Spectrum for a bounded linear operator and its adjoint on a Banach space are same.
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
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 $$ sigma(T)={lambdain mathbb{K} : T-lambda I text{is invertible}.} $$
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 $$ (T^*-lambda I)^{-1}=[(T-lambda I)^*]^{-1}implies T^*-lambda I text{is invertible}.
$$
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
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
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 $$ sigma(T)={lambdain mathbb{K} : T-lambda I text{is invertible}.} $$
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 $$ (T^*-lambda I)^{-1}=[(T-lambda I)^*]^{-1}implies T^*-lambda I text{is invertible}.
$$
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
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
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 $$ sigma(T)={lambdain mathbb{K} : T-lambda I text{is invertible}.} $$
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 $$ (T^*-lambda I)^{-1}=[(T-lambda I)^*]^{-1}implies T^*-lambda I text{is invertible}.
$$
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
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 $$ sigma(T)={lambdain mathbb{K} : T-lambda I text{is invertible}.} $$
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 $$ (T^*-lambda I)^{-1}=[(T-lambda I)^*]^{-1}implies T^*-lambda I text{is invertible}.
$$
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 at 16:04
Martin Argerami
123k1176173
123k1176173
asked Dec 9 '16 at 0:36
Sachchidanand Prasad
1,689620
1,689620
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
$T-lambda I$ 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 $A^{-1}A=I$.
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.
– Filburt
Nov 28 '17 at 19:13
This has nothing to do with closed range theorem. Modified answer
– daw
Nov 28 '17 at 20:35
1
Could you help me to prove that, if the adjoint $T*$ of a operator is invertible, then $T$ is surjective?
– Filburt
Nov 30 '17 at 15:25
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
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 $operatorname{ran} T$ is closed. indeed, let $W$ be the inverse of $T^*$, and let ${Tx_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence. Then
begin{align}
|x_n-x_m|
&=sup{|f(x_n-x_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&=sup{|WT^*f,(x_n-x_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&leq|W|,sup{|T^*f,(x_n-x_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&=|W|,sup{|f,(Tx_n-Tx_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&leq|W|,|Tx_n-Tx_m|.
end{align}
So ${x_n}$ is Cauchy; there exists $xin X$ with $x=lim x_n$. As $T$ is bounded, $Tx=lim Tx_n$, and $operatorname{ran} T$ 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 $yin Xsetminus operatorname{ran} T$, using Hahn-Banach (and the fact that $operatorname{ran} T$ 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 $X=$operatorname{ran} T$, and $T$ is surjetive.
Finally, since $T$ is bijective and bounded, by the Inverse Mapping Theorem it is invertible.
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
$T-lambda I$ 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 $A^{-1}A=I$.
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.
– Filburt
Nov 28 '17 at 19:13
This has nothing to do with closed range theorem. Modified answer
– daw
Nov 28 '17 at 20:35
1
Could you help me to prove that, if the adjoint $T*$ of a operator is invertible, then $T$ is surjective?
– Filburt
Nov 30 '17 at 15:25
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
$T-lambda I$ 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 $A^{-1}A=I$.
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.
– Filburt
Nov 28 '17 at 19:13
This has nothing to do with closed range theorem. Modified answer
– daw
Nov 28 '17 at 20:35
1
Could you help me to prove that, if the adjoint $T*$ of a operator is invertible, then $T$ is surjective?
– Filburt
Nov 30 '17 at 15:25
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
$T-lambda I$ 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 $A^{-1}A=I$.
$T-lambda I$ 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 $A^{-1}A=I$.
edited Nov 28 '17 at 20:37
answered Dec 9 '16 at 13:59
daw
23.9k1544
23.9k1544
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.
– Filburt
Nov 28 '17 at 19:13
This has nothing to do with closed range theorem. Modified answer
– daw
Nov 28 '17 at 20:35
1
Could you help me to prove that, if the adjoint $T*$ of a operator is invertible, then $T$ is surjective?
– Filburt
Nov 30 '17 at 15:25
add a comment |
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.
– Filburt
Nov 28 '17 at 19:13
This has nothing to do with closed range theorem. Modified answer
– daw
Nov 28 '17 at 20:35
1
Could you help me to prove that, if the adjoint $T*$ of a operator is invertible, then $T$ is surjective?
– Filburt
Nov 30 '17 at 15:25
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.
– Filburt
Nov 28 '17 at 19:13
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.
