Abstract
In this paper, we investigate some reflexivity-type properties of separable measurable Banach bundles over a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space. Our two main results are the following:
-
The fibers of a bundle are uniformly convex (with a common modulus of convexity) if and only if the space of its \(L^p\)-sections is uniformly convex for every \(p\in (1,\infty )\).
-
The fibers of a bundle are reflexive if and only if the space of its \(L^p\)-sections is reflexive for every \(p\in (1,\infty )\).
They generalise well-known results for Lebesgue–Bochner spaces.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
1.1 General overview
In this paper, we focus on the theory of measurable Banach bundles over a given \(\sigma \)-finite measure space \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\). Our primary aim is to understand whether some important properties of the fibers of a measurable Banach bundle (such as Hilbertianity, uniform convexity, and reflexivity) carry over to the space of its \(L^p\)-sections, and vice versa.
Given an ‘ambient’ Banach space \({\mathbb {B}}\), a weakly measurable multivalued map \({\textbf{E}}:{\textrm{X}}\twoheadrightarrow {\mathbb {B}}\) is said to be a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle on \({\textrm{X}}\) if \({\textbf{E}}(x)\) is a closed linear subspace of \({\mathbb {B}}\) for every \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\). A strongly \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurable map \(v:{\textrm{X}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {B}}\), such that \(v(x)\in {\textbf{E}}(x)\) for every \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\) is called a section of \({\textbf{E}}\). For any exponent \(p\in (1,\infty )\), we denote by \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) the space of (equivalence classes, up to \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. equality, of) those sections of \({\textbf{E}}\) for which \({\textrm{X}}\ni x\mapsto \Vert v(x)\Vert _{\mathbb {B}}\in {\mathbb {R}}\) belongs to \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\). It is worth pointing out that the well-known concept of Lebesgue–Bochner space \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\) is a particular instance of a section space, corresponding to the bundle constantly equal to \({\mathbb {B}}\).
The space \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) naturally comes with a pointwise multiplication by \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-functions and with a pointwise norm operator \(|\cdot |:\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\rightarrow L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\), given by \(|v|:=\big \Vert v(\cdot )\Vert _{\mathbb {B}}\). The function \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\ni v\mapsto \Vert v\Vert _{\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})}:=\big \Vert |v|\big \Vert _{L^p({\mathfrak {m}})}\) defines a complete norm on \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\). All in all, \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) is an \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-normed \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module, in the sense of Gigli [7]. We remark that, more surprisingly, in the case of separable normed modules the converse implication holds as well: every separable \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-normed \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module \({\mathscr {M}}\) is isomorphic to \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\), for some measurable Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle \({\textbf{E}}\) on \({\textrm{X}}\), where \({\mathbb {B}}\) is a separable Banach space. This representation result—first obtained in [20] for ‘locally finitely generated’ modules and later generalised in [4] to all separable modules—in fact strongly motivates our interest towards the language of measurable Banach bundles.
The theory of \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-normed \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules was introduced by Gigli in [7]—as already mentioned—and refined further in [6]. The main purpose was to provide a robust functional–analytic framework, suitable for constructing effective notions of \(1\)-forms and vector fields in the setting of metric measure spaces. The key object introduced in [7] is the cotangent module \(L^2(T^*{\textrm{X}})\), which is obtained, roughly speaking, as the completion of the \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-linear combinations of the ‘formal differentials’ \({\text {d}}f\) of Sobolev functions \(f\in W^{1,2}({\textrm{X}})\). It is evident that it is not sufficient to consider only the Banach space structure of \(L^2(T^*{\textrm{X}})\), but instead one has to keep track also of the ‘pointwise’ behaviour of the elements of \(L^2(T^*{\textrm{X}})\), which is encoded into the \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module structure and the pointwise norm. Due to this reason, \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-normed \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules were the correct class of spaces to take into account. In this regard, an enlightening side result—which is not strictly needed for the purposes of this paper, but that we report for future reference—will be discussed in Appendix 1. More precisely, in Theorem A.2 we will characterise those complete norms over a given \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module that are induced by an \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-valued pointwise norm operator via integration.
Prior to the development of \(L^p\)-normed \(L^\infty \)-modules on metric measure spaces, some strictly related notions were already well-established in the literature: for instance, random normed modules (or RN modules, or randomly normed spaces) were introduced by Guo [10] (after Schweizer and Sklar [23]) and by Haydon et al. [18], independently. Typically, random normed modules are formulated over a probability measure space. In view of this fact, we will work in the general framework of normed modules over a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space (and not only over a metric measure space). The notion of a random normed module is an important concept in random metric theory, which is derived from the investigation of probabilistic metric spaces. A key construction in this theory is that of a random conjugate space. The random metric theory has applications in finance optimisation problems, and it is connected with the study of conditional and dynamic risk measures. See [15] and the references therein.
1.2 Statement of results
Let us now describe more in details the main results that we will achieve in this paper. Fix a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\), a separable Banach space \({\mathbb {B}}\), and a measurable Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle \({\textbf{E}}\) on \({\textrm{X}}\). Then, we will prove the following statements:
- \(\mathrm (a)\):
-
\({\textbf{E}}(x)\) is Hilbert for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\) if and only if \(\Gamma _2({\textbf{E}})\) is Hilbert. See Theorem 3.1.
- \(\mathrm (b)\):
-
\({\textbf{E}}(x)\) is uniformly convex for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\) (and with modulus of convexity independent of \(x\)) if and only if \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) is uniformly convex for all \(p\in (1,\infty )\). See Theorem 3.5. Its proof is more involved than the one for the Hilbertian case, and relies upon some previous results about random uniform convexity by Guo and Zeng [16, 17]. The corresponding statement for Lebesgue–Bochner spaces can be found, e.g., in [3].
- \(\mathrm (c)\):
-
\({\textbf{E}}(x)\) is reflexive for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\) if and only if \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) is reflexive for all \(p\in (1,\infty )\). See Theorem 3.12.
The above results are well-known in the special case of Lebesgue–Bochner spaces. We point out that the implication ‘\(L^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\) reflexive implies \({\mathbb {B}}\) reflexive’ can be easily proved: assuming \({\mathfrak {m}}({\textrm{X}})=1\) for simplicity, one can realise \({\mathbb {B}}\) as a closed linear subspace of \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\) (by sending each \(v\in {\mathbb {B}}\) to the section constantly equal to \(v\)). However, the corresponding implication ‘\(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) reflexive implies \({\textbf{E}}(x)\) reflexive for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\)’ will require a much more difficult proof.
We also mention that, along the way to prove item c), we will obtain a result of independent interest: shortly said, given a measurable Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle \({\textbf{E}}\) (with \({\mathbb {B}}\) not necessarily separable), the dual of \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) as a normed module can be identified with the space of \(q\)-integrable weakly\(^*\) measurable sections of the dual bundle \({\textrm{X}}\ni x\mapsto {\textbf{E}}(x)'\), where \(\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1\). See Sect.��3.2 for the precise formulation, as well as Theorem 3.8 for the relevant equivalence result. The corresponding statement for Lebesgue–Bochner spaces, stating that \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})'\) can be identified with the space \(L^q_{w^*}({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}}')\) of \(q\)-integrable ‘weakly\(^*\) measurable’ maps from \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) to \({\mathbb {B}}'\), was previously known (see [13]). We also point out that a variant of the statement in c) for normed modules has been recently obtained in [8, Theorems 3.9 and 4.17]. However, in general neither the results of [8] imply c), nor the vice versa.
1.3 Addendum
While in a previous version of this manuscript only one of the two implications in (c) was obtained (namely, that ‘reflexive fibers implies reflexive section space’), in the current version the full equivalence is proved. This is due to the fact that an anonymous colleague kindly pointed out to us the result [18, Theorem 6.19], which is the analogue of (c) in the setting of direct integrals. However, we do not obtain the implication ‘reflexive section space implies reflexive fibers’ as a consequence of [18, Theorem 6.19], but we rather follow the same proof strategy; see Remark 3.13 for more comments on this. It would be very interesting—but outside the scopes of this manuscript—to investigate the relation between our notion of Banach bundle and the theory of direct integrals considered in [18].
