Showing that the range of a linear operator is not necessarily closed

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on demonstrating that the range of the linear operator T, defined from ell^2 to ell, is not closed. The approach involves finding a sequence x_n that converges to a limit x, where T(x_n) remains in ell^2 but T(x) does not. The proposed solution uses the sequence x_n = (1, 1/√2, 1/√3, ..., 1/√n, 0, ...) to show that T(x_n) converges to a sequence y that is square summable, while T^{-1}(y) leads to a divergent harmonic series. This confirms that y is not in the range of T, illustrating that the range is indeed not closed. The conclusion effectively resolves the problem by establishing the necessary conditions for closure in the context of linear operators.
SP90
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let T: \ell^{2} \rightarrow \ell be defined by

T(x)=x_{1},\frac{1}{2}x_{2},\frac{1}{3}x_{3},\frac{1}{4}x_{4},...}<br /> <br /> Show that the range of T is not closed<br /> <br /> <h2>The Attempt at a Solution</h2><br /> <br /> I figure that I need to find some sequence of x_{n} \rightarrow x such that T(x_{n}) is in \ell^{2} but T(x) is not.<br /> <br /> I figured that if x=(\sqrt{1}, \sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3},...) then T(x) is the harmonic series, which is not square summable. The problem is, I can&#039;t think of any square summable x_{n} which converge to that x. <br /> <br /> I have a feeling that I&#039;m taking the wrong approach to this. The thing is, I think the operator T(x) must be bounded since k_{i}^{2} \geq \frac{1}{i^{2}}k_{i}^2. Maybe I should be looking for some x_{n} \rightarrow x such that T(x_{n}) converges to something other than T(x).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I thought if I took x_{n}=(\frac{n}{1},\frac{n}{2^{2}},\frac{n}{3^{2}}...), that would work, since x_{n} \rightarrow \frac{n\pi^{2}}{6}. It's clear that T(x_{n}) exists for all n, but x_{n} itself diverges. But then obviously the definition of the range being closed is that when T(x_{n}) has a limit, that limit is in the range. Obviously since T(x_{n}) diverges there's no criteria broken by this.
 
I've solved this now, no need for a response, but if anyone ever comes across a similar problem here is the solution:

Take x_{n}=(1, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}, \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}, ..., \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}, 0, 0, 0 ,0,...)

Obviously, as a series with a finite number of non-zero terms, it is square summable. Likewise T(x_{n}) also exists and is the sequence x_{n}=(1, \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}, \frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}, ..., \frac{1}{n\sqrt{n}}, 0, 0, 0 ,0,...)

Then T(x_{n}) \rightarrow y where y is the infinite sequence of these. When each term is squared and the sum taken, we get the sum of reciprocal cubes. This is bounded by the sum of reciprocal squares, so it is square summable, so the sequence T(x_{n}) is convergent. But T^{-1}(y) is the infinite sequence of reciprocal square roots. When each term is squared, the sum of these is the harmonic series, which is not convergent. So y doesn't belong to the range of T (since there is no x in \ell^{2} such that T(x)=y)
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K