– Filburt
Nov 28 '17 at 19:13
This has nothing to do with closed range theorem. Modified answer
– daw
Nov 28 '17 at 20:35
This has nothing to do with closed range theorem. Modified answer
– daw
Nov 28 '17 at 20:35
1
1
Could you help me to prove that, if the adjoint $T*$ of a operator is invertible, then $T$ is surjective?
– Filburt
Nov 30 '17 at 15:25
Could you help me to prove that, if the adjoint $T*$ of a operator is invertible, then $T$ is surjective?
– Filburt
Nov 30 '17 at 15:25
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
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 $operatorname{ran} T$ is closed. indeed, let $W$ be the inverse of $T^*$, and let ${Tx_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence. Then
begin{align}
|x_n-x_m|
&=sup{|f(x_n-x_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&=sup{|WT^*f,(x_n-x_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&leq|W|,sup{|T^*f,(x_n-x_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&=|W|,sup{|f,(Tx_n-Tx_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&leq|W|,|Tx_n-Tx_m|.
end{align}
So ${x_n}$ is Cauchy; there exists $xin X$ with $x=lim x_n$. As $T$ is bounded, $Tx=lim Tx_n$, and $operatorname{ran} T$ 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 $yin Xsetminus operatorname{ran} T$, using Hahn-Banach (and the fact that $operatorname{ran} T$ 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 $X=$operatorname{ran} T$, and $T$ is surjetive.
Finally, since $T$ is bijective and bounded, by the Inverse Mapping Theorem it is invertible.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
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 $operatorname{ran} T$ is closed. indeed, let $W$ be the inverse of $T^*$, and let ${Tx_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence. Then
begin{align}
|x_n-x_m|
&=sup{|f(x_n-x_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&=sup{|WT^*f,(x_n-x_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&leq|W|,sup{|T^*f,(x_n-x_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&=|W|,sup{|f,(Tx_n-Tx_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&leq|W|,|Tx_n-Tx_m|.
end{align}
So ${x_n}$ is Cauchy; there exists $xin X$ with $x=lim x_n$. As $T$ is bounded, $Tx=lim Tx_n$, and $operatorname{ran} T$ 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 $yin Xsetminus operatorname{ran} T$, using Hahn-Banach (and the fact that $operatorname{ran} T$ 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 $X=$operatorname{ran} T$, and $T$ is surjetive.
Finally, since $T$ is bijective and bounded, by the Inverse Mapping Theorem it is invertible.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
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 $operatorname{ran} T$ is closed. indeed, let $W$ be the inverse of $T^*$, and let ${Tx_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence. Then
begin{align}
|x_n-x_m|
&=sup{|f(x_n-x_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&=sup{|WT^*f,(x_n-x_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&leq|W|,sup{|T^*f,(x_n-x_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&=|W|,sup{|f,(Tx_n-Tx_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&leq|W|,|Tx_n-Tx_m|.
end{align}
So ${x_n}$ is Cauchy; there exists $xin X$ with $x=lim x_n$. As $T$ is bounded, $Tx=lim Tx_n$, and $operatorname{ran} T$ 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 $yin Xsetminus operatorname{ran} T$, using Hahn-Banach (and the fact that $operatorname{ran} T$ 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 $X=$operatorname{ran} T$, and $T$ is surjetive.
Finally, since $T$ is bijective and bounded, by the Inverse Mapping Theorem it is invertible.
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 $operatorname{ran} T$ is closed. indeed, let $W$ be the inverse of $T^*$, and let ${Tx_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence. Then
begin{align}
|x_n-x_m|
&=sup{|f(x_n-x_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&=sup{|WT^*f,(x_n-x_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&leq|W|,sup{|T^*f,(x_n-x_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&=|W|,sup{|f,(Tx_n-Tx_m)|: fin X^*, |f|=1}\ \
&leq|W|,|Tx_n-Tx_m|.
end{align}
So ${x_n}$ is Cauchy; there exists $xin X$ with $x=lim x_n$. As $T$ is bounded, $Tx=lim Tx_n$, and $operatorname{ran} T$ 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 $yin Xsetminus operatorname{ran} T$, using Hahn-Banach (and the fact that $operatorname{ran} T$ 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 $X=$operatorname{ran} T$, and $T$ is surjetive.
Finally, since $T$ is bijective and bounded, by the Inverse Mapping Theorem it is invertible.
answered Dec 3 at 16:15
Martin Argerami
123k1176173
123k1176173
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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