On topological classification of normed spaces endowed with the weak topology or the topology of compact convergence

Taras Banakh

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 26 references

On topological classification of normed spaces endowed with the weak topology or the topology of compact convergence

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For normed spaces with separable duals, the weak topology's sequential homeomorphism type is completely determined by its closed bounded weak subsets, and for spaces isomorphic to their hyperplanes the compact-convergence topology is…

desk verdict The paper's main classification for weak topologies with separable duals is new and plausible, but the reflexive case of Theorem 1's only-if direction is circular; the non-reflexive step the reader flagged is actually valid. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09115 v1 pith:SEFPQ5NL submitted 2019-08-24 math.GN math.FA

Taras Banakh This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.GNmath.FA MSC 57N1757N2046A2046A19

keywords weaktopologyofcompactconvergencesequentialhomeomorphisminfinite-dimensionalC-injectivepairsR∞unitballseparabledual

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proves that for normed spaces $X, Y$ with separable duals, the spaces $(X,\mathrm{weak})$ and $(Y,\mathrm{weak})$ are sequentially homeomorphic if and only if the classes $\mathcal W(X)$ and $\mathcal W(Y)$ coincide, where $\mathcal W(Z)$ is the class of topological spaces homeomorphic to closed bounded subsets of $(Z,\mathrm{weak})$. It also shows that when $X$ is isomorphic to its hyperplane and has separable dual, the topology $c$ of compact convergence on $X$ is homeomorphic to the product $B \times \mathbb{R}^\infty$, where $B$ is the weak unit ball and $\mathbb{R}^\infty$ is the real vector space with countable Hamel basis carrying the strongest locally convex topology; the weak topology on $X$ is then sequentially homeomorphic to the same product. As a consequence, for Banach spaces isomorphic to their hyperplanes with separable duals, the spaces $(X,c)$ and $(Y,c)$ are homeomorphic exactly when $\mathcal W(X) = \mathcal W(Y)$. The paper's significance lies in reducing a topological classification problem about highly non-metrizable spaces to a question about metrizable compacta, namely the closed bounded weak subsets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the invariant $\mathcal W(X)$ — the class of topological spaces homeomorphic to closed bounded subsets of $(X,\mathrm{weak})$ — and the $\mathcal C$-injective pair: a pair $(X,Y)$ equipped with the direct limit topology of a tower $X_1 \subset X_2 \subset \cdots$ of closed subspaces, each piece $(X_n, X_n \cap Y)$ belonging to a fixed class $\mathcal C$ of pairs, such that every closed embedding of a piece $(B, B \cap C)$ of a pair $(K,C) \in \mathcal C$ into $X_n$ extends to a closed embedding of all of $K$ into some $X_m$ with the correct preimage of $Y$. The topology of compact convergence $(X,c)$ is shown to be such a direct limit, over the tower of weak-star compact balls of the second dual; the strongest topology $s$ agreeing with the weak topology on bounded sets is the direct limit over the balls $nB$. The space $\mathbb{R}^\infty$ — the real vector space with countable Hamel basis and the strongest locally convex topology — is the canonical unbounded factor: for $X$ isomorphic to its hyperplane, $(X,c)$ is homeomorphic to $B \times \mathbb{R}^\infty$. A uniqueness theorem for $\mathcal C$-injective pairs carries the classification: any two $\mathcal C$-injective pairs belonging to the same class $\mathcal C$ are homeomorphic.