2 Preliminaries
To begin with, we fix some general terminology, which we will use throughout the entire paper. For any \(p\in [1,\infty ]\), we tacitly denote by \(q\in [1,\infty ]\) its conjugate exponent, that is
Given a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\), we denote by \({\mathcal {L}}^0_\textrm{ext}(\Sigma )\) the space of all measurable functions from \({\textrm{X}}\) to \({\mathbb {R}}\cup \{\pm \infty \}\), while \(L^0_\textrm{ext}({\mathfrak {m}})\) stands for the quotient of \({\mathcal {L}}^0_\textrm{ext}(\Sigma )\) up to \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. equality. We call \(\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}:{\mathcal {L}}^0_\textrm{ext}(\Sigma )\rightarrow L^0_\textrm{ext}({\mathfrak {m}})\) the usual projection map on the quotient. Moreover, we define
and \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}}):=\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}\big ({\mathcal {L}}^0(\Sigma )\big )\). During this paper, we will use two different notions of ‘essential supremum/infimum’, namely:
-
If \(f\in {\mathcal {L}}^0_\textrm{ext}(\Sigma )\) and \(E\in \Sigma \), we define \(\mathrm{ess\,sup}_E f,\mathrm{ess\,inf}_E f\in {\mathbb {R}}\cup \{\pm \infty \}\) respectively as
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \underset{E}{\mathrm { ess\,sup}}\,f&:=\inf \Big \{\lambda \in {\mathbb {R}}\cup \{\pm \infty \}\;\Big |\;f\le \lambda ,\text { holds }{\mathfrak {m}}\text {-a.e. on }E\Big \},\\ \underset{E}{\mathrm { ess\,inf}}\,f&:=\sup \Big \{\lambda \in {\mathbb {R}}\cup \{\pm \infty \}\;\Big |\;f\ge \lambda ,\text { holds }{\mathfrak {m}}\text {-a.e. on }E\Big \}. \end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ -
Given a (possibly uncountable) family \(\{f_i\}_{i\in I}\subseteq {\mathcal {L}}^0_\textrm{ext}(\Sigma )\), we define \(\bigvee _{i\in I}f_i\in L^0_\textrm{ext}({\mathfrak {m}})\) as the unique \(f\in L^0_\textrm{ext}({\mathfrak {m}})\), such that \(f_i\le f\) \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. for every \(i\in I\) and satisfying
$$\begin{aligned} g\in L^0_\textrm{ext}({\mathfrak {m}}),\;\;f_i\le g\;\,{\mathfrak {m}}\text {-a.e. for every }i\in I\quad \Longrightarrow \quad f\le g\;\,{\mathfrak {m}}\text {-a.e.} \end{aligned}$$Similarly, \(\bigwedge _{i\in I}f_i\in L^0_\textrm{ext}({\mathfrak {m}})\) is the unique element \(f\) of \(L^0_\textrm{ext}({\mathfrak {m}})\), such that \(f_i\ge f\) \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. for every \(i\in I\) and satisfying
$$\begin{aligned} g\in L^0_\textrm{ext}({\mathfrak {m}}),\;\;f_i\ge g\;\,{\mathfrak {m}}\text {-a.e. for every }i\in I\quad \Longrightarrow \quad f\ge g\;\,{\mathfrak {m}}\text {-a.e.} \end{aligned}$$
Notice that the above notions of essential supremum/infimum are invariant under modifications of the functions \(f\) and \(f_i\) on an \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-negligible set, thus accordingly we can unambiguously consider \(\mathrm{ess\,sup}_E f\), \(\mathrm{ess\,inf}_E f\), \(\bigvee _{i\in I}f_i\), \(\bigwedge _{i\in I}f_i\) whenever \(f\) and \(f_i\) are elements of \(L^0_\textrm{ext}({\mathfrak {m}})\).
The Lebesgue spaces are defined in the usual way: given any \(p\in [1,\infty )\), we define
We also consider the spaces \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}}):=\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}\big ({\mathcal {L}}^p({\mathfrak {m}})\big )\) and \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}}):=\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}\big ({\mathcal {L}}^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\big )\), which are Banach spaces if endowed with the usual pointwise operations and with the norms
Recall that \(L^q({\mathfrak {m}})\) is isomorphic as a Banach space to the dual of \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\).
It is worth recalling that, given an arbitrary \(\sigma \)-finite measure space \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) and any exponent \(p\in [1,\infty )\), the Lebesgue space \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\) is not necessarily separable. In fact, it holds that
where \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) is said to be separable provided there exists a countable family \({\mathcal {C}}\subseteq \Sigma \) for which the following property holds: given any set \(E\in \Sigma \) with \({\mathfrak {m}}(E)<+\infty \) and \(\varepsilon >0\), there exists \(F\in {\mathcal {C}}\), such that \({\mathfrak {m}}(E\Delta F)<\varepsilon \). The equivalence stated in (2.1) is well-known; it follows, for instance, from [4, Lemma 2.14]. We also point out that if \(({\textrm{X}},\textsf{d})\) is a complete and separable metric space, \(\Sigma \) is the Borel \(\sigma \)-algebra of \({\textrm{X}}\), and \({\mathfrak {m}}\) is a boundedly-finite Borel measure on \({\textrm{X}}\), then \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) is a separable measure space.
2.1 Banach spaces
Let us begin by fixing some basic terminology about Banach spaces. Given a Banach space \({\mathbb {B}}\), we denote by \({\mathbb {B}}'\) its (continuous) dual space. Moreover, we denote by \(B_{\mathbb {B}}\) and \({\mathbb {S}}_{\mathbb {B}}\) the closed unit ball and the unit sphere of \({\mathbb {B}}\), respectively. Namely, we set
In this paper we are mostly concerned with Hilbert, uniformly convex, and reflexive spaces. We recall the notion of uniform convexity, just to fix a notation for the modulus of convexity.
Definition 2.1
(Uniform convexity) Let \({\mathbb {B}}\) be a Banach space. Let us define the modulus of convexity \(\delta _{\mathbb {B}}:(0,2)\rightarrow [0,1]\) of the space \({\mathbb {B}}\) as follows: given any \(\varepsilon \in (0,2)\), we set
Then we say that \({\mathbb {B}}\) is uniformly convex if and only if \(\delta _{\mathbb {B}}(\varepsilon )>0\) holds for every \(\varepsilon \in (0,2)\).
It is well-known that the following implications are verified:
The following elementary observation will play a rôle during the proof of Theorem 3.5.
Remark 2.2
The uniform convexity condition can be checked on a dense set. Namely, given any dense subset \(D\) of \({\mathbb {S}}_{\mathbb {B}}\), one has that for every \(\varepsilon \in (0,2)\) it holds that
This claim can be easily proved via a standard approximation argument.
Let us briefly recall the basic theory of Lebesgue–Bochner spaces; for a detailed account we refer, e.g., to [19]. Fix a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) and a Banach space \({\mathbb {B}}\). Then, a given map \(v:{\textrm{X}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {B}}\) is said to be strongly \(\varvec{{\mathfrak {m}}}\)-measurable if it is \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurable and essentially separably valued, i.e., there exists an \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-null set \(N\in \Sigma \) such that the image \(v({\textrm{X}}{\setminus } N)\subseteq {\mathbb {B}}\) is separable. It holds that a given map \(v:{\textrm{X}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {B}}\) is strongly \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurable if and only if it is both essentially separably valued and weakly \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurable, that is
We denote by \({\mathcal {L}}^0({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\) the space of all strongly \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurable maps from \({\textrm{X}}\) to \({\mathbb {B}}\), while for any given exponent \(p\in [1,\infty )\) we define
These definitions are well-posed, since \(\Vert v(\cdot )\Vert _{\mathbb {B}}\) is \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurable thanks to the \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurability of \(v\) and the continuity of \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{\mathbb {B}}\). We introduce an equivalence relation on \({\mathcal {L}}^0({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\): given any \(v,w\in {\mathcal {L}}^0({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\), we declare that \(v\sim w\) if and only if \(v(x)=w(x)\) for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\). Then, we define
while \(\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}:{\mathcal {L}}^0({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\rightarrow L^0({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\) stands for the projection map on the quotient. Moreover, we define \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}}):=\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}\big ({\mathcal {L}}^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\big )\) for every \(p\in [1,\infty ]\). The linear space \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\) becomes a Banach space if it is endowed with the norm \(\Vert v\Vert _{L^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})}:=\big \Vert \Vert v(\cdot )\Vert _{\mathbb {B}}\big \Vert _{L^p({\mathfrak {m}})}\). The spaces \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\) are called the Lebesgue–Bochner spaces. Note also that \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {R}})=L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\).
2.2 Banach bundles
Aim of this section is to recall the notion of Banach bundle introduced in [4] and its main properties. Let us fix a measurable space \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma )\) and a Banach space \({\mathbb {B}}\). By \(\varvec{\varphi }:{\textrm{X}}\twoheadrightarrow {\mathbb {B}}\) we denote a multivalued map, i.e., a map from \({\textrm{X}}\) to the power set of \({\mathbb {B}}\). Following [1], we say that \(\varvec{\varphi }\) is weakly measurable provided \(\big \{x\in {\textrm{X}}\,:\,\varvec{\varphi }(x)\cap U\ne \varnothing \big \}\in \Sigma \) holds for every open set \(U\subseteq {\mathbb {B}}\). The following definition is taken from [4, Definition 4.1] (cf. also with [21, Definition 2.15] for the case of a non-separable ambient space \({\mathbb {B}}\)):
Definition 2.3
(Banach bundle) Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma )\) be a measurable space and \({\mathbb {B}}\) a Banach space. Then a given weakly measurable multivalued map \({\textbf{E}}:{\textrm{X}}\twoheadrightarrow {\mathbb {B}}\) is said to be a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle on \({\textrm{X}}\) provided \({\textbf{E}}(x)\) is a closed linear subspace of \({\mathbb {B}}\) for every \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\).
We define the support of a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle \({\textbf{E}}\) as follows:
Notice that \(H({\textbf{E}})={\textrm{X}}{\setminus }\big \{x\in {\textrm{X}}\,:\,{\textbf{E}}(x)\cap ({\mathbb {B}}{\setminus }\{0_{\mathbb {B}}\})\ne \varnothing \big \}\in \Sigma \).
Let us also introduce the following subclasses of Banach bundles, which will be studied in details in Sects. 3.1 and 3.3.
Definition 2.4
(Hilbert, uniformly convex, reflexive bundles) Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a measure space, \({\mathbb {B}}\) a Banach space, and \({\textbf{E}}\) a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle over \({\textrm{X}}\). Then, we say that:
- \(\mathrm (i)\):
-
\({\textbf{E}}\) is Hilbert if \({\textbf{E}}(x)\) is Hilbert for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\).
- \(\mathrm (ii)\):
-
\({\textbf{E}}\) is uniformly convex if \({\textbf{E}}(x)\) is uniformly convex for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\).
- \(\mathrm (iii)\):
-
\({\textbf{E}}\) is reflexive if \({\textbf{E}}(x)\) is reflexive for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\).
Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space. By a section of a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle \({\textbf{E}}\) over \({\textrm{X}}\) we mean a measurable selector of \({\textbf{E}}\), i.e., a strongly \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurable map \(v:{\textrm{X}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {B}}\) with \(v(x)\in {\textbf{E}}(x)\) for all \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\). We denote by \({\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}})\) the family of all sections of \({\textbf{E}}\). We introduce an equivalence relation on \({\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}})\): given \(v,w\in {\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}})\), we declare that \(v\sim w\) if and only if \(v(x)=w(x)\) for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\). We then define
while \(\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}:{\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}})\rightarrow \Gamma _0({\textbf{E}})\) stands for the projection map on the quotient. By analogy with the case of Lebesgue–Bochner spaces, for any given exponent \(p\in [1,\infty ]\) we define
The previous definitions are well-posed, since \({\textrm{X}}\ni x\mapsto \Vert v(x)\Vert _{\mathbb {B}}\in {\mathbb {R}}\) is \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurable thanks to the strong \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurability of \(v\) and the continuity of \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{\mathbb {B}}\). One can readily check that \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) is a Banach space if endowed with the pointwise operations and with the norm
This is de facto a generalisation of Lebesgue–Bochner spaces: calling \({\textbf{E}}_{\mathbb {B}}\) the Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle whose fibers are constantly equal to the space \({\mathbb {B}}\), it holds that \({\bar{\Gamma }}_p({\textbf{E}}_{\mathbb {B}})={\mathcal {L}}^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\) and \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}}_{\mathbb {B}})=L^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\).
Remark 2.5
Consistently with the case of Lebesgue spaces, the space of sections \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) of a given Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle \({\textbf{E}}\) over \({\textrm{X}}\) needs not be separable, even if \({\mathbb {B}}\) is separable, \({\mathfrak {m}}\) is \(\sigma \)-finite, and \(p\in [1,\infty )\). In fact, under the assumption that the ambient space \({\mathbb {B}}\) is separable, it holds that
We omit the proof, similar to the one of (2.1).
Hereafter, we shall focus on \(\sigma \)-finite measure spaces and Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundles \({\textbf{E}}\) over \({\textrm{X}}\), where the space \({\mathbb {B}}\) is separable. We will need the following result, taken from [4, Proposition 4.4], whose proof we sketch here for the reader’s usefulness.
Proposition 2.6
Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space. Let \({\mathbb {B}}\) be a separable Banach space and let \({\textbf{E}}\) be a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle over \({\textrm{X}}\). Let \(p\in [1,\infty )\) be given. Then there exists a countable \({\mathbb {Q}}\)-linear subspace \({\mathcal {C}}\) of \({\bar{\Gamma }}_p({\textbf{E}})\), such that \({\textbf{E}}(x)=\textrm{cl}_{\mathbb {B}}\big \{v(x)\,:\,v\in {\mathcal {C}}\big \}\) for every \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\).
Proof
Fix \((w_n)_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) dense in \({\mathbb {B}}\). For any \(k,n\in {\mathbb {N}}\), we define \(\varvec{\varphi }_{nk}:{\textrm{X}}\twoheadrightarrow {\mathbb {B}}\) as
One can readily check that the multivalued map \(\varvec{\varphi }_{nk}\) is weakly measurable. Therefore, an application of the Kuratowski–Ryll-Nardzewski Selection theorem (see, e.g., [1, Theorem 18.13]) ensures the existence of a section \(v_{nk}\in {\bar{\Gamma }}_p({\textbf{E}})\), such that \(v_{nk}\in \varvec{\varphi }_{nk}(x)\) for every \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\). This implies that \(\{v_{nk}\,:\,n,k\in {\mathbb {N}}\}\) is dense in \({\textbf{E}}(x)\) for every \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\). Consequently, the \({\mathbb {Q}}\)-linear subspace of \({\bar{\Gamma }}_p({\textbf{E}})\) generated by \(\{v_{nk}\,:\,n,k\in {\mathbb {N}}\}\) fulfils the requirements. \(\square \)
We will need also the following easy consequence of Proposition 2.6:
Corollary 2.7
Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space. Let \({\mathbb {B}}\) be a separable Banach space and let \({\textbf{E}}\) be a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle over \({\textrm{X}}\). Then, there exists a countable subset \({\mathcal {D}}\) of \({\bar{\Gamma }}_\infty ({\textbf{E}})\), such that
Proof
Take any family \({\mathcal {C}}\) as in Proposition 2.6 and define
It is then immediate to check that \({\mathcal {D}}\) has the desired properties. \(\square \)
2.3 Banach modules
In this section, we recall the basics of the theory of Banach modules. We begin by introducing the notion of \(L^p\)-normed \(L^\infty \)-module proposed by N. Gigli [7].
Definition 2.8
(\(L^p\)-normed \(L^\infty \)-module) Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space and let \(p\in (1,\infty )\) be a given exponent. Let \({\mathscr {M}}\) be a module over \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\). Then, a map \(|\cdot |:{\mathscr {M}}\rightarrow L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\) is said to be an \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)- pointwise norm on \({\mathscr {M}}\) provided it verifies the following conditions:
where equalities and inequalities are intended in the \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. sense. The couple \(({\mathscr {M}},|\cdot |)\) is called an \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-normed \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module. We endow \({\mathscr {M}}\) with the norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathscr {M}}}\), given by
When the norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathscr {M}}}\) is complete, we say that \(({\mathscr {M}},|\cdot |)\) is an \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module.
The support of an \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module \({\mathscr {M}}\) is defined as the \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. uniquely determined set \(H({\mathscr {M}})\in \Sigma \), such that
A prototypical example of \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module is the space of \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-sections of a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle \({\textbf{E}}\) over \({\textrm{X}}\), the \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-pointwise norm on \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) being \(|v|:=\Vert v(\cdot )\Vert _{{\textbf{E}}(\cdot )}\). If the space \({\mathbb {B}}\) is separable, then \(H(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}}))\) is (\({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. equivalent to) the support \(H({\textbf{E}})\) of \({\textbf{E}}\) for every \(p\in (1,\infty )\).
An important class of \(L^2({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules is that of Hilbert modules. Following [7, Definition 1.2.20], an \(L^2({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module \({\mathscr {H}}\) is said to be Hilbert provided it is Hilbert when viewed as a Banach space. It is shown in [7, Proposition 1.2.21] that \({\mathscr {H}}\) is a Hilbert module if and only if the pointwise parallelogram identity holds:
An operator between two \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-normed \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules is called a homomorphism of \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-normed \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules provided it is \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-linear and continuous. The dual of an \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-normed \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module \({\mathscr {M}}\) is given by the space \({\mathscr {M}}^*\) of all \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-linear and continuous maps from \({\mathscr {M}}\) to \(L^1({\mathfrak {m}})\). It holds that \({\mathscr {M}}^*\) is an \(L^q({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module if endowed with the \(L^q({\mathfrak {m}})\)-pointwise norm operator \(|\cdot |:{\mathscr {M}}^*\rightarrow L^q({\mathfrak {m}})\), which is defined as
We thus have a natural duality pairing \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle :{\mathscr {M}}^*\times {\mathscr {M}}\rightarrow L^1({\mathfrak {m}})\), which is given by \(\langle \omega ,v\rangle :=\omega (v)\) for every \(\omega \in {\mathscr {M}}^*\) and \(v\in {\mathscr {M}}\). Notice that \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \) is a ‘pointwise’ duality pairing, taking values in \(L^1({\mathfrak {m}})\) (and not in \({\mathbb {R}}\)). The Hahn–Banach theorem for normed modules ([11, 14], also [22, Theorem 3.30]) implies that if \({\mathscr {N}}\) is an \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-submodule of \({\mathscr {M}}\), then each \(\omega \in {\mathscr {N}}^*\) can be extended to an element \({\bar{\omega }}\in {\mathscr {M}}^*\) satisfying \(|{\bar{\omega }}|=|\omega |\). We denote by \(J_{{\mathscr {M}}}:{\mathscr {M}}\rightarrow {\mathscr {M}}^{**}\) the James’ embedding of \({\mathscr {M}}\) into its bidual, i.e., the unique homomorphism of \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules satisfying
We have that \(|J_{{\mathscr {M}}}(v)|=|v|\) holds \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. for every \(v\in {\mathscr {M}}\) (as a consequence of the Hahn–Banach theorem for normed modules). Then, \({\mathscr {M}}\) is said to be reflexive (as a module) provided \(J_{{\mathscr {M}}}\) is surjective (and thus an isomorphism). According to [7, Corollary 1.2.18], \({\mathscr {M}}\) is reflexive if and only if it is reflexive as a Banach space.
Let us also recall the notion of adjoint operator: given a homomorphism \(\varphi :{\mathscr {M}}\rightarrow {\mathscr {N}}\) between two \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules \({\mathscr {M}}\) and \({\mathscr {N}}\), we denote by \(\varphi ^\textrm{ad}:{\mathscr {N}}^*\rightarrow {\mathscr {M}}^*\) the unique homomorphism of \(L^q({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules, such that
It holds that \(\varphi ^\textrm{ad}\) is an isomorphism if and only if \(\varphi \) is an isomorphism.
In the theory of Banach modules, it is often convenient to drop the integrability assumption:
Definition 2.9
(\(L^0\)-normed \(L^0\)-module) Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space. Let \({\mathscr {M}}\) be a module over \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\). Then, a map \(|\cdot |:{\mathscr {M}}\rightarrow L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\) is said to be an \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-pointwise norm on \({\mathscr {M}}\) provided it verifies (2.2a), (2.2b), (2.2c), but replacing \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\) with \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\) in (2.2c). The couple \(({\mathscr {M}},|\cdot |)\) is called an \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-normed \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module, or a random normed module over \({\mathbb {R}}\) with base \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) in the case where \({\mathfrak {m}}\) is a probability measure. We also endow \({\mathscr {M}}\) with the distance \(\textsf{d}_{{\mathscr {M}}}\), given by
where \({\mathfrak {m}}'\) is any given probability measure on \(\Sigma \) satisfying \({\mathfrak {m}}\ll {\mathfrak {m}}'\ll {\mathfrak {m}}\). When \(\textsf{d}_{{\mathscr {M}}}\) is complete, \(({\mathscr {M}},|\cdot |)\) is called an \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module.
