Carlos S. Kubrusly (Auth.) - Spectral Theory of Operators On Hilbert Spaces-Birkhäuser Basel (2012) PDF

Carlos S.
Kubrusly
Spectral Theory of Operators

on Hilbert Spaces
Carlos S. Kubrusly
Electrical Engineering Department
Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
ISBN 978-0-8176-8327-6 e-ISBN 978-0-8176-8328-3

DOI 10.1007/978-0-8176-8328-3
Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2012939729
Mathematics Subject Classification (2010): 47-XX. 47Axx
 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written
permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York,
NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in
connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer
software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden.
The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they
are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are
subject to proprietary rights.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media

(www.birkhauser-science.com)
To A & J & A & A & B
... and all life long my instinct has been to abandon anything for
which I have no talent; tennis, golf, dancing, sallying, all have
been abandoned, and perhaps it is desperation which keeps me
writing...
Graham Greene
Preface
This work is an introduction to the spectral theory of Hilbert space operators.

My main goal is to offer a modern introductory textbook for a first course in
spectral theory for graduate students, emphasizing recent aspects of the the-
ory, with detailed proofs. The book is addressed to a wide audience consisting
of graduate students in mathematics, as well as those studying statistics, eco-
nomics, engineering, and physics. The text, however, can also be useful to
working mathematicians delving into the spectral theory of Hilbert space op-
erators, and for scientists wishing to apply spectral theory to their field.
The prerequisite for this book is a first course in elementary functional
analysis including, in particular, operator theory on Hilbert spaces at an in-
troductory level. Of course, this includes a formal introduction to analysis,
covering elements of measure theory and functions of a complex variable.
However, every effort has been made to ensure that this book, despite its
relative shortness, is as self-contained as possible.
Chapter 1 summarizes the basic concepts from Hilbert space theory that
will be required in the text. By no means is it intended to replace a formal
introductory course on single operator theory. Its main purpose, besides sum-
marizing the basics required for further chapters, is to unify notation and
terminology. Chapter 2 discusses standard spectral results for (bounded lin-
ear) operators on Banach and Hilbert spaces, including the classical partition
of the spectrum and spectral properties for specific classes of operators. Chap-
ter 3 is devoted wholly to the Spectral Theorem for normal operators. After
considering the compact case, it meticulously treats the general case, carrying
out the proofs of both versions of the Spectral Theorem for the general case
in great detail. The idea behind those highly detailed proofs is to discuss and
explain delicate points, stressing some usually hidden features. The chapter
closes with the Fuglede Theorems. Chapter 4 deals with functional calculus
for normal operators, which depends on the Spectral Theorem, and also with
analytic functional calculus (i.e., Riesz functional calculus). The same level of
detail employed in the proofs of Chapter 3 is repeated here. Chapter 5 focuses
VII
VIII Preface
on Fredholm theory and compact perturbations of the spectrum, where a finer

analysis of the spectrum is worked out, leading to further partitions involving
the essential spectrum, the Weyl spectrum, and the Browder spectrum. The
chapter closes with a discussion of Weyl’s and Browder’s Theorems, including
some very recent results.
The final section of each chapter is a section on Additional Propositions,
consisting of either auxiliary results that will be required to support a proof in
the main text, or further results extending some theorems proved in the main
text. These are followed by a set of Notes, where each proposition is briefly
discussed, and references are provided indicating proofs for all of them. The
Additional Propositions can also be thought of as a set of proposed problems,
and their respective Notes can be viewed as hints for solving them.
At the end of each chapter, the reader will find a collection of suggested
readings. This has a triple purpose: to offer a reasonable bibliography includ-
ing most of the classics as well as some quite recent texts; to indicate where
different approaches and proofs can be found; and to indicate where further
results can be found. In this sense, some of the references are suggested as a
second reading on the subject.
The material in this book has been prepared to be covered in a one-
semester graduate course. The resulting text is the outcome of attempts to
meet the needs of a contemporary first course in spectral theory for an au-
dience as described in the first paragraph, possessing the prerequisites listed
in the second paragraph of this Preface. The logical dependence of the var-
ious sections (and chapters) is roughly linear and reflects approximately the
minimum amount of material needed to proceed further.
I have been lecturing on this subject for a long time; I often present it as a
second part of an operator theory course. As a result, I have benefited from the
help of many friends, among students and colleagues, and I am very grateful
to all of them. In particular, I wish to thank João Zanni for his painstak-
ing quest for typos. I also wish to thank Torrey Adams who copyedited the
manuscript. Special thanks are due to an anonymous referee who made signif-
icant contributions throughout the text, and who corrected some important
inaccuracies and mistakes that existed in the original version. Thanks are also
due to Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro for providing the release time that
made this project possible, as well as to CNPq (Brazilian National Research
Council) for a research grant.
Rio de Janeiro, March 2012 Carlos S. Kubrusly

Contents
Preface VII
1 Preliminaries 1
1.1 Notation and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Inverse Theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Orthogonal Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Orthogonal Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 Adjoint Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.6 Normal Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.7 Orthogonal Eigenspaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.8 Compact Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.9 Additional Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2 Spectrum 27
2.1 Basic Spectral Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2 A Classical Partition of the Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3 Spectral Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.4 Spectral Radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.5 Numerical Radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.6 Spectrum of Compact Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3 Spectral Theorem 55
3.1 Spectral Theorem for Compact Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.2 Diagonalizable Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.3 Spectral Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.4 Spectral Theorem: General Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.5 Fuglede Theorems and Reducing Subspaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
IX
X Contents
4 Functional Calculus 91
4.1 Rudiments of C*-Algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.2 Functional Calculus for Normal Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.3 Analytic Functional Calculus: Riesz Functional Calculus . . . . . . 102
4.4 Riesz Decomposition Theorem and Riesz Idempotents . . . . . . . . 115
4.5 Additional Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5 Fredholm Theory 131

5.1 Fredholm Operators and Fredholm Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
5.2 Essential Spectrum and Spectral Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5.3 Riesz Points and Weyl Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
5.4 Ascent, Descent, and Browder Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
5.5 Remarks on Browder and Weyl Theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
5.6 Additional Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
References 187
Index 193
1
Preliminaries
This chapter summarizes the background required for the rest of the book. Its
purpose is threefold: notation, terminology, and basic results. By basic results
we mean well-known theorems from single operator theory that will be needed
in the sequel. As usual, the set of nonnegative integers, positive integers, and
all integers will be denoted by N 0 , N , Z , and the set of rational numbers, real
numbers, and complex numbers will denoted by Q , R , and C , respectively.
1.1 Notation and Terminology

We assume the reader is familiar with the notions of linear space (or vector
space), normed space, Banach space, inner product space, and Hilbert space.
All spaces considered in this book are complex (i.e., over the complex field
C ). Given a (complex) inner product space X , the sesquilinear form (linear
in the first argument) · ; ·: X × X → C stands for the inner product in X .
We do not distinguish notation for norms. Thus · denotes the norm on a
normed space X (in particular, the norm generated by the inner product in
an inner product space X — i.e., x2 = x ; x for all x in X ) and also the
(induced uniform) operator norm in B[X , Y ] (i.e., T = supx=0 T x
x for all T
in B[X , Y ]), where B[X , Y ] stands for the normed space of all bounded linear
transformations of a normed space X into a normed space Y. The induced
uniform norm has the operator norm property, which means that if X , Y,
and Z are normed spaces over the same scalar field, and if T ∈ B[X , Y ] and
S ∈ B[Y, Z], then S T ∈ B[X , Z] and S T ≤ ST .
Between normed spaces, continuous linear transformation and bounded
linear transformation are synonyms. A transformation T : X → Y between
normed spaces X and Y is bounded if there exists a constant β ≥ 0 such
that T x ≤ β x for every x in X . It is said to be bounded below if there is
a constant α > 0 such that αx ≤ T x for every x in X . An operator on a
normed space X is precisely a bounded linear (i.e., a continuous linear) trans-
formation of X into itself. Set B[X ] = B[X , X ] for short: the normed algebra
of all operators on X . If X = {0}, then B[X ] contains the identity operator
I and I = 1 so that B[X ] is a unital normed algebra. Moreover, if X = {0}
C.S. Kubrusly, Spectral Theory of Operators on Hilbert Spaces, 1

DOI 10.1007/978-0-8176-8328-3_1, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
2 1. Preliminaries
is a Banach space, then B[X ] is a unital (complex ) Banach algebra. Since the
induced uniform norm has the operator norm property, a trivial induction
shows that T n ≤ T n, for every operator T ∈ B[X ] on a normed space X ,
for each integer n ≥ 0.
A transformation T ∈ B[X , Y ] is a contraction if T ≤ 1; equivalently, if
T x ≤ x for every x ∈ X . It is a strict contraction if T < 1. If X = {0},
then a transformation T is a contraction (or a strict contraction) if and only
if supx=0 (T x/x) ≤ 1 (or supx=0 (T x/x) < 1). If X = {0}, then
T < 1 =⇒ T x < x for every 0 = x ∈ X =⇒ T ≤ 1.
If T satisfies the middle inequality, then it is called a proper contraction.

Let X be a Banach space. A sequence {Tn } of operators in B[X ] converges
uniformly to an operator T in B[X ] if Tn − T → 0, and {Tn } converges
strongly to T if (Tn − T )x → 0 for every x in X . If X is a Hilbert space,
then {Tn } converges weakly to T if (Tn − T )x ; y → 0 for every x, y in X (or,
equivalently, (Tn − T )x ; x → 0 for every x in X , if the Hilbert space is com-
u s w
plex). These will be denoted by Tn −→ T , Tn −→ T , or Tn −→ T , respectively.
The sequence {Tn } is bounded if supn Tn < ∞. It is readily verified that
u s w
Tn −→ T =⇒ Tn −→ T =⇒ Tn −→ T =⇒ supn Tn < ∞
(the last implication is a consequence of the Banach–Steinhaus Theorem).

By a subspace of a normed space we mean a closed linear manifold of it.
The closure of a linear manifold of a normed space is a subspace. A subspace
of a Banach space is a Banach space. A subspace M of X is nontrivial if
{0} = M = X . Let T ∈ B[X ] be an operator on a normed space X . A subset
A of X is T -invariant (or A is an invariant subset for T ) if T (A) ⊆ A (i.e., if
T x ∈ A whenever x ∈ A). An invariant linear manifold (invariant subspace)
for T is a linear manifold (subspace) of X that, as a subset of X , is T -invariant.
The zero space {0} and the whole space X (i.e., the trivial subspaces) are
trivially invariant for every T in B[X ]. If M is an invariant linear manifold
for T , then its closure M− is an invariant subspace for T .
Let X and Y be linear spaces. The kernel (or null space) of a linear trans-
formation T : X → Y is the inverse image of {0} under T ,

N (T ) = T −1 ({0}) = x ∈ X : T x = 0 ,
which is a linear manifold of X . The range of T is the image of X under T,

R(T ) = T (X ) = y ∈ Y : y = T x for some x ∈ X ,
which is a linear manifold of Y. If X and Y are normed spaces and T lies

in B[X , Y ] (i.e., if T is bounded), then N (T ) is a subspace of X (i.e., if T is
bounded, then N (T ) is closed).
1.2 Inverse Theorems 3
If M and N are linear manifolds of a linear space X , then the ordinary

sum (or simply, the sum) M + N is the linear manifold of X consisting of all
sums u + v with u in M and v in N . The direct sum M ⊕ N is the linear
space of all ordered pairs (u, v) with u in M and v in N , where vector addition
and scalar multiplication are defined coordinatewise. Although ordinary and
direct sums are different linear spaces, they are isomorphic if M ∩ N = {0}.
A pair of linear manifolds M and N are algebraic complements of each other
if M + N = X and M ∩ N = {0}. In this case, each vector x in X can be
uniquely written as x = u+v with u in M and v in N . If two subspaces (linear
manifolds) of a normed space are algebraic complements of each other, then
they are called complementary subspaces (complementary linear manifolds).
1.2 Inverse Theorems

One of the fundamental theorems of (linear) functional analysis, the Open
Mapping Theorem, says that a continuous linear transformation of a Banach
space onto a Banach space is an open mapping (see, e.g., [66, Section 4.5] —
a mapping is open if it maps open sets onto open sets). A crucial corollary of
it is the following result.
Theorem 1.1. (Inverse Mapping Theorem). If X and Y are Banach spaces

and if T ∈ B[X , Y ] is injective and surjective, then T −1 ∈ B[Y, X ].
Proof. An invertible transformation is precisely an injective and surjective one.
Since the inverse of an invertible linear transformation is linear, and since an
invertible transformation is open if and only if it has a continuous inverse, the
stated result follows from the Open Mapping Theorem.
Thus an injective and surjective bounded linear transformation between

Banach spaces has a bounded (linear) inverse. Let G[X , Y ] denote the collection
of all invertible (i.e., injective and surjective) elements from B[X , Y ] with
a bounded inverse. (Recall that the inverse of any linear transformation is
linear.) The above theorem says that, if X and Y are Banach spaces, then every
invertible transformation from B[X , Y ] lies in G[X , Y ]. Set G[X ] = G[X , X ],
which forms a group under multiplication whenever X is a Banach space, viz.,
the group of all invertible operators from B[X ] (every operator in G[X ] has an
inverse in G[X ]). Here is a useful corollary of the Inverse Mapping Theorem.
Theorem 1.2. (Bounded Inverse Theorem). Let X and Y be Banach spaces

and take any T ∈ B[X , Y ]. The following assertions are equivalent .
(a) T has a bounded inverse on its range.
(b) T is bounded below .
(c) T is injective and has a closed range.
4 1. Preliminaries
Proof. Part (i). The equivalence between (a) and (b) still holds if X and Y
are just normed spaces. Indeed, if there exists T −1 ∈ B[R(T ), X ], then there
exists a constant β > 0 such that T −1 y ≤ βy for every y ∈ R(T ). Take
an arbitrary x ∈ X so that T x ∈ R(T ). Thus x = T −1 T x ≤ βT x, and
so β1 x ≤ T x. Hence (a) implies (b). Conversely, if (b) holds true, then
0 < T x for every nonzero x in X , and so N (T ) = {0}, which means that
T has a (linear) inverse on its range — a linear transformation is injective if
and only if it has a null kernel . Take an arbitrary y ∈ R(T ) so that y = T x
for some x ∈ X . Thus T −1 y = T −1 T x = x ≤ α1 T x = α1 y, which
means that T −1 is bounded. Therefore (b) implies (a).
Part (ii). Take an arbitrary R(T )-valued convergent sequence {yn }. Since each
yn lies in R(T ), there exists an X -valued sequence {xn } such that yn = T xn
for each n. Since {T xn } converges in Y, it is a Cauchy sequence in Y. Thus,
if T is bounded below, then there exists α > 0 such that
0 ≤ αxm − xn ≤ T (xm − xn ) = T xm − T xn
for every m, n so that {xn } is a Cauchy sequence in X , and thus it converges
in X to, say, x ∈ X if X is a Banach space. Since T is continuous, it preserves
convergence so that yn = T xn → T x, which implies that the (unique) limit
of {yn } lies in R(T ). Conclusion: R(T ) is closed in Y by the classical Closed
Set Theorem. That is, R(T )− = R(T ) whenever X is a Banach space, where
R(T )− stands for the closure of R(T ). Moreover, since (b) trivially implies
N (T ) = {0}, it follows that (b) implies (c). On the other hand, if N (T ) = {0},
then T is injective. If, in addition, the linear manifold R(T ) is closed in the
Banach space Y, then it is itself a Banach space so that T : X → R(T ) is an
injective and surjective bounded linear transformation of the Banach space X
onto the Banach space R(T ). Therefore, its inverse T −1 lies in B[R(T ), X ] by
the Inverse Mapping Theorem. That is, (c) implies (a).
Notice that if one of the Banach spaces X or Y is zero, then the results
in the previous theorems are either void or hold trivially. Indeed, if X = {0}
and Y = {0}, then the unique operator in B[X , Y ] is not injective (thus not
bounded below and not invertible); if X = {0} and Y = {0}, then the unique
operator in B[X , Y ] is not surjective but is bounded below (thus injective)
and has a bounded inverse on its singleton range; if X = {0} and Y = {0} the
unique operator in B[X , Y ] has an inverse in B[X , Y ].
The next theorem is a rather useful result establishing a power series expan-
sion for (λI − T )−1. This is the Neumann expansion (or Neumann series) due
to C.G. Neumann. The condition T < |λ| will be weakened in Corollary 2.12.
Theorem 1.3. (Neumann Expansion). If T ∈ B[X ] is an operator on a Banach

space X , and if λ is any scalar such that T < |λ|, then λI−T has an inverse
in B[X ] given by the following uniformly convergent series:
∞ k
(λI − T )−1 = λ1 T
λ .
k=0
1.3 Orthogonal Structure 5
Proof. Take an arbitrary operator

n TT ∈B[X ] and an arbitrary
nonzero
T scalar

λ. If T < |λ|, then sup k
< ∞. Thus, since
n k
≤
n T k n k=0 λ k=0 λ
for every n ≥ 0, it follows that the increasing sequence of non-
k=0 λ n T k
negative numbers is bounded, and hence it converges in R ,
k=0 λ T n
which means that the sequence λ is absolutely summable, and so it is
summable (since B[X ] is a Banach
T k space — see, e.g., [66, Proposition 4.4]).
That is, the series ∞ k=0 λ converges in B[X ]. Equivalently, there is an
∞
operator in B[X ], say k=0 λ , such that
T k
n k u
∞ k
T
−→ T
.
k=0 λ k=0 λ
Now it is also readily verified by induction that, for every n ≥ 0,

n k n k n+1
(λI − T ) λ1 T
λ = λ1 T
λ (λI − T ) = I − Tλ .
k=0 k=0
T n n n
But λ −→ O (since Tλ ≤ Tλ → 0 when T < |λ|), and so
u
n T k n T k
(λI − T ) λ1 u
−→ I and 1
(λI u
− T ) −→ I.
k=0 λ λ k=0 λ
Hence ∞ k ∞ k
(λI − T ) λ1 T
= 1 T
(λI − T ) = I,
k=0 λ λ i=0 λ
1
∞ T k
and so λ k=0 λ ∈ B[X ] is the inverse of λI − T ∈ B[X ].
Remark. Observe that, under the hypothesis of Theorem 1.3,

∞ T
k −1
(λI − T )−1 ≤ |λ|
1
|λ| = |λ| − T .
k=0
1.3 Orthogonal Structure

Two vectors x and y in an inner product space X are orthogonal if x ; y = 0.
In this case we write x ⊥ y. Two subsets A and B of X are orthogonal (no-
tation: A ⊥ B) if every vector in A is orthogonal to every vector in B. The
orthogonal complement of a set A is the set A⊥ made up of all vectors in X
that are orthogonal to every vector of A,

A⊥ = x ∈ X : x ; y = 0 for every y ∈ A ,
which is a subspace (i.e., a closed linear manifold) of X , and therefore A⊥ =

(A⊥ )− = (A− )⊥ . If M and N are orthogonal (M ⊥ N ) linear manifolds of an
inner product space X , then M ∩ N = {0}. In particular, M ∩ M⊥ = {0}.
If M ⊥ N , then M ⊕ N is an orthogonal direct sum. If X is a Hilbert space,
then M⊥⊥ = M−, and M⊥ = {0} if and only if M− = X . Moreover, if M and
N are orthogonal subspaces of a Hilbert space X , then M + N is a subspace
6 1. Preliminaries
of X . In this case, M + N ∼= M ⊕ N : ordinary and direct sums of orthogonal

subspaces of a Hilbert space are unitarily equivalent — the inner product in
M ⊕ N is given by (u1 , v1 ) ; (u2 , v2 ) = u1 ; u2 + v1 ; v2 for every (u1 , v1 )
and (u2 , v2 ) in M ⊕ N . Two linear manifolds M and N are orthogonal com-
plementary if M + N = X and M ⊥ N . If M and N are orthogonal com-
plementary subspaces of a Hilbert space X , then we identify the ordinary sum
M + N with the orthogonal sum M ⊕ N , and write (an abuse of notation,
actually) X = M ⊕ N (instead of X ∼ = M ⊕ N ).
A central result of Hilbert space geometry, the Projection Theorem, says
that, if H is a Hilbert space, and M is any subspace of H, then
H = M + M⊥ .
Ordinary and direct sums of orthogonal subspaces are unitarily equivalent.
Thus the Projection Theorem is equivalently stated in terms of orthogonal
direct sum up to unitary equivalence, H ∼
= M ⊕ M⊥, often written as
H = M ⊕ M⊥ .
This leads to the notation M⊥ = H M, if M is a subspace of H.
For a nonempty subset A of a normed space X , let spanA denote the
span (or linear span) of A: the linear manifold of X consisting of all (finite)
linear combinations of vectors of A; equivalently, the smallest linear manifold
of X that includes A (i.e., the intersection ofall linear manifolds of X that
include A). Its closure (spanA)−, denoted by A (and sometimes also called
the span of A), is a subspace of X . Let {Mγ }γ∈Γ be a family of subspaces of
X indexed by an arbitrary
(not necessarily countable) nonempty index set Γ .
The subspace span Mγ − of X is the topological sum of {Mγ }γ∈Γ ,
γ∈Γ −
usually denoted by γ∈Γ Mγ or γ∈Γ Mγ . That is,

−
−

Mγ = span Mγ = Mγ = Mγ .
γ∈Γ γ∈Γ γ∈Γ γ∈Γ
A pivotal result of Hilbert space theory is the Orthogonal Structure

Theorem, which reads as follows. Let {Mγ }γ∈Γ be a family
of pairwise
or-
−
thogonal subspaces of a Hilbert space H. For every x ∈ γ∈Γ Mγ there
is a unique summable family {uγ }γ∈Γ of vectors uγ ∈ Mγ such that

x= uγ .
γ∈Γ

Moreover, x2 = γ∈Γ uγ 2 . Conversely, if {uγ }γ∈Γ is a square-summable
in H with uγ
family of vectors ∈ Mγ for each γ ∈ Γ , then {uγ }γ∈Γ is
−
summable and γ∈Γ u γ lies in γ∈Γ Mγ . (See, e.g., [66, Section 5.5].)
For the definition of summable family and square-summable family see [66,
Definition 5.26]. A summable family of vectors in a normed
space has only
a countable number of nonzero vectors, and so the sum γ∈Γ uγ has only a
countable number of nonzero summands uγ (see, e.g., [66, Corollary 5.28]).
1.4 Orthogonal Projections 7

Take the direct sum γ∈Γ Mγ of pairwise orthogonal subspaces Mγ of
a Hilbert space H made up of square-summable
families of vectors. That is,
Mα ⊥ Mβ for α = β, and x = {xγ }γ∈Γ ∈ γ∈Γ Mγ if and only if each
2
xγ ∈ Mγ and γ∈Γ xγ < ∞. This is a Hilbert space with inner product

x ; y = xγ ; yγ
γ∈Γ

for every x = {xγ }γ∈Γ and y = {yγ }γ∈Γ in γ∈Γ Mγ . A consequence (a
restatement, actually) of the Orthogonal Structure Theorem
says that
− the
orthogonal direct sum γ∈Γ Mγ and the topological sum γ∈Γ M γ are
unitarily equivalent Hilbert spaces. That is,

−
Mγ ∼ = Mγ .
γ∈Γ γ∈Γ
−
If, in addition, {Mγ }γ∈Γ spans H (i.e., γ∈Γ Mγ = γ∈Γ Mγ = H),
then it is usual to express the above identification by writing

H= Mγ .
γ∈Γ

Similarly, the orthogonal direct sum γ∈Γ Hγ of a collection of Hilbert spaces
{Hγ }γ∈Γ (not necessarily subspaces of any larger Hilbert space) consists of
square-summable families {xγ }γ∈Γ (i.e., γ∈Γ xγ 2 < ∞), with each xγ in
Hγ . This is a Hilbert space with inner product given as above.
Let H and K be Hilbert spaces. The direct sum of T ∈ B[H] and S ∈ B[K]
is the operator T ⊕ S ∈ B[H ⊕ K] such that (T ⊕ S)(x, y) = (T x, Sy) for every
(x, y) ∈ H ⊕ K.If {Tγ }γ∈Γ isa family of operators with Tγ ∈ B[Hγ ], then their
direct sum T : γ∈Γ Hγ → γ∈Γ Hγ is the mapping such that

T {xγ }γ∈Γ = {Tγ xγ }γ∈Γ for every {xγ }γ∈Γ ∈ γ∈Γ Hγ ,

which is an operator in B γ∈Γ Hγ ] with T = supγ∈Γ Tγ , denoted by

T = Tγ .
γ∈Γ
1.4 Orthogonal Projections

A function F : X → X of a set X into itself is idempotent if F 2 = F , where F 2
stands for the composition of F with itself. A projection E is an idempotent
(i.e., E = E 2 ) linear transformation E : X → X of a linear space X into itself.
If E is a projection, then so is I − E, which is referred to as the complementary
projection of E, and their null spaces and ranges are related as follows:
R(E) = N (I − E) and N (E) = R(I − E).

