Show Summary Details
More options …

# Open Mathematics

### formerly Central European Journal of Mathematics

Editor-in-Chief: Gianazza, Ugo / Vespri, Vincenzo

1 Issue per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2016 (Open Mathematics): 0.682
IMPACT FACTOR 2016 (Central European Journal of Mathematics): 0.489

CiteScore 2016: 0.62

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.454
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.850

Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) 2016: 0.23

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2391-5455
See all formats and pricing
More options …

# A Riesz representation theory for completely regular Hausdorff spaces and its applications

Marian Nowak
• Faculty of Mathematics, Computer Science and Econometrics, University of Zielona Góra, ul. Szafrana 4A, 65-516 Zielona Góra, Poland
• Email
• Other articles by this author:
Published Online: 2016-07-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/math-2016-0043

## Abstract

Let X be a completely regular Hausdorff space, E and F be Banach spaces. Let Cb(X, E) be the space of all E-valued bounded, continuous functions on X, equipped with the strict topology β. We develop the Riemman-Stieltjes-type Integral representation theory of (β, || · ||F) -continuous operators T : Cb(X, E) → F with respect to the representing Borel operator measures. For X being a k-space, we characterize strongly bounded (β, || · ||F)-continuous operators T : Cb(X, E) → F. As an application, we study (β, || · ||F)-continuous weakly compact and unconditionally converging operators T : Cb(X, E) → F. In particular, we establish the relationship between these operators and the corresponding Borel operator measures given by the Riesz representation theorem. We obtain that if X is a k-spaceand E is reflexive, then (Cb(X, E), β) has the V property of Pełczynski.

MSC 2010: 46G10; 46E40; 46A70; 28A32

## 1 Introduction and terminology

Throughout the paper let .E, || · ||E) and (F, || · ||F) be Banach spaces, and let E′ and F′ denote the Banach duals of E and F, respectively. By BF and BE we denote the closed unit ball In F and E, respectively. By 𝓛(E, F) we denote the space of all bounded linear operators from E to F. Given a locally convex space (Z, ξ) by (Z, ξ)′ or ${Z}_{\xi }^{\prime }$ we will denote its topological dual. We denote by σ(Z, ${Z}_{\xi }^{\prime }$) the weak topology on Z with respect to a dual pair 〈Z, ${Z}_{\xi }^{\prime }$〉. Let us recall that (Z, ξ) is a generalized DF-space, if Z has a countable fundamental family {Bn : n ∈ ℕ} of absolutely convex ξ-bounded subsets and if ξ is the finest locally convex topology on Z which agrees with ξ on each Bn.

Assume that (X, 𝓣) is a completely regular Hausdorff space. By 𝓚(X) (resp. 𝓕(X) we will denote the family of all compact (resp. finite) sets In X. Let Cb(X, E) stand for the space of all bounded continuous functions f : XE. By τc (resp. τs ) we denote the topology on Cb(X, E) of uniform convergence on all K𝓚(X) (resp. on all M ∈ 𝓕(X)). By τu we denote the topology on Cb(X, E) of the uniform norm || · ||. By Cb(X, E)′ we denote the Banach dual of Cb(X, E). For fCb(X, E) we will write $\stackrel{˜}{f}\left(t\right)={‖f\left(t\right)‖}_{E}$ for tX.

Let Crc(X, E) denote the subspace of Cb(X, E) consisting of those functions h such that h(X) is relatively compact.

Let Cb(X) ⊗ E stand for the linear space spanned by the set of all functions of the form ux, where uCb(X), xE, and (ux)(t) = u(t)x for tX.

By 𝓑o we denote the σ-algebraof Borel sets In X. By 𝓢(𝓑o, E) we denote the set of all E-valued 𝓑o-simple functions on X. Let B(𝓑o, E) stand for the Banach space of all totally 𝓑o-measurable functions g : XE, equipped with the uniform norm || · || (see [13]). Then we have (see [3, Proposition 1]):

$Cb(X)⊗E⊂Crc(X,E)⊂B(𝓑o,E).$

Different classes of strict topologies βz, where z = σ, ∞, p, τ, t, on the spaces Cb(X), Crc(X, E), Cb(X, E) are of importance In the topological measure theory and have been studied In numerous papers (see [415]). Then

$τc⊂βt⊂βτ⊂β∞⊂βσ⊂τu and βt⊂βp⊂βσ.$

In this paper, we will consider the strict topology βt on Cb(X, E) that is also denoted by β(see [7, 8]) and by βo (see [5, 11]). It is known that if X is locally compact, then the strict βt coincides with the original topology β of Buck(see[4]).

From now on, following [4, 7] and [8] we use a symboll β Instead of βt (or βo) and simply call β a strict topology.

Now we collect basic concepts and facts concerning the strict topology β and the weak strict topology δ on Cb(X, E).

Let 𝓥β (resp. 𝓥δ) stand for the set of all bounded functions υ : X → [0, ∞) such that for every ε > 0, {tX : υ(t) ≥ } ∈ 𝓚(X) (resp. {tX : υ(t) ≥ } ∈ 𝓕(X)). The strict topology β (resp. weak strict topology δ) on Cb(X, E) is generated by the family of seminorms: pυ(f) = suptX υ(t)||f(t)||E for fCb(X, E), where υ𝓥β (resp. υ ∈ 𝓥δ). Then β (resp. δ) can be characterized as the finest locally convex topology on Cb(X, E) which coincides with τc (resp. τs) on τu-bounded subsets of Cb(X, E) (see [7, 11, 13]). The topologies δ, β and τu have the same bounded subsets(see [7, Theorem 3.4], [13]). This means that (Cb(X, E), β) and (Cb(X, E), δ) are generalized DF-spaces (see [11], [13, Corollary]); equivalently, β (resp. δ) coincides with the mixed topology γ[τu, τc] (resp. γ[τu, τs]) In the sense of Wiweger (see [16, 17] for more details). We have τsδβτu and τcβ and Cb(X) ⊗ E is β-dense In Cb(X, E) (see [11]). It is known that ${C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime }$ (resp. ${C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\delta }^{\prime }$) is equal to the closure of ${C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\tau c}^{\prime }$ (resp. ${C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{{\tau }_{s}}^{\prime }$) In the Banach space (Cb(X, E)′, || · ||) (see [17, Proposition 1]). Moreover, a sequence (fn) In Cb(X, E) is convergent to 0 for β (resp. δ) if and only if supn||fn|| < ∞ and fn → 0 for τc (resp. for τs) (see [17, Proposition 1]). Note that δ = β if and only if 𝓚(X) ⊂ 𝓕(X) (see [12, Proposition 3.2]).

If X is a locally compact Hausdorff space, by Co(X, E) (resp. Cc(X, E)) we denote the space of all continuous functions f : XE vanishing at Infinity (resp. with a compact support), equipped with the uniform norm.

For X being a compact Hausdorff space (resp. a locally compact Hausdorff space) and E, F being locally convex spaces (in particular, Banach spaces), the problem of an Integral representation of bounded linear operators from C(X, E) (resp. Co(X, E) and Cc(X, E)) to F In terms of their representing measures m : 𝓑o → 𝓛(E, F″) has been studied by Foias and Singer [18], Dinculeanu [1, 2], Goodrich [19], Dobrakov [20] and Shuchat [3]. Different classes of operators on C(X, E) have been studied intensively; see [1, 2], [2032]. The study of the relationship between operators and their representing operator measures is a central problem in the theory.

Linear operators from the spaces Crc(X, E) and Cb(X, E), equipped with the strict topologies βz (z = σ, ∞, τ) to a locally convex space (F, ξ) were studied by Katsaras and Liu ([33]), Aguayo-Garrido and Nova-Yanéz (see [34, 35]). In particular, Katsaras and Liu found an integral representation of weakly compact operators S : Crc(X, E) → F and characterizations of (βz, ξ)-continuous and weakly compact operators S : Crc(X, E) → F for z = σ, τ (see [33]). Aguayo-Arrido and Nova-Yanéz derived a Riesz representation theorem for (βz, ξ)-continuous and weakly compact operators T : Cb(X, E) → F for z = ∞, τ in terms of their representing operator Baire measures (see [35, Theorems 5 and 6]).

In [36] we have developed a general theory of continuous linear operators from Cb(X, E), equipped with the strict topologies βz (where z = σ, ∞, p, τ, t) to a Banach space F. Next, in [37] In case Cb(X)E is assumed to be βσ-dense In Cb(X, E) (for example, if X has a σ-compact dense subset; resp. X is a D-space; resp. E is a D-space), we have studied different classes of (βσ, || · ||F)-continuous operators T : Cb(X, E) → F in terms of their representing Baire operator measures.

The main aim of this paper is to develop a Riesz Integral representation theory for (β, || · ||F)-continuous operators T : Cb(X, E) → F, where X is supposed to be a completely regular Hausdorff space. As an application, we extend to "the setting of completely regular spaces (in particular, k-spaces)" the classical results concerning operators on the spaces C(X, E) and Co(X, E), where X is a compact or a locally compact Hausdorff space. In Section ∈ we develop the duality theory of Cb(X, E), equipped with the strict topologies β and δ. In Section 3 using the device of embedding the space B(𝓑o, E) into ${C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{″}$ (= the bidual of (Cb(X, E), β)), the properties that Crc(X, E) ⊂ B(𝓑o, E) and Crc(X, E) is β-dense in Cb(X, E), we derive the integral representation of (β, || · ||F)-continuous operators T : Cb(X, E) → F by the Riemann-Stieltjes type integrals with respect to the representing measures m : 𝓑o → 𝓛(E, F") (see Theorem 3.2 below). In Section 4 using the Dieudonné-Grothendieck type criterion for relative weak compactness in the Banach space M(X) for X being a k-space (see Theorem 3.5), we characterize strongly bounded operators T : Cb(X, E) → F (see Theorems 4.1 and 4.3 below). In Section 5 we establish a Radon-type extension theorem for strongly bounded operators T : Cb(X, E) → F (see Theorem 5.2 below). In Section 6 we extend and generalize some classical result of Brooks and Lewis [26] concerning weakly compact operators on spaces of continuous vector-valued functions (see Theorem 6.2). In Section 7 we study unconditionally converging operators T : Cb(X, E) → F. As an application, we derive that if X is a k-space and E is reflexive, then (Cb(X, E), β) has the V property of Pełczynski (see Corollary 7.9 below).

In the present paper we study the Riemann-Stieltjes integration of bounded continuous functions with respect to Borel operator measures. This approach is very natural and has been used by many authors (see [9-11, 14, 1, 33]) and is different from the concept of integration developed by the present author in [36] and [37], where the integral of bounded continuous functions is defined as a βz-continuous extension of the so-called immediate integral of [1], [2, Sections G-H] (see [36, Lemma 6 and Theorem 9]).

## 2 Duality of Cb(X, E) with the strict topologies

Recall that a countably additive scalar measure ν on 𝓑o is said to be a regular if its variation | ν | : 𝓑o → ℝ+ is regular, i.e., for each A𝓑o,

$|ν|(A)=sup{|ν|(K):K∈K(X),K⊂A}=inf{|ν|(O):O∈𝓣,O⊃A}.$

By M(X) we denote the space of all countably additive regular scalar Borel measures.

Let M(X, E′) denote the space of all countably additive measures μ : 𝓑oE′ of bounded variation (|μ|(X) < ∞) such that for each xE, μxM(X), where μx(A) := μ(A)(x) for A ∈ 𝓑o. Then |μ| ∈ M(X) (see [8, Lemma 2.3]).

Assume that m : 𝓑o → 𝓛(E, F) is a vector measure. Then the semivariation $\stackrel{˜}{m}$ of m on A𝓑o is defined by $\stackrel{˜}{m}$(A) : = sup || ∑m(Ai)(xi)||F, where the supremum is taken over all finite 𝓑o-partitions (Ai) of A and xiBF for each i. For each y′F′ let

$my′(A)(x):=y′(m(A)(x)) for A∈𝓑o,x∈E.$

Then my′ : 𝓑oE′ and for A𝓑o, we have (see [1, § 4, Proposition 5])

$m˜(A)=sup{|my′|(A):y′∈BF′}.$

By M(X, 𝓛(E, F)) we denote the space of all measures m : 𝓑o → 𝓛(E, F) such that $\stackrel{˜}{m}$(X) < ∞ and for each y′F′, my′M(X, E′).

We say that mM(X, 𝓛(E, F)) has a regular semivariation if for every A𝓑o and ∊ > 0 there exist K𝓚(X) and O ∈ 𝓣 such that KAO and $\stackrel{˜}{m}$(O \ K) ≤ .