A key example of \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module is the space \(\Gamma _0({\textbf{E}})\), where \({\textbf{E}}\) is a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle over \({\textrm{X}}\), and as an \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-pointwise norm on \(\Gamma _0({\textbf{E}})\) we consider \(|v|:=\Vert v(\cdot )\Vert _{{\textbf{E}}(\cdot )}\).
It is worth pointing out that a random normed module is complete with respect to the distance introduced in (2.5) if and only if it is complete in the sense of [16, 17], i.e., with respect to the so-called \((\epsilon ,\lambda )\)-topology. Indeed, both the topology induced by the \(L^0\)-distance and the \((\epsilon ,\lambda )\)-topology coincide with the one of ‘convergence in measure’, cf. with [9] and [12].
An operator between two \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-normed \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules is called a homomorphism of \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-normed \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules provided it is \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-linear and continuous.
The relation between \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules and \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules can be expressed by the following result, which is taken from [6, Theorem/Definition 2.7] and follows also from [13, Theorem 3.1].
Proposition 2.10
(\(L^0\)-completion) Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space. Let \({\mathscr {M}}\) be an \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module, for some exponent \(p\in (1,\infty )\). Then, there exists a unique couple \(({\mathscr {M}}^0,\iota )\), where \({\mathscr {M}}^0\) is an \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module, while \(\iota :{\mathscr {M}}\rightarrow {\mathscr {M}}^0\) is a linear operator which preserves the pointwise norm and has dense image. Uniqueness is intended up to unique isomorphism: given another couple \(({\mathscr {N}}^0,\iota ')\) having the same properties, there exists a unique isomorphism of \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules \(\Phi :{\mathscr {M}}^0\rightarrow {\mathscr {N}}^0\), such that \(\iota '=\Phi \circ \iota \). The space \({\mathscr {M}}^0\) is called the \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-completion of \({\mathscr {M}}\).
3 Main results
3.1 Hilbertian and uniformly convex bundles/modules
In this section, we prove that a given separable Banach bundle is Hilbert (resp. uniformly convex) if and only if its space of sections is Hilbert (resp. uniformly convex). Let us begin with Hilbert bundles/modules.
Theorem 3.1
(Hilbert bundles/modules) Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space. Let \({\mathbb {B}}\) be a separable Banach space and let \({\textbf{E}}\) be a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle over \({\textrm{X}}\). Then, \({\textbf{E}}\) is a Hilbert bundle if and only if \(\Gamma _2({{\textbf{E}}})\) is a Hilbert space. Necessity holds also when \({\mathbb {B}}\) is non-separable.
Proof
Suppose \({\mathbb {B}}\) is an arbitrary Banach space and \({\textbf{E}}\) is a Hilbert bundle. Fix \(v,w\in \Gamma _2({\textbf{E}})\). Then,
for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\). By integrating it over \({\textrm{X}}\), we obtain
whence it follows that \(\Gamma _2({\textbf{E}})\) is a Hilbert module.
Conversely, suppose \({\mathbb {B}}\) is separable and \(\Gamma _2({\textbf{E}})\) is a Hilbert module. Thanks to Proposition 2.6, we can find a \({\mathbb {Q}}\)-linear space \((v_n)_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subseteq \Gamma _2({\textbf{E}})\), such that \(\{v_n(x)\,:\,n\in {\mathbb {N}}\}\) is dense in \({\textbf{E}}(x)\) for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\). We argue by contradiction: suppose there exists \(P'\in \Sigma \) with \({\mathfrak {m}}(P')>0\), such that \({\textbf{E}}(x)\) is non-Hilbert for every \(x\in P'\). Hence, there must exist \(n,m\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and \(P\in \Sigma \), with \(P\subseteq P'\) and \({\mathfrak {m}}(P)>0\), such that for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in P\) it holds
By integrating the above inequality over \(P\), we conclude that
thus leading to a contradiction with the assumption that \(\Gamma _2({\textbf{E}})\) is a Hilbert module. \(\square \)
Next, we aim at obtaining the analogue of Theorem 3.1, but with the term ‘Hilbert’ replaced by ‘uniformly convex’. Its proof, which is more involved than the one for the Hilbertian case, requires some auxiliary notions and results. More precisely, we have to work with the concept of ‘pointwise uniform convexity’, see Definition 3.2. This notion was proposed and studied by Guo and Zeng in [16, 17], where it is called ‘random uniform convexity’.
Definition 3.2
(Pointwise uniform convexity) Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space and let \({\mathscr {M}}\) be an \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module for some exponent \(p\in (1,\infty )\). We denote by \(|\cdot |\) the \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-pointwise norm on \({\mathscr {M}}\). Then, the pointwise modulus of convexity \(\delta _{{\mathscr {M}}}^\textrm{pw}:(0,2)\rightarrow L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\) of \({\mathscr {M}}\) is defined as
for every \(\varepsilon \in (0,2)\), where \({\mathscr {M}}^0\) denotes the \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-completion of \({\mathscr {M}}\). Moreover, we say that \({\mathscr {M}}\) is pointwise uniformly convex if and only if
When \({\mathfrak {m}}\) is a probability measure, the notion of pointwise uniform convexity in Definition 3.2 coincides with the one of random uniform convexity (see [16, Definition 4.1] and [24]). Notice also that, given a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle \({\textbf{E}}\) on \({\textrm{X}}\) and two exponents \(p,p'\in (1,\infty )\), one has that \(\delta _{\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})}^\textrm{pw}=\delta _{\Gamma _{p'}({\textbf{E}})}^\textrm{pw}\).
The following theorem, which states that the pointwise uniform convexity of a Banach module is equivalent to its uniform convexity as a Banach space, is a beautiful result obtained by Guo and Zeng in [16, 17]; they consider probability measures, but it is easy to see that it holds for \(\sigma \)-finite measures.
Theorem 3.3
Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space and let \({\mathscr {M}}\) be an \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module for some \(p\in (1,\infty )\). Then, \({\mathscr {M}}\) is pointwise uniformly convex if and only if it is uniformly convex as a Banach space.
Before stating the main result of this section, we need to check the following technical fact:
Remark 3.4
Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space, \({\mathbb {B}}\) a separable Banach space, \({\textbf{E}}\) a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle over \({\textrm{X}}\). Then, the function \({\textrm{X}}\ni x\mapsto \delta _{{\textbf{E}}(x)}(\varepsilon )\) is \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurable for every \(\varepsilon \in (0,2)\). Indeed, given any \({\mathcal {D}}\) as in Corollary 2.7, we know from Remark 2.2 that the function \(\delta _{{\textbf{E}}(\cdot )}(\varepsilon )\) can be written as
In particular, the function \(\delta _{{\textbf{E}}(\cdot )}(\varepsilon )\) can be expressed as a countable infimum of \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurable functions, thus it is \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurable. This yields the claim.
Finally, we are in a position to prove the equivalence between the uniform convexity of a given separable Banach bundle and the uniform convexity of its space of sections.
Theorem 3.5
(Uniformly convex bundles/modules) Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space. Let \({\mathbb {B}}\) be a separable Banach space and let \({\textbf{E}}\) be a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle over \({\textrm{X}}\). Then, it holds that
In particular, the following two conditions are equivalent:
- \(\mathrm (i)\):
-
\({\textbf{E}}\) is a uniformly convex bundle and \(\mathrm{ess\,inf}_{H({\textbf{E}})}\delta _{{\textbf{E}}(\cdot )}(\varepsilon )>0\) for all \(\varepsilon >0\).
- \(\mathrm (ii)\):
-
\(\Gamma _p({{\textbf{E}}})\) is uniformly convex for every (or, equivalently, for some) exponent \(p\in (1,\infty )\).
Proof
Fix \(\varepsilon \in (0,2)\). We aim to show that \(\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}\big (\delta _{{\textbf{E}}(\cdot )}(\varepsilon )\big )=\delta _{\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})}^\textrm{pw}(\varepsilon )\) on \(H({\textbf{E}})\). Take any \({\mathcal {D}}\) as in Corollary 2.7 and recall that \(\delta _{{\textbf{E}}(\cdot )}(\varepsilon )\) can be written as in (3.1). Fix auxiliary elements \({\bar{v}},{\bar{w}}\in {\bar{\Gamma }}_\infty ({\textbf{E}})\) satisfying \(\Vert {\bar{v}}(x)\Vert _{\mathbb {B}}=\Vert {\bar{w}}(x)\Vert _{\mathbb {B}}=1\) and \(\Vert {\bar{v}}(x)-{\bar{w}}(x)\Vert _{\mathbb {B}}>\varepsilon \) for every \(x\in H({\textbf{E}})\). Given any \(v,w\in {\mathcal {D}}\), we denote
Letting \({\tilde{v}}:=\mathbbm {1}_{H({\textbf{E}}){\setminus } A_{vw}}\cdot {\bar{v}}+\mathbbm {1}_{A_{vw}}\cdot v\) and \({\tilde{w}}:=\mathbbm {1}_{H({\textbf{E}}){\setminus } A_{vw}}\cdot {\bar{w}}+\mathbbm {1}_{A_{vw}}\cdot w\), we have that \(\delta _{\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})}^\textrm{pw}(\varepsilon )\le \mathbbm {1}_{H({\textbf{E}})}-\mathbbm {1}_{H({\textbf{E}})}\big |\frac{{\tilde{v}}+{\tilde{w}}}{2}\big |\) \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e., whence it follows that
Since the right-hand side in the above inequality equals \(1\) on \(H({\textbf{E}}){\setminus } A_{vw}\), and \(\delta _{\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})}^\textrm{pw}(\varepsilon )\le 1\), we deduce that \(\delta _{\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})}^\textrm{pw}(\varepsilon )\le 1-\mathbbm {1}_{A_{vw}}\big \Vert \frac{v(\cdot )+w(\cdot )}{2}\big \Vert _{\mathbb {B}}\) \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. on \(H({\textbf{E}})\). The arbitrariness of \(v,w\in {\mathcal {D}}\) gives \(\delta _{\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})}^\textrm{pw}(\varepsilon )\le \pi _{\mathfrak {m}}\big (\delta _{{\textbf{E}}(\cdot )}(\varepsilon )\big )\) on \(H({\textbf{E}})\).
