Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Difference between revisions of "Bishop theorem"

From Encyclopedia of Mathematics
Jump to: navigation, search
(Importing text file)
 
m (AUTOMATIC EDIT (latexlist): Replaced 87 formulas out of 87 by TEX code with an average confidence of 2.0 and a minimal confidence of 2.0.)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
<!--This article has been texified automatically. Since there was no Nroff source code for this article,
 +
the semi-automatic procedure described at https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/User:Maximilian_Janisch/latexlist
 +
was used.
 +
If the TeX and formula formatting is correct, please remove this message and the {{TEX|semi-auto}} category.
 +
 +
Out of 87 formulas, 87 were replaced by TEX code.-->
 +
 +
{{TEX|semi-auto}}{{TEX|done}}
 
One of the early generalizations of the famous [[Stone–Weierstrass theorem|Stone–Weierstrass theorem]], which itself is a generalization of the celebrated [[Weierstrass theorem|Weierstrass theorem]] stating that every real-valued continuous function on a closed and bounded interval is a uniform limit (cf. also [[Uniform convergence|Uniform convergence]]) of a sequence of polynomials.
 
One of the early generalizations of the famous [[Stone–Weierstrass theorem|Stone–Weierstrass theorem]], which itself is a generalization of the celebrated [[Weierstrass theorem|Weierstrass theorem]] stating that every real-valued continuous function on a closed and bounded interval is a uniform limit (cf. also [[Uniform convergence|Uniform convergence]]) of a sequence of polynomials.
  
Let <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b1301601.png" /> be a compact [[Hausdorff space|Hausdorff space]], and let <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b1301602.png" /> denote the set of all complex-valued continuous functions on <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b1301603.png" /> equipped with the supremum norm, given by
+
Let $X$ be a compact [[Hausdorff space|Hausdorff space]], and let $C ( X )$ denote the set of all complex-valued continuous functions on $X$ equipped with the supremum norm, given by
  
<table class="eq" style="width:100%;"> <tr><td valign="top" style="width:94%;text-align:center;"><img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b1301604.png" /></td> </tr></table>
+
\begin{equation*} \| f \| : = \{ \| f ( x ) \| : x \in X \}. \end{equation*}
  
Let <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b1301605.png" /> be a non-empty subset of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b1301606.png" /> and let <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b1301607.png" /> be a non-empty subset of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b1301608.png" />. One says that <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b1301609.png" /> is a partially <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016011.png" />-anti-symmetric set if <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016012.png" /> and <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016013.png" /> (the restriction of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016014.png" /> to <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016015.png" />) real imply that <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016016.png" /> is a constant. A partially <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016017.png" />-anti-symmetric set is called <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016019.png" />-anti-symmetric if <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016020.png" /> and <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016021.png" /> purely imaginary (that is, <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016022.png" />) imply that <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016023.png" /> is a constant.
+
Let $A$ be a non-empty subset of $C ( X )$ and let $K$ be a non-empty subset of $X$. One says that $K$ is a partially $A$-anti-symmetric set if $f \in A$ and $f | _ { K }$ (the restriction of $f$ to $K$) real imply that $f | _ { K }$ is a constant. A partially $A$-anti-symmetric set is called $A$-anti-symmetric if $f \in A$ and $f | _ { K }$ purely imaginary (that is, $\operatorname { Re } ( f | _ { K } ) = 0$) imply that $f | _ { K }$ is a constant.
  
