arXiv reader

Large Perturbations of Nest Algebras

Kenneth R. Davidson

arXiv
2408.03317v2 · PDF · 2 October 2024
Categories
math.OA, math.FA
Licence
CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

Let \mathcal{M} and \mathcal{N} be nests on separable Hilbert space. If the two nest algebras are distance less than 1 (d(\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{M}),\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{N})) < 1), then the nests are distance less than 1 (d(\mathcal{M},\mathcal{N})<1). If the nests are distance less than 1 apart, then the nest algebras are similar, i.e. there is an invertible S such that S\mathcal{M} = \mathcal{N}, so that S \mathcal{T}(\mathcal{M})S^{-1} = \mathcal{T}(\mathcal{N}). However there are examples of nests closer than 1 for which the nest algebras are distance 1 apart.

Items 20

Lemma

Lemma 2.1

8MFA

Suppose that P and Q are orthogonal projections such that \|P-Q\| = \sin\theta < 1 for 0 \le \theta < \frac\pi2. Let U be the partial isometry in the polar decomposition of QP. Then \|U-P\| = 2 \sin\frac\theta2 < \sqrt2.

Used by Example 4.5
Proof of Lemma 2.1

If P \wedge Q = R \ne 0, we can replace P and Q by P-R and Q-R. This does not affect the problem unless P=Q, which is a trivial case. Let P' = (P \vee Q) - P. Then P'QP is injective on PH and has range dense in P'H. There is no loss in assuming that P+P'=I.

Let C = (PQP)^{1/2} and S = (1-C^2)^{1/2}. The Halmos model [Halmos] for two subspaces in generic position (i.e., P\wedge Q = 0 and P \vee Q = I) shows that P, Q and U are unitarily equivalent to

P = \begin{bmatrix}I&0\\0&0\end{bmatrix} \quad Q = \begin{bmatrix}C^2&CS\\CS&S^2\end{bmatrix} \quad\text{and}\quad U = \begin{bmatrix}C&0\\ S&0\end{bmatrix} .

Then since the two columns of P-Q have orthogonal ranges,

\| P - Q \| = \Big\| \begin{bmatrix}S^2&-CS\\-CS&-S^2\end{bmatrix} \Big\| = \| S^2 ( S^2 +C^2) \|^{1/2} = \|S\| .

So \|S\| = \sin\theta. Thus C = (1-S^2)^{1/2} \ge \cos\theta I and \| I - C \| = 1-\cos\theta. Therefore

\|U-P\| = \Big\| \begin{bmatrix}C-I&0 \\ S&0\end{bmatrix} \Big\| = \| (C-I)^2 + S^2 \|^{1/2} = \sqrt{\| 2(I-C)\|} .

Hence \|U-P\| = \sqrt{2(1-\cos\theta)} = 2 \sin \frac\theta2.

Theorem

Theorem 2.2

2O89

Let P_1 and P_2 (respectively Q_1 and Q_2) be pairwise orthogonal projections on a separable Hilbert space. Suppose that

\| P_1 - Q_1 \|<1 \quad\text{and}\quad \| P_2 - Q_2 \| < 1 .

Then

\operatorname{rank} (P_1+P_2)^\perp = \operatorname{rank} (Q_1+Q_2)^\perp .
Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Theorem 2.2

We may suppose that \operatorname{rank} (P_1+P_2)^\perp \le \operatorname{rank} (Q_1+Q_2)^\perp. If both are infinite, there is nothing to prove. Thus we may assume that \operatorname{rank} (P_1+P_2)^\perp is finite. Form the polar decomposition

Q_iP_i = U_i (P_iQ_iP_i)^{1/2} \quad\text{for}\ i=1,2 .

Then U = U_1+U_2 is a partial isometry of (P_1+P_2)H onto (Q_1+Q_2)H. Thus U is left semi-Fredholm since it has finite nullity and closed range. However by the lemma,

\begin{aligned} \| U - (P_1+P_2) \|^2 &= \big\| \big[ (U_1-P_1)P_1\ \ \ (U_2-P_2)P_2 \big] \big\|^2 \\& \le \|U_1-P_1\|^2 + \|U_2-P_2\|^2 < 4 \end{aligned}

because the two terms in the 1 \times 2 matrix have orthogonal domains. If \operatorname{rank} (Q_1+Q_2)^\perp = \infty, then \pi(U) would be a proper isometry, and thus \sigma_e(U) = \overline{{\mathbb{D}}} is the closed unit disc. If \operatorname{rank} (Q_1+Q_2)^\perp < \infty, then \pi(U) is unitary. If also \operatorname{ind} U \ne 0, then \sigma_e(U) = \overline{{\mathbb{T}}} is the unit circle. In either case,

\|U-(P_1+P_2)\|_e = \|\pi(U - I) \| = 2 .