Let us now pass to the converse inequality. Fix any \(\lambda >0\) and two elements \(u,w\in \Gamma _\infty ({\textbf{E}})\) with \(|u|=|z|=1\) and \(|u-z|>\varepsilon \) \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. on \(H({\textbf{E}})\). Therefore, we can find a partition \(\{B_{vw}\}_{(v,w)\in {\mathcal {D}}\times {\mathcal {D}}}\subseteq \Sigma \) of \(H({\textbf{E}})\), such that
for every \((v,w)\in {\mathcal {D}}\times {\mathcal {D}}\). It follows that \(B_{vw}\subseteq A_{vw}\) up to \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-negligible sets. Moreover, for every \((v,w)\in {\mathcal {D}}\times {\mathcal {D}}\) and \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in B_{vw}\) we can estimate
whence it follows that \(\mathbbm {1}_{B_{vw}}\delta _{{\textbf{E}}(\cdot )}(\varepsilon )\le \mathbbm {1}_{H({\textbf{E}})}-\mathbbm {1}_{H({\textbf{E}})}\big |\frac{u+z}{2}\big |+\lambda \) holds \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. for every \((v,w)\in {\mathcal {D}}\times {\mathcal {D}}\). Since \(\{B_{vw}\}_{(v,w)\in {\mathcal {D}}\times {\mathcal {D}}}\) is a partition of \(H({\textbf{E}})\), we deduce that \(\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}\big (\delta _{{\textbf{E}}(\cdot )}(\varepsilon )\big )\le \mathbbm {1}_{H({\textbf{E}})}-\mathbbm {1}_{H({\textbf{E}})}\big |\frac{u+z}{2}\big |+\lambda \) holds \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. on \(H({\textbf{E}})\). Being \(\lambda \), \(u\), and \(z\) arbitrary, we conclude that \(\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}\big (\delta _{{\textbf{E}}(\cdot )}(\varepsilon )\big )\le \delta _{\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})}^\textrm{pw}(\varepsilon )\) \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. on \(H({\textbf{E}})\). This proves (3.2), whence the equivalence \(\mathrm{(i)}\Longleftrightarrow \mathrm{(ii)}\) follows. \(\square \)
3.2 Characterisation of the dual of a section space
Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space. Let \({\mathbb {B}}\) be a Banach space and \({\textbf{E}}\) a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle over \({\textrm{X}}\). Then, we define \({\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\) as the space of all those maps \({\bar{\omega }}:{\textrm{X}}\rightarrow \bigsqcup _{x\in {\textrm{X}}}{\textbf{E}}(x)'\), such that \({\bar{\omega }}(x)\in {\textbf{E}}(x)'\) for every \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\) and
We introduce an equivalence relation on \({\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\): given any \({\bar{\omega }},{\bar{\eta }}\in {\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\), we declare that \({\bar{\omega }}\sim {\bar{\eta }}\) if for any \({\bar{v}}\in {\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}})\) it holds \(\langle {\bar{\omega }}(x)-{\bar{\eta }}(x),{\bar{v}}(x)\rangle =0\) for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\).
Remark 3.6
When the ambient Banach space \({\mathbb {B}}\) is separable, it holds that
On arbitrary Banach spaces, this needs not necessarily be the case.
We denote the associated quotient space by
while \(\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}:{\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\rightarrow \Gamma _0({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\) stands for the projection map. Then, the space \(\Gamma _0({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\) is an \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-normed \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module if endowed with the following \(L^0({\mathfrak {m}})\)-pointwise norm operator:
Remark 3.7
When \({\mathbb {B}}\) is separable, \(|\omega |(x)=\Vert {\bar{\omega }}(x)\Vert _{{\textbf{E}}(x)'}\) for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\).
In particular, for any exponent \(q\in (1,\infty )\) we can consider the space
which inherits an \(L^q({\mathfrak {m}})\)-normed \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module structure.
Our interest towards the space \(\Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\) is motivated by the following result, which states that the module dual of the section space \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) can be identified with \(\Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\) itself. When \({\textbf{E}}(x):={\mathbb {B}}\) for every \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\) (i.e., \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) is the Lebesgue–Bochner space \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\)), this result was proved in [13].
Theorem 3.8
(Dual of a section space) Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space. Fix any exponent \(p\in (1,\infty )\). Let \({\mathbb {B}}\) be a Banach space and \({\textbf{E}}\) a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle over \({\textrm{X}}\). Then
An isomorphism \(\textrm{I}:\Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\rightarrow \Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})^*\) of \(L^q({\mathfrak {m}})\)-normed \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules is
In particular, the space \(\Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\) is an \(L^q({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module.
Proof
The validity of the \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. inequality \(\big |\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}\big (\langle {\bar{\omega }}(\cdot ),{\bar{v}}(\cdot )\rangle \big )\big |\le |\omega ||v|\) implies that \(\mathrm I\) is a well-defined homomorphism of \(L^q({\mathfrak {m}})\)-normed \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules satisfying \(|\textrm{I}(\omega )|\le |\omega |\) \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. for every \(\omega \in \Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\). To conclude, it only remains to prove that the map \(\mathrm I\) is surjective and satisfies \(|\textrm{I}(\omega )|\ge |\omega |\) \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. for every \(\omega \in \Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\). To this aim, let \(T\in \Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})^*\) be fixed. Since \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) is an \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-submodule of \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\), the Hahn–Banach extension theorem for normed modules gives an element \({\bar{T}}\in L^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})^*\), such that \({\bar{T}}|_{\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})}=T\) and \(|{\bar{T}}|=|T|\). Now, recall that, thanks to [13], the statement holds for the constant bundle \({\textbf{E}}_{\mathbb {B}}\) given by \({\textbf{E}}_{\mathbb {B}}(x):={\mathbb {B}}\) for all \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\). Hence, denoting \(L^q_{w^*}({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}}'):=\Gamma _q(({\textbf{E}}_{\mathbb {B}})'_{w^*})\) for consistency of notation, we have the isomorphism \(\bar{\textrm{I}}:L^q_{w^*}({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}}')\rightarrow L^p({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})^*\). Define \(\eta :=\bar{\textrm{I}}^{-1}({\bar{T}})\in L^q_{w^*}({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}}')\) and take a representative \({\bar{\eta }}\in {\mathcal {L}}^0_{w^*}({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}}'):={\bar{\Gamma }}_0(({\textbf{E}}_{\mathbb {B}})'_{w^*})\) of \(\eta \). Letting \({\bar{\omega }}\) be given by \({\bar{\omega }}(x):={\bar{\eta }}(x)|_{{\textbf{E}}(x)}\in {\textbf{E}}(x)'\) for every \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\), we have that \({\bar{\omega }}\in {\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\) (since \({\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}})\subseteq {\mathcal {L}}^0({\mathfrak {m}};{\mathbb {B}})\)). Finally, we define \(\omega :=\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}({\bar{\omega }})\in \Gamma _0({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\). Given any element \({\bar{v}}\in {\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}})\), we have that \(\langle {\bar{\omega }}(\cdot ),{\bar{v}}(\cdot )\rangle =\langle {\bar{\eta }}(\cdot ),{\bar{v}}(\cdot )\rangle \), whence it follows that \(\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}\big (\langle {\bar{\omega }}(\cdot ),{\bar{v}}(\cdot )\rangle \big )\le |\eta ||\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}(v)|\). We thus conclude that \(\omega \in \Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\), \(\textrm{I}(\omega )=T\), and \(|\omega |\le |\eta |=|{\bar{T}}|=|T|=|\textrm{I}(\omega )|\). The proof is complete. \(\square \)
We point out that the previous result is obtained as a consequence of the corresponding result for Lebesgue–Bochner spaces, studied in [13]. This proof was kindly suggested to us by the referee. In a previous version of the paper, Theorem 3.8 was proved in a more involved way, making use of a generalised form of the Lebesgue differentiation theorem [21]. We also point out that results in the same spirit were obtained in [8, Theorem 3.9] and [8, Theorem 4.17], but in that case it is not sufficient to apply the result for Lebesgue–Bochner spaces (cf. with the discussion in [21, Remark 4.6]).
3.3 Reflexive bundles/modules
In this section, we will prove that the section space of a separable Banach bundle is reflexive if and only if (almost all) its fibers are reflexive. Before stating the main theorem, we need to discuss a few auxiliary results.
Remark 3.9
Let us recall a standard fact in Banach space theory. Let \({\mathbb {B}}\) be a Banach space whose dual \({\mathbb {B}}'\) is separable. Let \((v_n)_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subseteq {\mathbb {B}}\) and \((\omega _n)_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subseteq {\mathbb {B}}'\) be given sequences satisfying \(\Vert v_n\Vert _{\mathbb {B}}=\Vert \omega _n\Vert _{{\mathbb {B}}'}=\langle \omega _n,v_n\rangle =1\) for every \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\). Suppose \((\omega _n)_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is dense in the unit sphere \({\mathbb {S}}_{{\mathbb {B}}'}\). Then, the \({\mathbb {Q}}\)-linear subspace of \({\mathbb {B}}\) generated by \((v_n)_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is dense in \({\mathbb {B}}\).
