On $k$ point density problem for band-diagonal $M$-bases
Alexey Pyshkin

TL;DR
This paper introduces new analytical methods to study the $k$ point density and rank one density properties of band-diagonal $M$-bases, building on historical examples and extending understanding of their density characteristics.
Contribution
It develops novel techniques for analyzing $k$ point density and rank one density in band-diagonal $M$-bases, advancing the theoretical framework in this area.
Findings
New methods for analyzing $k$ point density
Insights into rank one density properties
Extension of previous examples and results
Abstract
In the early 1990s the works of Larson, Wogen and Argyros, Lambrou, Longstaff disclosed an example of a strong tridiagonal -basis that was not rank one dense. Later Katavolos, Lambrou and Papadakis studied point density property of this example. In this paper we present new methods for the analysis of point density and rank one density properties for band-diagonal -bases.
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
TopicsRings, Modules, and Algebras · Finite Group Theory Research · graph theory and CDMA systems
On point density problem for band-diagonal -bases
Alexey Pyshkin
Abstract.
In the early 1990s the works of Larson, Wogen and Argyros, Lambrou, Longstaff disclosed an example of a strong tridiagonal -basis that was not rank one dense. Later Katavolos, Lambrou and Papadakis studied point density property of this example. In this paper we present new methods for the analysis of point density and rank one density properties for band-diagonal -bases.
Key words and phrases:
biorthogonal system, -basis, rank one density, two point density
The author was supported by RFBR (the project 16-01-00674) and by «Native towns», a social investment program of PJSC «Gazprom Neft».
1. Introduction
1.1. Density properties
Consider the infinite-dimensional real Hilbert space . Suppose that has an orthonormal basis . The sequence is called minimal if none of its elements can be approximated by the linear combinations of the others. The system is complete and minimal when and only when it possesses a unique biorthogonal system . We call the minimal system band-diagonal if there exists such that whenever . We say that is an -basis if is complete as well.
Consider the operator algebra and the algebra generated by rank one operators of . We are interested in the following properties of the algebra .
Definition 1** ( point density property).**
We say that the algebra is point dense if for any and there exists such that for any .
The definition for is equivalent to being a strong -basis (see [8]): the system is called a strong -basis if for any we have x\in\overline{span}\big{(}\langle x,f^{*}_{n}\rangle f_{n}\big{)}, where denotes the closed linear span.
Definition 2** (rank one density property).**
We say that the algebra is rank one dense if the unit ball of rank one subalgebra is dense in the unit ball of in the strong operator topology.
By abuse of notation, we say that is point dense (rank one dense) when the corresponding algebra is point dense (rank one dense).
Notice that rank one density property implies point density property for any .
1.2. Motivation
Longstaff in [11] studied abstract subspace lattices and corresponding operator algebras. In that paper Longstaff raised an important question: does one point density property always imply rank one density property?
The solution remained unknown until Larson and Wogen showed [9] that the answer is negative. They constructed an example of a vector system such that it is one point dense but does not possess rank one density property.
Example 1** (Larson–Wogen system parameterized with real ).**
For any we define
[TABLE]
where are nonzero real numbers for any and .
The construction presented by Larson and Wogen was remarkably simple and elementary, — notice that the matrices corresponding to the vectors and are both tridiagonal. Afterwards this example was also studied in [1] (see Addendum), by Azoff and Shehada in [2], in [13]. In 1993 Katavolos, Lambrou and Papadakis in [8] performed a deep analysis of the density properties of this vector system and deduced that for one point density does not imply rank one density. Moreover, they showed that for such system rank one density is equivalent to two point density.
We are going to consider band-diagonal systems similar to the one regarded by Larson and Wogen and to determine the exact conditions for point density property of such vector systems. In this paper we present a few new techniques for analysis of point density and rank one density of band-diagonal vector systems.
In the next section we will gather some basic facts and outline the main idea of the paper. In Section 3 we perform the analysis for Larson–Wogen example, providing the simpler proof of Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 in [8]. In Section 4 we prove a similar theorem for one pentadiagonal system.
2. Preliminaries
Suppose that is an arbitrary band-diagonal -basis and is its biorthogonal sequence. In this section we establish several facts about .
Proposition 2.1**.**
The system is rank one dense if and only if any trace class operator , such that for any , has zero trace.
Proof.
It is well known that rank one density property is equivalent to being dense in in the ultraweak (or -weak) topology (see [8], Theorem 2.2). ∎
Proposition 2.2**.**
The system is point dense if and only if any -dimensional operator , such that for any , has zero trace.
