In a nutshell: Does the kernel of a bounded operator change "nicely" with the operator?

The details:

Let $(X,\| \|)$ be an infinite-dimensional real normed space. Let $A_t $ be a continuous family of bounded linear maps $X \to X$, that is we have a continuous map $ (-\delta,\delta) \to \text{Hom}(X,X)$, given by $ t \to A_t$. (I consider $\text{Hom}(X,X)$ with the operator norm).

Suppose that $\dim(\ker A_t)=r$ for some finite $r$, for every $t$. (All the kernels are finite dimensional of the same dimension).

Let $S$ be the unit sphere of $(X,\| \|)$. Define $S_t=\ker A_t \cap S$. Set

$$ d(\ker A_t,\ker A_0):=d_H(S_t,S_0)$$ where $d_H$ is the Hausdorff distance of $S_t,S_0$ inside $(X,\| \|)$.

Let $\epsilon >0$. Does there exist $\delta_0>0$ such that for every $\delta <\delta_0$, $ d(\ker A_t,\ker A_0)<\epsilon$ holds?

Stating it explicitly, I ask whether for every $v_t \in S_t$ there exist $v_0 \in S_0$ such that $||v_t-v_0||<\epsilon$. (and vice versa, since the Hausdorff distance is "symmetric". However, I am also interested in the "one-way closedness" described above).

I ask here if $A_{t}$ being close to $A_0$ implies $\ker A_t$ is close to $\ker A_0$. If $X$ were finite-dimensional we could ask directly whether the map $t \to \ker A_t$ is continuous as a map into the corresponding Grassmannian, which I guess should be sort of equivalent to my formulation with the unit spheres.

I think that for the finite-dimensional case, such a result needs to be true by standard perturbation theory of matrices, but I am not sure.

  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by $Hom(X,X)$? I would think that this are bijective bounded linear maps, but then the question does not make sense. $\endgroup$ – gerw Aug 21 '18 at 6:55
  • $\begingroup$ I meant for the space of bounded linear maps. (not necessarily bijective, injective or surjective). Perhaps $B(X)$ is a more standard name. (Usually when people mean for invertible maps they write $Iso$ instead of $Hom$. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Aug 21 '18 at 6:59
  • $\begingroup$ What example do you have in mind of a family $A_t$ all whose kernels are finite dimensional and of the same dimension? $\endgroup$ – uniquesolution Aug 21 '18 at 7:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Tosio Kato's Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators? $\endgroup$ – user539887 Aug 21 '18 at 7:18
  • $\begingroup$ @uniquesolution Here is the example which inspired this question : The Laplacian on the space of differential $k$-forms on a Riemannian manifold, as a function of the metric. (That is, I think of the family $g_t \to \Delta_{g_t}$ where $g_t$ is a family of Riemannian metrics). The kernel $\ker \Delta_{g_t}$ is the space of $g_t$-harmonic forms, which is known to be finite dimensional, and metric independent. (It's a topological invariant of the manifold). Other (finite-dimensional) examples are kernels of bundle morphisms of constant rank, $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Aug 21 '18 at 7:40

I don't think that this is possible. Let us consider $X = \ell^2$. First, we consider $t > 0$ of the form $t = 1/n$, $n \in \mathbb N$. We define $a_0, a_{1/n} \in \ell^\infty$ via $$(a_0)_1 = 0, \quad (a_0)_i = 1/i, \text{ for other $i$}$$ and $$(a_{1/n})_1 = 1/n, \quad (a_{1/n})_n = 0, \quad (a_{1/n})_i = 1/i \text{ for other $i$}.$$ Now, let $A_0, A_{1/n}$ be the multiplication operators on $X$ associated with $a_0$ and $a_{1/n}$. It can be checked that $A_{1/n} \to A_0$ and the kernels are one-dimensional. Yet, the kernels do not converge as $n \to \infty$.

It remains to fill the gaps between $A_{1/n}$ and $A_{1/(n+1)}$. For $t \in (1/n, 1/(n+1))$, we set $$(A_t x)_1 = t \, x_1,\quad (A_t x)_i = x_i / i \text{ for $i \not\in\{1,n,n+1\}$}.$$ In the two-dimensional subspace of coordinates $n$ and $n+1$, we need to go continuously from $$\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1/(n+1)\end{pmatrix}$$ to $$\begin{pmatrix} 1/n & 0 \\ 0 & 0\end{pmatrix}$$ and we have to preserve the one-dimensional kernel. This is certainly possible. If we do it correctly, $t \mapsto A_t$ should become continuous from $[0,1]$ to $Hom(X,X)$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, That is a very nice counter-example. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Aug 21 '18 at 8:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In my opinion, the essential feature of the counterexample is that the range of $A_0$ is not closed. I am not sure what happens if we add the requirement that $A_0$ has a closed range... $\endgroup$ – gerw Aug 21 '18 at 8:02
  • $\begingroup$ I would guess that under your constant-kernel-dimension assumption, the closedness of the range of $A_0$ should imply the closedness of the ranges of $A_t$ for small $t$. But I do not have any idea how to prove this. $\endgroup$ – gerw Aug 21 '18 at 8:09
  • $\begingroup$ To help future readers: The image of $A_0$ is not closed since it contains $(0,\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{3},\dots,\frac{1}{n},0,0,0,0,\dots)$ for every $n$, but not their limit, which is "supposed to be" the image of the element $(1,1,1,\dots)$. (This element is not in $\ell^2$). $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Aug 21 '18 at 12:47
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, you were right about the crucial part played by the non-closed range here. When the range is closed, everything works smoothly, as can be seen here: math.stackexchange.com/a/2892319/104576 (In the answer there it is proved that the kernels converge in a strong sense). Thanks again for your insights. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Aug 28 '18 at 7:21

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.