Proposition 3.10
Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space and \(p\in (1,\infty )\) a given exponent. Let \({\mathbb {B}}\) be a separable Banach space and let \({\textbf{E}}\) be a reflexive Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle over \({\textrm{X}}\). Let \(\theta :\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\rightarrow \Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})^*\) be given by
Then the operator \(\theta \) is an isomorphism of \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules.
Proof
Step 1. The \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. inequality \(\big |\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}(\langle {\bar{\omega }}(\cdot ),{\bar{v}}(\cdot )\rangle )\big |\le |v||\omega |\) ensures that \(\theta \) is a well-defined homomorphism of \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-Banach \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-modules satisfying \(|\theta (v)|\le |v|\) for every \(v\in \Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\).
Step 2. It remains to prove that \(\theta \) is surjective and satisfies \(|\theta (v)|\ge |v|\) for every \(v\in \Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\). To this aim, fix any \(L\in \Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})^*\). Pick a sequence \((v_n)_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subseteq \Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) with \(|v_n|(x)\in \{0,1\}\) for every \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\), and such that
Given any \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\), thanks to [7, Corollary 1.2.16] we can find an element \({\tilde{\omega }}_n\in \Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})^*\), such that \(|{\tilde{\omega }}_n|=|v_n|=\langle {\tilde{\omega }}_n,v_n\rangle \) holds \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. on \({\textrm{X}}\). Now define \(\omega _n:=\textrm{I}^{-1}({\tilde{\omega }}_n)\in \Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\), where \(\textrm{I}:\Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\rightarrow \Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})^*\) stands for the isomorphism provided by Theorem 3.8. Let us denote by \({\mathcal {V}}\) the \({\mathbb {Q}}\)-linear subspace of \(\Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\) generated by \((\omega _n)_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\). Notice that \({\mathcal {V}}\) is a countable family by construction. Given \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and \(\omega \in {\mathcal {V}}\), fix representatives \({\bar{v}}_n\), \({\bar{\omega }}\), \(\overline{L(\omega )}\), and \(\overline{|L|}\) of \(v_n\), \(\omega \), \(L(\omega )\), and \(|L|\), respectively. By Remark 3.7, there exists \(N\in \Sigma \) with \({\mathfrak {m}}(N)=0\), such that for any \(x\in {\textrm{X}}{\setminus } N\) it holds that
for every \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\), \(\omega ,\eta \in {\mathcal {V}}\), and \(\lambda \in {\mathbb {Q}}\). Given any \(x\in {\textrm{X}}{\setminus } N\), let us consider the countable, \({\mathbb {Q}}\)-linear subspace \({\mathcal {V}}_x:=\{{\bar{\omega }}(x)\,:\,\omega \in {\mathcal {V}}\}\) of \({\textbf{E}}(x)'\). The fact that \({\mathcal {V}}_x\) is a \({\mathbb {Q}}\)-linear space is granted by (3.5d) and (3.5e). By taking (3.5a), (3.5b), (3.5c), and Remark 3.9 into account, we deduce that \({\mathcal {V}}_x\) is dense in \({\textbf{E}}(x)'\). Now we define the function \(\varphi _x:{\mathcal {V}}_x\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) as
The well-posedness of \(\varphi _x\) stems from the observation that for any \(\omega ,\eta \in {\mathcal {V}}\) it holds that
The \({\mathbb {Q}}\)-linearity of \(\varphi _x\) is a consequence of (3.5f) and (3.5g). Moreover, (3.5h) grants the validity of the inequality \(\big |\varphi _x\big ({\bar{\omega }}(x)\big )\big |\le \overline{|L|}(x)\Vert {\bar{\omega }}(x)\Vert _{{\textbf{E}}(x)'}\) for every \(\omega \in {\mathcal {V}}\), whence the continuity of the function \(\varphi _x\) follows. Therefore, there exists a unique element \({\bar{v}}(x)\in {\textbf{E}}(x)\cong {\textbf{E}}(x)''\), such that \(\langle {\bar{\omega }}(x),{\bar{v}}(x)\rangle =\overline{L(\omega )}(x)\) holds for every \(\omega \in {\mathcal {V}}\) and \(\Vert {\bar{v}}(x)\Vert _{{\textbf{E}}(x)} \le \overline{|L|}(x)\). Finally, for any point \(x\in N\) we define \({\bar{v}}(x):=0_{{\textbf{E}}(x)}\).
Step 3. Next we claim that the resulting map \({\bar{v}}\) belongs to \({\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}})\). By virtue of the separability of \({\mathbb {B}}\), it is sufficient to prove that \({\bar{v}}:{\textrm{X}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {B}}\) is weakly \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurable. To this aim, fix any \(\eta _0\in {\mathbb {B}}'\). Define \({\bar{\eta }}(x):=\eta _0|_{{\textbf{E}}(x)}\in {\textbf{E}}(x)'\) for every \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\). For any \(\omega \in {\mathcal {V}}\), one has
Since the function \({\textrm{X}}\ni x\mapsto \big \Vert {\bar{\eta }}(x)-{\bar{\omega }}(x)\big \Vert _{{\textbf{E}}(x)'}\) is measurable for every \(\omega \in {\mathcal {V}}\) thanks to (3.6) and the space \({\mathcal {V}}_x\) is dense in \({\textbf{E}}(x)'\) for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\), we deduce that for any \(k\in {\mathbb {N}}\) we can find a partition \(\{A^k_\omega \}_{\omega \in {\mathcal {V}}}\subseteq \Sigma \) of \({\textrm{X}}\) (up to \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-null sets), such that \(\big \Vert {\bar{\eta }}(x)-{\bar{\eta }}_k(x)\big \Vert _{{\textbf{E}}(x)'}\le 1/k\) for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\), where we set \({\bar{\eta }}_k:=\sum _{\omega \in {\mathcal {V}}}\mathbbm {1}_{A^k_\omega }\,{\bar{\omega }}\). Therefore, for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\) we can express
thus accordingly \(\langle \eta _0,{\bar{v}}(\cdot )\rangle \) is measurable. By arbitrariness of \(\eta _0\in {\mathbb {B}}'\), we conclude that \({\bar{v}}\) is weakly \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurable (thus, strongly \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-measurable). Let us then define \(v:=\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}({\bar{v}})\in \Gamma _0({\textbf{E}})\).
Step 4. To conclude, it only remains to show that \(\theta (v)=L\) and \(|v|\le |L|\) in the \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. sense. Fix any \(\eta \in \Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\), with representative \({\bar{\eta }}\in {\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\). By arguing as we did in Step 3, we can construct a sequence \(({\bar{\eta }}_k)_{k\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subseteq {\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\) of the form \({\bar{\eta }}_k=\sum _{\omega \in {\mathcal {V}}}\mathbbm {1}_{A^k_\omega }\,{\bar{\omega }}\), such that
Therefore, for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\) it holds that
By arbitrariness of \(\eta \in \Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\), it follows that \(\theta (v)=L\). Finally, since \(\Vert {\bar{v}}(x)\Vert _{{\textbf{E}}(x)}\le \overline{|L|}(x)\) for \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\), we obtain the \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. inequality \(|v|\le |L|\). Hence, the statement is achieved. \(\square \)
Proposition 3.10 will play a key role in proving one implication of the main result of this section, namely, Theorem 3.12. To prove the converse implication, we need the alternative—more ‘quantitative’—characterisation of reflexivity that we report in Lemma 3.11. Before passing to its statement, it is convenient to introduce some additional notation.
We denote by \(\bigoplus _{\mathbb {N}}{\mathbb {Q}}\) the set of all those sequences \({\varvec{q}}=(q_i)_{i\in {\mathbb {N}}}\in {\mathbb {Q}}^{\mathbb {N}}\) that satisfy \(q_i=0\) for all but finitely many \(i\in {\mathbb {N}}\). We define
Given any \({\varvec{q}},{\varvec{r}}\in \Delta \), we declare that \({\varvec{q}}\prec {\varvec{r}}\) if
Finally, we define \({\mathscr {F}}\) as
Lemma 3.11
Let \({\mathbb {B}}\) be a Banach space. Then, the following two conditions are equivalent:
- \(\mathrm (i)\):
-
\({\mathbb {B}}\) is not reflexive.
- \(\mathrm (ii)\):
-
Given any \(\lambda \in (0,1)\), there exists a sequence \((v_i)_{i\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subseteq B_{\mathbb {B}}\), such that
$$\begin{aligned} \bigg \Vert \sum _{i\in {\mathbb {N}}}q_i v_i-\sum _{i\in {\mathbb {N}}}r_i v_i\bigg \Vert _{\mathbb {B}}\ge \lambda ,\quad \text { for every }({\varvec{q}},{\varvec{r}})\in {\mathscr {F}}. \end{aligned}$$(3.7)
Proof
The Eberlein–Šmulian Theorem (see, e.g., [2, Theorems 3.18 and 3.19]) says that \({\mathbb {B}}\) is reflexive if and only if every sequence in \(B_{\mathbb {B}}\) admits a weakly converging subsequence. Then:
\(\varvec{\mathrm{(i)}\Longrightarrow \mathrm{(ii)}}\). It readily follows, e.g., from [5, Theorem 3.132].
