CR(X,\mathbbma^)⊆I.
We say that \mathbbma^ is an ideal Schauder basis of X if CR(X,\mathbbma^)=P(ω). Obviously, if CR(X,\mathbbma^)=Fin, then \mathbbma^ is a Schauder basis of X.
2.3. Simple ideal Schauder bases
In this paper we are mainly interested in ideal Schauder bases of special form:
Definition 2.5**.**
Let X be a vector space, \mathbbma^=(\mathbbman,\mathbbman⋆)⊆X×X⋆ and \mathbbmu^=(\mathbbmun,\mathbbmun⋆)⊆X×X⋆. We say that \mathbbma^ is simple over \mathbbmu^ if there are D⊆ω, an interval-to-one h:D→ω (i.e., h−1[{k}] is either empty or an interval contained in D, for every k∈ω) and (\mathbbmbn)n∈h[D]⊆X∖{0} such that:
[TABLE]
for all n∈ω and \mathbbmx∈X. In particular, if X is a Banach space and \mathbbmu^ is a Fin-Schauder basis of X, then for a given ideal I, (Sn(\mathbbma^)(\mathbbmx)) is I-convergent to \mathbbmx if and only if (\mathbbmuh(n)⋆(\mathbbmx)\mathbbmbh(n))n∈D is I↾D-convergent to zero in X.
However the above definition may be considered technical, we decided to restrict our considerations to such ideal Schauder bases for two reasons: all our examples are of this form and this special form enabled us to classify all such ideal Schauder bases in standard Banach spaces.
Next result, in some sense, allows us to consider only a special class of Banach spaces.
Theorem 2.6**.**
If \mathbbmc^ is simple over some normed Fin-Schauder basis \mathbbmu^ (that is, ∥\mathbbmun∥=1 for each n) of some Banach space Y over R, then CR(Y,\mathbbmc^)=CR(X,\mathbbma^) for some Banach space ℓ1⊆X⊆c0 (equipped in coordinate-wise addition and multiplication by scalars) and some \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^. Moreover:
(i)
\mathbbmu^* is unconditional in Y if and only if \mathbbme^ is unconditional in X,*
(ii)
the topology on X is stronger than the topology inherited from c0,
(iii)
the topology on X is weaker than ℓ1 topology on X (understood as topology generated by sets of the form B((xn),r)={(yn)∈X:∑n∈ω∣xn−yn∣<r}).
Proof.
If Y is an arbitrary Banach space over R and \mathbbmu^ is its Fin-Schauder basis, then consider:
[TABLE]
normed by:
[TABLE]
for all \mathbbmx∈X. Then X is a Banach space and ℓ1⊆X⊆c0.
If \mathbbmc^ is simple over \mathbbmu^, then CR(Y,\mathbbmc^)=CR(X,\mathbbma^), where \mathbbma^ is simple over \mathbbme^ with the same witnessing D, h and (\mathbbmbn) as for \mathbbmc^ and \mathbbmu^.
Item (i) follows from the fact that X and Y are isometric (by the isometry that moves \mathbbme^ to \mathbbmu^). To show item (ii), observe that for any \mathbbmxn,\mathbbmx∈X and any k∈N we have:
[TABLE]
where K is the basis constant of \mathbbmu^ (see [1, Proposition 1.1.4 and Definition 1.1.5]). The final claim is clear.
∎
3. Some lemmas
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let \mathbbma^ be simple over a Fin-Schauder basis \mathbbmu^ of a Banach space X, and let D, h and (\mathbbmbn)n∈ω be as in Definition 2.5. Then CR(X,\mathbbma^) is the ideal on ω generated by Fin and all sets of the form
[TABLE]
for \mathbbmx∈X.
Proof.
Let J^(X,\mathbbmu^,\mathbbma^) be the ideal on ω generated by Fin and all sets of the form A\mathbbmx, for \mathbbmx∈X. We need to show that the following are equivalent for any ideal I on ω:
(a)
\mathbbma^ is an I-Schauder base of X;
(b)
J^(X,\mathbbmu^,\mathbbma^)⊆I.
(a)⟹(b): Assume that J^(X,\mathbbmu^,\mathbbma^)⊆I. Then there exists an A∈J^(X,\mathbbmu^,\mathbbma^)∖I. Hence, there are F∈Fin, k∈ω and \mathbbmx0,…,\mathbbmxk∈X such that A⊆F∪A\mathbbmx0∪…∪A\mathbbmxk. Since A∈/I, we can find j≤k such that A\mathbbmxj∈/I. Observe that (\mathbbmuh(n)⋆(\mathbbmxj)\mathbbmbh(n))n∈D is not I↾D-convergent to zero, as:
[TABLE]
Thus, \mathbbma^ is not an I-Schauder basis of X.
(b)⟹(a): Assume that J^(X,\mathbbmu^,\mathbbma^)⊆I and fix any \mathbbmx∈X and ε>0. Then ε\mathbbmx∈X, so Aε\mathbbmx∈J^(X,\mathbbmu^,\mathbbma^)⊆I. To finish the proof, note that:
[TABLE]
∎
Remark 3.2**.**
Note that the above Lemma holds in all normed spaces. We will use this fact in Section 10.
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let \mathbbmu^ be an unconditional Fin-Schauder basis of some Banach space X. Assume that \mathbbma^ is simple over \mathbbmu^ and D, h and (\mathbbmbn)n∈ω are as in Definition 2.5. Then:
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Lemma 3.1, CR(X,\mathbbma^) is the ideal on ω generated by Fin and all sets of the form
[TABLE]
for \mathbbmx∈X. Let
[TABLE]
The inclusion J(X,\mathbbmu^,\mathbbma^)⊆CR(X,\mathbbma^) is obvious, as A∈J(X,\mathbbmu^,\mathbbma^) means that A∖D∈Fin⊆CR(X,\mathbbma^) and \mathbbmx=∑k∈h[A∩D]∥\mathbbmbk∥X\mathbbmuk∈X, which gives us A∩D⊆A\mathbbmx∈CR(X,\mathbbma^).
Now we show J(X,\mathbbmu^,\mathbbma^)⊇CR(X,\mathbbma^). It is obvious that CR(X,\mathbbma^)↾ω∖D=Fin↾ω∖D⊆J(X,\mathbbmu^,\mathbbma^).
Let A∈CR(X,\mathbbma^)↾D. Then there are l∈ω and \mathbbmx0,…,\mathbbmxl∈X such that A⊆A\mathbbmx0∪…∪A\mathbbmxl. Define B0=h[A\mathbbmx0] and Bi=h[A\mathbbmxi]∖⋃j<ih[A\mathbbmxj] for i=1,…,l. Note that for each i≤l, since \mathbbmxi∈X, we have:
[TABLE]
(by Lemma 1.4). Hence, also \mathbbmzi=∑k∈Bi∩h[A∩D]∥\mathbbmbk∥\mathbbmuk∈X (again, by Lemma 1.4). Finally, since the sets Bi are pairwise disjoint and h[A∩D]=⋃i≤lh[A∩D]∩Bi, we get ∑k∈h[A∩D]∥\mathbbmbk∥\mathbbmuk∈X.
∎
Next example shows that in Lemma 3.3 the assumption about unconditionality of \mathbbmu^ cannot be dropped.