Hence \operatorname{ind} U = 0, which means \operatorname{rank} (P_1+P_2)^\perp = \operatorname{rank} (Q_1+Q_2)^\perp.

Corollary

Corollary 2.3

R7JN

If P, Q_1 and Q_2 are projections with Q_1 < Q_2, then

\max\{ \|P - Q_i \| : i=1,2 \} = 1 .
Used by Proof
Proof of Corollary 2.3

If this result were false, we could have \|P - Q_i \| < 1 for i=1,2. Using P, P^\perp, Q_1 and Q_2^\perp in Theorem 2.2, we would obtain

0 = \operatorname{rank}(P+P^\perp)^\perp = \operatorname{rank}(Q_1+Q_2^\perp)^\perp = \operatorname{rank} (Q_2 - Q_1) > 0.

This contradiction establishes the result.

Proposition

Proposition 2.4

69LR

Let P and Q be projections on a Hilbert space {\mathcal{H}}. Then

\| P - Q \| = \max \big\{ \|PQ^\perp\|, \| P^\perp Q \| \big\} .

Moreover if \|P-Q\|<1, then \|PQ^\perp\| = \| P^\perp Q \|.

Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 2.4

First of all, P-Q = PQ^\perp - P^\perp Q is the difference of two operators with pairwise orthogonal domains and ranges. Thus

\| P - Q \| = \max \big\{ \|PQ^\perp\|, \| P^\perp Q \| \big\} .

We make use of the general form for a pair of projections [Halmos]. There is a canonical decomposition {\mathcal{H}} = {\mathcal{H}}_{00} \oplus {\mathcal{H}}_{10} \oplus {\mathcal{H}}_{01} \oplus {\mathcal{H}}_{11} \oplus {\mathcal{H}}_2 \oplus {\mathcal{H}}_2 and positive injective operators C,S \in {\mathcal{B}}(H_2) such that C^2+S^2 = I and

P = 0 \oplus I \oplus 0 \oplus I \oplus \begin{bmatrix} I & 0 \\0 & 0\end{bmatrix} \ \text{ and } \ Q = 0 \oplus 0 \oplus I \oplus I \oplus \begin{bmatrix} C^2 & CS \\CS & S^2\end{bmatrix} .

Any of the spaces {\mathcal{H}}_{ij} and {\mathcal{H}}_2 can be vacuous. It follows that

P Q^\perp = 0 \oplus I \oplus 0 \oplus 0 \oplus \begin{bmatrix} S^2 & -CS \\0 & 0\end{bmatrix} \ \text{ and } \ P^\perp Q = 0 \oplus 0 \oplus I \oplus 0 \oplus \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\CS & S^2\end{bmatrix} .

Now

\left\| \begin{bmatrix} S^2 & -CS \\0 & 0\end{bmatrix} \right\| = \left\| \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\CS & S^2\end{bmatrix} \right\| = \| S^2 ( S^2+C^2) \|^{1/2} = \|S\|.

If \| P - Q \| < 1, then {\mathcal{H}}_{10} and {\mathcal{H}}_{01} must be vacuous. Hence

\|PQ^\perp\| = \| P^\perp Q \| = \|S\| .

However if either {\mathcal{H}}_{10} or {\mathcal{H}}_{01} is non-trivial, then \|PQ^\perp\| = 1 or \|PQ^\perp\| = 1, respectively. If say {\mathcal{H}}_{10} \ne \{0\} and {\mathcal{H}}_{01} = \{0\}, then \|PQ^\perp\|=1 and \|P^\perp Q\| = \|S\|. So if \|S\|<1, the two norms differ. It is similar if {\mathcal{H}}_{10} = \{0\} and {\mathcal{H}}_{01} \ne \{0\}.

Theorem

Theorem 3.1

W0M8

Suppose that {\mathcal{M}} and {\mathcal{N}} are two nests on {\mathcal{H}} such that d({\mathcal{M}}, {\mathcal{N}}) = \gamma < 1. Then there is a unique order isomorphism \theta : {\mathcal{M}} \to {\mathcal{N}} such that \| \theta - {\operatorname{id}} \| = \gamma. Moreover \theta preserves dimension.

Used by Proof
Proof of Theorem 3.1

For each M\in {\mathcal{M}}, there is an N \in {\mathcal{N}} with \| P_M - P_N \| \le \gamma. By Corollary 2.3, the subspace N is unique. Define \theta(M) = N. Reversing the roles of {\mathcal{M}} and {\mathcal{N}} shows that \theta is a bijection. It is evident that this map must preserve order, so \theta is an order isomorphism.

