it's something I've been thinking about when I was trying to prove that the identity is a compact operator (I found out later that it actually wasn't compact.) but here's a little bit of what I was doing while trying to prove the false claim :

for example consider the sequence space $\ell^2$, and define the following sequence of operators for $k \geq 1$ :

$T_k((x_n)_{n \geq 1}) = (x_1,x_2,\dots,x_k,0,0,0,\dots)$

$T_k$ is of finite rank and therefore compact ($\dim T_k(\ell^2) = k < \infty$).

intuitively speaking, I'd say that $T_k$ converges to the identity operator in $\ell^2$, but if that were the case then the identity would be the limit of a sequence of compact operators, therefore compact itself, which is not true.

so to my surprise, the limit of $T_k$ in $\ell^2$ is actually not the $Id$.

it can be seen by computing the norm of $\|T_k - T\|$, on the one hand it's bounded above by $2$ and for $x = (0,0,0,0,\dots,1,0,0,\dots)$ where the $1$ is situated in the $k+1$-th position, we find that the operator norm is also bounded below by $1$. (then use squeeze theorem).

now what would be a non-trivial sequence of operators that actually converges to the identity operator ?


Hints: $Ax(t)=(t^n(1-t)+1)x(t)$ in $C[0,1]$,

$Ax=(\frac{x_1}{n}+x_1,\frac{x_2}{n}+x_2,...)$ in $l_2$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I see, so the trick is to add any sequence that goes to zero, thanks. $\endgroup$ – the_firehawk Feb 16 at 14:02

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.