8 1. Preliminaries
The range of a projection is the set of all its fixed points,

R(E) = x ∈ X : Ex = x ,
which forms with the kernel a pair of algebraic complements,
R(E) + N (E) = X and R(E) ∩ N (E) = {0}.
An orthogonal projection E : X → X on an inner product space X is a

projection such that R(E) ⊥ N (E). If E is an orthogonal projection on X ,
then so is the complementary projection I − E : X → X . Every orthogonal
projection is bounded (i.e., continuous — E ∈ B[H]). In fact, every orthogonal
projection is a contraction. Indeed, every x ∈ X can be written as x = u + v
with u ∈ R(E) and v ∈ N (E), so that Ex2 = Eu + Ev2 = Eu2 =
u2 ≤ x2 since x2 = u2 + v2 by the Pythagorean Theorem (once
u ⊥ v). Hence R(E) is a subspace (i.e., it is closed, because R(E) = N (I − E)
and I − E is bounded). Moreover, N (E) = R(E)⊥ ; equivalently, R(E) =
N (E)⊥. Conversely, if any of these properties holds for a projection E, then
it is an orthogonal projection.
Two orthogonal projections E1 and E2 on X are said to be orthogonal to
each other (or mutually orthogonal ) if R(E1 ) ⊥ R(E2 ) (which is equivalent
to saying that E1 E2 = E2 E1 = O). Let Γ be an arbitrary index set (not nec-
essarily countable). If {Eγ }γ∈Γ is a family of orthogonal projections on an
inner product space X that are orthogonal to each other (R(Eα ) ⊥ R(Eβ )
for α = β), then {Eγ }γ∈Γ is an orthogonal family of orthogonal projections
on X . An orthogonal sequence of orthogonal projections {Ek }∞
k=0 is similarly
defined. If {Eγ }γ∈Γ is an orthogonal family of orthogonal projections and

Eγ x = x for every x ∈ X ,
γ∈Γ
then {Eγ }γ∈Γ is called aresolution of the identity on X . (Recall that for
each x ∈ X the sum x = γ∈Γ Eγ x has only a countable number of nonzero
vectors.) If {Ek }∞
k=0 is an infinite sequence, then the above identity in X
means convergence in the strong operator topology:
n s
Ek −→ I as n → ∞.
k=0
If {Ek }nk=0 is a finite

nfamily, then the above identity in X obviously coincides
with the identity k=0 Ek = I in B[X ] (e.g., {E1 , E2 } is a resolution of the
identity on X whenever E2 = I − E1 is the complementary projection of the
orthogonal projection E1 on X ).
The Projection Theorem and the Orthogonal Structure Theorem of the
previous section can be written in terms of orthogonal projections. Indeed,
for every subspace M of a Hilbert space H there exists a unique orthogonal
1.5 Adjoint Operator 9
projection E ∈ B[H] such that R(E) = M, which is referred to as the orthogo-

nal projection on M. This is an equivalent version of the Projection Theorem.
An equivalent version of the Orthogonal Structure Theorem reads as follows.
If {Eγ }γ∈Γ is a resolution of the identity on H, then

−
H= R(Eγ ) .
γ∈Γ
Conversely, if {M γ }γ∈Γ is a family of pairwise orthogonal subspaces of H

−
such that H = γ∈Γ Mγ , then the family of orthogonal projections
{Eγ }γ∈Γ , with each Eγ ∈ B[H] on each Mγ (i.e., with R(Eγ ) = Mγ ), is
a resolution of the identity on H. Again, since {R(Eγ )}γ∈Γ is a family of
pairwise orthogonal subspaces, the above orthogonaldecomposition of H
is unitarily equivalent to the orthogonal direct sum
− γ∈Γ R(Eγ ), that is,
R(E γ ) ∼
= R(E γ ), which is commonly written as
γ∈Γ γ∈Γ

H= R(Eγ ).
γ∈Γ
(See, e.g., [66, Theorems 5.52 and 5.59].) Let {Eγ }γ∈Γ be a resolution of
the identity on a nonzero Hilbert space made up of nonzero projections, let
{λγ }γ∈Γ be a similarly indexed family of scalars, and set

D(T ) = x ∈ H: {λγ Eγ x}γ∈Γ is a summable family of vectors in H .
The mapping T : D(T ) → H, defined by

Tx = λγ Eγ x for every x ∈ D(T ),
γ∈Γ
is called a weighted sum of projections. It can be shown that the domain D(T )
of a weighted sum of projections is a linear manifold of H and that T is a
linear transformation. Moreover, T is bounded if and only if {λγ }γ∈Γ is a
bounded family of scalars, which happens if and only if D(T ) = H. In this
case T ∈ B[H] and T = supγ∈Γ |λγ |. (See, e.g., [66, Proposition 5.61].)
1.5 Adjoint Operator

Throughout the text, H and K are Hilbert spaces. Take any T ∈ B[H, K]. The
adjoint T ∗ of T is the unique mapping of K into H such that
T x ; y = x ; T ∗ y for every x ∈ H and y ∈ K.
In fact, T ∗ ∈ B[K, H] (i.e., T ∗ is bounded and linear), T ∗∗ = T , and
T ∗ 2 = T ∗T = T T ∗ = T 2.
10 1. Preliminaries
Moreover, if Z is a Hilbert space and S ∈ B[K, Z], then S T ∈ B[H, Z] is such

that (S T )∗ = T ∗ S ∗ (see, e.g., [66, Proposition 5.65 and Section 5.12]).
Lemma 1.4. For every T ∈ B[H, K],
N (T ) = R(T ∗ )⊥ = N (T ∗ T ) and R(T )− = N (T ∗ )⊥ = R(T T ∗ )− .
Proof. x ∈ R(T ∗ )⊥ if and only if x ; T ∗ y = 0 or, equivalently, T x ; y = 0,

for every y in K. This means that T x = 0; that is, x ∈ N (T ). Hence
R(T ∗ )⊥ = N (T ).
Since T x2 = T x ; T x = T ∗ T x ; x for every x in H, it follows that

N (T ∗ T ) ⊆ N (T ). But N (T ) ⊆ N (T ∗ T ) trivially, and so
N (T ) = N (T ∗ T ).
This completes the proof of the first identities. Since these hold for every T
in B[H, K], they also hold for T ∗ in B[K, H] and for T T ∗ in B[K]. Thus
R(T )− = R(T ∗∗ )⊥⊥ = N (T ∗ )⊥ = N (T ∗∗ T ∗ )⊥

= N (T T ∗ )⊥ = R((T T ∗ )∗ )⊥⊥ = R(T ∗∗ T ∗ )⊥⊥ = R(T T ∗ )− ,
because M⊥⊥ = M− for every linear manifold M and T ∗∗ = T .
Lemma 1.5. R(T ) is closed in K if and only if R(T ∗ ) is closed in H.

Proof. Set T⊥ = T |N (T )⊥ ∈ B[N (T )⊥, K], the restriction of T to N (T )⊥ . Re-
call that H = N (T ) + N (T )⊥. Thus every x ∈ H can be written as x = u + v
with u ∈ N (T ) and v ∈ N (T )⊥ . If y ∈ R(T ), then y = T x = T u + T v = T v =
T |N (T )⊥ v for some x ∈ H, and so y ∈ R(T |N (T )⊥). Hence R(T ) ⊆ R(T |N (T )⊥ ).
Since R(T |N (T )⊥) ⊆ R(T ), it follows that
R(T⊥ ) = R(T ) and N (T⊥ ) = {0}.
If R(T ) = R(T )−, then take the inverse T⊥−1 in B[R(T ), N (T )⊥ ] (Theorem
1.2). For any w ∈ N (T )⊥ consider the functional fw : R(T ) → C defined by
fw (y) = T⊥−1 y ; w
for every y ∈ R(T ). Since T⊥−1 is linear and the inner product is linear in the
first argument, it follows that f is linear. Since |fw (y)| ≤ T⊥−1 wy for
every y ∈ R(T ), it follows that f is bounded. Moreover, R(T ) is a subspace
of the Hilbert space K (it is closed in K), and so a Hilbert space itself. Then
the Riesz Representation Theorem in Hilbert spaces (see, e.g., [66, Theorem
5.62]) says that there exists zw in the Hilbert space R(T ) such that
fw (y) = y ; zw
1.5 Adjoint Operator 11
for every y ∈ R(T ). Thus, for an arbitrary x ∈ H, so that x = u + v with

u ∈ N (T ) and v ∈ N (T )⊥ , we get
x ; T ∗ zw = T x ; zw = T u ; zw + T v ; zw = T v ; zw
= fw (T v) = T⊥−1 T v ; w = T⊥−1 T⊥ v ; w
= v ; w = u ; w + v ; w = x ; w.
Hence x ; T ∗ zw − w = 0 for every x ∈ H, which means that T ∗ zw = w. Thus

w ∈ R(T ∗ ). This shows that N (T )⊥ ⊆ R(T ∗ ). On the other hand, R(T ∗ ) ⊆
R(T ∗ )− = N (T )⊥ by Lemma 1.4 (since T ∗∗ = T ) so that
R(T ∗ ) = R(T ∗ )− .
Therefore R(T ) = R(T )− implies R(T ∗ ) = R(T ∗ )− , and so the converse also
holds because T ∗∗ = T . That is,
R(T ) = R(T )− if and only if R(T ∗ ) = R(T ∗ )− .
Let T ∈ B[H] be an operator on a Hilbert space H and let M be a subspace

of H. If M and its orthogonal complement M⊥ are both T -invariant (i.e., if
T (M) ⊆ M and T (M⊥ ) ⊆ M⊥ ), then we say that M reduces T (or M is
a reducing subspace for T ). An operator is reducible if it has a nontrivial
reducing subspace (otherwise it is called irreducible), and reductive if all its
invariant subspaces are reducing. Since M = {0} if and only if M⊥ = H, and
M⊥ = {0} if and only if M = H, it follows that an operator T on a Hilbert
space H is reducible if there exists a subspace M of H such that both M
and M⊥ are nonzero and T -invariant or, equivalently, if M is nontrivial and
invariant for both T and T ∗ , as we shall see next.
Lemma 1.6. Take an operator T on a Hilbert space H. A subspace M of H

is T -invariant if and only if M⊥ is T ∗ -invariant. M reduces T if and only
if M is invariant for both T and T ∗, which implies that (T |M )∗ = T ∗ |M .
Proof. Take any vector y ∈ M⊥. If T x ∈ M whenever x ∈ M, then x ; T ∗ y =
T x ; y = 0 for every x ∈ M, and so T ∗ y ⊥ M; that is, T ∗ y ∈ M⊥. Thus
T (M) ⊆ M implies T ∗ (M⊥ ) ⊆ M⊥. Since this holds for every operator in
B[H], T ∗ (M⊥ ) ⊆ M⊥ implies T ∗∗ (M⊥⊥ ) ⊆ M⊥⊥, and hence T (M) ⊆ M
(because T ∗∗ = T and M⊥⊥ = M− = M). Then T (M) ⊆ M if and only if
T ∗ (M⊥ ) ⊆ M⊥, and so T (M⊥ ) ⊆ M⊥ if and only if T ∗ (M) ⊆ M. Therefore
T (M) ⊆ M and T (M⊥ ) ⊆ M⊥ if and only if T (M) ⊆ M and T ∗ (M) ⊆ M,
and so (T |M )x ; y = T x ; y = x ; T ∗ y = x ; (T ∗ |M )y for x, y ∈ M.
An operator T ∈ B[H] on a Hilbert space H is self-adjoint (or Hermitian) if

it coincides with its adjoint (i.e., if T ∗ = T ). A characterization of self-adjoint
operators reads as follows: on a complex Hilbert space H, an operator T is
self-adjoint if and only if T x ; x ∈ R for every vector x ∈ H. Moreover, if
12 1. Preliminaries
T ∈ B[H] is self-adjoint, then T = O if and only if T x ; x = 0 for all x ∈ H.

(See, e.g., [66, Proposition 5.79 and Corollary 5.80].) A self-adjoint operator
T is nonnegative (notation: O ≤ T ) if 0 ≤ T x ; x for every x ∈ H, and it is
positive (notation: O < T ) if 0 < T x ; x for every nonzero x ∈ H. An invert-
ible positive operator T in G[H] is called strictly positive (notation: O ≺ T ).
For every T in B[H], the operators T ∗ T and T T ∗ in B[H] are always nonneg-
ative (reason: 0 ≤ T x2 = T x ; T x = T ∗ T x ; x for every x ∈ H). If S and
T are operators in B[H], then we write S ≤ T if T − S is nonnegative. Simi-
larly, we also write S < T and S ≺ T if T − S is positive or strictly positive.
Thus, if T − S is self-adjoint (in particular, if both are), then S = T if and
only if S ≤ T and T ≤ S.
1.6 Normal Operators

Let S and T be operators on the same space X . We say that they commute
if S T = T S. An operator T ∈ B[H] on a Hilbert space H is normal if it com-
mutes with its adjoint (i.e., if T T ∗ = T ∗ T , or O = T ∗ T − T T ∗ ). An operator
T ∈ B[H] is hyponormal if T T ∗ ≤ T ∗ T (i.e., if O ≤ T ∗ T − T T ∗ ), which is
equivalent to saying that (λI − T )(λI − T )∗ ≤ (λI − T )∗ (λI − T ) for every
scalar λ ∈ C . An operator T ∈ B[H] is cohyponormal if its adjoint is hypo-
normal (i.e., if T ∗ T ≤ T T ∗ , or O ≤ T T ∗ − T ∗ T ). Since T ∗ T − T T ∗ is always
self-adjoint, it follows that T is normal if and only if it is both hyponormal
and cohyponormal. Thus every normal operator is hyponormal . If it is either
hyponormal or cohyponormal, then it is called seminormal .
Theorem 1.7. T ∈ B[H] is hyponormal if and only if T ∗ x ≤ T x for

every x ∈ H. Moreover, the following assertions are pairwise equivalent .
(a) T is normal .
(b) T ∗ x = T x for every x ∈ H.
(c) T n is normal for every positive integer n.
(d) T ∗n x = T nx for every x ∈ H and every n ≥ 1.
Proof. Take any T ∈ B[H]. The characterization for hyponormal operators

goes as follows: T T ∗ ≤ T ∗ T if and only if T T ∗ x ; x ≤ T ∗ T x ; x or, equiv-
alently, T ∗ x2 ≤ T x2, for every x ∈ H. Since T is normal if and only if it
is both hyponormal and cohyponormal, it follows that (a) and (b) are equiv-
alent. Thus, as T ∗n = T n∗ for each n ≥ 1, (c) and (d) are equivalent. If T ∗
commutes with T, then it commutes with T n and, dually, T n commutes with
T ∗n = T n∗. Hence (a) implies (c), and (d) implies (b) trivially.
In spite of the equivalence between (a) and (c) above, the square of a
hyponormal is not necessarily hyponormal. It is clear that every self-adjoint
1.6 Normal Operators 13
operator is normal, and so is every nonnegative operator. Moreover, normality

distinguishes the orthogonal projections among the projections.
Theorem 1.8. If E ∈ B[H] is a nonzero projection, then the following asser-

tions are pairwise equivalent .
(a) E is an orthogonal projection.
(b) E is nonnegative.
(c) E is self-adjoint .
(d) E is normal .
(e) E = 1.
(f) E ≤ 1.
Proof. Let E be a projection (i.e., a linear idempotent). If E is an orthogonal

projection (i.e., R(E) ⊥ N (E)), then I − E is again an orthogonal projection,
thus bounded, and so R(E) = N (I − E) is closed. Hence R(E ∗ ) is closed by
Lemma 1.5. Moreover, R(E) = N (E)⊥ . But N (E)⊥ = R(E ∗ )− by Lemma 1.4
(since E ∗∗ = E). Then R(E) = R(E ∗ ), and so for every x ∈ H there is a z ∈ H
such that Ex = E ∗ z. Therefore, E ∗ Ex = (E ∗ )2 z = (E 2 )∗ z = E ∗ z = Ex.
That is, E ∗ E = E. This implies that E is nonnegative (it is self-adjoint, and
E ∗ E is always nonnegative). Outcome:
R(E) ⊥ N (E) =⇒ E≥O =⇒ E∗ = E =⇒ E ∗ E = EE ∗ .
Conversely, if E is normal, then E ∗ x = Ex for every x in H (Theorem

1.7) so that N (E ∗ ) = N (E). Hence R(E) = N (E ∗ )⊥ = N (E)⊥ by Lemma
1.4 (because R(E) is closed). Therefore, R(E) ⊥ N (E). That is,
E ∗ E = EE ∗ =⇒ R(E) ⊥ N (E).
If O = E = E ∗ , then E2 = E ∗ E = E 2 = E = 0, and so E = 1:
E = E∗ =⇒ E = 1 =⇒ E ≤ 1.
Take any v ∈ N (E)⊥ so that (I − E)v ∈ N (E) (since R(I − E) = N (E)).

Hence (I − E)v ⊥ v so that 0 = (I − E)v ; v = v2 − Ev ; v. If E ≤ 1,
then v2 = Ev ; v ≤ Evv ≤ Ev2 ≤ v2. Thus Ev = v =
1
Ev ; v 2 . So (I − E)v2 = Ev − v2 = Ev2 − 2 ReEv ; v + v2 = 0,
and hence v ∈ N (I − E) = R(E). Then N (E)⊥ ⊆ R(E), which implies that
R(E ∗ ) ⊆ N (E ∗ )⊥ by Lemma 1.4, and hence R(E ∗ ) ⊥ N (E ∗ ). But E ∗ is a
projection whenever E is (E = E 2 implies E ∗ = E 2∗ = E ∗2 ). Thus E ∗ is an
orthogonal projection so that E ∗ is self-adjoint, and so is E. Therefore,
E ≤ 1 =⇒ E = E∗.
14 1. Preliminaries
Corollary 1.9. Every bounded weighted sum of projections is normal .

Proof. Let T ∈ B[H] be a weighted sum of projections, which means that
T x = γ∈Γ λγ Eγ x for every x in the Hilbert space H, where {λγ }γ∈Γ is a
bounded family of scalars and {Eγ }γ∈Γ is a resolution of the identity on H.
Since each Eγ∗ = Eγ and since R(Eα ) ⊥ R(Eβ ) for α = β, it is readily verified

that the adjoint T ∗ of T is given by T ∗ x = γ∈Γ λγ Eγ x for every x in H (i.e.,
T x ; y = x ; T ∗ y for every x, y in H). Moreover, since Eγ2 = Eγ and since
Eα Eβ = Eβ Eα = O for α = β, it is also readily verified that T T ∗ x = T ∗ T x
for every x ∈ H. Thus T is normal.
An isometry between metric spaces is a map that preserves distance, and

so every isometry is injective. A linear transformation T between normed
spaces is an isometry if and only if it preserves norm (T x = x for every
x) and, between inner product spaces, if and only if it preserves inner product
(T x ; T y = x ; y for every x, y in H). A transformation T ∈ B[H, K] between
Hilbert spaces is an isometry if and only if T ∗ T = I (identity on H), and a
coisometry if its adjoint is an isometry (i.e., if T T ∗ = I; identity on K). It is
a unitary transformation if it is an isometry and a coisometry; that is, if it
is an invertible transformation with T −1 = T ∗ or, equivalently, an invertible
isometry, which means a surjective isometry. Thus a unitary operator T ∈ B[H]
is precisely a normal isometry: T T ∗ = T ∗ T = I; and so normality distin-
guishes the unitary operators among the isometries.
Lemma 1.10. If X is a normed space and T ∈ B[X ], then the real-valued

1
sequence {T n n} converges in R .
Proof. Take any positive integer m. Every positive integer n can be written
as n = m pn + qn for some nonnegative integers pn , qn with qn < m. Hence
T n = T mpn+qn = T mpn T qn ≤ T mpnT qn ≤ T mpn T qn.
Now suppose T = 0 to avoid trivialities, set μ = max 0≤k≤m−1 {T k } = 0,

and recall that qn ≤ m − 1. Then
1 pn 1 1 1 qn
T n n ≤ T m n μ n = μ n T m m − mn .
1 1 qn 1
Since μ n → 1 and T m m − mn → T m m as n → ∞, it follows that
1 1
lim sup T n n ≤ T m m .
n
Therefore, since m is an arbitrary positive integer,

1 1
lim sup T n n ≤ lim inf T n n ,
n n
1
and so {T n } converges in R .
n
1.6 Normal Operators 15
1
For each operator T ∈ B[X ] let r(T ) denote the limit of {T n n},
1
r(T ) = lim T n n .
n
1
As we saw in the proof of Lemma 1.10, r(T ) ≤ T n n for every n ≥ 1. In
1 1
particular, r(T ) ≤ T . Note that r(T k ) k = limn T kn kn = r(T ) for each
1 1
k ≥ 1 (as {T kn kn} is a subsequence of the convergent sequence {T n n}).
k k
Then r(T ) = r(T ) for every positive integer k. Thus, for every operator
T ∈ B[X ] on a normed space X , and for each nonnegative integer n,
0 ≤ r(T )n = r(T n ) ≤ T n ≤ T n.
An operator T ∈ B[X ] on a normed space X is normaloid if r(T ) = T . Here

is an alternate definition of a normaloid operator.
Theorem 1.11. r(T ) = T if and only if T n = T n for every n ≥ 1.

Proof. Immediate by the above inequalities and the definition of r(T ).
Theorem 1.12. Every hyponormal operator is normaloid .

Proof. Let T ∈ B[H] be a hyponormal operator on a Hilbert space H.
Claim 1. T n 2 ≤ T n+1 T n−1 for every positive integer n.
Proof. First note that, for any operator T ∈ B[H],
T nx2 = T n x ; T n x = T ∗ T n x ; T n−1 x ≤ T ∗ T n xT n−1 x
for each n ≥ 1 and every x ∈ H. Now, if T is hyponormal, then
T ∗T n xT n−1x ≤ T n+1 xT n−1 x ≤ T n+1 T n−1 x2
by Theorem 1.7, and hence, for each n ≥ 1 and every x ∈ H,
T nx2 ≤ T n+1 T n−1 x2 ,
which ensures the claimed result, thus completing the proof of Claim 1.
Claim 2. T k = T k for every positive integer k ≤ n, for all n ≥ 1.
Proof. The above result holds trivially if T = O and it also holds trivially for
n = 1 (for all T ∈ B[H]). Let T = O and suppose the above result holds for
some integer n ≥ 1. By Claim 1 we get
T 2n = (T n)2 = T n2 ≤ T n+1 T n−1 = T n+1 T n−1.
Therefore, as T n ≤ T n for every n ≥ 1, and since T = O,
T n+1 = T 2n(T n−1 )−1 ≤ T n+1 ≤ T n+1.

