1. Introduction
Given a complex infinite dimensional Hilbert space
, let
denote the algebra of operators, equivalently bounded linear transformations, on
into itself. For an operator
, let
and
denote, respectively, the operators
of left multiplication by
A and right multiplication by
A. For
, the elementary operator
of length two and the generalised derivation
are defined by
respectively. We say that the pair
of operators in
is
m-isometric (resp. ,
m-symmetric) for some positive integer
m if
(In the case in which the pair
is the pair
for an operator
, we shorten
is
m-isometric (resp.,
m-symmetric) to
T is
m-isometric (resp.,
m-symmetric).) Structural properties of
m-isometric and
m-symmetric pairs
, and their connections with classical function theory, non-stationary stochastic processes, Toeplitz operators and nilpotent perturbations of Hermitian operators (etc.), have been studied by a number of authors in the recent past: see [2–4,8,18,25,37,39] for further references.
A characterisation of
m-isometric operators with a finite spectrum has been carried out in [29,34,37]. An example of such an operator, first considered by Botelho and Jamison [12,13] for the cases
and
, is the operator
It is straightforward to see that if
is in the approximate point spectrum
of
, then
,
is a subset of the boundary
of the unit disc
and
. There exists a non-trivial scalar
,
, such that
and
for all
. We assert that
consists, at most, of two points. For if there exist non-trivial
,
, then
and
: since
, not both of these translates of
are in
. This argument applies equally to
; hence
and
consist at most of two points. A version of the preceding argument applies to
m-isometric operators
. Indeed Gu, [24] proves that if
for some operators
, then
have spectrum consisting at most of two points. An extension of this result to operators
has recently been considered by Duggal and Kim [22].
For operators
, let
denote the operator defined by the choices
This paper considers the structure of the resulting eight operators, two of which have already been discussed in [22,24], to prove that the spectra
and
consist at best of two points. It is fairly easily seen that
implies
for all integers
. The reverse problem of does
imply
for some positive integer
does not, in general, have a positive answer. We prove that a necessary and sufficient condition for
to imply
is that the pairs of operators
,
and
(
) scalars, satisfy a Putnam-Fuglede commutativity property [28,32,35] The paper considers also the case in which the operator
is compact. Here it is seen that the operators
A and
B (are algebraic operators, and as such) have a finite spectrum consisting of poles (of the resolvent) of the operators.
2. Complementary Results: The Adjoint Operator
In the following,
will denote Hilbert space operators such that
, and
m will denote a positive integer. Given complex scalars
and
,
, we say that the pair of operators
satisfies
the Putnam-Fuglede commutativity property, shortened to
, if
It is well known, see [28,36], that if
are normal operators, then the pair
.
The ascent (resp., descent) of
A, denoted
(resp.,
), is the least positive integer
n such that
Finite ascent and finite descent implies their equality [5,38]; we say that a point
of the spectrum
of
A is a pole (of the resolvent) of
A if
[5,38]. (Here, and in the sequel, we write
for
.) We observe here that if
is a pole of
A, then necessarily
is an isolated point of
(i.e.,
). We say that
, i.e. the kernel of the operator
is orthogonal to the range of
in the sense of James [14,31], if
The following lemma, linking “range-kernel orthogonality" to the “ascent" of operators satisfying the
-property, will be useful in our considerations below.
Lemma 2.1. [16, Proposition 2.26]. If , then (, hence) .
The
quasi-nilpotent part of an operator
at
is the set
[5, Page 119].
A has SVEP, the single-valued extension property, at
if for every open disc
centered at
the only analytic function
satsifying
for all
is the function
[5,23];
A has SVEP if it has SVEP at all
. Operators
A with a countable spectrum have SVEP, and if
for some natural number
p, then
[5, Page 303, Lemma 4.17]. A necessary and sufficient condition for the points
to be poles of (the resolvent of)
A of order
, for some positive integers
,
, is that
[5]. Observe that if
and the points
are poles of
A of order
, then
for some nilpotent operator
N.
The operator A is algebraic if there exists a non-trivial polynomial such that . It is well known, see for example [5, Theorem 3.83], that A is algebraic if and only if is a finite set consisting of the poles of A (i.e., if and only if is finite and A is polaroid [5]). Recall from Boasso [10] that A is polaroid, i.e. points are poles of A, if and only if and are polaroid. The (Banach space) operator is algebraic if and only if are algebraic. algebraic does not imply A and B algebraic, only that at least one of A and B is algebraic [16, Proposition 2.6].