It is easy to see that if <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016024.png" /> is closed under multiplication by <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016025.png" /> (that is, <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016026.png" /> implies <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016027.png" />), then every partially <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016028.png" />-anti-symmetric set is <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016029.png" />-anti-symmetric. This is not true for arbitrary <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016030.png" />. (See [[#References|[a5]]] for an example.) Every partially <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016031.png" />-anti-symmetric set is contained in a maximal partially <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016032.png" />-anti-symmetric set. Every maximal partially <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016033.png" />-anti-symmetric set is closed. Distinct maximal partially <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016034.png" />-anti-symmetric sets are disjoint. Each singleton set is a partially <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016035.png" />-anti-symmetric set. Thus, the family of all maximal partially <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016036.png" />-anti-symmetric sets forms a partition of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016037.png" />. Proofs of these and many other interesting properties of partially <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016038.png" />-anti-symmetric sets can be found in [[#References|[a5]]]. All these statements are also true for <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016039.png" />-anti-symmetric sets. (See [[#References|[a5]]], [[#References|[a3]]].)
+
It is easy to see that if $A$ is closed under multiplication by $i$ (that is, $f \in A$ implies $i f \in A$), then every partially $A$-anti-symmetric set is $A$-anti-symmetric. This is not true for arbitrary $A$. (See [[#References|[a5]]] for an example.) Every partially $A$-anti-symmetric set is contained in a maximal partially $A$-anti-symmetric set. Every maximal partially $A$-anti-symmetric set is closed. Distinct maximal partially $A$-anti-symmetric sets are disjoint. Each singleton set is a partially $A$-anti-symmetric set. Thus, the family of all maximal partially $A$-anti-symmetric sets forms a partition of $X$. Proofs of these and many other interesting properties of partially $A$-anti-symmetric sets can be found in [[#References|[a5]]]. All these statements are also true for $A$-anti-symmetric sets. (See [[#References|[a5]]], [[#References|[a3]]].)
  
 
==Bishop's theorem.==
 
==Bishop's theorem.==
  
  
1) Let <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016040.png" /> be a uniformly closed real subalgebra of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016041.png" /> containing the constant function <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016042.png" /> and let <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016043.png" />. If <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016044.png" /> for every maximal partially <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016045.png" />-anti-symmetric set <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016046.png" />, then <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016047.png" />.
+
1) Let $A$ be a uniformly closed real subalgebra of $C ( X )$ containing the constant function $1$ and let $f \in C ( X )$. If $f | _ { K } \in A | _ { K } : = \{ f | _ { K } : f \in A \}$ for every maximal partially $A$-anti-symmetric set $K$, then $f \in A$.
  
2) Let <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016048.png" /> be a [[Homeomorphism|homeomorphism]] on <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016049.png" /> such that <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016050.png" /> is the identity mapping on <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016051.png" />. Let
+
2) Let $\tau$ be a [[Homeomorphism|homeomorphism]] on $X$ such that $\tau \circ \tau$ is the identity mapping on $X$. Let
  
<table class="eq" style="width:100%;"> <tr><td valign="top" style="width:94%;text-align:center;"><img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016052.png" /></td> </tr></table>
+
\begin{equation*} C ( X , \tau ) : = \{ f \in C ( X ) : f ( \tau ( x ) ) = \overline { f ( x ) } , \forall x \in X \}. \end{equation*}
  
Let <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016053.png" /> be a uniformly closed real subalgebra of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016054.png" /> containing the constant function <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016055.png" /> and let <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016056.png" />. If <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016057.png" /> for every maximal <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016058.png" />-anti-symmetric set <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016059.png" />, then <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016060.png" />.
+
Let $A$ be a uniformly closed real subalgebra of $C ( X , \tau )$ containing the constant function $1$ and let $f \in C ( X , \tau )$. If $f | _ { K } \in A | _ { K }$ for every maximal $A$-anti-symmetric set $K$, then $f \in A$.
  
In fact, 1) means that if a [[Continuous function|continuous function]] <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016061.png" /> coincides with some function in <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016062.png" /> for every maximal partially <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016063.png" />-anti-symmetric set, then <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016064.png" />. In view of the comments preceding the statement of the theorem, if <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016065.png" /> is a complex subalgebra of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016066.png" />, then in 1) above one can replace  "partially A-anti-symmetric"  by  "A-anti-symmetric" . This was the classical statement by E. Bishop in 1961 [[#References|[a2]]].
+
In fact, 1) means that if a [[Continuous function|continuous function]] $f$ coincides with some function in $A$ for every maximal partially $A$-anti-symmetric set, then $f \in A$. In view of the comments preceding the statement of the theorem, if $A$ is a complex subalgebra of $C ( X )$, then in 1) above one can replace  "partially A-anti-symmetric"  by  "A-anti-symmetric" . This was the classical statement by E. Bishop in 1961 [[#References|[a2]]].
  