16 1. Preliminaries
Hence T n+1 = T n+1 . Then the claimed result holds for n + 1 whenever
it holds for n, which concludes the proof of Claim 2 by induction.
Therefore, T n = T n for every integer n ≥ 1 by Claim 2, and so T is nor-
maloid by Theorem 1.11.
Since T ∗n = T n for each n ≥ 1, it follows that r(T ∗ ) = r(T ). Thus an

operator T is normaloid if and only if its adjoint T ∗ is normaloid, and so (by
Theorem 1.12) every seminormal operator is normaloid. In particular, every
normal operator is normaloid . Summing up: an operator T is normal if it
commutes with its adjoint (i.e., T T ∗ = T ∗ T ), hyponormal if T T ∗ ≤ T ∗ T , and
normaloid if r(T ) = T . These classes are related by proper inclusion:
Normal ⊂ Hyponormal ⊂ Normaloid.
1.7 Orthogonal Eigenspaces

Let I denote the identity operator on a Hilbert space H. A scalar operator
on H is a scalar multiple of the identity, say λI for any scalar λ in C . Take
an arbitrary operator T on H. For every scalar λ in C consider the kernel
N (λI − T ), which is a (closed) subspace of H (since T is bounded). If this
kernel is not zero, then it is called an eigenspace of T .
Lemma 1.13. Take T ∈ B[H] and λ ∈ C arbitrary.

(a) If T is hyponormal, then N (λI − T ) ⊆ N (λI − T ∗ ).
(b) If T is normal, then N (λI − T ) = N (λI − T ∗ ).
Proof. Take any operator T ∈ B[H] and any scalar λ ∈ C . Observe that
(λI − T )∗ (λI − T ) − (λI − T )(λI − T )∗ = T ∗ T − T T ∗ .
Thus λI − T is hyponormal (normal) if and only if T is hyponormal (normal).

Therefore, if T is hyponormal, then so is λI − T , and hence
(λI − T ∗ )x ≤ (λI − T )x for every x ∈ H and every λ ∈ C
by Theorem 1.7, which yields the inclusion in (a). If T is normal, then the
preceding inequality becomes an identity, yielding the identity in (b).
Lemma 1.14. Take T ∈ B[H] and λ ∈ C . If N (λI − T ) ⊆ N (λI − T ∗ ), then

(a) N (λI − T ) ⊥ N (νI − T ) whenever ν = λ, and
(b) N (λI − T ) reduces T .
1.8 Compact Operators 17
Proof. (a) Take x ∈ N (λI − T ) and y ∈ N (νI − T ) arbitrary. Thus λx = T x

and ν y = T y. If N (λI − T ) ⊆ N (λI − T ∗ ), then x ∈ N (λI − T ∗ ), and so
λx = T ∗ x. Then ν y ; x = T y ; x = y ; T ∗x = y ; λx = λy ; x, and
hence (ν − λ)y ; x = 0, which implies that y ; x = 0 whenever ν = λ. (b) If
x ∈ N (λI − T ) ⊆ N (λI − T ∗ ), then T x = λx and T ∗ x = λx, and so λT ∗ x =
λλx = λλx = λT x = T λx = T T ∗x, which implies that T ∗ x ∈ N (λI − T ).
Thus N (λI − T ) is T ∗-invariant. But N (λI − T ) is T -invariant (if T x = λx,
then T (T x) = λ(T x)). Therefore N (λI − T ) reduces T by Lemma 1.6.
Lemma 1.15. If T ∈ B[H] is hyponormal, then

(a) N (λI − T ) ⊥ N (νI − T ) for every λ, ν ∈ C such that λ = ν, and
(b) N (λI − T ) reduces T for every λ ∈ C .
Proof. Apply Lemma 1.13(a) to Lemma 1.14.
Theorem 1.16. If {λγ }γ∈Γ is a (nonempty) family of distinct complex num-

bers, and if T ∈ B[H] is hyponormal, then the topological sum

−
M= N (λγ I − T )
γ∈Γ
reduces T , and the restriction of T to it, T |M ∈ B[M], is normal .

Proof. For each γ ∈ Γ = ∅ write Nγ = N (λγ I − T ), which is a T -invariant
subspace of H. Thus T |Nγ lies in B[Nγ ] and coincides with the scalar opera-
tor λγ I on Nγ . By Lemma 1.15(a), {Nγ }γ∈Γ isa family of pairwise orthog-
−
onal subspaces of H. Take an arbitrary x∈ γ∈Γ Nγ . The Orthogonal
Structure Theorem says that x = γ∈Γ uγ with each uγ in Nγ . Moreover,
for each γ ∈ Γ , T uγ and T ∗ uγ lie in Nγ because Nγ reduces T (Lemmas
∗
1.6 and1.15(b)). Thus, since T−and T ∗are linear
and continuous,
we get

T x = γ∈Γ T uγ in N and T x = T ∗
u in Nγ −.
− γ∈Γ γ γ∈Γ γ γ∈Γ
Then γ∈Γ Nγ reduces T (Lemma 1.6). Finally, since {Nγ }γ∈Γ is a fam-
ily of orthogonal subspaces, it follows by the Orthogonal Structure Theorem
we may identify the topological sum M with the orthogonal direct sum
that
γ∈Γ Nγ (cf. Lemma 1.15(a)), where each Nγ reduces T |M (it reduces T by
Lemma
1.15(b)), and so T |M is identified with the direct sum of operators
γ∈Γ T |Nγ , which is normal because each T |Nγ is normal.
1.8 Compact Operators

A set A in a metric space is compact if every open covering of it has a fi-
nite subcovering. It is sequentially compact if every A-valued sequence has a
subsequence that converges in A. It is totally bounded if for every ε > 0 there
exists a finite partition of it into sets of diameter less than ε. The Compact-
ness Theorem says that a set in metric space is compact if and only if it is
18 1. Preliminaries
sequentially compact, if and only if it is complete and totally bounded . Recall

that every compact set is closed, and every totally bounded set is bounded.
On a finite-dimensional normed space a set is compact if and only if it is
closed and bounded. This is the Heine–Borel Theorem.
Let X and Y be normed spaces. A linear transformation T : X → Y is com-
pact (or completely continuous) if it maps bounded subsets of X into relatively
compact subsets of Y. That is, T is compact if T (A)− is compact in Y when-
ever A is bounded in X ; equivalently, if T (A) lies in a compact subset of Y
whenever A is bounded in X . Every linear compact transformation is bounded,
thus continuous. Every linear transformation on a finite-dimensional space is
compact . Let B∞[X , Y ] denote the collection of all compact linear transforma-
tions of a normed space X into a normed space Y so that B∞[X , Y ] ⊆ B[X , Y ]
(and B∞[X , Y ] = B[X , Y ] whenever X is finite dimensional). In fact, B∞[X , Y ]
is a linear manifold of B[X , Y ], which is closed in B[X , Y ] if Y is a Banach
space. Set B∞[X ] = B∞[X , X ] for short, the collection of all compact opera-
tors on a normed space X . B∞[X ] is an ideal (i.e., a two-sided ideal) of the
normed algebra B[X ]. That is, B∞[X ] is a subalgebra of B[X ] such that the
product of a compact operator with a bounded operator is again compact.
We assume that the compact operators act on a complex nonzero Hilbert
space H, although the theory for compact operators equally applies (and is
usually developed) for operators on Banach spaces. The theorem below says
that R(λI − T ) is a subspace of H if T is compact and λ is nonzero, and the
next one says that λI − T is invertible whenever it is injective.
Theorem 1.17. If T ∈ B∞[H] and λ ∈ C \{0}, then R(λI − T ) is closed .

Proof. Let M be a subspace of a complex Banach space X . Take any compact
transformation K in B∞[M, X ]. Let I be the identity on M, let λ be a nonzero
complex number, and consider the operator λI − K in B[M, X ].
Claim. If N (λI − K) = {0}, then R(λI − K) is closed in X .
Proof. Suppose N (λI − K) = {0}. If R(λI − K) is not closed in X , then
λI − K is not bounded below (Theorem 1.2) so that for every ε > 0 there
is a nonzero vector xε ∈ M such that (λI − K)xε < εxε . Thus there is a
sequence {xn } of unit vectors (xn = 1) in M for which (λI − K)xn → 0.
Since K is compact and {xn } is bounded, Proposition 1.S ensures that {Kxn }
has a convergent subsequence, say {Kxk }, so that Kxk → y ∈ X . However,
λxk − y = λxk − Kxk + Kxk − y ≤ (λI − K)xk + Kxk − y → 0,
and so the M-valued sequence {λxk } converges in X to y. Then y ∈ M (be-
cause M is closed in X ). Thus, since y is in the domain of K, it follows
that y ∈ N (λI − K) (because K is continuous, and so Ky = K limk λxk =
λ limk Kxk = λy). Moreover, y = 0 (because 0 = |λ| = λxk → y). Hence
N (λI − K) = {0}, which is a contradiction. Therefore, R(λI − K) is closed
in X , which completes the proof of the claimed result.
1.8 Compact Operators 19
Take T ∈ B[H]. The restriction (λI − T )|N (λI−T )⊥ of λI − T to N (λI − T )⊥

lies in B[N (λI − T )⊥ , H], which is injective (since N (λI − T )|N (λI−T )⊥ =
{0}) and coincides with λI − T |N (λI−T )⊥ . If T is compact, then so is the re-
striction T |N (λI−T )⊥ in B[N (λI − T )⊥ , H] (Proposition 1.V). Thus the above
claim says that (λI − T )|N (λI−T )⊥ = λI − T |N (λI−T )⊥ (where I in the right-
⊥
hand side denotes
N (λI − T ) ) has a closed range for all
the identity on
λ = 0. But R (λI − T )|N (λI−T )⊥ = R(λI − T ).
Theorem 1.18. If T ∈ B∞[H], λ ∈ C \{0}, and N (λI − T ) = {0}, then

R(λI − T ) = H.
Proof. Take any operator T ∈ B[H] and any scalar λ ∈ C . Consider the se-
quence {Mn }∞n=0 of linear manifolds of H recursively defined by
Mn+1 = (λI − T )(Mn ) for every n ≥ 0, with M0 = H.
It can be verified by induction that
Mn+1 ⊆ Mn for every n ≥ 0.
Indeed, M1 = R(λI − T ) ⊆ H = M0 and, if the above inclusion holds for

some n ≥ 0, then Mn+2 = (λI − T )(Mn+1 ) ⊆ (λI − T )(Mn ) = Mn+1 , which
concludes the induction. Suppose T ∈ B∞[H] and λ = 0 so that λI − T has a
closed range (Theorem 1.17). If N (λI − T ) = {0}, then λI − T has a bounded
inverse on its range (Theorem 1.2). Since (λI − T )−1 : R(λI − T ) → H is con-
tinuous, λI − T sends closed sets into closed sets. (A map between metric
spaces is continuous if and only if the inverse image of closed sets is closed .)
Hence, since M0 is closed, another induction ensures that
{Mn }∞
n=0 is a decreasing sequence of subspaces of H.
Now suppose that R(λI − T ) = H. If Mn+1 = Mn for some n, then (since

M0 = H = R(λI − T ) = M1 ) there exists an integer k ≥ 1 such that Mk+1 =
Mk = Mk−1 , which leads to a contradiction, namely, if Mk+1 = Mk , then
(λI − T )(Mk ) = Mk so that Mk = (λI − T )−1 (Mk ) = Mk−1 . Outcome:
Mn+1 is properly included in Mn for each n; that is,
Mn+1 ⊂ Mn for every n ≥ 0.
Hence each Mn+1 is a nonzero proper subspace of the Hilbert space Mn .

Then each Mn+1 has a nonzero complementary subspace in Mn , namely
Mn Mn+1 ⊂ Mn . Therefore, for each integer n ≥ 0 there is an xn ∈ Mn
with xn = 1 such that 12 < inf u∈Mn+1 xn − u. Thus take any pair of in-
tegers 0 ≤ m < n, and set

x = xn + λ−1 (λI − T )xm − (λI − T )xn
(recall: λ = 0) so that T xn − T xm = λ(x − xm ). Since x lies in Mm+1 ,

20 1. Preliminaries
1
2 |λ| < |λ|x − xm = T xn − T xm ,
and the sequence {T xn } has no convergent subsequence (every subsequence

of it is not Cauchy). Since {xn } is bounded, it follows that T is not compact
(cf. Proposition 1.S), which is a contradiction. Thus R(λI − T ) = H.
Theorem 1.19. If T ∈ B∞[H] and λ ∈ C \{0} (i.e., if T is compact and λ

is nonzero), then dim N (λI − T ) = dim N (λI − T ∗ ) < ∞.
Proof. Take an arbitrary compact operator T ∈ B∞[H] and any nonzero
scalar λ ∈ C . Theorem 1.17 says that R(λI − T ∗ ) = R(λI − T ∗ )−, and so
R(λI − T ∗ ) = R(λI − T ∗ )− by Lemma 1.5. Thus (cf. Lemma 1.4),
N (λI − T ) = {0} if and only if R(λI − T ∗ ) = H,

N (λI − T ∗ ) = {0} if and only if R(λI − T ) = H.
Since T, T ∗ ∈ B∞[H] (cf. Proposition 1.W), we get by Theorem 1.18 that
N (λI − T ) = {0} implies R(λI − T ) = H,

N (λI − T ∗ ) = {0} implies R(λI − T ∗ ) = H.
Hence, N (λI − T ) = {0} if and only if N (λI − T ∗ ) = {0}. Equivalently,
dim N (λI − T ) = 0 if and only if dim N (λI − T ∗ ) = 0.
Now suppose dim N (λI − T ) = 0, and so dim N (λI − T ∗ ) = 0. Recall that

N (λI − T ) = {0} is an invariant subspace for T (Proposition 1.F), and that
T |N (λI−T ) = λI in B[N (λI − T )]. If T is compact, then so is T |N (λI−T )
(Proposition 1.V). Then λI = O is compact on N (λI − T ) = {0}, and hence
dim N (λI − T ) < ∞ (Proposition 1.Y). Dually, since T ∗ is compact, we get
dim N (λI − T ∗ ) < ∞. Thus there are positive integers m and n such that
dim N (λI − T ) = m and dim N (λI − T ∗ ) = n.
We show next that m = n. Let {ei }mi=1 and {fi }i=1 be orthonormal bases for
n
∗
the Hilbert spaces N (λI − T ) and N (λI − T ). Set k = min{m, n} ≥ 1 and
consider the mappings S : H → H and S ∗ : H → H defined by
k k
Sx = x ; ei fi and S∗x = x ; fi ei
i=1 i=1
for every x ∈ H. It is clear that S and S ∗ lie in B[H], and also that S ∗ is the
adjoint of S; that is, Sx ; y = x ; S ∗ y for every x, y ∈ H. Actually,

R(S) ⊆ {fi }ki=1 ⊆ N (λI − T ∗ ) and R(S ∗ ) ⊆ {ei }ki=1 ⊆ N (λI − T )
so that S and S ∗ in B[H] are finite-rank operators, thus compact (i.e., they
lie in B∞[H]), and hence T + S and T ∗ + S ∗ also lie in B∞[H] (since this is a
1.9 Additional Propositions 21
subspace of B[H]). First suppose that m ≤ n (which implies that k = m). If

x lies in N (λI − (T + S)), then (λI − T )x = Sx. But R(S) ⊆ N (λI − T ∗ ) =
R(λI − T )⊥ (Lemma 1.4), and hence (λI − T )x = Sx = 0 (since mSx lies
in R(λI − T )). Then x ∈ N (λI − T ) = span{ei }m i=1 so that x
m i=1 αi ei
=
(for some family of scalars {αi }m ), and therefore 0 = Sx = j=1 αj Sej =
m m m i=1
j=1 αj i=1 ej ; ei fi = i=1 αi fi , so that αi = 0 for every i = 1, . . . , m —
{fi }m
i=1 is an orthonormal set, thus linearly independent. That is, x = 0. Then
N (λI − (T + S)) = {0} and so, by Theorem 1.18,
m≤n implies R(λI − (T + S)) = H.
Dually, using exactly the same argument,
n≤m implies R(λI − (T ∗ + S ∗ )) = H.
If m < n, then k = m < m + 1 ≤ n and fm+1 ∈ R(λI − (T + S)) = H so that
there exists v ∈ H for which (λI − (T + S))v = fm+1 . Hence
1 = fm+1 ; fm+1 = (λI − (T + S))v ; fm+1
= (λI − T )v ; fm+1 − Sv ; fm+1 = 0,
which is a contradiction. Indeed, (λI − T )v ; fm+1 = Sv ; fm+1 = 0 since
fm+1 ∈ N (λI − T ∗ ) = R(λI − T )⊥ and Sv ∈ R(S) ⊆ span{fi }m i=1 . If n < m,
then k = n < n + 1 ≤ m, and en+1 ∈ R(λI − (T ∗ + S ∗ )) = H so that there
exists u ∈ H for which (λI − (T ∗ + S ∗ ))u = en+1 . Hence
1 = em+1 ; em+1 = (λI − (T ∗ + S ∗ ))u ; en+1
= (λI − T ∗ )u ; en+1 − S ∗ u ; en+1 = 0,
which is again a contradiction (because en+1 ∈ N (λI − T ) = R(λI − T ∗ )⊥
and S ∗ u ∈ R(S ∗ ) ⊆ span{ei }ni=1 ). Therefore, m = n.
Together, the results of Theorems 1.17 and 1.19 are referred to as the
Fredholm Alternative, which is stated below.
Corollary 1.20. (Fredholm Alternative). If T ∈ B∞[H] and λ ∈ C \{0},

then R(λI − T ) is closed and dim N (λI − T ) = dim N (λI − T ∗ ) < ∞.
1.9 Additional Propositions

Let X be a complex linear space. f : X ×X → C is a sesquilinear form if it is
additive in both arguments, homogeneous in the first argument, and conjugate
homogeneous in the second argument. A Hermitian symmetric sesquilinear
form that induces a positive quadratic form is an inner product.
Proposition 1.A. (Polarization Identities). If f : X × X → C is a sesqui-

linear form on a complex linear space X , then, for every x, y ∈ X ,
22 1. Preliminaries
1

(a1 ) f (x, y) = 4 f (x + y, x + y) − f (x − y, x − y)

+ i f (x + iy, x + iy) − i f (x − iy, x − iy) .
If X is a complex inner product space and S, T ∈ B[X ], then, for x, y ∈ X ,

(a2 ) Sx ; T y = 14 S(x + y) ; T (x + y) − S(x − y) ; T (x − y)

+ iS(x + iy) ; T (x + iy) − iS(x − iy) ; T (x − iy) .
(Parallelogram Law). If X is an inner product space and · is the norm

generated by the inner product, then, for every x, y ∈ X ,

(b) x + y2 + x − y2 = 2 x2 + y2 .
Proposition 1.B. A linear manifold of a Banach space is a Banach space if

and only if it is a subspace. A linear transformation is bounded if and only
if it maps bounded sets into bounded sets. If X and Y are nonzero normed
spaces, then B[X , Y ] is a Banach space if and only if Y is a Banach space.
Recall that the sum of two subspaces of a Hilbert space may not be a
subspace (i.e., the sum may not be closed if the subspaces are not orthogonal).
Proposition 1.C. If M and N are subspaces of a normed space X , and if

dim N < ∞, then the sum M + N is a subspace of X .
Every subspace of a Hilbert has a complementary subspace (e.g., its or-
thogonal complement). However, this is not true for every Banach space.
Proposition 1.D. If M and N are complementary subspaces of a Banach

space X , then the unique projection E : X → X with R(E) = M and N (E) =
N is continuous. Conversely, if E ∈ B[X ] is a projection, then R(E) and
N (E) are complementary subspaces of X .
Proposition 1.E. Let X be a normed space. The subspaces N (T ) and R(T )−

are invariant for any operator T ∈ B[X ]. Take another operator S ∈ B[X ]. If
S and T commute, then the subspaces N (S), N (T ), R(S)−, and R(T )− are
invariant for both S and T .
Proposition 1.F. If T is an operator on a normed space, then N (p(T )) and

R(p(T ))− are T -invariant subspaces for every polynomial p(T ) of T — in
particular, N (λI − T ) and R(λI − T )− are T -invariant for every λ ∈ C .
Proposition 1.G. Let M be a linear manifold of a normed space X , let Y

be Banach space, and take T ∈ B[M, Y].
(a) There exists a unique extension T ∈ B[M−, Y] of T ∈ B[M, Y] over the
closure of M. Moreover T = T .
(b) If X is a Hilbert space, then TE ∈ B[X , Y] is a (bounded linear ) extension

of T ∈ B[M, Y] over the whole space X , where E ∈ B[X ] is the orthogonal
projection on the subspace M− of X so that TE ≤ T .
Proposition 1.H. Let M and N be subspaces of a Hilbert space.

(a) M⊥ ∩ N ⊥ = (M + N )⊥.

