4

Let $(X,\Sigma,\mu)$ be a measure space and consider the algebra $L^\infty(X)$. The real-valued functions carry a canonical order, where $g\leq f$ if $g(x)\leq f(x)$ a.e. The following result holds:

Let $B\subset L^\infty(X)$ be a set of real valued functions which is bounded (that is, there exists $c>0$ with $\|f\|_\infty\leq c$ for all $f\in B$). Then $B$ admits a least upper bound $g$ in $L^\infty(X)$.

As far as I can tell, the straightforward argument that one first thinks about does not work; because one would attempt to take the pointwise supremum, which of course will be bounded but there is no obvious reason why it has to be measurable. Moreover, taking the pointwise supremum raises the issue of dealing with possibly uncountably many nullsets, which kind of puts the argument away from usual measure theory.

The reason I know the result is true is the following. For any $F\subset B$ finite, we can define $g_F=\max\{f:\ f\in F\}$. Because we are dealing with finitely many functions, $g_F\in L^\infty(X)$ and $f\leq g_F$ a.e. for all $f\in F$. Now the net $\{g_F\}_{F\in B}$ is a monotone increasing bounded net of real-valued functions. Here is where I need to appeal to higher level stuff: since $L^\infty(X)$ is a von Neumann algebra, any bounded monotone increasing net of selfadjoint elements admits a least upper bound. So there exists $g\in L^\infty(X)$ that is the least upper bound of $\{g_F\}_{F\in B}$. The reason $g$ is a least upper bound for $B$ is that if $h$ is an upper bound for $B$, then $g_F\leq h$ for all $F$, and then $g\leq h$.

And now we get to the question: is it possible to prove the existence of the least upper bound for $B$, with measure theory arguments?

The proof using von Neumann algebra ideas is not crazy hard, but it uses non-trivial results. Basically one represents $L^\infty(X)$ faithfully on $B(\ell^2(X))$ acting by left multiplication, that is $\pi(f)\eta=f\,\eta$, and considers the numerical nets $\{\langle \pi(g_F)\xi,\xi\rangle\}$ for each $\xi\in \ell^2(X)$. As these are bounded monotone nets in $\mathbb R$, they converge. This way one gets numbers $\{\langle T\xi,\xi\rangle\}$ and it is standard Hilbert space theory using polarization that this defines an operator $T\in B(\ell^2(X))$. The operator $T$ is a weak-operator limit of elements of $\pi(L^\infty(X))$, which is a von Neumann algebra, and so $T\in \pi(L^\infty(X))$, which means that there exists $g\in L^\infty(X)$ with $\pi(g)=T$.

It would be nice to have instead a proof intrinsic to $L^\infty(X)$.

Martin Argerami
  • 217,281
  • What is wrong with taking a constant function? – William M. Nov 06 '23 at 18:17
  • Not sure what you mean. What would you do with a constant function? – Martin Argerami Nov 06 '23 at 18:18
  • Nevermind, I miss the part of least upper bound. – William M. Nov 06 '23 at 18:21
  • 1
    For complete Radon measures, there is in Bourbaki Integration I (ch.4, par 3, no.6) relatively small proof that $L^p$ is fully complete lattice for any $1 \le p \le \infty.$ It relies on the facts that the limit of increasing net is actually a least upper bound and $L^p$ are complete. For longer story about order in topological vector spaces, one may check Schaefer's Topological vector spaces. – dsh Nov 06 '23 at 18:50
  • The order in the von Neumann algebra $L^\infty(X)$ may be not the same as that in the function space $L^\infty(X)$. – C. Ding Nov 06 '23 at 20:34
  • @C.Ding: what do you mean? The canonical way to see $L^\infty(X)$ as a von Neumann algebra is as left multiplication operators on $L^2(X)$. In that context, $M_f\geq0$ if and only if $f\geq0$ a.e., which gives the order I mentioned. – Martin Argerami Nov 06 '23 at 20:44
  • @MartinArgerami If the measure is not $\sigma$-finite, why does $M_f\geq 0$ imply that $f\geq 0$ a.e.? – C. Ding Nov 06 '23 at 20:54
  • This is how I would do it. $M_f\geq0$ means that $\langle M_fg,g\rangle\geq0$ for all $g\in L^2$, which is $$\tag1 \int_Xf,|g|^2,d\mu\geq0. $$ Let $E={f<0}$. If $\mu(E)>0$, then by continuity of the measure there exists $n$ such that $\mu(E_n)>0$, where $E_n={f<-\frac1n}$. Put $g=1_E$. Then $(1)$ gives $$ 0\leq \int_Xf,1_E,d\mu=\int_Ef,d\mu\leq-\frac1n,\mu(E_n), $$ a contradiction. The contradiction happens even if $\mu(E_n)=\infty$. Am I using that $\mu$ is $\sigma$-finite? – Martin Argerami Nov 06 '23 at 21:15
  • @MartinArgerami You are correct. So, the expalnation for why both your arguemts and my counter example hold is that $L^\infty(X)$ may fail to be a von Neumann algebra, as you find out. – C. Ding Nov 06 '23 at 21:40
  • Indeed. This was nice. – Martin Argerami Nov 06 '23 at 21:47
  • @C.Ding, could you please explain? I am confused. If you consider $L^\infty$ as a space of functions (not space of equivalence classes of functions) then $\le$ is not an order i.e antireflexivity does not hold. If one considers $L^\infty$ as a space of equivalence classes then Schaefer/Wolff "Topological vector spaces" p.286 claims that $L^\infty(\mu)$ are exactly commutative v.Neumann algebras where $\mu$ is a Borel measure on locally compact space. And, surely, $\sup$ in $L^\infty$ as a set of equivalence classes does not equal to pointwise supremum. – dsh Nov 06 '23 at 21:56
  • @dsh By "function space", I mean exactly the space of equivalence classes of functions. – C. Ding Nov 06 '23 at 22:04
  • @C.Ding And you consider classes of equivalences of measurable function (or classes of all functions)? Thank you. – dsh Nov 06 '23 at 22:14
  • @dsh Measurable functions, of course. – C. Ding Nov 06 '23 at 22:33

