Spectrum for a bounded linear operator and its adjoint on a Banach space are same. Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Residual spectrum of the adjoint on Banach spaceRotating the spectrum of a bounded operatorSelf-adjoint operator has non-empty spectrum.Example of a self-adjoint bounded operator on a Hilbert space with empty point spectrumShape of spectrum of bounded linear operator on complex Banach spacerelation between essential spectrum and spectrum of an operatorResidual spectrum of the adjoint on Banach spaceSpectrum of the right-shift operator on $ell ^2 (mathbbC)$, and a general spectrum questionBounded linear operator property and its spectral radiusthe spectrum of a bounded linear operator on $Xtimes X$Adjoint of Bounded Below Operator
Is the Standard Deduction better than Itemized when both are the same amount?
I am not a queen, who am I?
Does accepting a pardon have any bearing on trying that person for the same crime in a sovereign jurisdiction?
Is there a "higher Segal conjecture"?
Letter Boxed validator
What LEGO pieces have "real-world" functionality?
How to motivate offshore teams and trust them to deliver?
How to draw this diagram using TikZ package?
Can Pao de Queijo, and similar foods, be kosher for Passover?
Why is black pepper both grey and black?
How can I make names more distinctive without making them longer?
Output the ŋarâþ crîþ alphabet song without using (m)any letters
Why was the term "discrete" used in discrete logarithm?
Is there a Spanish version of "dot your i's and cross your t's" that includes the letter 'ñ'?
Why did the IBM 650 use bi-quinary?
How discoverable are IPv6 addresses and AAAA names by potential attackers?
What is the longest distance a 13th-level monk can jump while attacking on the same turn?
ListPlot join points by nearest neighbor rather than order
Is there a way in Ruby to make just any one out of many keyword arguments required?
Is a manifold-with-boundary with given interior and non-empty boundary essentially unique?
Should I use Javascript Classes or Apex Classes in Lightning Web Components?
WAN encapsulation
Can a non-EU citizen traveling with me come with me through the EU passport line?
If Jon Snow became King of the Seven Kingdoms what would his regnal number be?
Spectrum for a bounded linear operator and its adjoint on a Banach space are same.
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Residual spectrum of the adjoint on Banach spaceRotating the spectrum of a bounded operatorSelf-adjoint operator has non-empty spectrum.Example of a self-adjoint bounded operator on a Hilbert space with empty point spectrumShape of spectrum of bounded linear operator on complex Banach spacerelation between essential spectrum and spectrum of an operatorResidual spectrum of the adjoint on Banach spaceSpectrum of the right-shift operator on $ell ^2 (mathbbC)$, and a general spectrum questionBounded linear operator property and its spectral radiusthe spectrum of a bounded linear operator on $Xtimes X$Adjoint of Bounded Below Operator
$begingroup$
I have to show that spectrum for a bounded linear operator and its adjoint on a Banach space are the same. Spectrum is defined as $$ sigma(T)=lambdain mathbbK : T-lambda I textis invertible. $$
I have to show $sigma(T)=sigma(T^*)$. Let $lambda notin sigma(T)$; then $ (T-lambda I ) $ is invertible and bounded. This implies $(T-lambda I)^*$ is also invertible, since $$ (T^*-lambda I)^-1=[(T-lambda I)^*]^-1implies T^*-lambda I textis invertible.
$$
So $lambdanotin sigma(T^*).$
I am unable to prove the other part. Can anyone help me please?
Thanks.
functional-analysis operator-theory banach-spaces spectral-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have to show that spectrum for a bounded linear operator and its adjoint on a Banach space are the same. Spectrum is defined as $$ sigma(T)=lambdain mathbbK : T-lambda I textis invertible. $$
I have to show $sigma(T)=sigma(T^*)$. Let $lambda notin sigma(T)$; then $ (T-lambda I ) $ is invertible and bounded. This implies $(T-lambda I)^*$ is also invertible, since $$ (T^*-lambda I)^-1=[(T-lambda I)^*]^-1implies T^*-lambda I textis invertible.
$$
So $lambdanotin sigma(T^*).$
I am unable to prove the other part. Can anyone help me please?