(b) dim N < ∞ =⇒ dim N (M ∩ N ) = dim M⊥ (M + N )⊥ .
Proposition 1.I. A subspace M of a Hilbert space H is invariant (or reduc-

ing) for a nonzero T ∈ B[H] if and only if the unique orthogonal projection
E ∈ B[H] with R(E) = M is such that E T E = T E (or T E = E T ).
Take T ∈ B[H] and S ∈ B[K] on Hilbert spaces H and K, and X ∈ B[H, K]
of H into K. If X T = SX, then X intertwines T to S (or T is intertwined to
S through X). If there is an X with dense range intertwining T to S, then T
is densely intertwined to S. If X has dense range and is injective, then it is
quasiinvertible (or a quasiaffinity). If a quasiinvertible X intertwines T to S,
then T is a quasiaffine transform of S. If T is a quasiaffine transform of S and S
is a quasiaffine transform of T , then T and S are quasisimilar . If an invertible
X (with a bounded inverse) intertwines T to S (so that X −1 intertwines
S to T ), then T and S are similar (or equivalent ). Unitary equivalence is
the special case of similarity through a (surjective) isometry: operators T
and S are unitarily equivalent (notation: T ∼ = S) if there exists a unitary
transformation X intertwining them.
A linear manifold (or a subspace) of normed space X is hyperinvariant
for an operator T ∈ B[X ] if it is invariant for every operator in B[X ] that
commutes with T . Obviously, hyperinvariant subspaces are invariant.
Proposition 1.J. Similarity preserves invariant subspaces (if two operators

are similar, and if one has a nontrivial invariant subspace, then so has the
other ), and quasisimilarity preserves hyperinvariant subspaces (if two oper-
ators are quasisimilar, and if one has a nontrivial hyperinvariant subspace,
then so has the other ).
Proposition 1.K. If {Ek } is an orthogonal sequence of orthogonal projections

n s
on a Hilbert space H, then
k=1 Ek −→ −E, where E ∈ B[H] is the orthogonal
projection with R(E) = k∈N R(E k ) .
Proposition 1.L. A bounded linear transformation between Hilbert spaces is

invertible if and only if its adjoint is (i.e., T ∈ G[H, K] ⇐⇒ T ∗ ∈ G[K, H]).
Moreover , (T ∗ )−1 = (T −1 )∗ .
Proposition 1.M. Every nonnegative operator Q ∈ B[H] on a Hilbert space

1 1
H has a unique nonnegative square root Q 2 ∈ B[H] (i.e., (Q 2 )2 = Q), which
commutes with every operator in B[H] that commutes with Q.
24 1. Preliminaries
Proposition 1.N. Every T ∈ B[H, K] between Hilbert spaces H and K has a

unique polar decomposition T = W |T |, where W ∈ B[H, K] is a partial isom-
1
etry (i.e., W |N (W )⊥ : N (W )⊥ → K is an isometry) and |T | = (T ∗ T ) 2 .
Proposition 1.O. Every operator T ∈ B[H] on a complex Hilbert space H

has a unique Cartesian decomposition T = A + iB, where A = 12 (T + T ∗ )
and B = − 2i (T − T ∗) are self-adjoint operators on H. Moreover, T is normal
if and only if A and B commute and, in this case, T ∗ T = A2 + B 2 and
max{A2 , B2 } ≤ T 2 ≤ A2 + B2 .
Proposition 1.P. The restriction T |M of a hyponormal operator T to an

invariant subspace M is hyponormal. If T |M is normal, then M reduces T.
Proposition 1.Q. The restriction T |M of a normal operator T to an invari-

ant subspace M is normal if and only if M reduces T .
Proposition 1.R. A transformation U between Hilbert spaces is unitary if

and only if it is an invertible contraction whose inverse also is a contraction
(U ≤ 1 and U −1 ≤ 1), which happens if and only if U = U −1 = 1.
Proposition 1.S. A linear transformation between normed spaces is compact

if and only if it maps bounded sequences into sequences that have a convergent
subsequence.
Proposition 1.T. A linear transformation of a normed space into a Banach

space is compact if and only if it maps bounded sets into totally bounded sets.
Proposition 1.U. A linear transformation of a Hilbert space into a normed

space is compact if and only if it maps weakly convergent sequences into
strongly convergent sequences.
Proposition 1.V. The restriction of a compact linear transformation to a

linear manifold is again a compact linear transformation.
Proposition 1.W. A linear transformation between Hilbert spaces is compact

if and only if its adjoint is (i.e., T ∈ B∞[H, K] ⇐⇒ T ∗ ∈ B∞[K, H]).
Proposition 1.X. A finite-rank (i.e., one with a finite-dimensional range)

bounded linear transformation between normed spaces is compact .
Proposition 1.Y. The identity I on a normed space X is compact if and

only if dim(X ) < ∞. Hence, if T ∈ B∞[X ] is invertible, then dim(X ) < ∞.
Proposition 1.Z. If a sequence of finite-rank bounded linear transformations

between Banach spaces converges uniformly, then its limit is compact .
Notes: These are standard results that will be required in the sequel. Proofs
can be found in many texts on operator theory (see Suggested Reading). For
instance, Proposition 1.A can be found in [66, Propositions 5.4 and Problem
5.3], and Proposition 1.B in [66, Propositions 4.7, 4.12, 4.15, and Example 4.P].
Proposition 1.C can be found in [27, Proposition III.4.3] (for a Hilbert space
proof see [50, Problem 13]), and Proposition 1.D in [27, Theorem III.13.2] or
[66, Problem 4.35]. For Propositions 1.E and 1.F see [66, Problems 4.20 and
4.22]. Proposition 1.G(a) is referred to as extension by continuity; see, e.g.,
[66, Theorem 4.35]. It implies Proposition 1.G(b): an orthogonal projection is
continuous, and T = TE|R(E) ∈ B[M−, H] is a restriction of TE ∈ B[X , H] to
R(E) = M−. Proposition 1.H will be needed in Theorem 5.4. For Proposition
1.H(a) see [66, Problems 5.8]. A proof of Proposition 1.H(b) goes as follows.
Proof of Proposition 1.H(b). Since (M ∩ N ) ⊥ (M⊥ ∩ N ), consider the or-
thogonal projection E ∈ B[H] on M⊥ ∩ N (i.e., R(E) = M⊥ ∩ N ) along
M ∩ N (i.e., N (E) = M ∩ N ). Let L: N (M ∩ N ) → M⊥ ∩ N be the re-
striction of E to N (M ∩ N ). It is clear that L = E|N (M∩N ) is linear, in-
jective (N (L) = {0}), and surjective (R(L) = R(E) = M⊥ ∩ N ). Therefore,
N (M ∩ N ) is isomorphic to M⊥ ∩ N . Since M is closed and N is finite
dimensional, M + N is closed (even if M and N are not orthogonal — cf.
Proposition 1.C). Then (Projection Theorem) H = (M + N )⊥ ⊕ (M + N ) and
M⊥ = (M+N )⊥ ⊕[M⊥ (M+N )⊥ ], and hence M⊥ (M + N )⊥ coincides
with M⊥ ∩ (M + N ) = M⊥ ∩ N . Therefore, N (M ∩ N ) is isomorphic to
M⊥ (M + N )⊥, and so they have the same dimension.
For Proposition 1.I see, e.g., [63, Solutions 4.1 and 4.6], and for Proposition 1.J
see, e.g., [62, Corollaries 4.2 and 4.8]. By the way, does quasisimilarity preserve
nontrivial invariant subspaces? (See, e.g., [76, p. 194].) As for Propositions 1.K
and 1.L see [66, Propositions 5.28 and p. 385]). Propositions 1.M, 1.N, and 1.O
are the classical Square Root Theorem, the Polar Decomposition Theorem,
and the Cartesian Decomposition Theorem (see, e.g., [66, Theorems 5.85
and 5.89, and Problem 5.46]). Propositions 1.P, 1.Q, 1.R can be found in
[66, Problems 6.16 and 6.17, and Theorem 5.73]. Propositions 1.S, 1.T, 1.U,
1.V, 1.W, 1.X, 1.Y, and 1.Z are all related to compact operators (see, e.g.,
[66, Theorem 4.52(d,e), Problem 4.51, p. 258, Problem 5.41, Proposition 4.50,
Remark to Theorem 4.52, Corollary 4.55]).
Suggested Reading
Akhiezer and Glazman [3, 4] Fillmore [42]

Beals [12] Halmos [47, 48, 50]
Berberian [17, 18] Harte [52]
Brown and Pearcy [21, 22] Istrǎţescu [58]
Conway [27, 28, 29] Kubrusly [62, 63, 66]
Douglas [34] Radjavi and Rosenthal [76]
Dunford and Schwartz [39] Weidmann [89]
This page intentionally left blank
2
Spectrum
Let T : D(T ) → X be a linear transformation, where X is a nonzero normed

space and D(T ), the domain of T , is a linear manifold of X . The general
notion of spectrum, which applies to bounded or unbounded transformations,
goes as follows. Let F denote either the real field R or the complex field C ,
and let I be the identity on X . The resolvent set ρ(T ) of T is the set of all
scalars λ in F for which the linear transformation λI − T : D(T ) → X has a
densely defined continuous inverse. That is,

ρ(T ) = λ ∈ F : (λI − T )−1 ∈ B[R(λI − T ), D(T )] and R(λI − T )− = X
(see, e.g., [8, Definition 18.2] — there are different definitions of the resol-
vent set for unbounded linear transformations, but they all coincide for the
bounded case). The spectrum σ(T ) of T is the complement of set ρ(T ) in F .
We shall however restrict the theory to operators on a complex Banach space
(i.e., to bounded linear transformations of a complex Banach space to itself).
2.1 Basic Spectral Properties

Throughout this chapter T : X → X will be a bounded linear transformation
of X into itself (i.e, an operator on X ), so that D(T ) = X , where X = {0} is
a complex Banach space. That is, T ∈ B[X ], where X is a nonzero complex
Banach space. In such a case (i.e., in the unital complex Banach algebra B[X ]),
Theorem 1.2 ensures that the resolvent set ρ(T ) is precisely the set of all
complex numbers λ for which λI − T ∈ B[X ] is invertible (i.e., has a bounded
inverse on X ). Therefore (cf. Theorem 1.1),

ρ(T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ G[X ]

= λ ∈ C : λI − T has an inverse in B[X ]

= λ ∈ C : N (λI − T ) = {0} and R(λI − T ) = X ,
and so

σ(T ) = C \ ρ(T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T has no inverse in B[X ]

= λ ∈ C : N (λI − T ) = {0} or R(λI − T ) = X .

28 2. Spectrum
Theorem 2.1. The resolvent set ρ(T ) is nonempty and open, and the spec-
trum σ(T ) is compact .
Proof. Take any T ∈ B[X ]. By the Neumann expansion (Theorem 1.3), if
T < |λ|, then λ ∈ ρ(T ). Equivalently, since σ(T ) = C \ρ(T ),
|λ| ≤ T for every λ ∈ σ(T ).
Thus σ(T ) is bounded, and therefore ρ(T ) = ∅.

Claim. If λ ∈ ρ(T ), then the open ball Bδ (λ) with center at λ and (positive)
radius δ = (λI − T )−1 −1 is included in ρ(T ).
Proof. If λ ∈ ρ(T ), then λI − T ∈ G[X ] so that (λI − T )−1 is nonzero and
bounded, and hence 0 < (λI − T )−1 −1 < ∞. Set δ = (λI − T )−1 −1 , let
Bδ (0) be the nonempty open ball of radius δ about the origin of the complex
plane C , and take any ν in Bδ (0). Since |ν| < (λI − T )−1 −1 , it follows that
ν(λI − T )−1 < 1. Then [I − ν(λI − T )−1 ] ∈ G[X ] by Theorem 1.3, and so
(λ − ν)I − T = (λI − T )[I − ν(λI − T )−1 ] ∈ G[X ]. Thus λ − ν ∈ ρ(T ) so that

Bδ (λ) = Bδ (0) + λ = ν ∈ C : ν = ν + λ for some ν ∈ Bδ (0) ⊆ ρ(T ),
which completes the proof of the claimed result.

Thus ρ(T ) is open (it includes a nonempty open ball centered at each of its
points) and so σ(T ) is closed. Compact in C means closed and bounded.
Remark. Since Bδ (λ) ⊆ ρ(T ), it follows that the distance of any λ in ρ(T ) to
the spectrum σ(T ) is greater than δ; that is (compare with Proposition 2.E),
λ ∈ ρ(T ) implies (λI − T )−1 −1 ≤ d(λ, σ(T )).
The resolvent function RT : ρ(T ) → G[X ] of an operator T ∈ B[X ] is the

mapping of the resolvent set ρ(T ) of T into the group G[X ] of all invertible
operators from B[X ] defined by
RT (λ) = (λI − T )−1 for every λ ∈ ρ(T ).
Since RT (λ) − RT (ν) = RT (λ)[RT (ν)−1 − RT (λ)−1 ]RT (ν), it follows that
RT (λ) − RT (ν) = (ν − λ)RT (λ)RT (ν)
for every λ, ν ∈ ρ(T ) (because RT (ν)−1 − RT (λ)−1 = (ν − λ)I). This is the

resolvent identity. Swapping λ and ν in the resolvent identity, it follows that
RT (λ) and RT (ν) commute for every λ, ν ∈ ρ(T ). Also, T RT (λ) = RT (λ)T
for every λ ∈ ρ(T ) (since RT (λ)−1 RT (λ) = RT (λ)RT (λ)−1 trivially).
Let Λ be a nonempty open subset of the complex plane C . Take a func-
tion f : Λ → C and a point ν ∈ Λ. Suppose there exists a complex number
2.1 Basic Spectral Properties 29
f (ν) with the following property. For every ε > 0 there is a δ > 0 such that
f (λ)−f (ν)
− f (ν) < ε for all λ in Λ for which 0 < |λ − ν| < δ. If there exists
λ−ν
such an f (ν) ∈ C , then it is called the derivative of f at ν. If f (ν) exists for
every ν in Λ, then f : Λ → C is analytic (or holomorphic) on Λ. A function
f : C → C is entire if it is analytic on the whole complex plane C . To prove the
next result we need the Liouville Theorem, which says that every bounded
entire function is constant.
Theorem 2.2. If X is nonzero, then the spectrum σ(T ) is nonempty.

Proof. Let T ∈ B[X ] be an operator on a nonzero complex Banach space X ,
∗ ∗
and let B[X ] stand for the dual of B[X ]. That is, B[X ] = B[B[X ], C ] is the
Banach space of all bounded linear functionals on B[X ]. Since X = {0}, it
∗
follows that B[X ] = {O}, and so B[X ] = {0}, which is a consequence of the
Hahn–Banach Theorem (see, e.g., [66, Corollary 4.64]). Take any nonzero η in
∗
B[X ] (i.e., a nonzero bounded linear functional η : B[X ] → C ), and consider
the composition of it with the resolvent function, η ◦ RT : ρ(T ) → C . Recall
that ρ(T ) = C \σ(T ) is nonempty and open in C .
Claim 1. If σ(T ) is empty, then η ◦ RT : ρ(T ) → C is bounded.
Proof. The resolvent function RT : ρ(T ) → G[X ] is continuous (since scalar
multiplication and addition are continuous mappings, and inversion is also a
continuous mapping; see, e.g., [66, Problem 4.48]). Thus RT (·): ρ(T ) → R
is continuous. Then sup|λ|≤T RT (λ) < ∞ if σ(T ) = ∅. Indeed, if σ(T ) is
empty, then ρ(T ) ∩ BT [0] = BT [0] = {λ ∈ C : |λ| ≤ T } is a compact set
in C , so that the continuous function RT (·) attains its maximum on it by
the Weierstrass Theorem: a continuous real-valued function attains its max-
imum and minimum on any compact set in a metric space. On the other hand,
if T < |λ|, then RT (λ) ≤ (|λ| − T )−1 (cf. Remark that follows Theorem
1.3), so that RT (λ) → 0 as |λ| → ∞. Thus, since RT (·): ρ(T ) → R is con-
tinuous, supT ≤λ RT (λ) < ∞. Hence supλ∈ρ(T ) RT (λ) < ∞, and so
sup (η ◦ RT )(λ) ≤ η sup RT (λ) < ∞,
λ∈ρ(T ) λ∈ρ(T )
which completes the proof of Claim 1.

Claim 2. η ◦ RT : ρ(T ) → C is analytic.
Proof. If λ and ν are distinct points in ρ(T ), then
RT (λ) − RT (ν)
+ RT (ν)2 = RT (ν) − RT (λ) RT (ν)
λ−ν
by the resolvent identity. Set f = η ◦ RT : ρ(T ) → C . Let f : ρ(T ) → C be
defined by f (λ) = −η(RT (λ)2 ) for each λ ∈ ρ(T ). Therefore,
f (λ) − f (ν)

− f (ν) = η RT (ν) − RT (λ) RT (ν)
λ−ν
≤ ηRT (ν)RT (ν) − RT (λ)
30 2. Spectrum
so that f : ρ(T ) → C is analytic because RT : ρ(T ) → G[X ] is continuous, which

completes the proof of Claim 2.
Thus, by Claims 1 and 2, if σ(T ) = ∅ (i.e., if ρ(T ) = C ), then η ◦ RT : C → C
is a bounded entire function, and so a constant function by the Liouville
Theorem. But (see proof of Claim 1) RT (λ) → 0 as |λ| → ∞, and hence
η(RT (λ)) → 0 as |λ| → ∞ (since η is continuous). Then η ◦ RT = 0 for all η
∗
in B[H] = {0} so that RT = O (by the Hahn–Banach Theorem). That is,
(λI − T )−1 = O for λ ∈ C , which is a contradiction. Thus σ(T ) = ∅.
Remark. σ(T ) is compact and nonempty, and so is its boundary ∂σ(T ). Hence,
∂σ(T ) = ∂ρ(T ) = ∅.
2.2 A Classical Partition of the Spectrum

The spectrum σ(T ) of an operator T in B[X ] is the set of all scalars λ in C
for which the operator λI − T fails to be an invertible element of the algebra
B[X ] (i.e., fails to have a bounded inverse on R(λI − T ) = X ). According to
the nature of such a failure, σ(T ) can be split into many disjoint parts. A
classical partition comprises three parts. The set σP (T ) of those λ for which
λI − T has no inverse (i.e., such that the operator λI − T is not injective) is
the point spectrum of T ,

σP (T ) = λ ∈ C : N (λI − T ) = {0} .
A scalar λ ∈ C is an eigenvalue of T if there exists a nonzero vector x in X

such that T x = λx. Equivalently, λ is an eigenvalue of T if N (λI − T ) = {0}.
If λ ∈ C is an eigenvalue of T , then the nonzero vectors in N (λI − T ) are
the eigenvectors of T , and N (λI − T ) is the eigenspace (which is a subspace
of X ), associated with the eigenvalue λ. The multiplicity of an eigenvalue is
the dimension of the respective eigenspace. Thus the point spectrum of T is
precisely the set of all eigenvalues of T . Now consider the set σC (T ) of those
λ for which λI − T has a densely defined but unbounded inverse on its range,

σC (T ) = λ ∈ C : N (λI − T ) = {0}, R(λI − T )− = X and R(λI − T ) = X
(see Theorem 1.3), which is referred to as the continuous spectrum of T . The

residual spectrum of T is the set σR (T ) of all scalars λ such that λI − T has
an inverse on its range that is not densely defined:

σR (T ) = λ ∈ C : N (λI − T ) = {0} and R(λI − T )− = X .
The collection {σP (T ), σC (T ), σR (T )} is a partition (i.e., it is a disjoint cov-

ering) of σ(T ), which means that they are pairwise disjoint and
σ(T ) = σP (T ) ∪ σC (T ) ∪ σR (T ).
2.2 A Classical Partition of the Spectrum 31
The diagram below, borrowed from [62], summarizes such a partition of the
spectrum. The residual spectrum is split into two disjoint parts, σR(T ) =
σR1(T ) ∪ σR2(T ), and the point spectrum into four disjoint parts, σP (T ) =
4
i=1 σPi(T ). We adopt the following abbreviated notation: Tλ = λI − T ,
Nλ = N (Tλ ), and Rλ = R(Tλ ). Recall that if N (Tλ ) = {0}, then its linear
inverse Tλ−1 on Rλ is continuous if and only if Rλ is closed (Theorem 1.2).
R−
λ
=X R−
λ
= X
R−
λ
= Rλ R−
λ
= Rλ R−
λ
= Rλ R−
λ
= Rλ
Tλ−1 ∈ B[Rλ ,X ] ρ (T ) ∅ ∅ σR1(T )

Nλ = {0} ⎫
Tλ−1 ∈
/ B[Rλ ,X ] ∅ σC (T ) σR2(T ) ∅ ⎬
σAP (T )
Nλ = {0} σP1(T ) σP2(T ) σP3(T ) σP4(T ) ⎭

σCP (T )
Fig. § 2.2. A classical partition of the spectrum
Theorem 2.2 says that σ(T ) = ∅, but any of the above disjoint parts of
the spectrum may be empty (Section 2.7). However, if σP (T ) = ∅, then a set
of eigenvectors associated with distinct eigenvalues is linearly independent.
Theorem 2.3. Let {λγ }γ∈Γ be a family of distinct eigenvalues of T . For

each γ ∈ Γ let xγ be an eigenvector associated with λγ . The set {xγ }γ∈Γ is
linearly independent .
Proof. For each γ ∈ Γ take 0 = xγ ∈ N (λγ I − T ) = {0}, and consider the set
{xγ }γ∈Γ (whose existence is ensured by the Axiom of Choice).
Claim. Every finite subset of {xγ }γ∈Γ is linearly independent.
Proof. Take an arbitrary finite subset of {xγ }γ∈Γ , say {xi }ni=1 . If n = 1, then
linear independence is trivial. Suppose {xi }ni=1 is linearly independent
n for some
n ≥ 1. If {xi }n+1
i=1 is not linearly independent, then xn+1 = i=1 i i , where
α x
the family {αi }ni=1 of complex numbers has at least one nonzero number. Thus
n n
λn+1 xn+1 = T xn+1 = αi T xi = αi λi xi .
i=1 i=1
If λn+1 = 0, then λi = 0 for every i = n + 1 (because the eigenvalues are dis-

n
tinct) and i=1 αi λi xi = 0 so that {xi }ni=1 is not linearly independent, which
is a contradiction. If λn+1 = 0, then xn+1 = i=1 αi λ−1
n
n n+1 λi xi , and therefore
−1
i=1 αi (1 − λ n+1 λi )xi = 0 so that {x i } n
i=1 is not linearly independent (since
λi = λn+1 for every i = n + 1 and αi = 0 for some i), which is again a contra-
diction. This completes the proof by induction:{xi}n+1 i=1 is linearly independent.
However, if every finite subset of {xγ }γ∈Γ is linearly independent, then so is

the set {xγ }γ∈Γ itself (see, e.g., [66, Proposition 2.3]).
32 2. Spectrum
There are some overlapping parts of the spectrum which are commonly
used. For instance, the compression spectrum σCP (T ) and the approximate
point spectrum (or approximation spectrum) σAP (T ), which are defined by

σCP (T ) = λ ∈ C : R(λI − T ) is not dense in X
= σP3(T ) ∪ σP4(T ) ∪ σR (T ),

σAP (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T is not bounded below
= σP (T ) ∪ σC (T ) ∪ σR2(T ) = σ(T )\σR1(T ).
The points of σAP (T ) are referred to as the approximate eigenvalues of T .
Theorem 2.4. The following assertions are pairwise equivalent .

(a) For every ε > 0 there is a unit vector xε in X such that (λI −T )xε < ε.
(b) There is a sequence {xn } of unit vectors in X such that (λI −T )xn → 0.
(c) λ ∈ σAP (T ).
Proof. Clearly (a) implies (b). If (b) holds, then there is no constant α > 0
such that α = αxn ≤ (λI − T )xn for all n. Thus λI − T is not bounded
below, and so (b) implies (c). Conversely, if λI − T is not bounded below,
then there is no constant α > 0 such that αx ≤ (λI − T )x for all x ∈ X
or, equivalently, for every ε > 0 there exists a nonzero yε in X such that
(λI − T )yε < εyε . Set xε = yε −1 yε , and hence (c) implies (a).
Theorem 2.5. The approximate point spectrum σAP (T ) is a nonempty closed

subset of C that includes the boundary ∂σ(T ) of the spectrum σ(T ).
Proof. Take an arbitrary λ in ∂σ(T ). Recall that ρ(T ) = ∅, σ(T ) is closed
(Theorem 2.1), and ∂σ(T ) = ∂ρ(T ) = ρ(T )− ∩ σ(T ). Thus λ is a point of
adherence of ρ(T ), and so there exists a sequence {λn } with each λn in ρ(T )
such that λn → λ. Since
(λn I − T ) − (λI − T ) = (λn − λ)I
for every n, it follows that λn I − T → λI − T in B[X ].
Claim. supn (λn I − T )−1 = ∞.
Proof. Since each λn lies in ρ(T ) and λ ∈ ∂σ(T ) does not lie in ρ(T ) (because
σ(T ) is closed), it follows that the sequence {λn I − T } of operators in G[X ]
converges in B[X ] to λI − T ∈ B[X ]\G[X ]. If λ ∈ σP (T ), then there exists
x = 0 in X such that, if supn (λn I − T )−1 < ∞,
0 = x = (λn I − T )−1 (λn I − T )x
≤ sup (λn I − T )−1 lim sup (λn I − T )x
n n
−1
≤ sup (λn I − T ) (λI − T )x = 0,
n
2.2 A Classical Partition of the Spectrum 33
which is a contradiction. If λ ∈ σP (T ), then N (λI − T ) = {0}, and hence there

exists the inverse (λI − T )−1 on R(λI − T ) so that, for each n,

(λn I − T )−1 − (λI − T )−1 = (λn I − T )−1 (λI − T ) − (λn I − T ) (λI − T )−1.
If supn (λn I − T )−1 < ∞, then (λn I − T )−1 → (λI − T )−1 in B[X ], be-
cause (λn I − T ) → (λI − T ) in B[X ], and so (λI − T )−1 ∈ B[X ]. That is,
(λI − T ) ∈ G[X ], which is again a contradiction (since λ ∈ σ(T )). This com-
pletes the proof of the claimed result.
Since (λn I − T )−1 = supy=1 (λn I − T )−1 y, take a unit vector yn in
X for which (λn I − T )−1 − n1 ≤ (λn I − T )−1 yn ≤ (λn I − T )−1 for
each n. The above claim ensures that supn (λn I − T )−1 yn = ∞, and hence
inf n (λn I − T )−1 yn −1 = 0, so that there exist subsequences of {λn } and
{yn }, say {λk } and {yk }, for which
(λk I − T )−1 yk −1 → 0.
Set xk = (λk I − T )−1 yk −1 (λk I − T )−1 yk and get a sequence {xk } of unit
vectors in X such that (λk I − T )xk = (λk I − T )−1 yk −1 . Hence
(λI − T )xk = (λk I − T )xk − (λk − λ)xk ≤ (λk I − T )−1yk −1 + |λk − λ|.
Since λk → λ, it then follows that (λI − T )xk → 0, and so λ ∈ σAP (T ) ac-

cording to Theorem 2.4. Therefore,
∂σ(T ) ⊆ σAP (T ).
This inclusion clearly implies that σAP (T ) = ∅ (for σ(T ) is closed and non-
empty). Finally, take an arbitrary λ ∈ C \σAP (T ) so that λI − T is bounded
below. Therefore, there exists an α > 0 for which
αx ≤ (λI − T )x ≤ (νI − T )x + (λ − ν)x,
and hence (α − |λ − ν|)x ≤ (νI − T )x, for all x ∈ X and ν ∈ C . Then

νI − T is bounded below for every ν such that 0 < α − |λ − ν|. Equivalently,
ν ∈ C \σAP (T )) for every ν sufficiently close to λ (i.e., if |λ − ν| < α). Thus the
nonempty open ball Bα (λ) centered at λ is included in C \σAP (T ). Therefore
C \σAP (T ) is open, and so σAP (T ) is closed.
Remark. σAP (T ) = σ(T )\σR1(T ) is closed in C and includes ∂σ(T ) = ∂ρ(T ).