Example 3.4**.**
Consider \mathbbmu^ given by \mathbbmun=∑i=0n\mathbbmen and \mathbbmun⋆=\mathbbmen⋆−\mathbbmen+1⋆, for all n∈ω, which is a non-unconditional Fin-Schauder basis of c0 (see [1, Example 3.1.2]).
Let \mathbbma^ be given by \mathbbman=∑i=0n\mathbbmun and \mathbbman⋆=\mathbbmun⋆−\mathbbmun+1⋆, for all n∈ω.
Observe that:
[TABLE]
for any \mathbbmx∈c0. Thus,
[TABLE]
and \mathbbma^ is simple over \mathbbmu^ (as witnessed by D=ω, h(n)=n+1 and \mathbbmbn+1=∑i=0n\mathbbmui).
Note that:
[TABLE]
Indeed, \mathbbmx=∑k∈h[ω]∥\mathbbmbk∥c0\mathbbmuk=∑n∈ωn+1\mathbbmun+1∈/c0, since \mathbbme0(\mathbbmx)=∑n∈ωn+11=∞.
We will show that ω∈CR(c0,\mathbbma^). Consider \mathbbmx=∑n∈ωn+1\mathbbme2n∈c0 and \mathbbmy=∑n∈ωn+1\mathbbme2n+1∈c0. We have:
[TABLE]
Note that if n∈{2k+1:k∈ω}, i.e., n=2m+1 for some m∈ω, then
[TABLE]
This shows that {2k+1:k∈ω}⊆A\mathbbmx.
Similarly one can show that {2k:k∈ω}⊆A\mathbbmy. Hence, applying Lemma 3.1, ω={2k:k∈ω}∪{2k+1:k∈ω}∈CR(c0,\mathbbma^).
Proposition 3.5**.**
If \mathbbmu^ is an unconditional Fin-Schauder basis of some Banach space X and \mathbbma^ is simple over \mathbbmu^, then CR(X,\mathbbma^) is a P-ideal.
where D, h and (\mathbbmbn)n∈ω are as in Definition 2.5.
Let (Ak)⊆CR(X,\mathbbma^). For each k∈ω, since ∑i∈h[Ak∩D]∥\mathbbmbi∥X\mathbbmui∈X and h is interval-to-one, there is mk∈ω such that ∑i∈h[(Ak∩D)∖mk]∥\mathbbmbi∥X\mathbbmuiX<2k1. Define A=⋃k∈ω((Ak∩D)∖mk). Then A⊆D and Ak∖A∈Fin, for each k. We need to show that A∈CR(X,\mathbbma^), i.e., ∑i∈h[A]∥\mathbbmbi∥X\mathbbmui∈X.
Given any ε>0, find j∈ω∖{0} such that 2j−11<ε and m∈ω such that
[TABLE]
Observe that
[TABLE]
∎
4. Banach spaces with a Schauder basis
Theorem 4.1**.**
Let X be any Banach space with a Fin-Schauder basis \mathbbmu^. For any infinite E⊆ω there is \mathbbma^⊆X×X⋆ simple over \mathbbmu^ such that the following are equivalent for any ideal I:
(a)
\mathbbma^* is an I-Schauder basis of X;*
(b)
E∈I;
(c)
IE⊆I, where IE is the ideal generated by Fin∪{E}.
In particular, CR(X,\mathbbma^)=IE.
Proof.
Fix a Fin-Schauder basis \mathbbmu^ of X. Without loss of generality we may assume that \mathbbmu^ is normed, that is, ∥\mathbbmun∥X=1 for all n∈ω. Let (Ik) be a sequence of pairwise disjoint intervals in ω such that E=⋃kIk and maxIk+1<minIk+1. Denote bk=minIk and let
[TABLE]
for all k∈ω.
Define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Clearly, \mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmam)=δnm for all n,m∈ω.
The equivalence of items (b) and (c) is obvious. We will show that items (a) and (b) are equivalent.
Observe that:
[TABLE]
Hence, if E∈I, then \mathbbma^ is an I-Schauder basis of X.
We need to show that if E∈/I, then \mathbbma^ is not an I-Schauder basis of X. Define \mathbbmx=∑n∈ω2n1\mathbbmun (note that \mathbbmx∈X, since ∥∑n>k2n1\mathbbmun∥X≤2k1 for all k∈ω). Then
[TABLE]
since given any n∈E, find k∈ω and 0≤j<∣Ik∣ such that n=bk+j∈Ik, and observe that:
[TABLE]
∎
Corollary 4.2**.**
Let X be any Banach space with a Fin-Schauder basis. The following are equivalent for any ideals I and J:
(a)
There is an I-Schauder basis of X which is not a J-Schauder basis of X;
(b)
I⊆J.
In particular, if I=Fin, then there is an I-Schauder basis, which is not a Fin-Schauder basis.
If X is a Banach space with a Fin-Schauder basis \mathbbmu^, then there is a family F⊆(X×X⋆)ω of cardinality 2ω such that each \mathbbma^∈F is simple over \mathbbmu^ and CR(X,\mathbbma^)=CR(X,\mathbbmb^), for all distinct \mathbbma^,\mathbbmb^∈F.
Proof.
Let A⊆P(ω) be an almost disjoint family (i.e., A∩B∈Fin for all distinct A,B∈A) of cardinality 2ω. For each A∈A, apply Theorem 4.1 to get \mathbbma^A∈(X×X⋆)ω such that CR(X,\mathbbma^A)=IA. Let F={\mathbbma^A:A∈A} and observe that IA=IB whenever A,B∈A are distinct.
∎
Remark 4.4**.**
Note that Theorem 4.1 implies that there is no single ideal I suitable for all ideal Schauder bases in such a way that for every \mathbbma^ and J, if \mathbbma^ is an J-Schauder basis, then it is also an I-Schauder basis.
5. Spaces ℓp
5.1. Reexaming the already known example
We start by investigating the example provided in [5, Example 1].
Proposition 5.1**.**
Let \mathbbman=∑i=0n\mathbbmen and \mathbbman⋆=\mathbbmen⋆−\mathbbmen+1⋆ for all n∈ω. Then \mathbbma^=(\mathbbman,\mathbbman⋆) is simple over \mathbbme^ and CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^)=I1/n, for every 1≤p<∞.
Proof.
Observe that:
[TABLE]
for any \mathbbmx∈Rω. Thus:
[TABLE]
and \mathbbma^ is simple over \mathbbme^ (as witnessed by D=ω, h(n)=n+1 and \mathbbmbn+1=∑i=0n\mathbbmei). Hence, applying Lemma 3.3, we have:
[TABLE]
for every 1≤p<∞.
∎
Remark 5.2**.**
The sequence \mathbbma^ from [5, Example 1] and Proposition 5.1 is a non-unconditional Fin-Schauder basis of c0 (see [1, Example 3.1.2]).
5.2. Single basis with different critical ideals
In Proposition 5.1, we observed a single \mathbbma^ being an ideal Schauder base of each ℓp, for 1≤p<∞, such that the critical ideal was the same for each 1≤p<∞. In this Subsection we will construct \mathbbma^ being an ideal Schauder base of every ℓp, 1≤p<∞, but with different critical ideals.