1 Answers1

2

There is a counter example if you do not assume that the measure space is $\sigma$-finite. Let $X$ be an uncountable set, $\mu$ a counting measure, and $\Sigma$ the family of set $A$ such that $A$ or the complement of $A$ is countable. Consider that $S$ is a subset of $X$ such that both itself and its complement are uncountable, then $B: =\{\chi_A|A \mbox{ is a countable subset of }S\}$ has no least upper bound.

If you assume that the measure space is $\sigma$-finite, then the result you quote is true. Define $B^\vee:=\{\sup A| A\mbox{ is a finite subset of } B\}$, then $B^\vee$ is also bounded above. The key point is that the supremum $\alpha$ of integrals of elements in $B^\vee$ exists when $\mu$ is a finite measure, so we can find a sequence $(f_n)$ in $B^\vee$ such that $\int f_n$ converges to $\alpha$. Moreover, we may assume that $(f_n)$ is increasing by replacing $f_n$ with $f_1\vee f_2\vee\cdots\vee f_n$. Let $g$ be the supremum of the sequence $f_n$, then $g$ is the least upper bound of $B$. Indeed, for any $f\in B$,
\begin{align*} \alpha \geq \int (f_n\vee f)\geq \int f_n, \end{align*} which follows that $\int (f_n\vee f)$ converges to $\alpha$. By Monotone Convergence Theorem, $\int (g\vee f)-\int g=\alpha-\alpha=0$. This implies that $g\vee f-g$ is the zero element in $L^\infty(X)$, i.e., $f\leq g$.

Martin Argerami
  • 217,281
C. Ding
  • 2,212
  • What is $\mu$ exactly? One usually allows a measure to take a single infinite value, not different cardinalities. The typical measure for your $\Sigma$ is $\mu(A)=0$ if $A$ countable and $\mu(A)=\infty$ if $A$ uncountable, and in that case your $\chi_A=0$ for all countable $A$. (by the way, the proof you provided is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for, as it is the exact same idea I used for von Neumann algebras but constrained to pure measure theory arguments) – Martin Argerami Nov 06 '23 at 20:45
  • @MartinArgerami $\mu(A)$ is the cardinality of $A$, not the typical measure. – C. Ding Nov 06 '23 at 20:50
  • Ok, that's not what I call a "measure space", then. I need to think what survives and what doesn't if one allows $\mu$ to take different infinite values. – Martin Argerami Nov 06 '23 at 21:16
  • @MartinArgerami To clarify, $\mu(A)$ always take the value $\infty$ if $A$ is infinite. – C. Ding Nov 06 '23 at 21:24
  • I see. Not the most interesting measure if it only takes the value $\infty$. I'm noticing that I have completely forgotten the role of $\sigma$-finiteness in $L^\infty(X)$; I'm not even sure if it is a von Neumann algebra for a non $\sigma$-finite measure. Come to think about it, your example shows that $L^\infty(X)$ may fail to be a von Neumann algebra when the measure is not $\sigma$-finite. – Martin Argerami Nov 06 '23 at 21:27
  • On reading your argument a bit more carefully, I think you need to define $\alpha$ as the supremum over all finite joins of functions in $B$. Otherwise you could have something like $B={1_{[0,1]},1_{[1,2]}}$, and then $\alpha=1$ while $\int(f_1\vee f_2)=2$. (there's also a couple typos in the last two sentences). – Martin Argerami Nov 08 '23 at 01:38
  • @MartinArgerami In fact, I need to define $\alpha$ as the supremum over all countable joins of functions in $B$, because it has to contain the $g$ in my answer. Corrected now. – C. Ding Nov 08 '23 at 16:27
  • I think if you define it over finite joins you get that $\int f\vee g=\alpha$ for any $f\in B$ by using Monotone Convergence. Also you have typos near the end, since $f_n\vee g=g$ and it is not what you need. – Martin Argerami Nov 08 '23 at 17:04
  • @MartinArgerami Yes, you are correct. My typo confused myself, leading to my last comment. Finite joins is enough, as your arguemnts for vN algebra. – C. Ding Nov 08 '23 at 17:29
  • I corrected a few more typos near the end. – Martin Argerami Nov 08 '23 at 17:37
  • @MartinArgerami Thank you. You are so clever that you can understand an answer with typos on key information. – C. Ding Nov 08 '23 at 17:46
  • Your answer was very nice and enlightening. – Martin Argerami Nov 08 '23 at 17:49