2
$\begingroup$

In this question $\mathcal{H}$ stands for a Hilbert space over $\mathbb{K}=\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$, with inner product $\langle\cdot\;| \;\cdot\rangle$ and the norm $\|\cdot\|$ and let $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ the algebra of all bounded linear operators from $\mathcal{H}$ to $\mathcal{H}$.

Let ${\bf T} = (T_1,...,T_d) \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})^d$. $\|{\bf T}\|$ is given by \begin{eqnarray*} \|{\bf T}\| &=&\sup\left\{\bigg(\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^d\|T_kx\|^2\bigg)^{\frac{1}{2}},\;x\in \mathcal{H},\;\|x\|=1\;\right\}. \end{eqnarray*} It is well known that for each $k\in\{1,\cdots,d\}$, we have \begin{eqnarray*} \|T_k\| &=&\sup\left\{\|T_kx\|,\;x\in \mathcal{H},\;\|x\|=1\;\right\}. \end{eqnarray*}

It is always true that $$\|{\bf T}\|=\bigg(\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^d\|T_k\|^2\bigg)^{1/2}\;??$$

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

The statement does not hold in general for $d > 1$:

Let $(e_n)_{n=1}^\infty$ be the canonical basis for $\ell^2$. For $i \in \{1, \ldots, d\}$ define $T_i : \ell^2 \to \ell^2$ as $T_ix = x_ie_i$, for every $x = (x_n)_{n=1}^\infty \in \ell^2$.

$T_i$ are bounded:

$$\|T_ix\|_2 = \|x_ie_i\|_2 = \left|x_i\right| \le \|x_i\|$$

So $\|T_i\| \le 1$.

Furthermore, for $x = e_i$ we have

$$\|T_i\| \ge \frac{\|Te_i\|_2}{\|e_i\|_2} = 1$$

Thus, $\|T_i\| = 1$.

Define $\mathbf{T} = (T_1, \ldots, T_n) \in \mathcal{B}\left(\ell^2\right)^d$.

We have:

$$\|\mathbf{T}\| = \sup_{\|x\|_2 = 1} \sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^d\|T_kx\|_2^2} = \sup_{\|x\|_2 = 1} \sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^d\left|x_k\right|^2} \le \sup_{\|x\|_2 = 1} \sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^\infty\left|x_k\right|^2} = \sup_{\|x\|_2 = 1} \|x\|_2 = 1$$

However,

$$\sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^d\|T_k\|^2} = \sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^d 1} = \sqrt{d} > 1$$

Thus, for $d > 1$ we cannot have $\|\mathbf{T}\| = \sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^d\|T_k\|^2}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @Student Here you go, I just used the same $T_i$ as defined here. What kind of relationship between $\omega(\mathbf{T})$ and $\omega(T_i)$ are you expecting? A closed formula or just some inequalities? $\endgroup$ – mechanodroid Sep 27 '17 at 19:11
  • $\begingroup$ I find a contradiction between your answer and the two following answers:math.stackexchange.com/questions/4551/… ; math.stackexchange.com/questions/2473122/… ; could you please explain to me my wrong. Thank you $\endgroup$ – Student Oct 15 '17 at 10:05
  • $\begingroup$ According to the two answers, I think that the equality is true but your example shows that we cannot have the equality. $\endgroup$ – Student Oct 15 '17 at 10:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Student It is true that for $A, B \subseteq \langle 0, +\infty \rangle$ we have $\sup(A + B) = \sup A + \sup B$ but it is not in general true that for two functions $f, g : X \to \langle 0, +\infty\rangle$ holds $$\sup_{x\in X} \big(f(x) + g(x)\big) = \sup_{x\in X} f(x) + \sup_{x\in X} g(x)$$ Take $\sin$ and $\cos$ on $[0, \frac{\pi}2]$. We have $\sup_\limits{x\in X} \sin x = \sup_\limits{x\in X} \cos x = 1$, but $\sup_\limits{x\in X} \big(\sin x + \cos x\big) = \sqrt{2}$. The problem is that maxima are achieved at different points. The statement from your question is of this type. $\endgroup$ – mechanodroid Oct 15 '17 at 10:21

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.