Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

On m-Isometric and m-Symmetric Operators of Elementary Operators

Submitted:

13 November 2025

Posted:

14 November 2025

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Given Hilbert space operators A,B and X, let △A,B and δA,B denote, respectively, the elementary operators △A,B(X) = I − AXB and the generalised derivation δA,B(X) = AX − XB. This paper considers the structure of operators Dm d1,d2 (I) = 0 and Dm d1,d2 compact, where m is a positive integer, D =△ or δ, d1 =△A∗,B∗ or δA∗,B∗ and d2 = △A,B or δA,B. This is a continuation of the work done by C. Gu for the case △m δA∗,B∗, δA,B (I) = 0, and the author with I.H. Kim for the cases △m δA∗,B∗,δA,B (I) = 0 or △m δA∗,B∗,δA,B is compact, and δm △A∗,B∗,△A,B (I) = 0 or δm △A∗,B∗,δA,B is compact. Operators Dm d1,d2 (I) = 0 are examples of operators with finite spectrum, indeed the operators A,B have at most a two point spectrum, and if Dm d1,d2 is compact, then (the non-nilpotent operators) A, B are algebraic. Dm d1,d2 (I) = 0 implies Dn d1,d2 (I) = 0 for integers n ≥ m: the reverse implication, however, fails. It is proved that Dm d1,d2 (I) = 0 implies Dd1,d2 (I) = 0 if and only if of A and B (are normal, hence) satisfy a Putnam-Fuglede commutativity property.
Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  

1. Introduction

Given a complex infinite dimensional Hilbert space ( H ; . , . ) , let B ( H ) denote the algebra of operators, equivalently bounded linear transformations, on H into itself. For an operator A B ( H ) , let L A and R A B ( B ( H ) ) denote, respectively, the operators
L A ( X ) = A X and R A ( X ) = X A
of left multiplication by A and right multiplication by A. For A , B B ( H ) , the elementary operator A , B of length two and the generalised derivation δ A , B B ( B ( H ) ) are defined by
A , B ( X ) = ( I L A R B ) ( X ) = X A X B and δ A , B ( X ) = ( L A R B ) ( X ) = A X X B ,
respectively. We say that the pair ( A , B ) of operators in B ( H ) × B ( H ) is m-isometric (resp. , m-symmetric) for some positive integer m if
A , B m ( I ) = ( I L A R B ) m ( I ) = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j L A j R B j ( I ) = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j A j B j = 0
( resp . , δ A , B m ( I ) = ( L A R B ) m ( I ) = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j L A m j R B j ( I ) = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j A m j B j = 0 ) .
(In the case in which the pair ( A , B ) is the pair ( T * , T ) for an operator T B ( H ) , we shorten ( T * , T ) is m-isometric (resp., m-symmetric) to T is m-isometric (resp., m-symmetric).) Structural properties of m-isometric and m-symmetric pairs ( A , B ) , 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 m = 2 and m = 3 , is the operator
L A * R B * , L A R B m ( I ) = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j A * j A j B j B * j = 0 ; A , B B ( H ) .
It is straightforward to see that if λ ¯ is in the approximate point spectrum σ a ( B * ) of B * , then λ ¯ A * , λ A m ( I ) = 0 , σ ( λ A ) is a subset of the boundary D of the unit disc D C and 1 ( λ ¯ σ a ( A * ) ) ( λ σ a ( A ) ) = 0 . There exists a non-trivial scalar β , | β | = 1 , such that λ α = β and λ α ¯ = 1 β = β ¯ for all α σ a ( A ) . We assert that σ a ( B * ) consists, at most, of two points. For if there exist non-trivial μ ¯ , ν ¯ σ a ( B * ) , μ λ ν , then σ a ( μ A ) = σ a ( λ A ) + σ a ( ( μ λ ) A ) and σ a ( ν A ) = σ a ( λ A ) + σ a ( ( ν λ ) A ) : since 0 σ a ( A ) , not both of these translates of σ a ( λ A ) are in D . This argument applies equally to σ a ( A ) ; hence σ ( A ) and σ ( B ) consist at most of two points. A version of the preceding argument applies to m-isometric operators δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 . Indeed Gu, [24] proves that if δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 for some operators A , B B ( H ) , then A , B have spectrum consisting at most of two points. An extension of this result to operators δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 has recently been considered by Duggal and Kim [22].
For operators A , B B ( H ) , let D d 1 , d 2 m ( I ) denote the operator defined by the choices
D = or δ , d 1 = A * , B * or δ A * , B * and d 2 = A , B or δ A , B .
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 σ ( A ) and σ ( B ) consist at best of two points. It is fairly easily seen that D d 1 , d 2 m ( I ) = 0 implies D d 1 , d 2 n ( I ) = 0 for all integers n m . The reverse problem of does D d 1 , d 2 m ( I ) = 0 imply D d 1 , d 2 n ( I ) = 0 for some positive integer n < m does not, in general, have a positive answer. We prove that a necessary and sufficient condition for D d 1 , d 2 m ( I ) = 0 to imply D d 1 , d 2 ( I ) = 0 is that the pairs of operators ( α 1 A + β 1 , α 2 B + β 2 ) , α i and β i ( i = 1 , 2 ) scalars, satisfy a Putnam-Fuglede commutativity property [28,32,35] The paper considers also the case in which the operator D d 1 , d 2 m 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 ( D d 1 , d 2 m ( I ) ) *

In the following, A , B will denote Hilbert space operators such that σ ( A ) { 0 } σ ( B ) , and m will denote a positive integer. Given complex scalars α i and β i , 1 i 2 , we say that the pair of operators ( α 1 A + β 1 , α 2 B + β 2 ) satisfies the Putnam-Fuglede commutativity property, shortened to ( α 1 A + β 1 , α 2 B + β 2 ) ( P F ) , if
D α 1 A + β 1 , α 2 B + β 2 1 ( 0 ) D α 1 ¯ A * + β 1 ¯ , α 2 ¯ B * + β 2 ¯ 1 ( 0 ) ; D = or δ .
It is well known, see [28,36], that if A , B are normal operators, then the pair ( α 1 A + β 1 , α 2 B + β 2 ) ( P F ) .
The ascent (resp., descent) of A, denoted asc ( A ) (resp., dsc ( A ) ), is the least positive integer n such that
A ( n + 1 ) ( 0 ) A n ( 0 ) ( resp . A n ( H ) A n + 1 ( H ) ) .
Finite ascent and finite descent implies their equality [5,38]; we say that a point λ of the spectrum σ ( A ) of A is a pole (of the resolvent) of A if asc ( A λ ) = dsc ( A λ ) [5,38]. (Here, and in the sequel, we write A λ for A λ I .) We observe here that if λ σ ( A ) is a pole of A, then necessarily λ is an isolated point of σ ( A ) (i.e., λ iso σ ( A ) ). We say that D A , B 1 ( 0 ) D A , B ( H ) , i.e. the kernel of the operator D A , B is orthogonal to the range of D A , B in the sense of James [14,31], if
| | X | | | | X + Y | | , all X D A , B 1 ( 0 ) and Y D A , B ( B ( H ) ) .
The following lemma, linking “range-kernel orthogonality" to the “ascent" of operators satisfying the ( P F ) -property, will be useful in our considerations below.
Lemma 2.1.
[16, Proposition 2.26]. If D A , B ( P F ) , then ( D A , B 1 ( 0 ) D A , B ( H ) , hence) asc ( D A , B ) 1 .
The quasi-nilpotent part  H 0 ( A λ ) of an operator A B ( H ) at λ C is the set
H 0 ( A λ ) = { x H : lim n | | ( A λ ) n | | 1 n | | = 0 }
[5, Page 119]. A has SVEP, the single-valued extension property, at λ 0 if for every open disc D λ 0 centered at λ 0 the only analytic function f : D λ 0 H satsifying ( A λ ) f ( λ ) = 0 for all λ D λ 0 is the function f 0 [5,23]; A has SVEP if it has SVEP at all λ . Operators A with a countable spectrum have SVEP, and if σ ( A ) = { α 1 , , α p } for some natural number p, then A = i = 0 n A | H 0 ( A α i ) [5, Page 303, Lemma 4.17]. A necessary and sufficient condition for the points α i to be poles of (the resolvent of) A of order t i , for some positive integers t i , 1 i p , is that H 0 ( A α i ) = ( A α i ) t i ( 0 ) [5]. Observe that if σ ( A ) = { α 1 , , α p } and the points α i are poles of A of order t i , then A = i = 1 p A | ( A α i ) t i ( 0 ) + N for some nilpotent operator N.
The operator A is algebraic if there exists a non-trivial polynomial p ( . ) such that p ( A ) = 0 . It is well known, see for example [5, Theorem 3.83], that A is algebraic if and only if σ ( A ) is a finite set consisting of the poles of A (i.e., if and only if σ ( A ) is finite and A is polaroid [5]). Recall from Boasso [10] that A is polaroid, i.e. points λ iso σ ( A ) are poles of A, if and only if L A and R B are polaroid. The (Banach space) operator δ A , B is algebraic if and only if A , B are algebraic. L A R B 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 A n = 0 . Either of A and B nilpotent implies L A R B nilpotent; conversely, L A R B nilpotent implies, at best, that at least one of A and B is nilpotent. We consider next the adjoint of the operator D d 1 , d 2 m ( I ) .
Start by observing that for all X B ( H ) ,
δ A , B ( X ) * = ( L A R B ) ( X ) * = ( R A * L B * ) ( X * ) = ( 1 ) δ B * , A * ( X * )
and
A , B ( X ) * = ( I L A R B ) ( X ) * = ( I L B * R A * ) ( X * ) = B * , A * ( X * ) .
Hence:
δ A , B n ( X ) * = ( 1 ) n δ B * , A * n ( X * ) ; A , B n ( X ) * = B * , A * n ( X * ) ; A * , B * ( A , B ( X ) ) * = B , A ( A , B ( X ) * ) = B , A ( B * , A * ( X * ) ) ; δ A * , B * ( δ A , B ( X ) ) * = ( 1 ) δ B , A δ A , B ( X ) * ) = ( 1 ) 2 δ B , A ( δ B * , A * ( X * ) ) ; A * , B * ( δ A , B ) ( X ) ) * = B , A ( δ A , B ( X ) ) * ) = ( 1 ) B , A ( δ B * , A * ( X * ) ) and δ A * , B * ( A , B ( X ) ) * = ( 1 ) δ B , A ( A , B ( X ) ) * = ( 1 ) δ B , A ( B * , A * ( X * ) ) .
Letting
E , F ( X ) = ( I + L E R F ) ( X ) and E , F ( X ) = ( L E + R F ) ( X )
for Banach space operators E , F and X, we have:
( 1 ) δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) * = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j δ A * , B * j ( A , B j ( I ) ) * = j = 0 m ( 1 ) 2 j m j δ B , A j ( A , B j ( I ) ) * = j = 0 m m j δ B , A j ( B * , A * j ( I ) ) = δ B , A , B * , A * m ( I ) ;
( 2 ) δ δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) * = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j δ A * , B * m j ( A , B j ( I ) ) * = j = 0 m ( 1 ) m m j δ B , A m j ( B * , A * j ( I ) ) = ( 1 ) m δ B , A , B * , A * m ( I ) ;
( 3 ) A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) * = B , A , δ B * , A * m ( I ) ;
( 4 ) δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) * = B , A , δ B * , A * m ( I ) ;
( 5 ) A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) * = B , A , B * , A * m ( I ) ;
( 6 ) δ δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) * = ( 1 ) m δ δ B , A , δ B * , A * m ( I )
( 7 ) δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) * = δ B , A , B * , A * m ( I ) ;
( 8 ) δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) * = δ B , A , δ B * , A * m ( I ) .