Thanks.
functional-analysis operator-theory banach-spaces spectral-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have to show that spectrum for a bounded linear operator and its adjoint on a Banach space are the same. Spectrum is defined as $$ sigma(T)=lambdain mathbbK : T-lambda I textis invertible. $$
I have to show $sigma(T)=sigma(T^*)$. Let $lambda notin sigma(T)$; then $ (T-lambda I ) $ is invertible and bounded. This implies $(T-lambda I)^*$ is also invertible, since $$ (T^*-lambda I)^-1=[(T-lambda I)^*]^-1implies T^*-lambda I textis invertible.
$$
So $lambdanotin sigma(T^*).$
I am unable to prove the other part. Can anyone help me please?
Thanks.
functional-analysis operator-theory banach-spaces spectral-theory
$endgroup$
I have to show that spectrum for a bounded linear operator and its adjoint on a Banach space are the same. Spectrum is defined as $$ sigma(T)=lambdain mathbbK : T-lambda I textis invertible. $$
I have to show $sigma(T)=sigma(T^*)$. Let $lambda notin sigma(T)$; then $ (T-lambda I ) $ is invertible and bounded. This implies $(T-lambda I)^*$ is also invertible, since $$ (T^*-lambda I)^-1=[(T-lambda I)^*]^-1implies T^*-lambda I textis invertible.
$$
So $lambdanotin sigma(T^*).$
I am unable to prove the other part. Can anyone help me please?
Thanks.
functional-analysis operator-theory banach-spaces spectral-theory
functional-analysis operator-theory banach-spaces spectral-theory
edited Dec 3 '18 at 16:04
Martin Argerami
130k1184185
130k1184185
asked Dec 9 '16 at 0:36
Sachchidanand PrasadSachchidanand Prasad
1,684722
1,684722
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
$T-lambda I$ is invertible if and only if $(T-lambda I)^*=T^*-lambda I$ is invertible: Since for every linear operator $A$ invertibility of $A$ and of $A^*$ are equivalent, which follows by taking the adjoints of, e.g., $AA^-1=I$ and $A^-1A=I$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I've never heard about this theorem. Anyway, what version are you using? In the wikipedia article I think there are more assumptions than that on the OP.
$endgroup$
– Filburt
Nov 28 '17 at 19:13
$begingroup$
This has nothing to do with closed range theorem. Modified answer
$endgroup$
– daw
Nov 28 '17 at 20:35
1
$begingroup$
Could you help me to prove that, if the adjoint $T*$ of a operator is invertible, then $T$ is surjective?
$endgroup$
– Filburt
Nov 30 '17 at 15:25
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We want to prove that if $X$ is a Banach space and $T^*in B(X^*)$ is invertible, then $T$ is invertible in $B(X)$.
We go through a few steps.
Note that $operatornameran T$ is closed. indeed, let $W$ be the inverse of $T^*$, and let $Tx_n$ be a Cauchy sequence. Then
beginalign
|x_n-x_m|
&=supf\ \
&=sup: fin X^*, \ \
&=sup(Wf),(Tx_n-Tx_m)\ \
&leq|Tx_n-Tx_m|,sup\ \
&=|W|,|Tx_n-Tx_m|.
endalign
So $x_n$ is Cauchy; there exists $xin X$ with $x=lim x_n$. As $T$ is bounded, $Tx=lim Tx_n$, and $operatornameran T$ is closed.$T$ is injective. Indeed, if $Tx=0$, then for any $fin X^*$ we have $f=T^*g$ (since $T^*$ is surjective). Then $$f(x)=T^*g(x)=g(Tx)=g(0)=0.$$ Thus $f(x)=0$ for all $fin X^*$, and so $x=0$.
$T$ is surjective. Indeed, if $yin Xsetminus operatornameran T$, using Hahn-Banach (and the fact that $operatornameran T$ is closed) there exists $gin X^*$ with $g(y)=1$, $g(Tx)=0$ for all $x$. But then $0=g(Tx)=T^*g(x)$ for all $x$, and so $T^*g=0$. As $T^*$ is injective, $g=0$; this is a contradiction. So $X=$operatornameran T$, and $T$ is surjetive.