A is nilpotent, more precisely A is n-nilpotent for some positive integer n, if . Either of A and B nilpotent implies nilpotent; conversely, nilpotent implies, at best, that at least one of A and B is nilpotent. We consider next the adjoint of the operator .
Start by observing that for all
,
and
Hence:
Letting
for Banach space operators
and
X, we have:
3. The Spectrum
The approximate point spectrum of an operator being a non-empty set, if the pair
satisfies the operator equation
,
or
,
or
and
or
, then there exist non-trivial scalars
and
. (We assume in the following that
; see [30] for the spectra of left and right multiplication operators.) By definition
where
denotes
and
is the operator
A similar argument shows that
If
and
, and
are sequences of unit vectors such that
, then for all
and
(Here, and in the sequel,
denotes the inner product on
.) Thus, if
, then (for all
)
i.e.,
A similar argument shows that if
, then
If
, then
and
are subsets of the boundary
of the unit disc in the complex plane
. Considering
, if
, then
and, for a
,
. Let
, then
and
A similar argument shows if
, then
and, for every
,
Spectra
and
consist at most of two points: for if
, then
, and both
and its non-trivial translates can not be in
. The following proposition encompasses this known result.
Proposition 3.1. Given and , if
(i) , then
and
(ii) , then
(a) ;
(b) there exist real scalars and , ,such that
(c) and consist at most of two points.
Proof. Part (i) having already been proved, we start proving part (ii) by proving
. By definition
where
Arguing as above, it is seen that
for all
and
for all
. Hence
and
This proves
. To prove
, we start by observing from the spectral mapping theorem that
Hence there exist real numbers
,
, such that
(This inclusion being true for all
, we have also that
.) To prove
, assume that there exist distinct scalars
such that
. Then
and
, and hence
Recalling the hypothesis that
, we have
since
if
and
if
. A similar argument proves that
consists at most of two points. □
The point 0 can not be in both
and
in the case in which
. This follows from the following argument. If
, then (see above) for all
,
Thus,
A is
m-isometric, and hence
. A similar argument shows that if
, then
is
m-isometric and
. This fails for operators
satisfying
. Consider, for example, the operators
such that
,
for some real numbers
and
,
and
;
. Then
.
The following theorem proves that the conclusion and consist at most of two points holds for the remaining six choices of the operators and (in ). For continuity, we keep the numbering above – thus our theorem starts with case and ends with case . We assume in the proof of the theorem that and are sequences of unit vectors in such that . (Thus, and .)
Theorem 3.2. (iii). If , then and for each and there exists a θ, , such that .
(iv) . If , then and there exists a non-zero scalar β such that
(v). If , then and there exists a non-zero scalar β such that
(vi). If , then
(resp., ) implies (resp., A) m-symmetric, and .
(vii). If and are non-nilpotent, then
and there exists a scalar β such that
(viii). If and are non-nilpotent, then
and there exists a scalar β such that
Furthermore, the spectra and consist at most of two points in each of the (six) cases.
Proof. The proof of and , and and , is similar: we prove and .
Case(iii). We start by proving that
and
are
m-isometric. By definition
Hence, for all
,
Hence
. A similar argument, working this time with
proves
.
We claim that
and
, hence also
and
, consist at most of two points. Assume to the contrary that (alongwith
)
;
. Then
and
Since
and
,
is a translate by a non-zero scalar of points in
, hence not a point in the boundary of
. This being a contradiction, our claim is proved.
The operators
and
being
m-isometric, the spectra
,
are subsets of
and the operators
,
are (left invertible, hence) invertible.The spectral mapping theorem implies that
for
and
. Since
,equivalently,
, for each
and
there exists a
such that
.
Case . We start by proving
for all
and
. Arguing as above,
and
If
, then (by the spectral mapping theorem)
Consequently, there exists a non-zero scalar
such that
and this (solving for
and
) implies
and
consist at most of two points. (In particular, if
, then
,
and
.)
Case . We have
Again,
Thus
for all
and
.
