Showing a certain algebra is closed under inverses

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Boromir
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra Closed
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of bounded normal operators on Hilbert spaces, specifically focusing on whether the inverse of such an operator is contained within the algebra generated by polynomials in the operator and its adjoint. The context includes theoretical aspects of functional analysis and operator theory, with references to the Gelfand-Naimark theorem and properties of Banach algebras.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if \( ||1-T|| < 1 \), then \( T \) has an inverse that can be expressed as a limit of polynomials in \( T \), thus belonging to the generated algebra.
  • Others question the case of invertible \( T \) where \( ||1-T|| > 1 \) and its implications for the existence of an inverse in the generated algebra.
  • A participant notes that in a general Banach algebra, a non-invertible element may have an inverse in a larger algebra, but this does not hold for selfadjoint subalgebras of \( B(H) \), suggesting a need for proofs that leverage the specific structure of \( B(H) \).
  • Another participant discusses a theorem regarding the spectra of elements in unital Banach subalgebras, indicating that the spectrum of an operator in \( B(H) \) must be considered carefully to determine invertibility.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the concept of the boundary of the spectrum and its relation to the real nature of the spectrum of selfadjoint operators.
  • There is a discussion about the definition of boundary points and their implications for the spectrum of \( T^*T \), with a participant asserting that all points in the spectrum are boundary points.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the spectral properties of operators and whether certain proofs can be established without invoking the Gelfand-Naimark theorem. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the conditions under which the inverse of \( T \) exists in the generated algebra.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the operators and the definitions of spectra and boundaries, which are not fully resolved in the discussion. The applicability of certain theorems may depend on specific conditions that are not universally agreed upon.

Boromir
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Let H be a hilbert space. Let T be a bounded normal operator on H. Consider the closure of the set of polynomials in $T$ and $T^{*}$. Show that if T has an inverse in B(H), then the inverse is in this generated algebra.

Notes: This is pre-gelfand naimark so can't invoke that

My thoughts: If $||1-T||<1$ then T has an inverse and the inverse is the limit of polynomials in T so in the algebra. But what about invertible T with $||1-T||>1$?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Boromir said:
Let H be a hilbert space. Let T be a bounded normal operator on H. Consider the closure of the set of polynomials in $T$ and $T^{*}$. Show that if T has an inverse in B(H), then the inverse is in this generated algebra.

Notes: This is pre-gelfand naimark so can't invoke that

My thoughts: If $||1-T||<1$ then T has an inverse and the inverse is the limit of polynomials in T so in the algebra. But what about invertible T with $||1-T||>1$?
In a general Banach algebra it is possible for a non-invertible element to have an inverse in a larger algebra. That cannot happen for selfadjoint subalgebras of $B(H)$. It follows that any proof of this fact cannot rely on general Banach algebra properties but must make some use of the special structure of $B(H)$. The usual proof uses the Gelfand–Naimark theorem.

However, you can avoid Gelfand–Naimark theory if you know a theorem about Banach subalgebras. Suppose that $A$ is a unital Banach subalgebra of a Banach algebra $B$. Let $a\in A$ and let $\sigma_A(a),\sigma_B(a)$ denote the spectrum of $a$ in $A$ and $B$ respectively. Then $\sigma_B(a) \subseteq \sigma_A(a)$, but if we look at the boundary of the spectrum then the theorem says that the inclusion goes the other way, $\partial\sigma_A(a) \subseteq \partial\sigma_B(a)$.

Given $T\in A\subseteq B(H)$ with an inverse in $B(H)$, the operator $T^*T$ is selfadjoint in $A$, and invertible in $B(H)$. If it is not invertible in $A$ then $0$ will be in its spectrum. But the spectrum of a selfadjoint operator is real, so every point in $\sigma_A(T^*T)$ is in the boundary of the spectrum. Therefore $0$ is in $\sigma_{B(H)}(T^*T)$. But this means that $T^*T$ is not invertible in $B(H)$. That contradiction shows that $T^*T$ has an inverse in $A$. There is then a little trick (Proposition 4.1.5 in Kadison and Ringrose) to show that $T$ also has an inverse in $A$.