Proposition 5.3**.**
There are a partition (Ak) of ω into infinite sets and \mathbbma^ such that
[TABLE]
for each 1≤p<∞. Moreover, if 1≤p<q<∞, then CR(ℓq,\mathbbma^)⊆CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^). In particular, the ideals CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^) are summable and pairwise distinct.
Proof.
Let (Ak) be any partition of ω into infinite sets such that A0={2n:n∈ω}.
For each n∈ω find mn∈ω such that n∈Amn and define:
[TABLE]
(here we put m−1=0). Then
[TABLE]
since if n−1=k+1, then one of n−1,k∈A0 hence one of mn−1,mk equals [math].
Note that for any \mathbbmx∈ℓp we have:
[TABLE]
In particular, \mathbbma^ is simple over \mathbbme^ (as witnessed by D={n∈ω:mn=0}=ω∖A0={2n+1:n∈ω}, h(n)=n and \mathbbmbn=mn\mathbbmen+1). Hence, using Lemma 3.3, we have:
[TABLE]
The ideal CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^) is summable, since it is equal to I\mathbbmr for \mathbbmr=(rn) given by:
[TABLE]
To finish the proof, we will show that 1≤p<q<∞ implies CR(ℓq,\mathbbma^)⊆CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^). Indeed, any set A⊆ω such that A∩A0=∅ and ∣A∩Ak∣=⌈kp⌉, for k∈ω∖{0}, is in CR(ℓq,\mathbbma^), but not in CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^).
∎
5.3. Ideal Schauder basis of ℓp for each summable ideal
Definition 5.4**.**
If \mathbbmt∈ωω is increasing with t0=0 and \mathbbmr is a sequence of positive reals such that ∑n∈ωrn=∞, then we define the ideal:
[TABLE]
We will show that each ideal of the form I\mathbbmr\mathbbmt is critical in ℓp, where 1≤p<∞, for some \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^. We will need the following technical lemma, which holds in a wider class of normed spaces. Recall that even though we are interested in ideal Schauder bases, Definition 2.5 states the property of a pair (\mathbbma^,\mathbbmu^) without requiring that any of \mathbbma^,\mathbbmu^ is a basis in some sense.
Lemma 5.5**.**
Let \mathbbmt∈ωω be increasing with t0=0 and \mathbbms be a sequence of positive reals. Let also X be any normed space with a Fin-Schauder basis \mathbbmu^. Then there is \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^ with the witnesses D=ω, h:ω→ω given by h↾[tk,tk+1)=tk+1 and some sequence (\mathbbmbtk+1)k∈ω⊆X∖{0} such that ∥\mathbbmbtk+1∥X=sk. Moreover, each \mathbbman is a finite linear combination of the vectors \mathbbmuk, for k∈ω.
Proof.
Define inductively the sequence (ck)⊆R by c0=1 and
[TABLE]
for all k∈ω. Set:
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Clearly, \mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmam)=δnm for all n,m∈ω. Indeed, it is obvious whenever n∈/{tk:k∈ω} or m∈/{tk:k∈ω}, and the remaining follows from the case tk=k, which is easy.
Denote T={tk:k∈ω} and let g:ω→ω be given by:
[TABLE]
Note that h(n)=tg(n)+1 for all n∈ω (where the function h is defined in the formulation of this lemma). Observe that for any \mathbbmx∈X we have:
[TABLE]
Thus, \mathbbma^ is simple over \mathbbme^ as witnessed by D=ω, h and (\mathbbmbtk+1)k∈ω⊆X∖{0} such that:
[TABLE]
for all k∈ω. In particular, ∥\mathbbmbtk+1∥X=sk, for all k∈ω.
∎
Proposition 5.6**.**
Let \mathbbmt∈ωω be increasing with t0=0 and \mathbbmr be a sequence of positive reals such that ∑n∈ωrn=∞. Then for each 1≤p<∞ there is \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^ such that CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^)=I\mathbbmr\mathbbmt.
Proof.
Fix 1≤p<∞ and apply Lemma 5.5 for \mathbbmt∈ωω and \mathbbms given by sk=rk1/p, for all k∈ω, to get \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^ with the witnesses D=ω, h:ω→ω given by h↾[tk,tk+1)=tk+1 and some sequence (\mathbbmbtk+1)k∈ω such that ∥\mathbbmbtk+1∥ℓp=rk1/p.
For each 1≤p<∞, there are 2ω ideal Schauder bases of ℓp with pairwise non-isomorphic critical ideals.
Proof.
It follows from Proposition 5.6 and [12, Theorem 1].
∎
Thus far, each presented ideal Schauder basis of ℓp (i.e., the ones from Theorem 4.1 and Propositions 5.1 and 5.3) had a summable critical ideal. Now, using Proposition 5.6, we will show an ideal Schauder basis of ℓp with a non-summable critical ideal.
Corollary 5.8**.**
For any 1≤p<∞ there is \mathbbma^ such that CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^) is a non-summable Fσ ideal.
Proof.
Let t0=0 and tk=2k for all k∈ω∖{0}. Denote \mathbbmt=(tk) and Ik=[tk,tk+1), for all k∈ω. In particular, ∣I0∣=2 and ∣Ik∣=2k for all k>0. By Proposition 5.6, for each 1≤p<∞ there is \mathbbma^ such that CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^)=I1/n\mathbbmt. Therefore, we need to demonstrate that I1/n\mathbbmt is non-summable and Fσ.
To verify that I1/n\mathbbmt is Fσ, note that I1/n\mathbbmt=ϕ−1[I1/n], where ϕ:P(ω)→P(ω) given by ϕ(A)={k∈ω:A∩Ik=∅}, for all A⊆ω, is continuous.
Suppose towards contradiction that I1/n\mathbbmt is a summable ideal, i.e., that there is \mathbbmr=(rn) such that rn>0, ∑n∈ωrn=∞ and I1/n\mathbbmt=I\mathbbmr. Denote dk=min{rn:n∈Ik} and nk=min{n∈Ik:rn=dk}. Observe that Z={k∈ω:2k⋅dk≥1} is infinite, since otherwise we would get:
[TABLE]
which shows that {nk:k∈ω}∈I\mathbbmr and contradicts I1/n\mathbbmt=I\mathbbmr, as {nk:k∈ω}∈/I1/n\mathbbmt. However, as Z is infinite, we can find an infinite Z′⊂Z such that Z′∈I1/n. Then ⋃k∈Z′Ik∈I1/n\mathbbmt, but:
[TABLE]
so ⋃k∈Z′Ik∈/I\mathbbmr, which again contradicts I1/n\mathbbmt=I\mathbbmr.
∎
5.4. Characterization
Theorem 5.9**.**
Let 1≤p<∞. The following are equivalent for any nontrivial ideal I:
(a)
there is \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^ such that CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^)=I,
(b)
I=I\mathbbmr\mathbbmt, for some increasing \mathbbmt∈ωω with t0=0 and some sequence \mathbbmr of positive reals such that ∑n∈ωrn=∞.
(a)⟹(b): Fix some \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^ and let D, h and (\mathbbmbn) be as in Definition 2.5. Find a partition (In) of ω into consecutive intervals such that either In=h−1[{k}] for some k∈ω (note that in this case In⊆D) or In={i} for some i∈ω∖D. Denote S={n∈ω:In=h−1[{k}] for some k∈ω}.
For each n∈ω put tn=minIn and
[TABLE]
Then, using Lemma 3.3, we get that I\mathbbmr\mathbbmt=CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^). Since CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^)=I is an ideal, ω∈/CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^), which implies that ∑n∈ωrn=∞.
∎
6. The space c0 and the James’ space
6.1. A non-Fσ critical ideal
Next result gives us first example of a non-Fσ ideal of the form CR(X,\mathbbma^).
Proposition 6.1**.**
There is \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^ such that CR(c0,\mathbbma^)≅{∅}⊗Fin.
Proof.
Let (Ak) and \mathbbma^ be as in the proof of Proposition 5.3, i.e., (Ak) is a partition of ω into infinite sets such that A0={2n:n∈ω}, \mathbbman=\mathbbmen+mn⋅\mathbbmen+1 and \mathbbman⋆=\mathbbmen⋆−mn−1⋅\mathbbmen−1⋆, where mn is given by n∈Amn.
Define:
[TABLE]
Clearly, J is isomorphic with {∅}⊗Fin, as witnessed by any bijection f:ω2→ω such that f[{k}×ω]=Ak, for all k∈ω.
We will show that CR(c0,\mathbbma^)=J. Similarly as in the proof of Proposition 5.3, for any \mathbbmx∈c0 we have:
[TABLE]
i.e., \mathbbma^ is simple over \mathbbme^ as witnessed by D={n∈ω:mn=0}=ω∖A0={2n+1:n∈ω}, h(n)=n and \mathbbmbn=mn\mathbbmen+1. Hence, applying Lemma 3.3, we have:
[TABLE]
∎
Remark 6.2**.**
Note that \mathbbma^ from Proposition 6.1 yields an interesting example of a basis with different behaviour in various spaces:
We recall the definition of the James’ space. Let J consist of all \mathbbmx∈c0 such that:
[TABLE]
Then the above formula defines a norm on J, making it a Banach space. This space is called the James’ space. It is known that \mathbbme^ is a non-unconditional Schauder basis of J. In fact, every Schauder basis of J is not unconditional. Thus, in our examinations of the James’ space, we cannot use Lemma 3.3 and have to rely on Lemma 3.1 – this property of J makes it particularly interesting in our context. For more on James’ space see [1].
The following observation will be crucial in our considerations of the James’ space.
Lemma 6.3**.**
Let \mathbbma^ be simple over \mathbbme^ in J with the witnesses D, h and (\mathbbmbh(n))n∈D⊆J∖{0}. If A⊆D and limn∈A∥\mathbbmbh(n)∥J1=0, then there is \mathbbmx∈J such that:
[TABLE]
Proof.
The claim is clear if A∈Fin, so assume that A is infinite. Denote:
[TABLE]
Put also:
[TABLE]
for all k∈ω. Observe that A=⋃k∈ωAk and limkmaxh[Ak]=∞ (since A is infinite and h is interval-to-one).
Let \mathbbmx be such that xi=a for all i≤maxh[A0] and xi=k+11 for all maxh[Ak]<i≤maxh[Ak+1] and k∈ω. Observe that ∥\mathbbmx∥J=a2, as for every n∈ω and 0≤p0<p1<…<pn we have:
[TABLE]
Hence, \mathbbmx∈J. We will show that A⊆A\mathbbmx. Fix n∈A. If n∈A0 then ∥\mathbbmbh(n)∥J1≤a and ∣\mathbbmeh(n)⋆(\mathbbmx)∣=∣xh(n)∣=a (since h(n)≤maxh[A0]). On the other hand, if n∈Ak+1∖Ak, for some k∈ω, then ∥\mathbbmbh(n)∥J1≤k+11 and ∣\mathbbmeh(n)⋆(\mathbbmx)∣=∣xh(n)∣=k+11 (since h(n)≤maxh[Ak+1]). Hence, in both cases n∈A\mathbbmx.
∎
Let I be an ideal on ω isomorphic with {∅}⊗Fin. Then there are \mathbbma^ and \mathbbma^′, both simple over \mathbbme^, such that CR(c0,\mathbbma^)=I and CR(J,\mathbbma^′)=I.
Proof.
Let g:ω2→ω be the bijection witnessing that I is isomorphic with {∅}⊗Fin and denote Xk=g[{k}×ω] for all k∈ω. Put tk=k for all k∈ω and define the sequence \mathbbms by:
[TABLE]
for all n∈ω. Apply Lemma 5.5 for \mathbbmt, \mathbbms and X=c0 (\mathbbmt, \mathbbms and X=J, respectively) to get \mathbbma^ (\mathbbma^′, respectively) simple over \mathbbme^ with the witnesses D=ω, h:ω→ω given by h(n)=n+1 and some sequence (\mathbbmbn+1)n∈ω such that ∥\mathbbmbn+1∥c0=sn for all n∈ω ((\mathbbmbn+1′)n∈ω such that ∥\mathbbmbn+1′∥J=sn for all n∈ω, respectively).
In the case of the space c0, using Lemma 3.3 we get:
[TABLE]
In the case of the space J, we cannot use Lemma 3.3; however, from Lemma 3.1 we know that CR(J,\mathbbma^′) is the ideal generated by Fin and all sets of the form
[TABLE]
for \mathbbmx∈J. We need to show that CR(J,\mathbbma^′)=I.
CR(J,\mathbbma^′)⊆I: It suffices to show that A\mathbbmx∈I for all \mathbbmx∈J, so fix any such \mathbbmx. Since \mathbbmx∈J⊆c0, we have:
[TABLE]
Hence, A\mathbbmx∩Xk∈Fin for all k∈ω, which means that A\mathbbmx∈I.
CR(J,\mathbbma^′)⊇I: Fix any A∈I. Then
[TABLE]
By Lemma 6.3, there is \mathbbmx∈J such that A⊆A\mathbbmx, so A∈CR(J,\mathbbma^′).
∎
Theorem 6.5**.**
The following are equivalent for any nontrivial ideal I on ω:
(a)
there is \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^ such that CR(c0,\mathbbma^)=I,
(b)
there is \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^ such that CR(J,\mathbbma^)=I,
(c)
I* is isomorphic to one of the following ideals: Fin, Fin⊕P(ω) or {∅}⊗Fin.*
Proof.
(c)⟹(a) and (c)⟹(b): If I≅Fin, then actually I=Fin, so CR(c0,\mathbbme^)=I and CR(J,\mathbbme^)=I. On the other hand, if I≅Fin⊕P(ω) or I≅{∅}⊗Fin, then it suffices to apply Theorem 4.1 or Proposition 6.4, respectively.
(a)⟹(c) and (b)⟹(c): Let X=c0 or X=J. Let \mathbbma^ be simple over \mathbbme^. Then there are D⊆ω, an interval-to-one h:D→ω and (\mathbbmbh(n))⊆X∖{0} such that:
[TABLE]
for all n∈ω and \mathbbmx∈X.
Define B0={n∈D:∥\mathbbmbh(n)∥X≥1} and Bi={n∈D:k+11≤∥\mathbbmbh(n)∥X<k1} for all n∈ω∖{0}. Then (Bk) is a partition of D. Denote T=⋃{Bk:Bk∈Fin} and S={k∈ω:Bk∈/Fin}.