What would settle it

Take a non-reflexive normed space $Y$ with separable dual, such as $c_0$, and seek a closed separable metrizable subspace $A'$ of $(Y,s)$ with a point $a$ whose every closed $s$-neighborhood meets $Y \setminus nB_Y$ for all $n$; the existence of such a subspace would invalidate the only-if direction of Theorem 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a normed space $Z$ with separable dual, let $\mathcal W(Z)$ denote the class of all topological spaces homeomorphic to closed bounded subsets of $(Z,\mathrm{weak})$. The paper's central theorem states that for normed spaces $X$ and $Y$ with separable duals, $(X,\mathrm{weak})$ and $(Y,\mathrm{weak})$ are sequentially homeomorphic if and only if $\mathcal W(X) = \mathcal W(Y)$. A companion result identifies the topology of compact convergence: if $X$ is a normed space isomorphic to its hyperplane and has separable dual, then $(X,c)$ is homeomorphic to $B \times \mathbb{R}^\infty$, where $B$ is the weak unit ball of $X$ and $\mathbb{R}^\infty$ is the countable-dimensional locally convex model space; consequently $(X,\mathrm{weak})$ is sequentially homeomorphic to $B \times \mathbb{R}^\infty$. The proof proceeds by introducing a class of '$\mathcal C$-injective pairs', showing that $(X,c)$ and $(X,s)$ — the latter being the direct limit of the balls $nB$ with the strongest topology agreeing with the weak topology on bounded sets — are $\mathcal C$-injective for the appropriate classes, and then invoking a uniqueness theorem: any two pairs injective with respect to the same class of metrizable pairs are homeomorphic.

Load-bearing premise

In the only-if direction of Theorem 1, the author assumes without proof that in the direct-limit topology $(Y,s)$, each point of a closed separable metrizable subspace has a closed neighborhood lying in some finite ball $nB_Y$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If $\mathcal W(X) = \mathcal W(Y)$ for normed spaces with separable duals, then $(X,\mathrm{weak})$ and $(Y,\mathrm{weak})$ are sequentially homeomorphic; bounded closed weak pieces completely determine the sequential weak type.
Conversely, any sequential homeomorphism of weak topologies forces equality of the classes $\mathcal W(X)$ and $\mathcal W(Y)$, making $\mathcal W$ a complete invariant for the weak topology's sequential type.
For Banach spaces isomorphic to their hyperplanes with separable duals, the compact-convergence topologies $(X,c)$ and $(Y,c)$ are homeomorphic exactly when $\mathcal W(X) = \mathcal W(Y)$, giving a full classification of the $c$-topology in that class.
For such spaces $X$, the space $(X,c)$ is homeomorphic to $B \times \mathbb{R}^\infty$ and $(X,\mathrm{weak})$ is sequentially homeomorphic to $B \times \mathbb{R}^\infty$, so the unbounded part is always the same $\mathbb{R}^\infty$ factor and the bounded part carries all the information.
The topologies $c$ and $\mathrm{weak}$ coincide on bounded sets and are sequentially homeomorphic, yet for infinite-dimensional $X$ with separable dual they are not homeomorphic at all — the compact-convergence topology is stratifiable, the weak topology is not.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The author leaves implicit that the sequential equivalence in Theorem 1 likely extends to any pair of 'sequentially weak' topologies, since Corollary 1 already states this; the direct-limit space $(X,s)$ shows the sequential type is a property of the bounded pieces alone.
A testable extension would drop separability of the dual: if the weak-star ball is no longer metrizable, the $\mathcal C$-injective machinery for metrizable pairs may need a broader class, and the $\mathbb{R}^\infty$ model may fail; the paper offers no evidence either way.
The unproved neighborhood assertion in the non-reflexive case suggests a possible repair: replace 'closed neighborhood in $A'$ contained in $nB$' by a weaker localization, such as neighborhoods whose weak closure is compact, which might still force $A' \in \mathcal W(Y)$.
Because $(X,c)$ is homeomorphic to $B \times \mathbb{R}^\infty$ for hyperplane-isomorphic $X$, the topological classification of such spaces reduces entirely to the classification of weak unit balls, making Theorem 2 effectively a renorming-free version of the earlier weak-unit-ball classification.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Three things. First, the headline result is real: for normed spaces with separable duals, (X,weak) and (Y,weak) are sequentially homeomorphic iff W(X)=W(Y). The C-injective machinery is doing the lifting, and the product model B×R^∞ for (X,c) is a concrete payoff. Second, the reader's worry about the non-reflexive neighborhood step is not the problem: if a point in a closed first-countable subset A'⊂(Y,s) had no neighborhood inside any nB_Y, a countable decreasing local base would produce a sequence escaping every finite ball; that sequence's set is closed in (Y,s) since it meets each bounded set finitely, so the complement is an s-open neighborhood missing all base sets—contradiction. That step holds. Third, the real soft spot is the reflexive case of the same only-if direction. The proof says "each space from the class W(Y)=W(X) is compact" and concludes A and A' are compact. That invokes the very equality being proved. At that point nothing shows the s-homeomorphism (X,s)→(Y,s) preserves boundedness, so a closed copy of A inside (Y,s) need not be bounded and compactness does not follow. This is load-bearing in the only-if direction as written.

