4
$\begingroup$

Let $F=F(H,H)$ be the space of bounded Fredholm operators in a Hilbert space $H$ with topology inherited from the norm operator topology, and let $X$ be a compact topological space.

For a continuous map $T\colon X\to F$, there exists a closed subspace $W\subseteq H$ with $\dim H/W<\infty$ such that $W\cap\ker T_x=0$ for all $x\in X$ and $H/T(W) =\bigcup_{x\in X} H/T_x(W)$ is a vector bundle over $X$ (See appendix of K-Theory, Anderson & Atiyah). Then one can show that $$\mbox{Ind}_1(T) = [X\times H/W] - [H/T(W)] \in K(X)$$ does not depend on $W$.

On the other hand, there exists a finite dimensional subspace $V\subseteq H$ such that $V+T_x(H) = H$ for all $x\in X$, and define $T^V\colon X\to F(H\oplus V, H)$ by $T^V_x(u,v) = T_x u + v$. Then $T^V_x$ is surjective and $\dim\ker T^V_x$ is constant on $x$. Thus $\ker T^V = \bigcup_{x\in X} \ker T_x$ is also a vector bundle over $X$. One can show that $$ \mbox{Ind}_2(T) = [\ker T^V] - [X\times V] \in K(X)$$ does not depend on $V$.

These index maps are called the family index of families of Fredholm operators in $H$, and it made me suspect that they are equal.

Question: Is it true that $$[X\times H/W] - [H/T(W)] = [\ker T^V] - [X\times V] \qquad (1)$$ in $K(X)$ ? Is there any reference that proves the equivalence of these indexes?


Edit: We can shrink $W$ or augment $V$ in order to have $\dim H/W = \dim V$. Say $H/W \cong V \cong \mathbb{C}^N$, so that $X\times H/W \cong X\times V \cong X\times\mathbb{C}^N$, and therefore $$\mbox{Ind}_1(T) = [X\times\mathbb{C}^N] - [H/T(W)]\ ,$$ $$\mbox{Ind}_2(T) = [\ker T^V] - [X\times\mathbb{C}^N]\ .$$

Equation $(1)$ becomes $$[X\times\mathbb{C}^N] - [H/T(W)] = [\ker T^V] - [X\times\mathbb{C}^N]$$ and it holds iff there exists $k\geq0$ such that

$$\ker T^V \oplus H/T(W) \oplus (X\times\mathbb{C}^k) \cong X\times\mathbb{C}^{2N+k}$$ But why does there exists such $k$?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Notice that $V^\perp\cap\ker T_x^*=0$ for every $x$, because for every $w\in V^\perp\cap\ker T_x^*$, $u\in H$, and $v\in V$, one has $$\langle w,T_x(u)+v \rangle = \langle w,T_x(u) \rangle = 0.$$ By composing two isomorphisms $\ker P_{V^\perp}T \ni u \mapsto u\oplus T(-u) \in \ker T^V$ and $\ker P_{V^\perp}T\cong H/T^*(V^\perp)$, one sees $\mathrm{Ind}_2(T)=-\mathrm{Ind}_1(T^*)$. Thus the quality of two indices follows from the fact that self-adjoint Fredholm operator $\left[\begin{smallmatrix} & T^*\\ T & \end{smallmatrix}\right]$ has index zero in either definition.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank for your answer, Narutaka! I've already understood the isomorphisms, but I am struggling to prove that $\mbox{Ind}_2(T\oplus T^*)=0$ in $K(X)$. Do you have any hint? $\endgroup$ – Rodrigo Dias Jul 24 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Rodrigo Dias: $T\oplus T^*$ is homotopic to $T^*T\oplus I$ and then to $(I+T^*T)\oplus I$, which has index zero because it is invertible. $\endgroup$ – Narutaka OZAWA Jul 26 at 2:30

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.