<img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016067.png" /> is said to separate the points of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016068.png" />, if for all <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016069.png" />, <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016070.png" />, there is an <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016071.png" /> such that <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016072.png" />. A uniformly closed complex subalgebra <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016073.png" /> of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016074.png" /> that contains <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016075.png" /> and separates the points of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016076.png" /> is called a complex function algebra. Similarly, a uniformly closed real subalgebra <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016077.png" /> of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016078.png" /> that contains <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016079.png" /> and separates the points of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016080.png" /> is called a real function algebra. In view of this, 2) is called an analogue of Bishop's theorem for real function algebras. This was proved in [[#References|[a6]]]. (See also [[#References|[a5]]].) If a complex function algebra <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016081.png" /> is closed under conjugation (that is, <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016082.png" /> implies <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016083.png" />), then every maximal <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016084.png" />-anti-symmetric set reduces to a singleton. (See [[#References|[a5]]] for a proof.) Thus, the hypotheses of Bishop's theorem are trivially satisfied by every <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016085.png" />. Hence <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016086.png" />. This is the classical [[Stone–Weierstrass theorem|Stone–Weierstrass theorem]], which has permeated most of modern analysis and has many generalizations. Bishop's theorem is an essential tool in proving many of these generalizations. (See [[#References|[a5]]], [[#References|[a3]]].) Similarly, if a real function algebra <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016087.png" /> is closed under conjugation, then <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016088.png" />. This is an analogue of the Stone–Weierstrass theorem for real function algebras. (See [[#References|[a5]]] for a proof.)
+
$A$ is said to separate the points of $X$, if for all $x , y \in X$, $x \neq y$, there is an $f \in A$ such that $f ( x ) \neq f ( y )$. A uniformly closed complex subalgebra $A$ of $C ( X )$ that contains $1$ and separates the points of $X$ is called a complex function algebra. Similarly, a uniformly closed real subalgebra $A$ of $C ( X , \tau )$ that contains $1$ and separates the points of $X$ is called a real function algebra. In view of this, 2) is called an analogue of Bishop's theorem for real function algebras. This was proved in [[#References|[a6]]]. (See also [[#References|[a5]]].) If a complex function algebra $A$ is closed under conjugation (that is, $f \in A$ implies $\overline { f } \in A$), then every maximal $A$-anti-symmetric set reduces to a singleton. (See [[#References|[a5]]] for a proof.) Thus, the hypotheses of Bishop's theorem are trivially satisfied by every $f \in C ( X )$. Hence $A = C ( X )$. This is the classical [[Stone–Weierstrass theorem|Stone–Weierstrass theorem]], which has permeated most of modern analysis and has many generalizations. Bishop's theorem is an essential tool in proving many of these generalizations. (See [[#References|[a5]]], [[#References|[a3]]].) Similarly, if a real function algebra $A$ is closed under conjugation, then $A = C ( X , \tau )$. This is an analogue of the Stone–Weierstrass theorem for real function algebras. (See [[#References|[a5]]] for a proof.)
  
 
The proof of Bishop's theorem in [[#References|[a2]]] uses many non-trivial tools from functional analysis, such as the [[Hahn–Banach theorem|Hahn–Banach theorem]], the Krein–Mil'man theorem (cf. also [[Locally convex space|Locally convex space]]) and the Riesz representation theorem (cf. [[Riesz theorem(2)|Riesz theorem]]). This proof can also be found in [[#References|[a3]]] and [[#References|[a10]]]. J.B. Prolla extended this technique to the case of vector-valued functions [[#References|[a8]]]. S. Machado formulated a quantitative version of Prolla's theorem and gave an elementary proof of it [[#References|[a7]]]. A self-contained exposition of Machado's proof can be found in [[#References|[a4]]]. In 1984, T.J. Ransford gave a very short, simple and elementary proof of Machado's version of Bishop's theorem [[#References|[a9]]] (see also [[#References|[a5]]]). This proof uses a technique also used in [[#References|[a1]]].
 