For A𝓑o let 𝒟A denote the collection of all 𝓐 = {A1, …, An; t1, …, tn}, where ${\left({A}_{i}\right)}_{i=1}^{n}$ is a 𝓑o-partition of A and tiAi for i = 1, …, n. For 𝓐1, 𝓐2𝓓A define 𝓐1𝓐2 if each set which appears in 𝓐1 is contained in some 𝓐2. in this way 𝓓A becomes a directed set.

Assume that mM(X, 𝓛(E, F)). Then for fCb(X, E) and 𝓐 = {𝓐1,..., 𝓐n; t1,..., tn} ∈ 𝓓A we will write ${\text{𝓢}}_{\text{𝓐}}\left(f\right):={\sum }_{i=1}^{n}m\left({A}_{i}\right)\left(f\left({t}_{i}\right)\right)$. Following [19, Definition 2], we have a definition.

We say that fCb(X, E) is m-integrable over A𝓑o provided there exists yAF such that given ∊ > 0 there exists a finite 𝓑o-partition 𝓟 of A such that $‖yA−∑i=1nm(Ai)(f(ti))‖F≤ε$

if {A1, …, An} is any 𝓑o-partition of A refining 𝓟 and {t1, …, tn} is any choice of points of A such that tiAi for i = 1, …, n. Then ∫A f dm := yA will be called a Riemann-Stieltjes integral of f with respect to m over A𝓑o.

Assume that mM(X, 𝓛(E, F)) has the regular semivariation. Then the following statements hold:

1. Every fCb(X, E) is m-integrable over all A𝓑o.

2. For each fCb(X, E) and A𝓑o, y′(∫A f dm) = ∫A f dm y′ for y′ ∈ F′:

Proof. (i) Let fCb(X, E) and A𝓑o. We will show that f is m-integrable over A. Indeed, let η > 0 be given, and $\epsilon =\frac{\eta }{4\stackrel{˜}{m}\left(X\right)}$. Then there exists K𝓚(X) with KA such that ${\mathrm{sup}}_{{y}^{\prime }\in {B}_{{F}^{\prime }}}|{m}_{{y}^{\prime }}|\left(A\K\right)\le \frac{\eta }{8‖f‖}$.

For each tA let Wt = {sX : ||f(s) – f(t)||E < ∊}. Hence there exists a set {t1, …, tn} in A such that $K\subset {\cup }_{i=1}^{n}{W}_{{t}_{i}}$ Let $V={\cup }_{i=1}^{n}{V}_{{t}_{i}}$, where Vti = WtiA for i = 1, …, n. Then V𝓑o and ${\mathrm{sup}}_{{y}^{\prime }\in {B}_{{F}^{\prime }}}|{m}_{{y}^{\prime }}|\left(A\V\right)\le \frac{\eta }{8‖f‖}$. Define ${A}_{1}={V}_{{t}_{1}},{A}_{i}={V}_{{t}_{i}}\{\cup }_{j=1}^{i-1}{V}_{{t}_{j}}$ for i = 2,...,n and An+1 = A \ V. Then $V={\cup }_{i=1}^{n}{A}_{i}$ and ti ∈ 𝓓A, for i = 1,..., n and let tn+1An+1. Hence 𝓐 = {A1,..., An, An+1; t1,..., tn, tn+1) ∈ 𝓓A. Let 𝓐1, 𝓐2𝓓A and 𝓐1 ≥ 𝓐, 𝓐2 ≥ 𝓐, where 𝓐1 = {B1,...,Bp,s1,...,sp} and 𝓐2 = {C1,..., Cq;τ1,…, τq}.

Then we have

$‖S𝓐ε(f)−S𝓐1(f)‖F=‖∑i=1n+1m(Ai)(f(ti))−∑j=1pm(Bj)(f(sj))‖F≤‖∑i=1n∑j∈Jim(Bj)(f(ti))−∑j=1pm(Bj)(f(sj))‖F+‖m(An+1)(f(tn+1))−∑j∈Jn+1m(Bj)(f(sj))‖F≤ε‖∑i=1n∑j∈Jim(Bj)(f(ti)−f(sj)ε)‖F+supy′∈BF′|∑j∈Jn+1my′(Bj)(f(tn+1)−f(sj))|≤εm˜(X)+2‖f‖supy′∈BF′∑j∈Jn+1|my′(Bj)(f(tn+1)−f(sj)2‖f‖)|≤εm˜(X)+2‖f‖supy′∈BF′|my′|(An+1)≤η4+η4=η2.$

Similarly, we get ${‖{S}_{{\text{𝓐}}_{\epsilon }}\left(f\right)-{S}_{{\text{𝓐}}_{2}}\left(f\right)‖}_{F}\le \frac{\eta }{2}$, and hence

$‖S𝓐1(f)−S𝓐2(f)‖F≤‖S𝓐ε(f)−S𝓐1(f)‖F+‖S𝓐ε(f)−S𝓐2(f)‖F≤η.$

It follows that (S𝓐(f)) is a Cauchy net in (F, || · ||F) and hence the integral ∫A f dm := lim𝓐 S𝓐(f) exists in F.

Note that for each y′ ∈ F' and 𝓐 = {A1,..., An, t1,..., tn} ∈ 𝓓A, we have ${y}^{\prime }\left({\text{𝓢}}_{\text{𝓐}}\left(f\right)\right)={\sum }_{i=1}^{n}{m}_{{y}^{\prime }}\left({A}_{i}\right)\left(f\left({t}_{i}\right)\right)$ and ∫A f dmy = lim𝓐 y′(𝓢𝓐(f)). Hence, we get

$y′∫!Afdm=limA⁡y′SAf=∫Afdmy′.$

In particular, if μM(X, E′), then every fCb(X, E) is μ-integrable over all A ∈ 𝓑o and one can easily show that

$|∫Af dμ|≤∫Af˜d|μ|≤‖f‖⋅|μ|(A).$(1)

Note that the equation Φμ(f) = ∫X f dμ for fCb(X, E), defines a β-continuous linear functional on Cb(X, E). Indeed, let (fα) be a net in Cb(X, E) such that fα → 0 for β. Then ${\stackrel{˜}{f}}_{\alpha }\to 0$ for β in Cb(X) and since |μ| ∈ M(X), we get ${\int }_{X}{\stackrel{˜}{f}}_{\alpha }d|\mu |\to 0$ (see [10, Lemma 4.2]). By (1) we obtain that Φμ(fα) → 0, as desired.

Conversely, assume that Φ is a β-continuous linear functional on Cb(X, E). Then by [8, Theorem 3.2] there exists a unique μM(X, E′) such that Φ(h) = X h dμ for hCrc(X, E): Since Crc(X, E) is β-dense in Cb(X, E), we obtain that Φ(f) = Φμ(f) =∫X f dμ for fCb(X, E).

Now we can state the following characterization of (β, || · ||F)-continuous functionals on Cb(X, E).

For a linear functional Φ on Cb(X, E) the following statements are equivalent:

1. Φ is β-continuous.

2. There exists a unique μM(X, E′) such that $Φ(f)=Φμ(f)=∫Xfdμ for f∈Cb(X,E).$

We will use the following topological result: if ${\left({K}_{i}\right)}_{i=1}^{n}$ are disjoint compact sets in X, then there are disjoint open sets ${\left({O}_{i}\right)}_{i=1}^{n}$ with KiOi for i = 1, …, n, and one can choose υiCb(X) with 0 ≤ υi ≤ 𝟙X such that υi|Ki. ≡ 1 and υi|X\Oi. ≡ 0 (see [38, Theorem 3.1.6 and Theorem 3.1.7]).

The following lemma will be useful.

Assume that μM(X, E′). Then for A𝓑o, $|μ|(A)=sup{|∫Ah dμ|:h∈Cb|(X)⊗E, ‖h‖=1}=sup{|∫Af dμ|:f∈Cb(X,E), ‖f‖≤1}.$(2)

Moreover, for O ∈ 𝓣, we have $|μ|(O)=sup{|∫Oh dμ|:h∈Cb(X)⊗E, ‖h‖=1 and supp h⊂O}=sup|∑i=1n∫X(ui⊗xi)dμ|,$(3)

where the supremum is taken over finite disjointly supported collections {u1, …, un} in Cb(X) with ||ui|| = 1 and supp uiO and {x1, …, xn} ⊂ BE.

Proof. Let A ∈ 𝓑o. Then for fCb(X, E), ||f|| ≤ 1, by (1) we have $|{\int }_{A}f\text{\hspace{0.17em}}d\mu |\le {\int }_{A}\stackrel{˜}{f\text{\hspace{0.17em}}}d|\mu |\le |\mu |\left(A\right)$. On the other hand, let > 0 be given. Then there exist a finite 𝓑o-partition ${\left({A}_{i}\right)}_{i=1}^{n}$ of A and xiBE, i = 1, …, n such that

$|μ|(A)−ε3≤|∑i=1nμ(Ai)(xi)|=|∑i=1nμxi(Ai)|.$

By the regularity of μxiM(X) for i = 1,...,n, we can choose Ki ∈ 𝓚(X), KiAi such that $|{\mu }_{{x}_{i}}|\left({A}_{i}\{K}_{i}\right)\le \frac{\epsilon }{3n}$ for i = 1, …, n. Choose pairwise disjoint Oi ∈ 𝓣 with KiOi for i = 1, …, n such that $|{\mu }_{{x}_{i}}|\left({O}_{i}\{K}_{i}\right)\le \frac{\epsilon }{3n}$. Then for i = 1,...,n we can choose υiCb(X) with 0 ≤ υi ≤ 𝟙X, υi|Ki ≡ 1, υi|X\Oi 0.

Define ${h}_{o}={\sum }_{i=1}^{n}\left({\upsilon }_{i}\otimes {x}_{i}\right)$.Then ||ho|| = 1 and

$∫Aho dμ=∑i=1n∫Aυi dμxi=∑i=1n∫Oi∩Aυi dμxi.$

Hence we get, $|μ|(A)−ε3≤|∑i=1nμxi(Ai)−∑i=1nμxi(Ki)|+|∑i=1n∫Kiυi dμxi−∑i=1n∫Oi∩Aυi dμxi|+|∫Aho dμ|≤∑i=1n|μxi|(Ai\Ki)+∑i=1n|μxi|(Oi\Ki)+|∫Aho dμ|≤ε3+ε3+|∫Aho dμ|$

and hence |μ|(A) ≤ | A hod μ| +∊. Thus the proof of (2) is complete.

Assume that O ∈ 𝓣. Let Vi = OiO for i = 1,...,n. Then $|{\mu }_{{x}_{i}}|\left({V}_{i}\{K}_{i}\right)\le |{\mu }_{{x}_{i}}|\left({O}_{i}\{K}_{i}\right)\le \frac{\epsilon }{3n}$ for i = 1,...,n. For i = 1,...,n choose μiCb(X) with 0 ≤ μi, ≤ 𝟙X, μi|Ki. ≡ 1, μi|X\Vi 0. Let ${h}_{0}={\sum }_{i=1}^{n}\left({u}_{i}\otimes {x}_{i}\right)$. Then ||ho|| = 1 and supp hoO, and hence by (2), |μ|(O) ≤ |∫O h0 |+ ∊. Note that ${\int }_{O}{h}_{0}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}d\mu ={\sum }_{i=1}^{n}{\int }_{X}{u}_{i}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}d{\mu }_{{x}_{i}}$, where supp μi are pairwise disjoint and supp μiO for i = 1, …,n. Thus (3) holds. □

From Lemma 2.5 it follows that if μM(X, E′), then

$|μ|(X)=‖Φμ‖.$(4)

Since ${C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime }$ : a closed subset of the Banach space (Cb(X, E)′, || · ||), in view of Theorem 2.4 and (4) we obtain that M(X, E′), equipped with the norm ||μ|| = |μ|(X) is a Banach space. It follows that M(X, E′) is a closed subspace of the Banach space cabv(𝓑o; E′).

For a subset 𝓜 of M(X, E′) the following statements are equivalent:

1. μ : μ𝓜} is a β-equicontinuous subset of ${C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime }$.

2. supμ∈𝓜|μ|(X) < ∞ and for every ∊ > 0 there exists K ∈ 𝓚(X) such that supμ∈𝓜|μ|(X \ K) ≤ .

3. supμ∈𝓜|μ|(X) < ∞ and for every ∊ > 0 there exists K𝓚(X) such that supμ∈𝓜|∫X f dμ∊ if fCb(X, E) with ||f|| ≤ 1 and f|K 0.

Proof. (i) ⇔ (ii) See [15, Lemma 2].

(ii) ⇔ (iii) It follows from Lemma 2.5.

