arXiv:2012.06783v1 [math.FA] 12 Dec 2020 l osuyifiiedrc uso hs pcsi hi 1985 their in spaces these of sums direct infinite study to al. aahsae ihauiu nodtoa ai u oequivalence) to (up basis unconditional unique namely a with spaces Banach emtto of permutation Question nqeu opruain(TPfrsot nodtoa ai if basis unconditional of short) basis for unconditional (UTAP semi-normalized permutation other to any up unique a oQeto . ntecs when case the in 1.1 Question to spaces Banach the provided einraie nodtoa basis unconditional semi-normalized a ealta us-aahsae(npriua aahspace) Banach a particular (in space quasi-Banach a that Recall NQEESO NODTOA AI OF BASIS UNCONDITIONAL OF UNIQUENESS 63,4A0 46A45. 46A40, 46A35, pns iityfrSine noain n nvriisudrGr under Universities and for Innovation, 095366-B-I00 Science, for Ministry Spanish spaces Banach of for PID2019-107701GB-I00 Grant Ts under novation spaces, Hardy lattice, , quasi-Banach bases, of n17,EesenadWjazzk(7)gv naraieanswer affirmative an gave ([7]) Wojtaszczyk and Edelstein 1976, In 2010 .Aba cnwegstespoto h pns iityfrScien for Ministry Spanish the of support the acknowledges Albiac F. phrases. and words Key ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject h eea pitn rnil eoti ils npriua,that particular, in yields, each obtain if we principle splitting general The ecieucniinlbsso nt ietsm fBnc space Banach to of sums permits direct X which finite of lattices, bases unconditional quasi-Banach describe between operators pact Abstract. emtto) then permutation), ueo aahadqaiBnc pcsw aeta h space the that have we struc- spaces the quasi-Banach to techniques and ℓ our Banach of of applications ture novel the Among too. 2 ℓ 1 1 T ⊕ ···⊕ · ⊕· 1.1 , ℓ (2) 2 . ENNOABA N JOS AND ALBIAC FERNANDO X and , ostespace the Does i .Aba n .L noeaakoldetespoto the of support the acknowledge Ansorena L. J. and Albiac F. . na ii etra,MliielyAproximaci´on y Multilineal An´alisis Vectorial, X B a nqeucniinlbasis. unconditional unique a has 1. a nqeucniinlbss(pt qiaec and equivalence to (up basis unconditional unique a has n eyntrlpolmi h hoyi h following: the is theory the in problem natural very A . sdrc uso nodtoa ae fissummands. its of bases unconditional of sums direct as epoieanwetnino itstermfrcom- for theorem Pitt’s of extension new a provide We nrdcinadbackground and Introduction c 0 hs oiierslsmtvtdBugi et Bourgain motivated results positive These . nqeeso tutr,ucniinlbss equivalence basis, unconditional structure, of uniqueness X 1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ X X and ⊕ X n Y 1 X Y a nqeucniinlbasis unconditional unique a has aeaUA nodtoa basis unconditional UTAP a have and do? 61,4B0 64,4B5 46A16, 46B45, 46B42, 46B20, 46B15, B .ANSORENA L. E ´ Y prtr,ltie,adstructure and lattices, Operators, ( = r n fteol three only the of one are x n ) n X ∈N seuvln oa to equivalent is rlo space. irelson . ssi ohave to said is n PGC2018- ant eadIn- and ce ℓ Memoir s 2 X T ⊕ with (2) , 2 F.ALBIACANDJ.L.ANSORENA

[4] with the aim to classify all Banach spaces with a (UTAP) uncondi- tional basis. As an indirect outcome of their work, in relation to Ques- (n) (n) tion 1.1 they obtained that the Banach spaces ℓ1 ⊕c0(ℓ1 ), c0 ⊕ℓ1(ℓ∞ ), (n) (n) ℓ2 ⊕ℓ1(ℓ2 ), and ℓ2 ⊕c0(ℓ2 ) have a (UTAP) unconditional basis. How- ever, all hopes of attaining a satisfactory classification were shattered when they found an unexpected space of a totally different character, namely the 2-convexification of Tsirelson’s space, denoted T (2), with this property. The fact that T (2) was a useful example in several other contexts had already been previously noticed in [8] and [9]. This article is a direct continuation of [3], where the authors show that an amalgamation of techniques that have their origin in the papers [6, 13] paves the way to obtaining a positive answer to Question 1.1 in some new cases (see [3, Theorem 4.4]). Roughly speaking this result works when there is a “gap” between the lattice concavity of X and the lattice convexity of Y, i.e., in the case when there exist 1 ≤ q

2. Yet another generalization of Pitt’s theorem for operators between quasi-Banach lattices The classical Pitt’s theorem [12] asserts that every continuous linear operator from ℓp into ℓq, 1 ≤ q

Lemma 2.1. Let T : Y → X be a bounded non-compact linear operator between quasi-Banach spaces. Suppose that X has a Bx. Then there exist a semi-normalized block basic sequence Bu with respect to Bx and a semi-normalized basic sequence Bv in Y such that Bu and T (Bv) are congruent in X. Moreover, if Y has a Schauder basis By, we can choose Bv to be a block basic sequence with respect to By. Proof. As the proof of the lemma without assuming that Y has a Schauder basis is similar and easier, we will carry out the proof of the “moreover” part. ∞ ∞ By assumption, there is (fn)n=1 in BY such that (T (fn))n=1 has no convergent subsequences. For each k ∈ N, the scalar sequences ∗ ∞ ∗ ∞ (yk(fn))n=1 and (xk(T (fn)))n=1 are bounded. Using a Cantor’s diago- nal argument, passing to a subsequence we assume that these sequences N ∞ converge for every k ∈ . Since (T (fn))n=1 is not a Cauchy sequence, ∞ N there exist δ > 0 and an increasing sequence (nj)j=1 in such that N kT (fn2j−1 ) − T (fn2j )k ≥ δ, j ∈ . N ∞ ∞ Set gj = fn2j−1 − fn2j for j ∈ . The sequences (gj)j=1 and (T (gj))j=1 are semi-normalized with

∗ ∗ lim yk(fj) = 0 = lim xk(T (fj)) j j N ∞ for all k ∈ . Let (εj)j=1 be a null sequence of positive numbers. By the gliding hump technique, passing to a subsequence we infer that ∞ ∞ there are block basic sequences (uj)j=1 and (vj)j=1 with respect to Bx and By respectively such that

kgj − vjk ≤ εj, kT (gj) − ujk ≤ εj, j ∈ N. 4 F.ALBIACANDJ.L.ANSORENA

Assume without loss of generality that X is p-Banach for some 0

Remark 2.2. Applying Lemma 2.1 with Y = ℓq,0 < q ≤∞, yields that if X contains an isomorphic copy of ℓq (we replace ℓ∞ with c0), then X has a block basic sequence equivalent to the canonical ℓq-basis. Remark 2.3. Applying Lemma 2.1 with Y ⊆ X yields that any infinite- dimensional subspace Y of X contains a sequence congruent to a block basic sequence. Proposition 2.4. Let T : Y → X be a bounded non-compact linear operator between quasi-Banach spaces. Suppose that X has an uncon- ditional basis Bx that satisfies a lower q-estimate for some 0

Then there is a basic sequence Bv in Y and a basic sequence in X finitely disjointly supported with respect to Bx which is equivalent to the canonical ℓq-basis, to Bv, and to T (Bv). Moreover, if (ii) holds, Bv can be chosen to be finitely disjointly supported with respect to By.

Proof. Use Lemma 2.1 to pick a semi-normalized sequence Bu disjointly finitely supported with respect to Bx and a semi-normalized sequence ∞ Y Bv = (vj)j=1 in such that Bu is equivalent to T (Bv). Then T (Bv) dominates the unit vector basis of ℓq and, in turn, the unit vector basis of ℓq dominates Bv. Hence, there are constants C1 and C2 such that ∞ 1/q ∞ q |λj| ≤ C1 λjT (vj) j=1 ! j=1 X X ∞

≤ C1k T k λjvj

j=1 X ∞ 1/q q ≤ C1C2kT k |λj| , j=1 ! X ∞  for any (λj)j=1 ∈ c00. SPLITTINGUNCONDITIONALBASES 5

The proof of the following consequence of Proposition 2.4 is straight- forward. Corollary 2.5. Let X be a quasi-Banach space with an unconditional basis Bx which satisfies a lower q-estimate for some 0