Evidently,
and
are
m-symmetric. Furthermore, since
implies
,
for all
and
. Hence
Trivially, if
, then
is
m-symmetric, and if
, then
A is
m-symmetric. The set
being a compact set, there exist scalars
,
, such that (
and)
. Suppose that there exist scalars
,
. Then (
and
, hence)
and
are subsets of
. Since
we have a contradiction. Conclusion:
and
consist, at most, of two points.
Case(vii). In this case
Let
Then, for all
,
This proves
.
The conclusion
implies (by the spectral mapping theorem) that
for all non-zero
and
. Hence there exists a non-zero scalar
such that
Evidently,
and
consist, at most, of two points (which, if
, so that
, are respectively the sets
and
; observe that
is
m-nilpotent if
and
is
m-nilpotent if
). □
The conclusions of Theorem 3.2 help in building a picture of the operators satisfying . The following examples consider cases , , and of the theorem.
Example 3.3.
0 may be in both and in the case in which : consider, for example, the operators such that , , and , real and . It is seen that
Example 3.4. If , then 0 may belong to both and (consider, for example the operators and ), or, 0 may just be in one of and (consider the operators and ).
Example 3.5. In the case in which , implies A is m-symmetric (thus is real) and implies is m-symmetric (thus is real). If are real numbers, , and , then and is an example of a pair of operators satisfying . Again, if we let and , (in the proof of case ), then , and .
4. Equivalence and The Putnam-Fuglede Property
It is well known (indeed, easily proven) that if a pair of (Banach space) operators is m-isometric (similary, m-symmetric), then it is n-isometric (resp., n-symmetric) for all integers [18]. The proposition that is m-isometric (or, m-symmetric) implies it is n-isometric (resp., n-symmetric) for some positive integer fails. A prime example here is that of strictly m-isometric (resp., strictly m-symmetric) operators, where an operator A is strictly m-isometric (resp., strictly m-symmetric) if and (resp., and ). Partial results exist. Thus, if is such that for some even positive integer m (resp., for some invertible and a positive even integer m), then (resp., ); see [22], Theorem 3 and Proposition 1, respectively. Again, if T is power bounded, i.e. for some positive real number M, then if and only if [21]. Equivalently, if T is power bounded and , then T is isometric. More generally, if is a power bounded operator such that for some operator and positive integer m, then S is similar to an isometric operator (where we may choose the invertible operator effecting similarity to be a positive operator) and T is similar to [15, Theorem 2.4]. The following theorem considers the equivalence if and only if for the operators and of Theorem 3.2. It is seen that just as for the cases and considered in [22], a necessary and sufficient condition for the required equivalence is that the operators A and B satisfy a Putnam-Fuglede commuatativity property. Before, however, going on to state the theorem, we consider a few examples.
Example 4.1.
Given , let for somel non-zero real number μ . Then
for some . Letting
it is seen that
since . Define operators by and . Let be an n-nilpotent operator, ; let and . Then and , where , , are n-nilpotent operators. Trivially, and, since N is n-nilpotent, (see [7,18]). Similary, . However, neither of , and is the 0 operator.
Example 4.2.
For some non-zero real numbers and , let , , and .Then
Let be an n-nilpotent operator in . Let , , and . Then, , , are n-nilpotent operators such that commutes with E, commutes with F and , see [18], . Evidently,
hence
However, neither of and is the 0 operator.
Observe here that the operator is not normal in either of the above examples.
Theorem 4.3. If are such that , and , then:
(i) implies if and only if the pairs of operators and are -pairs.
(ii) implies if and only if the pairs of operators and are -pairs.
(iii) implies if and only if the pairs of operators and are -pairs.
(iv) implies if and only if the pairs of operators and are -pairs.
(v) implies if and only if the pairs of operators and are -pairs.
(vi) implies if and only if the pairs of operators and are -pairs.
(vii) implies if and only if the pairs of operators and are -pairs.
(viii) implies if and only if the pairs of operators and are -pairs.
Proof. Before going on to prove the theorem, we make a few observations (which we will use in the sequel without further reference). As seen in the proofs of Proposition 3.1 and Theorem 3.2, if for any of the choices or , or and or , then the spectra and consist at most of two points. Consequently, and ; also, if or , similarly or , is left invertible for some scalar , then it is invertible. Furthermore, if A (similarly, B) is normal, then the spectral points of A (resp., B) are (simple poles of the resolvent of the operator, hence) normal eigenvalues of the operator. The operator A (resp., B) has a direct sum decomposition (resp., ), , and to every there corresponds an or (resp., or ) such that (resp., ).
