I am looking at the proof of the following version of the Hille-Yosida theorem given in Ethier and Kurtz' Markov Process.

Some Definitions.

Here, $A$ is a (multivalued) linear operator on $L$, i.e. a subset $A$ of $L \times L$ with domain $D(A)=\{f:(f,g)\in A \;\text{for some}\;g\}$ and range $R(A)=\{g: (f,g)\in A \; \text{for some}\;f\}$. $A\subset L\times L$ is said to be linear if $A$ is a subspace of $L\times L$. If $A$ is linear, then $A$ is said to be single-valued if $(0,g)\in A$ implies $g=0$, in this case, $A$ is a graph of a linear operator on $L$, also denoted by $A$, so we write $Af=g$ if $(f,g)\in A$. If $A\subset L\times L$ is linear, then $A$ is said to be dissipative if $\Vert \lambda f-g\Vert \ge \lambda \Vert f\Vert $ for all $(f,g)\in A$ and $\lambda >0$; the closure $\bar{A}$ of $A$ is just the closure in $L\times L$ of the subspace $A$. Finally, we define $\lambda - A=\{(f,\lambda f-g):(f,g)\in A\}$ for each $\lambda >0$.

Lemma preceding the theorem.

enter image description here

Below is the Theorem. enter image description here

enter image description here

Now in the below part of the proof, I don't understand why $\Vert \lambda(\lambda - \bar{A})^{-1}f-f\Vert = \Vert(\lambda - \bar{A})^{-1}g\Vert$ which is above (4.2). Also, why is the domain of $(\lambda - \bar{A})^{-1}$ given as $R(\lambda - A_0)$? Shouldn't it be $R(\lambda-\bar{A})$ by definition? Finally, I don't understand why the range is $D(A_0)$ either. I would greatly appreciate if anyone could explain these to me.

enter image description here


First note that $R(\lambda - A_0) \subset R (\lambda - \bar A)$. This follows from $A_0 \subset \bar A$.

With this in mind, you can define the restriction of $(\lambda - \bar A)^{-1}: R (\lambda - \bar A) \to D(\bar A)$ to the function $(\lambda - \bar A)^{-1}: R (\lambda - A_0) \to D(A_0)$. This is not the perfect notation choice, since it can lead to confusion but when the authors write $(\lambda - \bar A)^{-1}: R (\lambda - A_0) \to D(A_0)$ they mean the restriction of $(\lambda - \bar A)^{-1}$ to the set $R (\lambda - A_0)$. Note further that if $ h = (\lambda - A_0)f$ then $(\lambda - A_0)^{-1}h = f \in D(A_0)$ so the function above is onto $D(A_0)$.

Now take $(f,g) \in \bar A$. The condition $R(\lambda - A) \supset \bar {D(A)}$ implies that $f, g \in R (\lambda - \bar A)$.

this means that there is $h$ such that $(\lambda - \bar A)h = f$ and $\varphi$ such that $(\lambda - \bar A)\varphi = g$.

therefore $(\lambda - \bar A)^{-1}f = h$ : $$(\lambda - \bar A) (\lambda h - f) = \lambda(\lambda - \bar A)h - (\lambda - \bar A)f = \lambda f - (\lambda f - \bar A f) = \bar A f = g $$ which implies that $$(\lambda - \bar A)^{-1} g = (\lambda h - f) = \lambda (\lambda - \bar A)^{-1}f - f $$

There is one last comment I would like to add (even though you didn't ask about it) and that is why does this implies (4.2).

from the relation

$$ \|\lambda (\lambda - \bar A)^{-1}f - f\| \leq \lambda^{-1}\|g \|$$

we conclude that for $f \in D(\bar A)$ $$\lim_{\lambda \to \infty} \lambda (\lambda - \bar A)^{-1}f = f $$

now note that $D(A) \subset D(\bar A) \subset \bar{D(A)}$, this implies that $\bar{D(\bar A)} = \bar{D(A)} $ =. That is what they meant to say when they wrote "Since $ D(\bar A)$ is dense in $D( A)$". In fact they want to write "Since $ D(\bar A)$ is dense in $\bar{D( A)}$".

Now take $\hat f \in \bar {D(A)}$. consider $f_n \to \hat f$ with $f_n \in D(\bar A)$.

by the triangle inequality and using that $\|(\lambda - \bar A)^{-1}\varphi\|\leq \lambda^{-1}\varphi$ we obtain

$$ \| \lambda (\lambda - \bar A)^{-1}f - f\| \leq \| \lambda (\lambda - \bar A)^{-1}(f - f_n)\| + \| \lambda (\lambda - \bar A)^{-1}f_n - f_n\| + \| f_n - f\|\\ \leq 2 \| f_n - f|\ + \| \lambda (\lambda - \bar A)^{-1}f_n - f_n\|$$

taking the limit in $\lambda$ yields:

$$ \lim_{\lambda \to \infty}\| \lambda (\lambda - \bar A)^{-1}f - f\| \leq 2 \| f_n - f\| $$

now, since $f_n\to f$ we can take for arbitrary $\epsilon > 0$, $n $ such that $$ \lim_{\lambda \to \infty}\| \lambda (\lambda - \bar A)^{-1}f - f\| \leq \epsilon $$ This proves (4.2).

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your excellent work. Can you just clear me with a line in the middle? $D(A) \subset D(\bar A) \subset \bar{D(A)}$, this implies that $\bar{D(\bar A)} = \bar{D(A)} $ =. Why do we have $D(\bar{A})\subset \bar{D(A)}$ and how does this imply $\bar{D(\bar A)} = \bar{D(A)} $? $\endgroup$ – takecare Mar 5 '17 at 2:07
  • $\begingroup$ $\bar A$ is an extension of $A$ so $D(A) \subset D(\bar A)$ (the authors made a typo). Now if $A,B$ are sets, and $A \subset B \subset \bar A$ then $\bar B = \bar A$ since $B \supset A$ implies $\bar B \supset \bar A$ (remember, if $B \supset A$ the smallest closed extension containing B must contain A.... this allows the smallest closed extension of $A$ to be smaller than the smallest closed extension of B) $\endgroup$ – Conrado Costa Mar 5 '17 at 7:31
  • $\begingroup$ Can you help me with two additional questions? In the first paragraph of the proof, why is $R(\lambda - A_0)=\bar{D(A)}$ equivalent to $R(\lambda-\bar{A})\supset \bar{D(A)}$, and why does it suffice, to complete the proof, show that $D(A_0)$ is dense in $\bar{D(A)}$ assuming that $R(\lambda-A_0)=\bar{D(A)}$? $\endgroup$ – takecare May 23 '17 at 17:41
  • $\begingroup$ Also, why does the dissipativity of $\bar{A}$ make it possible for us to regard $(\lambda-\bar{A})^{-1}$ as a single-valued bounded linear operator? $\endgroup$ – takecare May 23 '17 at 18:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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