Finally, since $T$ is bijective and bounded, by the Inverse Mapping Theorem it is invertible.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Very nice proof: maybe it is just the first inequality that is a bit unclear, how can we put the norm of W outside, if it is evaluating at one point (x_n - x_m) (instead of the norm of functions themselves).
$endgroup$
– Philimathmuse
Mar 31 at 20:10
$begingroup$
You are definitely right: that equation is wrong. I'll see if it can be saved.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Mar 31 at 20:24
$begingroup$
I see, maybe it is easier to first compose T* with W, instead of W with T*, and then view Wf as g, whose norm is bdd above by that of W. All the estimates of your original argument still hold.
$endgroup$
– Philimathmuse
Mar 31 at 20:25
$begingroup$
Yes, you are definitely right. I'll edit that into the answer. Thanks for noticing.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Mar 31 at 20:31
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2050473%2fspectrum-for-a-bounded-linear-operator-and-its-adjoint-on-a-banach-space-are-sam%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
$T-lambda I$ is invertible if and only if $(T-lambda I)^*=T^*-lambda I$ is invertible: Since for every linear operator $A$ invertibility of $A$ and of $A^*$ are equivalent, which follows by taking the adjoints of, e.g., $AA^-1=I$ and $A^-1A=I$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I've never heard about this theorem. Anyway, what version are you using? In the wikipedia article I think there are more assumptions than that on the OP.
$endgroup$
– Filburt
Nov 28 '17 at 19:13
$begingroup$
This has nothing to do with closed range theorem. Modified answer
$endgroup$
– daw
Nov 28 '17 at 20:35
1
$begingroup$
Could you help me to prove that, if the adjoint $T*$ of a operator is invertible, then $T$ is surjective?
$endgroup$
– Filburt
Nov 30 '17 at 15:25
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$T-lambda I$ is invertible if and only if $(T-lambda I)^*=T^*-lambda I$ is invertible: Since for every linear operator $A$ invertibility of $A$ and of $A^*$ are equivalent, which follows by taking the adjoints of, e.g., $AA^-1=I$ and $A^-1A=I$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I've never heard about this theorem. Anyway, what version are you using? In the wikipedia article I think there are more assumptions than that on the OP.
$endgroup$
– Filburt
Nov 28 '17 at 19:13
$begingroup$
This has nothing to do with closed range theorem. Modified answer
$endgroup$
– daw
Nov 28 '17 at 20:35
1
$begingroup$
Could you help me to prove that, if the adjoint $T*$ of a operator is invertible, then $T$ is surjective?
$endgroup$
– Filburt
Nov 30 '17 at 15:25
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$T-lambda I$ is invertible if and only if $(T-lambda I)^*=T^*-lambda I$ is invertible: Since for every linear operator $A$ invertibility of $A$ and of $A^*$ are equivalent, which follows by taking the adjoints of, e.g., $AA^-1=I$ and $A^-1A=I$.
$endgroup$
$T-lambda I$ is invertible if and only if $(T-lambda I)^*=T^*-lambda I$ is invertible: Since for every linear operator $A$ invertibility of $A$ and of $A^*$ are equivalent, which follows by taking the adjoints of, e.g., $AA^-1=I$ and $A^-1A=I$.
edited Nov 28 '17 at 20:37
answered Dec 9 '16 at 13:59
dawdaw
25.1k1745
25.1k1745
$begingroup$
I've never heard about this theorem. Anyway, what version are you using? In the wikipedia article I think there are more assumptions than that on the OP.
$endgroup$
– Filburt
Nov 28 '17 at 19:13
$begingroup$
This has nothing to do with closed range theorem. Modified answer
$endgroup$
– daw
Nov 28 '17 at 20:35
1
$begingroup$
Could you help me to prove that, if the adjoint $T*$ of a operator is invertible, then $T$ is surjective?
$endgroup$
– Filburt
Nov 30 '17 at 15:25
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've never heard about this theorem. Anyway, what version are you using? In the wikipedia article I think there are more assumptions than that on the OP.
$endgroup$
– Filburt
Nov 28 '17 at 19:13
$begingroup$
This has nothing to do with closed range theorem. Modified answer
$endgroup$
– daw
Nov 28 '17 at 20:35
1
$begingroup$
Could you help me to prove that, if the adjoint $T*$ of a operator is invertible, then $T$ is surjective?