Credit where due: Theorem 1, Corollary 2, and Theorem 2 are genuinely new statements, not in the earlier papers. The reliance on [4],[5],[7],[8] is heavy but those are prior published theorems with stated hypotheses, not fitted parameters. Theorem 5 is deferred to prior argument rather than proved; that is acceptable here, though a referee might ask for the argument to be included. The citation pattern is mostly self-citations, but they are to published work and do not look like an attempt to inflate.

Who this is for: people in infinite-dimensional topology and Banach space geometry. They get a natural classification statement, a reusable C-injective toolkit, and a clean product model. The paper deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it to peer review, and require the author to repair the reflexive circularity—either by proving that boundedness is preserved by the sequentially weak homeomorphism, or by a different argument. If that is fixed, the results stand. As written, the main theorem is not fully supported, but the gap looks fixable.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the weak topology on normed spaces and the finer topology c of uniform convergence on compact subsets of the dual, in the setting of spaces with separable dual. Its main result, Theorem 1, asserts that for normed spaces X and Y with separable duals, the spaces (X, weak) and (Y, weak) are sequentially homeomorphic if and only if the classes W(X) and W(Y) of spaces homeomorphic to closed bounded subsets of the respective weak topologies coincide. Theorem 2 gives an analogous equivalence between c-topology homeomorphisms and equality of W(X) for Banach spaces isomorphic to their hyperplanes. The proofs are built on a theory of C-injective pairs and spaces, with Theorems 3 and 4 describing pairs of double-dual spaces and products with R^∞. The manuscript also contains Proposition 1, noting that (X,c) and (X,weak) are sequentially homeomorphic but not homeomorphic.