(That proof works for any $T\in B(H)$. The condition that $T$ should be normal is not needed.)
 
Opalg said:
In a general Banach algebra it is possible for a non-invertible element to have an inverse in a larger algebra. That cannot happen for selfadjoint subalgebras of $B(H)$. It follows that any proof of this fact cannot rely on general Banach algebra properties but must make some use of the special structure of $B(H)$. The usual proof uses the Gelfand–Naimark theorem.

However, you can avoid Gelfand–Naimark theory if you know a theorem about Banach subalgebras. Suppose that $A$ is a unital Banach subalgebra of a Banach algebra $B$. Let $a\in A$ and let $\sigma_A(a),\sigma_B(a)$ denote the spectrum of $a$ in $A$ and $B$ respectively. Then $\sigma_B(a) \subseteq \sigma_A(a)$, but if we look at the boundary of the spectrum then the theorem says that the inclusion goes the other way, $\partial\sigma_A(a) \subseteq \partial\sigma_B(a)$.

Given $T\in A\subseteq B(H)$ with an inverse in $B(H)$, the operator $T^*T$ is selfadjoint in $A$, and invertible in $B(H)$. If it is not invertible in $A$ then $0$ will be in its spectrum. But the spectrum of a selfadjoint operator is real, so every point in $\sigma_A(T^*T)$ is in the boundary of the spectrum. Therefore $0$ is in $\sigma_{B(H)}(T^*T)$. But this means that $T^*T$ is not invertible in $B(H)$. That contradiction shows that $T^*T$ has an inverse in $A$. There is then a little trick (Proposition 4.1.5 in Kadison and Ringrose) to show that $T$ also has an inverse in $A$.

(That proof works for any $T\in B(H)$. The condition that $T$ should be normal is not needed.)

I'm not familiar with the boundary. From wikipedia, it is the set of points p such that every neighbourhood of p contains at least one point of the spectrum (in this case). What has that to do with the spectrum being real? Also, a certain irony here, but I cannot read chapter 4 in that preview!
 
Opalg said:
In a general Banach algebra it is possible for a non-invertible element to have an inverse in a larger algebra. That cannot happen for selfadjoint subalgebras of $B(H)$. It follows that any proof of this fact cannot rely on general Banach algebra properties but must make some use of the special structure of $B(H)$. The usual proof uses the Gelfand–Naimark theorem.

However, you can avoid Gelfand–Naimark theory if you know a theorem about Banach subalgebras. Suppose that $A$ is a unital Banach subalgebra of a Banach algebra $B$. Let $a\in A$ and let $\sigma_A(a),\sigma_B(a)$ denote the spectrum of $a$ in $A$ and $B$ respectively. Then $\sigma_B(a) \subseteq \sigma_A(a)$, but if we look at the boundary of the spectrum then the theorem says that the inclusion goes the other way, $\partial\sigma_A(a) \subseteq \partial\sigma_B(a)$.

Given $T\in A\subseteq B(H)$ with an inverse in $B(H)$, the operator $T^*T$ is selfadjoint in $A$, and invertible in $B(H)$. If it is not invertible in $A$ then $0$ will be in its spectrum. But the spectrum of a selfadjoint operator is real, so every point in $\sigma_A(T^*T)$ is in the boundary of the spectrum. Therefore $0$ is in $\sigma_{B(H)}(T^*T)$. But this means that $T^*T$ is not invertible in $B(H)$. That contradiction shows that $T^*T$ has an inverse in $A$. There is then a little trick (Proposition 4.1.5 in Kadison and Ringrose) to show that $T$ also has an inverse in $A$.

(That proof works for any $T\in B(H)$. The condition that $T$ should be normal is not needed.)

Is it th set of limit points?
 