The proof for almost all the cases is similar, execept for differences in detail: we prove below cases to in some detail and provide a brief outline of the proof for cases and.
. If
implies
, then
for all
and
(see the proof of Proposition 3.1). The conclusion
and
(Indeed
and
are unitary.) Consequently,
Hence
and
are
-pairs.
To prove the sufficiency, we recall from Proposition 3.1 that
for all
and
. The hypothesis on the
-property implies (that the ascent is less than or equaltoone,hence)
and
Consequently,
are normal,
,
(
), and for each
there exists a
(
or
) such that
This proves the sufficiency. (Observe that we also have )
. If implies , then for all and . Hence and are self-adjoint. Consequently, A and B are normal, and the necessity is proved.
For sufficiency, we start by recalling
implies
for all
and
. The
-property hypothesis thus implies
and
,
A and
B are normal operators with direct sum representaions of type
and
. Furthermore, for each
, there exists an
(
or
) such that
. Since this implies
the proof is complete. (Remark here that
, hence also
.)
. We start by proving the sufficiency of the conditions. If
and
, then (see Theorem 3.2)
hence by the
-property
Consequently,
and
Thus
are normal operators,
,
(for some not necessarily distinct scalars
;
). Furthermore, to each
, there corresponds a
or
such that
. We have
for all
. Hence, also,
. (Remark here that
hence
.)
To prove the necessity of the condition, we start,by observing that if
and
, then
(argue as in the proof of Theorem 3.2), hence
A is normal, and
. Thus,
is left invertible, hence invertible. But then
, which implies
B is (also) normal. A similar argument shows that if
, then
A and
B are normal. Considering now non-zero
and
,
iimplies
i.e.,
and
are left invertible, hence invertible. We have
i.e., once again the operators
A and
B are normal. Hence
and
are
-pairs for all
and
..
An outline proof of and . If
implies
, then
Hence
are normal and the necessity follows. For sufficiency,
If
implies
, then
(Notice here that if
, then
and
, and if
, then
and
.) This proves the necessity. For sufficiency,
□
Remark 4.4. If
, then Theorem 3.2 implies
for all
and
, and
and
are invertible
m-isometries. As such,
and
(hence, also
) are generalised scalar operators (see [19, Lemma 2.9], [9]). Since generalised scalar operators are polaroid, and, since (for a non-constant) polynomial
,
is polaroid for an operator
T if and only if
T is polaroid [5],
are polaroid. If
and
, then there exists a positive integer
n (equal to the maximum of the order of the poles at the points
and
,
) and nilpotent operators
,
, such that
and
(Here, either of the components in the representation of
A, resp.
B, may be absent.) This known representation of operators
A and
B, see [19], extends to operators
such that
.
Proposition 4.5.
Let be such that . If , then there exist scalars and , nilpotents () and a positive integer n such that
and
(Either of the components in the representation of A, resp. B, may be absent.)
Proof. The hypothesis implies and are m-isometric left invertible operators, hence invertible operators (since the spectrum consists at most of two poits). This implies and are generalized scalar, hence polaroid, operators. Consequently, A andB are polaroid, and if and , then A and B have the representation of the statement of the proposition. □
Do operators A and B satisfying the hypotheses of the remaining cases of Theorem 3.2 have analogous representations? We do not know the answer to this question. However, the following proposition shows that there is an answer in the affirmative for certain choices of the spectral points and , and m (for the remaining cases). In the following proposition, the scalar shall refer to the scalar (of the corresponding case) of the statement of Theorem 3.2. The scalar n in the statement of the proposition is not necessarily the same in the direct sum representations of the operators A and B.
Proposition 4.6. Let be such that .
(a) If either , or , (or or ), then
for some positive integer n, nilpotents () and .
(b) Let .
(i) If either or , then then there exist scalars and , nilpotents () and a positive integer n such that
and
(ii) If either , or , the operators are not nilpotent and (or or is real), then
for some positive integer n and nilpotents ().
Proof. . If either of the hypotheses on
,
and
, holds, then necessarily
(see Theorem 3.2). The operator
and
being invertible
m-isometric are generealised scalar, hence polaroid. This implies
are polaroid, hence have the repersentation of the statement of the proposition.