3. The Spectrum

The approximate point spectrum of an operator being a non-empty set, if the pair ( A , B ) satisfies the operator equation D d 1 , d 2 m ( I ) = 0 , D = or δ , d 1 = A * , B * or δ A * , B * and d 2 = A , B or δ A , B , then there exist non-trivial scalars α σ a ( A ) and λ ¯ σ a ( B * ) . (We assume in the following that σ ( A ) { 0 } σ ( B * ) ; see [30] for the spectra of left and right multiplication operators.) By definition
δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j ( L δ A * , B * R δ A , B ) j ( I ) = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j p = 0 j ( 1 ) p j p L A * j p R B * j k = 0 j ( 1 ) k j k L A j k R B k ( I ) = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j p = 0 j ( 1 ) p j p k = 0 j ( 1 ) k j k A * ( j p ) A j k B k B * p = C E A * ( j p ) A j k , B k B * p ,
where C = C ( m , j , p , k ) denotes
C = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j p = 0 j ( 1 ) p j p k = 0 j ( 1 ) k j k
and E E , F is the operator
E E , F ( X ) = E X F .
A similar argument shows that
δ B , A , δ B * , A * m ( I ) = C E B j p B * ( j p ) , A * k A p .
If α σ a ( A ) and λ ¯ σ a ( B * ) , and { x n } , { y n } H are sequences of unit vectors such that lim n ( B * λ ¯ ) x n = 0 = lim n ( A α ) y n , then for all x , y H
E A * ( j p ) A j k , B k B * p ( x x n ) x n = A * ( j p ) A ( j k ) x x n , B p B * k x n
and
E B j p B * ( j p ) , A * k A p ( y y n ) y n = B j p B * ( j k ) y y n , A * p A k y n .
(Here, and in the sequel, . , . denotes the inner product on H .) Thus, if δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 , then (for all x H )
0 = lim n C A * ( j p ) A ( j k ) x x n , B p B * k x n = C ( λ ¯ p A * ( j p ) ) ( λ k A j k ) x = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j p = 0 j ( 1 ) p j p λ ¯ p A * ( j p ) k = 0 j ( 1 ) k j k λ k A j k x = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j ( A * λ ¯ ) j ( A λ ) j x ,
i.e.,
A * λ ¯ , A λ m ( I ) = 0 . ( 9 a )
A similar argument shows that if δ B , A , δ B * , A * m ( I ) = 0 , then
B α , B * α ¯ m ( I ) = 0 . ( 9 b )
If A * λ ¯ , A λ m ( I ) = 0 = B α , B * α ¯ m ( I ) , then σ a ( A λ ) and σ a ( B * α ¯ ) are subsets of the boundary D of the unit disc in the complex plane C . Considering σ a ( A λ ) , if μ ¯ σ a ( B * λ ¯ ) , then σ a ( A λ μ ) D and, for a β σ a ( A λ ) , 1 = | σ a ( A λ μ ) | = | σ a ( A λ ) μ | = | β μ | . Let μ = e i t | μ | , then | μ | 2 and
| β μ | = 1 β 2 e i t | μ | β + e 2 i t = 0 β = e i t | μ | ± i 4 | μ | 2 2 .
A similar argument shows if ν = e i θ | ν | σ a ( A α ) , then | ν | 2 and, for every τ ¯ σ a ( B * α ¯ ) ,
| τ ν | = 1 τ 2 e i θ | ν | τ + e 2 i θ = 0 τ = e i θ | ν | ± i 4 | ν | 2 2 .
Spectra σ ( A ) and σ ( B ) consist at most of two points: for if μ ¯ , η ¯ σ a ( B * λ ¯ ) , then σ a ( A λ η ) = σ a ( A λ μ ) + ( μ η ) , and both σ a ( A λ η ) and its non-trivial translates can not be in D . The following proposition encompasses this known result.
Proposition 3.1.
Given α σ a ( A ) and λ ¯ σ a ( B * ) , if
(i) δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 , then
A * λ ¯ , A λ m ( I ) = 0 = B α , B * α ¯ m ( I ) ,
σ ( A λ ) = σ a ( A λ ) = { e i t | μ | ± i 4 | μ | 2 2 : μ ¯ = e i t | μ | σ a ( B * λ ¯ ) , 0 t < 2 π , | μ | 2 }
and
σ ( B α ) = σ a ( B α ) = e i t | μ | ± i 4 | μ | 2 2 : μ = e i t | μ | σ a ( A α ) , 0 t < 2 π , | μ | 2 .
(ii) δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 , then
(a)  δ I λ ¯ A * , I λ A m ( I ) = 0 = δ I α B , I α ¯ B * m ( I ) ;
(b) there exist real scalars β 1 and β 2 , β 1 β 2 ,such that
{ λ σ ( A ) } { α σ ( B ) } [ 1 β 2 , 1 β 1 ] ;
(c) σ ( A ) and σ ( B ) consist at most of two points.
Proof. Part (i) having already been proved, we start proving part (ii) by proving δ I λ ¯ A * , I λ A m ( I ) = 0 = δ I α B , I α ¯ B * m ( I ) . By definition
δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = C 1 E A * p A k , B k B * p and δ B , A , B * , A * m ( I ) = C 1 E B p B * k , A * k A p ,
where
C 1 = C ( m , j , p , k ) = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j p = 0 m j ( 1 ) p m j p k = 0 j ( 1 ) k j k .
Arguing as above, it is seen that
0 = lim n δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = lim n C 1 A * p A k x x n , B k B * p x n = C 1 ( λ ¯ p A * p ) ( λ k A k ) x = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j p = 0 m j ( 1 ) p m j p λ ¯ p A * p k = 0 j ( 1 ) k j k λ k A k x = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j ( I λ ¯ A * ) m j ( I λ A ) j x ,
for all x H and
0 = lim n δ B , A , B * , A * m ( I ) = lim n C 1 B p B * k y y n , A * p A k y n = C 1 ( α p B p ) ( α ¯ k B * k ) y = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j ( I α B ) m j ( I α ¯ A * ) j y
for all y H . Hence
δ I λ ¯ A * , I λ A m ( I ) = 0 ( 10 a )
and
δ I α B , I α ¯ B * m ( I ) = 0 ( 10 b ) .
This proves ( a ) . To prove ( b ) , we start by observing from the spectral mapping theorem that
σ a ( I λ ¯ A * ) σ a ( I λ A ) = ( I λ ¯ σ a ( A * ) ) ( 1 λ σ a ( A ) ) = 0 = σ a ( I α B ) σ a ( I α ¯ B * ) = ( 1 α σ a ( B ) ) ( 1 α ¯ σ a ( B * ) ) .
Hence there exist real numbers β i , 1 i 2 , such that
1 λ σ ( A ) [ β 1 , β 2 ] , equivalently λ σ ( A ) [ 1 β 2 , 1 β 1 ] .
(This inclusion being true for all λ ¯ σ a ( B * ) , we have also that α σ ( B ) [ 1 β 2 , 1 β 1 ] .) To prove ( c ) , assume that there exist distinct scalars μ , ν such that μ ¯ , ν ¯ σ a ( B * λ ¯ ) . Then λ + μ ¯ and λ + ν ¯ σ a ( B * ) , and hence
{ ( λ + μ ) σ ( A ) } { ( λ + ν ) σ ( A ) } [ 1 β 2 , 1 β 1 ] .
Recalling the hypothesis that σ a ( A ) { 0 } , we have
σ a ( I ( λ + ν ) A ) = σ a ( I ( λ + μ ) A ) + ( μ ν ) σ a ( A ) ( λ + ν ) σ a ( A ) [ 1 β 2 , 1 β 1 ] + ( μ ν ) σ a ( A ) ¬ [ 1 β 2 , 1 β 1 ] ,
since 1 β 1 + ( μ ν ) σ a ( A ) > 1 β 1 if ( μ ν ) σ a ( A ) > 0 and 1 β 2 + ( μ ν ) σ a ( A ) < 1 β 2 if ( μ ν ) σ a ( A ) < 0 . A similar argument proves that σ a ( A ) consists at most of two points.  □
The point 0 can not be in both σ a ( B * ) and σ a ( A ) in the case in which δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 . This follows from the following argument. If 0 σ a ( B * ) , then (see above) for all x H ,
δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 C A * ( j p ) A j k x lim n B * p x n , A * k x n = 0 for all p , k > 0 and if p = k = 0 , then j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j A * j A j x = A * , A m ( I ) x = 0 A * , A m ( I ) = 0 .
Thus, A is m-isometric, and hence σ a ( A ) D . A similar argument shows that if 0 σ a ( A ) , then B * is m-isometric and σ a ( B * ) D . This fails for operators A , B satisfying δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 . Consider, for example, the operators A , B such that σ ( A ) = { a e i θ , 0 } , σ ( B ) = { b e i θ , 0 } for some real numbers a , b and 0 θ < 2 π , A = a e i θ I 1 0 I 2 and B = b e i θ I 1 0 I 2 ; I = I 1 I 2 . Then δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = C 1 ( I 1 0 I 2 ) = 0 .
The following theorem proves that the conclusion σ ( A ) and σ ( B ) consist at most of two points holds for the remaining six choices of the operators D , d 1 and d 2 (in D d 1 , d 2 m ( I ) = 0 ). For continuity, we keep the numbering above – thus our theorem starts with case ( i i i ) and ends with case ( v i i i ) . We assume in the proof of the theorem that { x n } and { y n } are sequences of unit vectors in H such that lim n ( A α ) x n = 0 = lim n ( B * λ ¯ ) y n = 0 . (Thus, α σ a ( A ) and λ ¯ σ a ( B * ) .)
Theorem 3.2.
(iii). If A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 , then I λ ¯ A * , I λ A m = 0 = I α B , I α ¯ B * m ( I ) and for each α σ ( A ) and λ σ ( B ) there exists a θ, 0 θ < 2 π , such that | α λ | = 2 ( 1 c o s θ ) .
(iv) . If A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 , then I λ ¯ A * , A λ m = 0 = I α B , B * α ¯ m ( I ) and there exists a non-zero scalar β such that
λ = | β | 2 ± i 4 β ¯ ( 1 β ¯ ) | β | 4 2 β ¯ and α = | β | 2 ± i 4 β ¯ ( 1 β ¯ ) | β | 4 2 β ¯ .
(v). If δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 , then A * λ ¯ , I λ A m = 0 = B α , I α ¯ B * m ( I ) and there exists a non-zero scalar β such that
λ = | β | 2 ± i 4 β ( 1 β ) | β | 4 2 β and α = | β | 2 ± i 4 β ( 1 β ) | β | 4 2 β .
(vi). If δ δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 , then
δ A * λ ¯ , A λ m ( I ) = 0 = δ B α , B * α ¯ m ( I ) ,
0 σ a ( A ) (resp., 0 σ a ( B * ) ) implies B * (resp., A) m-symmetric, and σ a ( A ) { r + λ : λ ¯ σ a ( B * ) , r real } .
(vii). If δ δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 and A I , B + I are non-nilpotent, then
δ I λ ¯ A * , A λ m ( I ) = 0 = I α B , B * α ¯ m ( I )