Schmets and Zafarani developed the duality theory of Cb(X), equipped with the weak strict topology δ (see [12, Theorem 4.1 and Proposition 4.2]). Now we extend these results to the vector-valued setting.

For tX and x′E′, let δt,x′(f) := x′(f(t)) for fCb(X, E). Then δt,x is a τs-continuous linear functional and ||δt,x|| = ||x′||E. By Theorem 2.4 there exists a unique μt,xM(X, E′) such that

$δt,x′(f)=∫Xf dμt,x′ for f∈Cb(X,E).$

Then t, x′|(X) = ||δt,x|| and using Lemma 2.5, we get |μt, x|(X \ {t}) = 0. Hence |μt, x|({t}) = ||x'||E' and μt,x'({t}) = x′. It follows that μt, x' is concentrated on {t}, that is, for A𝓑o,

$μt,x′(A)=𝟙A(t)x′ and|μt,x′|(A)=𝟙A(t)‖x′‖E′.$

Let C(X, E) stand for the space of all continuous functions f : XE, equipped with the topology τs of simple convergence. It is known that (C(X, E), τs)' = Lin{δt, x′ : tX, x'E'}, where δt,x'(f) = x'(f(t)) for fC(X, E) (see [39], [40, Section 1]). Since Cb(X, E) is dense in (C(X, E), τs) (see [41, Theorem 1.5.3]), we get

$(Cb(X,E),τs)′=Lin{δt,x′:t∈X,x′∈E′}.$

Let υ𝓥δ. Then for a linear functional Φ on Cb(X, E) the following statements are equivalent:

1. There exist a > 0 such that |Φ(f)| ≤ apυ(f) for fCb(X, E).

2. There exist a sequence (tn) in X and $\left({x}_{n}^{\prime }\right)\in {\ell }^{1}\left({E}^{\prime }\right)$ such that $Φ(f)=∑n=1∞υ(tn)xn′(f(tn))=∑n=1∞υ(tn)∫Xf dμtn,xn′.$

Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii) Assume that (i) holds. Then there exists a sequence (tn) in X such that $\upsilon \left(t\right)={\sum }_{n=𝟙}^{\infty }\upsilon \left({t}_{n}\right){1}_{\left\{{t}_{n}\right\}}\left(t\right)$ for t ∈ X, where υ(tn) → 0. Let

$L:={(υ(tn)f(tn)):f∈Cb(X,E)}.$

Note that Lco(E), where co(E) is equipped with the supremum norm || · ||. Define a functional Ψυ on L by Ψυ((υ(tn)f(tn))) := Φ(f). Then Ψυ is a || · ||-continuous linear functional and ||Ψυ|| ≤ a. Hence by the Hahn-Banach theorem there exists a || · ||-continuous linear extension Ψυ on co(E) of Ψυ such that ||Ψυ|| = ||Ψυ||. It follows that there exists $\left({x}_{n}^{\prime }\right)$ in 1(E′) such that $\overline{{\text{Ψ}}_{\upsilon }}\left(\left({x}_{n}\right)\right)={\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }{x}_{n}^{\prime }\left({x}_{n}\right)$ for (xn) ∈ co(E) and $‖\overline{{\text{Ψ}}_{\upsilon }}‖={\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }{‖{x}_{n}^{\prime }‖}_{{E}^{\prime }}\le a$. Then for fCb(X,E),

$Φ(f)=Ψυ¯((υ(tn)f(tn)))=∑n=1∞υ(tn)xn′(f(tn))=∑n=1∞υ(tn)∫Xf dμtn,xn′.$

(ii) ⇒ (i) Assume that (ii) holds. Then for fCb(X, E),

$|Φ(f)|≤∑n=1∞υ(tn)‖f(tn)‖E‖xn′‖E′≤(∑n=1∞‖xn′‖E′)pυ(f).$

A measure μM(X, E′) is called discrete if for every ∊ > 0 there exists M𝓕(X) such that |μ|(X \ M) ≤ ∊ : By Md(X, E′) we will denote the subspace of M(X, E′) of all discrete measures.

For a linear functional Φ on Cb(X, E) the following statements are equivalent:

1. Φ : δ-continuous.

2. There exists a unique μMd(X, E′) such that $Φ(f)=Φμ(f)=∫Xf dμ for f∈ Cb(X,E).$

Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii) Assume that $\text{Φ}\in {C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\delta }^{\prime }$. Then there exist υ𝓥δ and a > 0 such that |Φ(f)| ≤ apυ(f) for fCb(X, E). By Lemma 2.8 there is a sequence (tn) in X and $\left({x}_{n}^{\prime }\right)\in {\ell }^{1}\left({E}^{\prime }\right)$ with ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }{‖{x}_{n}^{\prime }‖}_{{E}^{\prime }}\le a$ such that $\text{Φ}\left(f\right)={\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }\upsilon \left({t}_{n}\right){x}_{n}^{\prime }\left(f\left({t}_{n}\right)\right)$ for fCb(X, E). Since

$∑n=1∞‖υ(tn)μtn,xn′‖=∑n=1∞υ(tn)‖xn′‖E′≤(∑n=1∞‖xn′‖E′)supnυ(tn)<∞,$

we see that $\mu ={\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }\upsilon \left({t}_{n}\right){\mu }_{{t}_{n},{x}_{n}^{\prime }}\in M\left(X,{E}^{\prime }\right)$. It follows that for fCb(X, E),

$∫Xf dμ=∑n=1∞υ(tn)∫Xf dμtn,xn′=∑n=1∞υ(tn)xn′(f(tn))=Φ(f).$

Let ∊ > 0 be given. Choose n ∈ ℕ such that ${\sum }_{n={n}_{\epsilon }+1}^{\infty }\upsilon \left({t}_{n}\right){‖{x}_{n}^{\prime }‖}_{{E}^{\prime }}\le \epsilon$. Hence for M = {t1,..., tn} by Lemma 2.5, we get

$|μ|(X\Mε)={|∑n=nε+1∞υ(tn)xn′(f(tn))|:f∈Cb(X,E),‖f‖≤1, supp f⊂X\Mε} ≤∑n=nε+1∞υ(tn)‖x′‖E′≤ε.$

This means that μMd(X, E′) and Φ(f) = X f dμ for fCb(X, E).

(ii) ⇒ (i) Assume that (ii) holds. Then we can choose a sequence (Mn) in 𝓕(X) such that MnMn+1 for n ∈ ℕ and |μ|(X \ Mn) ≤ 2–2n. Let $\upsilon \left(t\right)={\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }{2}^{-n}{1}_{{M}_{n}}\left(t\right)$ for tX. Then υ𝓥δ. Assume that fCb(X, E) and pυ(f) = suptXυ(t)||f(t)||E ≤ 1. Then sup{||f(t)||E : tMn+1 \ Mn} ≤ 2n and sup{||f(t)||E : tM1} ≤ 1. Note that $|\mu |\left(X\{\cup }_{n=1}^{\infty }{M}_{n}\right)=0$, so ${\int }_{X\{\cup }_{n=1}^{\infty }{M}_{n}}\stackrel{˜}{f}d|\mu |=0$. Hence

$|Φμ(f)|=|∫Xfdμ|≤∫∪n=1∞Mnf˜d|μ|=∫M1f˜d|μ|+∑n=1∞∫Mn+1\Mnf˜d|μ|≤|μ|(X)+1.$

It follows that |Φμ(f) ≤ (|μ|(X) + 1)pυ(f) for fCb(X, E), i.e.,${\text{Φ}}_{\mu }\in {C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\delta }^{\prime }$. □

For a subset 𝓜 of Md(X, E′) the following statements are equivalent:

1. μ : μ ∈ 𝓜} is a δ-equicontinuous subset of ${C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\delta }^{\prime }$.

2. supμ∈𝓜 |μ|(X) < ∞ and for every ∊ > 0 there exists M ∈ 𝓕(X) such that supμ𝓜|∫X f dμ|∊ for every fCb(X, E) with ||f|| ≤ 1 and f|M 0.

3. supμ∈𝓜 |μ|(X) < ∞ and for every ∊ > 0 there exists M ∈ 𝓕(X) such that supμ∈𝓜 |μ|(X \ M) ≤ .

Proof (i) ⇒ (ii) Assume that (i) holds. Then supμ∈𝓜 |μ|(X) = supμ∈𝓜 ||Φμ|| < ∞ because δβτu. Moreover, there exist υ𝓥δ and a > 0 such that supμ∈𝓜 |∫Xf dμ| ≤ apυ(f) for all fCb(X, E). Hence in view of the proof of Lemma 2.8 there exists a sequence (tn) in X with υ(tn) → 0 and for each μ ∈ 𝓜 there exists $\left({x}_{\mu ,n}^{\prime }\right)\in {\ell }^{1}\left({E}^{\prime }\right)$ with ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }{‖{x}_{\mu ,n}^{\prime }‖}_{{E}^{\prime }}\le a$ such that

$Φμ(f)=∫Xf dμ=∑n=1∞υ(tn)xμ,n′(f(tn)) for f∈Cb(X,E).$

Let > 0 be given. Choose n ∈ ℕ such that $\upsilon \left({t}_{n}\right)\le \frac{\epsilon }{a}$ for nn. Hence for each μ𝓜, ${\sum }_{n={n}_{\epsilon }+1}^{\infty }\upsilon \left({t}_{n}\right){‖{x}_{\mu ,n}^{\prime }‖}_{{E}^{\prime }}\le \epsilon$. Let fCb(X, E) with ||f|| ≤ 1 and f|M 0, where M = {t1, , tn). Then for every μ ∈ 𝓜,

$|∫Xf dμ|=|∑n=nε+1∞υ(tn)xμ,n′(f(tn))|≤∑n=nε+1∞υ(tn)‖xμ,n′‖E′≤ε.$

(ii) ⇒ (iii) Assume that (ii) holds. By Lemma 2.5 for μ𝓜 and M ∈ 𝓕(X),

$|μ|(X\M)=sup{|∫Xf dμ|:f∈Cb(X,E) with ‖f‖≤1,supp f⊂X\M}.$

It follows that (iii) holds.

(iii) ⇒ (i) Assume that (iii) holds. Then there exists a sequence (Mn) in 𝓕(X) such that MnMn+1 and sup{|μ|(X \ Mn) : μ𝓜} ≤ 2–2n. Let $\upsilon \left(t\right):={\sum }_{n=𝟙}^{\infty }{2}^{-n}{1}_{{M}_{n}}\left(t\right)$ for tX. Then υ𝓥δ. Assume that fCb(X, E) and pυ(f) = suptX υ(t)||f(t)||E ≤ 1. Then sup{||f(t)||E : tMn+1 \ Mn} ≤ 2n, sup{||f(t)E : tM1} ≤ 1 and for every μ ∈ 𝓜, we get

$|Φμ(f)|≤∫Xf˜d|μ|=∫M1f˜d|μ|+∑n=1∞∫Mn+1\Mnf˜d|μ|≤|μ|(X)+1.$

Let supμ∈𝓜 |μ|(X) = a. Then for fCb(X, E) and every μ ∈ 𝓜, we have |Φμ (f)| ≤ (a + 1)pυ (f), and it follows that (i) holds. □

## 3 A Riesz representation theory of operators onCb(X, E)

Let ${C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{″}$ denote the bidual of (Cb(X, E), β). Since β-bounded subsets of Cb(X, E) are τu-bounded, the strong topology $\beta \left({C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime },{C}_{b}\left(X,E\right)\right)$ in ${C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime }$ coincides with the norm topology in Cb(X, E)′ restricted to ${C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime }$. Hence ${C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{″}={\left({C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime },‖\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\cdot \text{\hspace{0.17em}}‖\right)}^{\prime }$.

Assume that T : Cb(X, E) → F is a (β, || · ||F)-continuous operator. Let ${T}^{\prime }:{F}^{\prime }\to {C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime }$ and ${T}^{″}:{C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{″}\to {F}^{″}$ stand for the conjugate and the biconjugate operators of T, respectively, i.e., T′(y′) := y′ ◦ T for y′ ∈ F', and T"(Ψ)(y′) := Ψ(y′ ◦ T) for $\text{Ψ}\in {C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{″}\left(={\left({C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime },‖\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\cdot \text{\hspace{0.17em}}‖\right)}^{\prime }\right)$ and y′ ∈ F′.

Then one can embed B(𝓑o, E) into ${C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{″}$ by the mapping $\pi :B\left(\text{𝓑}o,E\right)\to {C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{″}$, where for gB(𝓑o, E),

$π(g)(Φμ)=(I)∫Xg dμ for μ∈M(X,E′),$

and (I) X g dμ denotes the so-called immediate integral (see [1, 2]). Then

$|π(g)(Φμ)|=|(I)∫Xg dμ|≤‖g‖ |μ|(X)=‖g‖ ‖Φμ‖$

and hence π is bounded and ||π(g)|| ≤ ||g||. One can easily show that

$‖T′(y′)‖≤‖T‖ ‖y′‖F′ and ‖T″(Ψ)‖F″≤‖T‖ ‖Ψ‖,$

where $‖\text{Ψ}‖=\mathrm{sup}\left\{|\text{Ψ}\left(\text{Φ}\right)|:\text{Φ}\in {C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime },\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}‖\text{Φ}‖\le 1\right\}$. Then T and T″ are bounded operators, and we define a bounded operator by:

$T^:=T″∘π:B(𝓑o,E)→F″.$

Define a measure m : 𝓑o → 𝓛(E, F") (called the representing measure of T) by

$m(A)(x):=T^(𝟙A⊗x)for A∈𝓑o,x∈E.$

For each y′F′, let

$my′(A)(x):=(m(A)(x))(y′) for A∈𝓑o,x∈E.$

Then my : 𝓑oE′ and by [1, § 4, Proposition 5] for A ∈ 𝓑o we have,

$m˜(A)=sup{|my′|(A):y′∈BF′}.$

Then $\stackrel{^}{T}$ admits an integral representation by the so-called immediate integral (I) X g dm, developed by Foias and Singer [18] and Dinculeanu [1, § 6], [2, § 1], that is,

$T^(g)=(I)∫Xg dm:=limn(I)∫Xsn d m for g∈B(𝓑o,E),$

where (sn) is a sequence in 𝓢(𝓑o, E) such that ||sn – g || → 0. Then for y′F′,

$T^(g)(y′)=((I)∫Xg d m)(y′)=(I)∫Xg d my′ for g∈B(𝓑o,E).$

Let iF : FF″ denote the canonical embedding, i.e., iF(y)(y′) = y′(y) for yF, y′F′. Moreover, let jF : iF(F) → F stand for the left inverse of iF, that is, jF ◦ iF = idF.

From the general properties of the operator $\stackrel{^}{T}$ for hCrc(X, E) we have,

$T^(Crc(X,E))⊂iF(F) and T(h)=jF(T^(h))=jF((I)∫Xh d m).$(5)

Hence for each y′F′, we get

$y′(T(h))=T^(h)(y′)=(I)∫Xh d my′ for h∈Crc(X,E).$(6)

By M(X, 𝓛(E, F″)) we denote the space of all measures m : 𝓑o → 𝓛(E, F″) such that $\stackrel{˜}{m}$(X) < ∞ and for each y′F′, myM(X, E′).

We say that mM(X, 𝓛(E, F″)) has the tight semivariation if for every ∊ > 0 there exists K𝓚(X) such that $\stackrel{˜}{m}$(X \ K) ≤ .

Now we can state the following Riesz representation theorem for operators on Cb(X, E).

Assume that T : Cb(X, E) → F is a (β, || · ||F)-continuous operator and m is its representing measure. Then the following statements hold:

1. mM(X, 𝓛(E, F″)).

2. For each y′ ∈ F′, y′(T(f)) = ∫X f dmy′ for fCb(X, E).

3. The mapping F'y′ ↦ myM(X, E′) is (σ(F', F), σ(M(X, E′), Cb(X, E)))-continuous.

4. m has the tight semivariation.

5. For every ∊ > 0 there exists K𝓚(X) such that ||T(f)||F∊ if fCb(X, E) with ||f|| ≤ 1 and f|K 0.

6. $\stackrel{˜}{m}$(X) = ||T||.

7. Every fCb(X, E) is m-integrable over X in the Riemann-Stieltjes sense and for y′F′, $(∫Xf dm)(y′)=∫Xf dmy′.$

8. X h d m = (I)X h d m for hCrc(X, E).

9. For fCb(X, E), X f d miF(F) and T(f) = jF(X f d m).

Conversely, assume that a measure mM(X, 𝓛(E, F″)) satisfies the conditions (iii) and (iv). Then there exists a unique (β, || · ||F)-continuous operator T : Cb(X, E) → F such that (ii), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii) and (ix) hold and m coincides with the representing measure of T.

Proof. For y′F′, we have $\left({y}^{\prime }\circ T\right)\left(f\right)={\int }_{X}f{d}_{{\mu }_{{y}^{\prime }\circ T}}$ for fCb(X, E), where μy◦TM(X, E) (see Theorem 2.4). Then for A𝓑o and xE we have

$my′(A)(x)=(m(A)(x))(y′)=T^(𝟙A⊗x)(y′)=π(𝟙A⊗x)(y′∘T) =π(𝟙A⊗x)(Φμy′∘T)=(I)∫X(𝟙A⊗x)dμy′∘T=μy′∘T(A)(x),$

i.e., my′ = μy′◦TM(X, E′). Since $\stackrel{˜}{m}\left(X\right)=‖\stackrel{^}{T}‖<\infty$ (see [1, §9, Theorem 1]), the condition (i) holds. Moreover, y′(T(f)) = ∫X f dmy′ for fCb(X, E), i.e., (ii) holds. Using (i) and (ii) we easily obtain that (iii) holds. Since the family {y′ ◦ T : y′BF′} is β-equicontinuous, by Corollary 2.7 and (ii) for every > 0 there exists K𝓚(X) such that $\stackrel{˜}{m}\left(X\K\right)={\mathrm{sup}}_{{y}^{\prime }\in {B}_{{F}^{\prime }}}|{m}_{{y}^{\prime }}|\left(X\K\right)\le \epsilon$ and this means that (iv) holds. Then by (iv), (ii) and Lemma 2.5 we easily obtain that (v) holds. Using (ii) and Lemma 2.5, we have

$‖T‖=sup{|∫Xf dmy′|:f∈Cb(X,E),‖f‖≤𝟙,y′∈BF′}=sup{|my′|(X):y′∈BF′}=m˜(X),$

i.e., (vi) holds.

Now we shall show that every f ∈ Cb(X, E) is m-integrable over X. Indeed, let fCb(X, E) and η > 0 be given, and $\epsilon =\frac{\eta }{4\stackrel{˜}{m}\left(X\right)}$. By (iv) there exists K𝓚(X) such that ${\mathrm{sup}}_{{y}^{\prime }\in {B}_{{F}^{\prime }}}|{m}_{{y}^{\prime }}|\left(X\K\right)\le \frac{\eta }{8‖f‖}$.

For each tX let Wt = {sX : ||f(s) – f(t)||E < ∊}. Hence there exists a set {t1, …, tn} in X such that $K\subset \cup {}_{j=1}^{n}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}{W}_{{t}_{i}}.$ Then $W:=\cup {}_{i=1}^{n}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}{W}_{{t}_{i}}\in \text{𝓑}o$ and ${\mathrm{sup}}_{y\prime \in {B}_{F\prime }}|{m}_{y\prime }|\left(X\W\right)\le \frac{\eta }{8‖f‖}.$ Define A1 = Wt1, ${A}_{i}={W}_{{t}_{i}}\\cup {}_{j=1}^{i-1}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}{W}_{{t}_{j}}$ for i = 2, …, n and An+1 = X \ W. Then $W=\cup {}_{i=1}^{n}{A}_{i}$ and tiAi for i = 1,..., n and let tn+1An+1. Hence 𝓐 = {A1,..., An, An+1;t1,…tn, tn+1} ∈ 𝓓X. Let 𝓐1, 𝓐2 ∈ 𝓓X and 𝓐1 ≥ 𝓐, 𝓐2 ≥ 𝓐, where, 𝓐1 = {B1,..., Bp,s1,...,sp} and 𝓐2 = {C1,..., Cq, τ1,..., τq}. Let Ji = {j : BjAi} for i = 1, …, n+1. Then arguing similarly as in the proof of Theorem 2.3 one can show that ${‖{S}_{{\text{𝓐}}_{\epsilon }}\left(f\right)-{S}_{{\text{𝓐}}_{i}}\left(f\right)‖}_{F″}\le \frac{\eta }{2}$ for i = 1, 2, so ${‖{S}_{{\text{𝓐}}_{1}}\left(f\right)-{S}_{{\text{𝓐}}_{2}}\left(f\right)‖}_{F″}\le \eta .$ This means that (S𝓐(f)) is a Cauchy net in (F″, || · ||F″) and hence the integral X f dm := lim𝓐 S𝓐(f) exists in F″. This means that f is m-integrable over X.

Note that for each y′ ∈ F' and 𝓐 = {A1,...,An;t1,...,tn) ∈ 𝓓X we have ${S}_{\text{𝓐}}\left(f\right)\left(y\prime \right)={\sum }_{i=1}^{n}{m}_{y\prime }\left({A}_{i}\right)\left(f\left({t}_{i}\right)\right)$ and X f dmy = lim𝓐 S𝓐(f)(y′). Hence we get,

$(∫Xf dm)(y′)=lim𝓐S𝓐(f)(y′)=∫Xf dmy′.$(7)

Thus (vii) holds. Now we shall show that the Integration operator Sm : Cb(X, E) → F″ defined by the equation

$Sm(f):=∫Xf dm for f∈Cb(X,E)$

is (β, || · ||F)-continuous. Indeed, let > 0 be given. Since {y′ ◦ T : y′ ∈ BF} is β-equicontinuous and (ii) holds, there exists a neighbourhood V of 0 for β such that ${\mathrm{sup}}_{y\prime \in {B}_{F\prime }}|{\int }_{X}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}f\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}d{m}_{y\prime }|\le \epsilon$ for fV. Assume that (fα) is a net in Cb(X, E) such that fα → 0 for β. Then one can choose α such that fαV for αα. Hence for αα we have,

$‖Sm(fα)‖F″=sup{|(∫Xfα dm)(y′)|:y′∈BF′}=sup{|∫Xfα dmy′|:y′∈BF′}≤ε,$

i.e., Sm is (β, || · ||F)-continuous. Using (ii), (7) and (6) for hCrc(X, E) and y′F, we have

$Sm(h)(y′)=(∫Xh dm)(y′)=∫Xh dmy′=y′(T(h))=T^(h)(y′).$

It follows that ${S}_{m}\left(h\right)=\stackrel{^}{T}\left(h\right),$ where $\stackrel{^}{T}\left(h\right)\in {i}_{F}\left(F\right).$ Hence

$∫Xh dm=(I)∫Xh dm∈iF(F).$

Thus the condition (viii) is satisfied. Assume now that f ∈ Cb(X, E) and choose a net (hα) in Crc(X, E) such that hαf for β. Then

$∫Xf dm=Sm(f)=limαSm(hα)=limα∫Xhαdm,$

and hence X f dmiF(F) because X hαdmiF(F). It follows that

$T(f)=limαT(hα)=limαjF(∫Xhα dm)=jF(limα∫Xhα dm)=jF(∫Xf dm),$

i.e., (ix) holds.

Assume that mM(X, 𝓛(E, F)) satisfies the conditions (iii) and (iv). For fCb(X, E) define a linear mapping Ψf on F by Ψf(y′) = ∫X f dmy for y′F. Then Ψf is σ(F, F)-continuous, so there exists a unique yfF such that Ψf = iF(yf),i.e., Ψf(y′) = y(yf) for y′F. Define a mapping T : Cb(X, E) → F by T(f) := yf. Then for y′ ∈ F′, (y′ ◦ T)(f) = y′(yf) = ∫X f dmy for fCb(X, E), i.e., (ii) holds. Hence by Corollary 2.7 the set {y′ ◦ T : y′ ∈ BF} is β-equicontinuous, and this means that T is (β, || · ||F)-continuous.

Let mo : 𝓑o𝓛(E, F") be the representing measure of T. Then by the first part of theorem moM(X, 𝓛(E, F")) and for each y′ ∈ F′, we have y′(T(f)) = ∫X f d(mo)y for fCb(X, E). It follows that (mo)y = my′, so mo = m. In view of the first part of the theorem, the conditions (v), (vi), (vii), (viii) and (ix) are satisfied. □

Assume that T : Cb(X, E) → F is a (β, || ·||F)-continuous operator and m is its representing measure. For xE let us set,

$Tx(u):=T(u⊗x) for u∈Cb(X) and mx(A):=m(A)(x) for A∈𝓑o.$

Then Tx : Cb(X) → F is a (β, || · ||F)-continuous operator. Let $\chi :B\left(\text{𝓑}o\right)\to {C}_{b}{\left(X\right)}_{\beta }^{″}$ stand for the canonical embedding, i.e., for υB(𝓑o),

$χ(υ)(φv):=(I)∫Xυ dv for v∈M(X),$

where φv(u) = Xu dv for uCb(X). Define

$T^x:=(Tx)′​′∘χ:B(𝓑o)→F″.$

Then ${\stackrel{^}{T}}_{x}\left({C}_{b}\left(X\right)\right)\subset {i}_{F}\left(F\right)$ and ${T}_{x}\left(u\right)={j}_{F}\left({\stackrel{^}{T}}_{x}\left(u\right)\right)$ for uCb(X).