Proof.
In the paper [8] authors proved the proposition for . For greater -s the same reasoning works. ∎
For an arbitrary linear operator we will be interested in the differences between the partial sums of the Fourier series using the system and partial sums of the canonical Fourier series (using the orthonormal basis ):
[TABLE]
where denotes the scalar product in . It appears that takes a concise and compact form for the finite-band system , and it is much easier to study than, for example, .
Proposition 2.3**.**
The operator is a trace class operator annihilating the subalgebra if and only if for any one has
[TABLE]
We will use this formulation in the following sections.
Now consider the operator which has a finite rank. In that case we write as a finite sum , where .
Let us define vectors and in as follows:
[TABLE]
where and . Since for any and , we can rewrite in terms of the scalar products of and . In turn it means that (2.2) can be rewritten in terms of the scalar products of and .
Hence, the existence of might be reduced to the existence of the vectors , in such that the sequences , are both square summable and (2.2) is satisfied. Thus, instead of looking for vectors and in , we might look for an infinite sequence of -dimensional vectors and such that , belong to . That is one of the key ideas in our method of analysing point density property for .
Thus, we have just found the following reformulation for point density property.
Proposition 2.4**.**
The following two statements are equivalent:
- (1)
there exists a -dimensional operator which annihilates such that , 2. (2)
there exist vectors , in such that for the operator we have
[TABLE]
for any .
As we already mentioned, the equation (2.3) can be expressed via and . Moreover, we can also write the trace of in terms of , :
[TABLE]
Essentially, point density property can be viewed as a possibility of laying out the sequence of vectors in which are constrained with a series of relations (2.3) and (2.4).
3. Classification for the Larson–Wogen -basis
In this section we study Larson–Wogen vector system (Example 1). Namely, we prove a theorem similar to Theorem 2.2 of [8]. Up until now there existed two different techniques in studying point density for (strong -bases) and for . Here we demonstrate a universal method for the analysis of point density property.
Theorem 3.1** ([8], Theorem 2.2).**
The sequences and are biorthogonal and both are complete in . Moreover, the following is true.
- (1)
the system is one point dense (a strong -basis) if and only if the sequence
[TABLE]
does not belong to . 2. (2)
the system is point dense () if and only if the sequence does not belong to .
Proof.
Due to Proposition 2.4 we know that point density of the system is equivalent to the existence of -dimensional vectors , such that (2.3) holds for the corresponding operator . For the given -basis we can calculate precisely:
[TABLE]
where .
Since , we have
[TABLE]
where denotes the scalar product in .
For the convenience of the reader we will introduce the sequences of vectors and .
[TABLE]
In view of this notation and due to Equation (2.4) .
Thus, we get that is not point dense if and only if there exist -dimensional vectors , lying in such that
[TABLE]
for any , and .
In what follows we show that the latter can be simplified even more.
Proposition 3.1**.**
The system is not point dense if and only if there exists a sequence of vectors in such that
[TABLE]
for any .
Proof.
Suppose we found such . Then we solve (3.2) by putting to zero, to for any and choosing the vector so that .
Now we prove the converse. Suppose we found such that (3.2) holds. Given that the vectors lie in , we rewrite the scalar product as the product of the vector lengths and the cosine of the angle between the vectors. Namely, we define and real that
The sequence has a non-zero limit, so let us find the largest such that . Then we can modify the original sequence by setting , to zero for any so that (3.2) still holds. Therefore, without loss of generality we can assume that for any . Setting we see that the sequence
[TABLE]
belongs to . Now since , we discover that
[TABLE]
where . Thus the product of such fractions is bounded by some constant above. It follows that the sequence
[TABLE]
belongs to . Now we set to , and then (3.2) holds since
[TABLE]
Since and the sequence belongs to , the sequence belongs to as well. ∎
Now we are ready to prove the theorem for the case .
Proposition 3.2**.**
The system is one point dense if and only if does not belong to .
Proof.
It follows from Proposition 3.1.
The case has all the vectors , lying on the same line (). Since all are collinear, the lengths of the vectors are precisely . Hence, Equation (3.3) can be satisfied if and only if is square summable. ∎
After this we consider the case .
Proposition 3.3**.**
The system is point dense () if and only if the sequence does not belong to .
Proof.
According to Proposition 3.1, the system is point dense if and only if there is no such sequence in which satisfy . Obviously, if there are such vectors , then belongs to .