and there exists a scalar β such that
λ = β ¯ ± i 4 ( β 1 ) β ¯ 2 2 and α = β ¯ ± i 4 ( β 1 ) β ¯ 2 2 .
(viii). If δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 and A I , B + I are non-nilpotent, then
δ I λ ¯ A * , A λ m ( I ) = 0 = I α B , B * α ¯ m ( I )
and there exists a scalar β such that
λ = β ± i 4 ( β ¯ 1 ) β 2 2 and α = β ± i 4 ( β ¯ 1 ) β 2 2 .
Furthermore, the spectra σ ( A ) and σ ( B ) consist at most of two points in each of the (six) cases.
Proof. The proof of ( i v ) and ( v ) , and ( v i i ) and ( v i i i ) , is similar: we prove ( i i i ) , ( i v ) , ( v i ) and ( v i i ) .
Case(iii). We start by proving that I λ A and I α ¯ B * are m-isometric. By definition
A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j p = 0 j ( 1 ) p j p A * p k = 0 j ( 1 ) k j k A k B k B * p .
Hence, for all x H ,
0 = lim n A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) ( x x n ) x n = C A * p A k x lim n B * p x n , B * k x n = C ( λ ¯ A * ) p ( λ A ) k x = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j ( I λ ¯ A * ) j ( I λ A ) j x = I λ ¯ A * , I λ A m ( I ) x .
Hence I λ ¯ A * , I λ A m ( I ) = 0 . A similar argument, working this time with
0 = lim n B , A , B * , A * m ( I ) ( x y n ) y n = C B p B * k x lim n A p y n , A k y n ,
proves I α B , I α ¯ B * m ( I ) = 0 .
We claim that σ a ( A ) and σ a ( B * ) , hence also σ ( A ) and σ ( B ) , consist at most of two points. Assume to the contrary that (alongwith μ ¯ ) ν ¯ σ a ( B * λ ¯ ) ; ν μ . Then σ a ( I ( λ + ν ) A ) D and
σ a ( I ( λ + ν ) A ) = σ a ( I ( λ + μ ) A ) + ( μ ν ) σ a ( A ) .
Since σ a ( A ) { 0 } and σ a ( I ( λ + μ ) A ) D , σ a ( ( I ( λ + ν ) A ) is a translate by a non-zero scalar of points in D , hence not a point in the boundary of D . This being a contradiction, our claim is proved.
The operators I λ A and I α ¯ B * being m-isometric, the spectra σ a ( I λ A ) , σ a ( I α ¯ B * ) are subsets of D and the operators I λ A , I α ¯ B * are (left invertible, hence) invertible.The spectral mapping theorem implies that
σ ( A * , B * , A , B ) = 0 α λ + α λ ¯ = | α λ | 2
for α σ ( A ) and λ σ ( B ) . Since σ ( I λ A ) { e i θ } ,equivalently, λ α { 1 e i θ } , for each α σ ( A ) and λ σ ( B ) there exists a 0 θ < 2 π such that | α λ | = 2 ( 1 c o s θ ) .
Case ( i v ) . We start by proving I λ ¯ A * , A λ m = 0 = I α B , B * α ¯ m ( I ) for all α σ a ( A ) and λ ¯ σ a ( B * ) . Arguing as above,
0 = lim n A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) ( x x n x n , x H = C A * p A j k x lim n B * p x n , B * k x n = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j p = 0 j ( 1 ) p j p ( λ ¯ A * ) p k = 0 j ( 1 ) k j k λ k A j k x = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j ( I λ ¯ A * ) j ( A λ ) j x I λ ¯ A * , A λ m ( I ) = 0
and
0 = lim n B , A , δ B * , A * m ( I ) ( x y n ) y n , x H = j = 0 m m j p = 0 j ( 1 ) p j p B p k = 0 j ( 1 ) k j k B * ( j k ) x lim n A p y n , A k y n = j = 0 m m j p = 0 j ( 1 ) p j p ( α B ) p k = 0 j ( 1 ) k j k α ¯ k B * ( j k ) x I α B , B * α ¯ m ( I ) = 0 .
If I λ ¯ A * , A λ m ( I ) = 0 , then (by the spectral mapping theorem)
1 ( 1 λ ¯ α ¯ ) ( α λ ) = 0 ; all α σ a ( A ) and λ ¯ σ a ( B * ) .
Consequently, there exists a non-zero scalar β such that
1 λ ¯ α ¯ = 1 β ¯ , α λ = β β λ 2 + | β | 2 λ + ( 1 β ) = 0
and this (solving for λ and α ) implies
λ = | β | 2 ± i 4 β ¯ ( 1 β ¯ ) | β | 4 2 β and α = | β | 2 ± i 4 β ¯ ( 1 β ¯ ) | β | 4 2 β ,
σ ( A ) = σ a ( A ) and σ ( B ) = σ a ( B ) consist at most of two points. (In particular, if 0 σ ( B ) , then β = 1 , σ ( A ) = { 0 , 1 } and σ ( B ) = { 1 , 0 } .)
Case ( v i ) . We have
0 = lim n δ δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) ( x x n ) x n , x H = C 1 A * ( m j p ) A j k x lim n B * p y n , B * k y n = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j p = 0 m j ( 1 ) p m j p λ ¯ p A * ( m j p ) k = 0 j ( 1 ) k j k λ k A j k x = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j ( A * λ ¯ ) m j ( A λ ) j x δ A * λ ¯ , A λ m ( I ) = 0 .
Again,
0 = lim n δ δ B , A , δ B * , A * m ( I ) ( x y n ) y n = C 1 B m j p B * ( j k ) x lim n A p y n , A k y n = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j p = 0 j ( 1 ) p m j p α p B m j p k = 0 j ( 1 ) k j k ( α ¯ k B * ( j k ) x = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j ( B α ) m j ( B * α ¯ ) j x δ B α , B * α ¯ m ( I ) = 0 .
Thus
δ A * λ ¯ , A λ m ( I ) = 0 = δ B α , B * α ¯ m ( I )
for all α σ a ( A ) and λ ¯ σ a ( B * ) .
Evidently, A λ and B * α ¯ are m-symmetric. Furthermore, since δ A * λ ¯ , A λ m ( I ) = 0 implies ( α λ ) ¯ ( α λ ) = 0 , α = λ for all α and λ . Hence
σ a ( A ) { r + λ : λ ¯ σ a ( B * ) , r real } .
Trivially, if 0 σ a ( A ) , then B * is m-symmetric, and if 0 σ a ( B * ) , then A is m-symmetric. The set { σ ( A ) λ } being a compact set, there exist scalars β i , 1 i 2 , such that ( β 1 β 2 and) σ ( A ) λ [ β 1 , β 2 ] . Suppose that there exist scalars μ ¯ , ν ¯ σ a ( B * λ ¯ ) , μ ν . Then ( λ + μ ¯ and λ + ν ¯ σ a ( B * ) , hence) σ a ( A λ μ ) = σ ( A λ μ ) and σ a ( ( A λ ν ) = σ ( A λ ν ) are subsets of [ β 1 , β 2 ] . Since
σ ( A λ ν ) = σ ( A λ μ ) + ( μ ν ) , where 0 μ ν is real , β 1 ( μ ν ) < β 1 if ( μ ν ) > 0 and β 2 ( μ ν ) > β 2 if ( μ ν ) > 0 ,
we have a contradiction. Conclusion: σ ( A ) and σ ( B ) consist, at most, of two points.
Case(vii). In this case
0 = lim n δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) ( x x n ) x n , x H = C 1 A * p A j k x lim n B * p x n , B * k x n = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j p = 0 m j ( 1 ) p m j p ( λ ¯ ) p A * p k = 0 j ( 1 ) k j k λ k A j k x = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j ( I λ ¯ A * ) j ( A λ ) j x δ I λ ¯ A * , A λ m ( I ) = 0 .
Let
C 0 = C ( m , j , p , k ) = j = 0 m m j p = 0 m j ( 1 ) p m j p k = 0 j ( 1 ) k j k .
Then, for all x H ,
0 = lim n δ B , A , δ B * , A * m ( I ) ( x y n ) y n = C 0 B p B * ( j k ) x lim n A p y n , A k y n = j = 0 m m j p = 0 m j ( 1 ) p m j p α p B p k = 0 j ( 1 ) k j k ( α ¯ k B * ( j k ) x = j = 0 m m j ( I λ ¯ B * ) m j ( B λ ) j x I λ B , B * λ ¯ m ( I ) = 0 .
This proves δ I λ ¯ A * , A λ m ( I ) = 0 = I α B , B * α ¯ m ( I ) .
The conclusion δ I λ ¯ A * , A λ m ( I ) = 0 implies (by the spectral mapping theorem) that ( 1 α ¯ λ ¯ ) ( α λ ) = 0 for all non-zero α σ a ( A ) and λ ¯ σ a ( B * ) . Hence there exists a non-zero scalar β such that
α λ = β = 1 α ¯ λ ¯ λ 2 + β λ + ( β ¯ 1 ) = 0 λ = β ± i 4 ( β ¯ 1 ) β 2 2 and α = β ± i 4 ( β ¯ 1 ) β 2 2 .
Evidently, σ a ( A ) = σ ( A ) and σ a ( B ) = σ ( B ) consist, at most, of two points (which, if 0 σ ( B ) , so that β = 1 , are respectively the sets { 0 , 1 } and { 1 , 0 } ; observe that I A is m-nilpotent if 0 σ ( B ) and I + B is m-nilpotent if 0 σ ( A ) ). □
The conclusions of Theorem 3.2 help in building a picture of the operators A , B satisfying D d 1 , d 2 m ( I ) = 0 . The following examples consider cases ( i i i ) , ( i v ) , ( v i ) and ( v i i ) of the theorem.
Example 3.3.
0 may be in both σ a ( A ) and σ a ( B * ) in the case in which A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 : consider, for example, the operators A , B such that σ a ( A ) = { 0 , 1 e i θ a } , σ a ( B * ) = { 0 , a } , A = 0 I 1 1 e i θ a I 2 and B = 0 I 1 a I 2 , 0 a real and 0 < θ < 2 π . It is seen that
A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = C 0 I 1 1 e i θ a I 2 p 0 I 1 1 e i θ a I 2 k 0 I 1 a p + k I 2 = C 0 I 1 ( 1 e i θ ) p ( 1 e i θ ) k I 2 = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j ( I 1 e i θ I 2 ) j ( I 1 e i θ I 2 ) j = 0 .
Example 3.4.
If A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 , then 0 may belong to both σ a ( A ) and σ a ( B * ) (consider, for example the operators A = I 1 0 I 2 and B = 0 I 1 I 2 ), or, 0 may just be in one of σ a ( A ) and σ a ( B * ) (consider the operators A = I 1 ( 1 3 2 ) I 2 and B = 0 I 1 ( 1 3 2 ) I 2 ).
Example 3.5.
In the case in which δ δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 , 0 σ a ( B * ) implies A is m-symmetric (thus σ ( A ) is real) and 0 σ a ( A ) implies B * is m-symmetric (thus σ ( B ) is real). If a , b , r 1 , r 2 are real numbers, σ ( A ) = { a , r 1 + i b } , and σ ( B ) = { 0 , r 2 + i b } , then A = a I 1 ( r 1 + i b ) I 2 and B = 0 I 1 ( r 2 + i b ) I 2 is an example of a pair of operators satisfying δ δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 . Again, if we let β = i and A = I 1 ( 1 i ) I 2 , B = ( 1 + i ) I 1 I 2 (in the proof of case ( v i i ) ), then δ A , B ( I ) = i I , A * , B * ( I ) = i I and δ A * , B * , δ A , B ( I ) = ( I L i I R i I ) ( I ) = 0 .