Let T : Cb(X, E) → F be a (β, || · ||F)-continuous operator and m be its representing measure. Then for each xE the following statements hold:

1. T"(π(𝟙Ax)) = (Tx)"(χ(𝟙A)) for A𝓑o.

2. ${m}_{x}\left(A\right)={\stackrel{^}{T}}_{x}\left({1}_{A}\right)$ for A𝓑o.

3. ${\stackrel{^}{T}}_{x}\left(\upsilon \right)=\left(I\right){\int }_{X}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}\upsilon d{m}_{x}$ for υB(𝓑o).

Proof. Let y′F. Then by Theorem 3.2 for uCb(X), we have

$(y′∘Tx)(u)=y′(T(u⊗x))=∫X(u⊗x) dmy′=∫Xu dmx,y′=φmx,y′(u),$

where ${\phi }_{{m}_{x,y\prime }}\in {C}_{b}{\left(X\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime }.$ Hence, we get

$(Tx)′​′(χ(𝟙A))(y′)=χ(𝟙A)((Tx)′(y′))=χ(𝟙A)(y′∘Tx) =χ(𝟙A)(φmx,y′)=mx,y′(A)=mx(A)(y′).$

On the other hand, by Theorem 3.2, $y\prime \text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}\circ \text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}T={\text{Φ}}_{{m}_{y\prime }},$ and hence

$T″(π(𝟙A⊗x))(y′)=π(𝟙A⊗x)(T′(y′))=π(𝟙A⊗x)(y′∘T)=π(𝟙A⊗x)(Φmy′)=(I)∫X(𝟙A⊗x) dmy′=mx(A)(y′).$

It follows that (i) holds. For A𝓑o, we have

$mx(A):=T^(𝟙A⊗x)=T″(π(𝟙A⊗x))=(Tx)′​′(χ(𝟙A))=T^x(𝟙A),$

and hence, ${\stackrel{^}{T}}_{x}\left(\upsilon \right)=\left(I\right)\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}{\int }_{X}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}\upsilon \text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}d{m}_{x}$ for υB(𝓑o). Thus (ii) and (iii) are satisfied. □

Dobrakov [20, Theorem 2] showed that if X is a locally compact Hausdorff space and T : C0(X, E) → F is a bounded linear operator, then its representing measure takes its values in 𝓛(E, F) if and only if Tx : C0(X) → F is weakly compact for each xE. Now we prove the analogue of this result for (β, || · ||F)-continuous operators T : Cb(X, E) → F, where X is a completely regular Hausdorff space (see [26, Theorem 4.4]).

Let T : Cb(X, E) → F be a (β, || · ||F)-continuous operator and m be its representing measure. Then for each xE the following statements are equivalent:

1. Tx : Cb(X) → F is weakly compact.

2. m(A)(x) ∈ iF(F) for each A𝓑o.

3. mx : 𝓑oF″ : countably additive.

4. mx : 𝓑o → Fis strongly bounded.

Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii) Assume that Tx is weakly compact. in view of [42, Corollary 9.3.2] it follows that $\left({T}_{x}\right)″\left({C}_{b}{\left(X\right)}_{\beta }^{″}\right)\subset {i}_{F}\left(F\right).$ Hence ${\stackrel{^}{T}}_{x}\left(B\left(\text{𝓑}o\right)\right)\subset {i}_{F}\left(F\right)$ and by Lemma 3.3 mx(A) ∈ iF(F) for A ∈ 𝓑o.

(ii) ⇒ (iii) Assume that m(A)(x) ∈ iF(F) for A𝓑o, and let (mF)x(A) := jF(m(A)(x)) for A𝓑o. Then (y′ ◦ (mF)x)(A) = (m(A)(x))(y) = mx, y (A) for A𝓑o. in view of Theorem 3.2 for each y′ ∈ F′, my′M(X, E′) and it follows that mx,y is countably additive. Hence y (mF)x is countably additive, and by the Orlicz-Pettis theorem (mF)x : 𝓑oF is countably additive. Hence mx : 𝓑oF″ is also countably additive.

(iii) ⇒ (iv) It is obvious.

(iv) ⇒ (i) Assume that mx : 𝓑oF″ is strongly bounded. Then in view of Lemma 3.3 and [45, Theorem 1,

p. 148] $\stackrel{^}{T}$x : B(𝓑o) → F″ is weakly compact. Since Tx(u) = jF($\stackrel{^}{T}$x(u)) for uCb(X), we obtain that Tx is weakly compact. □

Assume that T : Cb(X, E) → F is a (β, || · ||F)-continuous operator such that Tx : Cb(X) → F is weakly compact for each xE. From now on we will write:

$mF(A)(x):=jF(m(A)(x)) for A∈𝓑o, x∈E.$

Then mF : 𝓑o → 𝓛(E, F) and $\stackrel{˜}{{m}_{F}}\left(A\right)=\stackrel{˜}{m}\left(A\right)$ for A ∈ 𝓑o.

By 𝓣s we denote the topology of simple convergence in ca(𝓑o). Then 𝓣s is generated by the family {PA : A𝓑o} of seminorms, where PA(v) = |v(A)| for vca(𝓑o). Note that M(X) is a closed subspace of the Banach space ca(𝓑o) (see Remark 2.6).

A completely regular Hausdorff space X is said to be a k-space if each set which meets every compact subset in a closed set must be closed. X is a k-space, for instance if X is locally compact or first countable (see [38, Chap. 3, § 3], [6, p. 107]). Making use of [43] we can state the following extension to k-spaces of the celebrated Dieudonné-Grothendieck’s criterion on relative weak compactness in the space M(X) (see [44, Theorem 2], [45, Theorem 14, p. 98-103]), which will play a crucial role in the study of operators on Cb(X, E).

Assume that X is a k-space and 𝓜 is a subset of M(X) such that supv∈𝓜 |v|(X) < ∞. Then the following statements are equivalent:

1. 𝓜 is relatively weakly compact in the Banach space M(X).

2. 𝓜 is uniformly countably additive, i.e., supv𝓜 |v(An)| → 0 whenever An ∅, (An) ⊂ 𝓑o.

3. 𝓜 is uniformly strongly additive, i.e., supv𝓜 |v(An)| → 0 whenever (An) is pairwise disjoint in 𝓑o.

4. supv𝓜 |v|(An) → 0 whenever (An) is a pairwise disjoint sequence in 𝓑o.

5. 𝓜 is a relatively 𝓣s-compact subset of M(X).

6. 𝓜 is uniformly regular, i.e., for every A𝓑o and ∊ > 0 there exist K𝓚(X) and O ∈ 𝓣 with KAO such that supv∈𝓜 |v|(O \ K) ≤ .

7. supv∈𝓜 |v|(On) → 0 whenever (On) is a pairwise disjoint sequence in 𝓣.

Proof. (i) ⇔ (ii) It follows from [46, Chap. 7, Theorem 13] because M(X) is a closed subset of the Banach space ca(𝓑o) (see [47, Chap. 3, §3, Corollary 3]).

(ii) ⇔(iii) See [46, Theorem 10, pp. 88-89].

(iii) ⇔(iv) See [45, Proposition 17, p. 8].

(iv) ⇔ (v) ⇔ (vi) It follows [43, Remark, pp. 211-212]. (iv) ⇔ (vii) It is obvious.

(vii) ⇔ (iv) Assume that (vii) holds. Then by [43, Theorem 8] the set {|v| : v𝓜} is relatively 𝓣s-compact In M(X). Hence by [43, Remark, pp. 211-212] the condition (iv) holds. □

## 4 Strongly bounded operators onCb(X, E)

Let T : Cb(X, E) → F be a (β, || · ||F)-continuous operator and m be its representing measure. Then T is said to be strongly bounded if $\stackrel{˜}{m}$ is strongly bounded, i.e., $\stackrel{˜}{m}$(An) → 0 whenever (An) is a pairwise disjoint sequence in 𝓑o. Note that $\stackrel{˜}{m}$ is strongly bounded if and only if {|my| : yBF′} is uniformly countably additive, i.e., sup{|my|(An) : yBF′} → 0 whenever An ↓ ∅, (An) ⊂ 𝓑o (see [46, Theorem 10, pp. 88-89]), i.e., $\stackrel{˜}{m}$ is continuous at ∅.

For x ∈ E we have, ||mx(A)||F$\stackrel{˜}{m}$(A)||x||E for A ∈ 𝓑o. It follows that if T : Cb(X, E) → F is a (β || · ||F)-continuous strongly bounded operator, then for each xE, mx : 𝓑oF″ is strongly bounded, and hence by Theorem 3.4, m(A)(x) ∈ iF(F) for A ∈ 𝓑o and Tx : Cb(X) → F is a weakly compact operator. Then we can define a measure mF : 𝓑o → 𝓛(E, F) by

$mF(A)(x):=jF(m(A)(x)).$

Now we can state an intrinsic characterization of (β, || · ||F)-continuous strongly bounded operators T : Cb(X, E) → F by the Grothendieck’s condition in [44] (see (ii) below).

Assume that X is a k-space. Let T : Cb(X, E) → F be a (β, || · ||F)-continuous operator and m be its representing measure. Then the following statements are equivalent:

1. T is strongly bounded, i.e., $\stackrel{˜}{m}$ is continuous at ∅.

2. T(fn) → 0 whenever (fn) is a uniformly bounded sequence in Cb(X, E) such that fn(t) → 0 in E for each tX.

3. T(fn) → 0 whenever (fn) is a uniformly bounded sequence in Cb(X, E) such that supp fn ∩ supp fk = ∅ for nk.

4. For every A and ∊ > 0 there exist K𝓚(X) and O ∈ 𝓣 such that KAO and $\stackrel{˜}{m}$(O \ K) ≤ .

5. T is sequentially.(δ, || · ||F)-continuous.

Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii) Assume that T is strongly bounded. Let λ ∈ ca+(𝓑o) be a control measure for {|my| : y′ ∈ BF} (see [45, Theorem 4, pp. 11-12]). Let (fn) be a sequence in Cb(X, E) such that supn ||fn|| = M < ∞ and fn(t) → 0 for every tX. Then for a given > 0 there exists η > 0 such that sup{|my|(A) : yBF} ≤ $\frac{\epsilon }{2M}$ whenever λ(A) ≤ η, A ∈ 𝓑o. Since ${\stackrel{˜}{f}}_{n}\in B\left(\text{𝓑}o\right),$ by the Egoroff theorem there exists Aη ∈ 𝓑o with λ(X \ Aη) ≤ η and ${\mathrm{sup}}_{t\in {A}_{\eta }}{\stackrel{˜}{f}}_{n}\left(t\right)\le \frac{\epsilon }{2\stackrel{˜}{m}\left(X\right)}$ for nn for some n ∈ ℕ. For each y′ ∈ BF′ and nn by Theorem 3.2 and (1), we have

$|y′(T(fn))|=|∫Xfn dmy′|≤∫Xf˜nd|my′|=∫Aηf˜nd|my′|+∫X\Aηf˜nd|my′|≤ε2m˜(X)|my′|(Aη)+M|my′|(X\Aη)≤ε2m˜(X)|my′|(X)+Mε2M≤ε2+ε2=ε.$

Hence ||T(fn)||F for nn, as desired.

(ii) ⇒ (iii) It is obvious.

(iii) ⇒ (i) Assume that (iii) holds and T is not strongly bounded. Then by Theorem 3.5 there exist 0 > 0, a pairwise disjoint sequence (On) in 𝓣 and a sequence $\left({y}_{n}^{\prime }\right)$ in BF′ such that $|{m}_{{y}_{n}^{\prime }}|\left({O}_{n}\right)>{\epsilon }_{0}.$ Hence by Lemma 2.5 there exists a sequence (hn) in Cb(X) ⊗ E with ||hn|| = 1 and supp hnOn for n ∈ ℕ such that

$∫Onhndmyn′≥myn′On−ε02>ε02.$

Then for n ∈ ℕ,

$‖T(hn)‖F=sup{|y′(T(hn))|:y′∈BF′}=sup{|∫Xhnd my′|:y′∈BF′}=sup{|∫Onhn d my′|:y′∈BF′}≥|∫Onhn d myn′|>ε02.$

On the other hand, since supp hn ∩ supp hk = ∅ for nk, we get ||T(hn)||F → 0. This contradiction establishes that (i) holds.

