Further common local spectral properties for bounded linear operators
Hassane Zguitti

TL;DR
This paper investigates common local spectral properties of certain bounded linear operators, establishing shared spectral features and properties under specific algebraic conditions, with applications to Fredholm operators.
Contribution
It introduces new algebraic conditions under which bounded linear operators share various local spectral properties and explores their implications.
Findings
AC and BA share the single valued extension property
They also share the Bishop property (β) and related spectral properties
Applications to Fredholm operators are provided
Abstract
In this note, we study common local spectral properties for bounded linear operators and such that We prove that and share the single valued extension property, the Bishop property , the property , the decomposition property and decomposability. Closedness of analytic core and quasinilpotent part are also investigated. Some applications to Fredholm operators are given.
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.
Further common local spectral properties for bounded linear operators
Hassane Zguitti
Hassane Zguitti: Department of Mathematics, Dhar El Mahraz Faculty of Science, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, BO 1796 Fes-Atlas, 30003 Fez Morocco.
Abstract.
In this note, we study common local spectral properties for bounded linear operators and such that
[TABLE]
We prove that and share the single valued extension property, the Bishop property , the property , the decomposition property and decomposability. Closedness of analytic core and quasinilpotent part are also investigated. Some applications to Fredholm operators are given.
Key words and phrases:
Jacobson’s lemma, common properties, local spectral theory
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification:
47A10, 47A11, 47A53, 47A55.
1. Introduction
For any Banach spaces and , let denote the set of all bounded linear operators from to ; with . For , let , , , , and denote the null space, the range, the spectrum, the point spectrum, the approximate point spectrum and the surjective spectrum of , respectively. An operator is said to be an upper semi-Fredholm operator if is closed and , and is said to be a lower semi-Fredholm operator if . is said to be Fredholm operator if and . The upper semi-Fredholm spectrum , lower semi-Fredholm spectrum and the essential spectrum are defined by
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
For an arbitrary , the local resolvent set of at a vector in is defined to consist of all for which there exists an analytic -valued function on an open neighborhood of such that
[TABLE]
The local spectrum is defined by . The local spectrum is a subset of and it may happen to be empty. Moreover, we have (see [11])
[TABLE]
For and , let denote the local spectral subspace defined by
[TABLE]
Clearly, is a linear (not necessarily closed) subspace of . The operator is said to possess the Dunford’s property if is closed for every closed subset of .
The operator is said to have the single valued extension property (SVEP, for short) at provided that there exists an open disc centered at such that for every open subset , the constant function is the only analytic solution of the equation
[TABLE]
We use to denote the set where fails to have the SVEP and we say that has the SVEP if is the empty set, [10, 11]. In the case where has the SVEP, if and only if . Moreover ([12, Lemma 3]),
[TABLE]
For an open set of , let be the Fréchet space of all -valued analytic function on endowed with the topology defined by uniform convergence on every compact subset of . An operator is said to satisfy the Bishop’s property () on an open set provided that for every open subset of and for any sequence of analytic -valued functions on ,
[TABLE]
Let be the largest open set on which has the property . Its complement is a closed, possibly empty, subset of . Then is said to satisfy the Bishop’s property (), precisely when , [4, 16].
It is well known that the following implications hold
[TABLE]
In order to introduce the dual notion of Bishop’s property , we need a slight variant of the local spectral subspace. For a closed subset in , the glocal spectral analytic space is the linear subspace of vectors for which there exists an analytic function such that
[TABLE]
We point out that the analytic function is defined globally on the entire complement of . Evidently, is linear subspace contained in . Moreover, the equality holds for all closed sets precisely when has the SVEP [11, Proposition 3.3.2].
An operator is said to have the *decomposition property on * provided that for all open sets for which , we have
[TABLE]
Let be the largest open set on which the operator has the property . Its complement is a closed, possibly empty, subset of ( [16, Corollary 17]). Then has the decomposition property () if .