4. Equivalence D d 1 , d 2 m ( I ) = 0 D d 1 , d 2 ( I ) = 0 and The Putnam-Fuglede Property

It is well known (indeed, easily proven) that if a pair ( A , B ) of (Banach space) operators is m-isometric (similary, m-symmetric), then it is n-isometric (resp., n-symmetric) for all integers n m [18]. The proposition that ( A , B ) is m-isometric (or, m-symmetric) implies it is n-isometric (resp., n-symmetric) for some positive integer n < m 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 A * , A m ( I ) = 0 and A * , A m 1 ( I ) 0 (resp., δ A * , A m ( I ) = 0 and δ A * , A m 1 ( I ) 0 ). Partial results exist. Thus, if T B ( H ) is such that δ T * , T m ( I ) = 0 for some even positive integer m (resp., T * , T m ( I ) = 0 for some invertible T B ( H ) and a positive even integer m), then δ T * , T m 1 ( I ) = 0 (resp., T * , T m 1 ( I ) = 0 ); see [22], Theorem 3 and Proposition 1, respectively. Again, if T is power bounded, i.e. sup n | | T n | | < M for some positive real number M, then T * , T m ( I ) = 0 if and only if T * , T ( I ) = 0 [21]. Equivalently, if T is power bounded and T * , T m ( I ) = 0 , then T is isometric. More generally, if S B ( H ) is a power bounded operator such that T , S m ( I ) = 0 for some operator T B ( H ) 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 S * [15, Theorem 2.4]. The following theorem considers the equivalence D d 1 , d 2 m ( I ) = 0 if and only if D d 1 , d 2 ( I ) = 0 for the operators D , d 1 and d 2 of Theorem 3.2. It is seen that just as for the cases δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 and δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 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 δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 , let σ a ( B * ) = { 0 , μ } for somel non-zero real number μ . Then
σ a ( A μ ) = σ a ( A ( 0 + μ ) ) = μ ± i 4 μ 2 2 σ a ( A ) = { μ ± i 4 μ 2 2 } = { e i θ , e i θ }
for some 0 θ 2 π . Letting
A = e i θ I 1 e θ I 2 and B = 0 I 1 μ I 2 ,
it is seen that
δ A * , B * , δ A , B 1 ( I ) = I ( e i θ I 1 ( e i θ + μ ) I 2 ) ( e i θ I 1 ( e i θ + μ ) I 2 ) = I I 1 ( 1 + μ ( e i θ + e i θ ) μ 2 ) I 2 = 0 ,
since e i θ + e i θ = μ . Define operators E , F B ( B ( H ) ) by E = δ A * , B * and F = δ A , B . Let N B ( H ) be an n-nilpotent operator, N = N 1 I N 2 I 2 ; let L N * = N 1 and L N = N 2 . Then δ A * + N * , B * = δ A * , B * + L N * = E + N 1 and δ A + N , B = F + N 2 , where N i , 1 i 2 , are n-nilpotent operators. Trivially, A * μ , A μ 1 ( I ) = 0 and, since N is n-nilpotent, A * + N * μ , A + N μ 2 n 1 ( I ) = 0 (see [7,18]). Similary, B + N e i θ , B * + N * e i θ 2 n 1 ( I ) = 0 . However, neither of E + N 1 , F + N 2 1 ( I ) , A * + N * μ , A + N μ 1 ( I ) and B + N e i θ , B * + N * e i θ 1 ( I ) is the 0 operator.
Example 4.2.
For some non-zero real numbers r , r 1 , r 2 and 0 θ < 2 π , let σ ( A ) = { α 1 , α 2 } = { r 1 e i θ , r 2 e i θ } , σ ( B ) = { λ } = { r e i θ } , A = r e i θ I 1 r 2 e i θ I 2 and B = r e i θ ( I 1 I 2 ) .Then
δ A * , B * , A , B 1 ( I ) = ( I A * B * ) ( I A B ) = 0 .
Let N = N ( I 1 I 2 ) be an n-nilpotent operator in B ( H ) . Let A * , B * = E , A , B = F , A * + N * , B * = I L A * R B * L N * R B * = E + N 1 and A + N , B = F + N 2 . Then, N i , 1 i 2 , are n-nilpotent operators such that N 1 commutes with E, N 2 commutes with F and , see [18], δ E + N 1 , F + N 2 2 n 2 ( I ) = 0 . Evidently,
δ I λ ¯ A * , I λ A 1 ( I ) = 0 = δ I α B , I α ¯ B * 1 ( I ) ,
hence
δ I λ ¯ ( A * + N * ) , I λ ( A + N ) 2 n 1 ( I ) = 0 = δ I α 1 B , I α 2 ¯ B * 2 n 1 ( I ) .
However, neither of δ I λ ¯ ( A * + N * ) , I λ ( A + N ) 1 ( I ) and δ A * + N * , B * , A + N , B 1 ( I ) is the 0 operator.
Observe here that the operator A + N is not normal in either of the above examples.
Theorem 4.3.
If A , B B ( H ) are such that σ ( A ) { 0 } σ ( B ) , α σ a ( A ) and λ ¯ σ a ( B * ) , then:
(i) δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 implies δ A * , B * , δ A , B ( I ) = 0 if and only if the pairs of operators ( A * λ ¯ , A λ ) and ( B α , B * α ¯ ) are ( P F ) -pairs.
(ii) δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 implies δ A * , B * , A , B ( I ) = 0 if and only if the pairs of operators ( I λ ¯ A * , I λ A ) and ( I α B , I α ¯ B * ) are ( P F ) -pairs.
(iii) A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 implies A * , B * , A , B ( I ) = 0 if and only if the pairs of operators ( I λ ¯ A * , I λ A ) and ( I α B , I α ¯ B * ) are ( P F ) -pairs.
(iv) A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 implies A * , B * , δ A , B ( I ) = 0 if and only if the pairs of operators ( I λ ¯ A * , A λ ) and ( I α B , α ¯ B * ) are ( P F ) -pairs.
(v) δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 implies δ A * , B * , A , B ( I ) = 0 if and only if the pairs of operators ( A * λ ¯ , I λ A ) and ( B α , α ¯ B * I ) are ( P F ) -pairs.
(vi) δ δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 implies δ δ A * , B * , δ A , B ( I ) = 0 if and only if the pairs of operators ( A * λ ¯ , A λ ) and ( B α , B * α ¯ ) are ( P F ) -pairs.
(vii) δ δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 implies δ δ A * , B * , A , B ( I ) = 0 if and only if the pairs of operators ( A * λ ¯ , I λ A ) and ( B α , α ¯ B * I ) are ( P F ) -pairs.
(viii) δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 implies δ A * , B * , δ A , B ( I ) = 0 if and only if the pairs of operators ( I λ ¯ A * , A λ ) and ( I α B , α ¯ B * ) are ( P F ) -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 D d 1 , d 2 m ( I ) = 0 for any of the choices D = or δ , d 1 = A * , B * or δ A * , B * and d 2 = A , B or δ A , B , then the spectra σ ( A ) and σ ( B ) consist at most of two points. Consequently, σ a ( A ) = σ ( A ) and σ a ( B ) = σ ( B ) ; also, if I λ A or λ A , similarly I λ B or λ B , is left invertible for some scalar λ , 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 A = α 1 I 1 α 2 I 2 (resp., B = λ 1 I 1 λ 2 I 2 ), I = I 1 I 2 , and to every x H there corresponds an α = α 1 or α 2 (resp., λ = λ 1 or λ 2 ) such that A x = α x (resp., B x = λ x ).
The proof for almost all the cases is similar, execept for differences in detail: we prove below cases ( i ) to ( i i i ) in some detail and provide a brief outline of the proof for cases ( v ) and ( v i ) .
