1
$\begingroup$

Assume that we have finitely many projections $P_1,\dots, P_n$ on a Banach space $X$ (take an explicit case of $X=L_p(\mu)$ if a concrete examples is better). Consider their convex combination $P=\sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i P_i$, where $\alpha_i$ are strictly positive and sum up to 1.

Question: When is the kernel of $P$ is equal to the intersection of the kernel of the $P_i$?

The only case I know how to deal with so far is when the $P_i$ have norm one, but I'd like to know how to remove this assumption. Any help will be appreciated!

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is incorrect. You can find two projections in the plane without this property. $\endgroup$
    – Uri Bader
    Sep 16, 2016 at 13:20
  • $\begingroup$ Agreed, in general this does not hold, but what I mean here is are there conditions that could make this hold and why - I'll edit the question to make this clear $\endgroup$
    – user98548
    Sep 16, 2016 at 13:31
  • $\begingroup$ I think that you need to explain clearly: (1) What spaces are you talking about? (I ask this because you are talking about norm 1.) (2) In what terms do you hope/want to get an answer? $\endgroup$
    – August Cleaner
    Sep 16, 2016 at 23:00
  • $\begingroup$ Good point, I edited the question. As for what terms I want the answer in I really can't say much. At this point I am stuck on this and any kind of condition implying this would be interesting. $\endgroup$
    – user98548
    Sep 17, 2016 at 3:00

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

This answer is almost trivial, but I decided to write it.

First sufficient condition for $Ker(P)=Ker(P_1)\cap...\cap Ker(P_n)$: the subspaces $Ran(P_1),...,Ran(P_n)$ are linearly independent (i.e., if $y_1+...+y_n=0$, where $y_1\in Ran(P_1)$,...,$y_n\in Ran(P_n)$, then $y_1=...=y_n=0$). The proof is trivial.

Second sufficient condition for $Ker(P)=Ker(P_1)\cap...\cap Ker(P_n)$: there exists a positive number $r$ such that the following conditions:

  1. $\|rI-P_i\|\leqslant r$;

  2. if $\|(rI-P_i)x\|=r\|x\|$, then $(rI-P_i)x=rx$ (i.e., $P_i x=0$)

hold for $i=1,...,n$.

Indeed, suppose that $Px=0$. Then $\alpha_1 P_1 x+...+\alpha_n P_n x=0$ and, consequently, $\alpha_1(rI-P_1)x+...+\alpha_n(rI-P_n)x=rx$. But \begin{align*} &\|\alpha_1(rI-P_1)x+...+\alpha_n(rI-P_n)x\|\leqslant\\ &\alpha_1\|(rI-P_1)x\|+...+\alpha_n\|(rI-P_n)x\|\leqslant\\ &\alpha_1 r\|x\|+...+\alpha_n r\|x\|=r\|x\|. \end{align*} Hence, $\|(rI-P_i)x\|=r\|x\|$ for all $i=1,...,n$. Consequently, $P_i x=0$, $i=1,...,n$.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

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

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