Suppose that M_1 < M_2, P_i := P_{M_i} and Q_i = P_{\theta(M_i)} for i=1,2. Then \|P_1 - Q_1\| < 1, \| P_2^\perp - Q_2^\perp\| = \|P_2 - Q_2 \| < 1, P_1 and P_2^\perp are orthogonal and Q_1 < Q_2, so that Q_1 and Q_2^\perp are orthogonal. Hence by Theorem 2.2,

\begin{aligned} \operatorname{rank}(P_2-P_1) &= \operatorname{rank} (P_1+P_2^\perp)^\perp \\& = \operatorname{rank} (Q_1+Q_2^\perp)^\perp = \operatorname{rank}(Q_2-Q_1) . \end{aligned}

This means that \theta preserves dimension.

Corollary

Corollary 3.2

VKK8

Suppose that \theta : {\mathcal{M}} \to {\mathcal{N}} is an order isomorphism of two nests on separable Hilbert space. If

\|\theta-{\operatorname{id}}\| := \sup_{M\in{\mathcal{M}}} \| P_{\theta(M)} - P_M \| = \gamma < 1 ,

then there is an invertible operator S such that SM = \theta(M) for all M \in {\mathcal{M}}. If \gamma < \frac12, one can take \|S-I\| < 2\gamma. If \gamma \ge \frac12, one can take \|S-I\| < 2 + \varepsilon for any \varepsilon>0.

Proof of Corollary 3.2

By Theorem 3.1, \theta preserves dimension. Hence by the Similarity theorem [Dav_sim], \theta is implemented by a similarity. (See the introduction for some discussion of this.) When \gamma < \frac12, [DavNestAlgs]*Lemma 18.3 shows that one can choose S so that \| S - I \| < 2 \gamma. For \gamma \ge \frac12, one can take S = U+K with U unitary and \|K\| < \varepsilon < \frac12. Hence

\|S-I \| \le \| U \| + \| K \| + \| I \| < 2 + \varepsilon < 5 \gamma . \qedhere
Theorem

Theorem 4.1 (Lance, Davidson)

E3JR

Let {\mathcal{M}},{\mathcal{N}} be nests on separable Hilbert space {\mathcal{H}}. If d({\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}}), {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}})) = \gamma < \frac15, then {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}}) and {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}}) are similar via an invertible operator S satisfying \| S - I \| < 4\gamma.

Lemma

Lemma 4.2

V3XR

Let {\mathcal{M}}, {\mathcal{N}} be nests on {\mathcal{H}}. For any M\in{\mathcal{M}} and N\in{\mathcal{N}},

d({\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}}), {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}})) \ge \| P_M^\perp P_{N_+} \| \, \|P_M P_N^\perp \| .
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 4.2

Let \varepsilon > 0. We may choose a unit vector \eta \in N^\perp so that \|P_M \eta \| > \|P_M P_N^\perp \| - \varepsilon. Likewise choose a unit vector \zeta \in N_+ so that \| P_M^\perp \zeta \| > \| P_M^\perp P_{N_+} \| - \varepsilon. The rank one operator \zeta \eta^* lies in {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}}) and has norm 1. Therefore

\begin{aligned} d({\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}}), {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}})) &\ge d( \zeta \eta^*, {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}})) \ge \| P_M^\perp \zeta \eta^* P_M \| \\& = \| P_M^\perp \zeta \| \, \|P_M \eta \| > \| P_M^\perp P_{N_+} \| \, \|P_M P_N^\perp \| - 2\varepsilon. \end{aligned}

As \varepsilon>0 is arbitrary, the result follows.

Corollary

Corollary 4.3

PNMI

Let {\mathcal{M}}, {\mathcal{N}} be nests on {\mathcal{H}}. For any M\in{\mathcal{M}} and N\in{\mathcal{N}},

d({\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}}), {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}})) \ge \| P_M^\perp P_N \| \, \|P_M P_N^\perp \| .
Used by Proof
Theorem

Theorem 4.4

956H

Let {\mathcal{M}},{\mathcal{N}} be nests on separable Hilbert space {\mathcal{H}}. If

d({\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}}), {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}})) < 1 ,

then d({\mathcal{M}},{\mathcal{N}}) < 1; and so {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}}) and {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}}) are similar.

Proof of Theorem 4.4

For the contrapositive, we suppose that d({\mathcal{M}},{\mathcal{N}}) = 1 and show that d({\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}}), {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}})) = 1.

