Let $X$ be a real normed linear space and $\mathcal L(X,X)$ denote the set of all bounded linear operators on $X$ , we know that if $X$ is complete then so is $\mathcal L(X,X)$ ; is the converse true i.e. if $\mathcal L(X,X)$ is complete then is $X$ also complete ?

up vote 7 down vote accepted

If $X = \{0\}$, then $X$ is complete, as is $\mathcal{L}(X,X)$. If $X \neq \{0\}$, choose $\lambda \in X'$ with $\lVert\lambda\rVert_{X'} = 1$.

Then $\iota\colon x \mapsto \lambda \otimes x$, where $(\lambda \otimes x)(y) = \lambda(y)\cdot x$ is an isometric embedding of $X$ into $\mathcal{L}(X,X)$, and $\iota(X)$ is a closed subspace.

The linearity of $\iota$ is clear, and we have

\begin{align} \lVert \iota(x)\rVert_{\mathcal{L}(X,X)} &= \sup \{ \lVert \iota(x)(y)\rVert_X : \lVert y\rVert_X \leqslant 1\}\\ &= \sup \{ \lVert \lambda(y)\cdot x\rVert_X : \lVert y\rVert_X \leqslant 1\}\\ &= \sup \{ \lvert \lambda(y)\rvert\cdot \lVert x\rVert_X : \lVert y\rVert_X \leqslant 1\}\\ &= \bigl(\sup \{ \lvert \lambda(y)\rvert : \lVert y\rVert_X \leqslant 1\}\bigr)\cdot\lVert x\rVert_X\\ &= \lVert\lambda\rVert_{X'}\cdot \lVert x\rVert_X\\ &= \lVert x\rVert_X, \end{align}

so $\iota$ is an isometry. Next we note that $T \in \iota(X) \iff \ker \lambda \subseteq \ker T$. If $T = \iota(x)$, then $\ker\lambda \subseteq \ker T$ is clear.

Conversely, suppose $\ker \lambda \subseteq \ker T$. Choose $x_1 \in X$ with $\lambda(x_1) = 1$. Since $\lambda \neq 0$, such an $x_1$ exists. Then we have $T = \iota(T(x_1))$: We can write every $x\in X$ as $x = \lambda(x)\cdot x_1 + (x - \lambda(x)\cdot x_1)$, where $x - \lambda(x) \cdot x_1 \in \ker \lambda$. Then

$$T(x) = T\bigl(\lambda(x)x_1 + (x - \lambda(x)x_1)\bigr) = \lambda(x)T(x_1) + T(\underbrace{x-\lambda(x)x_1}_{\in \ker \lambda \subseteq \ker T}) = \lambda(x)T(x_1) = \iota(T(x_1))(x),$$

so $T = \iota(T(x_1))$.

Finally, we deduce that $\iota(X)$ is closed in $\mathcal{L}(X,X)$ from this characterisation: If $T \notin \iota(X)$, then $\ker \lambda \not\subseteq \ker T$, so there is an $y \in \ker \lambda \setminus \ker T$. For $\lVert T - S\rVert_{\mathcal{L}(X,X)} < \frac{\lVert T(y)\rVert_X}{\lVert y\rVert_X}$ we then have

$$\lVert S(y)\rVert_X = \lVert T(y) - (T-S)(y)\rVert_X \geqslant \lVert T(y)\rVert_X - \lVert T-S\rVert_{\mathcal{L}(X,X)}\cdot \lVert y\rVert_X > \lVert T(y)\rVert_X - \lVert T(y)\rVert_X = 0,$$

so $S(y) \neq 0$ and therefore $\ker \lambda \not\subseteq \ker S$, whence $S\notin \iota(X)$, showing that $\mathcal{L}(X,X)\setminus \iota(X)$ is open.

Thus, for normed spaces, we have $X\text{ complete} \iff \mathcal{L}(X,X) \text{ complete}$.

  • @Daniel Fischer♦ : what do you mean by $X'$ ? – user228168 Feb 15 '16 at 16:10
  • Per the question, it's the space of bounded linear operators on $X$, i.e., since $X$ is normed, the space of continuous linear maps $X\to X$. Although it's not explicitly stated, I assumed that it's endowed with the operator norm, @user1952009. – Daniel Fischer Feb 15 '16 at 16:10
  • 1
    @SaunDev The topological dual of $X$. Maybe you're used to the notation $X^{\ast}$? – Daniel Fischer Feb 15 '16 at 16:10
  • @Daniel Fischer : ok, but I'm missing something..! as $X$ is dense in its completion, I can't see how the set of bounded operators $X \to \mathbb{K}$ or the set of bounded operators $X \to X$ can be different for $X$ complete or not. – reuns Feb 15 '16 at 16:16
  • 1
    @Svetoslav Let $K = \ker \lambda$. Then $T \in \iota(X) \iff K \subseteq \ker T$. Then it's easy to show that the complement of $\iota(X)$ is open. (The completeness of $\mathcal{L}(X,X)$ doesn't play a role for that, $\iota(X)$ is always closed.) – Daniel Fischer Feb 15 '16 at 16:39

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.