\(\varvec{\mathrm{(ii)}\Longrightarrow \mathrm{(i)}}\). Let \((v_i)_{i\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subseteq B_{\mathbb {B}}\) satisfy (3.7). We argue by contradiction: suppose \({\mathbb {B}}\) is reflexive. Then, Mazur’s Lemma (see, e.g., [2, Corollary 3.8]) yields an element \(v\in B_{\mathbb {B}}\) and a sequence \(({\varvec{q}}^j)_{j\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subseteq \Delta \) such that \({\varvec{q}}^j\prec {\varvec{q}}^{j+1}\) for every \(j\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and \(\sum _{i\in {\mathbb {N}}}q^j_i v_i\rightarrow v\) strongly in \({\mathbb {B}}\) as \(j\rightarrow \infty \). In particular, \(\big \Vert \sum _{i\in {\mathbb {N}}}q^j_i v_i-\sum _{i\in {\mathbb {N}}}q^{j+1}_i v_i\big \Vert _{\mathbb {B}}<\lambda \) for \(j\in {\mathbb {N}}\) big enough, contradicting ii). \(\square \)
Combining Proposition 3.10 with Lemma 3.11, we obtain the main result of this section:
Theorem 3.12
(Reflexive bundles/modules) Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space, \({\mathbb {B}}\) a separable Banach space, and \({\textbf{E}}\) a Banach \({\mathbb {B}}\)-bundle over \({\textrm{X}}\). Then, \({\textbf{E}}\) is a reflexive bundle if and only if \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) is a reflexive Banach space for every (or, equivalently, for some) \(p\in (1,\infty )\).
Proof
Necessity. Suppose \({\textbf{E}}\) is a reflexive bundle and fix any exponent \(p\in (1,\infty )\). We call \(\textrm{I}:\Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\rightarrow \Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})^*\) the isomorphism provided by Theorem 3.8. We denote by \(\textrm{J}:\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})^*\rightarrow \Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\) its inverse and consider the adjoint \(\textrm{J}^\textrm{ad}:\Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})^*\rightarrow \Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})^{**}\) of the isomorphism \(\mathrm J\). Let \(\theta :\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\rightarrow \Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})^*\) be the isomorphism given by Proposition 3.10. By unwrapping the various definitions, it can be readily checked that
is a commutative diagram. Indeed, let us fix any \(v=\pi _{\mathfrak {m}}({\bar{v}})\in \Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) and \(T\in \Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})^*\). Also, define \(\omega :=\textrm{J}(T)\in \Gamma _q({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\) and pick a representative \({\bar{\omega }}\in {\bar{\Gamma }}_0({\textbf{E}}'_{w^*})\) of \(\omega \). Then, we have that
yielding \(\textrm{J}^\textrm{ad}\circ \theta =J_{\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})}\). Therefore, \(J_{\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})}\) is an isomorphism and thus \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) is reflexive.
Sufficiency. Suppose that \(\Gamma _p({\textbf{E}})\) is reflexive for some \(p\in (1,\infty )\). By Proposition 2.6, there is a countable family \(Z\subseteq {\bar{\Gamma }}_\infty (\textbf{E})\), such that \(\Vert v(x)\Vert _{\mathbb {B}}\le 1\) for every \((v,x)\in Z\times {\textrm{X}}\) and
We equip \(Z\) with the discrete topology and \(Z^{\mathbb {N}}\) with the product topology. Then, \(Z^{\mathbb {N}}\) is a Polish space (i.e., a metrisable space whose topology is induced by a complete, separable distance), homeomorphic to the Baire space \({\mathbb {N}}^{\mathbb {N}}\) (see [1, Section 3.14]). We define \(\varvec{\varphi }:{\textrm{X}}\twoheadrightarrow Z^{\mathbb {N}}\) as \(\varvec{\varphi }(x):=\big \{{\varvec{v}}\in Z^{\mathbb {N}}\;\big |\;({\varvec{v}},x)\in H\big \}\) for every \(x\in {\textrm{X}}\), where we set
Recalling that a base for the topology of \(Z^{\mathbb {N}}\) is given by those sets of the form
one can readily check that \(\varvec{\varphi }\) is a weakly measurable map from \({\textrm{X}}\) to \(Z^{\mathbb {N}}\) having closed values.
We now argue by contradiction: suppose that there exists \(P\in \Sigma \) with \(0<{\mathfrak {m}}(P)<+\infty \), such that \(\textbf{E}(x)\) is not reflexive for every \(x\in P\). Applying Lemma 3.11 to each \(\textbf{E}(x)\) with \(x\in P\), we deduce that \(\varvec{\varphi }(x)\ne \varnothing \) for every \(x\in P\). Thanks to the Kuratowski–Ryll-Nardzewski Selection Theorem (see, e.g., [1, Theorem 18.13]), we can find a measurable mapping \(V:P\rightarrow Z^{\mathbb {N}}\), such that \(V(x)\in \varvec{\varphi }(x)\) for every \(x\in P\). For any \(i\in {\mathbb {N}}\), we denote by \(\pi _i:Z^{\mathbb {N}}\rightarrow Z\) the projection onto the \(i\)-th component, which is continuous by definition of the product topology. Then, \(\pi _i\circ V:P\rightarrow Z\) is measurable, so that \(P^i_v:=(\pi _i\circ V)^{-1}(\{v\})\in \Sigma \) for every \(v\in Z\) and \((P^i_v)_{v\in Z}\) is a partition of \(P\). Given any \(i\in {\mathbb {N}}\), we define \({\bar{v}}_i:{\textrm{X}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {B}}\) as
and \({\bar{v}}_i(x):=0_{\mathbb {B}}\) for all \(x\in {\textrm{X}}{\setminus } P\). Since \({\bar{v}}_i(x)=\sum _{v\in Z}{\mathfrak {m}}(P)^{-1/p}\mathbbm {1}_{P^i_v}(x)v(x)\) for all \(x\in P\), we have that \({\bar{v}}_i\in {\bar{\Gamma }}_\infty (\textbf{E})\cap {\bar{\Gamma }}_p(\textbf{E})\) and \(\Vert \pi _{\mathfrak {m}}({\bar{v}}_i)\Vert _{\Gamma _p(\textbf{E})}\le 1\). Observe also that it holds
Hence, denoting by \(v_i\in \Gamma _p(\textbf{E})\) the equivalence class of \({\bar{v}}_i\), for any \(({\varvec{q}},{\varvec{r}})\in {\mathscr {F}}\) we can estimate
Using Lemma 3.11 again, we deduce that \(\Gamma _p(\textbf{E})\) is not reflexive, leading to a contradiction. \(\square \)
Remark 3.13
As we already mentioned in the Introduction, the proof of the sufficiency part of Theorem 3.12 follows along the lines sketched in the proof of [18, Theorem 6.19]. On the other hand, the proof of the necessity part is different from the one of [18, Theorem 6.19], and in particular it avoids the use of Rosenthal’s \(\ell ^1\)-Theorem.
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Aliprantis, C., Border, K.: Infinite Dimensional Analysis: A Hitchhiker’s Guide, Stud. Econ. Theory. Springer, Berlin (1999)
Brezis, H.: Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations, 1st edn. Universitext, Springer, Berlin (2011)
Day, M.M.: Uniform convexity in factor and conjugate spaces. Ann. Math. 2(45), 375–385 (1944)
Di Marino, S., Lučić, D., Pasqualetto, E.: Representation theorems for normed modules. Preprint, arXiv:2109.03509 (2021)
Fabian, M., Habala, P., Hájek, P., Montesinos, V., Zizler, V.: Banach Space Theory, CMS Books Math./Ouvrages Math. SMC, Springer, New York (2011)
Gigli, N.: Lecture Notes on Differential Calculus on \(\sf {R}{C}{D}\) Spaces, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. EMS Press, Berlin; Kyoto University, Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto, p. 54 (2018)
Gigli, N.: Nonsmooth differential geometry—an approach tailored for spaces with Ricci curvature bounded from below. Mem. Am. Math. Soc. 251, v+161 (2018)
Gigli, N., Lučić, D., Pasqualetto, E.: Duals and pullbacks of normed modules. To appear in: Isr. J. Math. arXiv:2207.04972 (2022)
Gigli, N., Pasqualetto, E.: Lectures on Nonsmooth Differential Geometry. SISSA Springer Ser. 2 (2020)
Guo, T.X.: A new approach to probabilistic functional analysis. In: Proceedings of the First China Postdoctoral Academic Conference, The China National Defense and Industry Press, Beijing, 1993, pp. 1150–1154 (in Chinese)
Guo, T.X.: Extension theorems of continuous random linear operators on random domains. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 193, 15–27 (1995)
Guo, T.X.: Some basic theories of random normed linear spaces and random inner product spaces. Acta Anal. Funct. Appl. 1, 160–184 (1999)
Guo, T.X.: Representation theorems of the dual of Lebesgue–Bochner function spaces. Sci. China Ser. A 43(3), 234–243 (2000)
Guo, T.X.: Relations between some basic results derived form two kinds of topologies for a random locally convex module. J. Funct. Anal. 258(9), 3024–3047 (2010)
Guo, T.X.: Recent progress in random metric theory and its applications to conditional risk measures. Sci. China Math. 54, 633–660 (2011)
Guo, T.X., Zeng, X.L.: Random strict convexity and random uniform convexity in random normed modules. Nonlinear Anal. Theory Methods Appl. 73, 1239–1263 (2010)
Guo, T.X., Zeng, X.L.: An \({L}^0({\cal{F} },{R})-\)valued function’s intermediate value theorem and its applications to random uniform convexity. Acta Math. Sin. Engl. Ser. 28, 909–924 (2012)
Haydon, R., Levy, M., Raynaud, Y.: Randomly Normed Spaces, Vol. 41 of Trav. Cours [Works in Progress]. Hermann, Paris (1991)
Hytönen, T., Neerven, J.V., Veraar, M., Weis, L.: Analysis in Banach Spaces: Volume I: Martingales and Littlewood–Paley Theory, Ergeb. Math. Grenzgeb., vol. 3. Folge/A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics. Springer International Publishing, Berlin (2016)
Lučić, D., Pasqualetto, E.: The Serre–Swan theorem for normed modules. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2) 68, 385–404 (2019)
Lučić, D., Pasqualetto, E.: The metric-valued Lebesgue differentiation theorem in measure spaces and its applications. Adv. Oper. Theory 8, 32 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43036-023-00258-w
Lučić, D., Pasqualetto, E.: An axiomatic theory of normed modules via Riesz spaces. Preprint, arXiv:2306.12238 (2023)
Schweizer, B., Sklar, A.: Probabilistic Metric Spaces. Elsevier, New York (1983); Dover Books Math, New York (2005)
Zeng, X.L.: Various expressions for modulus of random convexity. Acta Math. Sin. Engl. Ser. 29(2), 263–280 (2013)
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Nicola Gigli for having suggested Theorem 3.8. The first and the third named authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia (Grant no. 451-03-47/2023-01/200125) and also the support by the bilateral project Austria-Serbia (FRames and OPErator THeory - FROPETH), project number 337-00-577/2021-09/46. The second named author acknowledges the support by the Balzan project led by Luigi Ambrosio. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous referees, whose useful comments and suggestions led to a significant improvement of the presentation and to several simplifications in the proof arguments.