Conversely, suppose belongs to . Then the sequence is square summable. Observe that , and so it is always possible to choose the angle so that
[TABLE]
Now we have defined the lengths for and the angles between each two consecutive vectors , . Obviously, for any we are able to lay out the vectors in . ∎
The last two propositions prove Theorem 3.1. ∎
4. Pentadiagonal example
In this section we explore another vector system and its biorthogonal system defined as follows:
[TABLE]
where the real coefficients , , , are equal to zero whenever , and satisfy the equality for any .
Proposition 4.1**.**
The given system is an -basis.
Proof.
The equality guarantees the biorthogonality, while the completeness of and is easy to check. ∎
We prove a theorem similar to Theorem 3.1, though we do not investigate the case in this section.
Theorem 4.1**.**
The following statements are equivalent:
- (1)
the given system is rank one dense, 2. (2)
the given system is point dense for some (equivalently any) , 3. (3)
the sequence
[TABLE]
does not belong to .
Proof.
In order to investigate the density properties we repeat the reasoning from Section 2. Presume that are defined by (2.1).
Thus, for any we have
[TABLE]
where stands for .
First of all we investigate the conditions of rank one density property for .
Proposition 4.2**.**
The following statements are equivalent:
- (1)
the system is not rank one dense, 2. (2)
there exists an operator such that and for any one has
[TABLE] 3. (3)
the sequence belongs to .
Proof.
The equivalence of the first two statements is due to Proposition 2.3. We are going to prove the equivalence between the last two statements.
Assume that ; our purpose is to construct the required operator . Let be equal to , and be equal to zero for any . Next we consider three cases for each .
Case 1. Suppose . For we set
[TABLE]
That guarantees the equality . For we set
[TABLE]
which provides the equality .
Case 2. Assume . For we set
[TABLE]
Again, we have . For we set
[TABLE]
The third case is left to the reader.
All the other entries we set to zero. These equalities ensure that for any .
The constructed operator belongs to the trace class since the non-zero operator matrix entries are summable due to the assumption that . Since the trace of is equal to , the sufficiency is proved.
Conversely, assume that there exists a trace class operator in the annihilator of with the trace equal to .
First of all, we prove that is a summable sequence. Since is in the trace class, the sequence of vectors belongs to . Obviously, belongs as well. As a consequence, we have for all large enough; we will assume that it holds for any .
It can be easily checked that if for some one of the numbers is equal to zero, then . From this point we will suppose that the coefficients are nonzero for any .
For any even consider the linear function
[TABLE]
Obviously, we have . The function is piecewise linear, so its minimum is attained in the breakpoints. The breakpoints are zero, and . We have . Consider the set , such that for any the function attains its minimum in the point . Thus, for any we have . We have
[TABLE]
Since is summable and for any we deduce that .
Clearly, G_{n}=g_{n}(y_{n})-\Big{\lvert}\Xi_{2n}/c_{n}\Big{\rvert} is summable. Let stand for the difference . Then
[TABLE]
Hence, \big{\lvert}G_{n}-\Xi_{2n}\lvert a_{n}/c_{n}\rvert\big{\rvert}\leqslant\lvert\Delta_{n}/b_{n}\rvert.
Consider the sets and . Since has a finite limit, we have . Hence, .
Assume that .
We have \big{\lvert}\lvert b_{n}\rvert G_{n}-\Xi_{2n}\lvert(c_{n}+d_{n})/c_{n}\rvert\big{\rvert}\leqslant\lvert\Delta_{n}\rvert. Since the sequences and are absolutely summable, the sequence is absolutely summable as well. Consequently, when is large enough. We get , and thus . Since for one has , we have
[TABLE]
Repeating the reasoning for odd , we get that is a summable sequence. ∎
Now consider the case of the -dimensional operator , where . This time we define the vectors and in as follows:
[TABLE]
Note that the sequences , belong to .
Now we can rewrite the equations (4.1) using the introduced vectors:
[TABLE]
where denotes the scalar product in . These equations simplify to
[TABLE]
Next we are going to analyze the necessary condition of point density property for .
Proposition 4.3**.**
If belongs to then it is possible to construct the vector sequences such that for any we have .
Corollary 4.1**.**
If is point dense for any then .
Proof of the corollary.
Assume the converse: .