Boromir said:
Is it th set of limit points?
The boundary of a closed subset S of a space (in this case the space of complex numbers) is the set of all points in $S$ that are arbitrarily close to points outside $S$. The spectrum of a selfadjoint operator consists of real numbers, and any real number has nonreal complex numbers arbitrarily close to it. So in this case the whole of the spectrum consists of boundary points.
 
Opalg said:
The boundary of a closed subset S of a space (in this case the space of complex numbers) is the set of all points in $S$ that are arbitrarily close to points outside $S$. The spectrum of a selfadjoint operator consists of real numbers, and any real number has nonreal complex numbers arbitrarily close to it. So in this case the whole of the spectrum consists of boundary points.

Have I got this right so far? the precise deifinition is that every open ball centred at a point contains both points of S and not of S. That is true for real numbers so all the spectrum is in the boundary which implies it is in the boundary of the spectrum considered as an element of B(H). But the spectrum is closed and all points in the boundary are limiting points, hence in the spectrum. So T*T is not invertible.
 
Opalg said:
In a general Banach algebra it is possible for a non-invertible element to have an inverse in a larger algebra. That cannot happen for selfadjoint subalgebras of $B(H)$. It follows that any proof of this fact cannot rely on general Banach algebra properties but must make some use of the special structure of $B(H)$. The usual proof uses the Gelfand–Naimark theorem.

However, you can avoid Gelfand–Naimark theory if you know a theorem about Banach subalgebras. Suppose that $A$ is a unital Banach subalgebra of a Banach algebra $B$. Let $a\in A$ and let $\sigma_A(a),\sigma_B(a)$ denote the spectrum of $a$ in $A$ and $B$ respectively. Then $\sigma_B(a) \subseteq \sigma_A(a)$, but if we look at the boundary of the spectrum then the theorem says that the inclusion goes the other way, $\partial\sigma_A(a) \subseteq \partial\sigma_B(a)$.

Given $T\in A\subseteq B(H)$ with an inverse in $B(H)$, the operator $T^*T$ is selfadjoint in $A$, and invertible in $B(H)$. If it is not invertible in $A$ then $0$ will be in its spectrum. But the spectrum of a selfadjoint operator is real, so every point in $\sigma_A(T^*T)$ is in the boundary of the spectrum. Therefore $0$ is in $\sigma_{B(H)}(T^*T)$. But this means that $T^*T$ is not invertible in $B(H)$. That contradiction shows that $T^*T$ has an inverse in $A$. There is then a little trick (Proposition 4.1.5 in Kadison and Ringrose) to show that $T$ also has an inverse in $A$.

(That proof works for any $T\in B(H)$. The condition that $T$ should be normal is not needed.)

How to prove 'Therefore $0$ is in $\sigma_{B(H)}(T^*T)$'? Thanks
 
Boromir said:
How to prove 'Therefore $0$ is in $\sigma_{B(H)}(T^*T)$'? Thanks
That is because of the theorem I quoted, that if a number is in the boundary of the spectrum of an element in an algebra $A$, then it is also in the spectrum of that element in any algebra that contains $A$.
 
Opalg said:
That is because of the theorem I quoted, that if a number is in the boundary of the spectrum of an element in an algebra $A$, then it is also in the spectrum of that element in any algebra that contains $A$.

if x is in the boundary, it is a limiting point, thus in the spectrum since it is closed. But just because x is not invertible in A does not mean there is no inverse in B, so it is not immediately clear. Do you have a proof of this?
 
  • #10
Boromir said:
if x is in the boundary, it is a limiting point, thus in the spectrum since it is closed. But just because x is not invertible in A does not mean there is no inverse in B, so it is not immediately clear. Do you have a proof of this?
It is a standard theorem in Banach algebra theory, based on the fact that a boundary point of the spectrum must be a topological zero-divisor. I learned it from Rickart (Theorem 1.5.7). But that was over 50 years ago, so I expect that there are more recent sources available.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
339
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K