A problem related to Toeplitz operator












2












$begingroup$


I am learning the Toeplitz operator theory and I encounter a problem.



First, I need to introduce some definitions.



Definition: $T$ is the circle in $mathbb C$, we have $C(T)$, and $mathcal H=L^2(T)$ with its special orthonormal basis ${e_n}_{n=-infty}^infty$, whose elements are also viewed as elements of $C(T)$. For each $fin C(T)$ $(text{or even $fin L^infty(T)$},)$ we let $M_f$ denote the corresponding point wise multiplication operator on $mathcal H$. Let $P$ denote the projection onto the subspace of $mathcal H$ spanned by ${e_n}_{n=0}^infty$. For each $fin C(T)$ $(text{or even $fin L^infty(T)$},)$ the corresponding Toeplitz operator, $T_f$, on $Pmathcal H$ is defined by $T_f=PM_FP$.



Questions:



$1.$ Show that for $fin C(T)$, if $T_f$ is invertible, then $M_f$ on $mathcal H$ is invertible.



I have a hint saying that, first let $c=vertvert T_f^{-1}vertvert^{-1}$, and then show that for each $nin mathbb Z$ and each $zetain Pmathcal H$ we have $vertvert M_fM_{e_n}zetavertvertge cvertvert zetavertvert$, and finally let $mathcal H_n=M_{e_n}Pmathcal H$, and show that $cup_{n=-infty}^0mathcal H_n$ is dense in $mathcal H$.



I am not quite familiar with the theory and can not recover the whole proof. Can someone help me recover the proof?



$2.$ Use the result of $1$ to prove that for each $fin C(T)$ we have $vertvert T_fvertvert=vertvert M_fvertvert$.



As for $2$, I also have no any clue. Any hint and answer to problem $2$ will be helpful and I will be so grateful.



Thanks!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    I am learning the Toeplitz operator theory and I encounter a problem.



    First, I need to introduce some definitions.



    Definition: $T$ is the circle in $mathbb C$, we have $C(T)$, and $mathcal H=L^2(T)$ with its special orthonormal basis ${e_n}_{n=-infty}^infty$, whose elements are also viewed as elements of $C(T)$. For each $fin C(T)$ $(text{or even $fin L^infty(T)$},)$ we let $M_f$ denote the corresponding point wise multiplication operator on $mathcal H$. Let $P$ denote the projection onto the subspace of $mathcal H$ spanned by ${e_n}_{n=0}^infty$. For each $fin C(T)$ $(text{or even $fin L^infty(T)$},)$ the corresponding Toeplitz operator, $T_f$, on $Pmathcal H$ is defined by $T_f=PM_FP$.



    Questions:



    $1.$ Show that for $fin C(T)$, if $T_f$ is invertible, then $M_f$ on $mathcal H$ is invertible.



    I have a hint saying that, first let $c=vertvert T_f^{-1}vertvert^{-1}$, and then show that for each $nin mathbb Z$ and each $zetain Pmathcal H$ we have $vertvert M_fM_{e_n}zetavertvertge cvertvert zetavertvert$, and finally let $mathcal H_n=M_{e_n}Pmathcal H$, and show that $cup_{n=-infty}^0mathcal H_n$ is dense in $mathcal H$.



    I am not quite familiar with the theory and can not recover the whole proof. Can someone help me recover the proof?



    $2.$ Use the result of $1$ to prove that for each $fin C(T)$ we have $vertvert T_fvertvert=vertvert M_fvertvert$.



    As for $2$, I also have no any clue. Any hint and answer to problem $2$ will be helpful and I will be so grateful.



    Thanks!










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2


      2



      $begingroup$


      I am learning the Toeplitz operator theory and I encounter a problem.



      First, I need to introduce some definitions.



      Definition: $T$ is the circle in $mathbb C$, we have $C(T)$, and $mathcal H=L^2(T)$ with its special orthonormal basis ${e_n}_{n=-infty}^infty$, whose elements are also viewed as elements of $C(T)$. For each $fin C(T)$ $(text{or even $fin L^infty(T)$},)$ we let $M_f$ denote the corresponding point wise multiplication operator on $mathcal H$. Let $P$ denote the projection onto the subspace of $mathcal H$ spanned by ${e_n}_{n=0}^infty$. For each $fin C(T)$ $(text{or even $fin L^infty(T)$},)$ the corresponding Toeplitz operator, $T_f$, on $Pmathcal H$ is defined by $T_f=PM_FP$.



      Questions:



      $1.$ Show that for $fin C(T)$, if $T_f$ is invertible, then $M_f$ on $mathcal H$ is invertible.



      I have a hint saying that, first let $c=vertvert T_f^{-1}vertvert^{-1}$, and then show that for each $nin mathbb Z$ and each $zetain Pmathcal H$ we have $vertvert M_fM_{e_n}zetavertvertge cvertvert zetavertvert$, and finally let $mathcal H_n=M_{e_n}Pmathcal H$, and show that $cup_{n=-infty}^0mathcal H_n$ is dense in $mathcal H$.



      I am not quite familiar with the theory and can not recover the whole proof. Can someone help me recover the proof?



      $2.$ Use the result of $1$ to prove that for each $fin C(T)$ we have $vertvert T_fvertvert=vertvert M_fvertvert$.



      As for $2$, I also have no any clue. Any hint and answer to problem $2$ will be helpful and I will be so grateful.



      Thanks!










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I am learning the Toeplitz operator theory and I encounter a problem.



      First, I need to introduce some definitions.



      Definition: $T$ is the circle in $mathbb C$, we have $C(T)$, and $mathcal H=L^2(T)$ with its special orthonormal basis ${e_n}_{n=-infty}^infty$, whose elements are also viewed as elements of $C(T)$. For each $fin C(T)$ $(text{or even $fin L^infty(T)$},)$ we let $M_f$ denote the corresponding point wise multiplication operator on $mathcal H$. Let $P$ denote the projection onto the subspace of $mathcal H$ spanned by ${e_n}_{n=0}^infty$. For each $fin C(T)$ $(text{or even $fin L^infty(T)$},)$ the corresponding Toeplitz operator, $T_f$, on $Pmathcal H$ is defined by $T_f=PM_FP$.



      Questions:



      $1.$ Show that for $fin C(T)$, if $T_f$ is invertible, then $M_f$ on $mathcal H$ is invertible.



      I have a hint saying that, first let $c=vertvert T_f^{-1}vertvert^{-1}$, and then show that for each $nin mathbb Z$ and each $zetain Pmathcal H$ we have $vertvert M_fM_{e_n}zetavertvertge cvertvert zetavertvert$, and finally let $mathcal H_n=M_{e_n}Pmathcal H$, and show that $cup_{n=-infty}^0mathcal H_n$ is dense in $mathcal H$.



      I am not quite familiar with the theory and can not recover the whole proof. Can someone help me recover the proof?



      $2.$ Use the result of $1$ to prove that for each $fin C(T)$ we have $vertvert T_fvertvert=vertvert M_fvertvert$.



      As for $2$, I also have no any clue. Any hint and answer to problem $2$ will be helpful and I will be so grateful.



      Thanks!







      functional-analysis operator-theory






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 12 '18 at 9:58









      Sam WongSam Wong

      326110




      326110






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          I can try to provide some hints.



          I assume you mean that $e_n(z) = z^n$. Then $M_{e_n}$ is an isometry on $L^2(T)$, and it of course commutes with $M_f$, so that for any $zeta in mathcal{H}$ you have $$|M_f z^n zeta | = |M_f M_{e_n} zeta| = |M_{e_n}M_f zeta | = |M_f zeta | geq |PM_f zeta | = |T_f zeta | geq c | zeta |.$$ The point now is that the elements of the form $z^nzeta, zeta in mathcal{H}$ are clearly dense in $L^2(T)$. This is easy to see from Fourier expansions and Parseval's formula. Thus the inequality $|M_f zeta| geq c |zeta|$ actually holds for all $zeta in L^2(T)$. This then easily implies that $f$ is bounded from below, i.e, $|f(z)| > c$ for all $z in T$. Then $1/f in C(T)$, and the inverse of $M_f$ is $M_{1/f}$.



          As for the second part, I would use a contradiction argument. It is clear that $|T_f| leq |M_f|,$ because $|T_f zeta| = |PM_f zeta| leq |M_f zeta|$. On the other hand, if it would be so that $|T_f| < |M_f|$, then consider $lambda in mathbb{C}$ such that $|T_f| < |lambda| < |M_f|$. It is easy to show that the spectrum of $M_f$ on $L^2(T)$ is just the range of the function $f$, and that the norm of $|M_f|$ equals the supremum norm of $f$, so we can arrange $lambda$ to be in the range of $f$. Now, since $|lambda| > |T_f|$, we know that the operator $T_f - lambda = T_{f - lambda}$ is invertible. By the first part, $M_{f - lambda}$ is invertible. But this is a contradiction, since $0$ is in the range of $f - lambda$, so $M_{f-lambda}$ should not be invertible.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks Malman, I will check it tomorrow :)
            $endgroup$
            – Sam Wong
            Dec 12 '18 at 13:19











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3036487%2fa-problem-related-to-toeplitz-operator%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$

          I can try to provide some hints.



          I assume you mean that $e_n(z) = z^n$. Then $M_{e_n}$ is an isometry on $L^2(T)$, and it of course commutes with $M_f$, so that for any $zeta in mathcal{H}$ you have $$|M_f z^n zeta | = |M_f M_{e_n} zeta| = |M_{e_n}M_f zeta | = |M_f zeta | geq |PM_f zeta | = |T_f zeta | geq c | zeta |.$$ The point now is that the elements of the form $z^nzeta, zeta in mathcal{H}$ are clearly dense in $L^2(T)$. This is easy to see from Fourier expansions and Parseval's formula. Thus the inequality $|M_f zeta| geq c |zeta|$ actually holds for all $zeta in L^2(T)$. This then easily implies that $f$ is bounded from below, i.e, $|f(z)| > c$ for all $z in T$. Then $1/f in C(T)$, and the inverse of $M_f$ is $M_{1/f}$.



          As for the second part, I would use a contradiction argument. It is clear that $|T_f| leq |M_f|,$ because $|T_f zeta| = |PM_f zeta| leq |M_f zeta|$. On the other hand, if it would be so that $|T_f| < |M_f|$, then consider $lambda in mathbb{C}$ such that $|T_f| < |lambda| < |M_f|$. It is easy to show that the spectrum of $M_f$ on $L^2(T)$ is just the range of the function $f$, and that the norm of $|M_f|$ equals the supremum norm of $f$, so we can arrange $lambda$ to be in the range of $f$. Now, since $|lambda| > |T_f|$, we know that the operator $T_f - lambda = T_{f - lambda}$ is invertible. By the first part, $M_{f - lambda}$ is invertible. But this is a contradiction, since $0$ is in the range of $f - lambda$, so $M_{f-lambda}$ should not be invertible.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks Malman, I will check it tomorrow :)
            $endgroup$
            – Sam Wong
            Dec 12 '18 at 13:19
















          1












          $begingroup$

          I can try to provide some hints.



          I assume you mean that $e_n(z) = z^n$. Then $M_{e_n}$ is an isometry on $L^2(T)$, and it of course commutes with $M_f$, so that for any $zeta in mathcal{H}$ you have $$|M_f z^n zeta | = |M_f M_{e_n} zeta| = |M_{e_n}M_f zeta | = |M_f zeta | geq |PM_f zeta | = |T_f zeta | geq c | zeta |.$$ The point now is that the elements of the form $z^nzeta, zeta in mathcal{H}$ are clearly dense in $L^2(T)$. This is easy to see from Fourier expansions and Parseval's formula. Thus the inequality $|M_f zeta| geq c |zeta|$ actually holds for all $zeta in L^2(T)$. This then easily implies that $f$ is bounded from below, i.e, $|f(z)| > c$ for all $z in T$. Then $1/f in C(T)$, and the inverse of $M_f$ is $M_{1/f}$.



          As for the second part, I would use a contradiction argument. It is clear that $|T_f| leq |M_f|,$ because $|T_f zeta| = |PM_f zeta| leq |M_f zeta|$. On the other hand, if it would be so that $|T_f| < |M_f|$, then consider $lambda in mathbb{C}$ such that $|T_f| < |lambda| < |M_f|$. It is easy to show that the spectrum of $M_f$ on $L^2(T)$ is just the range of the function $f$, and that the norm of $|M_f|$ equals the supremum norm of $f$, so we can arrange $lambda$ to be in the range of $f$. Now, since $|lambda| > |T_f|$, we know that the operator $T_f - lambda = T_{f - lambda}$ is invertible. By the first part, $M_{f - lambda}$ is invertible. But this is a contradiction, since $0$ is in the range of $f - lambda$, so $M_{f-lambda}$ should not be invertible.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks Malman, I will check it tomorrow :)
            $endgroup$
            – Sam Wong
            Dec 12 '18 at 13:19














          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          I can try to provide some hints.



          I assume you mean that $e_n(z) = z^n$. Then $M_{e_n}$ is an isometry on $L^2(T)$, and it of course commutes with $M_f$, so that for any $zeta in mathcal{H}$ you have $$|M_f z^n zeta | = |M_f M_{e_n} zeta| = |M_{e_n}M_f zeta | = |M_f zeta | geq |PM_f zeta | = |T_f zeta | geq c | zeta |.$$ The point now is that the elements of the form $z^nzeta, zeta in mathcal{H}$ are clearly dense in $L^2(T)$. This is easy to see from Fourier expansions and Parseval's formula. Thus the inequality $|M_f zeta| geq c |zeta|$ actually holds for all $zeta in L^2(T)$. This then easily implies that $f$ is bounded from below, i.e, $|f(z)| > c$ for all $z in T$. Then $1/f in C(T)$, and the inverse of $M_f$ is $M_{1/f}$.



          As for the second part, I would use a contradiction argument. It is clear that $|T_f| leq |M_f|,$ because $|T_f zeta| = |PM_f zeta| leq |M_f zeta|$. On the other hand, if it would be so that $|T_f| < |M_f|$, then consider $lambda in mathbb{C}$ such that $|T_f| < |lambda| < |M_f|$. It is easy to show that the spectrum of $M_f$ on $L^2(T)$ is just the range of the function $f$, and that the norm of $|M_f|$ equals the supremum norm of $f$, so we can arrange $lambda$ to be in the range of $f$. Now, since $|lambda| > |T_f|$, we know that the operator $T_f - lambda = T_{f - lambda}$ is invertible. By the first part, $M_{f - lambda}$ is invertible. But this is a contradiction, since $0$ is in the range of $f - lambda$, so $M_{f-lambda}$ should not be invertible.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          I can try to provide some hints.



          I assume you mean that $e_n(z) = z^n$. Then $M_{e_n}$ is an isometry on $L^2(T)$, and it of course commutes with $M_f$, so that for any $zeta in mathcal{H}$ you have $$|M_f z^n zeta | = |M_f M_{e_n} zeta| = |M_{e_n}M_f zeta | = |M_f zeta | geq |PM_f zeta | = |T_f zeta | geq c | zeta |.$$ The point now is that the elements of the form $z^nzeta, zeta in mathcal{H}$ are clearly dense in $L^2(T)$. This is easy to see from Fourier expansions and Parseval's formula. Thus the inequality $|M_f zeta| geq c |zeta|$ actually holds for all $zeta in L^2(T)$. This then easily implies that $f$ is bounded from below, i.e, $|f(z)| > c$ for all $z in T$. Then $1/f in C(T)$, and the inverse of $M_f$ is $M_{1/f}$.



          As for the second part, I would use a contradiction argument. It is clear that $|T_f| leq |M_f|,$ because $|T_f zeta| = |PM_f zeta| leq |M_f zeta|$. On the other hand, if it would be so that $|T_f| < |M_f|$, then consider $lambda in mathbb{C}$ such that $|T_f| < |lambda| < |M_f|$. It is easy to show that the spectrum of $M_f$ on $L^2(T)$ is just the range of the function $f$, and that the norm of $|M_f|$ equals the supremum norm of $f$, so we can arrange $lambda$ to be in the range of $f$. Now, since $|lambda| > |T_f|$, we know that the operator $T_f - lambda = T_{f - lambda}$ is invertible. By the first part, $M_{f - lambda}$ is invertible. But this is a contradiction, since $0$ is in the range of $f - lambda$, so $M_{f-lambda}$ should not be invertible.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 12 '18 at 12:33









          Bartosz MalmanBartosz Malman

          8161620




          8161620












          • $begingroup$
            Thanks Malman, I will check it tomorrow :)
            $endgroup$
            – Sam Wong
            Dec 12 '18 at 13:19


















          • $begingroup$
            Thanks Malman, I will check it tomorrow :)
            $endgroup$
            – Sam Wong
            Dec 12 '18 at 13:19
















          $begingroup$
          Thanks Malman, I will check it tomorrow :)
          $endgroup$
          – Sam Wong
          Dec 12 '18 at 13:19




          $begingroup$
          Thanks Malman, I will check it tomorrow :)
          $endgroup$
          – Sam Wong
          Dec 12 '18 at 13:19


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3036487%2fa-problem-related-to-toeplitz-operator%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Wiesbaden

          Marschland

          Dieringhausen