Properties () and () are known to be dual to each other in the sense that has on if and only if satisfies on [4, 16]. Moreover
[TABLE]
The operator is said to be *decomposable on * provided that for every finite open cover of with , there exists closed -invariant subspaces of for which
[TABLE]
Let be the largest open set on which is decomposable. Its complement is a closed, possibly empty, subset of . We say that is decomposable if . The class of decomposable operators contains all normal operators and more generally all spectral operators. Operators with totally disconnected spectrum are decomposable by the Riesz functional calculus. In particular, compact and algebraic operators are decomposable.
It is also known that characterizes operators with decomposable extensions [4]. Property () is hence conserved by restrictions while is transferred to quotient operators. See also [11] for more details. We have
[TABLE]
Let be the Fréchet space of all -valued -functions on . The operator is said to satisfy the property at provided that there exists open disc centered at such that for every open subset and for any sequence of infinitely differentiable -valued functions on , we have
[TABLE]
Let be the set of all points where fails to satisfy the property (). Then is said to satisfy the property (), precisely when . The property plays the same role for generalized scalar operators as Bishop’s property does for decomposable operators: an operator satisfies if and only if is subscalar, is the sense that it has a generalized scalar extension. An operator is said to be generalized scalar if there exists a continuous homomorphism algebra with and (see [9]).
Jacobson’s Lemma asserts that if and then
[TABLE]
For and , numerous mathematicians showed that (resp. ) and (resp. ) share many spectral properties, see [2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 18, 20, 21, 22] and the references therein. For the local spectral properties, Benhida and Zerouali [6] proved that and share the SVEP, Bishop property , the property , the decomposition property and decomposability. The Dunford condition was studied by Aiena and Gonzalez in [2, 3] for operators and such that and . Then Zeng and Zhong [22] extented common local spectral properties for and under the condition . For operators , , and satisfying and , Yan and Fang [20] investigated local spectral properties for and . Recently, [7] studied the common properties for and for elements in a ring satisfying .
In this note, we extend results of [2, 3, 6, 22] by studying common local spectral properties for bounded linear operators and such that
[TABLE]
We prouve that and share the single valued extension property, the Bishop property , the property , the decomposition property and decomposability. Closedness of analytic core and quasinilpotent part are also investigated. Some applications to Fredholm operators are given.
2. common local spectral properties
Proposition 2.1**.**
Let and such that and let . Then has the SVEP at if and only if has the SVEP at .
In particular, has the SVEP if and only if has the SVEP.
Proof.
Assume that has the SVEP at and let be an -valued analytic function in a neighborhood of such that
[TABLE]
By taking values in equality (2.1) and using equality , we obtain . Since is analytic on and has the SVEP at , then . By taking values in equality (2.1), we get and then . Hence . Thus . Therefore has the SVEP at .
Conversely, let have the SVEP at . Then it follows from [6, Proposition 2.1] that has the SVEP at . Now with the same argument as in the direct sense, we get that has the SVEP at . Again by [6, Proposition 2.1], has the SVEP at . ∎
If and are such that , then the result of [8, Theorem 9] is an immediate consequence of Proposition 2.1.
Theorem 2.2**.**
Let and such that . Then
[TABLE]
In particular, satisfies property if and only if satisfies property .
Proof.
Assume that satisfies the Bishop’s property on some open set in . Let be an open subset of and let be a sequence of -valued analytic functions on such that
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Since satisfies the Bishop’s property , then
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
Thus it follows from (2.2) that
[TABLE]
So by [6, Lemma 2.1], converges to zero in Then by taking values in equality (2.2) , converges to zero in . Hence converges to zero in by [6, Lemma 2.1]. Again by (2.2), and then converges to zero in . Which prove that satisfies the Bishop’s property on .
Conversely, Assume that satisfies the Bishop’s property on . Then it follows from the proof of [6, Proposition 2.1] that satisfies the Bishop’s property on . Hence by the same way we get that satisfies the Bishop’s property on . Thus by [6, Proposition 2.1], satisfies the Bishop’s property on . ∎
Since and are dual to each other, then we get from Theorem 2.2
Theorem 2.3**.**
Let and such that . Then
[TABLE]
In particular, satisfies property if and only if satisfies property .
Since decomposability is equivalent to both and , then it follows immediately from Theorem 2.2 and Theorem (2.3):
Corollary 2.4**.**
Let and such that . Then
[TABLE]
In particular, is decomposable if and only if is decomposable.
