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.

If $ST$ is a Fredholm operator, then show that $T$ is Fredholm if and only if $S$ is Fredholm.

share|improve this question
    
What have you tried so far? –  Aaron Jan 30 '13 at 6:50
    
@Aaron I tried to use the fact that $T$ is Fredholm iff $T=I+F$, where $F$ is a finite dimensional operator, it worked in one direction but not the other. –  i.a.m Jan 30 '13 at 7:00
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

$\DeclareMathOperator{\coker}{coker}\DeclareMathOperator{\index}{ind}$Using the definition that a Fredholm operator is an operator $F \colon X \to Y$ for which both $\ker{F}$ and $\coker{F} = Y/F(X)$ are finite-dimensional this really is an exercise in linear (or homological) algebra. Notice that the requirement that that $F(X)$ be closed in $Y$ is automatic: Is the closedness of the image of a Fredholm operator implied by the finiteness of the codimension of its image?


For every composition $ST$ of linear maps $S$ and $T$ there is an exact sequence of vector spaces $$ 0 \to \ker{T} \to \ker{ST} \to \ker{S} \to \coker{T} \to \coker{ST} \to \coker{S} \to 0. $$ Since $ST$ is Fredholm, $\ker{ST}$ and $\coker{ST}$ are finite-dimensional. Therefore $\ker{T}$ and $\coker{S}$ are finite-dimensional, being a subspace and a quotient of a finite-dimensional space.

We are given the additional information that either $\ker{S}$ or $\coker{T}$ is finite-dimensional, depending on whether $S$ or $T$ is Fredholm. Thus, we know that five out of six of the vector spaces in the exact sequence are finite-dimensional, hence so is the sixth.

In other words, we can read off this sequence:

If two out of the three operators $S$, $T$ and $ST$ are Fredholm then so is the third.


Incidentally, this also gives a quick proof of the additivity of the Fredholm index: recall that the index of a Fredholm operator is $\index{F} = \dim{\ker{F}} - \dim{\coker{F}}$.

From the above sequence and the fact that an exact complex has zero Euler characteristic we get $$ 0 = \dim{\ker{T}} - \dim\ker{ST} + \dim{\ker{S}} - \dim{\coker{T}}+\dim{\coker{ST}} -\dim{\coker{S}} $$ which is immediately rearranged to $$ \index ST = \index S + \index T. $$

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you for solving the question –  i.a.m Jan 31 '13 at 10:12
add comment

What you want to use, if possible, is the definition that $A \in B(H)$ is Fredholm if and only if there exists some $B \in B(H)$ such that $AB = I \bmod K(H)$ and $BA = I \bmod K(H)$. If you don't mind a little bit more machinery, recalling that $K(H)$ is a closed, two-sided $\ast$-ideal in the $C^\ast$-algebra $B(H)$, we can equivalently say that $A$ is Fredholm if and only if the image $[A]$ of $A$ in the Calkin algebra $Q(H) := B(H)/K(H)$ is invertible (i.e., with inverse $[A]^{-1} = [B]$).

With all this in mind, then, consider why the following observation is true:

Let $R$ be a unital ring, let $a$, $b \in R$, and suppose that $ab$ is invertible. Then $a$ is invertible if and only if $b$ is invertible.

EDIT: In the more general case where $A \in B(H_1,H_2)$, we have that $A$ is Fredholm if and only if there exists some $B \in B(H_2,H_1)$ such that $AB = I_{H_2} \bmod K(H_2)$ and $BA = I_{H_1} \bmod K(H_1)$. Given that $K(H_i)$ is a two-sided ideal of $B(H_i)$ for $i=1,2$, the essential elementary observation is the following:

Let $t : E \to F$ and $s : F \to G$, and suppose that $st : E \to G$ is bijective. Then $s$ is bijective if and only if $t$ is bijective.

Of course, you can't apply this literally, but rather have to think about invertibility modulo compacts on $H_1$ and on $H_2$.

share|improve this answer
    
cacic What if $T\in B(X,Y)$ and $S\in B(Y,Z)$ can we should be able to do it. –  i.a.m Jan 30 '13 at 22:55
    
@i.a.m Indeed you can---see my expanded answer. –  Branimir Ćaćić Jan 30 '13 at 23:09
1  
The same proof works for Fredholm operators on Banach spaces (Riesz-Schauder theorem). Both the $\ast$-structure and the Hilbert space structure are irrelevant. –  Martin Jan 30 '13 at 23:51
add comment

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.