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 have been hearing different people saying this in different contexts for quite some time but I still don't quite get it.

I know that compact operators map bounded sets to totally bounded ones, that the perturbation of a compact operator does not change the index, and that the calkin algebra is an indispensable tool in the study of operators in the sense that 'essentially something' becomes a useful notion.

But I still suspect why they are 'small'. Now Connes says they are like 'infinitesimals' in commutative function theory, which makes me even more confused. So I guess I just post this question here and hopefully I can hear some quite good explanations about the reasoning behind this intuition.

Thanks!

share|improve this question
    
Have you ever seen in real a compact operator? I think no, because they are small. –  userNaN Jul 20 '12 at 21:51
    
@Norbert: what on earth does that comment even mean? Look up "integral operators" for plenty of compact operators that arise naturally from applied mathematics or physics. Or just think for a moment to come up with loads of examples. –  user16299 Jul 20 '12 at 23:54
1  
If it is not too heretical to say this: occasionally one should take the pronouncements of brilliant mathematicians with a pinch of salt, perhaps even a whole compact operator's worth... –  user16299 Jul 20 '12 at 23:55
    
More generally, compactness is sometimes seen, in analysis, as "the next best thing after finiteness" -- this imprecise but useful POV is expounded on slightly in e.g. Sutherland's Introduction to Metric and Topological Spaces, and probably also somewhere on Terence Tao's blog IIRC. –  user16299 Jul 20 '12 at 23:57
1  
@YemonChoi When one try to explain a joke it won't be a joke anymore. Have you ever seen the elephants in the bush tomato. I think no, because they are well hidden. –  userNaN Jul 21 '12 at 8:17

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

It may help to think of the special case of diagonal operators, that is, elements of $\ell_\infty $ acting on $\ell_2$ by multiplication. Here compact operators correspond to sequences which tend to 0, "are infinitesimally small". This is a commutative situation, in which everything reduces to multiplication of functions. So, general compact operators can be called noncommutative infinitesimals.

A shorter explanation, but with less content: every ideal in a ring can be thought of as a collection of infinitesimally small elements, because they are one step (quotient) away from being zero.

share|improve this answer
    
I like your second explanation better actually. As for the first one, it is hard for me to see why sequences tending to $0$ are infinitesimally small. For instance, we do not usually say a function vanishing at infinity is infinitesimally small, right? –  Hui Yu Jul 20 '12 at 4:14
1  
@HuiYu They are essentially small in the following sense, for example. A sequence in $\ell^\infty$ tending to $0$ may have a few big terms, but in the end, for every $\epsilon > 0$, the infinitely long tail of the sequence is smaller than $\epsilon$ whereas only a few finite terms exceed it. –  user12014 Jul 20 '12 at 5:24

Finite rank operators are small (in that they squish a large space into a small one). In a Hilbert space (or more generally, a Banach space with the approximation property, which includes most familiar examples), compact operators are precisely the operator-norm limits of finite rank operators. That's what I think of when I hear that statement.

Alternatively, a compact operator from $X$ to $Y$ squishes the unit ball of $X$ (which is "big") into a compact subset of $Y$ (which, in Banach spaces, is typically "small" in that it has empty interior).

share|improve this answer
    
Yes. This is related to the fact that bounded sets are mapped to totally bounded ones by compact operators. But I guess there is something more intrinsic to the algebra of operators, not much to do with the underlying space. –  Hui Yu Jul 20 '12 at 2:10
2  
...over a Hilbert space. This is false for general Banach spaces. –  Qiaochu Yuan Jul 20 '12 at 2:18

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.