Funding
Open Access funding provided by University of Jyväskylä (JYU).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by Jan van Neerven.
Appendix A. A criterion to detect Banach modules
Appendix A. A criterion to detect Banach modules
Aim of this appendix is to address the following problem: given a module \({\mathscr {M}}\) over \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\), can we characterise those complete norms on \({\mathscr {M}}\) that come from an \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-pointwise norm? We will provide a positive answer to this question in Theorem A.2 below.
First, we recall a well-known, elementary result concerning Radon–Nikodým derivatives. We report its proof for the reader’s usefulness.
Lemma A.1
Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma )\) be a measurable space. Let \({\mathfrak {m}},\mu _1,\mu _2,\mu _3\) be \(\sigma \)-finite measures on \(\Sigma \), such that \(\mu _1,\mu _2,\mu _3\ll {\mathfrak {m}}\). Let \(\alpha \in (0,+\infty )\) be given. Suppose
Then it holds that
Proof
Let us denote \(f_j:=\frac{{\text {d}}\mu _j}{{\text {d}}{\mathfrak {m}}}\) for \(j=1,2,3\). Let \(k\in {\mathbb {N}}\) be fixed. By using the \(\sigma \)-finiteness of \({\mathfrak {m}}\), we can find a partition \((E_i)_{i\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subseteq \Sigma \), such that \(0<{\mathfrak {m}}(E_i)<+\infty \) for every \(i\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and
Define \(\lambda _{ij}:=\frac{1}{{\mathfrak {m}}(E_i)}\int _{E_i}f_j\,{\text {d}}{\mathfrak {m}}\) for all \(i\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and \(j=1,2,3\). Observe that (A.3) ensures that
Given that \(\int _{E_i}f_j\,{\text {d}}{\mathfrak {m}}=\int _{E_i}\frac{{\text {d}}\mu _j}{{\text {d}}{\mathfrak {m}}}\,{\text {d}}{\mathfrak {m}}=\mu _j(E_i)\), we deduce that
Hence, combining (A.4) with (A.5), for every \(i\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. \(x\in E_i\) we get
By arbitrariness of \(i,k\in {\mathbb {N}}\), we conclude that \(f_1^\alpha \le f_2^\alpha +f_3^\alpha \) holds \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e., yielding (A.2). \(\square \)
We are in a position to characterise which complete norms \(\Vert \cdot \Vert \) on an \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-module \({\mathscr {M}}\) are induced by an \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-pointwise norm. Roughly speaking, the required compatibility between the norm and the module structure is expressed via two conditions, labelled \(2\mathrm a)\) and \(2\mathrm b)\): the former relates the given norm with the multiplication by \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\)-functions and the chosen exponent \(p\), while the latter is a weak continuity assumption on the multiplication operator.
Theorem A.2
(When a norm is induced by a pointwise norm) Let \(({\textrm{X}},\Sigma ,{\mathfrak {m}})\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space. Let \({\mathscr {M}}\) be a module over the ring \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\) and \(\Vert \cdot \Vert \) a complete norm on \({\mathscr {M}}\). Let \(p\in [1,\infty )\) be a given exponent. Then, the following two conditions are equivalent:
- (1):
-
There exists an \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\)-pointwise norm operator \(|\cdot |:{\mathscr {M}}\rightarrow L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\) on \({\mathscr {M}}\), such that
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert v\Vert =\big \Vert |v|\big \Vert _{L^p({\mathfrak {m}})},\quad \text { for every }v\in {\mathscr {M}}. \end{aligned}$$ - (2):
-
The following two properties are satisfied:
- (2a):
-
It holds \(\Vert \mathbbm {1}_E\cdot v\Vert ^p+\Vert \mathbbm {1}_{{\textrm{X}}{\setminus } E}\cdot v\Vert ^p=\Vert v\Vert ^p\) for every \(E\in \Sigma \) and \(v\in {\mathscr {M}}\).
- (2b):
-
It holds \(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\Vert f_n\cdot v\Vert =0\) for every \(v\in {\mathscr {M}}\) and for every \((f_n)_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subseteq L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\), such that \(|f_n|\rightharpoonup 0\) weakly\(^*\) in \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \).
Proof
\(\varvec{(1)\Longrightarrow (2)}\). Suppose (1) holds. Let us prove (2a). Fix \(E\in \Sigma \) and \(v\in {\mathscr {M}}\). Then
thus (2a) holds. To prove (2b), fix any sequence \((f_n)_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subseteq L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\), such that \(|f_n|\rightharpoonup 0\) weakly\(^*\) in \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\). This yields \(M:=\sup _n\Vert f_n\Vert _{L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})}<+\infty \) thanks to the Uniform Boundedness Principle. Therefore, since \(|v|^p\in L^1({\mathfrak {m}})\),
thus (2b) holds. All in all, (2) is proven.
\(\varvec{(2)\Longrightarrow (1)}\). Suppose (2) holds. First, we claim that for any \(v\in {\mathscr {M}}\) one has
To prove it, denote \(E'_n:=\bigcup _{i=1}^n E_i\) for every \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and notice that \(\mathbbm {1}_{E{\setminus } E'_n}\rightharpoonup 0\) weakly\(^*\) in \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). By repeatedly applying (2a), we obtain for any \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\) that
whence by letting \(n\rightarrow \infty \) and using (2b) we conclude that (A.6) holds.
Given any \(v\in {\mathscr {M}}\), we define the set-function \(\mu _v:\Sigma \rightarrow [0,+\infty ]\) as
It follows from (A.6) that \(\mu _v\) is \(\sigma \)-additive. Given any \(N\in \Sigma \) with \({\mathfrak {m}}(N)=0\), it holds \(\mathbbm {1}_N=0\) as elements of \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\), thus \(\mu _v(N)=\Vert 0\cdot v\Vert ^p=0\). Moreover, \(\mu _v({\textrm{X}})=\Vert v\Vert ^p<+\infty \). All in all, we have proven that \(\mu _v\) is a finite measure on \(\Sigma \) satisfying \(\mu _v\ll {\mathfrak {m}}\). Hence, we can define
Observe that \(\int |v|^p\,{\text {d}}{\mathfrak {m}}=\mu _v({\textrm{X}})=\Vert v\Vert ^p\), thus to conclude it only remains to show that \(|\cdot |:{\mathscr {M}}\rightarrow L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\) is a pointwise norm operator. Trivially, \(|v|=0\) holds \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. if and only if \(v=0\). The \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. inequality \(|v+w|\le |v|+|w|\) stems from Lemma A.1: for \(E\in \Sigma \) we have
thus Lemma A.1 ensures that \(|v+w|\le |v|+|w|\) holds \({\mathfrak {m}}\)-a.e. on \({\textrm{X}}\). Finally, we claim that
for every \(f\in L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\) and \(v\in {\mathscr {M}}\). Let us first prove it in the case where \(f\) is a simple function, namely, \(f=\sum _{i=1}^n\lambda _i\,\mathbbm {1}_{E_i}\) for some \(\lambda _1,\ldots ,\lambda _n\in {\mathbb {R}}\) and pairwise disjoint sets \(E_1,\ldots ,E_n\in \Sigma \). To this aim, notice that for any set \(F\in \Sigma \) the following identities are satisfied:
By arbitrariness of \(F\), we deduce that (A.7) holds whenever \(f\) is a simple function. The general case follows by approximation: given any \(f\in L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\), we can find a sequence \((f_n)_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) of simple functions, such that \(f_n\rightarrow f\) strongly in \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). Then, \(|f_n-f|\rightharpoonup 0\) weakly\(^*\) in \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\), thus \(2\textrm{b})\) yields
Moreover, since \(|f_n|\rightarrow |f|\) in \(L^\infty ({\mathfrak {m}})\), we have \(|f_n||v|\rightarrow |f||v|\) in \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\). Since we already know that \(|f_n\cdot v|=|f_n||v|\) for all \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\), we conclude that \(|f\cdot v|=\lim _n|f_n\cdot v|=\lim _n|f_n||v|=|f||v|\) strongly in \(L^p({\mathfrak {m}})\), proving (A.7). Therefore, \(|\cdot |\) is a pointwise norm, whence (1) follows. \(\square \)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lučić, M., Pasqualetto, E. & Vojnović, I. On the reflexivity properties of Banach bundles and Banach modules. Banach J. Math. Anal. 18, 7 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43037-023-00315-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43037-023-00315-9