2

Problem: Show that the operator $A:l_2\to l_2\:\:Ax=(0,x_1,\frac{1}{2}x_2,...,\frac{1}{n}x_n,...)$ is compact but has no pontual spectrum.

My solution: $(0,x_1,\frac{1}{2}x_2,...,\frac{1}{n}x_n,...)=(\lambda x_1,\lambda x_2,...,\lambda x_n,...)$

Since $\lambda x_1=0\implies \lambda=0$, then the $\ker(A-\lambda)=0$.

My problem lies with compactness.

If we consider a sequence in $l_2$ like $\{x\}_n$,that converges to some $x$. Consider $\epsilon>0$ so that $||x_m-x||<\epsilon$ for $m>N\in\mathbb{N}$. Then $||A(x_m)-A(x)||^2=||A(x_m-x)||^2=\sum_\limits{n=1}^{\infty} |\frac{1}{n}({x_m}_i-x_i)|^2<\sum_\limits{n=1}^{\infty} |\frac{1}{n^2}(\frac{\epsilon^\frac{1}{n}}{2})^n|<c\epsilon<\delta\:\:\:\delta>0$ Therefore we can find a subsequence that converges proving that $A$ is compact.

Question:

Is my proof right? If not. How should I prove compactness?

Thanks in advance!

Pedro Gomes
  • 3,891
  • 2
    In order to prove that $A$ is compact, you must show that for every bounded sequence $x_n$ in $l_2$, the sequence $Ax_n$ has a norm-convergent subsequence. What you did is to assume that $x_n$ is convergent. You can only assume it is bounded. – uniquesolution Jul 28 '18 at 21:07

2 Answers2

1

Your argument only shows continuity. An easy way to show compactness is to prove that $A$ can be written as a sum of a finite-rank operator plus an operator with arbitrarily small norm (simply by truncating).

Martin Argerami
  • 205,756
1

To show that the operator is compact we must show that A is linear and that the finite-rank operator $$A_n x=(0,x_1,\frac1{2}x_2,\dots,\frac1{n}x_n, 0, \dots)$$ is bounded.

First, we show bounded.

$$||A_n x||^2=\sum_{j=1}^n |\frac1{j}x_j|^2 \leq \frac1{1} \sum_{j=1}^n |x_j|^2 \leq ||x||^2$$

Since we have a finite rank operator that is bounded, $A_n$ is compact.

Now we want to show that the norm $||(A-A_n)x||$ goes to $0$ as $n$ goes to infinity. In other words, the limit of finite rank operators $A_n$ is A.

$$||(A-A_n) x||^2=\sum_{j=1}^\infty |\frac1{j}x_j|^2 - \sum_{j=1}^n|\frac1{j}x_j|^2$$ $$=\sum_{j=n+1}^\infty|\frac1{j}x_j|^2 \leq \frac1{(n+1)^2}\sum_{j=n+1}^\infty|x_j|^2 = \frac1{(n+1)^2} ||x||$$

So that as we take $n\rightarrow \infty$, $||(A-A_n) x||^2 \rightarrow 0$

Finally to show that the operator has no point spectrum.

To be in the point spectrum, we must have that $$R_\lambda = (A-\lambda I)^{-1}$$ does not exist.

First take $\lambda \neq 0$

We have that $$T_\lambda x = 0 \rightarrow (A-\lambda I)x= Ax-\lambda x =0$$ $$\rightarrow (0,\frac1{2}x_1,...,\frac1{n},...)-\lambda (x_1,x_2,...,x_n,...)=0$$ leads to the recurrence relation of

$$x_1=0$$ and $$x_{j}=\frac1{j-1} \frac1{\lambda}x_{n-1}$$ for $j\geq 2$. This only holds for $x=(x_1,x_2,...)=0$. Thus, the nullspace of $T_\lambda =\{0\}$ and so $T_\lambda^{-1}=R_\lambda$ exists and $\lambda$ is not in the point spectrum.

Now take, $\lambda =0$. This means that $T_\lambda = Ax = 0$ implies that $x=0$ again so that $\lambda$ is not in the point spectrum again for the same reason as before.

Therefore, the point spectrum is empty.

MathIsHard
  • 2,733
  • 16
  • 47
  • 1
    Thanks for your answer! That is precisely where my doubt lies. You used the following theorem if I am not mistaken:"Theorem (Sequence of compact linear operators). Let ($T_n$) be a sequence of compact linear operators from a normed space $X$ into a Banach space $Y$. If ($T_n$) is uniformly operator convergent, say, $||Tn - T||\to 0 $(cf. Sec. 4.9), then the limit operator $T$ is compact." – Pedro Gomes Jul 29 '18 at 13:01
  • However I tried to prove it using the definition of compactness where a "sequence must have convergent subsequence". Where does my argument fails? Thanks in advance! – Pedro Gomes Jul 29 '18 at 13:04
  • Hello. Your first comment is indeed what I did. I agree with what uniquesolution commented above. We can only assume that the sequence is bounded. Not that it is convergent. – MathIsHard Jul 29 '18 at 16:46
  • Furthermore, the theorem you are trying to use I believe is the compactness criterion that states that if T is a linear operator, then T is compact iff it maps every bounded sequence $(x_n)$ into a sequence $(Tx_n)$ which has a convergent subsequence. You may be able to argue that the $\frac1{n}$ coefficients multiplied by bounded $(x_n)$ will converge to 0. However, I am not certain that this will work as I have not seen a proof done in this way. I always see people use the finite rank operators. – MathIsHard Jul 29 '18 at 16:57
  • That is exactly my problem. I was told to prove that when an linear operator is bounded it is compact. And my Professor told me to use the sequence definition and use continuity of the afore-mentioned operator(since it is linear and bounded hence continuous). Why does everyone seem to talk of a bounded sequence? Thanks! – Pedro Gomes Jul 29 '18 at 17:16
  • I don't believe for an infinite dimensional operator that it is enough to be bounded and linear to imply compactness. That is why we have the finite rank operator convergence definition... The bounded sequence comes from one of the two comopactness criterion definitions. See pages 405-407 of Kreysig http://www-personal.acfr.usyd.edu.au/spns/cdm/resources/Kreyszig%20-%20Introductory%20Functional%20Analysis%20with%20Applications.pdf – MathIsHard Jul 30 '18 at 03:46