( i ) . If δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 implies δ A * , B * , δ A , B ( I ) = 0 , then A * λ ¯ , A λ ( I ) = 0 = B α , B * α ¯ ( I ) for all α σ ( A ) and λ σ ( B ) (see the proof of Proposition 3.1). The conclusion
A * λ ¯ , A λ ( I ) = 0 A λ is left invertible A λ is invertible
and
B α , B * α ¯ ( I ) = 0 B α is right invertible B α is invertible .
(Indeed A λ and B α are unitary.) Consequently,
( A * λ ¯ ) ( A λ ) = I = ( A λ ) ( A * λ ¯ ) A is normal and ( B α ) ( B * α ¯ ) = I = ( B * α ¯ ) B is normal .
Hence ( A * λ ¯ , A λ ) and ( B * α ¯ , B α ) are ( P F ) -pairs.
To prove the sufficiency, we recall from Proposition 3.1 that
δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 A * λ ¯ , A λ m ( I ) = 0 = B α , B * α ¯ m ( I )
for all α σ ( A ) and λ σ ( B ) . The hypothesis on the ( P F ) -property implies (that the ascent is less than or equaltoone,hence)
A * λ ¯ , A λ ( I ) = 0 = A λ , A * λ ¯ ( I )
and
B α , B * α ¯ ( I ) = 0 = B * α ¯ , B α ( I ) .
Consequently, A , B are normal, A = i = 1 2 α i I i , B = i = 1 2 λ i I 1 i ( I 1 I 2 = I = I 11 I 12 ), and for each x H there exists a λ ( = λ 1 or λ 2 ) such that
δ A * , B * , δ A , B ( I ) x , x = ( I A * A + A * B B * A + B * B ) x , x = ( I A * A + λ A * λ ¯ A + | λ | 2 ) x , x = A * λ ¯ , A λ ( I ) x , x = 0 .
This proves the sufficiency. (Observe that we also have δ A , B , δ A * , B * ( I ) = 0 . )
( i i ) . If δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 implies δ A * , B * , A , B ( I ) = 0 , then δ I λ ¯ A * , I λ A ( I ) = 0 = δ I α B , I α ¯ B * ( I ) for all α σ ( A ) and λ σ ( B ) . Hence I λ A and I α B are self-adjoint. Consequently, A and B are normal, and the necessity is proved.
For sufficiency, we start by recalling δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 implies δ I λ ¯ A * , I λ A m ( I ) = 0 = δ I α B , I α ¯ B * m ( I ) for all α σ ( A ) and λ σ ( B ) . The ( P F ) -property hypothesis thus implies δ I λ ¯ A * , I λ A ( I ) = 0 = δ I λ A , I λ ¯ A * ( I ) and δ I α B , I α ¯ B * ( I ) = 0 = δ I α ¯ B * , I α B ( I ) , A and B are normal operators with direct sum representaions of type A = i = 1 2 α i I i and B = i = 1 2 λ i I 1 i . Furthermore, for each x H , there exists an λ ( = λ 1 or λ 2 ) such that B x = λ x . Since this implies
δ A * , B * , A , B ( I ) x , x = A B A * B * x , x = λ A λ ¯ A * x , x = δ I λ ¯ A * , I λ A ( I ) x , x = 0 ,
the proof is complete. (Remark here that δ A * , B * , A , B ( I ) = δ A , B , A * , B * ( I ) , hence also δ A , B , A * , B * ( I ) = 0 .)
( i i i ) . We start by proving the sufficiency of the conditions. If α σ a ( A ) and λ ¯ σ a ( B * ) , then (see Theorem 3.2)
A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 I λ ¯ A * , I λ A m = 0 = I α B , I α ¯ B * m ( I ) ,
hence by the ( P F ) -property
I λ ¯ A * , I λ A ( I ) = 0 = I α B , I α ¯ B * ( I ) and I λ A , I λ ¯ A * ( I ) = 0 = I α ¯ B * , I α B ( I ) .
Consequently,
I ( I λ ¯ A * ) ( I λ A ) = 0 = I ( I λ A ) ( I λ ¯ A * ) λ A + λ ¯ A * = | λ | 2 A * A = | λ | 2 A A *
and
I ( I α B ) ( I α ¯ B * ) = 0 = I ( I α ¯ B * ) ( I α B ) α B + α ¯ B * = | α | 2 B B * = | α | 2 B * B .
Thus A , B are normal operators, A = α 1 I 1 α 2 I 2 , B = λ 1 I 11 λ 2 I 12 (for some not necessarily distinct scalars α i , λ i ; 1 i 2 ). Furthermore, to each x H , there corresponds a λ ( = λ 1 or λ 2 ) such that B x = λ x . We have
A , B , A * , B * 1 ( I ) x , x = λ ¯ A * + λ A | λ | 2 A * A x , x = 0
for all x H . Hence, also, A * , B * , A , B 1 ( I ) = 0 . (Remark here that
A * , B * . A , B 1 ( I ) = L A * R B * + L A R B L A * L A R B * R B ( I ) = A * B * + A B A * A B * B = A B + A * B * A A * B B * = L A R B + L A * R B * L A L A * R B R B * ( I ) = A , B , A * , B * 1 ( I ) ,
hence A , B , A * , B * 1 ( I ) = 0 .)
To prove the necessity of the condition, we start,by observing that if A * , B * , A , B 1 ( I ) = 0 and 0 σ a ( B * ) , then ( I A ) = 0 (argue as in the proof of Theorem 3.2), hence A is normal, and I , B * , δ I , B ( I ) = I ( I B * ) ( I B ) = 0 . Thus, I B is left invertible, hence invertible. But then ( I B * ) ( I B ) = I = ( I B ) ( I B * ) , which implies B is (also) normal. A similar argument shows that if 0 σ a ( A ) , then A and B are normal. Considering now non-zero α σ a ( A ) and λ ¯ σ a ( B * ) , A * , B * , A , B 1 ( I ) = 0 iimplies
I λ ¯ A * , I λ A ( I ) = 0 , I α B , I α ¯ B * ( I ) = 0 . ,
i.e., I λ A and I λ ¯ B * are left invertible, hence invertible. We have
( I λ ¯ A * ) ( I λ A ) = I = ( I λ A ) ( I λ ¯ A * ) λ ¯ A * + λ A | λ | 2 A * A = λ ¯ A * + λ A | λ | 2 A A * , and ( I α B ) ( I α ¯ B * ) = I = ( I α ¯ B * ) ( I α B ) α B + α ¯ B * | α | 2 B B * = α B + α ¯ B * | α | 2 B * B ,
i.e., once again the operators A and B are normal. Hence ( I λ ¯ A * , I λ A ) and ( I λ ¯ B * , I λ B ) are ( P F ) -pairs for all α and λ ..
An outline proof of ( v i ) and ( v i i ) . If δ δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 implies δ δ A * , B * , δ A , B ( I ) = 0 , then
δ A * λ ¯ , A λ ( I ) = 0 = δ B α , B * α ¯ ( I ) A λ and B α self adjoint .
Hence A , B are normal and the necessity follows. For sufficiency,
δ δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 δ A * λ ¯ , A λ m ( I ) = 0 = δ B α , B * α ¯ m ( I ) δ A * λ ¯ , A λ ( I ) = 0 = δ B α , B * α ¯ ( I ) A , B normal δ δ A * , B * , δ A , B ( I ) x , x , x H , δ A * λ ¯ , A λ ( I ) x , x = 0 δ δ A * , B * δ A , B ( I ) = 0 .
If δ δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 implies δ δ A * , B * , A , B ( I ) = 0 , then
δ I λ ¯ A * , A λ ( I ) = 0 = I α B , B * α ¯ ( I ) ( I λ ¯ A * ) ( λ A ) = ( λ A ) ( I λ ¯ A * ) , ( I α B ) ( B * α ¯ ) = ( B * α ¯ ) ( I α B ) A , B are normal .
(Notice here that if 0 σ ( A ) , then B = I and A * = A , and if 0 σ ( B ) , then A = I and B = B * .) This proves the necessity. For sufficiency,
δ δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 δ I λ ¯ A * , A λ m ( I ) = 0 = I α B , B * α ¯ m ( I ) δ I λ ¯ A * , A λ ( I ) = 0 = I α B , B * α ¯ ( I ) A , B normal δ δ A * , B * , A , B ( I ) x , x , x H , δ I λ ¯ A * , A λ ( I ) x , x = 0 δ δ A * , B * , A , B ( I ) = 0 .
 □
Remark 4.4.
If δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 , then Theorem 3.2 implies 0 σ ( A λ ) σ ( B * α ¯ ) for all α σ ( A ) and λ σ ( B ) , and A λ and B * α ¯ are invertible m-isometries. As such, A α and B * λ ¯ (hence, also B λ ) are generalised scalar operators (see [19, Lemma 2.9], [9]). Since generalised scalar operators are polaroid, and, since (for a non-constant) polynomial p ( . ) , p ( T ) is polaroid for an operator T if and only if T is polaroid [5], A , B are polaroid. If σ ( A ) = { α 1 , α 2 } and σ ( B ) = { λ 1 , λ 2 } , then there exists a positive integer n (equal to the maximum of the order of the poles at the points α i and λ i , 1 i 2 ) and nilpotent operators N i , 1 i 2 , such that
A = A | ( A α 1 ) n ( 0 ) A | ( A α 2 ) n ( 0 ) + N 1
and
B = B | ( B λ 1 ) n ( 0 ) B | ( B λ 2 ) n ( 0 ) + N 2 .
(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 A , B such that A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 .
Proposition 4.5.
Let A , B B ( H ) be such that σ ( A ) { 0 } σ ( B ) . If A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 , then there exist scalars α i and λ i , nilpotents N i ( 1 i 2 ) and a positive integer n such that
A = A | ( A α 1 ) n ( 0 ) A | ( A α 2 ) n ( 0 ) + N 1
and
B = B | ( B λ 1 ) n ( 0 ) B | ( B λ 2 ) n ( 0 ) + N 2 .
(Either of the components in the representation of A, resp. B, may be absent.)
Proof. The hypothesis A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 implies I λ A and I α ¯ B * are m-isometric left invertible operators, hence invertible operators (since the spectrum consists at most of two poits). This implies I λ A and I α ¯ B * are generalized scalar, hence polaroid, operators. Consequently, A andB are polaroid, and if σ ( A ) = { α 1 , α 2 } and σ ( B ) = { λ 1 , λ 2 } , 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 α and λ , and m (for the remaining cases). In the following proposition, the scalar β shall refer to the scalar β (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 A , B B ( H ) be such that σ ( A ) { 0 } σ ( B ) .
(a) If either A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 , or δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 , 1 σ ( B ) (or 1 σ ( A ) or | β | = 1 ), then
A = A | ( A 1 ) n ( 0 ) A | ( A + 1 e i θ ) n ( 0 ) + N 1 and B = B | ( B + 1 ) n ( 0 ) B | ( B 1 + e i θ ) n ( 0 ) + N 2
for some positive integer n, nilpotents N i ( 1 i 2 ) and 0 θ < 2 π .
(b) Let m 4 .
(i) If either δ A , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 or δ δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 , then then there exist scalars α i and λ i , nilpotents N i ( 1 i 2 ) and a positive integer n such that
A = A | ( A α 1 ) n ( 0 ) A | ( A α 2 ) n ( 0 ) + N 1
and
B = B | ( B λ 1 ) n ( 0 ) B | ( B λ 2 ) n ( 0 ) + N 2 .
(ii) If either δ δ A , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 , or δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 , the operators A I , B + I are not nilpotent and 1 σ ( B ) (or 1 σ ( A ) or β 1 is real), then
A = A | ( A 1 ) n ( 0 ) A | ( A + 1 β ) n ( 0 ) + N 1 and B = B | ( B + 1 ) n ( 0 ) B | ( B 1 + β ) n ( 0 ) + N 2
for some positive integer n and nilpotents N i ( 1 i 2 ).
Proof.  ( a ) . If either of the hypotheses on σ ( A ) , σ ( B ) and β , holds, then necessarily
σ ( A ) = { 1 + e i θ , 1 } , σ ( B ) = { 1 , 1 e i θ } and A * + I , A + I m ( I ) = 0 = I B , I B * m ( I )
(see Theorem 3.2). The operator A + I and I B * being invertible m-isometric are generealised scalar, hence polaroid. This implies A , B are polaroid, hence have the repersentation of the statement of the proposition.
( b ) . Before going on to considering the operators δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 and δ δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 , m 4 , we recall some facts. It is known, see [29,37], that an operator T B ( H ) is 3-symmetric if and only if it is unitarily equivalent to the restriction to a closed invariant subspace of the operator
S = V E 0 V B ( H H ) , [ V , E ] = 0 , V self adjoint .
Let H 0 ( p ) , p a positive integer, denote the class of operators T B ( H ) such that
H 0 ( T λ ) = ( T λ ) p ( 0 ) , λ C .
(Recall, H 0 ( T ) denotes the quasi-nilpotent part
H 0 ( T ) = { x H : lim n | | T n x | | 1 n = 0 }
of T [5, Page 119].)
Normal operators are H 0 ( 1 ) operators [5, Theorem 4.46]. Since
| | ( S λ ) n ( x y ) | | 1 n = | | ( V λ ) n ( x ) + n E ( V λ ) n 1 y | | 1 n + | | ( V λ ) n x | | 1 n
for all x y H H , H 0 ( V λ ) = ( V λ ) 1 ( 0 ) implies
H 0 ( S λ ) ( S λ ) 2 ( 0 ) .
The reverse inclusion ( S λ ) n ( 0 ) H 0 ( S λ ) being always true,
H 0 ( S λ ) = ( S λ ) 2 ( 0 ) , all λ C .
Property H 0 ( p ) is inherited by restrictions to closed invariant subspaces [5, Theorem 4.36]. Hence “a 3-symmetric operator T H 0 ( 2 ) ", i.e., H 0 ( T λ ) = ( T λ ) 2 ( 0 ) for all λ C .
( i ) . If δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 , then δ I λ ¯ A * , I λ A m ( I ) = 0 = δ I α B , I α ¯ B * m ( I ) for all α σ ( A ) and λ σ ( B ) . Recall from [19, Theorem 3] that if an operator T B ( H ) is m-symmetric for an even positive integer m, then it is ( m 1 ) -symmetric. Hence we may assume that our operators 1 λ A and I α ¯ B * are 3-symmetric (recall m 4 ), and therefore H 0 ( 2 ) operators. Since H 0 ( p ) operators are polaroid (of index p [5, Corollary 4.37]), 1 λ A and I α ¯ B * , hence also A and B, are polaroid operators. This implies that if σ ( A ) = { α 1 , α 2 } and σ ( B ) = { λ 1 , λ 2 } , then A , B have the representation of the statement of the proposition.
A similar argument applied to δ δ A , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 implies A λ and B * α ¯ , hence A and B , are polaroid operators. Consequently, A and B have the representation of the statement of the proposition.
( i i ) . If δ δ A * , B * , A , B m ( I ) = 0 (or, δ A * , B * , δ A , B m ( I ) = 0 ), then δ A * λ , I λ A m ( I ) = 0 = δ B α , α ¯ B * I m ( I ) (resp., δ I λ ¯ A * , A λ m ( I ) = 0 = δ I α B , α ¯ B * m ( I ) ); see Theorem 3.2. Furthermore, if λ = 1 (or α = 1 or β is real), then
σ ( A ) = { 1 + β , 1 } and σ ( B ) = { 1 , 1 β }
(in both the cases). Observe here that β 1 : for if it were then we would have 0 σ ( A ) and 0 σ ( B ) , which then forces A 1 and B + 1 to be nilpotents (and by assumption σ ( A ) { 0 } σ ( B ) ). Evidently, if α = 1 , or λ = 1 , then δ A * + I , A + I 4 ( I ) = 0 = δ B I , B * I 4 ( I ) implies that the operators A , B are polaroid and have the stated representations.  □