We apply the proposition and get the vectors and . Now without loss of generality we can assume that . Then consider so that and set all (), to zero. Since the trace of the resulting operator is equal to , Proposition 2.4 implies that is not two point dense. Trivially, when is not two point dense, it is also not point dense for any . ∎
Proof of Proposition 4.3.
First we are going to present the vector lengths for each .
For this purpose we are going to define an auxiliary sequence such that for any . On each step we will define and .
We start by setting .
For any we have three choices for :
- (1)
if , we set
[TABLE] 2. (2)
whenever , we set
[TABLE] 3. (3)
if , we set
[TABLE]
Now all , are set, and obviously for any .
Next we are going to present the vector lengths , for each . Set to zero and for any we have three cases again:
- (1)
when , we set 2. (2)
whenever , we set 3. (3)
if , we set
Due to our choice of , the values are well-defined for each .
Lemma 4.1**.**
If for some nonzero real , , , , we have , there exist such vectors , , with lengths , , correspondingly such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Take such that and . Consider three vectors , , in with lengths , , such that and . Clearly, the vectors and must be orthogonal now. The equations (4.3) are trivial to check. ∎
Proposition 4.4**.**
For any there are vectors , with lengths , in such that (4.2) are satisfied.
Proof.
We argue by induction. We start with and . Suppose that we have constructed a sequence of vectors for all and . We are going to build and . We consider three cases for .
In the first case the chosen , and form a right triangle with hypotenuse , and so here Lemma 4.1 can be applied. It follows that there are vectors , , in with lengths , , correspondingly such that
[TABLE]
which in turn yields the equations (4.2). Now we can simply rotate the triple so that coincides with . We will set and to the rotated and accordingly. Since the rotation preserves the scalar product inside the triple, the equations (4.4) hold for , , as well.
In the second case the chosen , and also form a right triangle and Lemma 4.1 applies here as well. It implies that there are vectors , , in with lengths , , correspondingly such that
[TABLE]
and the equations (4.2) follow from that. Using rotation again, we receive , , .
In the third case the chosen , and also form a right triangle and Lemma 4.1 applies here as well. It implies that there are vectors , , in with lengths , , correspondingly such that
[TABLE]
and the equations (4.2) are also true. One more time we do the rotation, and we get , , . ∎
Proposition 4.5**.**
The following inequalities are true.
[TABLE]
Proof.
First two statements are trivial. For the last statement we consider the same three cases.
In the first case we have and . It follows that .
In the second case we have and so
[TABLE]
In the third case we have and hence
[TABLE]
∎
The last proposition implies that is bounded up to some constant by , and for any . Hence, the constructed sequences and belong to . That finishes the proof of Proposition 4.3. ∎
Now due to Corollary 4.1 we get that two point density of implies the divergence of , which in turn is equivalent to rank one density property of (see Proposition 4.2). Since rank one density implies point density for any , Theorem 4.1 is proved. ∎
5. Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the many helpful suggestions of Anton Baranov during the preparation of the paper.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] S. Argyros, M. Lambrou and W.E. Longstaff, Atomic Boolean Subspace Lattices and Applications to the Theory of Bases , Memoirs. Amer. Math. Soc., No. 445 (1991).
- 2[2] E. Azoff, H. Shehada, Algebras generated by mutually orthogonal idempotent operators , J. Oper. Theory, 29 (1993), 2, 249–267.
- 3[3] A. Baranov, Y. Belov and A. Borichev, Hereditary completeness for systems of exponentials and reproducing kernels , Adv. Math., 235 (2013), 1, 525–554.
- 4[4] A. Baranov, Y. Belov and A. Borichev, Spectral synthesis in de Branges spaces , Geom. Funct. Anal. (GAFA), 25 (2015), 2, 417–452.
- 5[5] A.D. Baranov, D.V. Yakubovich, Completeness and spectral synthesis of nonselfadjoint one-dimensional perturbations of selfadjoint operators , Advances in Mathematics, 302 (2016), 740-798;
- 6[6] J.A. Erdos, Operators of finite rank in nest algebras , J. London Math. Soc., 43 (1968), 391–397.
- 7[7] J.A. Erdos, Basis theory and operator algebras , In: A. Katavolos (ed.), Operator Algebras and Application, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997, pp. 209–223.
- 8[8] A. Katavolos, M. Lambrou and M. Papadakis, On some algebras diagonalized by M 𝑀 M -bases of ℓ 2 superscript ℓ 2 \ell^{2} , Integr. Equat. Oper. Theory, 17 (1993), 1, 68–94.
