Weighted inductive limits of spaces of entire functions (Q1018008): Difference between revisions

Let \(G\) be an open subset of \(\mathbb{C}^N\), let \(v\) be a strictly positive continuous function on \(G\), and let \(Hv(G)\) be the weighted Banach space of holomorphic functions \(f: G \to \mathbb{C}\) such that \[ \|f\|_v=\sup_{z\in G} v(z) |f(z)|<\infty. \] For a decreasing sequence \(\mathcal{V}=(v_k)_k\) of weights on \(G\), let \(\mathcal{V}H(G)\) denote the inductive limit of the spaces \(Hv_k(G)\). Perhaps the most important problem about \(\mathcal{V}H(G)\) concerns the description of its topology. \textit{K.\,D.\thinspace Bierstedt, R.\,Meise} and \textit{W.\,H.\thinspace Summers} [Trans.\ Am.\ Math.\ Soc.\ 272, 107--160 (1982; Zbl 0599.46026)] introduced the following associated system \(\overline V\) consisting of all weights \(\overline v\) on \(G\) such that \(\sup_{G}(\overline v /v_k)< \infty\), for each \(k\). Then, the projective hull of the weighted inductive limit was introduced as \[ H\overline V := \{ f\in H(G) :\, \sup_{G} \overline v |f|<\infty \,\;\forall\, \overline v\in \overline V \} \] and it was asked if projective description holds, that is, if \(\mathcal{V}=(v_k)_k = H\overline V\) algebraically and topologically and the same problem for o-growth conditions. In fact, they showed that both spaces always coincide algebraically and they have the same topology when linking maps in \(\mathcal{V}H(G)\) are compact. In the present paper, the authors consider a special class of radial weights on \(\mathbb{C}\) and show that projective description holds for weighted inductive limits of spaces of entire functions for these radial weights if and only if \(\forall (\lambda _k)_k\) with \(\lambda _k >0\), \(\exists \overline v \in \overline V\) such that \(\forall n \;\forall M>0 \;\exists m>n\) : \[ \min \bigg(\frac{M}{v_n},\frac{1}{\overline v} \bigg)^{\sim} \leq \sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _k}{v_k}. \] Here, \(\tilde{v}(z)=||\delta _z ||_{H_v}\). The case of \(o\)-growth conditions is also considered. One of the main tools is Proposition 2.3. Its proof uses methods developed by \textit{W.\,Lusky} [Stud.\ Math.\ 175, No.\,1, 19--45 (2006; Zbl 1114.46020)]. The last section of the paper shows that their results do not follow from \textit{K.\,D.\thinspace Bierstedt, R.\,Meise} and \textit{W.\,H.\thinspace Summers} [loc.\,cit.].