So C \σR1(T ) = ρ(T ) ∪ σAP (T ) = ρ(T ) ∪ ∂ρ(T ) ∪ σAP (T ) = ρ(T )− ∪ σAP (T )
is closed in C . Outcome:
σR1(T ) is an open subset of C .
For the remainder of this section we assume that T lies in B[H], where
H is a nonzero complex Hilbert space. This will bring forth some important
34 2. Spectrum
simplifications. A particularly useful instance of such simplifications is the

formula for the residual spectrum in the next theorem. First we need the
following piece of notation. If Λ is any subset of C , then set

Λ∗ = λ ∈ C : λ ∈ Λ
so that Λ∗∗ = Λ, (C \Λ)∗ = C \Λ∗, and (Λ1 ∪ Λ2 )∗ = Λ∗1 ∪ Λ∗2 .
Theorem 2.6. If T ∗ ∈ B[H] is the adjoint of T ∈ B[H], then
ρ(T ) = ρ(T ∗ )∗ , σ(T ) = σ(T ∗ )∗ , σC (T ) = σC (T ∗ )∗ ,
and the residual spectrum of T is given by the formula
σR (T ) = σP (T ∗ )∗ \σP (T ).
As for the subparts of the point and residual spectra,
σP1(T ) = σR1(T ∗ )∗ , σP2(T ) = σR2(T ∗ )∗ ,

σP3(T ) = σP3(T ∗ )∗ , σP4(T ) = σP4(T ∗ )∗ .
For the compression and approximate point spectra we get
σCP (T ) = σP (T ∗ )∗ , σAP (T ∗ )∗ = σ(T )\σP1(T ),

∂σ(T ) ⊆ σAP (T ) ∩ σAP (T ∗ )∗ = σ(T )\(σP1(T ) ∪ σR1(T )).
Proof. Since S ∈ G[H] if and only if S ∗ ∈ G[H], we get ρ(T ) = ρ(T ∗ )∗ . Hence
σ(T )∗ = (C \ρ(T ))∗ = C \ρ(T ∗ ) = σ(T ∗ ). Recall that R(S)− = R(S) if and
only if R(S ∗ )− = R(S ∗ ), and N (S) = {0} if and only if R(S ∗ )⊥ = {0} (cf.
Lemmas 1.4 and 1.5), which means that R(S ∗ )− = H. Thus σP1(T ) = σR1(T ∗ )∗,
σP2(T ) = σR2(T ∗ )∗, σP3(T ) = σP3(T ∗ )∗, and σP4(T ) = σP4(T ∗ )∗. Applying the
same argument, σC (T ) = σC (T ∗ )∗ and σCP (T ) = σP (T ∗ )∗ . Hence,
σR (T ) = σCP (T )\σP (T ) implies σR (T ) = σP (T ∗ )∗ \σP (T ).
Moreover, by using the above properties and the definition of σAP (T ∗ ) =

σP (T ∗ ) ∪ σC (T ∗ ) ∪ σR2(T ∗ ) = σCP (T )∗ ∪ σC (T )∗ ∪ σP2(T )∗ , we get
σAP (T ∗ )∗ = σCP (T ) ∪ σC (T ) ∪ σP2(T ) = σ(T )\σP1(T ).
Therefore, σAP (T ∗ )∗ ∩ σAP (T ) = σ(T )\(σP1(T ) ∪ σR1(T )). But σ(T ) is closed
and σR1(T ) is open (and so is σP1(T ) = σR1(T ∗ )∗ ) in C . This implies that
σP1(T ) ∪ σR1(T ) ⊆ σ(T )◦ , where σ(T )◦ denotes the interior of σ(T ), and
∂σ(T ) ⊆ σ(T )\(σP1(T ) ∪ σR1(T )).
Remark. We have just shown that
σP1(T ) is an open subset of C .

2.3 Spectral Mapping 35
2.3 Spectral Mapping
Spectral Mapping Theorems are pivotal results in spectral theory. Here we

focus on the important particular case for polynomials. Further versions will
be considered in Chapter 4. Let p: C → C be a polynomial with complex
coefficients, take any subset Λ of C , and consider its image under p, viz.,

p(Λ) = p(λ) ∈ C : λ ∈ Λ .
Theorem 2.7. (Spectral Mapping Theorem for Polynomials). Take an

operator T ∈ B[X ] on a complex Banach space X . If p is any polynomial
with complex coefficients, then
σ(p(T )) = p(σ(T )).
Proof. To avoid trivialities, let p: C → C be an arbitrary nonconstant polyno-

mial with complex coefficients,
n
p(λ) = αi λi , with n ≥ 1 and αn = 0,
i=0
for every λ ∈ C . Take an arbitrary ν ∈ C and consider the factorization

n
ν − p(λ) = βn (λi − λ),
i=1
with βn = −1n+1 αn where {λi }ni=1 are the roots of ν − p(λ), so that
n n
νI − p(T ) = νI − αi T i = βn (λi I − T ).
i=0 i=1

If λi ∈ ρ(T ) for every i = 1, . . . , n, then βn ni=1 (λi I − T ) ∈ G[X ] so that
ν ∈ ρ(p(T )). Thus if ν ∈ σ(p(T )), then there exists λj ∈ σ(T ) for some j =
1, . . . , n. However, λj is a root of ν − p(λ), that is,
n
ν − p(λj ) = βn (λi − λj ) = 0,
i=1
and so p(λj ) = ν. Hence, if ν ∈ σ(p(T )), then

ν = p(λj ) ∈ p(λ) ∈ C : λ ∈ σ(T ) = p(σ(T ))
because λj ∈ σ(T ), and therefore
σ(p(T )) ⊆ p(σ(T )).
Conversely, if ν ∈ p(σ(T )) = {p(λ) ∈ C : λ ∈ σ(T )}, then ν = p(λ) for some

λ ∈ σ(T ). Thus ν − p(λ) = 0 so that λ = λj for some j = 1, . . . , n, and hence
36 2. Spectrum
n
νI − p(T ) = βn (λi I − T )
i=1
n n
= (λj I − T )βn (λi I − T ) = βn (λi I − T )(λj I − T )
j=i=1 j=i=1
since (λj I − T ) commutes with (λi I − T ) for every i. If ν ∈ ρ(p(T )), then
(νI − p(T )) ∈ G[X ] so that
n
(λj I − T ) βn (λi I − T ) νI − p(T ) −1

j=i=1

= νI − p(T ) νI − p(T ) −1 = I = νI − p(T ) −1 νI − p(T )
n
= (νI − p(T ) −1 βn (λi I − T ) (λj I − T ).

j=i=1
Then (λj I − T ) has a right and a left inverse (i.e., it is invertible), and so
(λj I − T ) ∈ G[X ] by Theorem 1.1. Hence, λ = λj ∈ ρ(T ), which contradicts
the fact that λ ∈ σ(T ). Conclusion: if ν ∈ p(σ(T )), then ν ∈/ ρ(p(T )), that is,
ν ∈ σ(p(T )). Thus
p(σ(T )) ⊆ σ(p(T )).
In particular,
σ(T n ) = σ(T )n for every n ≥ 0,
that is, ν ∈ σ(T )n = {λn ∈ C : λ ∈ σ(T )} if and only if ν ∈ σ(T n ), and
σ(αT ) = ασ(T ) for every α ∈ C ,
that is, ν ∈ ασ(T ) = {αλ ∈ C : λ ∈ σ(T )} if and only if ν ∈ σ(αT ). Also notice
(even though this is not a particular case of the Spectral Mapping Theorem
for polynomials) that if T ∈ G[X ], then
σ(T −1 ) = σ(T )−1 ,
which means that ν ∈ σ(T )−1 = {λ−1 ∈ C : 0 = λ ∈ σ(T )} if and only

if ν ∈ σ(T −1 ). Indeed, if T ∈ G[X ] (so that 0 ∈ ρ(T )) and if ν = 0, then
−νT −1 (ν −1 I − T ) = νI − T −1 . Thus ν −1 ∈ ρ(T ) if and only if ν ∈ ρ(T −1 ).
Also note that if T ∈ B[H], then
σ(T ∗ ) = σ(T )∗
by Theorem 2.6, where H is a complex Hilbert space.

The next result is an extension of the Spectral Mapping Theorem for
polynomials which holds for normal operators in a Hilbert space H. If Λ1
and Λ2 are arbitrary subsets of C and p : C ×C → C is any polynomial in two
variables (with complex coefficients), then set
2.3 Spectral Mapping 37

p(Λ1 , Λ2 ) = p(λ1 , λ2 ) ∈ C : λ1 ∈ Λ1 , λ2 ∈ Λ2 ;
in particular, with Λ∗ = {λ ∈ C : λ ∈ Λ},

p(Λ, Λ∗ ) = p(λ, λ) ∈ C : λ ∈ Λ .
Theorem 2.8. (Spectral Mapping Theorem for Normal Operators). If

T ∈ B[H] is normal and p(·, ·) is a polynomial in two variables, then

σ(p(T, T ∗ )) = p(σ(T ), σ(T ∗ )) = p(λ, λ) ∈ C : λ ∈ σ(T ) .

Proof. Take any normal operator T ∈ B[H]. If p(λ, λ) = n,m i j
i,j=0 αi,j λ λ , then
∗
n,m i ∗j ∗ ∗
set p(T, T ) = i,j=0 αi,j T T = p(T , T ). Let P(T, T ) be the collection of
all those polynomials p(T, T ∗ ), which is a commutative subalgebra of B[H]
since T commutes with T ∗. Consider the collection T of all commutative sub-
algebras of B[H] containing T and T ∗, which is partially ordered (in the inclu-
sion ordering) and nonempty (e.g., P(T, T ∗) ∈ T ). Moreover, every chain in
T has an upper bound in T (the union of all subalgebras in a given chain of
subalgebras in T is again a subalgebra in T ). Thus Zorn’s Lemma says that
T has a maximal element, say A(T ). Outcome: If T is normal, then there is
a maximal (thus closed) commutative subalgebra A(T ) of B[H] containing T
and T ∗. Since P(T, T ∗) ⊆ A(T ) ∈ T, and every p(T, T ∗) ∈ P(T, T ∗) is normal,
A(p(T, T ∗ )) = A(T ) for every nonconstant p(T, T ∗). Furthermore,
Φ(p(T, T ∗ )) = p(Φ(T ), Φ(T ∗ ))
for every homomorphism Φ : A(T ) → C . Thus, by Proposition 2.Q(b),

) .
σ(p(T, T ∗ )) = p(Φ(T ), Φ(T ∗ )) ∈ C : Φ ∈ A(T
Take a surjective homomorphism Φ: A(T ) → C (i.e., take any Φ ∈ A(T )). Con-
sider the Cartesian decomposition T = A + iB, where A, B ∈ B[H] are self-
adjoint, and so T ∗ = A − iB (Proposition 1.O). Thus Φ(T ) = Φ(A) + iΦ(B)
and Φ(T ∗ ) = Φ(A) − iΦ(B). Since A = 12 (T + T ∗ ) and B = − 2i (T − T ∗ ) lie in
P(T, T ∗), we get A(A) = A(B) = A(T ). Moreover, since they are self-adjoint,
)} = σ(A) ⊂ R and {Φ(B) ∈ C : Φ ∈ A(T
{Φ(A) ∈ C : Φ ∈ A(T )} = σ(B) ⊂ R
(Propositions 2.A and 2.Q(b)), and so Φ(A) ∈ R and Φ(B) ∈ R . Hence
Φ(T ∗ ) = Φ(T ).
Therefore, since σ(T ∗ ) = σ(T )∗ for every T ∈ B[H] by Theorem 2.6, and
according to Proposition 2.Q(b),

)
σ(p(T, T ∗ )) = p(Φ(T ), Φ(T )) ∈ C : Φ ∈ A(T

)}
= p(λ, λ) ∈ C : λ ∈ {Φ(T ) ∈ C : Φ ∈ A(T

= p(λ, λ) ∈ C : λ ∈ σ(T )
= p(σ(T ), σ(T )∗ ) = p(σ(T ), σ(T ∗ )).
38 2. Spectrum
2.4 Spectral Radius

The spectral radius of an operator T ∈ B[X ] on a nonzero complex Banach
space X is the nonnegative number
rσ (T ) = sup |λ| = max |λ|.
λ∈σ(T ) λ∈σ(T )
The first identity in the above expression defines the spectral radius rσ (T ),
and the second one is a consequence of the Weierstrass Theorem (cf. proof of
Theorem 2.2) since σ(T ) = ∅ is compact in C and the function | |: C → R is
continuous. A straightforward consequence of the Spectral Mapping Theorem
for polynomials reads as follows.
Corollary 2.9. rσ (T n ) = rσ (T )n for every n ≥ 0.

Proof. Take an arbitrary nonnegative integer n. Theorem 2.7 ensures that
σ(T n ) = σ(T )n . Hence ν ∈ σ(T n ) if and only if ν = λn for some λ ∈ σ(T ),
n
and so supν∈σ(T n ) |ν| = supλ∈σ(T ) |λn | = supλ∈σ(T ) |λ|n = supλ∈σ(T ) |λ| .
If λ ∈ σ(T ), then |λ| ≤ T . This follows by the Neumann expansion of

Theorem 1.3 (cf. proof of Theorem 2.1). Thus rσ (T ) ≤ T . Therefore, for
every operator T ∈ B[X ], and for each nonnegative integer n,
0 ≤ rσ (T n ) = rσ (T )n ≤ T n ≤ T n.
Thus rσ (T ) ≤ 1 if T is power bounded (i.e., if supn T n < ∞). Indeed, in this
1
case, rσ (T )n = rσ (T n ) ≤ supk T k and limn (supk T k ) n = 1, and so
sup T n < ∞ implies rσ (T ) ≤ 1.
n
Remark. If T is a nilpotent operator (i.e., if T n = O for some n ≥ 1), then

rσ (T ) = 0, and so σ(T ) = σP (T ) = {0} (cf. Proposition 2.J). An operator
T ∈ B[X ] is quasinilpotent if rσ (T ) = 0 (i.e., if σ(T ) = {0}). Thus every
nilpotent is quasinilpotent. Since σP (T ) may be empty for a quasinilpotent
operator (cf. Proposition 2.N), these classes are related by proper inclusion:
Nilpotent ⊂ Quasinilpotent.
The next result is the well-known Gelfand–Beurling formula for the spec-
tral radius. Its proof requires another piece of elementary complex analysis,
viz., every analytic function has a power series representation. That is, if
f : Λ → C is analytic, and if Bα,β (ν) = {λ ∈ C : 0 ≤ α < |λ − ν| < β} lies in
the open set Λ ⊆ C , then f has a unique Laurent expansion about the point
∞
ν, namely, f (λ) = k=−∞ γk (λ − ν)k for every λ ∈ Bα,β (ν).
Theorem 2.10. (Gelfand–Beurling Formula).

1
rσ (T ) = lim T n n .
n
2.4 Spectral Radius 39
Proof. Since rσ (T )n ≤ T n for every positive integer n, and since the limit
1
of the sequence {T n n} exists by Lemma 1.10, we get
1
rσ (T ) ≤ lim T n n .
n
For the reverse inequality, proceed as follows. Consider the Neumann expan-
sion (Theorem 1.3) for the resolvent function RT : ρ(T ) → G[X ],
∞
RT (λ) = (λI − T )−1 = λ−1 T k λ−k
k=0
for every λ ∈ ρ(T ) such that T < |λ|, where the above series converges in
the (uniform) topology of B[X ]. Take an arbitrary bounded linear functional
∗
η : B[X ] → C in B[X ] (cf. proof of Theorem 2.2). Since η is continuous,
∞
η(RT (λ)) = λ−1 η(T k )λ−k
k=0
for every λ ∈ ρ(T ) such that T < |λ|.

Claim. The above displayed identity holds whenever rσ (T ) < |λ|.

Proof. λ−1 ∞ k −k
k=0 η(T )λ is a Laurent expansion of η(RT (λ)) about the ori-
gin for every λ ∈ ρ(T ) such that T < |λ|. But η ◦ RT is analytic on ρ(T )
(cf. Claim 2 in Theorem 2.2) so that η(RT (λ)) has a unique Laurent ex-
pansion about the origin for every λ ∈ ρ(T ), and hence for every λ ∈ C such
∞
that rσ (T ) < |λ|. Then η(RT (λ)) = λ−1 k=0 η(T k )λ−k, which holds when-
ever rσ (T ) ≤ T < |λ|, must be the Laurent expansion about the origin for
every λ ∈ C such that rσ (T ) < |λ|, thus proving the claimed result.
∞ k −k
Hence, if rσ (T ) < |λ|, then the series of complex numbers k=0 η(T )λ
−1 k −k
converges, and so η((λ T ) ) = η(T )λ → 0, for every η in the dual space
k
∗
B[X ] of B[X ]. This means that the B[X ]-valued sequence {(λ−1 T )k } con-
verges weakly. Then it is bounded (in the uniform topology of B[X ] as a
consequence of the Banach–Steinhaus Theorem). That is, the operator λ−1 T
is power bounded. Thus |λ|−n T n ≤ supk (λ−1 T )k < ∞, so that
1 1
|λ|−1 T n n ≤ sup (λ−1 T )k n ,
k
1 1
for every n. Therefore, |λ|−1 limn T n n ≤ 1, and so limn T n n ≤ |λ| for
1
every λ ∈ C such that rσ (T ) < |λ|. That is, limn T n n ≤ rσ (T ) + ε for every
ε > 0. Outcome:
1
lim T n n ≤ rσ (T ).
n
What Theorem 2.10 says is that rσ (T ) = r(T ), where rσ (T ) is the spectral

1
radius of T and r(T ) is the limit of the sequence {T n n } (whose existence
was proved in Lemma 1.10). We shall then adopt one and the same notation
(the simplest, of course) for both of them. Thus, from now on, we write
40 2. Spectrum
1
r(T ) = sup |λ| = max |λ| = lim T n n .
λ∈σ(T ) λ∈σ(T ) n
A normaloid was defined in Section 1.6 as an operator T for which r(T ) = T .

Since rσ (T ) = r(T ), it follows that a normaloid operator acting on a complex
Banach space is precisely an operator whose norm coincides with the spectral
radius. Moreover, since on a complex Hilbert space H every normal operator
is normaloid, and so is every nonnegative operator, and since T ∗ T is always
nonnegative, it follows that, for every T ∈ B[H],
r(T ∗ T ) = r(T T ∗ ) = T ∗ T = T T ∗ = T 2 = T ∗ 2 .
Further useful properties of the spectral radius follow from Theorem 2.10:
r(αT ) = |α| r(T ) for every α ∈ C
and, if H is a complex Hilbert space and T ∈ B[H], then
r(T ∗ ) = r(T ).
An important application of the Gelfand–Beurling formula is the charac-

terization of uniform stability in terms of the spectral radius. An operator T
in B[X ] is uniformly stable if the power sequence {T n } converges uniformly
u
to the null operator (i.e., if T n → 0). Notation: T n −→ O.
Corollary 2.11. If T ∈ B[X ] is an operator on a complex Banach space X ,

then the following assertions are pairwise equivalent .
u
(a) T n −→ O.
(b) r(T ) < 1.
(c) T n ≤ β αn for every n ≥ 0, for some β ≥ 1 and some α ∈ (0, 1).
Proof. Since r(T )n = r(T n ) ≤ T n for each n ≥ 1, it follows that T n → 0

implies r(T ) < 1. Now suppose r(T ) < 1 and take any α in (r(T ), 1). Since
1
r(T ) = limn T n n (Gelfand–Beurling formula), there is an integer nα ≥ 1
such that T ≤ αn for every n ≥ nα . Thus T n ≤ β αn for every n ≥ 0 with
n
β = max 0≤n≤nα T n α−nα , which clearly implies T n → 0.
An operator T ∈ B[H] on a complex Hilbert space H is strongly stable or

weakly stable if the power sequence {T n } converges strongly or weakly to the
null operator (i.e., if T n x → 0 for every x in H, or T n x ; y → 0 for every
x and y in H — equivalently, T n x ; x → 0 for every x in H — cf. Section
s w
1.1). These are denoted by T n −→ O and T n −→ O, respectively. Therefore,
from what we have considered so far,
u
r(T ) < 1 ⇐⇒ T n −→ O =⇒
s w
T n −→ O =⇒ T n −→ O =⇒ sup T n < ∞ =⇒ r(T ) ≤ 1.
n
2.5 Numerical Radius 41
The converses to the above one-way implications fail in general. The next
result applies the preceding characterization of uniform stability to extend
the Neumann expansion of Theorem 1.3.
Corollary 2.12. Let T ∈ B[X ] be an operator on a complex Banach space,

and let λ ∈ C be any nonzero complex number .
n T k
(a) r(T ) < |λ| if and only if converges uniformly. In this case we
k=0 λ ∞ ∞
get λ ∈ ρ(T ) and RT (λ) = (λI − T )−1 = λ1 k=0 Tλ k where k=0 Tλ k
n T k
denotes the uniform limit of k=0 λ .
n T k
(b) If r(T ) = |λ| and λ converges strongly, then λ ∈ ρ(T ) and
∞
k=0 ∞
RT (λ) = (λI − T )−1 = λ1 k=0 Tλ k where k=0 Tλ k denotes the strong
n T k
limit of k=0 λ .
n T k
(c) If |λ| < r(T ), then k=0 λ does not converge strongly.
n T k n u
Proof. If converges uniformly, then Tλ −→ O, and therefore

k=0 λ
|λ|−1 r(T ) = r Tλ < 1 by Corollary 2.11. On the other hand, if r(T ) < |λ|,

then
T λ∈ ρ(T ) so that λI − T ∈ G[X ], and also r Tλ = |λ|−1 r(T ) < 1. Hence,
n
≤ β αn for every n ≥ 0, for some β ≥ 1 and α ∈ (0, 1), according to
λ ∞ n
Corollary 2.11, and so k=0 Tλ k < ∞, which means that Tλ is an
absolutely summable sequence in B[X ]. Now followthe steps
in the proof of
n T k
Theorem 1.3 to conclude the results in (a). If k=0 converges strongly,
n n
λ
then Tλ x → 0 in X for every x ∈ X so that supn Tλ x < ∞ for every

x ∈ X , and hence supn Tλ n < ∞ (by the Banach–Steinhaus Theorem).
Thus |λ|−1 r(T ) = r( Tλ ) ≤ 1, which proves (c). Moreover,
n T k n T k T n+1
(λI − T ) λ1 = 1
(λI − T ) = I − s
−→ I.
k=0 λ λ k=0 λ λ
T k T k
Therefore, (λI − T )−1 = λ1 ∞ , where ∞ ∈ B[X ] is the strong
n T k k=0 λ k=0 λ
limit of k=0 λ , which concludes the proof of (b).
2.5 Numerical Radius

The numerical range W (T ) of an operator T ∈ B[H] acting on a nonzero
complex Hilbert space H is the (nonempty) set consisting of the inner products
T x ; x for unit vectors x ∈ H; that is,

W (T ) = λ ∈ C : λ = T x ; x for some x = 1 .
It can be shown that W (T ) is a convex set in C (see, e.g., [50, Problem 210]),
and it is clear that
W (T ∗ ) = W (T )∗ .
42 2. Spectrum
Theorem 2.13. σP (T ) ∪ σR (T ) ⊆ W (T ) and σ(T ) ⊆ W (T )− .

