Weighted composition operators acting from the Lipschitz space to the space of bounded functions on a tree
Takuya Hosokawa

TL;DR
This paper investigates weighted composition operators from Lipschitz spaces to bounded functions on infinite trees, providing characterizations of their boundedness, compactness, isometric properties, and boundedness from below.
Contribution
It offers a comprehensive analysis of weighted composition operators on trees, including new characterizations of their key properties in this setting.
Findings
Characterized boundedness and compactness of operators
Determined conditions for isometric operators
Identified criteria for boundedness from below
Abstract
We study the weighted composition operators between the Lipschitz space and the space of bounded functions on the set of vertices of an infinite tree. We characterized the boundedness, the compactness, and the boundedness from below of weighted composition operators. We also determine the isometric weighted composition operators.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsHolomorphic and Operator Theory · Advanced Topics in Algebra · Advanced Algebra and Logic
Weighted composition operators acting from the Lipschitz space to the space of bounded functions on a tree
Takuya Hosokawa
College of Engineering, Ibaraki University, 4-12-1, Nakanarusawa, Hitachi, Ibaraki, 316-8511, Japan
Abstract.
We study the weighted composition operators between the Lipschitz space and the space of bounded functions on the set of vertices of an infinite tree. We characterized the boundedness, the compactness, and the boundedness from below of weighted composition operators. We also determine the isometric weighted composition operators.
Key words and phrases:
tree, Lipschitz space, weighted composition operator.
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification:
47B33, 47B38, 05C05.
The author is partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (No.16K05190).
1. Introduction
A graph is a pair of a nonempty set , which is called the vertex set, and a subset of , which is called the edge set. Two vertices and are called neighbors if , and we denote by . For any vertex , let denote the number of neighbors of . The vertex is called terminal if . A path is a finite or infinite sequence of vertices such that and for all .
A tree is a connected, locally finite, undirected graph with no loop, no cycle. Remark that for any two vertices there exists a unique finite path from to . For any vertex , let the distance between and be the numbers of edges in the finite path from to , and we denote by . In this paper, we assume that the tree is rooted at a vertex and has no terminal. Hence is an infinite graph.
A vertex is called descendant of if lies in the unique path from to . Then is called an ancestor of . The set consisting of and all descendants of is called the sector determined by . For , define that . We use the notation . The parent of is the unique vertex satisfying and . Remark that for any neighbors , we have the alternative of or .
In [3], Cohen and Colonna pointed out the geometric correspondence between the hyperbolic disk and the homogeneous trees, that is, each vertex has the same number of neighbors. The authors described the relation in terms of the Möbius transformations and the hyperbolic tilings. In this line, we can regard the complex-valued functions on the vertices of trees (possibly non-homogeneous) as a discretization of the functions on the unit disk.
The supremum norm of on will be denoted by
[TABLE]
and the space of the bounded functions on by . The discrete derivative of is defined by
[TABLE]
The set of all functions on T such that is called the Lipschitz space, denote by . Then is a Banach space under the norm
[TABLE]
Since , we have that . It is known that the Lipschitz functions follows the growth condition:
[TABLE]
(see also Lemma 3.4 of [4]).
Let the little Lipschitz space be the subspace of consisting of all functions with . Colonna and Easley [4] proved that is the closure in of the set
[TABLE]
where is the characteristic function on the sector determined by . Thus is a closed separable subspace of .
Let be a function on . The multiplication operator is defined by
[TABLE]
For a self-map of , the composition operator is defined by
[TABLE]
Moreover, we define the weighted composition operator by
[TABLE]
For the multiplication operators, the boundedness and the compactness has been studied on some function spaces. Allen and Craig [2] characterized the boundedness and the compactness of multiplication operators on the weighted Banach space on . We here present the results for the case of .
Theorem A** ([2]).**
Let be a function on .
- (i)
* is bounded on if and only if . Moreover, if is bounded on , then .* 2. (ii)
* is compact on if and only if as .*
Colonna and Easley [5] characterized the boundedness and the compactness of the multiplication operators acting from the Lipschitz spaces to .
Theorem B** ([5]).**
Let be a function on .
- (i)
The following conditions are equivalent.
- (a)
* is bounded.* 2. (b)
* is bounded.* 3. (c)
. 2. (ii)
Suppose that is bounded. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
- (a)
* is compact.* 2. (b)
* is compact.* 3. (c)
.
In [1], Allen, Colonna, and Easley also studied the composition operators on the Lipschitz space .