3. Splitting unconditional bases of direct sums of Banach spaces X n We say that a finite family ( j)j=1 of Banach spaces is splitting for n X unconditional bases if every unconditional basis of j=1 j splits into basic sequences (B )n with [B ] ≃ X for each j =1,...,n. j j=1 j j L In 1976, Edelstein and Wojtaszczyk [7] proved that any finite family n (ℓpj )j=1 for 1 ≤ pj ≤ ∞ (with the convention that ℓ∞ means c0) is splitting for unconditional bases. This important structural property has been recently studied for general Banach spaces in [3], where the authors establish sufficient conditions for a finite family of uncondi- tional bases to be splitting in terms of gaps between lattice estimates of the bases. Our main theorem of this section relies on the refined notion of lattice-estimate disjointness to improve [3, Theorem 4.4]. X n Theorem 3.1. Let ( j)j=1 be a finite family of Banach spaces. Sup- X n pose that each j has an unconditional basis Bj and that (Bj)j=1 is X n lattice-estimate disjoint. Then ( j)j=1 is splitting for unconditional bases. In particular, if Xj has a UTAP unconditional basis for all n X 1 ≤ j ≤ n, then j=1 j has a UTAP unconditional basis. The proof of TheoremL 3.1 relies on our extension of Pitt’s theorem from Section 2 and the following three instrumental lemmas. Lemma 3.2. Let X and Y be quasi-Banach spaces with respective un- conditional bases Bx and By. Suppose that there is 0 < q ≤ ∞ such that Bx satisfies a lower q-estimate and By satisfies an upper q-estimate. Then every basic sequence B in X ⊕ Y disjointly supported with respect to Bx ⊕ By has a subsequence equivalent either to a basic sequence in X disjointly supported with respect to Bx, or to a basic sequence in Y disjointly supported with respect to By. ∞ Proof. Put B =(un, vn)n=1. Passing to a subsequence we can suppose N ∞ that either infn kunk > 0 or kunk ≤ αn for all n ∈ , where (αn)n=1 is ∞ a given sequence of positive scalars. In the former case, Bu =(un)n=1 dominates the canonical basis of ℓq and so Bu also dominates Bv. Con- sequently, B is equivalent to Bu. In the latter case, the principle of small perturbations yields that B is equivalent to Bv for a suitable ∞  choice of (αn)n=1. Lemma 3.3. Let X and Y be quasi-Banach spaces with respective unconditional bases Bx and By. Suppose that Bx satisfies a lower q- estimate and that By satisfies an upper q-estimate for some 0 < q ≤∞. Then, given 0

Proof. Suppose that ℓp is isomorphic to a subspace of X ⊕ Y. Then there is a basic sequence in X ⊕ Y disjointly supported with respect to Bx ⊕ By and equivalent to the canonical basis of ℓp (see Remark 2.2). By Lemma 3.2, there is a sequence B disjointly supported with respect to either Bx or By and equivalent to the canonical basis of ℓp. In the former case, the canonical basis of ℓp dominates the canonical basis of ℓq so that p ≤ q. In the latter case the canonical basis of ℓp is dominated by the canonical basis of ℓq and, hence p ≥ q. Summing up, if p < q (resp. p > q), B is a basic sequence in X (resp. in Y) disjointly supported with respect to Bx (resp. By) and so [B] is a subspace of X (resp. Y) isomorphic to ℓp. 

Lemma 3.4. Let (Xi)i∈I be a finite family of quasi-Banach spaces. X (i) Suppose that there is a partition (Ij)j∈J of I such that ( j)i∈Ij is X ∈ splitting for unconditional bases for all j ∈ J and ( i∈Ij i)j J is splitting for unconditional bases. Then (X ) ∈ is splitting for i i I L unconditional bases. (ii) Suppose there is a bijection π : {1,..., |I|} → I such for each 2 ≤ s−1 X X s ≤ |I|, the pair ( j=1 π(j), π(s)) is splitting for unconditional bases. Then (X ) ∈ is splitting for unconditional bases. j j LI Proof. It is straightforward.  The last ingredient we need before we tackle the proof of Theorem 3.1 is the following result by Wojtaszczyk. Theorem 3.5 (see [13, Theorem 2.1]). Let X and Y be Banach spaces such that every bounded linear operator from X into Y is compact. Then (X, Y) is splitting for unconditional bases. Completion of the Proof of Theorem 3.1. Assume without loss of gen- n−1 erality that Bj is semi-normalized for all 1 ≤ j ≤ n. Let (qj)j=1 be as in Definition 2.6. Before tackling the general case, we will consider a couple of particular cases. Case A. If n = 2, the result follows by combining Corollary 2.7 with Theorem 3.5. Case B. Suppose that n ≥ 3 and qj < qj+1 for all 1 ≤ j ≤ n − 2. s Since j=1 Bj satisfies a lower qs-estimate for all 1 ≤ s ≤ n−1, combin- − ing Lemma 3.3 with Case A we obtain that ( s 1 X , X ) is splitting L j=1 j s for unconditional bases for all 2 ≤ s ≤ n. Applying Lemma 3.4 (ii) yields the desired result. L 8 F.ALBIACANDJ.L.ANSORENA

In the general case, we pick an arbitrary element α not belonging to [1, ∞], and we use the convention that q<α for all q ∈ [1, ∞]. Let A := {qj : 1 ≤ j ≤ n − 1}∪{α}. For each q ∈ A \{α} set Jq = {j : qj = Y X ′ Y X ′ q}, q = j∈Jq j and Bq = j∈Jq Bj. Set also α = n and Bα = Bn. ′ If q, r ∈ A are such that q

4. Applications We close with some applications of Theorem 3.1 to the classical theory of Banach and quasi-Banach spaces. Given 0

Proof. Let Bs be a subsymmetric sequence in X (resp. in Y). By [2, ∞ Proposition 2.2], there is a block basic sequence (yn)n=1 with respect to ∗ B (resp. B ) equivalent to Bs. Passing to a subsequence we can suppose that kn := min(supp(yn)) ≥ jn for all n ∈ N. Then, by [3, Lemma 3.9], ∞ ∗ ∞  Bs is equivalent to (xkn )n=1 (resp. (xkn )n=1). Proposition 4.2. Let 0

∞ since p-convexifications inherit this property. Denote by (xj)j=1 the (s) (r) unit vector system of T∗ (resp. T ). Assume by contradiction that (s) (r) T∗ (resp. T ) has a subsymmetric sequence. By Lemma 4.1 there is ∞ ∞ an increasing sequence (jn)n=1 such that (xjn )j=1 is subsymmetric. By (p) ∞ duality, (tjn )n=1 is subsymmetric as well, where p = s/(s − 1) (resp. ∞ ∞ p = r). Hence, (tjn )n=1 is subsymmetric. But no subbasis of (tj)j=1 is subsymmetric.  The next two theorems follow easily by combining Theorem 3.1 with Proposition 4.2. Theorem 4.3. Let A ⊆ [1, ∞], B ⊆ [1, ∞), and D ⊆ (1, ∞] be finite (r) (s) sets. Then (ℓp)p∈A ⊔ (T )r∈B ⊔ (T∗ )s∈D is splitting for unconditional basis. Theorem 4.4. Let A ⊆{1, 2, ∞}, B ⊆{1, 2} and D ⊆{2, ∞}. Then (r) (s) ( p∈A ℓp)⊕( r∈B T )⊕( s∈D T∗ ) has a UTAP unconditional basis (we replace ℓ∞ with c is p ∈ A). L L 0 L Finally we show some applications of our results to the uniqueness of structure of nonlocally convex quasi-Banach spaces. We note that The- d orem 4.5 below remains valid if we replace the Hp(T ) with any of the spaces with a unique unconditional basis from [1, Corollary 6.2]. Theorem 4.5. Let 0

[4] J. Bourgain, P. G. Casazza, J. Lindenstrauss, and L. Tzafriri, Banach spaces with a unique unconditional basis, up to permutation, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 54 (1985), no. 322, iv+111. [5] P. G. Casazza and T. J. Shura, Tsirel′son’s space, Lecture Notes in Mathemat- ics, vol. 1363, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989. With an appendix by J. Baker, O. Slotterbeck and R. Aron. [6] A. Defant, J. A. L´opez-Molina, and M. J. Rivera, On Pitt’s theorem for opera- tors between scalar and vector-valued quasi-Banach sequence spaces, Monatsh. Math. 130 (2000), no. 1, 7–18. [7] I. S. Edel` ′ˇste˘ınand P. Wojtaszczyk, On projections and unconditional bases in direct sums of Banach spaces, Studia Math. 56 (1976), no. 3, 263–276. [8] T. Figiel, J. Lindenstrauss, and V. D. Milman, The dimension of almost spher- ical sections of convex bodies, Acta Math. 139 (1977), no. 1-2, 53–94. [9] W. B. Johnson, Banach spaces all of whose subspaces have the , Seminar on , 1979–1980 (French), 1980, pp. Exp. No. 16, 11. [10] T. Oikhberg and E. Spinu, Subprojective Banach spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 424 (2015), no. 1, 613–635. [11] A. Pelczy´nski, Projections in certain Banach spaces, Studia Math. 19 (1960), 209–228. [12] H. R. Pitt, A Note on Bilinear Forms, J. London Math. Soc. 11 (1936), no. 3, 174–180. [13] P. Wojtaszczyk, On projections and unconditional bases in direct sums of Ba- nach spaces. II, Studia Math. 62 (1978), no. 2, 193–201.

Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Sciences, and InaMat2, Universidad Publica´ de Navarra, Pamplona 31006, Spain Email address: [email protected] Department of Mathematics and Computer Sciences, Universidad de La Rioja, Logrono˜ 26004, Spain Email address: [email protected]