Eigenvalues for a bounded operator

  • Thread starter Wuberdall
  • Start date
  • #1
34
0

Homework Statement


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

[itex](Cf)(x) = f(2x-1)[/itex], [itex]\hspace{9pt}x\in\mathbb{R}[/itex]

give a demonstration, which shows that [itex]C[/itex] does not have any eigenvalues.

Homework Equations


[itex]C[/itex] is a unitary operator.

Let [itex]\mathcal{F}[/itex] denote the Fourier Transformation on [itex]L_{2}(\mathbb{R})[/itex], then
[itex](\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)
[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution


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

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


Any good suggestions are more than welcome!
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
RUber
Homework Helper
1,687
344
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.
 
  • #3
34
0
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.
Thanks for your reply.
I still don't see how this implies that [itex]C[/itex] doesn't have any eigenvalues ?

I mean, does i not only show that there doesn't exist an eigenfunction having these properties?
 
  • #4
34
0
Is this a valid argument ?
Assume that [itex]f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}[/itex] is non vanishing almost everywhere and [itex]\lambda[/itex] is an eigenvalue of [itex]C[/itex], then
[itex]f(2x-1) = \lambda f(x)[/itex]
[itex]2f'(2x-1) = \lambda f'(x)[/itex]

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

Of course [itex] f [/itex] must behave properly around [itex] x=1 [/itex], but this is guaranteed by [itex] f \in L_{2}(\mathbb{R}) [/itex].
 
  • #5
Ray Vickson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Dearly Missed
10,706
1,728
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}##.
 
  • Like
Likes Wuberdall
  • #6
RUber
Homework Helper
1,687
344
Thanks, Ray. I must have been operating without caffeine when I posted that.

Wuberdall, your contradiction argument looks reasonable to me.
 
  • #7
LCKurtz
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
9,556
767
But ##f\in \mathbb L^2## doesn't give you that ##f## is differentiable.
 
  • #8
RUber
Homework Helper
1,687
344
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##.
 
  • #9
Ray Vickson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Dearly Missed
10,706
1,728
Thanks, Ray. I must have been operating without caffeine when I posted that.

Wuberdall, your contradiction argument looks reasonable to me.
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
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##.
 

Related Threads on Eigenvalues for a bounded operator

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
549
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
994
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
622
Replies
1
Views
2K
Top