$endgroup$
– Filburt
Nov 30 '17 at 15:25
$begingroup$
I've never heard about this theorem. Anyway, what version are you using? In the wikipedia article I think there are more assumptions than that on the OP.
$endgroup$
– Filburt
Nov 28 '17 at 19:13
$begingroup$
I've never heard about this theorem. Anyway, what version are you using? In the wikipedia article I think there are more assumptions than that on the OP.
$endgroup$
– Filburt
Nov 28 '17 at 19:13
$begingroup$
This has nothing to do with closed range theorem. Modified answer
$endgroup$
– daw
Nov 28 '17 at 20:35
$begingroup$
This has nothing to do with closed range theorem. Modified answer
$endgroup$
– daw
Nov 28 '17 at 20:35
1
1
$begingroup$
Could you help me to prove that, if the adjoint $T*$ of a operator is invertible, then $T$ is surjective?
$endgroup$
– Filburt
Nov 30 '17 at 15:25
$begingroup$
Could you help me to prove that, if the adjoint $T*$ of a operator is invertible, then $T$ is surjective?
$endgroup$
– Filburt
Nov 30 '17 at 15:25
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We want to prove that if $X$ is a Banach space and $T^*in B(X^*)$ is invertible, then $T$ is invertible in $B(X)$.
We go through a few steps.
Note that $operatornameran T$ is closed. indeed, let $W$ be the inverse of $T^*$, and let $Tx_n$ be a Cauchy sequence. Then
beginalign
|x_n-x_m|
&=supf\ \
&=sup: fin X^*, \ \
&=sup(Wf),(Tx_n-Tx_m)\ \
&leq|Tx_n-Tx_m|,sup\ \
&=|W|,|Tx_n-Tx_m|.
endalign
So $x_n$ is Cauchy; there exists $xin X$ with $x=lim x_n$. As $T$ is bounded, $Tx=lim Tx_n$, and $operatornameran T$ is closed.$T$ is injective. Indeed, if $Tx=0$, then for any $fin X^*$ we have $f=T^*g$ (since $T^*$ is surjective). Then $$f(x)=T^*g(x)=g(Tx)=g(0)=0.$$ Thus $f(x)=0$ for all $fin X^*$, and so $x=0$.
$T$ is surjective. Indeed, if $yin Xsetminus operatornameran T$, using Hahn-Banach (and the fact that $operatornameran T$ is closed) there exists $gin X^*$ with $g(y)=1$, $g(Tx)=0$ for all $x$. But then $0=g(Tx)=T^*g(x)$ for all $x$, and so $T^*g=0$. As $T^*$ is injective, $g=0$; this is a contradiction. So $X=$operatornameran T$, and $T$ is surjetive.
Finally, since $T$ is bijective and bounded, by the Inverse Mapping Theorem it is invertible.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Very nice proof: maybe it is just the first inequality that is a bit unclear, how can we put the norm of W outside, if it is evaluating at one point (x_n - x_m) (instead of the norm of functions themselves).
$endgroup$
– Philimathmuse
Mar 31 at 20:10
$begingroup$
You are definitely right: that equation is wrong. I'll see if it can be saved.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Mar 31 at 20:24
$begingroup$
I see, maybe it is easier to first compose T* with W, instead of W with T*, and then view Wf as g, whose norm is bdd above by that of W. All the estimates of your original argument still hold.
$endgroup$
– Philimathmuse
Mar 31 at 20:25
$begingroup$
Yes, you are definitely right. I'll edit that into the answer. Thanks for noticing.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Mar 31 at 20:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We want to prove that if $X$ is a Banach space and $T^*in B(X^*)$ is invertible, then $T$ is invertible in $B(X)$.
We go through a few steps.
Note that $operatornameran T$ is closed. indeed, let $W$ be the inverse of $T^*$, and let $Tx_n$ be a Cauchy sequence. Then
beginalign
|x_n-x_m|
&=supf\ \
&=sup: fin X^*, \ \
&=sup(Wf),(Tx_n-Tx_m)\ \
&leq|Tx_n-Tx_m|,sup\ \
&=|W|,|Tx_n-Tx_m|.
endalign
So $x_n$ is Cauchy; there exists $xin X$ with $x=lim x_n$. As $T$ is bounded, $Tx=lim Tx_n$, and $operatornameran T$ is closed.$T$ is injective. Indeed, if $Tx=0$, then for any $fin X^*$ we have $f=T^*g$ (since $T^*$ is surjective). Then $$f(x)=T^*g(x)=g(Tx)=g(0)=0.$$ Thus $f(x)=0$ for all $fin X^*$, and so $x=0$.
