3
$\begingroup$

Exercise :

Let $X,Y$ be Banach spaces with $\dim X = + \infty$ and $A \in \mathcal{L}(X,Y)$ such that : $$\|A(x)\|_Y \geq c\|x\|_X \; \; \forall x \in X \; \text{and} \; c>0$$ Can the operator $A$ be compact ?

Attempt :

First of all, we know that an operator is compact if it transfers bounded sets to relatively compact sets (which means that they have a compact closure).

Let's assume now that $A$ is compact. Since $X$ is infinite dimensional, the unit ball $B_1^X$ is bounded (but not totally bounded). That would mean that $\overline{A(B_1^X)}$ should be compact. But, from the inequality relation gives, it would be :

$$\|A(B_1^X)\|_Y \geq c\|B_1^X\|_X \implies \|A(B_1^X)\|_Y \geq c' >0$$

But $c'$ could be as large as we'd like and thus the quantity $\|A(B_1^X)\|_Y$ is not bounded, which also means that the $\|\overline{A(B_1^X)}\|_Y$ is also not bounded, thus \overline{A(B_1^X)} is not compact (???).

Question : Is my intuition and especially my final argument correct ? If not, what other way could I approach that specific problem ?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Are you sure it says for all $c>0$, because such operator is unlikely to exist, because every $x$ has the property $\|Ax\|=\infty$... Maybe it should say there exists some $c>0$ for which this and that holds. $\endgroup$ – Shashi Feb 23 at 11:06
4
$\begingroup$

You can do this by definition. Since $X$ is infinite-dimensional, there exists a sequence $\{x_n\}$ in the unit ball $B_X$ of $X$ that has no convergent subsequence; thus there exists $\delta>0$ such that $\|x_k-x_j\|\geq\delta$ if $k\ne j$. Then $$ \|Ax_k-Ax_j\|=\|A(x_k-x_j)\|\geq\,c\,\|x_k-x_j\|\geq\delta c. $$ So the sequence $\{Ax_j\}$ admits no convergent subsquence, and thus $A(B_X)$ is not precompact, and $A$ is not compact.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hi, thanks a lot for your input. Shouldn't it be $c$ instead of $1/c$ by the way ? $\endgroup$ – Rebellos Feb 23 at 18:51
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed; edited. $\endgroup$ – Martin Argerami Feb 23 at 19:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I moved the accepted mark because I think this answer is more fundamentaly suited to the knowledge I have and the style of lesson we follow. Essentialy, this is kinda like what I tried to work around, but got mixed up! Thanks for the perfect elaboration ! $\endgroup$ – Rebellos Feb 23 at 19:14
2
$\begingroup$

Your attempt does not make too much sense to me. What is the norm of a subset even supposed to mean? If $A$ is bounded, then $A(B_1^Y)$ is certainly bounded.

But you are right that $A$ cannot be compact. Let $Z=A(X)$. By assumption $A$ is bijective from $X$ to $Z$. Let $B$ be its inverse. Then $\|B(Ax)\|_X=\|x\|_X\leq \frac 1 c\|Ax\|_Y$, that is, $B$ is bounded. If $A$ were compact, then $\mathrm{id_X}=BA$ would also be compact, which contradicts the fact that $X$ is infinite-dimensional.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $Z$ is the range of $A$, so $A$ is certainly also surjective from $X$ to $Z$, if that's what you mean. $\endgroup$ – MaoWao Feb 23 at 11:11

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.