Proving Isomorphism of Linear Operator with ||A|| < 1

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the linear operator φ: L(E) → L(E) defined by φ(T) = T + AT is an isomorphism when the operator A has a norm less than 1 (||A|| < 1). The context includes theoretical aspects of functional analysis, specifically related to Banach spaces and linear operators.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest using the Neumann series theorem to establish the isomorphism, noting that if ||K|| < 1, then φ has a bounded inverse.
  • There is a discussion about how to define the operator K and whether it satisfies the condition ||K|| < 1.
  • One participant emphasizes that the invertibility of the operator φ is the primary concern, not the invertibility of T.
  • Another participant clarifies that K should be defined as KT = AT, distinguishing between the operators A and K.
  • There is a suggestion that the exercise may be simpler than initially perceived, urging clarity in distinguishing between the spaces involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and approaches to the problem, with no consensus reached on the specific definition of K or the overall strategy for proving the isomorphism. Some participants agree on the relevance of the Neumann series, while others question the assumptions and definitions being used.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of correctly defining the operator K and ensuring that it meets the norm condition. There is also an emphasis on maintaining clarity between the different spaces involved (E, L(E), and L(L(E))).

Jaggis
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Hi, I have some trouble with the following problem:

Let E be a Banach space.

Let A ∈ L(E), the space of linear operators from E.

Show that the linear operator φ: L(E) → L(E) with φ(T) = T + AT is an isomorphism if ||A|| < 1.


So the idea here is to use the Neumann series but I can't really figure out how to apply it here. Any help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Jaggis said:
Let ##A \in L(E)##, the space of linear operators from E.
This should be the space of bounded linear operators, I suppose?
Jaggis said:
So the idea here is to use the Neumann series but I can't really figure out how to apply it here. Any help?
It is part of the Neumann series theorem that if ##X## is Banach and ##K \in L(X)## satisfies ##\|K\| < 1##, then ##\phi := I + K## has a bounded inverse. Using this, start by taking ##X = L(E)##. How should ##K## be defined? Why does it then satisfy ##\|K\| < 1##?
 
Krylov said:
This should be the space of bounded linear operators, I suppose?

Oh, yes. You are right. My bad.

Krylov said:
How should ##K## be defined? Why does it then satisfy ##\|K\| < 1##?

Because I + K has a bounded inverse that can be represented as an infinite sum (according to the Neumann series theorem)

∑||K||^k,

we need ||K|| <1.

If φ(K) = T + TK, would the solution have something to do with the following reasoning: T + TK = T(I + K)? Now I +K has an inverse but T necessarily doesn't. So, how can I deduce that T(I +K) is also an isomorphism?
 
You are looking at it the wrong way, it is irrelevant whether ##T## has an inverse or not. You are interested in invertibility of an operator (namely, ##\phi##) on ##X = L(E)##, not in invertibility of an operator on ##E## itself.

Note that if you choose ##K## correctly (you didn't specify it yet), then your ##\phi## and my ##\phi## are the same.
 
Krylov said:
You are looking at it the wrong way, it is irrelevant whether ##T## has an inverse or not. You are interested in invertibility of an operator (namely, ##\phi##) on ##X = L(E)##, not in invertibility of an operator on ##E## itself.

OK. I see your point. I think.

Then I suppose that we want to use the Neumann series for φ. Because we demand that φ is an isomorphism, we need || φ-I || < 1.

As in

|| φ-I || = || T+KT - I || <1.

Now it remains to show that this holds if ||K|| <1?

Krylov said:
Note that if you choose ##K## correctly (you didn't specify it yet), then your ##\phi## and my ##\phi## are the same.

But can we choose K freely? The way I understand it, the task is to show that

K ∈ L(L(E)) with ||K|| < 1 ⇒ φ: L(E) →L(E) with φ(T) = T + KT is an isomorphism

holds.
 
From the OP I thought the task is to show that ##\phi \in L(X)## defined by
$$
\phi(T) := T + AT \qquad \forall\,T \in X := L(E)
$$
is an isomorphism whenever ##A \in X## satisfies ##\|A\| < 1##. Isn't this what you wanted?

Assuming this is correct, what I was hinting at, is that given ##A \in X## you define ##K \in L(X)## by
$$
KT := AT \qquad \forall\,T \in X
$$
(So note: ##K## is not equal to ##A##! The latter is in ##X##, the former is in ##L(X)##.) Then it follows that ##\phi = I_X + K## with ##I_X## the identity on ##X##. Now you just have to prove that ##\|K\| < 1##, which is trivial. (In fact, the whole exercise is rather easy, and maybe you are overthinking it? Just be sure to keep a clear distinction between ##E##, ##L(E)## and ##L(L(E))##. To help myself with this, I introduced the symbol ##X##.)
 
OK, thanks for your help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
554
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K