(i) ⇔ (iv) It follows from Theorem 3.5 for 𝓜 = {|my| : y′ ∈ BF}.

(ii) ⇔ (v) It is obvious because for a sequence (fn) in Cb(X, E), fn 0 for δ if and only if supn||fn|| < ∞ and fn(t) → 0 for every tX. □

Incase X is a compact Hausdorff space, the equivalence (i) ⇔ (ii) of Theorem 4.1 was obtained by Brooks and Lewis (see [27, Theorem 2.1]).

The following Riesz representation type theorems will be of importance in the study of operators on Cb(X, E).

Assume that X is a k-space and mM(X, 𝓛(E, F)) has the regular semivariation. Then the following statements hold:

1. The mapping T : Cb(X, E) → F defined by the equation: T(f) = ∫X f dm is a strongly bounded operator.

2. T(h) = ∫X h dm = (I) X h dm for hCrc(X, E).

Proof. In view of Theorem 2.3 and Corollary 2.7 the family {y ◦ T : yBF} is β-equicontinuous and this means that T is (β, || · ||F)-continuous. By Theorem 4.1 T is strongly bounded, so (i) is satisfied. In view of Theorems 2.3 and 3.2 for yF, we get

$y′(T(h))=y′(∫Xh dm)=y′((I)∫Xh dm) for h∈Crc(X,E),$

and if follows that (ii) holds. □

Assume that X is a k-space. Let T : Cb(X, E) → F be a strongly bounded operator and m be its representing measure. Then the following statements hold

1. mFM(X, 𝓛(E, F)) and mF has the regular semivariation.

2. Every fCb(X, E) is mF-integrable over all A𝓑o.

3. T(f) = ∫X f dmF for fCb(X, E).

4. T(h) = ∫X h dmF = (I) X h dmF for hCrc(X, E).

Proof. By Theorems 4.1 and 4.3 and 2.3 the statements (i) and (ii) are satisfied. Using Theorems 3.2 and 4.3 for each yF, we have

$y′(T(f))=∫Xf dmy′=y′(∫Xf dmF) for f∈Cb(X,E).$

and it follows that (iii) holds. The condition (iv) follows from (iii) and Theorem 4.3. □

(i) A measure mM(X, 𝓛(E, F)) is said to be discrete if for every yF, my′Md(X, E). By Md(X, 𝓛(E, F)) we will denote the subspace of M(X, 𝓛(E, F)) of all discrete measures.

(ii) We say that mMd(X, 𝓛(E, F)) has the discrete semivariation if for every ∊ > 0 there exists M𝓕(X) such that $\stackrel{˜}{m}$(X \ M) ≤ .

Assume that X is a k-space. Let T : Cb(X, E) → F be a (δ, || · ||F)-continuous linear operator and m be its representing measure. Then the following statements hold:

1. T is strongly bounded.

2. mFMd(X, 𝓛(E, F)) and mF has the discrete semivariation.

Proof. Since δβ, by Theorem 4.1 (i) holds. Then by Corollary 4.4, mFM(X, 𝓛(E, F)) and by Theorem 2.10 my′Md(X, E) for each y′ ∈ F. Hence mFMd(X, 𝓛(E, F)). Moreover, since the family {y′ ◦ T : yBF′} is δ-equicontinuous, by Corollary 2.11 the family {|my′| : yBF′} is uniformly discrete, that is, mF has the discrete semivariation, i.e., (ii) holds. □

Now using Theorem 3.5 and arguing as in the proof of Corollary 13 in [36] we can show a related result for (β, || · ||F)-continuous operators T : Cb(X, E) → F (see also [45, Theorem 15, pp. 159-160]).

Assume that X is a k-space and F contains no isomorphic copy of co. Then every (β, || · ||F)-continuous operator T : Cb(X, E) → F is strongly bounded.

## 5 Radon extension of operators onCb(X, E)

For λ ∈ M+(X) let 𝓛(λ, E) stand for the vector-space of all λ-measurable functions g : XE such that ||g|| := ess suptX||g(t)||E < ∞.

Assume that λM+(X). Then Cb(X, E) ⊂ 𝓛(λ, E).

Proof. By the regularity of λ there exists a sequence (Kn) in 𝓚(X) such that Kn ↑ and $\lambda \left(X\{K}_{n}\right)<\frac{1}{n}$ for n ∈ ℕ. Then for $A=\cup {}_{n=1}^{\infty }\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}{K}_{n},$ we have λ(X \ A) = 0. Assume that fCb(X, E) and let hn = 𝟙Knf for n ∈ ℕ. Note that by the Pettis measurability theorem, hn is λ-measurable (see [45, Theorem 2, p. 42]) and hn(t) → f(t) for tA. It follows that f is λ-measurable and f ∈ 𝓛(λ, E). □

Assume that mM(X, 𝓛(E, F)) has the regular semivariation and let λM+(X) be a control measure for {|my′| : yBF′}. We can assume that λ to be complete (if necessary we can take the completion (X, 𝓑o, λ) of (X, 𝓑o, λ), and for each yBF′, we extend |my′| to 𝓑o). It is known that if g ∈ 𝓛(λ, E), then one can define the Radon-type integral of g with respect to m by the equation:

$(R)∫Xg dm:=limn(R)∫Xsn dm,$

where (sn) is a sequence in 𝓢(𝓑o, E) such that ||sn(t) – g(t)||E → 0 λ-a.e. on X and ||sn(t)||E ≤ ||g(t)||E λ-a.e. on X (see [48, § 1]). Then the Radon integration operator Tm : 𝓛(λ, E)—?F defined by the equation:

$Tm(g):=(R)∫Xg dm$

is λ-σ-smooth, i.e., Tm(gn) → 0 whenever (gn) is a sequence in 𝓛(λ, E) such that supn ||gn|| < ∞ and ||gn(t)||E → 0 λ-a.e. on X (see [48, Proposition 3.5]). Note that for y′ ∈ F and g𝓛(λ, E), we have

$y′(Tm(g))=(R)∫Xg dmy′ and |(R)∫Xg dmy′|≤∫Xg˜ d|my′|.$(8)

Now we can state a Radon extension theorem for operators on Cb(X, E), which will be useful in the study of operators on Cb(X, E) (see the proof of Corollary 7.11 below).

Assume that X is a k-space. Let T : Cb(X, E) → F be a strongly bounded operator and m be its representing measure. If λM+(X) is a control measure for {|my′ : y′BF′ }, then T possesses a λ-σ-smooth Radon extension TmF : 𝓛∞(λ, E) → F such that $T(f)=TmF(f)=(R)∫Xf dmF=∫Xf dmF for f∈Cb(X,E),$

and for each y′ ∈ F′, there exists a weak* -measurable function gy : XEsuch that ||gy(·)||E ∈ 𝓛1(λ) and $y′(T(f))=∫X≥〈f,gy′〉dλ for f∈Cb(X,E) and ‖y′ ∘ T‖=∫X‖gy′(t)‖E′dλ.$

Proof. By Corollary 4.4 mFM(X, 𝓛(E, F)) and mF has the regular semivariation. Moreover, every fCb(X, E) is mF-integrable and T(f) = ∫X f dmF.

Assume that y′ ∈ F' and (fα) is a net in Cb(X, E) such that fα → 0 for β. Since Cb(X, E) ⊂ 𝓛(λ, E) (see Proposition 5.1), using (8), we have

$|y′(TmF(fα))|=|(R)∫Xfα dmy′|≤∫Xf˜α d|my′|.$

Note that ${\stackrel{˜}{f}}_{\alpha }\to 0$ for β in Cb(X) and |my′| M(X). Hence ${\int }_{X}{\stackrel{˜}{f}}_{\alpha }d|{m}_{y\prime }|\to 0.$ It follows that $y\prime \text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}\circ \text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}\left({T}_{{m}_{F}}|{}_{{C}_{b}\left(X,E\right)}\right)$ is a β-continuous functional. For hCrc(X, E) ⊂ B(𝓑o, E), we get

$y′(TmF(h))=(R)∫Xh dmy′=(I)∫Xh dmy′=y′(T(h)).$

Since Crc(X, E) is β-dense in Cb(X, E), for each y′ ∈ F, we have y(TmF(f)) = y(T(f)) for every fCb(X, E). Hence

$T(f)=TmF(f)=(R)∫Xf dmF=∫Xf dmF for f∈Cb(X,E).$

Let yF. Then according to the Radon-Nikodym type theorem (see [49, Theorem 1.5.3]) there exists a weak*-measurable function gy : XE such that ||gy(·)||E ∈ 𝓛1(λ) and for every xE and A𝓑o,

$my′(A)(x)=∫A〈x,gy′〉 and |my′|(A)=∫A‖gy′‖E′dλ.$(9)

Now let fCb(X, E) ⊂ 𝓛 (λ, E). Then there exists a sequence (sn) in 𝓢(𝓑o, E) such that ||sn(t) – f(t)||E → 0 λ-a.e. and ||sn(t)||E||f(t)||E λ-a.e. (see [2, Theorem 1.6, p. 4]). One can easily show that

$limn∫X〈sn,gy′〉dλ=∫X〈f,gy′〉dλ.$

It follows that

$y′(T(f))=∫Xf dmy′=(R)∫Xf dmy′=limn(R)∫Xsn dmy′=limn∫X〈sn,gy′〉dλ=∫X〈f,gy′〉dλ.$

Note that by (4), we get ||y′ ◦ T|| = |my′|(X) = ∫X ||gy′(t)||E′ . □

If E is a separable Banach space and Cb(X) ⊗ E is supposed to be βσ-dense in Cb(X, E), then a related result to Theorem 5.2 for (βσ, || · ||F)-continuous operators T : Cb(X, E) → F can be found in [37, Proposition 16].

## 6 Weakly compact operators onCb(X, E)

If X is a compact Hausdorff space (resp. X is a locally compact Hausdorff space), weakly compact operators T : Cb(X, E) → F (resp. T : Co(X, E) → F) have been studied intensively by Batt and Berg [21, 23], Brooks and Lewis [26], Bombal and Cembranos [24] and Saab [29].

Recall that a linear operator T : Cb(X, E) → F is called (β, || · ||F)-weakly compact if there exists a neighbourhood V of 0 for β such that T(V) is relatively weakly compact in F. One can easily show that a (β, || · ||F)-weakly compact operator T : Cb(X, E) → F is (β, || · ||F)-continuous.

The following characterization of weakly compact operators on (Cb(X, E), β) will be useful.

Fora (β, || · ||F)-continuous linear operator T : Cb(X, E) → F the following statements are equivalent:

1. T is (β, || · ||F)-weakly compact.

2. T maps τu-bounded sets in Cb(X, E) onto relatively weakly compact sets in F.

3. $T″\left({C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{″}\right)\subset {i}_{F}\left(F\right).$

4. T′(BF′) is relatively $\sigma \left({C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime },{C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{″}\right)$-compact in ${C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime }.$

Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii) It is obvious because βτu.

(ii) ⇒ (i) Assume that (ii) holds. Since β-bounded subsets of Cb(X, E) are τu-bounded, T transforms β-bounded sets into relatively weakly compact sets in F. But .Cb(X, E), β) is a generalized DF-space, so by [50, Theorem 3.1] T is (β, || · ||F)-weakly compact, as desired.

(ii) ⇔ (iii) ⇔ (iv) It follows from [42, Theorem 9.3.2]. □

Now we extend a characterization of weakly compact operators T : Co(X, E) → F of [26, Theorem 4.1] to (β, || · ||F)-continuous weakly compact operators T : Cb(X, E) → F.

Let T : Cb(X, E) → F be a (β, || · ||F)-continuous operator and m be its representing measure. Then the following statements hold:

1. Assume that T is (β, || · ||F)-weakly compact. Then T is strongly bounded and for each A𝓑o, mF(A) : EF is a weakly compact operator.

2. Assume that E and E″ have the RNP and T is strongly bounded and for each A𝓑o, mF(A) : EF is a weakly compact operator. Then T is (β, || · ||F)-weakly compact.