Observe that:
(i)
CR(X,\mathbbma^)↾ω∖D=Fin↾ω∖D;
(ii)
CR(X,\mathbbma^)↾Bk=Fin↾Bk for every k∈ω;
(iii)
if A⊆D and A∩Bk∈Fin for all k, then A∈CR(X,\mathbbma^);
(iv)
CR(X,\mathbbma^)↾T=P(T).
Indeed, in the case of X=c0 all items follow from Lemma 3.3, while in the case of X=J, item (ii) follows from the fact that J⊆c0 and items (iii) and (iv) follow from Lemma 6.3.
There are four possibilities:
•
If ω∖T∈Fin, then CR(X,\mathbbma^)=P(ω) (by (iv)).
•
If S∈Fin and T∈Fin, then CR(X,\mathbbma^)≅Fin (by (i) and (ii)).
•
If S∈Fin, T∈/Fin, but ω∖T∈/Fin, then CR(X,\mathbbma^)≅Fin⊕P(ω) (by (i), (ii) and (iv)).
•
If S∈/Fin, then CR(X,\mathbbma^)≅{∅}⊗Fin (by (ii), (iii) and Lemma 1.2).
Hence, if CR(X,\mathbbma^)≅I and I is nontrivial, then I is isomorphic to Fin, Fin⊕P(ω) or {∅}⊗Fin.
∎
Remark 6.6**.**
Suppose that \mathbbma^ is simple over \mathbbme^. Then CR(c0,\mathbbma^) and CR(J,\mathbbma^) are not tall, but they can be non-Fσ (by Theorem 6.5). On the other hand, for each 1≤p<∞, CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^) has to be Fσ, but it can be tall (by Theorem 5.9).
7. A Schauder basis for every non-pathological analytic P-ideal
Results in this section were inspired by [3, Proposition 5.3].
Theorem 7.1**.**
If I is a non-pathological analytic P-ideal, then there are a Banach space X⊆Rω and \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^ such that CR(X,\mathbbma^)=I.
Proof.
Since I is a non-pathological analytic P-ideal, there is a non-pathological lsc submeasure ϕ such that I=Exh(ϕ). Without loss of generality we may assume that supp(ϕ)=ω (it suffices to consider ϕ′ given by
[TABLE]
for all A⊆ω and observe that Exh(ϕ)=Exh(ϕ′)).
Let Mϕ be the family of all measures on ω such that supp(μ)∈Fin and μ(B)≤ϕ(B) for all B⊆ω. Define:
[TABLE]
for all \mathbbmx∈Rω and let:
[TABLE]
Then ∥⋅∥ϕ is a norm on Rω (as supp(ϕ)=ω) making (X,∥⋅∥ϕ) a Banach space. Moreover, \mathbbme^ is an unconditional Schauder basis of X (by [1, Proposition 3.1.3], since if ∣xn∣≤∣yn∣ for all n, then ∥\mathbbmx∥ϕ≤∥\mathbbmy∥ϕ).
For each n∈ω inductively find pn∈R such that ∥∑i=0npi\mathbbmei∥ϕ=n+1 and let \mathbbma^=(\mathbbman,\mathbbman⋆)n be given by \mathbbman=∑i=0npi\mathbbmei and \mathbbman⋆=pn\mathbbmen⋆−pn+1\mathbbmen+1⋆ for all n∈ω. Clearly, \mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmam)=δnm for all n,m∈ω.
Observe that:
[TABLE]
for every \mathbbmx∈X. In particular, \mathbbma^ is simple over \mathbbme^ with h=id+1 witnessing it. Hence, applying Lemma 3.3, we have:
[TABLE]
∎
Corollary 7.2**.**
There are a Banach space X⊆Rω and \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^ such that CR(X,\mathbbma^)=Id. In particular, CR(X,\mathbbma^)≅CR(c0,\mathbbmw^) and CR(X,\mathbbma^)≅CR(ℓp,\mathbbmw^), for all \mathbbmw^ simple over \mathbbme^ and all 1≤p<∞.
Proof.
The existence of X⊆Rω and \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^ such that CR(X,\mathbbma^)=Id follows from Theorem 7.1, since Id is non-pathological (Id=Exh(supn∈ωμn) for measures μn:P(ω)→[0,∞) given by μn(A)=n+1∣A∩(n+1)∣, for all n∈ω and A⊆ω).
The fact that Id≅CR(ℓp,\mathbbmw^), for all \mathbbmw^ simple over \mathbbme^ and all 1≤p<∞, follows now from Remark 6.6, since Id is not Fσ.
To see that Id≅CR(c0,\mathbbmw^), for all \mathbbmw^ simple over \mathbbme^, note that CR(c0,\mathbbmw^) is not tall (by Remark 6.6), while Id is tall.
∎
8. Avoiding c00
Examples considered so far were based on vectors being elements of c00. In this Section, we propose an alternative approach, which involves introducing more zeros at the beginning of the sequence under consideration. As the case of James’ space appears more technical, we restrict our discussion in this Section to the spaces c0 and ℓp.
We also use this section to present alternative method of proving \mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmam)=δnm. Observe that the condition follows from \mathbbmx=∑I,n\mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmx)\mathbbman and the existence of some sequence of continuous functionals \mathbbmbn⋆ such that \mathbbman∈Ker\mathbbmbm⋆ iff n=m (since the latter condition is equivalent to \mathbbman∈/span{\mathbbmam:n=n} for all n). Within this section it will be enough to consider \mathbbmbn⋆=\mathbbmen⋆ in all examples except 8.9.
Definition 8.1**.**
For \mathbbmz∈(0,∞)ω we define \mathbbman(\mathbbmz)=\mathbbmz⋅χ[n,∞)=∑k=n∞zn\mathbbmek for all n∈ω and set \mathbbma0⋆(\mathbbmz)=z01\mathbbme0⋆ and \mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmz)=zn1\mathbbmen⋆−zn−11\mathbbmen−1⋆ for all n≥1.
Note that in this case, pointwise convergence determines the form of the functionals \mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmz).
Lemma 8.2**.**
Let \mathbbmz∈(0,∞)ω. Then \mathbbma^(\mathbbmz) is simple over \mathbbme^ with witnesses D=ω, h=id and \mathbbmbn=−∑m>nznzm\mathbbmem for all n∈ω.
Proof.
Observe that if \mathbbmx∈Rω, then for m≤n we get
\mathbbmem⋆(Sn(\mathbbma^(\mathbbmz))(\mathbbmx))=\mathbbmem⋆(\mathbbmx), while for m>n we have:
[TABLE]
Hence:
[TABLE]
In particular, \mathbbma^(\mathbbmz) is simple over \mathbbme^ as witnessed by D=ω, h=id and \mathbbmbn=−∑m>nznzm\mathbbmem.
∎
The first specific example of this approach will be \mathbbmz=(n+11)n∈ω. Note that \mathbbmz∈/ℓ1, so also \mathbbman(\mathbbmz)∈/ℓ1 for all n∈ω and we cannot consider \mathbbma^(\mathbbmz) in the space ℓ1.
