5
$\begingroup$

I don't know how to prove this question:

Let $X$ be a compact space, and let $(T_{n})$ be a sequence of positive linear operators on $C(X)$. Also, let $f \in C(X)$ be a strictly positive function. Then if $T_{n}(f) \rightarrow f$ (uniformly), then the sequence $(T_{n})$ is equicontinuous.

Now since this is a strictly positive function, I am aware that the function $f(x) \geq 0$ for all $x \in X$ but how do I goes about in proving the next part of the sentence?

Hope to have someone to shed some light on this. Thank You.

  • 0
    Isn't it $(T_nf)$ which should be equi-continuous?2012-04-09
  • 0
    In this case, we don't need $f$ to be positive (neither $T$): fix $\varepsilon>0$, so we can find $n_0$ such that $\lVert T_nf-f\rVert_{\infty}\leq\varepsilon$. So the $\delta$ which works for $f$ (which is uniformly continuous) works for $T_nf$, $n\geq n_0$. Then you have only a finite number of uniformly continuous functions.2012-04-09
  • 0
    Hi Davide, based on my understanding of the question, I think I need to show $T_{n}(f) \rightarrow f$ uniformly in order to satisfy the next part of the sentence but I am not so sure. Hope someone can shade some light.2012-04-09
  • 0
    Isn't $T_nf\to f$ an hypothesis rather than a thing you have to show? And what would it mean that a sequence of operators is uniformly continuous?2012-04-09
  • 0
    Yes. $T_{n}(f) \rightarrow f$ is the hypothesis. So I am trying to prove that both the hypothesis and the conclusion is true in order to satisfy the sentence. For uniformly continuous, it actually meant $||Tx - Ty|| \leq ||T||||x-y||$.2012-04-09
  • 0
    How is it linked to the whole sequence $\{T_n\}$?2012-04-09
  • 0
    Not sure if I understand you correct but there is a theorem/definition found in most standard text that relate the equivalency of uniform equicontinuous, equicontinuous at all and at some points. Somehow these are very complicated and I found this topic very challenging. I look forward to have more discussion with you all here.2012-04-09

1 Answers 1

8

I'll only deal with real-valued functions, but the complex case is easy to get from this.

A positive operator on $C(X)$ is continuous because its norm satisfies $\|T\| = \|T(1_X)\|_{\infty}$:

Writing $1_X$ for the constant function $x \mapsto 1$, we have for all $g \in C(X)$ that $$ -\|g\|_\infty \cdot 1_X \leq g \leq \|g\|_\infty \cdot 1_X, $$ so positivity of $T$ yields $$ -\|g\|_\infty T(1_X) \leq T(g) \leq \|g\|_\infty T(1_X). $$

and therefore $\|T(g)\|_\infty \leq \|g\|_\infty \cdot \|T(1_X)\|_\infty$. This shows that $\|T\| \leq \|T(1_X)\|_\infty$ and taking $g = 1_X$ we see that a positive operator must have $\|T\| = \|T(1_X)\|_\infty$.

On the other hand, we are given that $\|T_n(f) - f\|_\infty \to 0$, where $f$ is assumed to be strictly positive. By compactness of $X$ and continuity of $f$ there is $x_0 \in X$ such that $0 \lt f(x_0) \leq f(x)$ for all $x \in X$. This tells us that $f(x_0) 1_X \leq f$ and by positivity of the operators $T_n$ we conclude that $0 \leq f(x_0) T_n(1_X) \leq T_n(f)$ whence $\|T_n\| = \|T_n(1_X)\|_\infty \leq \frac{1}{f(x_0)} \|T_n(f)\|_\infty$.

However, since $\|T_nf - f\|_\infty \to 0$, there exists a constant $C$ such that $\|T_n(f)\|_\infty \leq C$ for all $n$. In conclusion, $\|T_n\| \leq \frac{C}{f(x_0)}$ for all $n$, which is equicontinuity of the family of linear operators $T_n$.

  • 0
    Of course, there are somewhat more direct arguments using that the scalar multiples of $f$ itself dominate all functions, but I think the additional effort is minimal and the information that the operator norm of a positive operator is given by the norm of the image of the constant function $1_X$ is valuable in many contexts. One could also use the uniform boundedness principle, but this looks like overkill.2012-04-09
  • 0
    Thanks t.b. this is an interesting argument you had shown here. Lets see if I can think of something else.2012-04-09
  • 0
    Oops, I am sorry to let readers know that I had made a mistake in the above question. The proof by t.b. is still correct though. In line 5, the function is $> 0$ and not $\geq 0$. One of such reason is when in line 12 of t.b. proof, the function will be divided by 0 and this is wrong.2012-04-11
  • 0
    @Sandra: don't worry: you said *strictly* positive twice in your post, so it is rather clear $f\gt0$ was intended there. :)2012-04-11
  • 0
    @t.b. Thanks I am relieved. After I work on it for some time then I notice my mistake and it gets me worried it might confused the readers, so I immediately make a note on it. Lucky it is not that confusing.2012-04-11
  • 0
    @Sandra: if you are concerned about it, why don't you edit the question, then? It wouldn't change the applicability of my answer at all.2012-04-11