.
Then, for each
$0<\alpha <{\alpha}_{x}$
we have
$$\parallel (x,Sx,0)+\alpha T(x,Sx,0)\parallel =\parallel (x,Sx,\alpha Sx)\parallel =max\{1,(1+\alpha )\parallel Sx\parallel \}=1,$$
and therefore
$${lim}_{\alpha \downarrow 0}\frac{\parallel (x,Sx,0)+\alpha T(x,Sx,0)\parallel 1}{\alpha}=0.$$
The arbitrariness of
$x\in {S}_{{\ell}_{2}}$
gives
$supReW\left(T\right)=0$
. On the other hand, for each
$\alpha >0$
, we observe that
$$\parallel J+\alpha T\parallel \u2a7e(1+\alpha )\frac{n}{n+1}(n\in \mathbb{N}),$$
so
$\parallel J+\alpha T\parallel \u2a7e1+\alpha $
, and
$$maxReV\left(T\right)={lim}_{\alpha \downarrow 0}\frac{\parallel J+\alpha T\parallel 1}{\alpha}\u2a7e1.$$
4 A sufficient condition: The BishopPhelpsBollobas property
The aim of this section is to study a sufficient condition for the FRproperty which, actually, covers all the examples given previously. The motivation for this property is the quantitative version of the classical BishopPhelps’ Theorem [
4,
5]
established by B. Bollobas [
6]
(see [
8,§16]
for the below version).
Theorem 4.1 (BishopPhelpsBollobas).
Let
$Y$
be a Banach space and
$\varepsilon >0$
.
Whenever
${y}_{0}\in {S}_{Y}$
and
${y}_{0}^{*}\in {S}_{{Y}^{*}}$
satisfy that
$Re{y}_{0}^{*}\left({y}_{0}\right)>1\frac{{\varepsilon}^{2}}{4}$
, there exists
$(y,{y}^{*})\in \Pi \left(Y\right)$
such that
$$\parallel y{y}_{0}\parallel <\varepsilon \text{and}\parallel {y}^{*}{y}_{0}^{*}\parallel <\varepsilon .$$
This theorem has played an outstanding role in some topics of geometry of Banach spaces (see [12, 20, 21] , for instance), specially in the study of ssd norms [11] or in the study of spatial numerical range of operators [8,§16and§17] . Also, the proof of the fact that
$\overline{co}W\left(f\right)=V\left(f\right)$
for every
$f\in {C}_{\text{u}}({S}_{Y},Y)$
given in [16,Theorem 1] uses the above result. For bounded linear operators, this equality can be also deduced from [17,Theorem 8] , a result whose proof also uses the BishopPhelpsBollobas theorem. Motivated by these facts, we introduce a property which will be sufficient for the FRproperty and it may be of independent interest.
Definition 4.2.
Let
$Y$
be a Banach space and let
$X$
be a closed subspace of
$Y$
. We say that
$(X,Y)$
is a BishopPhelpsBollobas pair (BPBpair in short) if for every
$\varepsilon >0$
there exists
$\delta >0$
such that whenever
${x}_{0}\in {S}_{X}$
,
${y}_{0}^{*}\in {S}_{{Y}^{*}}$
satisfy
$Re{y}_{0}^{*}\left({x}_{0}\right)>1\delta $
, there exists
$(x,{y}^{*})\in \Pi (X,Y)$
so that
$$\parallel {x}_{0}x\parallel <\varepsilon \text{and}\parallel {y}_{0}^{*}{y}^{*}\parallel <\varepsilon .$$
We say that a Banach space
$Y$
has the BPB property if for every closed subspace
$X$
of
$Y$
,
$(X,Y)$
is a BPBpair.
The next result shows that the BPB property is sufficient for the FRproperty. Actually, it can be proved that the equality in Eq. 2 holds for uniformly continuous functions.
Theorem 4.3.
Let
$Y$
be a Banach space and
$X$
a closed subspace such that
$(X,Y)$
is a BPBpair. Then, for every
$f\in {C}_{\text{u}}({S}_{X},Y)$
, the equality
$\overline{co}W\left(f\right)=V\left(f\right)$
holds.

