Norms of compositions of bounded operators between different spaces

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AxiomOfChoice
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bounded Operators
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The composition of bounded linear operators between Banach spaces is established as follows: Given operators B: X → Y and A: Y → Z, both in the space of bounded linear operators, it is confirmed that the composition AB: X → Z is also a bounded linear operator. The norm of this composition satisfies the inequality \| AB \|_{\mathcal L(X,Z)} ≤ \|A\|_{\mathcal L(Y,Z)} \|B\|_{\mathcal L(X,Y)}. This conclusion is supported by the proof outlined in the discussion, which utilizes the supremum definition of operator norms and the properties of bounded operators.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Banach spaces and their properties
  • Familiarity with bounded linear operators and the notation \(\mathcal L(X,Y)\)
  • Knowledge of operator norms and supremum definitions
  • Basic functional analysis concepts and theorems
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Banach spaces in detail
  • Learn about the implications of the boundedness of linear operators
  • Explore the concept of operator norms and their applications in functional analysis
  • Review proofs involving compositions of operators in functional analysis literature
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, functional analysts, and students studying operator theory who seek to deepen their understanding of bounded operators and their compositions in Banach spaces.

AxiomOfChoice
Messages
531
Reaction score
1
Suppose I have [itex]B: X\to Y[/itex] and [itex]A: Y\to Z[/itex], where [itex]X,Y,Z[/itex] are Banach spaces and [itex]B\in \mathcal L(X,Y)[/itex] and [itex]A\in \mathcal L(Y,Z)[/itex]; that is, both of these operators are bounded. Does it follow that [itex]AB \in \mathcal L(X,Z)[/itex] and
[tex] \| AB \|_{\mathcal L(X,Z)} \leq \|A\|_{\mathcal L(Y,Z)} \|B\|_{\mathcal L(X,Y)}[/tex]
It seems like this should be the case, but any time I try to prove a functional analytic result like this, I always get mired in uncertainty about the details...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmmm...okay, well, I think I've found my answer in Eqn. 3.3 of this PDF. Does this suffice for a proof of this result:
[tex] \| AB \|_{\mathcal L(X,Z)} = \sup_{x\in X, \|x\|_X = 1} \|ABx\|_Z \leq \sup_{x\in X, \|x\|_X = 1} \|A\|_{\mathcal L(Y,Z)} \|Bx\|_Y = \|A\|_{\mathcal L(Y,Z)} \sup_{x\in X, \|x\|_X = 1} \|Bx\|_Y = \|A\|_{\mathcal L(Y,Z)} \|B\|_{\mathcal L(X,Y)}.[/tex]
 
This is ok. Another way of proving it is to note that ##\|A\|## is the smallest number ##C## such that [tex]\|Ax\|\leq \|A\|\|x\|[/tex] for each ##x## in the domain. It follows that for each ##x\in X##: [tex]\|ABx\|\leq \|A\|\|Bx\|\leq \|A\|\|B\|\|x\|[/tex] So ##\|A\|\|B\|## is some number ##C## such that ##\|ABx\|\leq C\|x\|##. It follows that ##AB## is bounded and that ##\|AB\|\leq \|A\|\|B\|##, since ##\|AB\|## is by definition the smallest ##C## such that ##\|ABx\|\leq C\|x\|##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K