The proof of Bishop's theorem in [[#References|[a2]]] uses many non-trivial tools from functional analysis, such as the [[Hahn–Banach theorem|Hahn–Banach theorem]], the Krein–Mil'man theorem (cf. also [[Locally convex space|Locally convex space]]) and the Riesz representation theorem (cf. [[Riesz theorem(2)|Riesz theorem]]). This proof can also be found in [[#References|[a3]]] and [[#References|[a10]]]. J.B. Prolla extended this technique to the case of vector-valued functions [[#References|[a8]]]. S. Machado formulated a quantitative version of Prolla's theorem and gave an elementary proof of it [[#References|[a7]]]. A self-contained exposition of Machado's proof can be found in [[#References|[a4]]]. In 1984, T.J. Ransford gave a very short, simple and elementary proof of Machado's version of Bishop's theorem [[#References|[a9]]] (see also [[#References|[a5]]]). This proof uses a technique also used in [[#References|[a1]]].
  
 
====References====
 
====References====
<table><TR><TD valign="top">[a1]</TD> <TD valign="top">  B. Brosowski,  F. Deutsch,  "An elementary proof of the Stone–Weierstrass theorem"  ''Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.'' , '''81'''  (1981)  pp. 89–92</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a2]</TD> <TD valign="top">  E. Bishop,  "A generalization of the Stone–Weierstrass theorem"  ''Pacific J. Math.'' , '''11'''  (1961)  pp. 777–783</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a3]</TD> <TD valign="top">  R.B. Burckel,  "Characterizations of <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/b/b130/b130160/b13016089.png" /> among its subalgebras" , M. Dekker  (1972)</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a4]</TD> <TD valign="top">  R.B. Burckel,  "Bishop's Stone–Weierstrass theorem"  ''Amer. Math. Monthly'' , '''91'''  (1984)  pp. 22–32</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a5]</TD> <TD valign="top">  S.H. Kulkarni,  B.V. Limaye,  "Real function algebras" , M. Dekker  (1992)</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a6]</TD> <TD valign="top">  S.H. Kulkarni,  N. Srinivasan,  "An analogue of Bishop's theorem for real function algebras"  ''Indian J. Pure Appl. Math.'' , '''18'''  (1987)  pp. 136–145</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a7]</TD> <TD valign="top">  S. Machado,  "On Bishop's generalization of the Stone–Weierstrass theorem"  ''Indag. Math.'' , '''39'''  (1977)  pp. 218–224  ''Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Ser. A'' , '''80'''  (1977)</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a8]</TD> <TD valign="top">  J.B. Prolla,  "Bishop's generalized Stone–Weierstrass theorem for weighted spaces"  ''Math. Ann.'' , '''191'''  (1971)  pp. 283–289</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a9]</TD> <TD valign="top">  T.J. Ransford,  "A short elementary proof of the Bishop–Stone–Weierstrass theorem"  ''Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.'' , '''96'''  (1984)  pp. 309–311</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top">[a10]</TD> <TD valign="top">  W. Rudin,  "Real and complex analysis" , McGraw-Hill  (1966)</TD></TR></table>
+
<table><tr><td valign="top">[a1]</td> <td valign="top">  B. Brosowski,  F. Deutsch,  "An elementary proof of the Stone–Weierstrass theorem"  ''Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.'' , '''81'''  (1981)  pp. 89–92</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">[a2]</td> <td valign="top">  E. Bishop,  "A generalization of the Stone–Weierstrass theorem"  ''Pacific J. Math.'' , '''11'''  (1961)  pp. 777–783</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">[a3]</td> <td valign="top">  R.B. Burckel,  "Characterizations of $C ( X )$ among its subalgebras" , M. Dekker  (1972)</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">[a4]</td> <td valign="top">  R.B. Burckel,  "Bishop's Stone–Weierstrass theorem"  ''Amer. Math. Monthly'' , '''91'''  (1984)  pp. 22–32</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">[a5]</td> <td valign="top">  S.H. Kulkarni,  B.V. Limaye,  "Real function algebras" , M. Dekker  (1992)</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">[a6]</td> <td valign="top">  S.H. Kulkarni,  N. Srinivasan,  "An analogue of Bishop's theorem for real function algebras"  ''Indian J. Pure Appl. Math.'' , '''18'''  (1987)  pp. 136–145</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">[a7]</td> <td valign="top">  S. Machado,  "On Bishop's generalization of the Stone–Weierstrass theorem"  ''Indag. Math.'' , '''39'''  (1977)  pp. 218–224  ''Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Ser. A'' , '''80'''  (1977)</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">[a8]</td> <td valign="top">  J.B. Prolla,  "Bishop's generalized Stone–Weierstrass theorem for weighted spaces"  ''Math. Ann.'' , '''191'''  (1971)  pp. 283–289</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">[a9]</td> <td valign="top">  T.J. Ransford,  "A short elementary proof of the Bishop–Stone–Weierstrass theorem"  ''Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.'' , '''96'''  (1984)  pp. 309–311</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">[a10]</td> <td valign="top">  W. Rudin,  "Real and complex analysis" , McGraw-Hill  (1966)</td></tr></table>