Significance. If the results are correct, they provide a complete sequential classification of weak topologies on normed spaces with separable dual, reducing the problem to the class W(X), and they connect the c-topology to products of metrizable spaces with R^∞. The overall architectural strategy is coherent and uses standard infinite-dimensional topology tools. I note that the non-reflexive neighborhood step flagged in the reader's report is in fact valid: a closed first-countable subset of the direct limit (Y,s) cannot accumulate at infinity, because otherwise one could remove a closed discrete sequence and contradict first-countability. However, the reflexive case of Theorem 1 contains a circular argument, and the uniqueness theorem for C-injective pairs is not proved in the manuscript. These are load-bearing gaps that require repair before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Theorem 1, proof, reflexive case] The proof of the only-if direction in the reflexive case states: 'Then each space from the class W(Y)=W(X) is compact.' This uses the equality W(X)=W(Y), which is exactly what is being proved in that part of the argument. From A ∈ W(X) and reflexivity of Y one only obtains that A is a closed bounded subset of (X,weak); without knowing that the homeomorphism h:(X,s)→(Y,s) preserves boundedness, there is no reason that the homeomorphic image A' is bounded in Y, hence no reason that A' is weakly compact. The proof needs an additional argument showing that h maps bounded closed subsets of (X,s) to bounded subsets of (Y,s), or some other non-circular route to A' ∈ W(Y). This gap is load-bearing because the whole forward implication of Theorem 1 depends on it.
[Section 3, Theorem 5] Theorem 5 is the uniqueness statement for C-injective pairs and spaces, and it is used as the key step in the 'if' parts of Theorems 1, 3, and 4. The proof is only a reference: 'Repeating arguments of [24] ... one may easily prove.' Since Theorem 5 is foundational for the paper's conclusions, the argument should be supplied in the manuscript or, at minimum, an explicit statement with hypotheses should be quoted from [24], [5], or [23]. As written, a reader cannot verify this load-bearing uniqueness claim from the manuscript.
[Theorem 2, second implication] The second implication of Theorem 2 depends on Corollary 2, which in turn requires the [0,1]-stability of W(X**,X) for Banach spaces isomorphic to their hyperplanes. This stability is quoted from [7] without proof. This is an external theorem rather than an error, but the dependence should be stated clearly in the proof and the exact result in [7] should be cited with a theorem number, since the validity of Corollary 2 for all such spaces is essential to the classification claim.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] The manuscript contains many typographical errors, including 'seqeuntially', 'wek', 'clsoed', 'A"', 'hyperpane', and 'separale duals'; these should be corrected.
[Abstract and Theorem 1 statement] The phrase 'if and only of' appears in the abstract and should read 'if and only if'.
[Proof of Theorem 2, first paragraph] The text says 'the spaces (X,weak) and (X,weak) are sequentially homeomorphic'; the second space should presumably be (Y,weak).
[Definition of W(X**,X), Section 1] The class W(X**,X) is defined using pairs (K, K∩X) with K compact in X**_c, but the sentence says 'equivalently, of the second dual space X** endowed with the *-weak topology.' This equivalence is true for compact subsets because the c-topology agrees with the *-weak topology on bounded sets, but the justification should be given explicitly rather than parenthetically.
[Proposition 6 proof] The proof says 'Thus it is legal to apply Proposition 3' after verifying the hypotheses, but the phrase 'W(X**,X)-universal' should be 'W(X**,X)-injective' in the final sentence for clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Reflexive case of Theorem 1's only-if proof assumes the equality W(X)=W(Y) it is trying to establish.

other [Proof of Theorem 1, only-if direction, case 1 (reflexive Y)]
"1) The space Y is reflexive. Then each space from the class W(Y)=W(X) is compact. Consequently, the spaces A and A′ are compact too and thus A′ ⊂ nBY for some n, where BY stands for the wek unit ball of the space Y. Consequently, A′ ∈ F0(BY)=W(Y)."

In the only-if proof of Theorem 1, the goal is to prove W(X)=W(Y) from the assumption that (X,weak) and (Y,weak) are sequentially homeomorphic. Immediately before the reflexive case, the proof fixes A∈W(X) and aims to show A∈W(Y). The sentence 'Then each space from the class W(Y)=W(X) is compact' uses W(X)=W(Y) — the very equality being proved — as a premise. Without that equality, A∈W(X) gives no compactness of A (X need not be reflexive), and so the subsequent conclusion that A and A′ are compact and A′⊂nBY is unsupported. Thus the inference A′∈W(Y) reduces to the conclusion of the theorem, making the reflexive case of Theorem 1 circular.

full rationale

The paper's central theorem (Theorem 1) characterizes sequential homeomorphism between weak topologies in terms of equality of the classes W(X), W(Y). The 'if' direction is obtained by combining the uniqueness theorem (Theorem 5) with W(X)-injectivity of (X,s) (Proposition 7), and this chain is self-contained. The only-if direction, however, contains a circular step in the reflexive case: after fixing A∈W(X) and transporting it to a closed subset A′ of (Y,s), the proof asserts that each space in the class W(Y)=W(X) is compact and uses this to conclude A and A′ are compact and hence A′∈W(Y). At that point W(X)=W(Y) is precisely the statement being derived, so the argument assumes its conclusion. Without that equality, A∈W(X) gives no compactness of A, and the inclusion W(X)⊂W(Y) is not established for reflexive Y. The non-reflexive case, whose local-neighborhood step was flagged by an earlier reader, is not circular: the existence of a closed neighborhood U of a in some nBY follows from first-countability and the direct-limit structure, so we do not count it. The paper's extensive citations of the author's prior work, including Theorem 1.14 of [7], are external published theorems with stated hypotheses and are not used as a vehicle to smuggle in the present claim, so they do not raise the score independently. Because one of the two directions of the central iff reduction assumes the equality it aims to prove, the correct circularity score is 6: partial circularity in a load-bearing step.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical parameters are fitted. The proof rests on a body of infinite-dimensional topology (direct limits, ANRs, Z-sets, universality) and on earlier classification results, several by the author. These are external published theorems rather than assumptions that encode the target result.

