I have been posting on here pretty frequently; please forgive me. I have an exam coming up in functional analysis in a little over a week, and my professor is (conveniently) out of town.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

We proved in our class notes that if [itex]T:X\to X[/itex] is a compact operator defined on a Banach space [itex]X[/itex], [itex]\lambda \neq 0[/itex], and [itex]\lambda \in \sigma_p(T)[/itex] (the point spectrum; i.e., the set of eigenvalues of [itex]T[/itex]), then the range [itex]\mathcal R(T_\lambda) = \mathcal R(T-\lambda) \neq X[/itex]. The argument given to support this conclusion is complicated and relies (among other things) on the Riesz lemma, so I won't reproduce it, unless I'm asked to do so.

However, in thevery next theorem, we show that if [itex]\lambda \neq 0[/itex] and [itex]\lambda \in \sigma(T)[/itex], then [itex]\lambda \in \sigma_p(T)[/itex]. The argument is broken down into cases: either [itex]\mathcal R(T_\lambda) = X[/itex] or [itex]\mathcal R(T_\lambda) \neq X[/itex]. The [itex]\mathcal R(T_\lambda) = X[/itex] case is presented as follows: If [itex]\lambda \neq 0[/itex] and [itex]\lambda \in \sigma(T)[/itex] but [itex]\mathcal R(T_\lambda) = X[/itex], then [itex](T-\lambda)^{-1} = T_\lambda^{-1}[/itex] cannot exist (otherwise we would have [itex]\lambda \in \rho(T)[/itex]), so we must have [itex]\ker T_\lambda \neq \{ 0 \}[/itex]; hence [itex]\lambda \in \sigma_p(T)[/itex], since we then have [itex]x \neq 0[/itex] that satisfies [itex]T_\lambda x = (T-\lambda)x = 0[/itex].

Here is my question: This argument makes sense, but doesn't the contrapositive of the first theorem I mentioned give [itex](\mathcal R(T_\lambda) = X) \Rightarrow (\lambda \notin \sigma_p(T))[/itex] if [itex]\lambda \neq 0[/itex]? Is there a subtle point in the logic I'm missing, or is the argument given somehow unsound?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Confusing result about the spectrum of compact operators

Loading...

Similar Threads for Confusing result spectrum |
---|

A Getting a finite result from a non-converging integral |

Confusion about the "now-you-see-me-now-you-don't" radian |

B How can I show the sum results in this? |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**