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.










share|cite|improve this question




























    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.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      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.










      share|cite|improve this question
















      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






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 3 at 16:04









      Martin Argerami

      123k1176173




      123k1176173










      asked Dec 9 '16 at 0:36









      Sachchidanand Prasad

      1,689620




      1,689620






















          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 $A^{-1}A=I$.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • 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


















          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.







          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            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',
            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








            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 $A^{-1}A=I$.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • 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















            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 $A^{-1}A=I$.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • 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













            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 $A^{-1}A=I$.






            share|cite|improve this answer














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







            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









            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


















            • 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










            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.







            share|cite|improve this answer

























              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.







              share|cite|improve this answer























                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.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                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.








                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 3 at 16:15









                Martin Argerami

                123k1176173




                123k1176173






























                    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.





                    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.




                    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

                    Cabo Verde

                    Gyllenstierna

                    Albrecht Dürer