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 $X$ be a Banach space and $T$ a linear bounded operator defined on $L(X,Y)$ with $Y$ a normed space. If $T$ is an isometry then $TX$ is a closed subspace of $Y$.

I considered a sequence $y_n$ in $TX$. I want to show that the limit of this sequence is in $TX$. $y_n \in TX$ it means it exists $x_n \in X$ such that $Tx_n=y_n$. Being that $T$ is an isometry it is necessary a one-one map so it exists the inverse operator $T^{-1}$. So $x_n=T^{-1}y_n$. Making the limit $x=T^{-1}y$ but $x_n$ tends to $x$ which belongs to $X$ because $X$ is a Banach space. So $y=Tx \in TX$ and the thesis follows. Is my proof correct?

share|improve this question
    
You never explicitely use the isometry. The claim is in general false if $T$ is only assumed injective. You should use that with $(y_n)_n$ also $(x_n)_n$ is Cauchy (why?). –  PhoemueX May 27 at 8:49
    
If I take $y_n$ to be Cauchy then $||y_n-y_m||=||Tx_n-Tx_m||=||T(x_n-x_m)||=||x_n-x_m||$ because of the isometry. Sending $m$ to infinite so we have $||x_n-x||=||Tx_n-Tx||=||y_n-y||$. Being $X$ Banach $x_n$ converge to $x \in X$ and so does $y_n \in Y$. I don't know I feel like I still miss some points... –  user73793 May 27 at 9:35
    
First, $(y_n)$ is automatically Cauchy, because you take a convergent(!) sequence $y_n \rightarrow y$ from $TX$ with $y \in Y$ and want to show that $y \in TX$ as well. As you show, the $(x_n)_n$ are then also Cauchy, thus convergent to some $x \in X$ (important for this: $X$ is complete). The other part of your comment implies $y_n = Tx_n \rightarrow Tx$ and thus $y = Tx \in TX$. –  PhoemueX May 27 at 9:45
    
Yes understood what you mean. Thanks. –  user73793 May 27 at 9:48

1 Answer 1

up vote 0 down vote accepted

As PhoemueX said, the proof lacks the consideration of the continuity of $T^{-1}$. Once that is added, the proof is correct.

But I would put the proof differently:

  1. The image of a complete metric space under a distance-preserving map is also a complete metric space.

  2. If a subset of a metric space is complete in the induced metric, then that subset is closed.

My point here is that linearity has little to do with the problem. It's mostly the metric.

share|improve this answer

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.