. Before going on to considering the operators
and
,
, we recall some facts. It is known, see [29,37], that an operator
is 3-symmetric if and only if it is unitarily equivalent to the restriction to a closed invariant subspace of the operator
Let
,
p a positive integer, denote the class of operators
such that
(Recall,
denotes the quasi-nilpotent part
of
T [5, Page 119].)
Normal operators are
operators [5, Theorem 4.46]. Since
for all
,
implies
The reverse inclusion
being always true,
Property
is inherited by restrictions to closed invariant subspaces [5, Theorem 4.36]. Hence “a 3-symmetric operator
", i.e.,
for all
.
. If , then for all and . Recall from [19, Theorem 3] that if an operator is m-symmetric for an even positive integer m, then it is -symmetric. Hence we may assume that our operators and are 3-symmetric (recall ), and therefore operators. Since operators are polaroid (of index p [5, Corollary 4.37]), and , hence also A and B, are polaroid operators. This implies that if and , then have the representation of the statement of the proposition.
A similar argument applied to implies and , hence A and B , are polaroid operators. Consequently, A and B have the representation of the statement of the proposition.
. If
(or,
), then
(resp.,
); see Theorem 3.2. Furthermore, if
(or
or
is real), then
(in both the cases). Observe here that
: for if it were then we would have
and
, which then forces
and
to be nilpotents (and by assumption
). Evidently, if
, or
, then
implies that the operators
are polaroid and have the stated representations. □
5. The Compact Case
We consider in the following the structure of operators
such that the operator
is compact. The argument below is patterned on that used to consider the cases
and
in [22]. We start by recalling our standing hypothesis that
are not nilpotent (thus,
).If
is compact, then the Fredholm spectrum
of
equals 0 [5,32], and this by the spectral mapping theorem implies
and
[11]. In either case, there exists a non-zero scalar
(not necessarily the same for the two cases) such that
We prove that the operators
are algebraic.
Proposition 5.1. If is compact, then are algebraic.
Proof. By definition
We claim that the sequences
are linearly dependent. Suppose, for example, that the sequence
is linearly independent. Then, since
(similarly,
) is compact, the sequence (resp., the sequence ) is compact. In particular, is compact. This being a contradiction, our claim is proved. The linear dependence of the sequences implies that the operators and are algebraic operators. Since the operator (or, ) is algebraic if and only if E is algebraic, and since (for non-nilpotent operators ) and are algebraic if and only if A and B are algebraic [16, Proposition 2.6], the operators are algebraic. □
If
are algebraic, and
(resp.,
) for some scalar
, then there exist finite sequences
and
such that
The following table lists spectra
for various choices of
and
.
There exists finite scalar sequences sequences and a scalar β such that if:
, and:
(a) , then ;
(b) , then .
, and:
(a) , then ;
(b) , then .
, and:
(a) , then , ;
(b) , then , .
, and:
(a) , then , ;
(b) , then , .
The following theorem characterises operators such that is compact. Recall from [5, Page 128] that a point is a pole of A if and only if for some positive integer n.
Theorem 5.2. Let be such that . The operator is compact if and only if the following conditions are satisfied.
(i) There exist finite sequences and , not necessarily the same for the two cases under consideration, such that
(ii) There exist decompositions
such that
are nilpotent operators (of order and , respectively).
Proof. The necessity of condition (i) having already been seen, we prove the necesity of condition (ii). The operators being algebraic are polaroid (i.e., all isolated points of the spectrum are poles of the resolvent of the operator [5, Page 299]). Since are finitely countable, (i) follows.
The proof of the sufficiency of the conditions requires some argument. However, the argument being very similar in all cases, we restrict ourselves to considering cases and . (The cases and are proved in [22].)
The hypotheses imply that the spectral points and are poles of respectively. Hence A and B, consequently also and , are polaroid operators. This, see [16, Proposition 3.1], implies that the operator and are polaroid. The functional calculus for polaroid operators [5, Page 305] now tells us that the operators and (hence, also and ) are polaroid for all scalars .
Considering first the case
and
, we have from the above that the operators
and
are polaroid. Since
and
,
and the operators
and
are nilpotents of some orders
r and
s, respectively. Set
. Then
since
for all
, and if
then
and this implies
. Trivially, being nilpotent,
is compact.
To complete the proof of the theorem, we observe that if
and
, then there exist positive integers
r and
s such that
and
since
for all
, and if
, equivalently
, then
.
□