Proposition 8.3**.**
Let \mathbbmz=(n+11)n∈ω. Then CR(c0,\mathbbma^(\mathbbmz))=CR(J,\mathbbma^(\mathbbmz))=Fin and CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^(\mathbbmz))=I1/n for all 1<p<∞.
Note that ∥\mathbbmbn∥c0=∥−∑m>nznzm\mathbbmem∥c0=n+2n+1 for all n∈ω. Thus, using Lemmas 3.3 and 8.2, we have:
[TABLE]
Similarly, since ∥\mathbbmbn∥J=∥−∑m>nznzm\mathbbmem∥J=2n+2n+1 for all n∈ω, using Lemmas 3.1 and 8.2 we get CR(J,\mathbbma^(\mathbbmz))=Fin (as A\mathbbmx is finite for every \mathbbmx∈J).
If now 1<p<∞, then:
[TABLE]
Estimating ∑m>n(m+1)p1 by ∫n+1∞xp1dx yields p−1(n+1)1−p, hence we get:
Let us now switch to the case of arbitrary \mathbbmz∈(0,∞)ω∩X, and firstly consider it within the space X=c0.
Proposition 8.4**.**
Let \mathbbmz∈(0,∞)ω∩c0. Then
[TABLE]
where αn(\mathbbmz)=supm>nznzm for all n∈ω. Moreover:
(a)
if (αn(\mathbbmz)) is bounded (in particular, if \mathbbmz is monotone), then CR(c0,\mathbbma^(\mathbbmz))=Fin;
(b)
if there is an infinite E⊆ω such that (αn(\mathbbmz))n∈ω∖E is bounded and limn∈Eαn(\mathbbmz)=∞, then CR(c0,\mathbbma^(\mathbbmz)) is the ideal generated by Fin∪{E};
(c)
if there is a partition (Dk) of ω into infinite sets such that limk→∞infn∈Dkαn(\mathbbmz)=∞ and supn∈Dkαn(\mathbbmz)<∞ for every k∈ω, then:
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let (\mathbbmbn) be as in Lemma 8.2. Since ∥\mathbbmbn∥c0=αn(\mathbbmz) for all n∈ω, using Lemmas 3.3 and 8.2, we have:
[TABLE]
Items (a), (b) and (c) are clear.
∎
Lemma 8.5**.**
A sequence (yn)∈(0,∞)ω is of the form (αn(\mathbbmz)) for some \mathbbmz∈(0,∞)ω∩c0 if and only if ∏{yn:yn<1}=0.
Proof.
Assume that there is \mathbbmz∈c0 such that yn=αn(\mathbbmz) for all n∈ω. Inductively find (kn) such that k0=0 and ykn=zknzkn+1 for all n∈ω (in particular, y0=z0zk1). Observe that zkn+1=z0⋅∏{yki:i≤n}. Since \mathbbmz∈c0, we get that ∏{yki:i∈ω}=0. In particular, ∏{yki:yki<1}=0, so also ∏{yn:yn<1}=0.
To see the other implication, let (ni) be the increasing enumeration of the set {n:yn<1}. Define zn0=1, zni+1=ynizni, zn=zn0/yn for n<n0 and zn=zni+1/yn for n∈(ni,ni+1). Clearly, \mathbbmz∈(0,∞)ω∩c0 and yn=αn(\mathbbmz) for all n∈ω.
∎
Corollary 8.6**.**
For every ideal I on ω we have: CR(c0,\mathbbma^(\mathbbmz))=I for some \mathbbmz∈(0,∞)ω∩c0 if and only if I is isomorphic to Fin,Fin⊕P(ω) or {∅}⊗Fin.
Proof.
Notice that for each \mathbbmz∈(0,∞)ω∩c0 the sequence (αn(\mathbbmz)) is either bounded or there is an infinite E⊆ω such that (αn(\mathbbmz))n∈ω∖E is bounded and limn∈Eαn(\mathbbmz)=∞ or there is a partition (Dk) of ω into infinite sets such that limk→∞infn∈Dkαn(\mathbbmz)=∞ and supn∈Dkαn(\mathbbmz)<∞ for every k∈ω. Thus, thanks to Proposition 8.4, the ideal CR(c0,\mathbbma^(\mathbbmz)) is equal to Fin, generated by Fin∪{E}, for some infinite E⊆ω (in this case it is isomorphic with Fin⊕P(ω)), or of the form {A⊆ω:A∩Dk∈Fin for all k∈ω}, for some partition (Dk) of ω into infinite sets (in this case it is isomorphic with {∅}⊗Fin). This shows one implication.
If now I is isomorphic to Fin,Fin⊕P(ω) or {∅}⊗Fin, then we can easily find a sequence (yn) such that ∏{yn:yn<1}=0 and I={A⊆ω:limn∈Ayn1=0}. By Lemma 8.5, there is \mathbbmz∈(0,∞)ω∩c0 such that yn=αn(\mathbbmz) for all n. In particular, I=CR(c0,\mathbbma^(\mathbbmz)) (by Proposition 8.4).
∎
Let us now switch to the case of the space ℓp.
Proposition 8.7**.**
Let \mathbbmz∈(0,∞)ω∩ℓp. Then CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^(\mathbbmz))=Iβn(\mathbbmz)1, where βn(\mathbbmz)=∑m>nznzmp for all n∈ω.
Proof.
Let (\mathbbmbn) be as in Lemma 8.2. Since ∥\mathbbmbn∥ℓp=(βn(\mathbbmz))1/p for all n∈ω, using Lemmas 3.3 and 8.2, we have:
[TABLE]
∎
Remark 8.8**.**
By Theorem 6.5 and Corollary 8.6 we know that in the space c0, for every \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^ there is some \mathbbmz∈(0,∞)ω∩c0 such that CR(c0,\mathbbma^)=CR(c0,\mathbbma^(\mathbbmz)). In the spaces ℓp the situation is different: by Corollary 5.8 and Proposition 8.7, there is \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^ such that CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^)=CR(ℓp,\mathbbma^(\mathbbmz)) for all \mathbbmz∈(0,∞)ω∩ℓp.
Next example shows that it is possible to have three Fin-Schauder bases \mathbbma^, \mathbbmb^ and \mathbbmc^ of c0 such that \mathbbma^ is simple over \mathbbmb^, \mathbbmb^ is simple over \mathbbmc^, but \mathbbma^ is not simple over \mathbbmc^.
Example 8.9**.**
Let zn=2n1 for all n∈ω and consider \mathbbma^(\mathbbmz). Then αn(\mathbbmz)=2 for all n∈ω, so CR(c0,\mathbbma^(\mathbbmz))=Fin (by Proposition 8.4) and \mathbbma^(\mathbbmz) is a Fin-Schauder basis of c0. Moreover, \mathbbma^(\mathbbmz) is simple over \mathbbme^ with the witnesses D=ω, h=id and \mathbbmbn=−∑m>nznzm\mathbbmem for all n∈ω (by Lemma 8.2).
