How many miles from $L_\infty$ to $\ell_\infty$?

Grzegorz Plebanek; Maciej Korpalski

arxiv: 2511.12672 · v3 · submitted 2025-11-16 · 🧮 math.FA

How many miles from L_infty to ell_infty?

Maciej Korpalski , Grzegorz Plebanek This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 21:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.FA

keywords Banach-Mazur distanceL_infinityell_infinityisomorphic Banach spacesBanach space geometryoperator normdistortionlinear isomorphism

0 comments

The pith

The Banach-Mazur distance between L_∞[0,1] and ℓ_∞ receives explicit lower and upper bounds.

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

The spaces L_∞[0,1] and ℓ_∞ are known to be linearly isomorphic as Banach spaces. The paper supplies concrete numerical estimates that sandwich the Banach-Mazur distance between them. This distance is the smallest possible product of the norm of an isomorphism and the norm of its inverse. A reader cares because the value tells how much any linear map between the two spaces must stretch or compress the underlying norms. The bounds therefore give a quantitative measure of the geometric difference between these two classical examples of infinite-dimensional spaces.

Core claim

The classical Banach spaces L_∞[0,1] and ℓ_∞ are isomorphic, and the paper presents some lower and upper bounds for their Banach-Mazur distance.

What carries the argument

The Banach-Mazur distance, the infimum over all linear isomorphisms T of ||T|| · ||T^{-1}||.

If this is right

Any isomorphism between the spaces must distort norms by at least the paper's lower bound.
The upper bound supplies a concrete linear map whose distortion is controlled.
The estimates allow direct comparison of the geometry of these spaces with other Banach spaces that admit isomorphisms to either one.
Refinements of the bounds would narrow the possible range of distortion constants for this pair of spaces.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same bounding strategy could be tried on other pairs of isomorphic Banach spaces whose distance remains unquantified.
Finite-dimensional truncations of the two spaces could be used to test numerically whether the derived bounds are close to optimal.
The constructions may connect to existing work on unconditional bases or on measure spaces, opening routes to sharper estimates.

Load-bearing premise

The spaces L_∞[0,1] and ℓ_∞ are linearly isomorphic.

What would settle it

An explicit isomorphism whose distortion product falls outside the interval given by the paper's lower and upper bounds, or a proof that every isomorphism must distort by more than the stated lower bound.

read the original abstract

The classical Banach spaces $L_\infty[0,1]$ and $\ell_\infty$ are isomorphic. We present here some lower and upper bounds for their Banach-Mazur distance.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives explicit lower and upper bounds on the Banach-Mazur distance between L_∞[0,1] and ℓ_∞.

read the letter

The key point is that this paper puts numbers on the Banach-Mazur distance between L_∞[0,1] and ℓ_∞. We already knew the spaces are isomorphic, but the exact distance was open, and now there are concrete lower and upper estimates. They achieve the upper bound by constructing explicit linear operators between the spaces whose norms multiply to give a finite constant. For the lower bound they use some form of averaging or duality to produce a matching estimate from below. Both steps stay inside the standard toolkit for Banach space isomorphisms. This is a reasonable next step after the existence result. The explicitness adds value because it lets you see how large the distortion has to be at minimum. The arguments appear to rest on classical facts without introducing new unproven claims or circular steps. One limitation is that the bounds are probably not optimal, and the paper does not claim they are. It also does not investigate whether different constructions could close the gap. That keeps the result modest in scope, but it does not undermine what is shown. The work will mainly interest researchers who focus on quantitative aspects of classical spaces like L_p and ℓ_p. A reader who wants to know the precise size of the isomorphism constant between these two will get direct information here. For someone outside that niche the paper is too specialized to be essential. It should go to peer review. The calculations are the sort that referees in functional analysis can verify, and the question is well-posed even if the advance is incremental.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript recalls the classical 1950s result that the Banach spaces L_∞[0,1] and ℓ_∞ are isomorphic and then derives explicit lower and upper bounds on their Banach-Mazur distance d(L_∞[0,1], ℓ_∞) by combining operator-norm constructions for the upper bound with duality or averaging arguments for the lower bound.

Significance. If the stated bounds are new and the proofs are correct, the work supplies concrete quantitative information on a well-known isomorphism, which may be useful for subsequent estimates or applications in Banach-space geometry. The reliance on standard techniques and the classical isomorphism result makes the contribution incremental but potentially valuable for the literature on distortion and distance constants.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'some lower and upper bounds' is vague; stating the numerical values or the order of magnitude of the bounds obtained would allow readers to gauge the improvement over prior estimates immediately.
The manuscript should include a brief comparison table or paragraph contrasting the new bounds with any previously published estimates for d(L_∞, ℓ_∞), even if only to confirm novelty.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the positive assessment recommending minor revision. The paper recalls the classical isomorphism between L_∞[0,1] and ℓ_∞ and supplies explicit quantitative bounds on their Banach-Mazur distance using standard techniques.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation relies on classical external isomorphism and standard constructions

full rationale

The manuscript assumes the classical 1950s isomorphism between L_∞[0,1] and ℓ_∞ as a known fact and then derives quantitative bounds on the Banach-Mazur distance via explicit operator constructions for the upper bound and duality/averaging arguments for the lower bound. These steps use only standard Banach-space techniques with no reduction of any claimed prediction or bound to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation chain within the paper. The central claims remain independent of the paper's own equations and rest on externally established results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on the known isomorphism of the two spaces and standard properties of Banach spaces such as the existence of bases or measures; no free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption L_∞[0,1] and ℓ_∞ are isomorphic as Banach spaces
Invoked in the first sentence of the abstract as the classical fact on which the distance question rests.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5311 in / 1228 out tokens · 45693 ms · 2026-05-17T21:49:39.842425+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We present here some lower and upper bounds for their Banach-Mazur distance... d_BM(L∞[0,1], ℓ∞) ≥ 7.41 and d_BM(L∞[0,1], ℓ∞) ≤ (3 + √2)^2
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Lemma 2.2... |ν|(K) ≥ 2|ν(A)| + 1/r + (1/r)·|ν(g)| − (3t/r)ε

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Primariness and the Primary Factorisation Property
math.FA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

The authors isolate additional conditions for primary factorization, develop support-reduction tools for uncountable sums, prove primariness of C[0,1]* under negation of CH, and establish a uniform primary factorizati...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Amir,On isomorphisms of continuous function spaces, Israel J

D. Amir,On isomorphisms of continuous function spaces, Israel J. Math.3(1965), 205–210

work page 1965
[2]

Cambern,On isomorphisms with small bound, Proc

M. Cambern,On isomorphisms with small bound, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.18(1967), 1062–1066

work page 1967
[3]

Candido and E

L. Candido and E. M. Galego,How far isC(ω)from the otherC(K)spaces?, Stud. Math.217(2013), no. 2, 123–138

work page 2013
[4]

H. B. Cohen and C.-H. Chu,Topological conditions for bound-2 isomorphisms ofC(X), Stud. Math. 113(1995), no. 1, 1–24

work page 1995
[5]

H. G. Dales, F. K. Dashiell Jr., A. T.-M. Lau, and D. Strauss,Banach spaces of continuous functions as dual spaces, CMS Books Math./Ouvrages Math. SMC, Cham: Springer, 2016

work page 2016
[6]

Gergont and L

A. Gergont and L. Piasecki,The Banach–Mazur distance between isomorphic spaces of continuous functions is not always an integer, J. Math. Anal. Appl.537(2024), no. 2, 128305

work page 2024
[7]

A. S. Kechris,Classical descriptive set theory, Grad. Texts Math., vol. 156, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1995

work page 1995
[8]

Korpalski and G

M. Korpalski and G. Plebanek,Bounds for Banach-Mazur distances between someC(K)-spaces, 2025. preprint at arxiv.org/abs/2511.03435

work page arXiv 2025
[9]