Proof.
Let
$J\in L(X,Y)$
be the inclusion map. Let
$f\in {C}_{\text{u}}({S}_{X},Y)$
and
$\Phi \in D\left({C}_{\text{u}}\right({S}_{X},Y),J)$
.
By [
16,Proposition 1]
, it suffices to show that
$$\begin{array}{c}Re\Phi \left(f\right)\u2a7dsupReW\left(f\right).\end{array}$$ 
(7)

For each
$n\in \mathbb{N}$
, by using [
16,Lemma 1]
we may find
${x}_{n}\in {S}_{X}$
and
${y}_{n}^{*}\in {S}_{{Y}^{*}}$
such that
$$\begin{array}{c}Re\Phi \left(f\right)\u2a7dRe{y}_{n}^{*}\left(f\right({x}_{n}\left)\right)+1/n\end{array}$$ 
(8)

and
${y}_{n}^{*}\left({x}_{n}\right)\u27f61$
. Since
$(X,Y)$
is a BPBpair, it follows that there exists a sequence
${\left\{({\stackrel{~}{x}}_{n},{\stackrel{~}{y}}_{n}^{*})\right\}}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\subseteq \Pi (X,Y)$
such that
$$\{{x}_{n}{\stackrel{~}{x}}_{n}{\}}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\mathbb{\u27f6}0\text{and}\{{y}_{n}^{*}{\stackrel{~}{y}}_{n}^{*}{\}}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\mathbb{\u27f6}0.$$
By Eq. 8 ,
$$\begin{array}{cc}Re\Phi \left(f\right)& \u2a7dRe{\stackrel{~}{y}}_{n}^{*}\left(f\right({\stackrel{~}{x}}_{n}\left)\right)+Re[{y}_{n}^{*}{\stackrel{~}{y}}_{n}^{*}]\left(f\right({\stackrel{~}{x}}_{n}\left)\right)+Re{y}_{n}^{*}\left(f\right({x}_{n})f({\stackrel{~}{x}}_{n}\left)\right)+1/n\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \u2a7dsupReW\left(f\right)+\parallel {y}_{n}^{*}{\stackrel{~}{y}}_{n}^{*}\parallel \parallel f{\parallel}_{\infty}+\parallel f\left({x}_{n}\right)f\left({\stackrel{~}{x}}_{n}\right)\parallel +1/n\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$  
for all
$n\in \mathbb{N}$
. Thus, Eq. 7 follows from the above and the uniform continuity of
$f$
. □
It is worth mentioning that the above proof follows the lines of [
16,Theorem 1]
.
Corollary 4.4.
Let
$Y$
be a Banach space with the BPB property. Then,
$Y$
has the FRproperty.
As a consequence of the above corollary and Theorem 2.1 , we get the following.
Corollary 4.5.
Let
$X$
be an infinitedimensional Banach space. Then, there is a superspace
$Y$
of
$X$
such that
$(X,Y)$
is not a BPBpair.
The above result implies that not every Banach space
$Y$
has the BPB property. For instance, the examples given in section 3 of Banach spaces which do not have the FRproperty also fail the BPB property.
Example 4.6.
The spaces
${c}_{0}$
and
${\ell}_{2}{\oplus}_{\infty}\left({\ell}_{2}{\oplus}_{1}{\ell}_{2}\right)$
fail the BPB property in their canonical norms. Every nonreflexive Banach space admits an equivalent norm failing the BPB property.
On the other hand, if we restrict ourselves to finitedimensional subspaces, we get a characterization of the ssd norms.
Proposition 4.7.
Let
$Y$
be a Banach space. Then, the norm of
$Y$
is ssd if, and only if, for every finitedimensional subspace
$X\subseteq Y$
, the pair
$(X,Y)$
is BPB.

