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.

Let $X,Y$ be Banach spaces and $A\in\mathcal L(X,Y)$ . The task is to prove the following:

$A$ is compact if and only if the image of the closed unit ball in $X$ is compact in $Y$.

I have proven this when $X$ is a reflexive space.

Proof. Let $X$ be a reflexive space, $\bar B$ the closed unit ball in $X$, and $A$ a compact operator. Let further $y_n=Ax_n$ be a sequence in $A(\bar B)$.

In reflexive spaces $\bar B$ is weakly compact, so there exists a subsequence $x_{n_j} \to x$ weakly.

Because $A$ is compact, $Ax_{n_j}\to Ax$ strongly.

On the other side, $A(\bar B)$ is relatively compact, so there exists $z_k=Ax_{n_{j_k}}$ that converges strongly to $y\in Y$.

But $z_k\to x$ strongly. So $y=x$ and the image is compact.

It's easily proved that if the image is compact, the operator is also compact.

But I don't know what to do in case of nonreflexive spaces. Is there any counterexample or proof in such case?

share|improve this question
    
You might find this interesting: math.stackexchange.com/questions/270862/… –  kahen May 28 '13 at 6:32
1  
What is your definition of a compact operator? –  Vishal May 28 '13 at 6:51
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

It is false in general that the image of the closed unit ball under a compact operator is closed (and hence compact). Here is an easy example:

Consider $X = C[0,1]$ with the uniform norm, and the compact operator $A \in B(X)$ defined by the formula:

$\displaystyle\qquad Af(x) = \int_0^x f(t)\,dt$.

Compactness of $A$ is easily proven using Arzelà–Ascoli. Our operator $A$ produces an anti-derivative of any input given to it, and the image of the closed unit ball of $X$ under $A$ is the set

$\displaystyle\qquad \{f \in C^1[0,1] \mathrel: f(0)=0,\ \lVert f'\rVert \leq 1\}$

which certainly is not a closed subset of $X$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

This is much easier. Use the definition of compact operator. An operator is compact if and only if the image of a bounded set is precompact. The unit ball is bounded and any other bounded set is inside some $\lambda$ times the unit ball.

share|improve this answer
    
There are many definitions of compact operators and the one used by the OP is probably the one given in the course/book. Using a different equivalent characterization means that one need to prove that the definitions are equivalent. // "The unit ball is compact"? Do you mean weakly compact? Then you need to argue why a compact operator is continuous with respect to the weak topology on the unit ball and the norm topology in the target. –  Martin May 28 '13 at 6:45
    
sorry, I meant bounded! –  Vishal May 28 '13 at 6:50
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.