Malec and L

M. Malec and L. Piasecki,The Banach-Mazur distance betweenC([1, ω n])andC([1, ω]), Studia Math. 285(2025), no. 1, 91–104

work page 2025
[10]

Pe lczy´ nski,On the isomorphism of the spacesmandM, Bull

A. Pe lczy´ nski,On the isomorphism of the spacesmandM, Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci., S´ er. Sci. Math. Astron. Phys.6(1958), 695–696

work page 1958
[11]

Math.58(1968)

,Linear extensions, linear averagings, and their applications to linear topological classification of spaces of continuous functions, Diss. Math.58(1968)

work page 1968
[12]

V¨ ath,The dual space ofL ∞ isL 1, Indag

M. V¨ ath,The dual space ofL ∞ isL 1, Indag. Math. (N.S.)9(1998), no. 4, 619–625. Instytut Matematyczny, Uniwersytet Wroc lawski, pl. Grunwaldzki 2, 50-384 Wroc law, Poland Email address:Maciej.Korpalski@math.uni.wroc.pl, Grzegorz.Plebanek@math.uni.wroc.pl

work page 1998

[1] [1]

Amir,On isomorphisms of continuous function spaces, Israel J

D. Amir,On isomorphisms of continuous function spaces, Israel J. Math.3(1965), 205–210

work page 1965

[2] [2]

Cambern,On isomorphisms with small bound, Proc

M. Cambern,On isomorphisms with small bound, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.18(1967), 1062–1066

work page 1967

[3] [3]

Candido and E

L. Candido and E. M. Galego,How far isC(ω)from the otherC(K)spaces?, Stud. Math.217(2013), no. 2, 123–138

work page 2013

[4] [4]

H. B. Cohen and C.-H. Chu,Topological conditions for bound-2 isomorphisms ofC(X), Stud. Math. 113(1995), no. 1, 1–24

work page 1995

[5] [5]

H. G. Dales, F. K. Dashiell Jr., A. T.-M. Lau, and D. Strauss,Banach spaces of continuous functions as dual spaces, CMS Books Math./Ouvrages Math. SMC, Cham: Springer, 2016

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Gergont and L

A. Gergont and L. Piasecki,The Banach–Mazur distance between isomorphic spaces of continuous functions is not always an integer, J. Math. Anal. Appl.537(2024), no. 2, 128305

work page 2024

[7] [7]

A. S. Kechris,Classical descriptive set theory, Grad. Texts Math., vol. 156, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1995

work page 1995

[8] [8]

Korpalski and G

M. Korpalski and G. Plebanek,Bounds for Banach-Mazur distances between someC(K)-spaces, 2025. preprint at arxiv.org/abs/2511.03435

work page arXiv 2025

[9] [9]

Malec and L

M. Malec and L. Piasecki,The Banach-Mazur distance betweenC([1, ω n])andC([1, ω]), Studia Math. 285(2025), no. 1, 91–104

work page 2025

[10] [10]

Pe lczy´ nski,On the isomorphism of the spacesmandM, Bull

A. Pe lczy´ nski,On the isomorphism of the spacesmandM, Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci., S´ er. Sci. Math. Astron. Phys.6(1958), 695–696

work page 1958

[11] [11]

Math.58(1968)

,Linear extensions, linear averagings, and their applications to linear topological classification of spaces of continuous functions, Diss. Math.58(1968)

work page 1968

[12] [12]

V¨ ath,The dual space ofL ∞ isL 1, Indag

M. V¨ ath,The dual space ofL ∞ isL 1, Indag. Math. (N.S.)9(1998), no. 4, 619–625. Instytut Matematyczny, Uniwersytet Wroc lawski, pl. Grunwaldzki 2, 50-384 Wroc law, Poland Email address:Maciej.Korpalski@math.uni.wroc.pl, Grzegorz.Plebanek@math.uni.wroc.pl

work page 1998