Proof. Take any operator T ∈ B[H] on a nonzero complex Hilbert space H.
If λ ∈ σP (T ), then there is a unit vector x ∈ H such that T x = λx. Hence
T x ; x = λx2 = λ so that λ ∈ W (T ). If λ ∈ σR (T ), then λ ∈ σP (T ∗) by
Theorem 2.6, and so λ ∈ W (T ∗ ). Thus λ ∈ W (T ). Therefore,
σP (T ) ∪ σR (T ) ⊆ W (T ).
If λ ∈ σAP (T ), then there is a sequence {xn } of unit vectors in H such that

(λI − T )xn → 0 by Theorem 2.4. Hence
0 ≤ |λ − T xn ; xn | = |(λI − T )xn ; xn | ≤ (λI − T )xn → 0
so that T xn xn → λ. Since each T xn ; xn lies in W (T ), the classical Closed

Set Theorem says that λ ∈ W (T )−. Thus σAP (T ) ⊆ W (T )−, and so
σ(T ) = σR (T ) ∪ σAP (T ) ⊆ W (T )− .
The numerical radius of an operator T ∈ B[H] on a nonzero complex

Hilbert space H is the nonnegative number
w(T ) = sup |λ| = sup |T x ; x|.

λ∈W (T ) x=1
It is readily verified that
w(T ∗ ) = w(T ) and w(T ∗ T ) = T 2.
Unlike the spectral radius, the numerical radius is a norm on B[H]. That is,
0 ≤ w(T ) for every T ∈ B[H] and 0 < w(T ) if T = O, w(αT ) = |α|w(T ), and
w(T + S) ≤ w(T ) + w(S) for every α ∈ C and every S, T ∈ B[H]. However, the
numerical radius does not have the operator norm property in the sense that
the inequality w(S T ) ≤ w(S)w(T ) is not true for all operators S, T ∈ B[H].
Nevertheless, the power inequality holds: w(T n ) ≤ w(T )n for all T ∈ B[H] and
every positive integer n (see, e.g., [50, p. 118 and Problem 221]). Moreover,
the numerical radius is a norm equivalent to the (induced uniform) operator
norm of B[H] and dominates the spectral radius, as in the next theorem.
Theorem 2.14. 0 ≤ r(T ) ≤ w(T ) ≤ T ≤ 2w(T ).

Proof. Take any T ∈ B[H]. Since σ(T ) ⊆ W (T )−, we get r(T ) ≤ w(T ). More-
over, w(T ) = supx=1 |T x ; x| ≤ supx=1 T x = T . Now recall that, by
the polarization identity (cf. Proposition 1.A),

T x ; y = 14 T (x + y) ; (x + y) − T (x − y) ; (x − y)

+ iT (x + iy) ; (x + iy) − iT (x − iy) ; (x − iy)
2.5 Numerical Radius 43
for every x, y in H. Therefore, since |T z ; z| ≤ supu=1 |T u ; u|z2 =

w(T )z2 for every z ∈ H, it follows that, for every x, y ∈ H,
1

|T x ; y| ≤ 4 |T (x + y) ; (x + y)| + |T (x − y) ; (x − y)|

+ |T (x + iy) ; (x + iy)| + |T (x − iy) ; (x − iy)|

≤ 14 w(T ) x + y2 + x − y2 + x + iy2 + x − iy2 .
So it follows by the parallelogram law (cf. Proposition 1.A) that

|T x ; y| ≤ w(T ) x2 + y2 ≤ 2w(T )
whenever x = y = 1. Thus, since T = supx=y=1 |T x ; y| (see, e.g.,
[66, Corollary 5.71]), it follows that T ≤ 2w(T ).
An operator T ∈ B[H] is spectraloid if r(T ) = w(T ). Recall that an oper-

ator is normaloid if r(T ) = T or, equivalently, if T n = T n for every
n ≥ 1 (see Theorem 1.11). The next result is a straightforward application of
the previous theorem.
Corollary 2.15. Every normaloid operator is spectraloid .
Indeed, r(T ) = T implies r(T ) = w(T ), but r(T ) = T also implies

w(T ) = T (according to Theorem 2.14). Thus w(T ) = T is a property
of every normaloid operator on H. Actually, this can be viewed as a third
definition of a normaloid operator on a complex Hilbert space.
Theorem 2.16. T ∈ B[H] is normaloid if and only if w(T ) = T .

Proof. Half of the proof was presented above. It remains to prove that
w(T ) = T implies r(T ) = T .
Suppose w(T ) = T (and T = O to avoid trivialities). Recall that W (T )−

is compact in C (for W (T ) is clearly bounded). Thus maxλ∈W (T )− |λ| =
supλ∈W (T )− |λ| = supλ∈W (T ) |λ| = w(T ) = T , and therefore there exists
λ ∈ W (T )− such that λ = T . Since W (T ) is nonempty, λ is a point of ad-
herence of W (T ), and so there is a sequence {λn } with each λn in W (T ) such
that λn → λ. This means that there is a sequence {xn } of unit vectors in H
(i.e., xn = 1) such that λn = T xn ; xn → λ, where |λ| = T = 0. Hence,
if S = λ−1 T ∈ B[H], then
Sxn ; xn → 1.
Claim. Sxn → 1 and ReSxn ; xn → 1.

Proof. |Sxn ; xn | ≤ Sxn ≤ S = 1 for each n. But Sxn ; xn → 1 implies
|Sxn ; xn | → 1 (and so Sxn → 1) and also ReSxn ; xn → 1 (since | · | and
Re(·) are continuous functions), which concludes the proof.
44 2. Spectrum
Then (I − S)xn 2 = Sxn − xn 2 = Sxn 2 − 2ReSxn ; xn + xn 2 → 0 so

that 1 ∈ σAP (S) ⊆ σ(S) (cf. Theorem 2.4). Hence r(S) ≥ 1, and so r(T ) =
r(λ S) = |λ| r(S) ≥ |λ| = T , which implies that r(T ) = T (because
r(T ) ≤ T for every operator T ).
Remark. If T ∈ B[H] is spectraloid and quasinilpotent, then T = O. In fact,

if w(T ) = 0, then T = O (since the numerical radius is a norm — also see
Theorem 2.14); in particular, if w(T ) = r(T ) = 0, then T = O. Therefore, the
unique normal (or hyponormal, or normaloid, or spectraloid ) quasinilpotent
operator is the null operator .
Corollary 2.17. If there exists λ ∈ W (T ) such that |λ| = T , then T is

normaloid and λ ∈ σP (T ). In other words, if there exists a unit vector x such
that T = |T x ; x|, then r(T ) = w(T ) = T and T x ; x ∈ σP (T ).
Proof. If λ ∈ W (T ) is such that |λ| = T , then w(T ) = T (Theorem 2.14)
so that T is normaloid (Theorem 2.16). Moreover, since λ = T x ; x for some
unit vector x, it follows that T = |λ| = |T x ; x| ≤ T xx ≤ T ,
and hence |T x ; x| = T xx. That is, the Schwarz inequality becomes an
identity, which implies that T x = αx for some α ∈ C (see, e.g., [66, Problem
5.2]). Thus α ∈ σP (T ). But α = αx2 = αx ; x = T x ; x = λ.
2.6 Spectrum of Compact Operators

The spectral theory of compact operators plays a central role in the Spectral
Theorem for compact normal operators of the next chapter. Normal operators
were defined on Hilbert spaces; thus we keep on working with compact opera-
tors on Hilbert spaces, as we did in Section 1.8, although the spectral theory
of compact operators can be equally developed on nonzero complex Banach
spaces. So we assume that all operators in this section act on a nonzero com-
plex Hilbert space H. The main result for characterizing the spectrum of
compact operators is the Fredholm Alternative of Corollary 1.20, which can
be restated as follows.
Theorem 2.18. (Fredholm Alternative). Take T ∈ B∞[H]. If λ ∈ C \{0},

then λ ∈ ρ(T ) ∪ σP (T ). Equivalently,
σ(T )\{0} = σP (T )\{0}.
Moreover, if λ ∈ C \{0}, then dim N (λI − T ) = dim N (λI − T ∗ ) < ∞ so that

λ ∈ ρ(T ) ∪ σP4(T ). Equivalently,
σ(T )\{0} = σP4(T )\{0}.
Proof. Take a compact operator T on a Hilbert space H and a nonzero scalar

λ in C . Corollary 1.20 and the diagram of Section 2.2 ensure that
2.6 Spectrum of Compact Operators 45
λ ∈ ρ(T ) ∪ σP1(T ) ∪ σR1(T ) ∪ σP4(T ).

Also by Corollary 1.20, N (λI − T ) = {0} if and only if N (λI − T ∗ ) = {0}, so
that λ ∈ σP (T ) if and only if λ ∈ σP (T ∗ ). Thus, λ ∈ σP1(T ) ∪ σR1(T ) by The-
orem 2.6, so that λ ∈ ρ(T ) ∪ σP4(T ) or, equivalently, λ ∈ ρ(T ) ∪ σP (T ) (since
λ ∈ σP1(T ) ∪ σP2(T ) ∪ σP3(T )). Therefore,
σ(T )\{0} = σP (T )\{0} = σP4(T )\{0}.
The scalar 0 may be anywhere. That is, if T ∈ B∞[H], then λ = 0 may lie
in σP (T ), σR (T ), σC (T ), or ρ(T ). However, if T is a compact operator on a
nonzero space H and 0 ∈ ρ(T ), then H must be finite dimensional. Indeed,
if 0 ∈ ρ(T ), then T −1 ∈ B[H] so that I = T −1 T is compact (since B∞[H] is
an ideal of B[H]), which implies that H is finite dimensional (cf. Proposition
1.Y). The preceding theorem in fact is a rewriting of the Fredholm Alternative
(and it is also referred to as the Fredholm Alternative). It will be applied
often from now on. Here is a first application. Let B0 [H] denote the class of
all finite-rank operators on H (i.e., the class of all operators from B[H] with
a finite-dimensional range). Recall that B0 [H] ⊆ B∞[H] (finite-rank operators
are compact — cf. Proposition 1.X). Let #A denote the cardinality of a set
A, so that #A < ∞ means “A is a finite set”.
Corollary 2.19. If T ∈ B0 [H], then

σ(T ) = σP (T ) = σP4(T ) and #σ(T ) < ∞.
Proof. If dim H < ∞, then an injective operator is surjective, and linear mani-
folds are closed (see, e.g., [66, Problem 2.18 and Corollary 4.29]), and so the di-
agram of Section 2.2 says that σ(T ) = σP (T ) = σP4(T ) (for σP1(T ) = σR1(T ∗ )∗
according to Theorem 2.6). On the other hand, suppose dim H = ∞. Since
B0 [H] ⊆ B∞[H], Theorem 2.18 says that
σ(T )\{0} = σP (T )\{0} = σP4(T )\{0}.
Since dim R(T ) < ∞ and dim H = ∞, it follows that R(T )− = R(T ) = H and
N (T ) = {0} (because dim N (T ) + dim R(T ) = dim H; see, e.g., [66, Problem
2.17]). Then 0 ∈ σP4(T ) (cf. diagram of Section 2.2), and therefore
σ(T ) = σP (T ) = σP4(T ).
If σP (T ) is infinite, then there exists an infinite set of linearly independent
eigenvectors of T (Theorem 2.3). Since every eigenvector of T lies in R(T ),
this implies that dim R(T ) = ∞ (because every linearly independent subset
of a linear space is included in some Hamel bases — see, e.g., [66, Theorem
2.5]), which is a contradiction. Conclusion: σP (T ) must be finite.
In particular, the above result clearly holds if H is finite dimensional since,

as we saw above, dim H < ∞ implies B[H] = B0 [H].
46 2. Spectrum
Corollary 2.20. Take an arbitrary compact operator T ∈ B∞[H].

(a) 0 is the only possible accumulation point of σ(T ).
(b) If λ ∈ σ(T )\{0}, then λ is an isolated point of σ(T ).
(c) σ(T )\{0} is a discrete subset of C .
(d) σ(T ) is countable.
Proof. Let T be a compact operator on H.

Claim. An infinite sequence of distinct points of σ(T ) converges to zero.
Proof. Let {λn }∞n=1 be an infinite sequence of distinct points of σ(T ). Without
loss of generality, suppose that every λn is nonzero. Since T is compact and
0 = λn ∈ σ(T ), it follows by Theorem 2.18 that λn ∈ σP (T ). Let {xn }∞ n=1 be
a sequence of eigenvectors associated with {λn }∞ n=1 (i.e., T xn = λn xn with
each xn = 0), which is a sequence of linearly independent vectors by Theorem
2.3. For each n ≥ 1, set
Mn = span{xi }ni=1 ,
which is a subspace of H with dim Mn = n, and
Mn ⊂ Mn+1
for every n ≥ 1 (because {xi }n+1

i=1 is linearly independent and so xn+1 lies
in Mn+1 \Mn ). From now on the argument is similar to that in the proof
of Theorem 1.18. Since each Mn is a proper subspace of the Hilbert space
Mn+1 , it follows that there exists yn+1 in Mn+1 with yn+1 = 1 for which
1 n+1
2 < inf u∈Mn yn+1 − u. Write yn+1 = i=1 αi xi in Mn+1 so that
n+1 n
(λn+1 I − T )yn+1 = αi (λn+1 − λi )xi = αi (λn+1 − λi )xi ∈ Mn .
i=1 i=1
Recall that λn = 0 for all n, take any pair of integers 1 ≤ m < n, and set
y = ym − λ−1 −1
m (λm I − T )ym + λn (λn I − T )yn
so that T (λ−1 −1
m ym ) − T (λn yn ) = y − yn . Since y lies in Mn−1 ,
1
2 < y − yn = T (λ−1 −1
m ym ) − T (λn yn ),
which implies that the sequence {T (λ−1 n yn )} has no convergent subsequence.

Thus, since T is compact, Proposition 1.S ensures that {λ−1 n yn } has no
bounded subsequence. That is, supk |λk |−1 = supk λ−1 k y k = ∞, and so
inf k |λk | = 0 for every subsequence {λk }∞
k=1 of {λn } ∞
n=1 . Thus λn → 0, which
concludes the proof of the claimed result.
(a) Thus, if λ = 0, then there is no sequence of distinct points in σ(T ) that
converges to λ; that is, λ = 0 is not an accumulation point of σ(T ).
(b) Therefore, every λ in σ(T )\{0} is not an accumulation point of σ(T );

equivalently, every λ in σ(T )\{0} is an isolated point of σ(T ).
(c) Hence σ(T )\{0} consists entirely of isolated points, which means that
σ(T )\{0} is a discrete subset of C .
(d) Since a discrete subset of a separable metric space is countable (see, e.g.,
[66, Example 3.Q]), and since C is separable, σ(T )\{0} is countable.
Corollary 2.21. If an operator T ∈ B[H] is compact and normaloid, then

σP (T ) = ∅ and there exists λ ∈ σP (T ) such that |λ| = T .
Proof. Suppose T is normaloid (i.e., r(T ) = T ). Thus σ(T ) = {0} only if
T = O. If T = O and H = {0}, then 0 ∈ σP (T ) and T = 0. If T = O, then
σ(T ) = {0} and T = r(T ) = maxλ∈σ(T ) |λ|, so that there exists λ = 0 in
σ(T ) such that |λ| = T . Moreover, if T is compact and σ(T ) = {0}, then
∅ = σ(T )\{0} ⊆ σP (T ) by Theorem 2.18. Hence r(T ) = maxλ∈σ(T ) |λ| =
maxλ∈σP (T ) |λ| = T . Thus there exists λ ∈ σP (T ) such that |λ| = T .
Corollary 2.22. Every compact hyponormal operator is normal .

Proof. Suppose T ∈ B[H] is a compact hyponormal operator on a nonzero
H. Corollary 2.21
complex Hilbert space − says that σP (T ) = ∅. Consider the
subspace M = λ∈σP (T ) N (λI − T ) of Theorem 1.16 with {λγ }γ∈Γ =
σP (T ). Observe that σP (T |M⊥ ) = ∅. Indeed, if there is a λ ∈ σP (T |M⊥ ),
then there exists 0 = x ∈ M⊥ such that λx = T |M⊥ x = T x, and so
x ∈ N (λI − T ) ⊆ M, which is a contradiction. Moreover, recall that T |M⊥
is compact and hyponormal (Propositions 1.O and 1.U). Thus, if M⊥ = {0},
then Corollary 2.21 says that σP (T |M⊥ ) = ∅, which is another contradic-
tion. Therefore, M⊥ = {0} so that M = H (see Section 1.3), and hence
T = T |H = T |M is normal according to Theorem 1.16.
Proposition 2.A. Let H = {0} be a complex Hilbert space and let T denote
the unit circle about the origin of the complex plane.
(a) If H ∈ B[H] is hyponormal, then σP (H)∗ ⊆ σP (H ∗ ) and σR (H ∗ ) = ∅.
(b) If N ∈ B[H] is normal, then σP (N ∗ ) = σP (N )∗ and σR (N ) = ∅.
(c) If U ∈ B[H] is unitary, then σ(U ) ⊆ T .
(d) If A ∈ B[H] is self-adjoint, then σ(A) ⊂ R .
(e) If Q ∈ B[H] is nonnegative, then σ(Q) ⊂ [0, ∞).
(f) If R ∈ B[H] is strictly positive, then σ(R) ⊂ [α, ∞) for some α > 0.
(g) If E ∈ B[H] is a nontrivial projection, then σ(E) = σP (E) = {0, 1}.
48 2. Spectrum
Proposition 2.B. Similarity preserves the spectrum and its parts, and so it
preserves the spectral radius. That is, let H and K be nonzero complex Hilbert
spaces. For every T ∈ B[H] and W ∈ G[H, K],
(a) σP (T ) = σP (W T W −1 ),
(b) σR (T ) = σR (W T W −1 ),
(c) σC (T ) = σC (W T W −1 ).
Hence σ(T ) = σ(W T W −1 ), ρ(T ) = ρ(W T W −1 ), and r(T ) = r(W T W −1 ).
Unitary equivalence also preserves the norm: if W is a unitary transforma-
tion, then, in addition, T = W T W −1 .
Proposition 2.C. σ(S T )\{0} = σ(T S)\{0} for every S, T ∈ B[H].

1 1
Proposition 2.D. If Q ∈ B[H] is nonnegative, then σ(Q 2 ) = σ(Q) 2 .
Proposition 2.E. Take any operator T ∈ B[H]. Let d denote the usual dis-
tance in C . If λ ∈ ρ(T ), then
r((λI − T )−1 ) = [d(λ, σ(T ))]−1 .
If T is hyponormal and λ ∈ ρ(T ), then
(λI − T )−1 = [d(λ, σ(T ))]−1 .
Proposition 2.F. Let {Hk } be a collection of Hilbert spaces, let {Tk } be a

(similarly indexed ) collection
of operators with each Tk in B[Hk ], and consider
the (orthogonal ) direct sum k T k in B[ k Hk ]. Then

(a) σP ( k Tk ) = k σP (Tk ),

(b) σ( k Tk ) = k σ(Tk ) if the collection {Tk } is finite.
In general (if the collection {Tk } is not finite), then
−
(c) k σ(Tk ) ⊆ σ( k Tk ) and the inclusion may be proper.
However, if (λI − Tk )−1 = [d(λ, σ(Tk ))]−1 for each k and every λ ∈ ρ(Tk ),
−
(d) k σ(Tk ) = σ( k Tk ), which happens whenever each Tk is hyponormal.
Proposition 2.G. An operator T ∈ B[X ] on a complex Banach space is nor-

maloid if and only if there is a λ ∈ σ(T ) such that |λ| = T .
Proposition 2.H. For every operator T ∈ B[H] on a complex Hilbert space,

σR (T ) ⊆ λ ∈ C : |λ| < T .
Proposition 2.I. If H and K are complex Hilbert spaces and T ∈ B[H], then
r(T ) = inf W T W −1 .
W ∈G[H,K]
The spectral radius expression in the preceding proposition ensures that an

operator is uniformly stable if and only if it is similar to a strict contraction.
Proposition 2.J. If T ∈ B[X ] is a nilpotent operator on a complex Banach

space, then σ(T ) = σP (T ) = {0}.
Proposition 2.K. An operator T ∈ B[H] on a complex Hilbert space is spec-

traloid if and only if w(T n ) = w(T )n for every n ≥ 0.
An operator T ∈ B[H] on a separable infinite-dimensional Hilbert space H
is diagonalizable if T x = ∞k=0 αk x ; ek ek for every x ∈ H, for some orthonor-
mal basis {ek }∞k=0 for H and some bounded sequence {αk }∞ k=0 of scalars.
Proposition 2.L. If T ∈ B[H] is diagonalizable and H is complex, then