In order to show that and share the property , we need the following lemma
Lemma 2.5**.**
[6]* Let be an open set and be a sequence in such that converge to zero in . Then converges to zero in .*
Theorem 2.6**.**
Let and such that . Then
[TABLE]
In particular, satisfies property if and only if satisfies property .
Proof.
Now using Lemma 2.5 and the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 2.2 we get the result. ∎
Corollary 2.7**.**
Let and such that . Then is subscalar if and only if is subscalar.
3. local spectrum and related subspaces
Theorem 3.1**.**
*Let and such that . Then
i) .
ii) .
iii) .*
Proof.
i) Let . Then there exists an open neighborhood of and an -valued analytic function on such that
[TABLE]
Hence for any , . Since is analytic on , then . Thus .
Now let . By virtue of [6, Proposition 3.1], . Then there exists an open neighborhood of with and an -valued analytic function on such that
[TABLE]
Hence for all . Thus . Therefore
[TABLE]
In the last implications we use repetitively ([6, Proposition 3.1]).
ii) goes similarly.
iii) follows from i) and ii). ∎
Corollary 3.2**.**
*Let and such that . The following assertions hold
i) If is injective, for all .
ii) If is injective, for all .*
Proof.
If (resp. ) is injective then (resp. ). Hence the result follows at once from Theorem 3.1. ∎
In particular, if , and are injective, then
[TABLE]
Before that we study the Dunford property for and , we start by the following lemmas.
Lemma 3.3**.**
*Let and such that . Let be a closed subset of such that . Then the following are equivalent:
i) is closed.
ii) is closed.*
Proof.
Assume that is closed and let be a sequence in which converges to some in . Then . By Theorem 3.1, part i), we have and then . Since converges to and is closed by assumption, then . Hence . Since , then it follows from Theorem 3.1, part i), that . Therefore is in and is closed.
For the converse implication, if is closed then it follows from [22, Lemma 2.4] that is closed. By the same above argument we prove that is closed. Hence by [22, Lemma 2.4], is closed ∎
Lemma 3.4**.**
*Let and such that and has the SVEP. Let be a closed subset of such that .
i) If is closed then is closed.
ii) If is closed then is closed.*
Proof.
i) Assume that is closed. Since then it follows from Lemma 3.3 that is closed. Since has the SVEP by Theorem 2.2, then it follows from [22, Lemma 2.5] that is closed.
ii) It follows similarly.
∎
Theorem 3.5**.**
Let and such that . Then has the Dunford’s property if and only if has the Dunford’s property .
Proof.
It follows at once from Lemma 3.3 and Lemma 3.4.
∎
The analytical core of is the set of all such that there exist a constant and a sequence such that
[TABLE]
Recall that (see for instance, [1, Theorem 2.18] or [11, Proposition 3.3.7]) that
[TABLE]
The analytic core was studied by Mbekhta [14, 15]. In general, is not need to be closed. By virtue of [17, Corollary 6], for any non-invertible decomposable operator , the point [math] is isolated in exactly when is closed. In particular, if is a compact operator, or more generally a Riesz operators, then is closed precisely when has finite spectrum, [17, Corollary 9].
Theorem 3.6**.**
Let and such that . Then for all nonzero complex , is closed if and only if is closed.
Proof.
Assume that is closed and let be a sequence in such that converges to . Since then for all nonnegative integer , . Hence it follows from Theorem 3.1 that . Thus the sequence belongs to . Since and is closed, then and so . We deduce from Theorem 3.1 that , i.e, . Therefore is closed.
Since is closed if and only if is closed ([22, Corollary 3.3]), then with the same argument we can prove the reverse implication. ∎
Associated with there is another linear subspace of , the quasinilpotent part of defined as
[TABLE]
In general, is not need to be closed. By [11, Proposition 3.3.13],
[TABLE]
Theorem 3.7**.**
Let and such that . Then is closed if and only if is closed.
Proof.
Assume that is closed and let be a sequence in which converges to . It is easy to see that belongs to . Since is closed and converges to , then . From the equality
[TABLE]
we have . Since
[TABLE]
then and so is closed.