assumptions (7)

standard math Banach-Dieudonné theorem: the compact-convergence topology on X** is the strongest topology agreeing with the *-weak topology on bounded subsets of X**.
Used to identify X**_c as a direct limit of balls (Proposition 2, proof of Theorem 3).
standard math Kadec renorming theorem: every separable Banach space admits an equivalent Kadec norm.
Invoked in the proof of Theorem 2 to reduce to Kadec norms, citing [19, Theorem 111].
domain assumption Uniqueness theorem for C-injective pairs (Theorem 5).
Stated and proved only by referring to arguments of [24], [5], and [23]; used to identify (X,s) and (X**_c,X_c) up to homeomorphism.
domain assumption Strong universality of convex sets (Theorem 6), unifying results from [4], [8], and [10].
Used to prove W(X**,X)-injectivity and W(X)-injectivity of balls and of the pair (X**_c,X_c).
standard math Topological characterization of R∞ (Sakai).
Used in Proposition 5 to show R∞ is homeomorphic to a direct limit of cubes and to model products with R∞.
domain assumption Theorem 1.14 of [7]: for Kadec-normed Banach spaces, W(X)=W(Y) implies weak unit balls are homeomorphic.
Used in the proof of Theorem 2 to lift W(X)=W(Y) to a homeomorphism of weak unit balls; this is prior work by the same author.
standard math Separation properties of stratifiable spaces: subspaces of direct limits of towers of metrizable compacta are stratifiable, and weak topologies of infinite-dimensional normed spaces are not stratifiable.
Used in the proof of Proposition 1 to separate (X,c) from (X,weak).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On topological classification of normed spaces endowed with the weak topology or the topology of compact convergence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SEFPQ5NL

@misc{pith2026190809115,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On topological classification of normed spaces endowed with the weak topology or the topology of compact convergence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SEFPQ5NL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09115}
}

abstract

In this paper the weak topology on a normed space is studied from the viewpoint of infinite-dimensional topology. Besides the weak topology on a normed space $X$ (coinciding with the topology of uniform convergence on finite subsets of the dual space $X^*$), we consider the topology $c$ of uniform convergence on compact subsets of $X^*$. It is known that this topology coincides with the weak topology on bounded subsets of $X$, but unlike to the latter has much better topological properties (e.g., is stratifiable). We prove that for normed spaces $X,Y$ with separable duals the spaces $(X,weak)$, $(Y,weak)$ are sequentially homeomorphic if and only if $\mathcal W(X)=\mathcal W(Y)$, where $\mathcal W(X)$ is the class of topological spaces homeomorphic to closed bounded subsets of $(X,weak)$. Moreover, if $X,Y$ are Banach spaces which are isomorphic to their hyperplanes and have separale duals, then the spaces $(X,weak)$ and $(Y,weak)$ are sequentially homeomorphic if and only of the spaces $(X,c)$ and $(Y,c)$ are homeomorphic. To prove this result, we show that for a normed space $X$ which is isomorphic to its hyperpane and has separable dual, the space $(X,c)$ (resp. $(X,weak)$) is (sequentially) homeomorphic to the product $B\times\mathbb R^\infty$ of the weak unit ball $B$ of $X$ and the linear space $\mathbb R^\infty$ with countable Hamel basis and the strongest linear topology.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[4]