Proof.
We suppose first that the norm of
$Y$
is ssd. Let
$X$
be a finitedimensional subspace of
$Y$
and let
$\varepsilon >0$
be given. Since the norm of
$Y$
is ssd, [11,Theorem 1.2] gives us that for each
$x\in {S}_{X}$
there exists
${\delta}_{x}>0$
so that
$${y}^{*}\in {S}_{{Y}^{*}},Re{y}^{*}\left(x\right)>1{\delta}_{x}\u27f9d\left({y}^{*},D(Y,x)\right)<\varepsilon .$$
Therefore, if for each
$x\in {S}_{X}$
we define
$${A}_{x}=\left\{u\in {S}_{X}:\parallel ux\parallel <min\left\{\varepsilon ,\frac{{\delta}_{x}}{2}\right\}\right\},$$
the compactness of
${S}_{X}$
assures the existence of
${x}_{1},...,{x}_{n}\in {S}_{X}$
such that
$${S}_{X}{=}^{n}{\bigcup}_{i=1}{A}_{{x}_{i}}.$$
Then,
$\delta =min\left\{\frac{{\delta}_{{x}_{i}}}{2}:i=1,...,n\right\}$
satisfies the BPB condition. Indeed, let
${x}_{0}\in {S}_{X}$
and
${y}_{0}^{*}\in {S}_{{Y}^{*}}$
be such that
$$Re{y}_{0}^{*}\left({x}_{0}\right)>1\delta .$$
Since
${x}_{0}\in {S}_{X}$
, there exists
$j\in \{1,...,n\}$
so that
${x}_{0}\in {A}_{{x}_{j}}$
, that is
$$\parallel {x}_{0}{x}_{j}\parallel <min\left\{\varepsilon ,\frac{{\delta}_{{x}_{j}}}{2}\right\}.$$
Therefore,
$Re{y}_{0}^{*}\left({x}_{j}\right)>1{\delta}_{{x}_{j}}$
which implies the existence of
${y}^{*}\in D(Y,{x}_{j})$
such that
$\parallel {y}^{*}{y}_{0}^{*}\parallel <\varepsilon $
.
To prove the converse, it is enough to fix
${x}_{0}\in {S}_{Y}$
and to show that
${x}_{0}$
strongly exposes
$D(Y,{x}_{0})$
[
11,Theorem 1.2]
. To do so, let
$X$
be the subspace of
$Y$
generated by
${x}_{0}$
and, fixed
$\varepsilon >0$
, let
$\delta >0$
be given by the definition of the BPB for the pair
$(X,Y)$
and
$\varepsilon /2$
. Suppose now that
${y}_{0}^{*}\in {S}_{{Y}^{*}}$
is such that
$Re{y}_{0}^{*}\left({x}_{0}\right)>1\delta $
, then there exists
$(x,{y}^{*})\in \Pi (X,Y)$
so that
$$\parallel x{x}_{0}\parallel <\varepsilon /2\text{and}\parallel {y}^{*}{y}_{0}^{*}\parallel <\varepsilon /2.$$
Since
$x\in \text{span}\left({x}_{0}\right)$
, there exists a modulusone
$\lambda \in \mathbb{K}$
such that
$x=\lambda {x}_{0}$
. Therefore,
$$\lambda 1=\parallel \lambda {x}_{0}{x}_{0}\parallel =\parallel x{x}_{0}\parallel <\varepsilon /2,$$
and then,
$$\lambda {y}^{*}\in D(Y,{x}_{0})\text{and}\parallel \lambda {y}^{*}{y}_{0}^{*}\parallel \u2a7d\parallel \lambda {y}^{*}{y}^{*}\parallel +\parallel {y}^{*}{y}_{0}^{*}\parallel <\varepsilon /2+\varepsilon /2=\varepsilon ,$$
which finishes the proof. □
Since the norm of any finitedimensional Banach space is ssd (see [
11,pp. 48]
), we have the following corollary, which also implies the first part of Proposition 3.1 .
Corollary 4.8.
Every finitedimensional Banach space has the BPB property.
The other class of spaces with the FRproperty given in Proposition 3.1 is the one of uniformly smooth spaces. This result can be also deduced from Corollary 4.4 , as the following proposition shows.
Proposition 4.9.
Every uniformly smooth space has the BPB property.