Now we introduce the third Fin-Schauder basis of c0. Let \mathbbmv0=\mathbbma0(\mathbbmz) and \mathbbmvn=\mathbbma0(\mathbbmz)+∑i=1n2i−1\mathbbmai(\mathbbmz) for n≥1. Put also \mathbbmv0⋆=\mathbbma0⋆(\mathbbmz)−\mathbbma1⋆(\mathbbmz) and \mathbbmvn⋆=2n−11\mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmz)−2n1\mathbbman+1⋆(\mathbbmz) for n≥1. Then \mathbbmvn⋆(\mathbbmvm)=δnm for all n,m∈ω (since \mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmam)=δnm for all n,m∈ω). Note that \mathbbmvn=\mathbbm1n⌢\mathbbmz, where \mathbbm1n is the finite sequence consisting of n ones. Moreover, by Definition 8.1, \mathbbmv0⋆=2\mathbbme0⋆−2\mathbbme1⋆ and \mathbbmvn⋆=−\mathbbmen−1⋆+3\mathbbmen⋆−2\mathbbmen+1⋆ for n≥1.
Observe that:
[TABLE]
Hence, \mathbbmv^ is simple over \mathbbma^(\mathbbmz) as witnessed by D′=ω, h′=id+1 and \mathbbmdn+1=2n\mathbbma0(\mathbbmz)+∑i=1n2n−i+1\mathbbmai(\mathbbmz) for all n∈ω. On the other hand, \mathbbmv^ is not simple over \mathbbme^, since:
[TABLE]
Before showing that \mathbbmv^ is a Fin-Schauder basis of c0, let us make some calculations. Observe that:
[TABLE]
for all j>n and that:
[TABLE]
for all j≤n.
Now we will show that CR(\mathbbmv^,c0)=Fin (i.e., that \mathbbmv^ is a Fin-Schauder basis of c0). Since \mathbbmv^ is simple over \mathbbma^(\mathbbmz), from Lemma 3.1 we know that CR(\mathbbmv^,c0) is generated by Fin and sets of the form A\mathbbmx={n∈ω:∣\mathbbman+1⋆(\mathbbmz)(\mathbbmx)∣≥∥\mathbbmdn+1∥c01} for \mathbbmx∈c0. By the above calculations, ∥\mathbbmdn+1∥c0=2n1 for all n∈ω, which gives us:
[TABLE]
for all \mathbbmx∈c0. Thus, CR(\mathbbmv^,c0)=Fin.
Remark 8.10**.**
For completeness, fix any p∈[1,∞) and observe that \mathbbma^(\mathbbmz), for \mathbbmz considered in Example 8.9 (i.e., zn=2n1 for all n∈ω), is a Fin-Schauder basis of ℓp (by Proposition 8.7, since βn(\mathbbmz)=2p−11 for all n∈ω), while CR(\mathbbmv^,ℓp)=I1/n, where \mathbbmv^ is as in Example 8.9. Indeed, from Lemma 3.1 we know that CR(\mathbbmv^,ℓp) is generated by Fin and sets of the form A\mathbbmx={n∈ω:∣\mathbbman+1⋆(\mathbbmz)(\mathbbmx)∣≥∥\mathbbmdn+1∥ℓp1} for \mathbbmx∈ℓp.
In particular, 2n(n+1)1/p≤∥\mathbbmdn+1∥ℓp≤2n(n+2)1/p.
Thus, if \mathbbmx∈ℓp, then:
[TABLE]
This shows that CR(\mathbbmv^,ℓp)⊆I1/n.
On the other hand, if A∈I1/n, then put Ai=A∩{2n+i:n∈ω} and define:
[TABLE]
for i=0,1 and n∈ω. Note that \mathbbmx0 and \mathbbmx1 belong to ℓp (as A∈I1/n) and that if ∣\mathbbmen⋆(\mathbbmxi)∣≥(n+1)1/p1 for some n∈ω and i=0,1, then \mathbbmen+1⋆(\mathbbmxi)=0. We have:
[TABLE]
Hence, CR(\mathbbmv^,ℓp)⊇I1/n.
9. Ideal version of FDD
In this subsection we follow some ideas from [2], where the Authors noted that every Banach space with FDD has the I-Schauder bases for some ideal I, and used this observation to give an example of a space with I-Schauder basis, but without a standard one. Recall that a Banach space X has finitely dimensional decomposition (FDD) if there exists a sequence of its finite-dimensional subspaces (Xn) such that for every \mathbbmx∈X there exists a unique sequence (\mathbbmxn) with \mathbbmxn∈Xn for all n∈ω and such that \mathbbmx=∑n∈ω\mathbbmxn.
The definition of I-FDD is straightforward:
Definition 9.1**.**
Let I be an ideal on ω. A Banach space X is said to have I-FDD if there exists a sequence of its finite-dimensional subspaces (Xn) such that for every \mathbbmx∈X there exists a unique sequence (\mathbbmxn) with \mathbbmxn∈Xn for all n∈ω and such that:
[TABLE]
It is known (see [22]) that there exists a space with FDD but without a Schauder basis. In the case of ideal versions the situation is a bit different.
Proposition 9.2**.**
Let X be a Banach space. If X has I-FDD for some ideal I on ω, then X has a J-Schauder basis for some ideal J on ω. Moreover, if I is non-tall, then also J is non-tall.
Proof.
Let (Xn) be the sequence of finite-dimensional subspaces of X from the difinition of I-FDD. Fix sequences (\mathbbmun) and 0=k0<k1<k2… such that {\mathbbmui:i∈[kn,kn+1)} is a basis of Xn. Define J by:
[TABLE]
Note that if I is non-tall, then there is some infinite E⊆ω such that I↾E=Fin↾E. In this case also J is non-tall, as J↾{n∈ω:kn+1−1∈E}=Fin↾{n∈ω:kn+1−1∈E}.
Take x∈X and find unique xn∈Xn, for n∈ω, such as in the definition of I-FDD. For every n∈ω there are also unique αi, for kn≤i<kn+1, such that xn=∑i=knkn+1−1αi\mathbbmui. Fix any ε>0 and denote Aε={j∈ω:∥\mathbbmx−∑i=0jαi\mathbbmui∥>ε}. We need to show that Aε∈J. Observe that:
[TABLE]
thus Aε∈J.
∎
Remark 9.3**.**
Note that if I is an analytic ideal, then the ideal J produced in the proof of Proposition 9.2 is also analytic. Therefore, by combining this observation with continuity result from [7], we see that projections Pn:X→Xn given by FDD are also continuous.
We may also inverse the above reasoning – clearly, spaces with Schauder bases are FDD, but the ideal case is not clear. However, we may solve the special case of some ideals.
Proposition 9.4**.**
Let X be a Banach space. If there is an I-Schauder basis of X for some non-tall ideal I on ω, then X has FDD.
Proof.
Let \mathbbma^ be the I-Schauder basis of X. Since I is non-tall, there is an infinite A⊆ω such that I↾A=Fin↾A. Let (nk) be the increasing enumeration of the set A. Define X0=span{\mathbbma0,\mathbbma1,…,\mathbbman0} and Xk=span{\mathbbmank−1+1,\mathbbmank+2,…,\mathbbmank} for all k∈ω∖{0}. We claim that (Xk) witnesses that X has FDD. Fix \mathbbmx∈X and set \mathbbmx0=∑i=0n0\mathbbmai⋆(\mathbbmx)\mathbbmai∈X0 and \mathbbmxk=∑i=nk−1+1nk\mathbbmai⋆(\mathbbmx)\mathbbmai∈Xk. Let ε>0 be arbitrary. Since \mathbbma^ is an I-Schauder basis of X, we have Aε={j∈ω:\mathbbmx−∑i=0j\mathbbmai⋆(\mathbbmx)\mathbbmaiX>ε}∈I. Denote F=Aε∩A and observe that F∈Fin, as I↾A=Fin↾A. We have:
[TABLE]
Moreover, such a decomposition is unique, since the scalars \mathbbman⋆(\mathbbmx)) are unique.