$T$ is surjective. Indeed, if $yin Xsetminus operatornameran T$, using Hahn-Banach (and the fact that $operatornameran T$ is closed) there exists $gin X^*$ with $g(y)=1$, $g(Tx)=0$ for all $x$. But then $0=g(Tx)=T^*g(x)$ for all $x$, and so $T^*g=0$. As $T^*$ is injective, $g=0$; this is a contradiction. So $X=$operatornameran T$, and $T$ is surjetive.
Finally, since $T$ is bijective and bounded, by the Inverse Mapping Theorem it is invertible.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Very nice proof: maybe it is just the first inequality that is a bit unclear, how can we put the norm of W outside, if it is evaluating at one point (x_n - x_m) (instead of the norm of functions themselves).
$endgroup$
– Philimathmuse
Mar 31 at 20:10
$begingroup$
You are definitely right: that equation is wrong. I'll see if it can be saved.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Mar 31 at 20:24
$begingroup$
I see, maybe it is easier to first compose T* with W, instead of W with T*, and then view Wf as g, whose norm is bdd above by that of W. All the estimates of your original argument still hold.
$endgroup$
– Philimathmuse
Mar 31 at 20:25
$begingroup$
Yes, you are definitely right. I'll edit that into the answer. Thanks for noticing.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Mar 31 at 20:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We want to prove that if $X$ is a Banach space and $T^*in B(X^*)$ is invertible, then $T$ is invertible in $B(X)$.
We go through a few steps.
Note that $operatornameran T$ is closed. indeed, let $W$ be the inverse of $T^*$, and let $Tx_n$ be a Cauchy sequence. Then
beginalign
|x_n-x_m|
&=supf\ \
&=sup: fin X^*, \ \
&=sup(Wf),(Tx_n-Tx_m)\ \
&leq|Tx_n-Tx_m|,sup\ \
&=|W|,|Tx_n-Tx_m|.
endalign
So $x_n$ is Cauchy; there exists $xin X$ with $x=lim x_n$. As $T$ is bounded, $Tx=lim Tx_n$, and $operatornameran T$ is closed.$T$ is injective. Indeed, if $Tx=0$, then for any $fin X^*$ we have $f=T^*g$ (since $T^*$ is surjective). Then $$f(x)=T^*g(x)=g(Tx)=g(0)=0.$$ Thus $f(x)=0$ for all $fin X^*$, and so $x=0$.
$T$ is surjective. Indeed, if $yin Xsetminus operatornameran T$, using Hahn-Banach (and the fact that $operatornameran T$ is closed) there exists $gin X^*$ with $g(y)=1$, $g(Tx)=0$ for all $x$. But then $0=g(Tx)=T^*g(x)$ for all $x$, and so $T^*g=0$. As $T^*$ is injective, $g=0$; this is a contradiction. So $X=$operatornameran T$, and $T$ is surjetive.
Finally, since $T$ is bijective and bounded, by the Inverse Mapping Theorem it is invertible.
$endgroup$
We want to prove that if $X$ is a Banach space and $T^*in B(X^*)$ is invertible, then $T$ is invertible in $B(X)$.
We go through a few steps.
Note that $operatornameran T$ is closed. indeed, let $W$ be the inverse of $T^*$, and let $Tx_n$ be a Cauchy sequence. Then
beginalign
|x_n-x_m|
&=supf\ \
&=sup: fin X^*, \ \
&=sup(Wf),(Tx_n-Tx_m)\ \
&leq|Tx_n-Tx_m|,sup\ \
&=|W|,|Tx_n-Tx_m|.
endalign
So $x_n$ is Cauchy; there exists $xin X$ with $x=lim x_n$. As $T$ is bounded, $Tx=lim Tx_n$, and $operatornameran T$ is closed.$T$ is injective. Indeed, if $Tx=0$, then for any $fin X^*$ we have $f=T^*g$ (since $T^*$ is surjective). Then $$f(x)=T^*g(x)=g(Tx)=g(0)=0.$$ Thus $f(x)=0$ for all $fin X^*$, and so $x=0$.
$T$ is surjective. Indeed, if $yin Xsetminus operatornameran T$, using Hahn-Banach (and the fact that $operatornameran T$ is closed) there exists $gin X^*$ with $g(y)=1$, $g(Tx)=0$ for all $x$. But then $0=g(Tx)=T^*g(x)$ for all $x$, and so $T^*g=0$. As $T^*$ is injective, $g=0$; this is a contradiction. So $X=$operatornameran T$, and $T$ is surjetive.
Finally, since $T$ is bijective and bounded, by the Inverse Mapping Theorem it is invertible.
edited Mar 31 at 20:33
answered Dec 3 '18 at 16:15
Martin ArgeramiMartin Argerami
130k1184185
130k1184185
$begingroup$
Very nice proof: maybe it is just the first inequality that is a bit unclear, how can we put the norm of W outside, if it is evaluating at one point (x_n - x_m) (instead of the norm of functions themselves).
$endgroup$
– Philimathmuse
Mar 31 at 20:10
$begingroup$
You are definitely right: that equation is wrong. I'll see if it can be saved.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Mar 31 at 20:24
$begingroup$
I see, maybe it is easier to first compose T* with W, instead of W with T*, and then view Wf as g, whose norm is bdd above by that of W. All the estimates of your original argument still hold.
$endgroup$
– Philimathmuse
Mar 31 at 20:25
$begingroup$
Yes, you are definitely right. I'll edit that into the answer. Thanks for noticing.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Mar 31 at 20:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Very nice proof: maybe it is just the first inequality that is a bit unclear, how can we put the norm of W outside, if it is evaluating at one point (x_n - x_m) (instead of the norm of functions themselves).
$endgroup$
– Philimathmuse
Mar 31 at 20:10
$begingroup$
You are definitely right: that equation is wrong. I'll see if it can be saved.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Mar 31 at 20:24
$begingroup$
I see, maybe it is easier to first compose T* with W, instead of W with T*, and then view Wf as g, whose norm is bdd above by that of W. All the estimates of your original argument still hold.
$endgroup$
– Philimathmuse
Mar 31 at 20:25
$begingroup$
Yes, you are definitely right. I'll edit that into the answer. Thanks for noticing.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Mar 31 at 20:31
$begingroup$
Very nice proof: maybe it is just the first inequality that is a bit unclear, how can we put the norm of W outside, if it is evaluating at one point (x_n - x_m) (instead of the norm of functions themselves).
$endgroup$
– Philimathmuse
Mar 31 at 20:10
$begingroup$
Very nice proof: maybe it is just the first inequality that is a bit unclear, how can we put the norm of W outside, if it is evaluating at one point (x_n - x_m) (instead of the norm of functions themselves).
$endgroup$
– Philimathmuse
Mar 31 at 20:10
$begingroup$
You are definitely right: that equation is wrong. I'll see if it can be saved.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Mar 31 at 20:24
$begingroup$
You are definitely right: that equation is wrong. I'll see if it can be saved.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Mar 31 at 20:24
$begingroup$
I see, maybe it is easier to first compose T* with W, instead of W with T*, and then view Wf as g, whose norm is bdd above by that of W. All the estimates of your original argument still hold.
$endgroup$
– Philimathmuse
Mar 31 at 20:25
$begingroup$
I see, maybe it is easier to first compose T* with W, instead of W with T*, and then view Wf as g, whose norm is bdd above by that of W. All the estimates of your original argument still hold.
$endgroup$
– Philimathmuse
Mar 31 at 20:25
$begingroup$
Yes, you are definitely right. I'll edit that into the answer. Thanks for noticing.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Mar 31 at 20:31
$begingroup$
Yes, you are definitely right. I'll edit that into the answer. Thanks for noticing.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Mar 31 at 20:31
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2050473%2fspectrum-for-a-bounded-linear-operator-and-its-adjoint-on-a-banach-space-are-sam%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown