# Eigenvalues for a bounded operator

• Wuberdall
The equation ##f(1) = \lambda f(1)## implies ##\lambda = 1## only in the case ##f(1) \neq 0##; otherwise, if ##f(1) = 0## there is no restriction on ##\lambda##.

## Homework Statement

Let $C$ be the composition operator on the Hilbert space $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ with the usual inner product. Let $f\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$, then $C$ is defined by

$(Cf)(x) = f(2x-1)$, $\hspace{9pt}x\in\mathbb{R}$

give a demonstration, which shows that $C$ does not have any eigenvalues.

## Homework Equations

$C$ is a unitary operator.

Let $\mathcal{F}$ denote the Fourier Transformation on $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$, then
$(\mathcal{F}C\mathcal{F}^{\ast}f)(p) = \frac{\exp\big(-i\tfrac{1}{2}p\big)}{\sqrt{2}}\hspace{1pt}f\big(\tfrac{1}{2}p\big)$

## The Attempt at a Solution

Direct application of the eigenvalue equation of course yields Schröders equation, that is
$f(2x-1) = \lambda f(x)$

I don't have a slightest idea on how to proceed from here.

Any good suggestions are more than welcome!

If C were to have any eigenvalues, they would apply to any choice of f in your space.
Consdider a function that is has the property f(0)=0 and f(-1) ##\neq## 0.
Such a function clearly exists in your space.

RUber said:
If C were to have any eigenvalues, they would apply to any choice of f in your space.
Consdider a function that is has the property f(0)=0 and f(-1) ##\neq## 0.
Such a function clearly exists in your space.
I still don't see how this implies that $C$ doesn't have any eigenvalues ?

I mean, does i not only show that there doesn't exist an eigenfunction having these properties?

Is this a valid argument ?
Assume that $f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is non vanishing almost everywhere and $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $C$, then
$f(2x-1) = \lambda f(x)$
$2f'(2x-1) = \lambda f'(x)$

For x=1 the first of the equations yields : $\hspace{3pt} f(1) = \lambda f(1) \hspace{12pt}\Rightarrow\hspace{12pt} \lambda=1$.
While the second of the equations yields : $\hspace{3pt} 2f'(1) = \lambda f'(1) \hspace{12pt}\Rightarrow\hspace{12pt} \lambda=2$.
This is obvious a contradiction, therefore $\lambda$ can't be a eigenvalue.

Of course $f$ must behave properly around $x=1$, but this is guaranteed by $f \in L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$.

RUber said:
If C were to have any eigenvalues, they would apply to any choice of f in your space.
Consdider a function that is has the property f(0)=0 and f(-1) ##\neq## 0.
Such a function clearly exists in your space.

No, the eigenvalue equation ##f(2x-1) = \lambda f(x) \; \forall x## need apply only to an eigenfunction ##f = f_{\lambda}##.

Wuberdall
Thanks, Ray. I must have been operating without caffeine when I posted that.

But ##f\in \mathbb L^2## doesn't give you that ##f## is differentiable.

LCKurtz makes a good point. The goal should be to contradict your assumptions.
As it stands, 1 is the only potential eigenvalue, as long as f(x) is defined at x=1.
So if f(x) is defined at ##x = 1+ \delta##, ##f(1+ \delta) = f(1+ 2\delta)=f(1+2^k \delta) ## for any delta and integer k .
You may be able to show that this sort of function is either the zero function (trivial) or not in ##L^2##.

RUber said:
Thanks, Ray. I must have been operating without caffeine when I posted that.

More generally: if ##f \in C^{\infty}## near ##x = 1## then we have ##2^n f^{(n)}(2x-1) = \lambda f^{(n)}(x), n = 0,1,2,\ldots##, where ##f^{(n)}## denotes the ##n##th derivative. Thus ##2^n f^{(n)}(1) = \lambda f^{(n)}(1), n = 0,1,2, \ldots##.
(1) If ##\lambda = 0## that would imply that ##f^{(n) = 0, n = 0,1,2, \ldots##, meaning that ##f## would be non-analytic (but still ##C^{\infty}##. That means that ##f## would not equal its own Taylor series. There are functions like that, and our ##f## would have to be one of them.
(2) If ##\lambda \neq 0## then either (i) ##f(0) = 0##; or (ii) ##\lambda = 1##. In case (i) we have ##2 f'(1) = \lambda f'(1), 4 f''(1) = \lambda f''(1), \ldots##, and this allows ##\lambda = 2, f^{(n)}(1) = 0## for ##n \geq 2## or ##\lambda = 4, f^{(n)}(1)=0## for ##n = 1,3,4,\ldots#, etc. Again, ##f## would not be analytic
RUber said:
LCKurtz makes a good point. The goal should be to contradict your assumptions.
As it stands, 1 is the only potential eigenvalue, as long as f(x) is defined at x=1.
So if f(x) is defined at ##x = 1+ \delta##, ##f(1+ \delta) = f(1+ 2\delta)=f(1+2^k \delta) ## for any delta and integer k .
You may be able to show that this sort of function is either the zero function (trivial) or not in ##L^2##.

The equation ##f(1) = \lambda f(1)## implies ##\lambda = 1## only in the case ##f(1) \neq 0##; otherwise, if ##f(1) = 0## there is no restriction on ##\lambda##.