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










2












$begingroup$



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.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    2












    $begingroup$



    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.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      2












      2








      2


      1



      $begingroup$



      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.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$





      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






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      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




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          $T-lambda I$ 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 $A^-1A=I$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            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


















          2












          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            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











          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
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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









          1












          $begingroup$

          $T-lambda I$ 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 $A^-1A=I$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            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















          1












          $begingroup$

          $T-lambda I$ 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 $A^-1A=I$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            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













          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          $T-lambda I$ 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 $A^-1A=I$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          $T-lambda I$ 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 $A^-1A=I$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          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
















          • $begingroup$
            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











          2












          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            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















          2












          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            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













          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          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.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          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
















          • $begingroup$
            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

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Triangular numbers and gcdProving sum of a set is $0 pmod n$ if $n$ is odd, or $fracn2 pmod n$ if $n$ is even?Is greatest common divisor of two numbers really their smallest linear combination?GCD, LCM RelationshipProve a set of nonnegative integers with greatest common divisor 1 and closed under addition has all but finite many nonnegative integers.all pairs of a and b in an equation containing gcdTriangular Numbers Modulo $k$ - Hit All Values?Understanding the Existence and Uniqueness of the GCDGCD and LCM with logical symbolsThe greatest common divisor of two positive integers less than 100 is equal to 3. Their least common multiple is twelve times one of the integers.Suppose that for all integers $x$, $x|a$ and $x|b$ if and only if $x|c$. Then $c = gcd(a,b)$Which is the gcd of 2 numbers which are multiplied and the result is 600000?

          Ingelân Ynhâld Etymology | Geografy | Skiednis | Polityk en bestjoer | Ekonomy | Demografy | Kultuer | Klimaat | Sjoch ek | Keppelings om utens | Boarnen, noaten en referinsjes Navigaasjemenuwww.gov.ukOffisjele webside fan it regear fan it Feriene KeninkrykOffisjele webside fan it Britske FerkearsburoNederlânsktalige ynformaasje fan it Britske FerkearsburoOffisjele webside fan English Heritage, de organisaasje dy't him ynset foar it behâld fan it Ingelske kultuergoedYnwennertallen fan alle Britske stêden út 'e folkstelling fan 2011Notes en References, op dizze sideEngland

          Հադիս Բովանդակություն Անվանում և նշանակություն | Դասակարգում | Աղբյուրներ | Նավարկման ցանկ