Results 1 to 10 of 10

Math Help - Functional Analysis

  1. #1
    Super Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    México
    Posts
    721

    Functional Analysis

    Okay, what I'm trying to see is if X, Y are Banach spaces and (T_a) \subset \mathcal{B} (X,Y) is a net in the space of bounded operators such that (T_ax) is a Cauchy net in Y for all x\in X, then there exists T\in \mathcal{B} (X,Y) such that T_a \rightarrow T in the strong operator topology.

    This is what I have so far:

    T_a \rightarrow T in the strong op. topology iff T_ax \rightarrow Tx for all x\in X. Every Cauchy net in a Banach space converges. So we have that Tx:= \lim_{a} T_ax is a linear operator, but we have yet to prove (or disprove) that T is bounded. The case where the net is a sequence follows immediately from the Banach-Steinhaus theorem because every convergent sequence in bounded, but this need not happen for an arbitrary net.

    Let's assume for a moment that X, Y are Hilbert spaces, then T= \frac{T+T^*}{2} +\frac{T-T^*}{2} =T_1+T_2 and by the Hellinger-Toeplitz theorem, since T_1 is everywhere defined and self-adjoint, we have that it's bounded. An analogous theorem gives us that T_2 is bounded and so T is a bounded operator.

    Edit: I don't think this previous paragraph works, since as we don't know that T is bounded T^* may not exist, or is there a way to define a formal adjoint of a linear operator with the properties \langle x,Ty \rangle = \langle T^*x,y\rangle?

    Now, I'm at a loss as to how to approach the general case...
    Last edited by Jose27; April 8th 2010 at 02:05 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Super Member Rebesques's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    From
    At my house.
    Posts
    543
    Thanks
    12
    I believe you actually can use the banach-steinhaus principle, as a net is surely also a family.

    In fact, what you are asked to show is so general, that I bet it is equivalent to the principle in certain unexpected cases.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Super Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    México
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by Rebesques View Post
    I believe you actually can use the banach-steinhaus principle, as a net is surely also a family.
    I don't think I can since I can't gurantee that it is pointwise bounded: Take for example a_t=e^{-t} with t\in \mathbb{R} then the net converges as t\rightarrow \infty but it is not bounded.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Super Member Rebesques's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    From
    At my house.
    Posts
    543
    Thanks
    12
    That's not linear.

    Now, use the B-S principle to obtain \sup_a\vert\vert T_a\vert\vert<\infty. For x in the unit ball of X, \vert\vert Tx\vert\vert\leq\vert\vert T-T_a\vert\vert+\sup_a\vert\vert T_a\vert\vert, therefore \vert\vert T\vert\vert is bounded.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Super Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    México
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by Rebesques View Post
    That's not linear.
    Take (T_a)(x)=ax with a\in (-\infty ,0) then in converges at every point to 0 (we take the directed set with < relation), but it is not pointwise bounded since |T_a(x)|=|a||x|\rightarrow \infty if a\rightarrow -\infty so the theorem does not apply.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Member
    Joined
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    113
    The question is in fact if L(X,Y) is complete (in the locally convex sense) under the SOT. It is sequentially complete, because the Banach Steinhauss principle, but, as you have argued, it is not clear for nets.

    I don't know the answer, but I guess it is negative and not at all trivial, but sure it is known!. The Strong Operator Topology is not metrisable but locally convex, try to look for the answer in Schaefer or Köethe book "Topological vector spaces" (perhaps in Jarchow's book "Locally convex spaces")


    sorry, I can't do any more but provide some references! but I am curious also about the answer, I will try also to check it.
    Last edited by Enrique2; April 10th 2010 at 03:32 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Super Member Rebesques's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    From
    At my house.
    Posts
    543
    Thanks
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose27 View Post
    Take (T_a)(x)=ax (...) if a\rightarrow -\infty so the theorem does not apply.
    The index set does not follow the defined increasing order.

    it is not clear for nets.

    I think it is straightforward for cauchy nets in banach spaces.
    Last edited by Rebesques; April 10th 2010 at 05:11 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Member
    Joined
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Rebesques View Post
    The index set does not follow the defined increasing order.




    I think it is straightforward for cauchy nets in banach spaces.
    A convergent sequence in a Banach space is bounded because all excepte finitely many are contained in a (bounded) neighbourhood. In a net this is simply not true, and José27 argument is correct. What he means, is that for any positive x, if a>-\varepsilon /x then T_a(x)\subset ]-\varepsilon,\varepsilon[ , hence the net is convergent to 0 as a goes to 0 (for negative x is the analogous, of course). But (T_a(x))_{a<0} is not bounded.

    Anyway here there are countable cofinal subsets in the index set, and hence Banach Steinhauss works because you can reduce it to a problem of sequences. It is hard for me to think about one net with no cofinal subsets in the index set and convergent at every point!!. If the answer were negative, the example would be quite sophisticated I suppose.
    Last edited by Enrique2; April 10th 2010 at 07:40 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Enrique2 View Post
    The question is in fact if L(X,Y) is complete (in the locally convex sense) under the SOT. It is sequentially complete, because of the Banach–Steinhaus principle, but, as you have argued, it is not clear for nets.

    I don't know the answer, but I guess it is negative
    I agree with that. I think the following example works, but it's weird enough that I may have overlooked something.

    Let \{e_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} be an orthonormal basis for a Hilbert space H (or it could be any Banach space with the right sort of basis, but I'll stick to a Hilbert space). Let E be the non-closed subspace of H spanned algebraically by the e_n, in other words the set of finite linear combinations of the basis elements. Let X be a complementary subspace (which must exist by the axiom of choice: extend the set \{e_n\} to a Hamel basis, and let X be the subspace spanned algebraically by the added elements).

    Define a linear map T:H\to H by Tx=x\ (x\in E),\ \ Tx=0\ (x\in X). Then T is discontinuous.

    Let \mathcal{F} be the set of all finite-dimensional subspaces of H, directed by inclusion, and for F\in\mathcal{F} let T_F = T|_F, the restriction of T to F, with T_F=0 on the orthogonal complement of F. Then each T_F is linear and bounded (because it has finite rank). Also, the directed net \{T_F\}_{F\in\mathcal{F}} converges strongly to T and is therefore strongly Cauchy, but it does not converge strongly in B(H).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Member
    Joined
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    113
    I believe even that the nice Opalg's method works for the general case,
    L(X,Y) with X,Y infinite dimensional Banach spaces. Given a non bounded linear map T:X\to Y, that can be always be constructed, and given a finite dimensional subspace F of X, there exists always a topological complement W of F in X, i.e X=F\oplus W. The axiom of choice allows us to take a complement W_F for each finite dimensional subspace F. Thus one can define T_F as the restriction of T in F and 0 on W_F, and T_F is clearly continuous on X. The conclusion is now the same as above, the net (T_F)_F is Cauchy in L(X,Y) for the SOT but not convergent
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Problem in functional analysis
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 17th 2011, 05:45 AM
  2. functional analysis
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 24th 2010, 07:11 AM
  3. Some functional analysis
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 24th 2010, 03:46 PM
  4. problem in functional analysis
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 12th 2010, 12:46 PM
  5. functional Analysis
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 14th 2008, 01:13 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum