If $X$ is a normed vector space and if for each bounded operator $T \in B(X)$ with $\| T\| < 1$, the operator ${\rm id} - T$ is boundedly invertible, does it follow that $X$ is complete?

Context:

It is well known that if $X$ is a Banach space and if $T \in B(X) = B(X,X)$ is a bounded linear operator on $X$ with $\| T \| <1$, then the Neumann series $\sum_{n=0}^\infty T^n$ converges (in the operator norm) to $({\rm id} - T)^{-1}$. In particular, ${\rm id} - T$ is invertible.

There are counterexample to this fact if we do not assume $X$ to be complete. For example, we can take $X = \ell_0 (\Bbb{N})$ (the finitely supported sequences) and $T = \frac{1}{2} S$, where $S$ is the right shift operator. In this case, it is easy to see that $\sum_{n=0}^\infty T^n$ does not converge to a well-defined operator from $X$ to $X$.

After I came up with the above counterexample, I wondered if we can characterize completeness of the normed vector space $X$ by the above property, as in the question stated above.

Thoughts on the problem:

  1. Equivalently, we could require that $\sum_{n=0}^\infty T^n$ converges to a well-defined operator from $X\to X$ as soon as $\|T\|<1$, since in the completion $\overline{X}$, we still know that $T$ extends to a contiuous linear operator $\overline{T} : \overline{X} \to \overline{X}$ with $\| \overline{T} \| = \| T\|<1$, so that $S := {\rm id_{\overline{X}}} - \overline{T}$ is invertible with $S^{-1} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \overline{T}^n$ and the restriction of $S^{-1}$ to $X$ is the inverse of ${\rm id} - T$, so that $({\rm id}_X - T)^{-1} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty T^n$.

  2. I know that $X$ is complete iff $B(X)$ is, so that it would suffice to show that $B(X)$ is complete.

  3. To show that a normed vector space $Y$ is complete, it suffices to show that "absolute convergence" of a series implies convergence, or even more restrictive that if $\|x_n\|\leq 2^{-n}$ for all $n$, then the series $\sum_{n=1}^\infty x_n$ converges in $Y$.

  4. My problem with applying observation 3 to $Y = B(X)$ is that we only know that the statement for 3 is true for $x_n = T^n$ with suitable $T$, which seems to be too restrictive.

    In fact, I don't know how to construct any kind of nontrivial bounded operators on a general normed vector space $X$, apart from operators of the form $x \mapsto \varphi(x) \cdot x_0$ (and linear combinations of those), where $\varphi $ is a bounded functional on $Y$ and $x_0 \in Y$.

    But for operators as above (i.e. with finite dimensional range), convergence of the series $\sum_{n=0}^\infty T^n$ is always true, since in fact we only need to consider a finite dimensional subspace, which certainly is complete.

  • 2
    A related question: math.stackexchange.com/q/90232. A positive answer to that one would imply a positive answer to this one. – Jonas Meyer Jun 20 '16 at 18:25
  • 1
    Maybe it's interesting to note that this is not true for general normed algebras: The algebra of rational functions on $[0,1]$ with singularities outside of $[0,1]$ is not complete, but still all Neumann series (of elements in the unit ball) do converge in the $\sup$-norm. Since this question is about operator algebras, that's not a satisfying answer though. – thomas Jul 28 '16 at 22:09
up vote 12 down vote accepted
+350

The answer is "No". Take your favorite infinite-dimensional Banach space $Y$ and choose (alas, this requires AC, so if you are not a believer, stop reading here) some discontinuous linear functional $\psi$ on $Y$. Let $X=Ker(\psi)$ with the norm inherited from $Y$. Assume now that $A:X\to X$ has norm less than $1$. Then it extends by continuity to $Y$ and enjoys the property $AX\subset X$, so $\psi\circ A$ vanishes on $X=Ker(\psi)$. We want to show that if $y-Ay=x\in X$, then necessarily $y\in X$. Assume not. Then $\psi(y)\ne 0$ and $(\psi\circ A)(y)=\psi(y)$. Hence the linear functionals $\psi\circ A$ and $\psi$ coincide on the entire space $Y$, so $\psi(z-Az)=0$ for all $z\in Y$, which is absurd because $z-Az$ is just an arbitrary element of $Y$ and $\psi$ is certainly not identically $0$.

The trick is, of course, that it is not so easy for a continuous linear operator to preserve the kernel of a discontinuous linear functional, so the operators acting from $X$ to $X$ are rather few in a certain sense, which makes the Neumann series convergence condition vacuous exactly when it starts getting interesting.

  • Thank you very much for the great answer! See also here: meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/24831/… – PhoemueX Aug 15 '16 at 8:14
  • @fedja I see how to make $A$ an linear operator on $\bar X$ with same norm. How do you construct the extension to $Y$ such that the extension still has norm less than $1$? – daw Aug 17 '16 at 7:10
  • 1
    @daw $\bar X=Y$. That's the whole point of having $\psi$ discontinuous – fedja Aug 17 '16 at 12:10

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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