On holomorphic mappings with compact type range

Let C_f\colon\mathcal{H}^\infty(V)\to\mathcal{H}^\infty(U) be the composition operator defined by

Clearly, C_f\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^\infty(V);\mathcal{H}^\infty(U)) with ||C_f||=1. We claim that J_U\circ C_f\circ J^{-1}_V is weak*-to-weak* continuous from \mathcal{G}^\infty(V)^* into \mathcal{G}^\infty(U)^*. Let (\phi_i) be a net in \mathcal{G}^\infty(V)^* and \phi\in\mathcal{G}^\infty(V)^*. Assume that (\phi_i)\to\phi weak* in \mathcal{G}^\infty(V)^*. By [Meg-98, Corollary 2.6.10], (\phi_i) is norm-bounded in \mathcal{G}^\infty(V)^*. Clearly, (J^{-1}_V(\phi_i))\to J^{-1}_V(\phi) weak* in \mathcal{H}^\infty(V). Hence (J^{-1}_V(\phi_i))\to J^{-1}_V(\phi) pointwise on V by Corollary 1.3 (1). In particular, (J^{-1}_V(\phi_i)\circ f)\to J^{-1}_V(\phi)\circ f pointwise on U. Since the net (J^{-1}_V(\phi_i)\circ f) is norm-bounded since \left\|J^{-1}_V(\phi_i)\circ f\right\|_\infty\leq \left\|J^{-1}_V(\phi_i)\right\|_\infty=\left\|\phi_i\right\| for all i, Corollary 1.3 (2) guarantees that (J^{-1}_V(\phi_i)\circ f)\to J^{-1}_V(\phi)\circ f weak* in \mathcal{H}^\infty(U), that is, (C_f(J^{-1}_V(\phi_i)))\to C_f(J^{-1}_V(\phi)) weak* in \mathcal{H}^\infty(U). Finally, (J_U(C_f(J^{-1}_V(\phi_i))))\to J_U(C_f(J^{-1}_V(\phi))) weak* in \mathcal{G}^\infty(U)^*, and this proves our claim.

Now, by [Meg-98, Corollaries 3.1.11 and 3.1.5], there is a unique operator \widehat{f}\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U);\mathcal{G}^\infty(V)) such that (\widehat{f})^*=J_U\circ C_f\circ J^{-1}_V. Clearly, ||\widehat{f}||=||(\widehat{f})^*||=||C_f||=1. Given g\in\mathcal{H}^\infty(V) and x\in U, we have

and

From above we infer that

the surjectivity of J_V\colon\mathcal{H}^\infty(V)\to\mathcal{G}^\infty(V)^* yields

and this implies that \widehat{f}\circ\delta_U=\delta_V\circ f.

Let f\in\mathcal{H}^\infty(U,F). Clearly, f^t=J^{-1}_U\circ (T_f)^*\in\mathcal{L}((F^*,w^*);(\mathcal{H}^\infty(U),w^*)) by Theorem 1.2 (2) and [Meg-98, Theorem 3.1.11].

Moreover, we have ||f^t||=\left\|f\right\|_\infty by Proposition 1.6. It remains to show the surjectivity of the mapping in the statement. Take T\in\mathcal{L}((F^*,w^*);(\mathcal{H}^\infty(U),w^*)). Then J_U\circ T\in\mathcal{L}((F^*,w^*);(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)^*,w^*)) and, by [Meg-98, Theorem 3.1.11], there is a S\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U);F) such that S^*=J_U\circ T. By Theorem 1.2 (3), there exists f\in\mathcal{H}^\infty(U,F) such that T_f=S. Hence T=J^{-1}_U\circ(T_f)^*=f^t, as desired.

Recall that f(U)=T_f(\delta_U(U)) by Theorem 1.2 (2).

(1)\Leftrightarrow(2) ([Muj-91, Proposition 3.1 (a)]): If f has finite rank, then \mathrm{lin}(f(U)) is finite dimensional and therefore closed in F. We have

and hence T_f has finite rank. Conversely, if T_f has finite rank, then f has finite rank since

Furthermore, in this case we have \mathrm{rank}(f)=\mathrm{rank}(T_f).

(2)\Leftrightarrow(3): Since the space \mathcal{F}(E,F) of bounded finite-rank linear operators is a completely symmetric operator ideal (see [Pie-80, 4.4.7]), we have

In this case we now have \mathrm{rank}(T_f)=\mathrm{rank}((T_f)^*)=\mathrm{rank}(f^t).