There are two cases to consider. In the first case, there are projections M_i\in{\mathcal{M}} and {\mathcal{N}}_i \in {\mathcal{N}} such that \| P_{M_i} - P_{N_i} \| = t_i < 1 for i\ge1 with \sup t_i = 1. In this case, Proposition 2.4 shows that \| P_{M_i}^\perp P_{N_i} \| = \| P_{M_i} P_{N_i}^\perp \| = t_i. Thus by Corollary 4.3,

1 \ge d({\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}}), {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}})) \ge \sup_{i\ge 1} \| P_{M_i}^\perp P_{N_i} \| \, \| P_{M_i} P_{N_i}^\perp \| = \sup_{i\ge1} t_i^2 = 1.

In the second case, there is a projection in one nest at distance 1 from the other. Interchanging the two nests if required, we may suppose that there is M \in {\mathcal{M}} such that \| P_M - P_N \| = 1 for all N\in {\mathcal{N}}. Let

\delta = \sup_{N\in {\mathcal{N}}} \min \big\{ \| P_M^\perp P_N \| , \|P_M P_N^\perp \| \big\} .

Again Corollary 4.3 and Proposition 2.4 show that d({\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}}), {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}})) \ge \delta. Hence if \delta = 1, we are done.

So we assume that \delta < 1. If \| P_M^\perp P_N \| \le \delta, the same holds for all N'<N in {\mathcal{N}}. Define N_0 = \bigvee \{ N : \| P_M^\perp P_N \| \le \delta \}. There are N_i increasing to N_0 with \| P_M^\perp P_{N_i} \| \le \delta. Since P_{N_i} converges in the strong operator topology to P_{N_0}, we have \| P_M^\perp P_{N_0} \| \le \delta. That is, N_0 is the largest element of {\mathcal{N}} with this property. Hence \|P_M P_{N_0}^\perp \| = 1.

If N>N_0, then \| P_M^\perp P_N \| = 1, and thus \|P_M P_N^\perp \| \le \delta. Recall that N_{0+} = \bigwedge \{ N \in {\mathcal{N}} : N > N_0 \}. Arguing as above, we obtain \|P_M P_{N_{0+}}^\perp \| \le \delta. Thus \| P_M^\perp P_{N_{0+}} \| = 1. This shows that P_{N_{0+}} > P_{N_0}. Now an application of Lemma 4.2 shows that

1 \ge d({\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}}), {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}})) \ge \| P_M^\perp P_{N_{0+}} \| \, \|P_M P_{N_0}^\perp \| = 1 . \qedhere
Example

Example 4.5

C49C

Let \frac1{\sqrt2} \le s < 1 and set c = \sqrt{1-s^2}. Let {\mathcal{H}} = {\mathbb{C}}^2. Let M= {\mathbb{C}} \begin{sbmatrix} 1\\0 \end{sbmatrix} and N = {\mathbb{C}} \begin{sbmatrix} c\\s \end{sbmatrix} and define nests {\mathcal{M}} = \big\{ \{0\}, M , {\mathcal{H}} \big\} and {\mathcal{N}} = \big\{ \{0\}, N , {\mathcal{H}} \big\}. Then {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}}) is the algebra of 2\times2 upper triangular matrices in the standard basis. Using the calculation in Lemma 2.1,

d({\mathcal{M}},{\mathcal{N}}) = \| P_M - P_N \| = s < 1 .

For 0 \le a \le 1, consider T = \begin{bmatrix} a & 1-a^2 \\ 0 & -a \end{bmatrix} in {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}}). One sees that

\|T\| = \left\| \begin{bmatrix} a & 1-a^2 \\ 0 & a \end{bmatrix} \right\| = \left\| \begin{bmatrix} 0 & a \\ a & 1-a^2 \end{bmatrix} \right\| = 1

because the last matrix, which is self-adjoint, has characteristic polynomial \lambda^2 - (1-a^2) \lambda - a^2 = (\lambda - 1)(\lambda + a^2). We compute

\begin{aligned} d(T, {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}})) &= \| P_N^\perp T P_N \| = \big| \big\langle T \begin{sbmatrix} c\\s \end{sbmatrix}, \begin{sbmatrix} s\\ -c \end{sbmatrix} \big\rangle \big| = 2acs + (1-a^2) s^2 . \end{aligned}

A bit of calculus shows that we should choose a = \frac c s, which yields

d(T, {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}})) = 2c^2 + s^2 - c^2 = c^2 + s^2 = 1.

Therefore d({\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}}), {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}})) = 1.

Remark

Remark 4.6

D3I0

In the example above, when 0 < s < \frac1{\sqrt2}, we can choose a=1 to see that d({\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{M}}), {\mathcal{T}}({\mathcal{N}})) \ge 2cs. For very small s, this shows that the constant 2 in Lance’s estimate cannot be improved.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2408.03317v2 by Kenneth R. Davidson, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2408/2408.03317.jsonl.