σP (T ) = λ ∈ C : λ = αk for some k ≥ 1 , σR (T ) = ∅, and

σC (T ) = λ ∈ C : inf k |λ − αk | = 0 and λ = αk for every k ≥ 1 .
An operator S+ ∈ B[K+ ] on a Hilbert space K+ is a unilateral shift , and

an operator S ∈ B[K] on a Hilbert space K is a bilateral shift , if there exists
an infinite sequence {Hk }∞ k=0 and an infinite family {Hk }k=−∞
∞
∞of nonzero
pairwise∞ orthogonal subspaces of K+ and K such that K+ = k=0 Hk and
K = k=−∞ Hk (cf. Section 1.3), and both S+ and S map each Hk isometri-
cally onto Hk+1 , so that each transformation U+ (k+1) = S+ |Hk : Hk → Hk+1 ,
and each transformation Uk+1 = S|Hk : Hk → Hk+1 , is unitary, and therefore
dim Hk+1 = dim Hk . Such a common dimension is the multiplicity of S+ and
2 ∞ 2
S.
∞ If H k = H for all k, then K + = + (H) = k=0 H and K = (H) =
k=−∞ H are the direct orthogonal sums of countably infinite copies of a
single nonzero Hilbert space H, indexed either by the nonnegative integers or
by all integers, which are precisely the Hilbert spaces consisting of all square-
summable H-valued sequences {xk }∞ k=0 and of all square-summable H-valued
families {xk }∞ k=−∞ . In this case (if Hk = H for all k), U+ (k+1) = S+ |H = U+
and Uk+1 = S|H = U for all k, where U+ and U are any unitary operators on
H. In particular, if U+ = U = I, the identity on H, then S+ and S are referred
2
to as the canonical unilateral and bilateral shifts on + (H) and on 2 (H). The
∗ ∗
adjoint S+ ∈ B[K+ ] of S+ ∈ B[K+ ] and the adjoint of S ∈ B[K] of S ∈ B[K] are
referred to as a backward unilateral ∞shift and as a∞ backward bilateral shift .
∞ ∞ ∞
Writing
∞ k=0 xk for {xk } k=0 in k=0 Hk , and k=−∞ x k for {xk } k=−∞ in
∗
k=0 Hk , it follows that S+ : K+ → K+ and S+ : K+ → K+ , and S : K → K and
S ∗ : K → K, are given by the formulas
∞ ∞
S+ x = 0 ⊕ k=1 U+ (k) xk−1 and S+∗ x = k=0 U+∗(k+1) xk+1
∞ ∞
for all x = k=0 xk in K+ = k=0 Hk , with 0 being the origin of H0 , where
U+ (k+1) is any unitary transformation of Hk onto Hk+1 for each k ≥ 0, and
50 2. Spectrum
∞ ∞
Sx = k=−∞ Uk xk−1 and S∗x = ∗
k=∞ Uk+1 xk+1
∞ ∞
for all x = k=−∞ xk in K = k=−∞ Hk , where, for each integer k, Uk+1
is any unitary transformation of Hk onto Hk+1 . The spectrum of a bilateral
shift is simpler than that of a unilateral shift, for bilateral shifts are unitary
operators (i.e., besides being isometries as unilateral shifts are, bilateral shifts
are normal too). For a full treatment on shifts on Hilbert spaces see [49].
Proposition 2.M. Let D and T = ∂ D denote the open unit disk and the unit
circle about the origin of the complex plane, respectively. If S+ ∈ B[K+] is a
unilateral shift and S ∈ B[K] is a bilateral shift on complex spaces, then
(a) σP (S+ ) = σR (S+∗ ) = ∅, σR (S+ ) = σP (S+∗ ) = D , σC (S+ ) = σC (S+∗ ) = T .
(b) σ(S) = σ(S ∗ ) = σC (S ∗ ) = σC (S) = T .
2
A unilateral weighted shift T+ = S+ D+ in B[+ (H)] isthe product of a
∞
canonical unilateral shift S+ and a diagonal operator D+ = k=0 αk I, both in
2
B[+ (H)], where {αk }∞
k=0 is a bounded sequence of scalars. A bilateral weighted
shift T = SD in B[ 2 (H)] is the product of a canonical bilateral shift S and
∞
a diagonal operator D = k=−∞ αk I, both in B[ 2 (H)], where {αk }∞ k=−∞ is
a bounded family of scalars.
2
Proposition 2.N. Let T+ ∈ B[+ (H)] be a unilateral weighted shift, and let
2
T ∈ B[ (H)] be a bilateral weighted shift, where H is complex .
(a) If αk → 0 as |k| → ∞, then T+ and T are compact and quasinilpotent .
If , in addition, αk = 0 for all k, then
(b) σ(T+) = σR (T+) = σR2(T+) = {0} and σ(T+∗ ) = σP (T+∗ ) = σP2(T+∗ ) = {0},
(c) σ(T ) = σC (T ) = σC (T ∗ ) = σ(T ∗ ) = {0}.
Proposition 2.O. Let T ∈ B[H] be an operator on a complex Hilbert space

and let D be the open unit disk about the origin of the complex plane.
w
(a) If T n −→ O, then σP (T ) ⊆ D .
u
(b) If T is compact and σP (T ) ⊆ D , then T n −→ O.
(c) The concepts of weak, strong, and uniform stabilities coincide for a com-
pact operator on a complex Hilbert space.
Proposition 2.P. Take an operator T ∈ B[H] on a complex Hilbert space and

let T = ∂ D be the unit circle about the origin of the complex plane.
u w
(a) T n −→ O if and only if T n −→ O and σC (T ) ∩ T = ∅.
(b) If the continuous spectrum does not intersect the unit circle, then the
concepts of weak, strong, and uniform stabilities coincide.
The concepts of resolvent set ρ(T ) and spectrum σ(T ) of an operator T

in the unital complex Banach algebra B[X ] as in Section 2.1, namely, ρ(T ) =
{λ ∈ C : λI − T has an inverse in B[X ]} and σ(T ) = C \ρ(T ), of course, hold
in any unital complex Banach algebra A, and so does the concept of spectral
radius r(T ) = supλ∈σ(T ) |λ|, where the Gelfand–Beurling formula of Theorem
1
2.10, namely, r(T ) = limn T n n , holds in any unital complex Banach algebra
(whose proof is essentially the same as the proof of Theorem 2.10). Recall that
a component of a set in a topological space is any maximal (in the inclusion
ordering) connected subset of it. A hole of a compact set is any bounded
component of its complement. Thus the holes of the spectrum σ(T ) are the
bounded components of the resolvent set ρ(T ) = C \σ(T ).
If A is a closed unital subalgebra of a unital complex Banach algebra A
(for instance, A = B[X ] where X is a Banach space), and if T ∈ A, then let
ρ (T ) be the resolvent set of T with respect to A, let σ (T ) = C \ρ (T ) be
the spectrum of T with respect to A, and set r (T ) = supλ∈σ (T ) |λ|. Recall
that a homomorphism (or an algebra homomorphism) between two algebras
is a linear transformation between them that also preserves product. Let A
be a maximal (in the inclusion ordering) commutative subalgebra of a unital
complex Banach algebra A (i.e., a commutative subalgebra of A that is not
included in any other commutative subalgebra of A). Note that A is trivially
unital, and closed in A because the closure of a commutative subalgebra of a
Banach algebra is again commutative since multiplication is continuous in A.
Consider the (unital complex commutative) Banach algebra C (of all complex
numbers). Let A = {Φ: A → C : Φ is an homomorphism} stand for the col-
lection of all algebra homomorphisms of A onto C .
Proposition 2.Q. Let A be any unital complex Banach algebra (for instance,
A = B[X ]). If T ∈ A, where A is any closed unital subalgebra of A, then
(a) ρ (T ) ⊆ ρ(T ) and r (T ) = r(T ) (invariance of the spectral radius).
Hence ∂σ (T ) ⊆ ∂σ(T ) and σ(T ) ⊆ σ (T ).
Thus σ (T ) is obtained by adding to σ(T ) some holes of σ(T ).
(b) If A is a maximal commutative subalgebra of A, then

σ(T ) = Φ(T ) ∈ C : Φ ∈ A for each T ∈ A .
Moreover, in this case,

σ(T ) = σ (T ).
Proposition 2.R. If A is a unital complex Banach algebra, and if S, T in

A commute (i.e., if S, T ∈ A and S T − T S), then
σ(S + T ) ⊆ σ(S) + σ(T ) and σ(ST ) ⊆ σ(S) · σ(T ).

52 2. Spectrum
If M is an invariant subspace for T , then it may happen that σ(T |M ) ⊆

σ(T ). Sample: every unilateral shift is the restriction of a bilateral shift to
an invariant subspace (see, e.g., [62, Lemma 2.14]). However, if M reduces
T , then σ(T |M ) ⊆ σ(T ) by Proposition 2.F(b). The full spectrum of T ∈ B[H]
(notation: σ(T )# ) is the union of σ(T ) and all bounded components of ρ(T )
(i.e., σ(T )# is the union of σ(T ) and all holes of σ(T )).
Proposition 2.S. If M is T -invariant, then σ(T |M ) ⊆ σ(T )# .
Proposition 2.T. Let T ∈ B[H] and S ∈ B[K] be operators on Hilbert spaces

H and K. If σ(T ) ∩ σ(S) = ∅, then for every bounded linear transformation
Y ∈ B[H, K] there exists a unique bounded linear transformation X ∈ B[H, K]
such that X T − SX = Y . In particular ,
σ(T ) ∩ σ(S) = ∅ and X T = SX =⇒ X = O.
This is the Rosenblum Corollary, which will be used to prove the Fuglede
Theorems in Chapter 3.
Notes: Again, as in the previous chapter, these are basic results that will be
needed throughout the text. We will not point out here the original sources
but, instead, well-known secondary sources where the reader can find the
proofs for those propositions, as well as some deeper discussions on them.
Proposition 2.A holds independently of the forthcoming Spectral Theorem
(Theorem 3.11) — see, e.g., [66, Corollary 6.18]. A partial converse, however,
needs the Spectral Theorem (see Proposition 3.D in Chapter 3). Proposition
2.B is a standard result (see, e.g., [50, Problem 75] and [66, Problem 6.10]), as
is Proposition 2.C (see, e.g., [50, Problem 76]). Proposition 2.D also dismisses
the Spectral Theorem of the next chapter; it is obtained by the Square Root
Theorem (Proposition 1.M) and by the Spectral Mapping Theorem (Theorem
2.7). Proposition 2.E is a rather useful technical result (see, e.g., [63, Problem
6.14]. Proposition 2.F is a synthesis of some sparse results (cf. [28, Proposition
I.5.1], [50, Solution 98], [55, Theorem 5.42], [66, Problem 6.37], and Propo-
sition 2.E). For Propositions 2.G and 2.H see [66, Sections 6.3 and 6.4]. The
spectral radius formula in Proposition 2.I (see, e.g., [42, p. 22]) ensures that an
operator is uniformly stable if and only if it is similar to a strict contraction
(hint: use the equivalence between (a) and (b) in Corollary 2.11). For Propo-
sitions 2.J and 2.K see [66, Sections 6.3 and 6.4]. The examples of spectra
in Propositions 2.L, 2.M, and 2.N are widely known (see, e.g., [66, Examples
6.C, 6.D, 6.E, 6.F, and 6.G]). Proposition 2.O deals with the equivalence be-
tween uniform and weak stabilities for compact operators, and it is extended
to a wider class of operators in Proposition 2.P (see [63, Problems 8.8. and
8.9]). Proposition 2.Q(a) is readily verified, where the invariance of the spec-
tral radius follows by the Gelfand–Beurling formula. Proposition 2.Q(b) is a
key result for proving both Theorem 2.8 (the Spectral Mapping Theorem for
normal operators) and also Lemma 5.43 of Chapter 5 (for the characterization
of the Browder spectrum in Theorem 5.44) — see, e.g., [76, Theorems 0.3 and
0.4]. For Propositions 2.R, 2.S, and 2.T see [80, Theorem 11.22], [76, Theorem
0.8], and [76, Corollary 0.13], respectively. Proposition 2.T will play a central
role in the proof of the Fuglede Theorems of the next chapter (precisely, in
Corollary 3.5 and Theorem 3.17).
Suggested Reading
Bachman and Narici [8] Halmos [50]

Berberian [17] Herrero [55]
Conway [27, 28] Istrǎţescu [58]
Douglas [34] Kato [60]
Dowson [35] Kubrusly [62, 63, 66]
Dunford and Schwartz [39] Radjavi and Rosenthal [76]
Fillmore [42] Rudin [80]
Gustafson and Rao [45] Taylor and Lay [87]
3
Spectral Theorem
The Spectral Theorem is a milestone in the theory of Hilbert space operators,

providing a full statement about the nature and structure of normal operators.
For compact normal operators the Spectral Theorem can be completely inves-
tigated without requiring any knowledge of measure theory, and this leads to
the concept of diagonalization. However, the Spectral Theorem for plain nor-
mal operators (the general case) requires some (elementary) measure theory.
3.1 Spectral Theorem for Compact Operators

Throughout this chapter H will denote a nonzero complex Hilbert space.
Recall from Section 1.4 that a bounded weighted sum of projections is an
operator T on H such that

Tx = λγ Eγ x
γ∈Γ
for every x ∈ H, where {Eγ }γ∈Γ is a resolution of the identity on H made up

of nonzero projections (i.e., {Eγ }γ∈Γ is an orthogonal family of nonzero or-
thogonal projections such that γ∈Γ Eγ x = x for every x ∈ H), and {λγ }γ∈Γ
is a bounded family of scalars. Every bounded weighted sum of projections is
normal (Corollary 1.9). The spectrum of a bounded weighted sum of projec-
tions is characterized next as the closure of the set {λγ }γ∈Γ ,
−
σ(T ) = λ ∈ C : λ = λγ for some λ ∈ Γ ,
so that, since T is normaloid, T = r(T ) = supγ∈Γ |λγ |.
Lemma 3.1. If T ∈ B[H] is a weighted sum of projections, then

σP (T ) = λ ∈ C : λ = λγ for some γ ∈ Γ , σR (T ) = ∅, and

σC (T ) = λ ∈ C : inf γ∈Γ |λ − λγ | = 0 and λ = λγ for all γ ∈ Γ .

Proof. Let T = γ∈Γ λγ Eγ be a bounded weighted sum of projections so that
{Eγ }γ∈Γ is a resolution of the identity on H and {λγ }γ∈Γ is a bounded se-
quence of scalars (see Section 1.4). Take an arbitrary x in H. Since {Eγ }γ∈Γ is

56 3. Spectral Theorem

a resolution of the identity on H, we get x = γ∈Γ Eγ x, and the general ver-
sion of the Pythagorean Theorem(see the Orthogonal Structure Theorem of
Section 1.3) ensures that x2 = γ∈Γ Eγ x2 . Take any scalar λ ∈ C . Thus

(λI − T )x = γ∈Γ (λ − λγ )Eγ x and so (λI − T )x2 = γ∈Γ |λ − λγ |2 Eγ x2
by the same argument. If N (λI − T ) = {0}, then there
exists x = 0 in H such
that (λI − T )x = 0. Hence γ∈Γ Eγ x2 = 0 and γ∈Γ |λ − λγ |2 Eγ x2 =
0, which implies that Eα x = 0 for some α ∈ Γ and |λ − λα |Eα x = 0,
and therefore λ = λα . Conversely, take any α ∈ Γ and any nonzero vector x
in R(Eα ) (recall that R(Eγ ) = {0} because Eγ = O for every γ ∈ Γ ). Since
R(Eα ) ⊥ R(Eγ ) whenever
α
= γ, it follows that R(E α ) ⊥ α=γ∈Γ R(Eγ ),
and so R(Eα ) ⊆ ( α=γ∈Γ R(Eγ ))⊥ = α=γ∈Γ R(Eγ )⊥ = α=γ∈Γ N (Eγ )
(see Lemma 1.4 and Theorem 1.8). Thus x ∈ N (Eγ ) for every α = γ ∈ Γ ,
which implies that (λα I − T )x2 = γ∈Γ |λα − λγ |2 Eγ x2 = 0, and there-
fore N (λα I − T ) = {0}. Summing up: N (λI − T ) = {0} if and only if λ = λα
for some α ∈ Γ . That is,

σP (T ) = λ ∈ C : λ = λγ for some γ ∈ Γ .
Take an arbitrary λ ∈
C such that λ = λγ for all γ ∈ Γ . The weighted sum of
projections λI − T = γ∈Γ (λ − λγ )Eγ has an inverse, and this inverse is the

weighted sum of projections (λI − T )−1 = γ∈Γ (λ − λγ )−1 Eγ because

(λ − λα )−1 Eα (λ − λβ )Eβ x
α∈Γ β∈Γ

= (λ − λα )−1 (λ − λβ )Eα Eβ x = Eγ x = x
α∈Γ β∈Γ γ∈Γ
for every x in H (since the resolution of the identity {Eγ }γ∈Γ is an orthogo-
nal family of continuous projections, and the inverse is unique). Moreover,
the weighted sum of projections of (λI − T )−1 is bounded if and only if
supγ∈Γ |λ − λγ |−1 < ∞, that is, if and only if inf γ∈Γ |λ − λγ | > 0. So

ρ(T ) = λ ∈ C : inf γ∈Γ |λ − λγ | > 0 .
Since σR (T ) = ∅ (a weighted sum of projections is normal — Corollary 1.9

and Proposition 2.A(b)), it follows that σC (T ) = (C \ρ(T ))\σP (T ).
Compare with Proposition 2.L. Actually, Proposition 2.L is a particular

case of Lemma 3.1, since Ek x = x ; ek ek for every x ∈ H defines the orthog-
onal projection Ek onto the unidimensional space spanned by ek .
Lemma 3.2. A weighted sum of projections T ∈ B[H] is compact if and only

if the following triple condition holds.
(i) σ(T ) is countable,
(ii) 0 is the only possible accumulation point of σ(T ), and
(iii) dim R(Eγ ) < ∞ for every γ such that λγ = 0.
3.1 Spectral Theorem for Compact Operators 57

Proof. Let T = γ∈Γ λγ Eγ ∈ B[H] be a weighted sum of projections.
Claim. R(Eγ ) ⊆ N (λγ I − T ) for every γ ∈ Γ .
Proof.
Take any α ∈ Γ . If x ∈ R(Eα ), then x = Eα x so that T x = T Eα x =
γ∈Γ γ Eγ Eα x = λα Eα x = λα x (since Eγ ⊥ Eα whenever α = γ), and hence
λ
x ∈ N (λα I − T ), which concludes the proof of the claimed result.
If T is compact, then σ(T ) is countable and 0 is the only possible accumula-
tion point of σ(T ) (Corollary 2.20), and dim N (λI − T ) < ∞ whenever λ = 0
(Theorem 1.19) so that dim R(Eγ ) < ∞ for every γ such that λγ = 0 by the
above claim. Conversely, if T = O, then T is trivially compact. Thus suppose
T = O. Since T is normal (Corollary 1.9), it follows that r(T ) > 0 (because
normal operators are normaloid, i.e., r(T ) = T ) so that there exists λ = 0
in σP (T ) by Theorem 2.18. If σ(T ) is countable, then let {λk } be any enu-
meration of the countable set σP (T )\{0} = σ(T )\{0}. Hence

Tx = λk Ek x for every x ∈ H
k
(cf. Lemma 3.1), where {Ek } is included in a resolution of the identity on H

n on H if 0 ∈
(which is itself a resolution of the identity / σP (T )). If {λk } is finite,
say {λk } = {λ } n
nk=1
k , then R(T
− ) = k=1 R(E k ). If dim R(Ek ) < ∞ for each
k, then dim k=1 R(E k ) < ∞. Thus T is a finite-rank operator, and so
compact (cf. Proposition 1.X). Now suppose {λk } is countably infinite. Since
σ(T ) is a compact set (Theorem 2.1), it follows that the infinite set {λk } has an
accumulation point in σ(T ) — this in fact is the Bolzano–Weierstrass Property
that characterizes compact sets in metric spaces. If 0 is the only possible
accumulation point of σ(T ), then 0 is the unique accumulation point of {λk }.
Therefore, for each integer n ≥ 1 consider the partition {λk } = {λk } ∪ {λk },
where |λk | ≥ n1 and |λk | < n1 . Note that {λk } is a finite subset of σ(T ) (it
has no accumulation point), and hence {λk } is an infinite subset of σ(T ). Set

Tn =
λk Ek ∈ B[H] for each n ≥ 1.
k
We have just seen that dim R(Tn ) < ∞. That is, each Tn is a finite-rank
operator. However, since Ej ⊥ Ek whenever j = k, we get
2

(T − Tn )x2 =
λk Ek x ≤ sup |λk |2
Ek x2 ≤ n12 x2
k k k
u
for all x ∈ H, so that Tn −→ T . Then T is compact by Proposition 1.Z.
Thus every bounded weighted sum of projections is normal and, if it is

compact, then it has a countable set of distinct eigenvalues. The Spectral
Theorem for compact operators ensures the converse: every compact and nor-
mal operator T is a (countable) weighted sum of projections, whose weights
are precisely the eigenvalues of T .
Theorem 3.3. (Spectral Theorem for Compact Operators). If an operator

T ∈ B[H] on a (nonzero complex ) Hilbert space H is compact and normal,
then there exists a unique countable resolution of the identity {Ek } on H and
a bounded set of scalars {λk } such that

T = λk Ek ,
k
where {λk } = σP (T ), the (nonempty) set of all (distinct ) eigenvalues of T ,

and each Ek is the orthogonal projection onto the eigenspace N (λk I − T ). If
the above countable weighted sum of projections is infinite, then it converges
in the (uniform) topology of B[H].
Proof. If T ∈ B[H] is compact and normal, then it has a nonempty point
spectrum (Corollary 2.21). In fact, the heart of the matter is that T has
enough eigenvalues so that its eigenspaces span the Hilbert space H.
−
Claim. λ∈σP (T ) N (λI − T ) = H.
−
Proof. Set M = λ∈σP (T ) N (λI − T ) , which is a subspace of H. Suppose
M = H so that M⊥ = {0}. Consider the restriction T |M⊥ of T to M⊥ . If T is
normal, then M reduces T (Theorem 1.16) so that M⊥ is T -invariant. Hence
T |M⊥ ∈ B[M⊥ ] is normal (Proposition 1.Q). If T is compact, then T |M⊥ is
compact (Proposition 1.V). Thus T |M⊥ is a compact normal operator on the
Hilbert space M⊥ = {0}, and so σP (T |M⊥ ) = ∅ by Corollary 2.21. That is,
there exist λ ∈ C and 0 = x ∈ M⊥ such that T |M⊥ x = λ x and so T x = λ x.
Then λ ∈ σP (T ) and x ∈ N (λI − T ) ⊆ M. This leads to a contradiction: 0 =
x ∈ M ∩ M⊥ = {0}. Outcome: M = H.
Since T is compact, the nonempty set σP (T ) is countable (Corollaries 2.20
and 2.21) and bounded (since T ∈ B[H]). Then write
σP (T ) = {λk },
where {λk } is a finite or infinite sequence of distinct elements in C consisting
of all eigenvalues of T . Recall that each N (λk I − T ) is a subspace of H (each
λk I − T is bounded). Moreover, since T is normal, Lemma 1.15(a) ensures that
N (λk I − T ) ⊥ N (λj I − T ) if k = j. Thus {N (λk I − T )} is
a sequence of pair-
−
wise orthogonal subspaces of H spanning H; that is, H = k N (λk I − T )
by the above claim. Then the sequence {Ek } of the orthogonal projections onto
each N (λk I − T ) is a resolution of the identity
on H (see Section 1.4 — recall:
Ek onto N (λk I − T ) is unique). Thus x = k Ek x. Since T is linear and con-
tinuous, T x = k T Ek x for every x ∈ H. But Ek x ∈ R(Ek ) = N (λk I − T ),
and so T Ek x = λk Ek x, for each k and every x ∈ H. Therefore,

Tx = λk Ek x for every x ∈ H,
k
and hence T is a countable weighted sum of projections. If it is a finite weighted

sum of projections, then we are done. On the other hand, suppose it is an
infinite weighted sum of projections. In this case, the above identity says that
3.2 Diagonalizable Operators 59
n s
λk Ek −→ T as n → ∞.
k=1

That is, the sequence { nk=1 λk Ek } converges strongly to T . However, since T
iscompact, this convergence actually happens in the uniform topology (i.e.,
n
{ k=1 λk Ek } actually converges uniformly to T ). Indeed,
n
2 ∞ 2 ∞

T− λk Ek x = λk Ek x = |λk |2 Ek x2
k=1 k=n+1 k=n+1
∞
≤ sup |λk |2 Ek x2 ≤ sup |λk |2 x2
k≥n+1 k=n+1 k≥n
∞every integer n ≥ 12 (reason:

for ∞ R(Ej )2⊥ R(Ek ) whenever j = k, and x =
E
k=1 k x so that x = k=1 Ek x — see Sections 1.3 and 1.4). Hence
n n

0 ≤ T − λk Ek = sup T − λk Ek x ≤ sup |λk |
k=1 x=1 k=1 k≥n
for all n ∈ N . Since T is compact and {λn } is a sequence of distinct elements

in σ(T ), it follows that λn → 0 (cf. Claim in the proof of Corollary 2.20). Thus
limn supk≥n |λk | = lim supn |λn | = 0, and so
n u
λk Ek −→ T as n → ∞.
k=1
3.2 Diagonalizable Operators

What the Spectral Theorem for compact (normal) operators says is that, if
T ∈ B[H] is compact and normal, then the family of orthogonal projections
{Eλ }λ∈σP (T ) onto each eigenspace N (λI − T ) is a countable resolution of the
identity on H, and T is a weighted sum of projections. Thus we write

T = λEλ ,
λ∈σP (T )
which is a uniform limit, and so it implies pointwise convergence (i.e., T x =

λ∈σP (T ) λEλ x for every x ∈ H). This is naturally identified with (i.e., it is
unitarily equivalent to) an orthogonal direct sum of scalar operators,

T ∼
= λIλ ,
λ∈σP (T )
with each Iλ denoting the identity on each eigenspace N (λI − T ). In fact, Iλ =

Eλ |R(Eλ ) , where R(Eλ ) = N (λI − T ). Thus, under such an identification, it
is usual to write
T = λEλ .
λ∈σP (T )
These representations are referred to as the spectral decomposition of a com-

pact normal operator T . The Spectral Theorem for compact (normal) oper-
ators can be restated in terms of an orthonormal basis for N (T )⊥ consisting
of eigenvectors of T , as follows.
Corollary 3.4. Let T ∈ B[H] be compact and normal .