The following is called the weak convergence lemma. Allen and Craig introduced similar result on more general settings (Lemma 2.5 in [2]).
Lemma 1.1**.**
Let and be , , or . Let be a bounded operator acting from to . Then is compact if and only if for every bounded sequence in converging to [math] pointwise.
Recall that a bounded linear operator , where and are two Banach spaces, is bounded below if there exists a positive constant such that
[TABLE]
for any . In [7], Müller introduced two kinds of minimum moduli of bounded linear operators, one of which is related to the boundedness from below.
Definition 1.2**.**
(p.86, [7]) Let be two Banach spaces and be a bounded linear operator from to .
- (i)
The injectivity modulus of is defined by
[TABLE] 2. (ii)
The surjectivity modulus of is defined by
[TABLE]
It is known that , that is, is bounded below, if and only if is injective and the range of is closed in . It is also known that if and only if is surjective. See [7] for more properties of those minimum moduli in general setting, and [6] for the estimate on the minimum moduli of weighted composition operators on .
Our main purpose is to study the weighted composition operators acting between and . In section 2, we will study the boundedness, the compactness of on . We also characterize the isometric weighted composition operators, and the boundedness below of on . Moreover, we determine the operator norm, the essential norm, and the minimum moduli of on . In section 3, we will study the boundedness, the compactness of acting from and to . We also show that there is no isometric weighted composition operator from and to . Those results are generalizations of the results on given in [5]. Moreover, we will give the estimate on the minimum moduli of from to .
2. Results on
2.1. Boundedness and compactness
Theorem 2.1**.**
Let be a function on , and be a self-map of .
- (i)
* is bounded on if and only if . Moreover, if is bounded on , then .* 2. (ii)
Suppose that is bounded on . Then is compact on if and only if one of the following conditions holds:
- (a)
* is a finite subset of ,* 2. (b)
* if .*
Moreover, if is an infinite subset of , the following estimate holds:
[TABLE]
Proof.
(i) If is bounded on , then . On the other hand, if , then we have for with ,
[TABLE]
Hence we have is bounded on if and only if .
Next we let be the characteristic function at . Then we get
[TABLE]
Taking the supremum over all , we obtain
[TABLE]
We conclude that .
(ii) We remark that since is bounded on . Let be an arbitrary bounded sequence in converging to [math] pointwise. Write for any .
Suppose that is a finite set. We have
[TABLE]
By Lemma 1.1, we have is compact on .
We here suppose that is an infinite subset of . Then it is enough to prove (2). Let be a compact operator on . For any sequence in such that , we have
[TABLE]
Taking the limit superior over and the infimum over all compact operators , we obtain
[TABLE]
Next we prove the converse. Let be a positive integer and define the operator by
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that is compact on (see the proof of Theorem 3.7 in [5]). Since is also compact on , we have
[TABLE]
Letting , we get
[TABLE]
This completes the proof. ∎
Corollary 2.2**.**
Let be a function on and be a self-map of .
- (i)
. 2. (ii)
.
Recall that a tree is locally finite, and hence the self-map of has finite range if and only if
[TABLE]
Corollary 2.3**.**
Let be a bounded function on and be a self-map of .
- (i)
* is compact on if and only if*
[TABLE] 2. (ii)
* is compact on if and only if has finite range in .*
Moreover, we have the zero-one law on the essential norm of .
Corollary 2.4**.**
Let be a self-map of . Then
[TABLE]
2.2. Isometries
Theorem 2.5**.**
Let be a function on and be a self-map of . Then is an isometry on if and only if is surjective and
[TABLE]
for any .
Proof.
Suppose is an isometry on . Since for , we have
[TABLE]
Thus we get is surjective and (3) for any .
To prove the converse, we assume is surjective and (3) for any . It follows that , and hence we have for any . Let be a sequence in such that . Then we have
[TABLE]
We get is an isometry on . ∎
Example 2.6**.**
Let be the set of all integers. Define be a self-map of by
[TABLE]
Clearly, maps onto . Moreover, we define a function on by
[TABLE]
Since holds (3) for any , we have is an isometry on .
Corollary 2.7**.**
Let be a function on and be a self-map of .
- (i)
* is an isometry on if and only if on .* 2. (ii)
* is an isometry on if and only if is surjective.*
2.3. Boundedness from below and minimum moduli
We determine the minimum moduli and for bounded weighted composition operators on .
Theorem 2.8**.**
Let be a bounded function on and be a self-map of .
