0
$\begingroup$

For real numbers, we know that any monotonic bounded sequence converges to a finite limit. Does this generalize to sequences of operators?

More formally, I have a sequence of operators $\{A_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ where each $A_n: \ell_1 \to \ell_1$ and $\|A_n\|_1 \leq 1$. I know from the Banach-Alaoglu theorem that the unit ball $\{T : \ell_1 \to \ell_1 $ such that $ \|T\|_1 \leq 1\}$ is compact when the space of operators is endowed with the weak operator topology.

By weak operator topology I mean that $\{A_n\}$ converges to $A$ if and only if for all $x \in \ell_1^*$ and $y \in \ell_1$ we $$ \langle x ,A_n y \rangle \to \langle x, A y \rangle .$$

Does the Banach-Alaoglu theorem imply that if we have a monotonicity property $A_1 \leq A_2 \leq A_3 \leq ...$ that the sequence converges (in the weak topology) to some operator $A : \ell_1 \to \ell_1$?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ From your second paragraph you must mean by "weak topology" the topology of pointwise convergence in the weak topology on $\ell_1$ rather than the Banach space weak topology. But even with that interpretation it is clear that the answer is no. Take the projection $P_n$ onto the first $n$ unit vectors of $\ell_1$. The sequence $(P_N)$ converges in the pointwise weak$^*$ topology to the identity operator, but not pointwise in the weak operator topology. This is basically obvious. $\endgroup$ – Bill Johnson Oct 11 '16 at 1:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What does $\le$ mean here? $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Oct 11 '16 at 2:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So, is that equivalent to saying that $B-A$ is positivity preserving? $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Oct 11 '16 at 2:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Then don't we conclude that for every nonnegative $x$, the sequence $A_n x$ is pointwise increasing and $\ell^1$ bounded. So monotone convergence says it converges in $\ell^1$ to some $y$. By considering positive and negative parts, we get the same without the nonnegativity assumption. So this would seem to imply that $A_n$ converges in the strong operator topology. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Oct 11 '16 at 2:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I said strong operator topology, not the operator norm topology. And I wish you would stop saying "weak topology" when you mean "weak operator topology". They are not the same and the definitions are crucial here. Note the limiting operator $y$ will be a bounded operator by the uniform boundedness principle. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Oct 11 '16 at 3:19
5
$\begingroup$

You've clarified in comments that $\le$ means that the operators $A_{n+1} - A_n$ are positivity preserving. So for any nonnegative $x \in \ell^1$, we have $A_1 x \le A_2 x \le \dots$ pointwise. Since $A_1 x \in \ell^1$ and the sequence $\{A_n x\}$ is $\ell^1$-bounded, the monotone convergence theorem implies that $A_n x$ converges in $\ell^1$-norm to some $Ax \in \ell^1$. For general $x \in \ell^1$, writing $x = x^+ - x^-$ shows that again $A_n x$ converges in $\ell^1$-norm to some $Ax$. In particular, $\|A_n x\|_1 \to \|Ax\|_1$ which implies that $A$ is bounded with operator norm at most 1. We have thus shown $A_n \to A$ in the strong operator topology, which is even more than requested.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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