Proof.
Let
$Y$
be an uniformly smooth space. Then,
${Y}^{*}$
is uniformly convex, so, for every
$\varepsilon >0$
, we may find
$\delta >0$
(the modulus of convexity of
${Y}^{*}$
) such that
$${x}^{*},{y}^{*}\in {S}_{{Y}^{*}},\parallel {x}^{*}+{y}^{*}\parallel >2\delta \u27f9\parallel {x}^{*}{y}^{*}\parallel <\varepsilon $$
(see [2,Chapter II] for instance). Let
$X$
be a subspace of
$Y$
, and let
${x}_{0}\in {S}_{X}$
and
${y}_{0}^{*}\in {S}_{{Y}^{*}}$
be so that
$Re{y}_{0}^{*}\left({x}_{0}\right)>1\delta $
. If we consider
${y}^{*}\in {S}_{{Y}^{*}}$
such that
$Re{y}^{*}\left({x}_{0}\right)=1$
, we have
$$\parallel {y}^{*}+{y}_{0}^{*}\parallel \u2a7eRe({y}^{*}+{y}_{0}^{*})\left({x}_{0}\right)>2\delta $$
and, therefore,
$$\parallel {y}^{*}{y}_{0}^{*}\parallel <\varepsilon ,$$
which finishes the proof. □
Observe that, in the above proof, the relation
$\varepsilon \delta $
does not depend on the subspace.
The next result shows that this fact actually characterizes the uniform smoothness.
Proposition 4.10.
Let
$Y$
be a Banach space with the BPB property in such a way that the relationship between
$\varepsilon $
and
$\delta $
in Definition 4.2 does not depend on the subspace
$X$
. Then,
$Y$
is uniformly smooth.

Proof.
In view of [11,Proposition4.1] , it is enough to show that the limit
$${lim}_{t\downarrow 0}\frac{\parallel u+ty\parallel 1}{t}=:\tau (u,y)$$
exists uniformly for
$y\in {B}_{Y}$
and
$u\in {S}_{Y}$
. Given
$\varepsilon >0$
, let
$0<\delta <2$
be given by the “uniform” BPB property. Now, for
$y\in {B}_{Y}$
,
$u\in {S}_{Y}$
and
$0<t<\frac{\delta}{2}$
, we consider
$${y}_{t}=\frac{u+ty}{\parallel u+ty\parallel}\in {S}_{Y}\text{and}{y}_{t}^{*}\in D(Y,{y}_{t}).$$
It is immediate to check that
$Re{y}_{t}^{*}\left(u\right)>1\delta $
so, if we take
$X=\text{span}\left(u\right)$
, the BPB property assures the existence of
$(x,{z}_{t}^{*})\in \Pi (X,Y)$
such that
$\parallel xu\parallel <\varepsilon $
and
$\parallel {z}_{t}^{*}{y}_{t}^{*}\parallel <\varepsilon $
. Since
$x\in \text{span}\left(u\right)$
, there exists a modulusone
$\lambda \in \mathbb{K}$
such that
$x=\lambda u$
. Therefore,
$$\lambda 1=\parallel \lambda uu\parallel =\parallel xu\parallel <\varepsilon ,$$
and then,
$$\lambda {z}_{t}^{*}\in D(Y,u)\text{and}\parallel \lambda {z}_{t}^{*}{y}_{t}^{*}\parallel \u2a7d\parallel \lambda {z}_{t}^{*}{z}_{t}^{*}\parallel +\parallel {z}_{t}^{*}{y}_{t}^{*}\parallel <\varepsilon +\varepsilon =2\varepsilon ,$$
Now, the facts
$$\frac{\parallel u+ty\parallel 1}{t}=\frac{Re{y}_{t}^{*}(u+ty)1}{t}\u2a7dRe{y}_{t}^{*}\left(y\right)$$
and
$\tau (u,y)\u2a7eRe\lambda {z}_{t}^{*}\left(y\right)$
(by Eq. 1 ), give
$$0\u2a7d\frac{\parallel u+ty\parallel 1}{t}\tau (u,y)\u2a7dRe{y}_{t}^{*}\left(y\right)Re\lambda {z}_{t}^{*}\left(y\right)\u2a7d\parallel \lambda {z}_{t}^{*}{y}_{t}^{*}\parallel <2\varepsilon ,$$
and the arbitrariness of
$\varepsilon >0$
finishes the proof. □
We conclude the paper proving that a pair
$(X,Y)$
is a BPBpair provided that
$X$
is an absolute ideal of
$Y$
. Let us introduce the necessary definitions. We refer the reader to [8,§ 21] , [19] , and references therein for background. A closed subspace
$X$
of a Banach space
$Y$
is said to be an absolute summand of
$Y$
if there exists another closed subspace
$Z$
such that
$Y=X\oplus Z$
and, for every
$x\in X$
and
$z\in Z$
, the norm of
$x+z$
only depends on
$\parallel x\parallel $
and
$\parallel z\parallel $
. We also say that
$Y$
is an absolute sum of
$X$
and
$Z$
. This implies that there exists an absolute norm on
${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$
such that
$$\parallel x+z\parallel =\left\right(\parallel x\parallel ,\parallel z\parallel ){}_{a}\left(x\in X,z\in Z\right).$$
By an absolute norm we mean a norm
$\cdot {}_{a}$
on
${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$
such that
$\left\right(1,0){}_{a}=(0,1){}_{a}=1$
and
$\left\right(a,b){}_{a}=\left(\righta,b\left\right){}_{a}$
for every
$a,b\in \mathbb{R}$
. Useful results about absolute norms are the following inequality
$$max\left\{\righta,b\left\right\}\u2a7d\left\right(a,b){}_{a}\u2a7da+ba,b\in \mathbb{R},$$
and the fact that absolute norms are nondecreasing and continuous in each variable. We say that
$X$
is an absolute ideal of
$Y$
if
${X}^{\perp}$
is an absolute summand of
${Y}^{*}$
, in which case,
${Y}^{*}$
can be identified with
${X}^{*}\oplus {X}^{\perp}$
with a convenient absolute sum. It is clear that absolute summands are absolute ideals, but the converse is not true.
Absolute summands and absolute ideals are generalizations of the wellknown
Msummands, Lsummands, Mideals, and the more general class of
${L}_{p}$
summands [
3,
14]
.
Proposition 4.11.
Let
$Y$
be a Banach space and let
$X$
be a closed subspace. If
${X}^{*}$
is an absolute summand of
${Y}^{*}$
, then the pair
$(X,Y)$
is BPB. In particular, this occurs when
$X$
is an absolute ideal of
$Y$
.
We need the following easy result, which we separate from the proof of the proposition for the sake of clearness.
Lemma 4.12.
Let
$E$
be
$({\mathbb{R}}^{2},\cdot {}_{a})$
where
$\cdot {}_{a}$
is an absolute norm. We write
$${b}_{0}=max\{b\u2a7e0:(1,b){}_{a}=1\},$$
and we define
$$A\left(\delta \right)=\left\{\right(a,b)\in {B}_{E}:a>1\delta ,b\u2a7e{b}_{0}\}(\delta >0).$$
Then, for every
$\varepsilon >0$
there exists
$\delta >0$
such that
$\text{diam}\left(A\right(\delta \left)\right)<\varepsilon .$