The reverse implication goes similarly.∎
4. Applications and concluding remarks
A weaker version of property can be given as follows (see [23] for a localized version): an operator is said to have the weak spectral property provided that for every finite open cover of we have
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.1**.**
*Let and such that . Assume that and have dense ranges.
i) If has the property then has the property .
ii) If has the property then has the property .*
Proof.
We only prove i). Assume that has the weak property . Let be a finite open cover of Then
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that for each , . Since is dense in , then it follows that
[TABLE]
Thus has the property . ∎
We do not know if we can drop the condition that and have dense ranges in the last proposition.
Proposition 4.2**.**
Let and such that . Then
[TABLE]
In other word,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since for every bounded linear operator the surjective spectrum satisfies , then it follows from Theorem 3.1, part i), that . Also by Theorem 3.1, part iii), we get . Thus,
[TABLE]
∎
It is well known that for we have and (see for instance, [11, Proposition 1.3.1]). Then it follows from Proposition 4.2:
Proposition 4.3**.**
Let and such that . Then
[TABLE]
In other word,
[TABLE]
Remark 4.4*.*
A direct proof of Proposition 4.3 can be given as follows: Assume that is bounded below. Then there exists such that
[TABLE]
Then for all ,
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
Therefore, is bounded below. The other sense goes similarly.
From Proposition 4.2 and Proposition 4.3 we retrieve the result of [7, Lemme 3.1] for bounded linear operators:
Corollary 4.5**.**
Let and such that . Then
[TABLE]
In other word,
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.6**.**
Let and such that . Then
[TABLE]
In other word,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Assume that is injective. Let such that . Then . Hence . It follows that . Since is injective we deduce that . Then . Thus .
The other implication goes similarly.
∎
Let be the set of all bounded sequences of elements of . Endowed with the norm , is a Banach space. For let be the infimum of all such that the set is contained in the union of a finite number of open balls with radius . Let
[TABLE]
For let be the bounded linear defined on by Set and let be the operator defined by . Then by [19, Theorem 17.6 and Theorem 17.9] we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Now let and such that . Then
[TABLE]
As an immediate consequence of Proposition 4.2 and Proposition 4.3 we get the following result.
Proposition 4.7**.**
*Let and such that . Then
i)
ii)
In other word,*
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Corollary 4.8**.**
Let and such that . Then
[TABLE]
In other word,
[TABLE]
Example 4.9*.*
Let be a non trivial idempotent on . Let , and defined on by
[TABLE]
Then and . Hence common spectral properties for and can only followed directly from the above results, but not from the corresponding ones in [22].
Example 4.10*.*
Let and be as in Example 4.9 and let be defined on by
[TABLE]
Then and . Thus common spectral properties for and can only followed directly from the above results, but not from the corresponding ones in [22].
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] P. Aiena, Fredholm and local spectral theory, with application to multipliers, Kluwer Acad. Press (2004).
- 2[2] P. Aiena and M. Gonzalez, On the Dunford property ( 𝒞 ) 𝒞 (\mathcal{C}) for bounded linear operators RS and SR . Intergr. Equ. Oper. Theory, 70, (2011), 561–568.
- 3[3] P. Aiena and M. Gonzalez, Local spectral theory for operators R 𝑅 R and S 𝑆 S satisfying R S R = R 2 𝑅 𝑆 𝑅 superscript 𝑅 2 RSR=R^{2} Extracta Math. 31(1) (2016), 37-46.
- 4[4] E. Albrecht, J. Eschemeier, Analytic functional models and local spectral theory , Proc. London Math. Soc., 75(1997), 323-348.
- 5[5] B. A. Barnes, Common operator properties of the linear operators RS and SR . Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 126, (1998), 1055–1061.
- 6[6] C. Benhida and E. H. Zerouali, Local spectral theory of linear operators R S 𝑅 𝑆 RS and S R 𝑆 𝑅 SR . Intergr. Equ. Oper. Theory, 54, (2006), 1–8.
- 7[7] H. Chen and M. Sheibani, Cline’s formula for g-Drazin inverses , Arxiv math. 1805.06133 v 1
- 8[8] G. Corach, B. Duggal and R. Harte, Extensions of Jacobson’s lemma . Comm. Algebra, 41 (2013), 520–531.
