Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I don't know how to prove this question:

Let $X$ be a compact space, and let $(T_{n})$ be a sequence of positive linear operators on $C(X)$. Also, let $f \in C(X)$ be a strictly positive function. Then if $T_{n}(f) \rightarrow f$ (uniformly), then the sequence $(T_{n})$ is equicontinuous.

Now since this is a strictly positive function, I am aware that the function $f(x) \geq 0$ for all $x \in X$ but how do I goes about in proving the next part of the sentence?

Hope to have someone to shed some light on this. Thank You.

share|improve this question
    
Isn't it $(T_nf)$ which should be equi-continuous? –  Davide Giraudo Apr 9 '12 at 9:42
    
In this case, we don't need $f$ to be positive (neither $T$): fix $\varepsilon>0$, so we can find $n_0$ such that $\lVert T_nf-f\rVert_{\infty}\leq\varepsilon$. So the $\delta$ which works for $f$ (which is uniformly continuous) works for $T_nf$, $n\geq n_0$. Then you have only a finite number of uniformly continuous functions. –  Davide Giraudo Apr 9 '12 at 9:46
    
Hi Davide, based on my understanding of the question, I think I need to show $T_{n}(f) \rightarrow f$ uniformly in order to satisfy the next part of the sentence but I am not so sure. Hope someone can shade some light. –  Sandra Apr 9 '12 at 9:47
    
Isn't $T_nf\to f$ an hypothesis rather than a thing you have to show? And what would it mean that a sequence of operators is uniformly continuous? –  Davide Giraudo Apr 9 '12 at 9:49
    
Yes. $T_{n}(f) \rightarrow f$ is the hypothesis. So I am trying to prove that both the hypothesis and the conclusion is true in order to satisfy the sentence. For uniformly continuous, it actually meant $||Tx - Ty|| \leq ||T||||x-y||$. –  Sandra Apr 9 '12 at 10:01

1 Answer 1

up vote 8 down vote accepted

I'll only deal with real-valued functions, but the complex case is easy to get from this.

A positive operator on $C(X)$ is continuous because its norm satisfies $\|T\| = \|T(1_X)\|_{\infty}$:

Writing $1_X$ for the constant function $x \mapsto 1$, we have for all $g \in C(X)$ that $$ -\|g\|_\infty \cdot 1_X \leq g \leq \|g\|_\infty \cdot 1_X, $$ so positivity of $T$ yields $$ -\|g\|_\infty T(1_X) \leq T(g) \leq \|g\|_\infty T(1_X). $$

and therefore $\|T(g)\|_\infty \leq \|g\|_\infty \cdot \|T(1_X)\|_\infty$. This shows that $\|T\| \leq \|T(1_X)\|_\infty$ and taking $g = 1_X$ we see that a positive operator must have $\|T\| = \|T(1_X)\|_\infty$.

On the other hand, we are given that $\|T_n(f) - f\|_\infty \to 0$, where $f$ is assumed to be strictly positive. By compactness of $X$ and continuity of $f$ there is $x_0 \in X$ such that $0 \lt f(x_0) \leq f(x)$ for all $x \in X$. This tells us that $f(x_0) 1_X \leq f$ and by positivity of the operators $T_n$ we conclude that $0 \leq f(x_0) T_n(1_X) \leq T_n(f)$ whence $\|T_n\| = \|T_n(1_X)\|_\infty \leq \frac{1}{f(x_0)} \|T_n(f)\|_\infty$.

However, since $\|T_nf - f\|_\infty \to 0$, there exists a constant $C$ such that $\|T_n(f)\|_\infty \leq C$ for all $n$. In conclusion, $\|T_n\| \leq \frac{C}{f(x_0)}$ for all $n$, which is equicontinuity of the family of linear operators $T_n$.

share|improve this answer
    
Of course, there are somewhat more direct arguments using that the scalar multiples of $f$ itself dominate all functions, but I think the additional effort is minimal and the information that the operator norm of a positive operator is given by the norm of the image of the constant function $1_X$ is valuable in many contexts. One could also use the uniform boundedness principle, but this looks like overkill. –  t.b. Apr 9 '12 at 12:11
    
+1 I thinks that it's in fact what the OP meant. –  Davide Giraudo Apr 9 '12 at 12:17
    
Thanks t.b. this is an interesting argument you had shown here. Lets see if I can think of something else. –  Sandra Apr 9 '12 at 12:31
    
Oops, I am sorry to let readers know that I had made a mistake in the above question. The proof by t.b. is still correct though. In line 5, the function is $> 0$ and not $\geq 0$. One of such reason is when in line 12 of t.b. proof, the function will be divided by 0 and this is wrong. –  Sandra Apr 11 '12 at 4:54
    
@Sandra: don't worry: you said strictly positive twice in your post, so it is rather clear $f\gt0$ was intended there. :) –  t.b. Apr 11 '12 at 12:58

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.