(1)\Leftrightarrow(2) ([Muj-91, Proposition 3.1 (b)]): Since \delta_U(U)\subseteq B_{\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)}, if T_f\in\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U),F), then T_f(\delta_U(U)) must be relatively compact in F, and therefore f\in\mathcal{H}^\infty_{\mathcal{K}}(U,F) since f(U)=T_f(\delta_U(U)) by Theorem 1.2 (2). Conversely, since B_{\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)}=\overline{\mathrm{aco}}(\delta_U(U)) by Theorem 1.2 (5), one has

So, if f\in\mathcal{H}^\infty_{\mathcal{K}}(U,F), then T_f(\delta_U(U)) is relatively compact in F, hence \overline{\mathrm{aco}}(\overline{T_f(\delta_U(U))}) is compact in F by Mazur’s compactness theorem ([Meg-98, Theorem 2.8.15]) and the fact that \mathrm{aco}(A)=\mathrm{co}(\mathbb{D}A) for any subset A of a normed space E, where \mathbb{D} denotes the closed unit disc of \mathbb{C}. Therefore T_f(B_{\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)}) is relatively compact in F, which means that T_f\in\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U),F).

(2)\Leftrightarrow (3): Applying Schauder’s theorem [Meg-98, Theorem 3.4.15] and [Meg-98, Proposition 3.4.10], we have

(2)\Leftrightarrow (4): Similarly, one obtains

by [Meg-98, Theorem 3.4.16], where bw^* denotes the bounded weak* topology.

(4)\Leftrightarrow (5)\Leftrightarrow (6) follows directly from [Kim-13, Proposition 3.1].

Let f\in\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{K}^\infty(U,F). Then f^t\in\mathcal{L}((F^*,bw^*);\mathcal{H}^\infty(U)) by Theorem 2.2 and ||f^t||=\left\|f\right\|_\infty by Proposition 1.6. To prove the surjectivity, take T\in\mathcal{L}((F^*,bw^*);\mathcal{H}^\infty(U)). Then J_U\circ T\in\mathcal{L}((F^*,bw^*);\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)^*). If Q_{\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)} denotes the natural injection from \mathcal{G}^\infty(U) into \mathcal{G}^\infty(U)^{**}, then Q_{\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)}(\gamma)\circ J_U\circ T\in\mathcal{L}((F^*,bw^*);\mathbb{C}) for all \gamma\in\mathcal{G}^\infty(U) and, by [Meg-98, Theorem 2.7.8], Q_{\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)}(\gamma)\circ J_U\circ T\in\mathcal{L}((F^*,w^*);\mathbb{C}) for all \gamma\in\mathcal{G}^\infty(U), that is, J_U\circ T\in\mathcal{L}((F^*,w^*);(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)^*,w^*)) by [Meg-98, Corollary 2.4.5]. Hence J_U\circ T=S^* for some S\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U);F) by [Meg-98, Theorem 3.1.11]. Note that S^*\in\mathcal{L}((F^*,bw^*);\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)^*) and this means that S\in\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U),F) by [Meg-98, Theorem 3.4.16]. Now, S=T_f for some f\in\mathcal{H}^\infty_\mathcal{K}(U,F) by Theorem 1.2 (3) and Theorem 2.2. Finally, we have T=J^{-1}_U\circ S^*=J^{-1}_U\circ (T_f)^*=f^t.

(1)\Leftrightarrow(2): We next use some inclusions obtained in the proof of Theorem 2.1. If f(U) is separable, then so is \overline{\mathrm{lin}}(f(U)), and since T_f(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U))\subseteq\overline{\mathrm{lin}}(f(U)), we deduce that T_f(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)) is separable. Conversely, if T_f(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)) is separable, then so is f(U) since f(U)\subseteq\mathrm{lin}(f(U))\subseteq T_f(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)).

(3)\Leftrightarrow(4): We apply that the space \mathcal{S}(E,F) of all bounded linear operators between Banach spaces having separable range is an operator ideal (see [Pie-80, 1.8.2]).

(3)\Rightarrow(2): We apply that if T\in\mathcal{L}(E;F) and T^*\in\mathcal{L}(F^*;E^*), then T\in\mathcal{S}(E,F) (see [Pie-80, 4.4.8]).

Let f\in\mathcal{H}^\infty_{\overline{\mathcal{F}}}(U,F). Hence there is a sequence (f_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} in \mathcal{H}_\mathcal{F}^\infty(U,F) such that \left\|f_n-f\right\|_\infty\to 0 as n\to\infty. Since T_{f_n}\in\mathcal{F}(G^\infty(U),F) by Theorem 2.1, \mathcal{F}(G^\infty(U),F)\subseteq\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U),F) and \left\|T_{f_n}-T_f\right\|=\left\|T_{f_n-f}\right\|=\left\|f_n-f\right\|_\infty for all n\in\mathbb{N}, we deduce that T_f\in\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U),F) by [Meg-98, Corollary 3.4.9], and so f\in\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{K}^\infty(U,F) by Theorem 2.2.

We have

by Theorem 1.2 (3) and Theorem 2.1 for the first equivalence, Hutton’s theorem [Hut-74, Theorem 2.1] for the second one, and the operator ideal property of \overline{\mathcal{F}}(E,F) for the third one [Pie-80, 4.2.2].

(1)\Leftrightarrow (2) ([Muj-91, Proposition 3.1 (b)]): It follows with a similar proof to that of the equivalence (1)\Leftrightarrow (2) of Theorem 2.2 by taking into account that the norm closure and weak closure of the convex hull of a subset of a normed space coincide [Meg-98, Corollary 2.5.18] and that the norm-closed convex hull of a weakly compact subset of a Banach space is itself weakly compact [Meg-98, Theorem 2.8.14].

(2)\Rightarrow(3): Applying the Davis–Figiel–Johnson–Peł czynski theorem, there exist a reflexive complex Banach space G and operators T\in\mathcal{L}(G;F) and S\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U);G) such that T_f=T\circ S. Taking g:=S\circ\delta_U\in\mathcal{H}^\infty(U,G), we conclude that f=T_f\circ\delta_U=T\circ S\circ\delta_U=T\circ g.

(3)\Rightarrow(1): f(U)=T(g(U)) is relatively weakly compact because T is weak-to-weak continuous by [Meg-98, Theorem 2.5.11] and g(U) is relatively weakly compact in G since it is a bounded subset of the reflexive Banach space G (see [Meg-98, Theorem 2.8.2]).

(2)\Leftrightarrow (4): We have

by Gantmacher’s theorem [Meg-98, Theorem 3.5.13] and [Meg-98, Proposition 3.5.11].

(2)\Leftrightarrow (5): We have

by Gantmacher–Nakamura’s theorem [Meg-98, Theorem 3.5.14] and [Meg-98, Corollary 2.5.12].

In view of Theorem 2.7 and Proposition 1.6, we only need to show that the mapping in the statement is surjective. Let T\in\mathcal{L}((F^*,w^*);(\mathcal{H}^\infty(U),w)). Then J_U\circ T\in\mathcal{L}((F^*,w^*);(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)^*,w)) by [Meg-98, Theorem 2.5.11], and this last set is contained in \mathcal{L}((F^*,w^*);(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)^*,w^*)) since the weak topology is stronger than the weak* topology on the dual of a normed space. It follows that J_U\circ T=S^* for some S\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U);F) by [Meg-98, Theorem 3.1.11]. Hence S^*\in\mathcal{L}((F^*,w^*);(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)^*,w)) and, by Gantmacher–Nakamura’s theorem [Meg-98, Theorem 3.5.14], S\in\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U),F). Now, S=T_f for some f\in\mathcal{H}_{\mathcal{W}}^\infty(U,F) by Theorem 1.2 (3) and Theorem 2.7. Finally, T=J^{-1}_U\circ S^*=J^{-1}_U\circ (T_f)^*=f^t, as desired.

(1)\Leftrightarrow(2): It can be proved similarly as the same equivalence in Theorem 2.2 taking into account that the norm-closed absolutely convex hull of a Rosenthal subset of a Banach space is itself Rosenthal (see [Lin-89, p. 357]).

(2)\Rightarrow(3): Rosenthal factorization theorem (see e.g. [Alv-88]) gives a complex Banach space G not containing an isomorphic copy of \ell_1 and operators T\in\mathcal{L}(G;F) and S\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U);G) such that T_f=T\circ S. If we write g:=S\circ\delta_U\in\mathcal{H}^\infty(U,G), then f=T_f\circ\delta_U=T\circ S\circ\delta_U=T\circ g.

(3)\Rightarrow(1): Notice that f(U)=T(g(U)) where T is weak-to-weak continuous [Meg-98, Theorem 2.5.11] and g(U) is Rosenthal in G by Rosenthal’s \ell_1-theorem [Ros-74].

(1)\Leftrightarrow(2): Since f(U) is an Asplund set and T_f(B_{\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)})\subseteq\overline{\mathrm{aco}}(f(U)), then T_f(B_{\mathcal{G}^\infty(U)}) is an Asplund set by Lemmas 1.3 and 1.4 in [Ste-81] and Theorem 5.5.4 in [Bou-83].

(2)\Rightarrow(3): If T_f\in\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U),F), then Theorem 2.11 in [Ste-81] assures that T_f=T\circ S with S\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{G}^\infty(U);G) and T\in\mathcal{L}(G;F), where G is a complex Asplund space. Taking g:=S\circ\delta_U\in\mathcal{H}^\infty(U,G), we have f=T_f\circ\delta_U=T\circ S\circ\delta_U=T\circ g.

(3)\Rightarrow(1): f(U)=T(g(U)) is an Asplund set by Theorem 2.8, Theorem 1.13 and Lemma 1.7 in [Ste-81].

(2)\Rightarrow(4): By [Ste-81, Theorem 2.11], [Pie-80, 24.2] and Proposition 1.6, we have