Proof.
Suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that the result does not hold. Then, there exists
${\varepsilon}_{0}>0$
such that for every
$n\in \mathbb{N}$
,
$\text{diam}\left(A\right(\frac{1}{n}\left)\right)\u2a7e{\varepsilon}_{0}$
. So, we may find
$({a}_{n},{b}_{n})\in A\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)$
such that
$\left\right({a}_{n},{b}_{n})(1,{b}_{0}){}_{a}\u2a7e\frac{{\varepsilon}_{0}}{2}$
, and thus
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{{\varepsilon}_{0}}{2}\u2a7d{a}_{n}1+{b}_{n}{b}_{0}(n\in \mathbb{N}).\end{array}$$ 
(9)

Let
$\left\{\right({a}_{{\sigma}_{n}},{b}_{{\sigma}_{n}}\left)\right\}$
be a convergent subsequence of
$\left\{\right({a}_{n},{b}_{n}\left)\right\}$
, and let
$(1,b)\in {S}_{E}$
be its limit.
By Eq.
9 and the fact that
$({a}_{{\sigma}_{n}},{b}_{{\sigma}_{n}})\in A\left(\frac{1}{{\sigma}_{n}}\right)$
, it is immediate to check that
$$\frac{{\varepsilon}_{0}}{2}\u2a7db{b}_{0}\text{and}b\u2a7e{b}_{0}.$$
So,
$b$
is strictly bigger than
${b}_{0}$
, a contradiction. □

Proof of Proposition 4.11 .
There exist a subspace
$Z$
of
${Y}^{*}$
and an absolute norm
$\cdot {}_{a}$
on
${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$
so that
${Y}^{*}={X}^{*}\oplus Z$
and
$$\parallel ({x}^{*},{z}^{*})\parallel =\left\right(\parallel {x}^{*}\parallel ,\parallel {z}^{*}\parallel ){}_{a}\left({x}^{*}\in {X}^{*},{z}^{*}\in Z\right).$$
For
$\varepsilon >0$
fixed, we take
${\delta}_{1}>0$
given by the preceding lemma applied for
$\varepsilon /3$
, and we define
$$\delta :=min\left\{{\delta}_{1},\frac{{\varepsilon}^{2}}{36}\right\}.$$
To finish the proof, for
${x}_{0}\in {S}_{X}$
and
${y}_{0}^{*}=({x}_{0}^{*},{z}_{0}^{*})\in {S}_{{Y}^{*}}$
satisfying
$$Re{y}_{0}^{*}\left({x}_{0}\right)=Re{x}_{0}^{*}\left({x}_{0}\right)>1\delta ,$$
we have to find
$(x,{y}^{*})\in \Pi (X,Y)$
so that
$$\parallel {y}^{*}{y}_{0}^{*}\parallel <\varepsilon \text{and}\parallel x{x}_{0}\parallel <\varepsilon .$$
To this end, since
$$\parallel {x}_{0}\parallel =1=\Vert \frac{{x}_{0}^{*}}{\parallel {x}_{0}^{*}\parallel}\Vert \text{and}Re\frac{{x}_{0}^{*}}{\parallel {x}_{0}^{*}\parallel}\left({x}_{0}\right)\u2a7eRe{x}_{0}^{*}\left({x}_{0}\right)>1\frac{{\varepsilon}^{2}}{36},$$
we can apply the classical BishopPhelpsBollobas Theorem ( 4.1 ) to
$\left({x}_{0},\frac{{x}_{0}^{*}}{\parallel {x}_{0}^{*}\parallel}\right)\in X\times {X}^{*}$
to get
$(x,{x}^{*})\in \Pi \left(X\right)$
such that
$$\begin{array}{c}\Vert {x}^{*}\frac{{x}_{0}^{*}}{\parallel {x}_{0}^{*}\parallel}\Vert <\frac{\varepsilon}{3}\text{and}\parallel x{x}_{0}\parallel <\frac{\varepsilon}{3}.\end{array}$$ 
(10)

Now, we distinguish two cases. Suppose first that
$\parallel {z}_{0}^{*}\parallel \u2a7d{b}_{0}$
. Then, we take
${y}^{*}:=({x}^{*},{z}_{0}^{*})$
, which satisfies
$Re{y}^{*}\left(x\right)=1$
and
$\parallel {y}^{*}\parallel =\left\right(1,\parallel {z}_{0}^{*}\parallel ){}_{a}=1$
. Using Eq. 10 and the definition of
$\delta $
, we get
$$\parallel {y}^{*}{y}_{0}^{*}\parallel =\parallel {x}^{*}{x}_{0}^{*}\parallel <\frac{\varepsilon}{3}+\delta <\varepsilon .$$
So, the pair
$(x,{y}^{*})$
satisfies the desired condition.
Suppose otherwise that
$\parallel {z}_{0}^{*}\parallel >{b}_{0}$
. In this case, we take
${y}^{*}:=\left({x}^{*},\frac{{b}_{0}}{\parallel {z}_{0}^{*}\parallel}{z}_{0}^{*}\right)$
, which clearly satisfies
$Re{y}^{*}\left(x\right)=1=\parallel {y}^{*}\parallel $
. Now,
$(1,{b}_{0})$
and
$(\parallel {x}_{0}^{*}\parallel ,\parallel {z}_{0}^{*}\parallel )$
belong to
$A\left(\delta \right)$
and the diameter of this set is less than
$\varepsilon /3$
by Lemma 4.12 , so we have
$$\parallel {z}_{0}^{*}\parallel {b}_{0}\u2a7d\left\right(1,{b}_{0})(\parallel {x}_{0}^{*}\parallel ,\parallel {z}_{0}^{*}\parallel ){}_{a}<\frac{\varepsilon}{3}$$
and
$$\parallel {y}^{*}{y}_{0}^{*}\parallel =\left\right(\parallel {x}^{*}{x}_{0}^{*}\parallel ,\parallel {z}_{0}^{*}\parallel {b}_{0}){}_{a}\u2a7d\parallel {x}^{*}{x}_{0}^{*}\parallel +\parallel {z}_{0}^{*}\parallel {b}_{0}<\varepsilon .\Lambda $$
□
By just applying the above proposition and Theorem 4.3 , we get the following.
Corollary 4.13.
Let
$Y$
be a Banach space and let
$X$
be a closed subspace of
$Y$
such that
${X}^{*}$
is an absolute summand of
${Y}^{*}$
(in particular, if
$X$
is an absolute ideal of
$Y$
). Then,
$$\overline{co}W\left(f\right)=V\left(f\right)$$
for every
$f\in {C}_{\text{u}}({S}_{X},Y)$
.
An interesting particular case is the case of
$M$
embedded and
$L$
embedded spaces. A Banach space
$X$
is said to be
$M$
embedded if it is an
$M$
ideal of
${X}^{**}$
, and it is
$L$
embedded if
${X}^{**}=X{\oplus}_{1}Z$
for some closed subspace
$Z$
of
${X}^{**}$
.
Corollary 4.14.
If
$X$
is an
$M$
embedded or an
$L$
embedded space, then
$(X,{X}^{**})$
is a BPBpair.
We do not know if the assumption of being
$M$
embedded or
$L$
embedded in the above result is superabundant.
Acknowledgment: The authors would like to express their gratitude to Pradipta Bandyopadhyay, Catherine Finet, Gilles Godefroy, and Gines Lopez for their valuable suggestions and fruitful conversations about the subject of this paper.
References

F. L. Bauer, On the field of values subordinate to a norm, Numer. Math., 4 (1962), 103–111.

B. Beauzamy, Introduction to Banach spaces and their geometry, Mathematics Studies 68, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982.

E. Behrends et al.,
${L}^{p}$
structure in real Banach spaces, Lecture Notes in Math. 613, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1977.

E. Bishop and R. R. Phelps, A proof that every Banach space is subreflexive, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc 67 (1961), 97–98.

E. Bishop and R. R. Phelps, The support functionals of a convex set, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. VII: Convexity, pp. 27–35. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R. I., 1963.

B. Bollobas, An extension to the theorem of Bishop and Phelps, Bull. London Math. Soc. 2 (1970), 181–182.

F. F. Bonsall and J. Duncan, Numerical Ranges of operators on normed spaces and of elements of normed algebras, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. 2, Cambridge, 1971.

F. F. Bonsall and J. Duncan, Numerical Ranges II, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. 10, Cambridge, 1973.

J. Diestel, Sequences and Series in Banach spaces, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 92, SpringerVerlag, New York.

N. Dunford and J. Schwartz, Linear Operators, Part I: General Theory, Interscience, New York, 1957.

C. Franchetti and R. Paya, Banach spaces with strongly subdifferentiable norm., Bolletino U. M. I. 7 (1993), 45–70.

J. R. Giles, Convex analysis with application in differentiation of convex functions, Research Notes in Math. 58, Pitman, Boston, 1982.

D. A. Gregory, Upper semicontinuity of subdifferential mappings, Canad. Math. Bull. 23 (1980), 11–19.

P. Harmand, D. Werner, and W. Werner,
$M$
ideals in Banach spaces and Banach algebras, Lecture Notes in Math. 1547, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1993.

L. A. Harris, The numerical range of holomorphic functions in Banach spaces, American J. Math. 93 (1971), 1005–1019.

L. A. Harris, The numerical range of functions and best approximation, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 76 (1974), 133–141.

Å. Lima, The metric approximation property, normone projections and intersection properties of balls, Israel J. Math. 84 (1993), 451–475.

G. Lumer, Semiinnerproduct spaces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 109 (1961), 29–43.

R. Paya, Numerical range of operators and structure in Banach spaces, Quart. J. Math. Oxford 33 (1982), 357–364.

R. R. Phelps, Support cones in Banach spaces and their applications, Adv. Math. 13 (1974), 1–19.

R. R. Phelps, Convex functions, monotone operators and differentiability, Lecture Notes in Math. 1364, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1989.

A. RodrıguezPalacios, A numerical range characterization of uniformly smooth Banach spaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 129 (2001), 815–821.

A. RodrıguezPalacios, Numerical ranges of uniformly continuous functions on the unit sphere of a Banach space, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 297 (2004), 472–476.

I. Singer, Bases in Banach Spaces I, Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 154. SpringerVerlag, New YorkBerlin, 1970.

O. Toeplitz, Das algebraische Analogon zu einem Satze von Fejer, Math. Z. 2 (1918), 187–197.