2
$\begingroup$

We are reading a proof about the following limit \begin{equation}\tag{1} \lim_{n \to \infty} \sigma_1(T_n)= \sigma_1(T), \end{equation} where $T:D(T) \subseteq H \to H$ and $T_n:D(T_n) \subseteq H \to H$ are linear operators on a Hilbert space $H$ and $$\sigma_1(A)= \sigma(A) \cup \{ z \in \mathbb{C}: \|(z-A)^{-1} \|>1\}$$ for a linear operator $A$. In the proof it is said that it is enough to show the following:

(i) If $K \subseteq \sigma_1(T)$ is compact then there is $N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $K \subseteq \sigma_1(T_n)$ for all $n \geq N$.

(ii) If $K$ is compact and $K \cap \overline{\sigma_1(T)}=\emptyset$ then there is $N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $K \cap \overline{\sigma_1(T_n)}=\emptyset$ for all $n \geq N$.

But we don't know why (i) and (ii) implies (1)?.

The definition of convergence of sets which is used in (1) is the following: Let $\{X_n\}$ a sequence of subsets of $\mathbb{C}$. Then $x \in \limsup X_n$ iff there exists a subsequence $\{ X_{n_k}\}$ and a sequence $\{ x_k \}$ such that $x_k \in X_{n_k}$ and $\lim_{k \to \infty} x_k=x$. On the other hand, $x \in \liminf X_n$ iff there is sequence $\{x_n \}$ with $x_n \in X_n$ suc that $\lim_{n \to \infty} x_n=x$. The limit $\lim_{n \to \infty} X_n$ exists if $\limsup X_n=\liminf X_n$ and we define $\lim_{n \to \infty} X_n=\limsup X_n$.

Our attempt:

We think that (i) implies that $\sigma_1(T) \subseteq \liminf \sigma_1(T_n)$ because if $z \in \sigma_1(T)$ then $\{z \}$ is compact.

From (ii) we can get that $\limsup \overline{\sigma_1(T_n)} \subseteq \overline{\sigma_1(T)}$. Indeed if $z \notin \overline{\sigma_1(T)}$, then there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that $\overline{B(z;\varepsilon )} \cap \overline{\sigma_1(T)}= \emptyset$ and from (ii) we get $\overline{B(z;\varepsilon )} \cap \overline{\sigma_1(T_n)}= \emptyset$ for all large enough $n$, so $z \notin \limsup \overline{\sigma_1(T_n)}$.

But how can we show that $\limsup \sigma_1(T_n) \subseteq \sigma_1(T)$?

Thank you for any help you can provide us.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

You have hit the nail on the head and indeed there is a mistake with the proof you are reading. The argument already fails for matrices. If $T_n \equiv T \in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$ then $\sigma_1(T)$ is open by definition, but $$ \lim \sigma_1(T_n) = \overline{\sigma_1(T)}, $$ as any element in the closure of $\sigma_1(T)$ is the limit of a sequence lying in $\sigma_1(T)$. This sequence we can interpret as a sequence lying in the $\sigma_1(T_n)$.

The conditions (i) and (ii) provided are trivially satisfied as we have $\sigma_1(T_n) = \sigma_1(T)$. So (i) and (ii) do not imply the claimed equality. Indeed your definition of the limit of a sequence of sets implies that the limit is closed, if it exists. So the claim has to be modified accordingly.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you so much. I had been coffused about that proof for weeks. I think that the claim is true if we change $\sigma_1(T)$ by $\overline{ \sigma_1(T)}$. You agree with me? $\endgroup$
    – Mike Van
    Jul 24, 2019 at 23:32
  • $\begingroup$ I do. This follows from your arguments if you note that from the definition already $\liminf$ and $\limsup$ are closed. $\endgroup$ Jul 24, 2019 at 23:59

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.