- (i)
If is not surjective, then . 2. (ii)
If is surjective, then
[TABLE]
Proof.
(i) Suppose is not surjective. For , we have on . This implies that .
(ii) Suppose is surjective. Let be the infimum of right side of (4). For any , the preimage is not the empty set and
[TABLE]
Thus we get
[TABLE]
Next we will show . For any and any with , we have
[TABLE]
Since is arbitrary, we have . Then we get . ∎
Corollary 2.9**.**
Let be a bounded function on and be a self-map of . Then is bounded below on if and only if is surjective on and
[TABLE]
We here consider the surjectivity modulus of on . First, we will show that if has zeros on , then is not surjective on .
Proposition 2.10**.**
Let be a bounded function on and be a self-map of . If there exists such that , then .
Proof.
Suppose that . For , there exists such that and . Then we have
[TABLE]
which is a contradiction. ∎
We determine the surjectivity modulus of .
Theorem 2.11**.**
Let be a bounded function on and be a self-map of .
- (i)
If is not injective, then . 2. (ii)
If is injective, then
[TABLE]
Proof.
(i) Let be a self-map of , which is not injective. There exist two distinct vertices such that . Suppose that and let . Then there exists such that and . Since
[TABLE]
we have and . On the other hand, we have
[TABLE]
Thus we get . By Proposition 2.10, we get . This is a contradiction.
(ii) Suppose is injective. To prove , we may assume . Let be a positive number less than . For any , there exists such that and . It follows that
[TABLE]
Since is arbitrary, we get . Letting , we get .
Next we will prove the converse. We may assume . It is enough to prove that, for any with , there exists a function such that and . Remark that is injective and for any . We here define that
[TABLE]
Then we can see and
[TABLE]
Thus we conclude . ∎
Corollary 2.12**.**
Let be a bounded function on and be a self-map of .
- (i)
. 2. (ii)
j(C_{\varphi})=\left\{\begin{matrix}0&\ (\mbox{if \varphiis not surjective})\\ 1&\ (\mbox{if\varphi is surjective})\hskip 19.91692pt\end{matrix}\right.. 3. (iii)
k(C_{\varphi})=\left\{\begin{matrix}0&\ (\mbox{if \varphiis not injective})\\ 1&\ (\mbox{if\varphi is injective})\hskip 19.91692pt\end{matrix}\right..
3. Results on
In this section we study the weighted composition operator acting from to .
3.1. Boundedness and compactness
Theorem 3.1**.**
Let be a function on and be a self-map of . Then the following are equivalent:
- (i)
* is bounded.* 2. (ii)
* is bounded.* 3. (iii)
* and .*
Furthermore, under the above conditions, the following estimate holds:
[TABLE]
Proof.
The implication (i) (ii) is trivial. Suppose the condition (iii) holds. Let be a function in with . Then the growth condition (1) implies that
[TABLE]
Hence we get (i) and the upper bound of .
Next, suppose the condition (ii) holds. Then we get . For any positive integer , we let
[TABLE]
Clearly and . For any vertex , take enough large so that . Then we have that
[TABLE]
Taking the supremum on over , we conclude the condition (iii) and the lower bound of . ∎
Theorem 3.2**.**
Let be a function on and be a self-map of . Suppose that is bounded. Then the following are equivalent:
- (i)
* is compact.* 2. (ii)
* is compact.* 3. (iii)
* if .*
Since the above theorem follows from Theorem 3.4, here we do not give its proof. We here present the example satisfying the conditions of Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.2.
Example 3.3**.**
Let be a self-map of with infinite range. Then is not bounded from to . Put
[TABLE]
Then, by Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.2, we have that is bounded but is not compact. On the other hand, then is compact.
Theorem 3.4**.**
Let be a function on and be a self-map of . Suppose that is a bounded operator from (respectively, ) to . Then the following holds:
[TABLE]
Proof.
It is trivial that .
For each positive integer , we define the operator by
[TABLE]
where is the unique vertex lying in the path between and such that . By Lemma 1.1, we have that is compact. Therefore, we get
[TABLE]
For , put the unique vertex lying in the path between and such that . Since , we have that
[TABLE]
Thus we have that
[TABLE]
Letting , we get
[TABLE]
Next we will prove the converse. To do this, let be a positive integer and . We define that
[TABLE]
Then is in and pointwise as . By short calculation, we have
[TABLE]
Since as , we have that as . By Lemma 1.1, we have as for any compact operator . Fix a vertex and put . Since , we obtain that
[TABLE]
Now, letting , we get
[TABLE]
∎
If we take in Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.2, then we get the results on the multiplication operators , which are same as Theorem B. For the composition operators, by Theorem 3.1, Theorem 3.2 for , and (ii) of Corollary 2.3, and Theorem 4.2 of [1], we get the following result on .