5. The Compact Case

We consider in the following the structure of operators A , B such that the operator D d 1 , d 2 m is compact. The argument below is patterned on that used to consider the cases δ A * , B * , δ A , B m and δ A * , B * A , B m in [22]. We start by recalling our standing hypothesis that A , B are not nilpotent (thus, σ ( A ) { 0 } σ ( B ) ).If D d 1 , d 2 m is compact, then the Fredholm spectrum σ e ( D d 1 , d 2 m ) of D d 1 , d 2 m equals 0 [5,32], and this by the spectral mapping theorem implies
σ e ( D d 1 , d 2 ) = ( σ e ( d 1 ) σ ( d 2 ) ) ( σ ( d 1 ) σ e ( d 2 ) ) = { 0 } , D = δ
and
σ e ( D d 1 , d 2 ) = 1 ( σ e ( d 1 ) σ ( d 2 ) σ ( d 1 ) σ e ( d 2 ) ) = { 0 } , D =
[11]. In either case, there exists a non-zero scalar β (not necessarily the same for the two cases) such that
σ e ( d 1 ) = σ ( d 1 ) = { β } = σ e ( d 2 ) = σ ( d 2 ) if D = δ , and . . .
σ e ( d 1 ) = σ ( d 1 ) = { β } , σ e ( d 2 ) = σ ( d 2 ) = { 1 β } , if D = .
We prove that the operators A , B are algebraic.
Proposition 5.1.
If D d 1 , d 2 m is compact, then A , B are algebraic.
Proof. By definition
D d 1 , d 2 m = δ d 1 , d 2 m = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j L d 1 m j R d 2 j , and D d 1 , d 2 m = d 1 , d 2 m = j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j L d 1 j R d 2 j .
We claim that the sequences
{ L d 1 m j } j = 0 m , { R d 2 j } j = 0 m if D = δ and { L d 1 j } j = 0 m , { R d 2 j } j = 0 m if D =
are linearly dependent. Suppose, for example, that the sequence { R d 2 j } j = 0 m is linearly independent. Then, since j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j L d 1 m j R d 2 j (similarly,
j = 0 m ( 1 ) j m j L d 1 j R d 2 j ) is compact, the sequence { L d 1 m j } j = 0 m (resp., the sequence { L d 1 j } j = 0 m ) is compact. In particular, L d 1 0 = I is compact. This being a contradiction, our claim is proved. The linear dependence of the sequences implies that the operators L d 1 and R d 2 are algebraic operators. Since the operator L E (or, R E ) is algebraic if and only if E is algebraic, and since (for non-nilpotent operators A , B ) δ A , B = L A R B and A , B = I L A R B are algebraic if and only if A and B are algebraic [16, Proposition 2.6], the operators A , B are algebraic.  □
If A , B are algebraic, and σ ( δ A , B ) = { β } (resp., σ ( A , B ) = { β } ) for some scalar β , then there exist finite sequences a = { a j } j = 1 n and b = { b j } j = 1 n such that
σ ( δ A , B ) = σ ( A ) σ ( b ) = { a j b j } j = 1 n ( = a b ) ( resp . , σ ( A , B ) = 1 σ ( A ) σ ( B ) = { 1 a j b j } j = 1 n ( = 1 a b ) .
The following table lists spectra σ ( D d 1 , d 2 ) for various choices of D , d 1 and d 2 .
There exists finite scalar sequences sequences { a j } j = 1 n , { b j } j = 1 n and a scalar β such that if:
( A ) ( i ) D = δ , d 1 = δ A * , B * and:
(a) d 2 = δ A , B , then σ ( d 1 ) = { a j b j ¯ } j = 1 n = { β } = { a j b j } j = 1 n = σ ( d 2 ) ;
(b) d 2 = A , B , then σ ( d 1 ) = { a j b j ¯ } j = 1 n = { β } = { 1 a j b j } j = 1 n = σ ( d 2 ) .
( A ) ( i i ) D = δ , d 1 = A * , B * and:
(a) d 2 = δ A , B , then σ ( d 1 ) = { 1 a j b j ¯ } j = 1 n = { β } = { a j b j } j = 1 n = σ ( d 2 ) ;
(b) d 2 = A , B , then σ ( d 1 ) = { 1 a j b j ¯ } j = 1 n = { β } = { 1 a j b j } j = 1 n = σ ( d 2 ) .
( B ) ( i ) D = , d 1 = A * , B * and:
(a) d 2 = A , B , then σ ( d 1 ) = { 1 a j b j ¯ } j = 1 n = { β } , σ ( d 2 ) = { 1 a j b j } j = 1 n = { 1 β } ;
(b) d 2 = δ A , B , then σ ( d 1 ) = { 1 a j b j ¯ } j = 1 n = { β } , σ ( d 2 ) = { a j b j } j = 0 n = { 1 β } .
( B ) ( i i ) D = , d 1 = δ A * , B * and:
(a) d 2 = A , B , then σ ( d 1 ) = { a j b j ¯ } j = 1 n = { β } , σ ( d 2 ) = { 1 a j b j } j = 1 n = { 1 β } ;
(b) d 2 = δ A , B , then σ ( d 1 ) = { a j b j ¯ } j = 1 n = { β } , σ ( d 2 ) = { a j b j } j = 1 n = { 1 β } .
The following theorem characterises operators A , B such that D d 1 , d 2 m is compact. Recall from [5, Page 128] that a point λ is a pole of A if and only if H 0 ( A λ ) = ( A λ ) n ( 0 ) for some positive integer n.
Theorem 5.2.
Let A , B B ( H ) be such that σ ( A ) { 0 } σ ( B ) . The operator D d 1 , d 2 m is compact if and only if the following conditions are satisfied.
(i) There exist finite sequences a = { a j } j = 1 n σ ( A ) and b = { b j } j = 1 n σ ( B ) , not necessarily the same for the two cases under consideration, such that
σ ( d 1 ) = { a j b j ¯ } j = 1 n if d 1 = δ A * , B * and σ ( d 1 ) = { 1 a j b j ¯ } j = 1 n if d 1 = A * , B * , σ ( d 2 ) = { a j b j } j = 1 n if d 2 = δ A , B and σ ( d 2 ) = { 1 a j b j } j = 1 n if d 2 = A , B .
(ii) There exist decompositions
H = j = 1 n H 0 ( A a j ) = j = 1 n ( A a j ) r j ( 0 ) , H = j = 1 n H 0 ( B b j ) = j = 1 n ( B b j ) s j ( 0 ) , A = j = 1 n A j = j = 1 n ( A | H 0 ( A a j ) ) , B = j = 1 n B j = j = 1 n ( B | H 0 ( B b j ) )
such that
A a = j = 1 n ( A j a j ) and B b = j = 1 n ( B j b j )
are nilpotent operators (of order r = max { r j : 1 j n } and s = max { s j : 1 j n } , respectively).
Proof. The necessity of condition (i) having already been seen, we prove the necesity of condition (ii). The operators A , B being algebraic are polaroid (i.e., all isolated points of the spectrum are poles of the resolvent of the operator [5, Page 299]). Since σ ( A ) , σ ( B ) 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 D = , d 1 = δ A * , B * , d 2 = A , B and D = δ , d 1 = A * , B * , d 2 = δ A , B . (The cases D = , d 1 = δ A * , B * , d 2 = δ A , B and D = δ , d 1 = A * , B * , d 2 = A , B are proved in [22].)
The hypotheses imply that the spectral points a j and b j are poles of A , B respectively. Hence A and B, consequently also L A and R B , are polaroid operators. This, see [16, Proposition 3.1], implies that the operator L A R B and L A R B are polaroid. The functional calculus for polaroid operators [5, Page 305] now tells us that the operators A , B μ and δ A , B μ (hence, also A * , B * μ and δ A * , B * μ ) are polaroid for all scalars μ .
Considering first the case D = , d 1 = δ A * , B * and d 2 = A , B , we have from the above that the operators δ A , B * β and A , B 1 β are polaroid. Since σ ( δ A * , B * ) = { β } and σ ( A , B ) = { 1 β } ,
σ ( δ A * , B * β ) = { 0 } = σ ( A , B 1 β )
and the operators δ A * , B * β and A , B 1 β are nilpotents of some orders r and s, respectively. Set r + s 1 = t . Then
δ A * , B * , A , B = I L δ A * , B * R A , B = ( 1 ) L δ A * , B * β R A , B + L β R A , B 1 β and δ A * , B * , A , B t = ( 1 ) t p = 0 t t p R A , B t p L β p L δ A * , B * β t p R A , B 1 β p = 0 ,
since R A , B 1 β p = 0 for all p s , and if p s 1 then t p t ( s 1 ) = r and this implies L δ A * , B * β t p = 0 . Trivially, being nilpotent, δ A * , B * , A , B is compact.
To complete the proof of the theorem, we observe that if D = δ , d 1 = A * , B * and d 2 = δ A , B , then there exist positive integers r and s such that
A * , B * β r = 0 = δ A , B β s
and
δ A * , B * , δ A , B r + s 1 = L A * , B * R δ A , B r + s 1 = L A * , B * β R δ A , B β r + s 1 = p = 0 r + s 1 ( 1 ) p r + s 1 p L A * , B * β r + s 1 p R δ A , B β p = 0 ,
since R δ A , B β p = 0 for all p s , and if p s 1 , equivalently r + s 1 p r , then L A * , B * β r = 0 .
 □