∎
Theorem 9.5**.**
The following are equivalent for every Banach space X:
(a)
X* has FDD;*
(b)
X* has I-FDD for some non-tall ideal I on ω;*
(c)
X* has I-Schuader basis for some non-tall ideal I on ω.*
Proof.
(a)⟹(b) is obvious, (b)⟹(c) follows from Proposition 9.2 and (c)⟹(a) is proved in Proposition 9.4.
∎
Theorem 9.6**.**
The following are equivalent for every Banach space X:
(a)
X* has I-FDD for some ideal I on ω;*
(b)
X* has I-Schauder basis for some ideal I on ω.*
Proof.
The implication (b)⟹(a) is obvious, while (a)⟹(b) follows from Proposition 9.2.
∎
10. Normed vector spaces
In this Section we will show that for every ideal I on ω there are a normed vector space X and \mathbbma^ such that CR(X,\mathbbma^)=I (ideals CR(X,\mathbbma^) were defined only for Banach spaces X, but this definition can be naturally extended).
Theorem 10.1**.**
If I is any ideal on ω, then there are a normed vector space X and \mathbbma^∈(X×X⋆)ω such that CR(X,\mathbbma^)=I.
Proof.
Let J={A⊆ω:A∖{0}=B+1 for some B∈I}, where B+1={n+1:n∈B}. Note that J is an ideal on ω. Consider cJ={\mathbbmx∈c0:{n∈ω:xn=0}∈J}. Clearly, it is a vector space normed by the supremum norm.
Using Lemma 5.5, find \mathbbma^ with \mathbbman∈c00 (so also \mathbbman∈cJ) for all n∈ω, which is simple over \mathbbme^ with witnesses D=ω, h=id+1 and some (\mathbbmbn+1) such that ∥\mathbbmbn+1∥c0=n+1.
By Lemma 3.1 and Remark 3.2, CR(X,\mathbbma^) is the ideal generated by Fin and all sets of the form:
[TABLE]
for \mathbbmx∈cJ. We will show that CR(X,\mathbbma^)=I.
CR(X,\mathbbma^)⊆I: Let \mathbbmx∈cJ. Then A\mathbbmx⊆{n∈ω:xn+1=0}, so A\mathbbmx+1⊆{n∈ω:xn=0}∈J. Hence, A\mathbbmx∈I.
CR(X,\mathbbma^)⊇I: Let A∈I. Define:
[TABLE]
Observe that {n∈ω:xn=0}={n∈ω:n−1∈A}=A+1∈J, so \mathbbmx∈cJ. Moreover, A\mathbbmx={n∈ω:∣xn+1∣≥n+11}=A.
∎
11. Questions
We conclude our paper with a list of open questions concerning ideal bases. First of them is somehow motivated by Section 8.
Question 11.1**.**
Suppose that X∈{c0,ℓp} and (\mathbbman)⊆X is such that for every \mathbbmx∈X there exists a unique sequence of scalars (αn) such that for every k∈ω we have \mathbbmx(k)=∑n=0∞αk(\mathbbman)(k). Is there some ideal I, which makes it an I-Schauder basis of X?
Recall that by Theorem 7.1, for every non-pathological analytic P-ideal I there are a Banach space X⊆Rω and \mathbbma^ simple over \mathbbme^ such that CR(X,\mathbbma^)=I.
Question 11.2**.**
Let I be an analytic P-ideals. Are there a Banach space X and \mathbbma^ such that CR(X,\mathbbma^)=I?
By [7, Theorem B] we know that each critical ideal in a Banach space is necessarily analytic, provided that coordinate functionals are continuous. This result suggest to ask some other similar questions. Note that all critical ideals in Banach spaces, which we present in this paper, are P-ideals.
Question 11.3**.**
Is CR(X,\mathbbma^) necessarily a P-ideal, provided that X is a Banach space?
Note that every analytic P-ideal is Fσδ (see [8, Lemma 1.2.2 and Theorem 1.2.5]). Thus, a positive answer to Question 11.3 combined with the above mentioned result [7, Theorem B] would show that each critical ideal in a Banach space is necessarily Fσδ, provided that coordinate functionals are continuous.
[2, Theorem 1.18] ensures that any critical ideal may be enlarged to a Borel ideal, provided that coordinate functionals are continuous. However, the following question remains open.
Question 11.4**.**
May a critical ideal in some Banach space be analytic, but not Borel?
Next question is also motivated by [2, Theorem 1.18] (see also [7, Question 2]).
Question 11.5**.**
Is there some Borel class Γ such that for every ideal Schauder basis \mathbbma^ there exists an ideal I∈Γ such that \mathbbma^ is an I-Schauder basis? If the answer is positive, then what is the smallest such Γ?
Note that a positive answer to Question 11.3 would mean that Γ=Fσδ works for all ideal Schauder bases with continuous coordinate functionals.
The next two questions seem to be most important (and probably hardest) problems in this field:
Question 11.6**.**
[7, Question 1]**
Are coordinate functionals necessarily continuous for all ideal bases?
Question 11.7**.**
Let X be a separable Banach space. Does X necessarily contain an I-Schauder basis for some nontrivial ideal I?
In view of [2, Example 1.14] answer for the following question could be viewed as a step towards answering Question 11.7.
Question 11.8**.**
Is there a Banach space without FDD, yet equipped with I-Schauder basis for some nontrivial ideal I?
Section 10 suggest the following version of the Question 11.7.
Question 11.9**.**
Let X be a separable normed space. Does X necessarily admit an I-Schauder basis for some nontrivial ideal I?
Bibliography22
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] F. Albiac, N.J. Kalton, Topics in Banach space theory. Second edition With a foreword by Gilles Godefory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 233. Springer, [Cham], 2016.
2[2] A. Avilés, Ch. Rosendal, M. A. Taylor, P. Tradacete, Coordinate systems in Banach spaces and lattices , preprint
3[3] P. Borodulin-Nadzieja, B. Farkas, Analytic P-ideals and Banach spaces , J.l of Funct. Anal. 279 (2020), no. 8, 108702
4[4] J. Calbrix, Filtres boréliens sur l’ensemble des entiers et espaces des applications continues , Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl. 33 , (1988),655–661.
5[5] J. Connor, M. Ganichev, and V. Kadets, A characterization of Banach spaces with separable duals via weak statistical convergence , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 244 (2000), 251–261.
6[6] G. Debs, J. Saint Raymond, Filter descriptive classes of Borel functions , Fundamenta Mathematicae 204 (2009), 189–213.
7[7] N. de Rancourt, T. Kania and J. Swaczyna, Continuity of coordinate functionals of filter bases in Banach spaces. J. of Funct. Anal. . 284 (2023), no. 9, 109869.
8[8] I. Farah, Analytic quotients. Theory of lifting for quotients over analytic ideals on integers , Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 148 (2000).