Latest revision as of 16:55, 1 July 2020

One of the early generalizations of the famous Stone–Weierstrass theorem, which itself is a generalization of the celebrated Weierstrass theorem stating that every real-valued continuous function on a closed and bounded interval is a uniform limit (cf. also Uniform convergence) of a sequence of polynomials.

Let $X$ be a compact Hausdorff space, and let $C ( X )$ denote the set of all complex-valued continuous functions on $X$ equipped with the supremum norm, given by

\begin{equation*} \| f \| : = \{ \| f ( x ) \| : x \in X \}. \end{equation*}

Let $A$ be a non-empty subset of $C ( X )$ and let $K$ be a non-empty subset of $X$. One says that $K$ is a partially $A$-anti-symmetric set if $f \in A$ and $f | _ { K }$ (the restriction of $f$ to $K$) real imply that $f | _ { K }$ is a constant. A partially $A$-anti-symmetric set is called $A$-anti-symmetric if $f \in A$ and $f | _ { K }$ purely imaginary (that is, $\operatorname { Re } ( f | _ { K } ) = 0$) imply that $f | _ { K }$ is a constant.

It is easy to see that if $A$ is closed under multiplication by $i$ (that is, $f \in A$ implies $i f \in A$), then every partially $A$-anti-symmetric set is $A$-anti-symmetric. This is not true for arbitrary $A$. (See [a5] for an example.) Every partially $A$-anti-symmetric set is contained in a maximal partially $A$-anti-symmetric set. Every maximal partially $A$-anti-symmetric set is closed. Distinct maximal partially $A$-anti-symmetric sets are disjoint. Each singleton set is a partially $A$-anti-symmetric set. Thus, the family of all maximal partially $A$-anti-symmetric sets forms a partition of $X$. Proofs of these and many other interesting properties of partially $A$-anti-symmetric sets can be found in [a5]. All these statements are also true for $A$-anti-symmetric sets. (See [a5], [a3].)

Bishop's theorem.

1) Let $A$ be a uniformly closed real subalgebra of $C ( X )$ containing the constant function $1$ and let $f \in C ( X )$. If $f | _ { K } \in A | _ { K } : = \{ f | _ { K } : f \in A \}$ for every maximal partially $A$-anti-symmetric set $K$, then $f \in A$.

2) Let $\tau$ be a homeomorphism on $X$ such that $\tau \circ \tau$ is the identity mapping on $X$. Let

\begin{equation*} C ( X , \tau ) : = \{ f \in C ( X ) : f ( \tau ( x ) ) = \overline { f ( x ) } , \forall x \in X \}. \end{equation*}

Let $A$ be a uniformly closed real subalgebra of $C ( X , \tau )$ containing the constant function $1$ and let $f \in C ( X , \tau )$. If $f | _ { K } \in A | _ { K }$ for every maximal $A$-anti-symmetric set $K$, then $f \in A$.

