1998
DOI: 10.1006/jath.1997.3163
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Proximinality inLp(μ, X)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

1
14
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…which properly extends the known results about proximinality of L p (µ, Y ) in L p (µ, X) proved by Light and Cheney in [12] -for Y finite dimensional subspace of L 1 (µ), by Khalil in [8] -for reflexive subspaces Y , by Khalil and Saidi in [9] -for separable quasireflexive proximinal subspaces Y and by Mendoza in [13] -for separable proximinal subspaces Y , because all these subspaces Y are proximinal and weakly K-analytic. Let us stress that after Theorem 4, L p (µ, Y ) is proximinal in L p (µ, X) even for all proximinal subspaces Y when X = L 1 (µ) and for all quasireflexive proximinal subspaces Y of X without the separability assumption in [9].…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 63%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…which properly extends the known results about proximinality of L p (µ, Y ) in L p (µ, X) proved by Light and Cheney in [12] -for Y finite dimensional subspace of L 1 (µ), by Khalil in [8] -for reflexive subspaces Y , by Khalil and Saidi in [9] -for separable quasireflexive proximinal subspaces Y and by Mendoza in [13] -for separable proximinal subspaces Y , because all these subspaces Y are proximinal and weakly K-analytic. Let us stress that after Theorem 4, L p (µ, Y ) is proximinal in L p (µ, X) even for all proximinal subspaces Y when X = L 1 (µ) and for all quasireflexive proximinal subspaces Y of X without the separability assumption in [9].…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…On the other hand, Mendoza has built in [13] a Banach space X with a proximinal subspace Y such that L p (µ, Y ) is not proximinal in L p (µ, X) where 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞. This implies, in particular, that the selection Theorem 3.3 is not true in general for arbitrary proximinal subspaces.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For some of the strongest results on this question, we refer the reader to [12] and [8]. Therefore, one can obtain several corollaries from Theorem 2.…”
mentioning
confidence: 94%
“…In particular, in the case when (S, Σ , µ) is a finite measure space, it was proved in [4] that L 1 (S, Σ , Y ) is proximinal in L 1 (S, Σ , X ) if Y is reflexive and in [5] that L p (S, Σ , Y ) is proximinal in L p (S, Σ , X ) if and only if L 1 (S, Σ , Y ) is proximinal in L 1 (S, Σ , X ). These results have been extended to the case when (S, Σ , µ) is a σ -finite measure space in [13], where it was further proved for a closed separable subspace Y that L p (S, Σ , Y ) is proximinal in L p (S, Σ , X ) if and only if Y is proximinal in X .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…In the case when Y is a closed subspace of X , the problem whether L p (S, Σ , Y ) is proximinal in L p (S, Σ , X ) has been studied deeply and extensively, see for example [4][5][6]11,13,15,18]. In particular, in the case when (S, Σ , µ) is a finite measure space, it was proved in [4] that L 1 (S, Σ , Y ) is proximinal in L 1 (S, Σ , X ) if Y is reflexive and in [5] that L p (S, Σ , Y ) is proximinal in L p (S, Σ , X ) if and only if L 1 (S, Σ , Y ) is proximinal in L 1 (S, Σ , X ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%