Funding

No external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No data generation or analysis involved.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. J. Agler, Subjordan operators, ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI(1980), Thesis(Ph.D.), Indiana University (MR2639769).
  2. J. Agler and M. Stankus, m-Isometric transformations of Hilbert space I, Integr. Equat. Oper. Theory 21(1995), 383-420. [CrossRef]
  3. J. Agler and M. Stankus, m-Isometric transformations of Hilbert space II, Integr. Equat. Oper. Theory 23(1995), 1-48. [CrossRef]
  4. J. Agler and M. Stankus, m-Isometric transformations of Hilbert space III, Integr. Equat. Oper. Theory 24(1996), 379-421. [CrossRef]
  5. P. Aiena, Fredholm and Local Spectral Theory,with Applications to Multipliers, Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow (2004).
  6. F. Bayart, m-isometries on Banach Spaces, Math. Nachr. 284(2011), 2141-2147.
  7. T. Bermúdez, A. Martinón and J.N. Noda, An isometry plus a nilpotent operator is an m-isometry, Applications, J. Math. Anal Appl. 407(2013) 505-512.
  8. T. Bermûdez, A. Martinón, V. Müller and J.N. Noda, Perturbation of m-isometries by nilpotent operators, Abstract and Applied Analysis, Volume 2014, Article ID 745479,6pages. [CrossRef]
  9. T. Bermûdez, A. Martinón and V. Müller, Local spectral properties of m-isometric operators, J.Math. Anal. Appl., Volume 530, Issue1, Article ID 127717. [CrossRef]
  10. E. Boasso, Drazin spectrum of Banach space operators and Banach algebras, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 359(2009), 48-55.
  11. E. Boasso and M. Amouch, Generalized Browder’s and Weyl’s theorems for generalized derivations, Mediterranien J. Math. 12(2015), 117-131.
  12. F. Botelho and J. Jamison, Isometric properties of elementary operators, Linear Alg. Appl. 432(2010), 357-365. [CrossRef]
  13. F. Botelho, J. Jamison and B. Zheng, Strict isometries of arbitrary order, Linear Alg. Appl. 436(2012), 3303-3314. [CrossRef]
  14. F. F.Bonsall and J. Duncan, Numerical Ranges II, Cambridge Univ. Press, London (1973).
  15. B.P. Duggal and C.S. Kubrusly, Power bounded m-left invertible operators, Linear Multilinear Algebra 69(2021), 515-525.
  16. B.P. Duggal, S.V. Djordjević and C.S. Kubrusly, Elementary operators, finite ascent, range closure and compactness, Linear Alg. Appl. 449(2014), 334-349.
  17. B.P. Duggal, S.V. Djordjević and C.S. Kubrusly, Algebraic elementary operators, Functional Analysis, Approximation and Computation, 6(2014), 43-50.
  18. B.P. Duggal and I.H. Kim, Structure of elementary operators defining m-left invertible, m-self-adjoint and related classes of operators. J. Math. Anal. Appl.495(2021), 124718.
  19. B.P. Duggal and I.H. Kim, Structure of iso-symmetric operators, Axioms 2021, 10, 256. [CrossRef]
  20. B.P.Duggal and I.H. Kim, m-isometric generalised derivations, Concrete Operators 9(2022), 139-150.
  21. B.P. Duggal and I.H. Kim, Expansive operators which are power bounded or algebraic, Operators and Matrices 16(2022), 197-211. [CrossRef]
  22. B. P. Duggal and I. H. Kim, m-symmetric operators with elementary operator entries, Results in Mathematics (2024)79: 240. [CrossRef]
  23. J.K. Finch, The single valued extension property on a Banach space, Pac.J.Math. 58(1975), 61-69. [CrossRef]
  24. C. Gu, Elementary operators which are m-isometries, Linear Alg. Appl. 451(2014), 49-64. [CrossRef]
  25. C. Gu, Structure of left n-invertible operators and their applications, Studia Math. 226(2015), 189-211. [CrossRef]
  26. C. Gu, Examples of m-Isometric tuples of operators on a Hilbert space, J. Korean Math. Soc. 55(1) (2018), 225-251.
  27. C. Gu and M. Stankus, m-isometries and n-symmetries: products and sums with a nilpotent, Linear Alg. Appl. 469(2015), 49-64.
  28. P. R. Halmos, A Hilbert Space Problem Book, 2nd Ed. Springer (1982) New York.
  29. J. W. Helton, Infinite dimensional Jordan algebras and Sturm-Liouville conjugate point theory, Transactions Amer.Math. Soc. 170(1970), 305-331.
  30. Domingo A Herrero, Approximation of Hilbert space operators, Pitman Advancef Publishing Program, Boston, London, Melbourne (1982).
  31. R.C. James, Orthogonality and linear functionals in normed spaces, Trans. Amner. Math. Soc. 61(1947), 265-292.
  32. C. S. Kubrusly, Hilbert Space Operators A Problem Solving Approach, Birkhauser Boston (2003).
  33. C.S. Kubrusly, Spectral Theory of Operators on Hilbert Spaces, Birkhauser(2012).
  34. Scott A. McCllough and Leiba Rodman, Hereditary classes of operators and matrices, Amer. Math. Monthly 104(1977), 415-430.
  35. M. Radjabalipour, An extension of Putnam-Fuglede theorem for hyponormal operators, Maths. Zeits. 194(1987), 117-120. [CrossRef]
  36. V.S. Shulman, On linear equations with normal coefficients, Soviet Math. Dokl. 27(1983), 726-729.
  37. M. Stankus, m-isometries and other linear transformations which are hereditary roots, Integral Equat. Oper. Th. 75(2013), 301-321. [CrossRef]
  38. A.E. Taylor and D.C. Lay, Introduction to Functional Analysis, Wiley, New York, 1980.
  39. Trieu Le, Algebraic properties of operator roots of polynomials, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 421(2015), 1238-1246. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated