-3
$\begingroup$

Let $V$ be a normed infinite dimensional vector space. Let $L: V \longrightarrow V$ be a bounded linear operator. Moreover assume that $L$ is 'locally nilpotent' that is: $$ \forall v \in V \quad \exists n \in \mathbf{N}: L^n (v) = 0. $$ Now my question is if the linear operator: $$ \exp (L) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{L^n}{n!} $$ is bounded or not.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Am I missing something? If $L$ has norm $|L|$, then doesn't $\text{exp}(L)$ trivially have norm at most $\exp(|L|)$? $\endgroup$ Jul 21, 2011 at 1:31
  • $\begingroup$ Should we assume the series converges? $\endgroup$
    – user5810
    Jul 21, 2011 at 2:41
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Given your tag for the question, don't you want $L$ to be unbounded? $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Jul 21, 2011 at 16:14
  • $\begingroup$ In what sense is the series assumed or supposed to converge? In the operator norm, in the strong topology, etc. ? $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Jul 21, 2011 at 19:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Mark: if $L$ is locally nilpotent, $\text{exp}(L) v$ is well-defined for any $v$ without making any use of topological structure, and it is not hard to see that it is linear etc. $\endgroup$ Jul 21, 2011 at 20:38

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

$exp(L)$ is bounded, regardless of the local nilpotentcy, since $\|L^n\|\leq \|L\|^n$. On the other hand, if you wanted to ask the question about unbounded $L$ (say, for all $v$ in the domain), then the answer is no.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $L$ is a closed operator (but not bounded), then $\exp(L)$ as you define it is also closed. $L$ can be closed but not bounded since $V$ is not complete... $\endgroup$ Jul 21, 2011 at 15:39
2
$\begingroup$

Let $V$ be the vector space of all sequences which are eventually zero. Let $L$ be the backwards shift-- this is obviously "locally nilpotent". Given $V$ the norm $$ \| (x_n) \| = \sum_n a_n x_n, $$ where $(a_n)$ is some sequence of positive numbers. Let $e_n$ be the vector which is 1 in the $n$th place, and zero elsewhere. Then $$ \exp(L)(e_n) = (\cdots,1/2,1,1,0,\cdots), $$ where the final 1 is in the $n$th place. So $$ \|\exp(L)(e_n)\| / \|e_n\| \geq (a_{n-1}+a_n)/a_n = 1 + a_{n-1}/a_n. $$ Hence just choose $(a_n)$ so that $( a_{n-1}/a_n )$ is an unbounded sequence, and then $\exp(L)$ will be unbounded. E.g. $(a_n)=(1,2,1,3,1,4,1,\cdots)$ will work.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Of course in your example $L$ is not bounded, so this is not surprising. $\endgroup$ Jul 21, 2011 at 23:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jack-- But if $L$ is bounded, then its very very simple to see that $\exp(L)$ is bounded (as Orr explained in his answer)... So I don't understand your comment? $\endgroup$ Jul 22, 2011 at 9:56
  • $\begingroup$ Merely that $L$ bounded was assumed in the original post. $\endgroup$ Jul 22, 2011 at 17:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Jack-- I was following Yemon, and assuming that this was a mistake (given that the question has the trivial answer "yes" otherwise!) $\endgroup$ Jul 22, 2011 at 18:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.