Corollary 3.5**.**
Let be a self-map of . Then the following are equivalent:
- (i)
* is bounded.* 2. (ii)
* is bounded.* 3. (iii)
* is compact.* 4. (iv)
* is compact.* 5. (v)
* is compact.* 6. (vi)
* is compact.* 7. (vii)
* has finite range.*
3.2. Isometries
Theorem 3.6**.**
For any function on and any self-map of , acting from (or ) to is not an isometry.
Proof.
It is enough to prove the statement for the case . We assume that is an isometry. If there exists a vertex , then we have that
[TABLE]
This is a contradiction. Hence must be surjective and
[TABLE]
for any . Fix a vertex with . By Theorem 3.1, we get
[TABLE]
This is a contradiction. We conclude that is not an isometry. ∎
3.3. Boundedness from below and minimum moduli
We characterize the boundedness from below for the weighted composition operators acting from to . We denote the injectivity modulus (the surjectivity modulus , resp.) by (, resp.) in short.
Theorem 3.7**.**
Let be a bounded function on and be a self-map of . Suppose that is bounded from to .
- (i)
If is not surjective, then . 2. (ii)
If is surjective, then
[TABLE]
Proof.
(i) can be proved exactly in the same way as in the proof of (i) of Theorem 2.8.
(ii) Suppose is surjective. Let
[TABLE]
Since for any , we get
[TABLE]
Next we will show . Let be in with . We put , then we have that
[TABLE]
Since , there exists a sequence such that
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
We choose one of the vertex from which attains the maximum above, and put . Since the sequence in satisfies that for any ,
[TABLE]
we have that
[TABLE]
Letting , we get
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Therefore, we obtain . ∎
Corollary 3.8**.**
Let be a bounded function on and be a self-map of . Suppose that is bounded from to . Then is bounded below if and only if is surjective on and
[TABLE]
We give some necessary conditions and a sufficient condition for to be surjective.
Proposition 3.9**.**
Let be a bounded function on and be a self-map of . Suppose that is bounded from to .
- (i)
If there exists such that , then . 2. (ii)
If is not injective, then . 3. (iii)
If is injective, then
[TABLE]
Proof.
(i) and (ii) can be proved exactly in the same way as in the proof of Proposition 2.10 and (i) of Theorem 2.11.
(iii) Assume that is injective. To prove that , we may assume . Let be a positive number less than . For any , there exists such that and . By the growth condition, we have that
[TABLE]
Since is arbitrary, we get . Letting , we get .
Next we assume . If is in with , then . Thus, by Theorem 2.11, we have that
[TABLE]
Thus we conclude . ∎
The upper estimate of in (iii) of Proposition 3.9 is not best possible. We present the example satisfying but .
Example 3.10**.**
Let , and define a function on by
[TABLE]
Clearly, is injective on and
[TABLE]
We will show that is not surjective from to .
To do this, assume . Let . Since , there exists a function such that and . For , we have that . Choose a positive integer satisfying . Then we have that
[TABLE]
This is a contradiction, therefore , that is, is not surjective from to .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] R. F. Allen, F. Colonna, and G. R. Easley, Composition operators on the Lipschitz space of a tree , Mediterr. J. Math. 11 (2014), 97–108.
- 2[2] R. F. Allen, I. M. Craig, Multiplication operators on weighted Banach spaces of a tree , Bull. Korean Math. Soc. 54 (2017), 747–761.
- 3[3] J. M. Cohen and F. Colonna, Embeddings of trees in the hyperbolic disk , Complex Variables 94 (1994), 311–335.
- 4[4] F. Colonna, and G. R. Easley, Multiplication operators on the Lipschitz space of a tree , Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory 68 (2010), 391–411.
- 5[5] F. Colonna, and G. R. Easley, Multiplication operators between the Lipschitz space and the space of bounded functions on a Tree , Mediterr. J. Math. 9 (2012), 423–438.
- 6[6] T. Hosokawa, Minimum moduli of weighted composition operators on algebras of analytic functions , Kodai Math. J. 29 (2006), 248–254.
- 7[7] V. Müller, Spectral Theory of Linear Operators , Birkhäuser, Basel, 2003.
