2
$\begingroup$

I am trying to understand a proof that Hilbert-Schmidt operators are compact. From the book that I am reading it is stated that for a Hilbert Schmidt operator $K$ with kernel

$$k=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\langle k,e_n\otimes \overline{e_m}\rangle e_n\otimes \overline{e_m}$$

Here $e_n\otimes \overline{e_m}=e_n(x)\overline{e_m(y)}$ is an orthonormal basis for $L^2(I\times I)$ (this has been proven and I also understand this).

Then one can consider the finite rank operators $K_{NM}$ with kernel

$$k_{NM}=\sum_{n=1}^{N}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\langle k,e_n\otimes \overline{e_m}\rangle e_n\otimes \overline{e_m}$$

The book proceeds to state that since $\|K\|\leq \|k\|$ (has also been proven and I understand this as well) that it is possible to approximate $K$ by the finite rank operators $K_{NM}$ in operator norm. This is what I'm struggling with. I can't seem to be able to show that

$$\|K-K_{NM}\|\rightarrow 0$$

as $N,M\rightarrow \infty$. I've tried but I can't seem to get from $\|K-K_{NM}\|$ to a situation in which I can use that $\|K\|\leq \|k\|$. Does anyone have any hints?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $K-K_{NM}$ is again a kernel operator. Apply the inequality to this operator instead of the original one. $\endgroup$ – MaoWao Feb 5 at 19:26
  • $\begingroup$ @MaoWao That's what I've been trying to do, but I can't see how to proceed. I can only seem to use the reverse triangle inequality, i.e., $$||K-K_{NM}||\geq |\ ||K||-||K_{NM}||\ |$$ But this doesn't seem to help me. $\endgroup$ – James Feb 5 at 19:28
2
$\begingroup$

Sketch: Observe \begin{align} Kx = \sum^\infty_{n=1} \sum^\infty_{m=1} \langle e_m\mid ke_n\rangle \langle e_n\mid x\rangle\ e_m \end{align} then it follows \begin{align} (K-K_{NM})x =&\ \left(\sum^\infty_{n=N+1} \sum^\infty_{m=M+1}+\sum^N_{n=1}\sum^\infty_{m=M+1}+\sum^\infty_{n=N+1}\sum^M_{m=1} \right) \langle e_m\mid ke_n\rangle \langle e_n\mid x\rangle e_m\\\ =:&\ HH+LH+HL. \end{align} Take the $L^2$-norm, we get \begin{align} \|HH \|_2^2 =&\ \left\|\sum^\infty_{m=M+1} \left(\sum^\infty_{n=N+1}\langle e_m\mid ke_n\rangle \langle e_n\mid x\rangle \right) e_m\right\|_2^2\\ =&\ \sum^\infty_{m=M+1}\left|\sum^\infty_{n=N+1}\langle e_m\mid ke_n\rangle \langle e_n\mid x\rangle \right|^2\\ \leq&\ \sum^\infty_{m=M+1}\left(\sum^\infty_{n=N+1}|\langle e_m\mid ke_n\rangle|^2 \right)\left(\sum^\infty_{n=N+1}|\langle e_n\mid x\rangle|^2\right)\\ \leq&\ \left(\sum^\infty_{m=M+1}\sum^\infty_{n=N+1}|\langle e_m\mid ke_n\rangle|^2\right)\|x\|^2_2 \end{align} and \begin{align} \|HL\|_2^2 =&\ \left\|\sum^M_{m=1} \left(\sum^\infty_{n=N+1}\langle e_m\mid ke_n\rangle \langle e_n\mid x\rangle \right) e_m\right\|_2^2\\ =&\ \sum^M_{m=1}\left|\sum^\infty_{n=N+1}\langle e_m\mid ke_n\rangle \langle e_n\mid x\rangle \right|^2\\ \leq&\ \sum^M_{m=1}\left(\sum^\infty_{n=N+1}|\langle e_m\mid ke_n\rangle|^2 \right)\left(\sum^\infty_{n=N+1}|\langle e_n\mid x\rangle|^2\right)\\ \leq&\ \left(\sum^M_{m=1}\sum^\infty_{n=N+1}|\langle e_m\mid ke_n\rangle|^2\right)\|x\|^2_2. \end{align}

Hence it follows \begin{align} \|K-K_{NM}\|_\text{op} \leq \left(\sum^\infty_{m=M+1}\sum^\infty_{n=N+1}|\langle e_m\mid ke_n\rangle|^2+\sum^M_{m=1}\sum^\infty_{n=N+1}|\langle e_m\mid ke_n\rangle|^2+\sum^\infty_{m=M+1}\sum^N_{n=1}|\langle e_m\mid ke_n\rangle|^2\right)^{1/2}\rightarrow 0 \end{align} as $N, M \rightarrow \infty$.

Additional Remark: For intuition, consider the case when $V$ is a finite-dimensional inner product space.

Let $T:V\rightarrow V$ be a linear map and $\mathcal{B}=\{e_k\}^n_{k=1}$ be an orthonormal set. Then we see that $T$ has a matrix representation given by

\begin{align} [T]_\mathcal{B}=A:= \begin{pmatrix} \langle e_1\mid Te_1 \rangle & \langle e_1\mid Te_2 \rangle & \cdots & \langle e_1\mid Te_n \rangle\\ \langle e_2\mid Te_1 \rangle & \langle e_2\mid Te_2 \rangle & \cdots & \langle e_2\mid Te_n \rangle\\ \vdots& \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\ \langle e_n\mid Te_1 \rangle & \langle e_n\mid Te_2 \rangle & \cdots & \langle e_n\mid Te_n \rangle\\ \end{pmatrix} \end{align} since \begin{align} Tx=&\ T\left(\sum^n_{i=1}\langle e_i\mid x\rangle e_i \right)= \sum^n_{i=1}\langle e_i\mid x\rangle Te_i= \sum^n_{i=1}\langle e_i\mid x\rangle \left(\sum^n_{j=1}\langle e_j \mid Te_i\rangle e_j \right)\\ =&\ \sum^n_{j=1}\left(\sum^n_{i=1}\langle e_j \mid Te_i\rangle\langle e_i\mid x\rangle\right)e_j \end{align}

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the response! I am not sure I get the first line. It's the inner products I can't understand. Wouldn't it be $\langle x,e_n\otimes\overline{e_m}\rangle e_n\otimes\overline{e_m}$? The rest of your proof makes sense to me. $\endgroup$ – James Feb 5 at 19:40
  • $\begingroup$ Do you know how $e_n\otimes \overline{e_m}$ acts on $x=\sum \langle e_\ell \mid x\rangle e_\ell$? $\endgroup$ – Jacky Chong Feb 5 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure. I only know that $e_n\otimes \overline{e_m}=e_n(x)\overline{e_m(y)}$. One thing I did forget to mention is that $\{e_n\}$ itself is an orthonormal basis for $L^2(I)$. $\endgroup$ – James Feb 5 at 19:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Let me give you a hint. There's a difference between $e_n\otimes \overline{e_m}$ as an operator vs. the kernel of $e_n\otimes \overline{e_m}$ which is $e_n(x)\overline{e_m(y)}$. $\endgroup$ – Jacky Chong Feb 5 at 19:51
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. I can't quite see it, but I'm assuming what you mean is that I'm missing how we can express $K$ operating on an element $x\in L^2(I)$, and I'm only using the expansion for the kernel $k$? Also, do you have any material or references you can advice me to read to get a better understanding? $\endgroup$ – James Feb 5 at 20:41

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.