In fact, 1) means that if a continuous function $f$ coincides with some function in $A$ for every maximal partially $A$-anti-symmetric set, then $f \in A$. In view of the comments preceding the statement of the theorem, if $A$ is a complex subalgebra of $C ( X )$, then in 1) above one can replace "partially A-anti-symmetric" by "A-anti-symmetric" . This was the classical statement by E. Bishop in 1961 [a2].

$A$ is said to separate the points of $X$, if for all $x , y \in X$, $x \neq y$, there is an $f \in A$ such that $f ( x ) \neq f ( y )$. A uniformly closed complex subalgebra $A$ of $C ( X )$ that contains $1$ and separates the points of $X$ is called a complex function algebra. Similarly, a uniformly closed real subalgebra $A$ of $C ( X , \tau )$ that contains $1$ and separates the points of $X$ is called a real function algebra. In view of this, 2) is called an analogue of Bishop's theorem for real function algebras. This was proved in [a6]. (See also [a5].) If a complex function algebra $A$ is closed under conjugation (that is, $f \in A$ implies $\overline { f } \in A$), then every maximal $A$-anti-symmetric set reduces to a singleton. (See [a5] for a proof.) Thus, the hypotheses of Bishop's theorem are trivially satisfied by every $f \in C ( X )$. Hence $A = C ( X )$. This is the classical Stone–Weierstrass theorem, which has permeated most of modern analysis and has many generalizations. Bishop's theorem is an essential tool in proving many of these generalizations. (See [a5], [a3].) Similarly, if a real function algebra $A$ is closed under conjugation, then $A = C ( X , \tau )$. This is an analogue of the Stone–Weierstrass theorem for real function algebras. (See [a5] for a proof.)

The proof of Bishop's theorem in [a2] uses many non-trivial tools from functional analysis, such as the Hahn–Banach theorem, the Krein–Mil'man theorem (cf. also Locally convex space) and the Riesz representation theorem (cf. Riesz theorem). This proof can also be found in [a3] and [a10]. J.B. Prolla extended this technique to the case of vector-valued functions [a8]. S. Machado formulated a quantitative version of Prolla's theorem and gave an elementary proof of it [a7]. A self-contained exposition of Machado's proof can be found in [a4]. In 1984, T.J. Ransford gave a very short, simple and elementary proof of Machado's version of Bishop's theorem [a9] (see also [a5]). This proof uses a technique also used in [a1].

References

[a1] B. Brosowski, F. Deutsch, "An elementary proof of the Stone–Weierstrass theorem" Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 81 (1981) pp. 89–92
[a2] E. Bishop, "A generalization of the Stone–Weierstrass theorem" Pacific J. Math. , 11 (1961) pp. 777–783
[a3] R.B. Burckel, "Characterizations of $C ( X )$ among its subalgebras" , M. Dekker (1972)
[a4] R.B. Burckel, "Bishop's Stone–Weierstrass theorem" Amer. Math. Monthly , 91 (1984) pp. 22–32
[a5] S.H. Kulkarni, B.V. Limaye, "Real function algebras" , M. Dekker (1992)
[a6] S.H. Kulkarni, N. Srinivasan, "An analogue of Bishop's theorem for real function algebras" Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. , 18 (1987) pp. 136–145
[a7] S. Machado, "On Bishop's generalization of the Stone–Weierstrass theorem" Indag. Math. , 39 (1977) pp. 218–224 Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Ser. A , 80 (1977)
[a8] J.B. Prolla, "Bishop's generalized Stone–Weierstrass theorem for weighted spaces" Math. Ann. , 191 (1971) pp. 283–289
[a9] T.J. Ransford, "A short elementary proof of the Bishop–Stone–Weierstrass theorem" Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. , 96 (1984) pp. 309–311
[a10] W. Rudin, "Real and complex analysis" , McGraw-Hill (1966)
How to Cite This Entry:
Bishop theorem. Encyclopedia of Mathematics. URL: http://encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Bishop_theorem&oldid=16635
This article was adapted from an original article by S.H. Kulkarni (originator), which appeared in Encyclopedia of Mathematics - ISBN 1402006098. See original article