Banakh, Toward a topological classiﬁcation of convex sets in inﬁnit e-dimensional Frchet spaces , Topology Appl

T. Banakh, Toward a topological classiﬁcation of convex sets in inﬁnit e-dimensional Frchet spaces , Topology Appl. 111:3 (2001), 241–263

work page 2001
[5]

Banakh, On hyperspaces and homeomorphism groups homeomorphic to pr oducts of absorbing sets and R∞ , Tsukuba J

T. Banakh, On hyperspaces and homeomorphism groups homeomorphic to pr oducts of absorbing sets and R∞ , Tsukuba J. Math. 23:3 (1999), 495–504

work page 1999
[7]

Banakh, On topological classiﬁcation of weak unit balls in Banach sp aces, Dissert

T. Banakh, On topological classiﬁcation of weak unit balls in Banach sp aces, Dissert. Math. 387 (2000), 7–35

work page 2000
[8]

Banakh, R

T. Banakh, R. Cauty, Interplay between strongly universal spaces and pairs , Dissert. Math. 386 (2000), 38 pp

work page 2000
[24]

Sakai, On R∞ -manifolds and Q∞ -manifolds, Topology Appl

K. Sakai, On R∞ -manifolds and Q∞ -manifolds, Topology Appl. 18:1 (1984), 69–79

work page 1984
[23]

Pentsak, On manifolds modeled on direct limits of C-universal ANR’s, Mat

E. Pentsak, On manifolds modeled on direct limits of C-universal ANR’s, Mat. Stud. 5 (1995), 107–116

work page 1995
[1]

Arens, Duality in linear spaces , Duke Math

R. Arens, Duality in linear spaces , Duke Math. J. 14 (1947), 787–794

work page 1947
[2]

Baars, H

J. Baars, H. Gladdines, J. van Mill, Absorbing systems in inﬁnite-dimensional manifolds , Topology Appl. 50:2 (1993), 147–182

work page 1993

Show all 26 references

[3]

Banach, Th´ eorie des opr´ erations lin´ eaires, PWN, Warsaw, 1932

S. Banach, Th´ eorie des opr´ erations lin´ eaires, PWN, Warsaw, 1932

1932
[6]

Banakh, On linear topological spaces (linearly) homeomorphic to R∞ , Mat

T. Banakh, On linear topological spaces (linearly) homeomorphic to R∞ , Mat. Stud. 9:1 (1998), 99–101

1998
[9]

Banakh, T

T. Banakh, T. Radul, M. Zarichnyi, Absorbing sets in inﬁnite-dimensional manifolds , VNTL Publ., Lviv,
[10]

Bessaga, A

C. Bessaga, A. Pe/suppress lczy´ nski,Selected topics in inﬁnite-dimensional topology , PWN, Warsaw, 1975. 353 pp

1975
[11]

Bestvina, J

M. Bestvina, J. Mogilski, Characterizing certain incomplete inﬁnite-dimensional a bsolute retracts, Michigan Math. J. 33:3 (1986), 291–313

1986
[12]

Borges, On stratiﬁable spaces , Paciﬁc J

C. Borges, On stratiﬁable spaces , Paciﬁc J. Math. 17 (1966), 1–16

1966
[13]

Cauty, The strong universality property and its applications , Proc

R. Cauty, The strong universality property and its applications , Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 212:1 (1996), 89–114

1996
[14]

Edwards, Functional analysis

R. Edwards, Functional analysis. Theory and applications , Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York-Toronto- London (1965), xiii+781 pp

1965
[15]

Engelking, General topology, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, (1989), viii+529 pp

R. Engelking, General topology, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, (1989), viii+529 pp

1989
[16]

Fr´ echet,Les espaces abstraits , Hermann, Paris, 1928

M. Fr´ echet,Les espaces abstraits , Hermann, Paris, 1928

1928
[17]