Proof. (i) In view of Theorem 6.1 the conjugate operator $T\prime :F\prime \to {C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime }$ maps BF′ onto a relatively weakly compact set in the Banach space $\left({C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime },‖\cdot ‖\right),$ where T(y)(f) = ∫X f dmy′ for yF, fCb(X, E). Then {my′ : yBF′} is a relatively weakly compact subset of the Banach space M(X, E). Hence {my′ : yBF′} is a relatively weakly compact subset of the Banach space (cabv(𝓑o; E′), || · ||), where ||μ|| = |μ|(X). According to the Bartle-Dunford-Schwartz theorem (see [45, Theorem 5, pp. 105-106]), we obtain that the set {|my| : yBF′} is uniformly countably additive and for each A𝓑o, the set {my′(A) : yBF′} is relatively weakly compact in E. It follows that T is strongly bounded and since for yF, mF(A)(y) = my′(A), we derive that mF(A) : FE is weakly compact, and hence mF(A) : EF is weakly compact.

(ii) Since T is strongly bounded, {|my′| : yBF′} is uniformly countably additive. Moreover, for each A𝓑o, {my′(A) : yBF′} is relatively weakly compact in E. This means that {my′ : yBF′} is a relatively weakly compact set in the Banach space cabv(𝓑o, E′) (see [45, Theorem 5, pp. 105-106]). But {my′ : yBF′M(X, E) and M(X, E) is closed in the Banach space cabv(𝓑o, E). Hence {my′ : yBF′} is relatively weakly compact subset of (M(X, E′), || · ||) (see [47, Chap. 3, §3, Corollary 3]). It follows that $\left\{{\text{Φ}}_{{m}_{y\prime }}:y\prime \in {B}_{F\prime }\right\}$ is a relatively weakly compact subset of the Banach space $\left\{{m}_{y\prime }:y\prime \in {B}_{F\prime }\right\}$ According to Theorem 6.1 T is (β, || · ||F)-weakly compact. □

In[37, Theorem 29] we obtain a related result to Theorem 6.2 for (βσ, || · ||F)-continuous operators T : Cb(X, E) → F, where Cb(X) ⊗ E is supposed to be βσ -dense in Cb(X, E).

## 7 Unconditionally converging operators on Cb(X, E)

Assume that (Z, ξ) is a locally convex Hausdorff space and (F, || · ||F) is a Banach space. A (ξ, || · ||F)-continuous linear operator T : ZF is said to be unconditionally converging if the series ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }T\left({z}_{n}\right)$ converges unconditionally in F whenever ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }|z\prime \left({z}_{n}\right)|<\infty$ for every $z\prime \in {Z}_{\xi }^{\prime }.$

By 𝓕(ℕ) we denote the family of all finite subsets of ℕ.

For a sequence (fn) in Cb(X, E) the following statements are equivalent:

1. sup{||∑iMfi|| :M𝓕(ℕ)} < ∞.

2. ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }|\text{Φ}\left({f}_{n}\right)|<\infty$ for all Φ ∈ Cb(X, E).

3. ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }|{\int }_{X}{f}_{n}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}d\mu |<\infty$ for all μM(X, E).

Proof. (i) ⇔ (ii) It is well known (see [46, Chap. 5, Theorem 6, p. 44]).

(ii) ⇒ (iii) It is obvious because βτu.

(iii) ⇒ (i) Assume that (iii) holds. Then for M𝓕(ℕ) and μM(X, E), we have

$|∫X(∑i∈Mfi)dμ|=|∑i∈M∫Xfi dμ|≤∑i∈M|∫Xfi dμ|≤±∑n=1∞|∫Xfn dμ|<∞.$

This means that the set {i∈M fi:M ∈ 𝓕(ℕ)} is $\sigma \left({C}_{b}\left(X,E\right),{C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime }\right)$-bounded, and hence it is β-bounded. If follows that sup{||∑iMfi|| : M ∈ 𝓕(ℕ)} < ∞. □

Let T : Cb(X, E) → F be a (β, || · ||F)-continuous linear operator. Then the following statements are equivalent:

1. T is unconditionally converging.

2. T(fn) → 0 whenever ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }|{\int }_{X}{f}_{n}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}d\mu |<\infty$ for every μM(X, E′).

Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii) It is obvious.

(ii) ⇒ (i) Assume that (ii) holds and T is not unconditionally converging. Then in view of Lemma 7.2, by [46, Exercise 8(i), p. 54] there exists a subspace S of Cb(X, E) isomorphic to co such that T|S : SF is an isomorphism. Let I : coCb(X, E) be an embedding and fn = I(en) ∈ S for n ∈ ℕ, where {en : n ∈ ℕ} is the canonical base in co. Then for μM(X, E′), Φμ ◦ I ∈ (co)′, so there exists a unique (si) ∈ 1, such that $\left({\text{Φ}}_{\mu }\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}\circ \text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}I\right)\left(\left({r}_{i}\right)\right)={\sum }_{i=1}^{\infty }{r}_{i}{s}_{i}$ for every (ri) ∈ co. Hence we get ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }|{s}_{n}|<\infty .$. On the other hand, there exist a > 0 and b > 0 such that ||T(fn)||Fa||fn|| ≥ ab ||en|| = ab. This contradiction established that (i) holds. □

If X is a compact Hausdorff space, Swartz [51] proved that every unconditionally converging operator T : C(X, E) → F is strongly bounded. Dobrakov (see [20, Theorem 3]) showed that if X is a locally compact Hausdorff space, then every unconditionally converging operator T : C0(X, E) → F is strongly bounded and for every Borel set A in X, the operator m(A) : EF is unconditionally converging. We extend this result to the setting when T : Cb(X, E) → F is a (β, || · ||F)-continuous operator and X is a k-space.

Assume that X is a k-space. Let T : Cb(X, E) → F be a unconditionally converging operator and m stand for its representing measure. Then the following statements hold:

1. T is strongly bounded.

2. For every A𝓑o, mF(A) : EF is unconditionally converging.

Proof. (i) Assume that (fn) is a sequence in Cb(X, E) such that supn ||fn|| = a < ∞ and supp fn ∩ supp fk = ∅ for nk. Then for each μM(X, E), we have

$∑n=1∞|∫Xfn dμ|≤∑n=1∞|∫Xf˜n d|μ||≤a∑n=1∞|μ|(supp fn)=a|μ|(∪n=1∞supp fn)≤a|μ|(X).$

By Proposition 7.3 T(fn) → 0; and hence by Theorem 4.1 T is strongly bounded,

(ii) Let A ∈ 𝓑o and > 0 be given. in view of Theorem 4.1 there exist K ∈ 𝓚(X) and O ∈ 𝓣 with KAO such that $\stackrel{˜}{m}$(O \ K) ≤ . Then one can choose υCb(X) with 0 ≤ υ ≤ 𝟙X, υ|K 1 and v|X \ O 0. Define Tv(x) := T(vx) for xE. To show that Tv : EF is unconditionally converging, assume that ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }|\underset{X}{\int }\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}{f}_{n}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}d\mu |={\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }|\left({\text{Φ}}_{\mu }\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}\circ \text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}I\right)\left({e}_{n}\right)|={\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }{x}_{n}$ is a weakly unconditionally Cauchy sequence in a Banach space E. Then for M𝓕(ℕ), || ∑iM(υxi)|| ≤ ∑iMxi||E < ∞ (see [45, p. 150]), and by Lemma 7.2 ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }|{\int }_{X}\left(\upsilon \otimes {x}_{n}\right)d\mu |<\infty$ for all μM(X, E). Hence ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }T\left(\upsilon \otimes {x}_{n}\right)$ is unconditionally convergent, i.e., Tv : EF is unconditionally converging. For each xBE by Corollary 4.4, we have

$‖Tυ(x)−mF(A)(x)‖F=‖(I)∫X((υ−𝟙A)⊗dmF)‖F=sup{|y′(I)∫X((υ−𝟙A)⊗dmF)|:y′∈BF′}≤sup{∫X|υ−𝟙A|d|my′|:y′∈BF′}≤sup{|my′|(O\K):y′∈BF′}=m˜(O\K)≤ε.$

Hence ||TυmF(A)|| and since the set of all unconditionally converging operators from E to F is a closed linear subspace of (𝓛(E, F), || · ||) (see [20, p. 20]), we derive that mF(A) is unconditionally converging. □

Brooks and Lewis [26, Theorem 5.2] showed that if X is a locally compact Hausdorff space and E contains no isomorphic copy of co then every strongly bounded operator T : Co(X, E) → F is unconditionally converging. Now we extend this result to the setting when X is a k-space and T : Cb(X, E) → F is a (β, || · ||F)-continuous operator.

Assume that X is a k-space and E contains no isomorphic copy of co. Let T : Cb(X, E) → F be a strongly bounded operator. Then T is unconditionally converging.

Proof. Let m be a representing measure of T. By Corollary 4.4 mFM(X, 𝓛(E′, F)) has the regular semivariation and let λM+(X) be a control measure for {|my′| : yBF}. Then the Radon integration operator TmF : 𝓛(λ, E) → F is λ-σ-smooth (see Theorem 5.2). Assume that (fi) is a sequence in Cb(X, E) such that ${\sum }_{i=1}^{\infty }|{\int }_{X}{f}_{i}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}d\mu |<\infty$ for each μM(X, E′). Hence ${\sum }_{i=1}^{\infty }|x\prime \left({f}_{i}\left(t\right)\right)|<\infty$ for each tX, xE because ${\delta }_{t,x\prime }\in {C}_{b}{\left(X,E\right)}_{\beta }^{\prime }.$ It follows that ${\sum }_{i=1}^{\infty }{f}_{i}\left(t\right)$ is an unconditionally convergent series in E for each tX because E contains no isomorphic copy of co (see [52]). Hence fn(t) → 0 for tX and sup || fn|| < ∞, and by Theorem 5.2 T(fn) = (R) X fn dmF → 0. In view of Proposition 7.3 it means that T is unconditionally converging. □

The related results to Theorems 7.4 and 7.5 for (βσ, || · ||F)-continuous operators T : Cb(X, E) → F can be found in [37, Theorems 17 and 18].

As a consequence of Theorems 4.1, 7.4 and 7.5 we have the following result.

Assume that X is a k-space and E is a reflexive Banach space. Then for a (β, || · ||F)-continuous linear operator T : Cb(X, E) → F the following statements are equivalent:

1. T is sequentially (δ, || · ||F)-continuous.

2. T is (β, || · ||F)-weakly compact.

3. T is unconditionally converging

Following [28, 53] we have a definition.

A locally convex Hausdorff space (Z, ξ) is said to have the V property of Pełczynski if for every Banach space (F, || · ||F), every unconditionally converging operator T : ZF is (ξ, || · ||F)-weakly compact.

As a consequence of Corollary 7.7, we have:

Assume that X is a k-space and E is reflexive. Then the space (Cb(X, E), β) has the V property of Pełczynski.

If X is a compact Hausdorff space, the related results to Corollary 7.9 were obtained by Cembranos, Kalton, E. Saab and P. Saab [53, Theorem 3] (see also [32, Corollary 2.7], [30, Corollary 4]).

As an application of Theorem 5.2, we get the following characterization of unconditionally converging operators on Cb(X, E).

Assume that X is a k-space. Let T : Cb(X, E) → F be a strongly bounded operator and m be its representing measure. If λM+(X) is a control measure for {|my| : yBF′}, then the following statements are equivalent:

1. T is unconditionally converging.

2. ${\mathrm{lim}}_{n}{\int }_{X}〈{f}_{n},{g}_{{y}_{n}^{\prime }}〉d\lambda =0$ whenever ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }|{\int }_{X}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}{f}_{n}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}d\mu |<\infty$ for every μM(X, E) and ${y}_{n}^{\prime }\in {B}_{F\prime }$ for n ∈ ℕ.

Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii) Assume that (i) holds and let (fn) be a sequence in Cb(X, E) such that ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }|{\int }_{X}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}{f}_{n}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}d\mu |<\infty$ for every μM(X, E) and $\left({y}_{n}^{\prime }\right)$ is a sequence in BF′. Then by Theorem 5.2, we have

$|∫X〈fn,gyn′〉dλ|=|yn′(T(fn))|≤‖T(fn)‖F→0.$

(ii) ⇒ (i) Assume that (ii) holds. Let (fn) be a sequence in Cb(X, E) such that ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }|{\int }_{X}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}{f}_{n}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}d\mu |<\infty$ for every μM(X, E′). Choose a sequence $\left({y}_{n}^{\prime }\right)$ in BF′ such that $|{y}_{n}^{\prime }\left(T\left({f}_{n}\right)\right)|\ge \frac{1}{2}{‖T\left({f}_{n}\right)\right)‖}_{F}.$ Then by Theorem 5.2, we have

$‖T(fn)‖F≤2|yn′(T(fn))|=2|∫X〈fn,gyn′〉dλ|→0.$

Using Proposition 7.3 we obtain that T is unconditionally converging. □

By Md(X) we denote the subspace of M(X) of all discrete measures. Note that if XMd(X), then $\lambda ={\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }{c}_{n}{\nu }_{{t}_{n}},$ where tnX and ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }|{c}_{n}|<\infty$ and ∫X udvtn = u(tn) for uCb(X). Then vtn(A) = 𝟙A(tn) for A𝓑o.

Assume that X is a k-space. Let T : Cb(X, E) → F be a strongly bounded operator and m be its representing measure. If $\lambda \in {M}_{d}^{+}\left(X\right)$ is a control measure for {|my′| : yBF′}, then the following statements are equivalent:

1. T is unconditionally converging.

2. For every A𝓑o, mF(A) : EF is : unconditionally converging.

Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii) See Theorem 7.4.

(ii) ⇒ (i) Assume that (ii) holds and $\lambda ={\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }{c}_{n}{\nu }_{{t}_{n}}$ with cn ≥ 0 and ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }{c}_{n}<\infty .$ Let (xn) be a sequence in E such that ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }|x\prime \left({x}_{n}\right)|<\infty$ for every xE and $\left({y}_{n}^{\prime }\right)$ be a sequence in BF′. In view of (9) for every A𝓑o, we have

$|∫A〈xn,gyn′〉dλ|=|myn′(A)(xn)|≤‖mF(A)(xn)‖F,$

where ||mF(A)(xn)||F → 0. It follows that for each i ∈ ℕ, ${\mathrm{lim}}_{n}〈{x}_{n},{g}_{{y}_{n}^{\prime }}\left({t}_{i}\right)〉={\mathrm{lim}}_{n}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}{\int }_{\left\{{t}_{i}\right\}}〈{x}_{n},{g}_{{y}_{n}^{\prime }}〉d\lambda =0.$ Assume now that (fn) is a sequence in Cb(X, E) such that ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }|{\int }_{X}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}{f}_{n}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}d\mu |<\infty$ for every μM(X, E′). Then for x′ ∈ E′, we have ${\sum }_{i=1}^{\infty }|x\prime \left({f}_{n}\left({t}_{i}\right)\right)|={\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }|{\int }_{X}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}{f}_{n}\text{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}}d{\mu }_{{t}_{i},x\prime }|<\infty$ and hence ${\mathrm{lim}}_{n}〈{f}_{n}\left({t}_{i}\right),{g}_{{y}_{n}^{\prime }}\left({t}_{i}\right)〉=0$ for every i ∈ ℕ. Then $\lambda \left(X\{\cup }_{i=1}^{\infty }\left\{{t}_{i}\right\}\right)=0,$ i.e., ${\mathrm{lim}}_{n}〈{f}_{n}\left(t\right),{g}_{{y}_{n}^{\prime }}\left(t\right)〉=0$ λ-almost everywhere on X. Since $|{m}_{{y}_{n}^{\prime }}|\left(A\right)={\int }_{A}{‖{g}_{{y}_{n}^{\prime }}\left(\cdot \right)‖}_{E\prime }d\lambda$ for A ∈ 𝓑o, n ∈ ℕ (see (9)) and $\left\{|{m}_{{y}_{n}^{\prime }}|:n\in ℕ\right\}$ is uniformly λ-continuous, we obtain that $\left\{{‖{g}_{{y}_{n}^{\prime }}\left(\cdot \right)‖}_{E\prime }:n\in ℕ\right\}$ is a uniformly Integrable subset of 𝓛1(X). It follows that the family $\left\{〈{f}_{n},{g}_{{y}_{n}^{\prime }}〉:n\in ℕ\right\}$ is also a uniformly integrable subset of 𝓛1 (λ) because supn||fn|| < ∞. Hence using the Vitali theorem, we have that ${\mathrm{lim}}_{n}{\int }_{X}〈{f}_{n},{g}_{{y}_{n}^{\prime }}〉d\lambda =0,$ and by Corollary 7.11 T is unconditionally converging. □

For X being a compact Hausdorff space, the related results to Corollary 7.11 and Theorem 7.12 were obtained by Bombal and Rodrigez-Salinas (see [25, Thorems 1.4 and 1.6]).

## Acknowledgement

The author wish to thank the referee for remarks and suggestions that have improved the paper.

## References

• [1]

Dinculeanu, N., Vector Measures, Pergamon Press, New York, 1967 Google Scholar

• [2]

Dinculeanu, N., Vector Integration and Stochastic Integration in Banach Spaces, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 2000 Google Scholar

• [3]

Shuchat, A., Integral representation theorems in topological vector spaces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 1972, 172, 373-397 Google Scholar

• [4]

Buck, R.C., Bounded contiuous functions on a locally compact space, Michigan Math. J., 1958, 5, 95-104 Google Scholar

• [5]

Sentilles, F.D., Bounded continuous functions on a completely regular space, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 1972, 168, 311-336 Google Scholar

• [6]

Wheeler, R., A servey of Baire measures and strict topologies, Expo. Math., 1983, 2, 97-190 Google Scholar

• [7]

Khan, L.A., The strict topology on a space of vector-valued functions, Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc., 1979, 22, no. 1, 35-41 Google Scholar

• [8]

Khan, L.A., Rowlands, K., On the representation of strictly continuous linear functionals, Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc., 1981, 24, 123-130 Google Scholar

• [9]

Katsaras, A., Spaces of vector measures, Trans Amer. Math. Soc., 1975, 206, 313-328 Google Scholar

• [10]

Giles, R., A generalization of the strict topology, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 1971, 161, 467-474 Google Scholar

• [11]

Fontenot, D., Strict topologies for vector-valued functions, Canad. J. Math., 26, no. 1974, 4, 841-853 Google Scholar

• [12]

Schmets, J., Zafarani, J., Topologie stricte faible et mesures discretes, Bull. Soc. Roy. Sci. Liège, 1974, 40, no. 7-10, 405-418 Google Scholar

• [13]

Schmets, J., Zafarani, J., Strict topologies and (gDF)-spaces, Arch. Math., 1987, 49, 227-231 Google Scholar

• [14]

Khurana, S.S., Topologies on spaces of vector-valued continuous functions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 1978, 241, 195-211Google Scholar

• [15]

Khurana, S.S., Choo, S.A., Strict topology and P-spaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 1976, 61, 280-284 Google Scholar

• [16]

Wiweger, A., Linear spaces with mixed topology, Studia Math., 1961, 20, 47-68 Google Scholar

• [17]

Cooper, J.B., The strict topology and spaces with mixed topologies, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 1971, 30, 583-592 Google Scholar

• [18]

Foias, C., Singer, δ., Some ramarks on the representation of linear operators in spaces of vector-valued continuous functions, Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures App., 1960, 5, 729-752 Google Scholar

• [19]

Goodrich, R.K., A Riesz representation theorem, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 1970, 24, 629-636 Google Scholar

• [20]

Dobrakov, I., On representation of linear operators on Co(T, X), Czechoslovak Math. J., 1971, 21, 13-30 Google Scholar

• [21]

Batt, J., Applications of the Orlicz-Pettis theorem to operator-valued measures and compact and weakly compact transformations on the spaces of continuous functions, Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl., 1969, 14, 907-935 Google Scholar

• [22]

Bilyeu, R., Lewis, P., Some mapping properties of representing measures, Ann. Mat. Pur. Appl., 1976, 109, 273-287Google Scholar

• [23]

Batt, J., Berg, E., Linear bounded transformations on the space of continuous functions, J. Funct. Anal., 1969, 4, 215-239 Google Scholar

• [24]

Bombal, F., Cembranos, P., Characterizations of some classes of operators on spaces of vector-valued continuous functions, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 1985, 97, 137-146 Google Scholar

• [25]

Bombal, F., Rodrigez-Salinas, B., Some classes of operators on C(K, E). Extensions and applications, Arch. Math., 1986, 47, 55-65 Google Scholar

• [26]

Brooks, J.K., Levis, P.W., Linear operators and vector measures, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 1972, 192, 139-162 Google Scholar

• [27]

Brooks, J.K., Lewis, P.W., Operators on continuous function spaces and convergence in the spaces of operators, Advances in Math., 1978,29, 157-177 Google Scholar

• [28]

Pełczynski, A., Banach spaces on which every unconditionally converging operator is weakly compact, Bull. Polish Acad. Sci. Math., 1962, 10,641-648 Google Scholar

• [29]

Saab, P., Weakly compact, unconditionally converging, and Dunford-Pettis operators on spaces of vector-valued continuous functions, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 1984, 95, 101-108 Google Scholar

• [30]

Ghenciu, I., Lewis, P., Strongly bounded representing measures and converging theorems, Glasgow Math. J., 2010, 52, 435-445 Google Scholar

• [31]

Abbott, C., Bator, A., Bilyeu, R., Lewis, P., Weak precompactness, strong boundedness, and weak complete continuity, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 1990, 108, 325-335Google Scholar

• [32]

Ülger, A., Continuous linear operators on C(K, X) and pointwise weakly precompact subsets of C(K, E), Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 1992, 111, 143-150 Google Scholar

• [33]

Katsaras, A., Liu, D.B., Integral representation of weakly compact operators, Pacific J. Math., 1975, 56, 547-556 Google Scholar

• [34]

Aguayo-Garrido, J., Strict topologies on spaces of continuous functions and u-additive measure spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 1998, 220,77-89 Google Scholar

• [35]

Aguayo-Garrido, J., Nova-Yanéz, M., Weakly compact operators and u-additive measures, Ann. Math. Blaise Pascal, 2000, 7, no. 21-11 Google Scholar

• [36]

Nowak, M., Operators on spaces of bounded vector-valued continuous functions with strict topologies, Journal of Function Spaces, vol. 2014, Article ID 407521 Google Scholar

• [37]

Nowak, M., Some classes of continuous operators on spaces of bounded vector-valued continuous functions with the strict topology, Journal of Function Spaces, vol. 2015, Article ID 796753 Google Scholar

• [38]

Engelking, R., General Topology, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin 1989 Google Scholar

• [39]

Katsaras, A., Some results on C(X, E), preprint Google Scholar

• [40]

Katsaras, A., On the space C(X, E) with the topology of simple convergence, Math. Ann., 1976, 223, 105-117 2 Google Scholar

• [41]

Schmets, J., Spaces of vector-valued continuous functions, Lectures Notes in Math., vol. 1003, 1983 Google Scholar

• [42]

Edwards, R.E., Functional Analysis, Theory and Applications, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1965 Google Scholar

• [43]

Topsoe, F., Compactness in spaces of measures, Studia Math., 1970, 36, 195-212 Google Scholar

• [44]

Grothendieck, A., Sur les applications lineaires faiblement compactnes d'espaces de type C(K), Canad. J. Math. 1953, 5, 129-173 Google Scholar

• [45]

Diestel, J., Uhl, J.J., Vector Measures, Amer. Math. Soc., Math. Surveys 15, Providence, RI, 1977 Google Scholar

• [46]

Diestel, J., Sequences and Series in Banach Spaces, Graduate Texts in Math., vol. 92, Springer-Verlag, 1984 Google Scholar

• [47]

Kantorovitch, L.V., Akilov, G.P., Functional Analysis, Pergamon Press, Oxford-Elmsford, New York, 1982 Google Scholar

• [48]

Nowak, M., Operator measures and Integration operators, Indag. Math., 2013, 24, 279-290 Google Scholar

• [49]

Cembranos, P., Mendoza, J., Banach Spaces of Vector-Valued Functions, In: Lect. Notes in Math., vol. 1676, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1997 Google Scholar

• [50]

Ruess, W., [Weakly] compact operators and DF-spaces, Pacific J. Math., 1982, 98, 419-441 Google Scholar

• [51]

Swartz, C., Unconditionally converging operators on the space of continuous functions, Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl., 1972, 17,1695-1702 Google Scholar

• [52]

Bessaga, C., Pełczynski, A., On bases and unconditional convergence of series in Banach spaces, Studia Math., 1958, 17, 151-164 Google Scholar

• [53]

Cembranos, P., Kalton, N.J., Saab, E., Saab, P., Pelczynski's property (V) on C(Ω, E) spaces, Math. Ann., 1985, 271, 91-97 Google Scholar

Accepted: 2016-05-31

Published Online: 2016-07-29

Published in Print: 2016-01-01

Citation Information: Open Mathematics, Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages 474–496, ISSN (Online) 2391-5455,

Export Citation

## Citing Articles

[1]
Marian Nowak
Results in Mathematics, 2017, Volume 72, Number 1-2, Page 843
[2]
Marian Nowak and Juliusz Stochmal
Quaestiones Mathematicae, 2017, Volume 40, Number 1, Page 119
[3]
Marian Nowak
Indagationes Mathematicae, 2017, Volume 28, Number 2, Page 541