Gartside, Nonstratiﬁability of topological vector spaces , Topology Appl

P. Gartside, Nonstratiﬁability of topological vector spaces , Topology Appl. 86:2 (1998), 133–140

1998
[18]

Gruenhage, Generalized metric spaces, in: Handbook of set-theoretic topology, North-Holland, A msterdam, (1984), 423–501

G. Gruenhage, Generalized metric spaces, in: Handbook of set-theoretic topology, North-Holland, A msterdam, (1984), 423–501

1984
[19]

Habala, P

P. Habala, P. H´ ajek, V. Zizler,Introduction to Banach spaces , Matfyzpress, Praha, 1996

1996
[20]

Heisey, Manifolds modelled on R∞ or bounded weak- ∗ topologies, Trans

R. Heisey, Manifolds modelled on R∞ or bounded weak- ∗ topologies, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 206 (1975), 295–312

1975
[21]

Kadec, A proof of the topological equivalence of all separable inﬁn ite-dimensional Banach spaces , Funkcional

M.I. Kadec, A proof of the topological equivalence of all separable inﬁn ite-dimensional Banach spaces , Funkcional. Anal. i Priloˇ zen.1 (1967) 61–70

1967
[22]

Mankiewicz, On topological, Lipschitz, and uniform classiﬁcation of LF -spaces, Studia Math

P. Mankiewicz, On topological, Lipschitz, and uniform classiﬁcation of LF -spaces, Studia Math. 52 (1974), 109–142

1974
[25]

Schaefer, Topological vector spaces, The Macmillan Co., New York, (1966), ix+294 pp

H. Schaefer, Topological vector spaces, The Macmillan Co., New York, (1966), ix+294 pp

1966
[26]

Toru´ nczyk,Characterizing Hilbert space topology , Fund

H. Toru´ nczyk,Characterizing Hilbert space topology , Fund. Math. 111:3 (1981), 247–262. Ivan Franko National University of L viv, Ukraine E-mail address : t.o.banakh@gmail.com

1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [4]

Banakh, Toward a topological classiﬁcation of convex sets in inﬁnit e-dimensional Frchet spaces , Topology Appl

T. Banakh, Toward a topological classiﬁcation of convex sets in inﬁnit e-dimensional Frchet spaces , Topology Appl. 111:3 (2001), 241–263

work page 2001

[2] [5]

Banakh, On hyperspaces and homeomorphism groups homeomorphic to pr oducts of absorbing sets and R∞ , Tsukuba J

T. Banakh, On hyperspaces and homeomorphism groups homeomorphic to pr oducts of absorbing sets and R∞ , Tsukuba J. Math. 23:3 (1999), 495–504

work page 1999

[3] [7]

Banakh, On topological classiﬁcation of weak unit balls in Banach sp aces, Dissert

T. Banakh, On topological classiﬁcation of weak unit balls in Banach sp aces, Dissert. Math. 387 (2000), 7–35

work page 2000

[4] [8]

Banakh, R

T. Banakh, R. Cauty, Interplay between strongly universal spaces and pairs , Dissert. Math. 386 (2000), 38 pp

work page 2000

[5] [24]

Sakai, On R∞ -manifolds and Q∞ -manifolds, Topology Appl

K. Sakai, On R∞ -manifolds and Q∞ -manifolds, Topology Appl. 18:1 (1984), 69–79

work page 1984

[6] [23]

Pentsak, On manifolds modeled on direct limits of C-universal ANR’s, Mat

E. Pentsak, On manifolds modeled on direct limits of C-universal ANR’s, Mat. Stud. 5 (1995), 107–116

work page 1995

[7] [1]

Arens, Duality in linear spaces , Duke Math

R. Arens, Duality in linear spaces , Duke Math. J. 14 (1947), 787–794

work page 1947

[8] [2]

Baars, H

J. Baars, H. Gladdines, J. van Mill, Absorbing systems in inﬁnite-dimensional manifolds , Topology Appl. 50:2 (1993), 147–182

work page 1993