(a) For each λ ∈ σP (T )\{0} there is a finite orthonormal basis {ek (λ)}nk=1
λ
for
N (λI − T ) consisting entirely of eigenvectors of T .

(b) The set {ek } = λ∈σP (T )\{0} {ek (λ)}nk=1
λ
is a countable orthonormal basis
⊥
for N (T ) made up of eigenvectors of T .
λ
(c) T x = λ∈σP (T )\{0} λ nk=1 x ; ek (λ)ek (λ) for every x ∈ H.

(d) T x = k νk x ; ek ek for every x ∈ H, where {νk } is a sequence con-
taining all nonzero eigenvalues of T including multiplicity (i.e., finitely
repeated according to the dimension of the respective eigenspace).
Proof. We have already seen (in the proof of the previous theorem) that
σP (T ) is nonempty and countable. Recall that σP (T ) = {0} if and only if
T = O (since T is normaloid; see Corollary 2.21) or, equivalently, if and only
if N (T )⊥ = {0} (i.e., N (T ) = H). If T = O, then the above assertions hold
trivially (σP (T )\{0} = ∅, {ek } = ∅, N (T )⊥ = {0} and T x = 0x = 0 for
every x ∈ H because the empty sum is null). Thus suppose T = O (so that
N (T )⊥ = {0}), and take an arbitrary λ = 0 in σP (T ). Theorem 1.19 ensures
that dim N (λI − T ) is finite, say, dim N (λI − T ) = nλ for some positive inte-
ger nλ . This ensures the existence of a finite orthonormal basis {ek (λ)}nk=1
λ
for
the Hilbert space N (λI − T ) = {0}. Recall that each ek (λ) is an eigenvector
of T (since 0 = ek (λ) ∈ N (λI − T )).
⊥
λ∈σP (T )\{0} {ek (λ)}k=1 is a orthonormal basis for N (T ) .
nλ
Claim.
Proof. Theorem 3.3 ensures that

−
H= N (λI − T ) .
λ∈σP (T )
Since {N (λI − T )}λ∈σP (T ) is a nonempty family of orthogonal subspaces of

H (by Lemma 1.15(a)), it follows that
!
⊥
N (T ) = N (λI − T )⊥ = N (λI − T )
λ∈σP (T )\{0} λ∈σP (T )\{0}
(see, e.g., [66, Problem 5.8(b,e)]). Hence (see Section 1.3),

−
N (T )⊥ = N (λI − T ) .
λ∈σP (T )\{0}
Therefore, since {N (λI − T )}λ∈σP (T ) is a family of orthogonal subspaces, the

claimed result follows by part (a).

Note that the set {ek } = λ∈σP (T )\{0} {ek (λ)}nk=1
λ
is countable (a countable
union of countable sets is countable). Finally, consider the decomposition
H = N (T ) + N (T )⊥ (see Section 1.3), and take an arbitrary x ∈ H so that
3.2 Diagonalizable Operators 61
⊥
x = u + vwith u ∈ N (T ) and v ∈ N (T ) . Consider the Fourier series expan-
sion v = k v ; ek ek = λ∈σP (T )\{0} nk=1 λ
v ; ek (λ)ek (λ) of v in terms of

the orthonormal basis {ek } = λ∈σP (T )\{0} {ek (λ)}nk=1 λ
for the Hilbert space
⊥
N (T ) = {0}. Since T is linear and continuous, and since T ek (λ) = λek (λ) for
each k = 1, . . . , nλ and each λ ∈ σP (T )\{0}, it follows that
Tx = Tu + Tv = Tv
nλ
= v ; ek (λ) T ek (λ)
λ∈σP (T )\{0} k=1
nλ
= λ v ; ek (λ) ek (λ).
λ∈σP (T )\{0} k=1
However, x ; ek (λ) = u ; ek (λ) + v ; ek (λ) = v ; ek (λ) because u ∈ N (T )

and ek (λ) ∈ N (T )⊥.
Remark. Observe that if T ∈ B[H] is compact and normal, and if H is non-

separable, then 0 ∈ σP (T ) and N (T ) is nonseparable. Indeed, if T = O (other-
wise the above statement is trivial), then N (T )⊥ = {0} is separable (i.e., it
has a countable orthonormal basis) by Corollary 3.4 and so N (T ) is nonsepa-
rable whenever H = N (T ) + N (T )⊥ is nonseparable. Moreover, if 0 ∈ / σP (T ),
then N (T ) = {0}, and therefore H = N (T )⊥ is separable.
The expression of a compact normal operator T in Corollary 3.4(c) (as

well as the very spectral decomposition of it) says that T is a diagonalizable
operator in the sense that T = T |N (T )⊥ ⊕ O (recall that N (T ) reduces T )
and T |N (T )⊥ ∈ B[N (T )⊥ ] is a diagonal operator with respect to a countable
orthonormal basis {ek } for the separable Hilbert space N (T )⊥ .
Generalizing: An operator T ∈ B[H] (not necessarily compact) acting on
any Hilbert space H (not necessarily separable) is diagonalizable if there exist
a resolution of the identity {Eγ }γ∈Γ on H and a bounded family of scalars
{λγ }γ∈Γ such that
T u = λγ u whenever u ∈ R(Eγ ).

Take an arbitrary x= γ∈Γ Eγ x in H. Since T is linear and continuous, it
follows that T x = γ∈Γ T Eγ x = γ∈Γ λγ Eγ x, and hence T is a weighted
sum of projections (which is normal). Thus we write

T = λγ Eγ or T = λγ Eγ .
γ∈Γ γ∈Γ

Conversely, if T is a weighted sum of projections
(i.e., T x = γ∈Γ λγ Eγ x
for every x ∈ H), then T u = γ∈Γ λγ Eγ u = γ∈Γ λγ Eγ Eα u = λα u for
every u ∈ R(Eα ) (since Eγ Eα = O whenever γ = α and u = Eα u whenever
u ∈ R(Eα )), and so T is diagonalizable. Conclusion: An operator T on H is di-
agonalizable if and only if it is a weighted sum of projections for some bounded
sequence of scalars {λγ }γ∈Γ and some resolution of the identity {Eγ }γ∈Γ on
H. In this case, {Eγ }γ∈Γ is said to diagonalize T . (See also Proposition 3.A
— just recall that the identity on any infinite-dimensional Hilbert space H
is trivially diagonalizable (a diagonal, actually, if H = Γ2 ), and thus normal,
but not compact — cf. Proposition 1.Y.)
The implication (b) ⇒ (d) in Corollary 3.5 is the compact version of the
Fuglede Theorem (Theorem 3.17) that will be developed in Section 3.5.
Corollary 3.5. Suppose T is a compact operator on a Hilbert space H.

(a) T is normal if and only if it is diagonalizable.
Let {Ek } be a resolution of the identity on H that diagonalizes a compact
and normal operator T ∈ B[H] into its spectral decomposition, and take any
operator S ∈ B[H]. The following assertions are pairwise equivalent .
(b) S commutes with T .
(c) S commutes with T ∗ .
(d) S commutes with every Ek .
(e) R(Ek ) reduces S for every k.
Proof. Take a compact operator T on H. If T is normal, then the Spectral

Theorem ensures that it is diagonalizable. The converse is trivial since a di-
agonalizable operator is normal. This proves (a). From now on suppose T is
compact and normal, and consider its spectral decomposition,

T = λk Ek
k
as in Theorem 3.3, where {Ek } is a resolution of the identity on H and {λk } =

σP (T ) is the set of all (distinct) eigenvalues of T . Recall that

T∗ = λk Ek .
k
The central result in the above statement is the implication (b) ⇒ (e). The
main idea behind its proof relies on Proposition 2.T (also see, e.g., [76, The-
orem 1.16]). Take any operator S on H. Suppose S T = T S. Since
Ek T = λk Ek = T Ek

(recall: Ek T = j λj Ek Ej = λk Ek = j λj Ej Ek = T Ek ), it follows that
each R(Ek ) = N (λk I − T ) reduces T (Proposition 1.I) so that
Ek T |R(Ek ) = T Ek |R(Ek ) = T |R(Ek ) = λk I : R(Ek ) → R(Ek ),
and hence, on each R(Ek ),
(Ej SEk )T |R(Ek ) = (Ej SEk )(T Ek ) = Ej S T Ek = Ej T SEk

= (T Ej )(Ej SEk ) = T |R(Ej ) (Ej SEk )
3.3 Spectral Measure 63
whenever j = k. Moreover, since σ(T |R(Ek ) ) = {λk } and λk = λj , we get
σ(T Ek ) ∩ σ(T Ej ) = ∅
and so, according to Proposition 2.T, for j = k,
Ej SEk = O.
Thus (as each Ek is self-adjoint and {Ek } is a resolution of the identity)

" #
SEk x ; y = SEk x ; Ej y = Ej SEk x ; y = Ek SEk x ; y
j j
for every x, y ∈ H. Then

SEk = Ek SEk ,
which means that R(Ek ) is S-invariant
(Proposition 1.I) for every k. Hence
−
R(Ek )⊥ = j=k R(Ej ) = j=k R(E j ) (because {Ek } is a resolution of
the identity on H). Thus, since R(Ej ) is S-invariant for every j, it follows
that R(Ek )⊥ also is S-invariant. Therefore,
R(Ek ) reduces S for every k.
This proves that (b) implies (e). But (e) is equivalent to (d) by Proposition
1.I.
Note that (d) implies (c). Indeed, if SEk = Ek S for every k, then S T ∗ =
∗
k λk SEk = k λk Ek S = T S (as S is linear and continuous). Thus (b)
implies (c), and therefore (c) implies (b) because T ∗∗ = T .
3.3 Spectral Measure

If T is a compact operator, then its point spectrum is nonempty and count-
able, which may not hold for noncompact (normal) operators. But this is not
the main role played by compact operators in the Spectral Theorem — we can
deal with an uncountable weighted sum of projections T x = γ∈Γ λγ Eγ x.
What is actually special with a compact operator is that a compact normal op-
erator not only has anonempty point spectrum− but it has enough eigenspaces
to span H; that is, λ∈σP (T ) N (λI − T ) = H (see proof of Theorem 3.3).
That makes the difference, since a normal (noncompact) operator may have
an empty point spectrum or it may have eigenspaces but not enough to span
the whole space H. However, the Spectral Theorem survives the lack of com-
pactness if the point spectrum is replaced with the whole spectrum (which is
never empty). Such an approach for the general case of the Spectral Theorem
(i.e., for normal, not necessarily compact operators) requires measure theory.
Let R stand for extended real line. Take a measure space (Ω, AΩ , μ), where
AΩ is a σ-algebra of subsets of a nonempty set Ω and μ: AΩ → R is a nonneg-
ative measure on AΩ , which means that μ(Λ) ≥ 0 for every Λ ∈ AΩ . The sets
in AΩ are called measurable sets (or AΩ -measurable). Observe that AΩ = {∅}
since Ω = ∅. The measure μ is said to be positive if it is nonnegative and not

null (i.e., μ(Ω) > 0). It is finite if μ(Ω) < ∞ (i.e., μ: AΩ → R ), and σ-finite
if Ω is a countable union of measurable sets of finite measure. Let F denote
either the real line R or the complex plane C . A Borel σ-algebra of subsets of
F (or a σ-algebra of Borel sets) is the σ-algebra AF generated by the usual
(metric) topology of F . (Note that for the σ-algebra AR of Borel subsets of
R , this coincides with the standard Borel σ-algebra generated by the open
intervals.) It is clear that all open, and so all closed, subsets of F are Borel
sets (i.e., all open or closed subsets of F lie in AF ). From now on suppose the
nonempty Ω is a Borel subset of F (i.e., a set in the Borel σ-algebra AF ) and
set AΩ = ℘ (Ω) ∩ AF , where ℘(Ω) is the power set of Ω (the collection of all
subsets of Ω). This AΩ is a σ-algebra, referred to as the σ-algebra of Borel sub-
sets of Ω. A measure μ on AΩ is said to be a Borel measure if μ(K) < ∞ for
every compact set K ⊆ Ω (which is in AΩ ). Every Borel measure is σ-finite,
and every finite measure is a Borel measure. The support of a measure μ on
AΩ is the set support (μ) = Ω\ Λ ∈ AΩ : Λ is open and μ(Λ) = 0 , which
is a closed set such that its complement is the largest open set of measure
zero. Equivalently, support (μ) is the smallest closed set whose complement
has measure zero. In the vast literature on measure theory, the reader is re-
ferred, for instance, to [11], [21], [46], [65], [78], or [79] (which simply reflects
the author’s preference but, by no means, exhausts any list).
Remark. A set K ⊆ Ω ⊆ F is compact if it is complete and totally bounded (in

F, total boundedness coincides with boundedness). So K ⊆ Ω is compact in the
relative topology of Ω if and only if it is in F (where compact means closed
and bounded). But open and closed in the preceding paragraph refer to the
topology of Ω. Note: if Ω is closed in F , then closed in Ω and in F coincide.
Definition 3.6. Let Ω be a nonempty Borel subset of C and let AΩ be the

σ-algebra of Borel subsets of Ω. A (complex) spectral measure in a (complex)
Hilbert space H is a mapping E : AΩ → B[H] such that
(a) E(Λ) is an orthogonal projection for every Λ ∈ AΩ ,
(b) E(∅) = O and E(Ω) = I,
(c) E(Λ1 ∩ Λ2 ) = E(Λ1 )E(Λ2 ) for every Λ1 , Λ2 ∈ AΩ ,

(d) E k Λk = k E(Λk ) whenever {Λk } is a countable collection of pair-
wise disjoint sets in AΩ (i.e., E is countably additive).
If {Λk } is a countably infinite collection of pairwise disjoint sets in AΩ ,

then the identity in (d) means convergence in the strong topology:
n
s
E(Λk ) −→ E Λk .
k=1 k
Indeed, since Λj ∩ Λk = ∅ if j =
k, it follows by properties (b) and (c) that
E(Λj )E(Λk ) = E(Λj ∩ Λk ) = E(∅) = O for j = k, so that {E(Λk )} is an
3.3 Spectral Measure 65
orthogonal sequence nof orthogonal projections in B[H]. Then, according to

Proposition 1.K, { k=1 E(Λk )} converges
− strongly
to the orthogonal projec-
tion in B[H] onto R(E(Λ
k k )) = k R(E(Λ k )) . Thus what prop-
erty (d) says is that E k Λk coincides with the orthogonal projection in

B[H] onto k R(E(Λ k )) . This generalizes the concept of a resolution of
the identity on H. In fact, if {Λk } is a partition of Ω, then the orthogonal
sequence of orthogonal projections {E(Λk )} is such that
n
s
E(Λk ) −→ E Λk = E(Ω) = I.
k=1 k
Let E : AΩ → B[H] be any spectral measure into B[H]. For each pair of
vectors x, y ∈ H consider the mapping πx,y : AΩ → C defined by
πx,y (Λ) = E(Λ)x ; y
for every Λ ∈ AΩ . The mapping πx,y is an ordinary complex-valued (count-

ably additive) measure on AΩ . For each x, y ∈ H consider the measure space
(Ω, AΩ , πx,y ). Let B(Ω) denote the algebra of all complex-valued bounded
AΩ -measurable functions φ : Ω → C on Ω. The $ integral of a function φ in
B(Ω)
$ with respect to the
$ measure πx,y , viz.,
$ φ dπx,y , will also be denoted
by φ(λ) dπx,y , or by φ dEλ x ; y, or by φ(λ) dEλ x ; y.
Lemma 3.7. Let E : AΩ → B[H] be a spectral measure. For every bounded

AΩ -measurable function φ ∈ B(Ω) there is a unique F ∈ B[H] such that
%
F x ; y = φ(λ) dEλ x ; y for every x, y ∈ H.
Proof. Let φ : Ω → C be a bounded function and set φ∞ = supλ∈Ω |φ(λ)|.

Define the sesquilinear form f : H×H → C by
%
f (x, y) = φ(λ) dEλ x ; y
for every x, y ∈ H. Since E(·)x ; x is a positive measure, for every x ∈ H,

%
|f (x, x)| ≤ φ∞ dEλ x ; x = φ∞ E(Ω)x ; x = φ∞ x2 .
Thus, by the polarization identity for sesquilinear forms (Proposition 1.A(a1 )),
and by the parallelogram law (Proposition 1.A(b)), we get

|f (x, y)| ≤ φ∞ x2 + y2
for every x, y ∈ H. Then f is bounded (supx=y=1 |f (x, y)| < ∞) and so

is the linear functional f (·, y) : H → C for each y ∈ H. Thus, by the Riesz
Representation Theorem in Hilbert space (see, e.g., [66, Theorem 5.62]), for
each y ∈ H there is a unique zy ∈ H such that f (x, y) = x ; zy for each
x ∈ H. This establishes a mapping F #: H → H that assigns to each y ∈ H a

unique zy ∈ H such that f (x, y) = x ; F # y for every x, y ∈ H. It is easy to
show that F # is unique and lies in B[H]. Hence F = (F # )∗ is the unique
operator in B[H] such that F x ; y = f (x, y) for every x, y ∈ H.
$
Notation. The unique F ∈ B[H] such that F x ; y = φ(λ) dEλ x ; y for
every x, y ∈ H as in Lemma 3.7 is usually denoted by
%
F = φ(λ) dEλ .
$ function $χΛ of a set Λ ∈ AΩ , then

In particular, if φ is the$ characteristic
E(Λ)x ; y = πx,y (Λ) = Λ dπx,y = χΛ dπx,y = χΛ(λ)dEλ x ; y for every
x, y ∈ H, and so the orthogonal projection E(Λ) ∈ B[H] is denoted by
% %
E(Λ) = χΛ(λ) dEλ = dEλ .
Λ
Lemma 3.8. Let E : AΩ → B[H] be a spectral measure. Suppose φ and ψ

are (bounded
$ AΩ -measurable)
$ functions in B(Ω), and consider the operators
F = φ(λ) dEλ and G = ψ(λ) dEλ in B[H]. Then
% %
∗
(a) F = φ(λ) dEλ and (b) F G = φ(λ)ψ(λ) dEλ .
$
Proof.$ Given φ and ψ in B(Ω), consider the operators F = φ(λ) dEλ and
G = ψ(λ) dEλ in B[H] (cf. Lemma 3.7). Take an arbitrary pair x, y ∈ H.
(a) Observe from the proof of Lemma 3.7 that
% %
∗ ∗
F x ; y = y ; F x = f (y, x) = φ(λ) dEλ y ; x = φ(λ) dEλ x ; y.
$ $
(b) Set π = πx,y . Since F x ; y = φ dπ = φ(λ) dEλ x ; y, it follows that
%
F Gx ; y = φ(λ) dEλ Gx ; y.
$ $
Moreover, since Gx ; y = ψ dπ = ψ(λ) dEλ x ; y, it also follows that
%
E(Λ)Gx ; y = Gx ; E(Λ)y = ψ(λ) dEλ x ; E(Λ)y
for every Λ ∈ AΩ . Therefore,

%
F Gx ; y = φ dν,
where ν = νx,y : AΩ → C is the measure defined, for each Λ ∈ AΩ , by

%
ν(Λ) = ψ(λ) dEλ x ; E(Λ)y.
Thus
3.4 Spectral Theorem: General Case 67
% % % %
dν = ν(Λ) = ψ(λ) dE(Λ)Eλ x ; y = ψ(λ) dEλ x ; y = ψ dπ
Λ Λ Λ
for each Λ ∈ AΩ . This is usually written as dν = ψ dπ, meaning$ that ψ $= dπ

dν
is
the Radon–Nikodým derivative$of π with$respect to ν. In fact, Λ dν = Λ ψ dπ
for every Λ ∈ AΩ implies that φ dν = φ ψ dπ for every φ ∈ B(Ω). Hence
% % %
F Gx ; y = φ dν = φ ψ dπ = φ(λ)ψ(λ) dEλ x ; y.
Lemma 3.9. Given a spectral measure E : AΩ →$ B[H] and a bounded AΩ -

measurable function φ ∈ B(Ω), the operator F = φ(λ) dEλ is normal .
Proof. According to Lemmas 3.7 and 3.8,
%
F F = |φ(λ)|2 dEλ = F F ∗ .
∗

Lemma 3.10. Let E : AΩ → B[H] $ be a spectral measure, where Ω is a compact

subset of C . The operator F = λ dEλ is well defined in B[H], is normal, and
%
p(F, F ) = p(λ, λ) dEλ = p(F ∗, F )
∗
for every polynomial p(·, ·): Ω × Ω → C in λ and λ.

Proof. Since Ω = ∅ is compact, the identity function on Ω is bounded and
AΩ -measurable,
n,m and so F is well defined and normal by Lemmas 3.7 and 3.9. If
n,m
p(λ, λ) = i,j=0 αi,j λi λj , then set p(F, F ∗ ) = i,j=0 αi,j F i F ∗j = p(F ∗, F ).
Thus (by linearity of the integral) the result follows by Lemma 3.8 (since
p(·, ·): Ω → C such that λ → p(λ, λ) lies in B(Ω) because Ω is bounded).
The standard form of the Spectral Theorem (Theorem 3.15) states the
converse of Lemma 3.9. A proof of it relies on Theorem 3.11. In fact, Theorems
3.11 and 3.15 can be thought of as equivalent versions of the Spectral Theorem.
3.4 Spectral Theorem: General Case

As always, all Hilbert spaces are nonzero and complex. Consider the notation
in the paragraph preceding Proposition 3.B. Take the multiplication opera-
tor Mφ in B[L2 (Ω, μ)], which is normal, where φ lies in L∞ (Ω, μ), Ω is a
nonempty set, and μ is a positive measure on AΩ (cf. Proposition 3.B).
Theorem 3.11. (Spectral Theorem – first version). If T is a normal oper-

ator on a Hilbert space, then there is a positive measure μ on a σ-algebra AΩ of
subsets of a set Ω = ∅ and a function ϕ in L∞ (Ω, μ) such that T is unitarily
equivalent to the multiplication operator Mϕ on L2 (Ω, μ), and ϕ∞ = T .
Proof. Let T be a normal operator on a Hilbert space H. We split the proof
into two parts. In part (a) we prove the theorem for the case where there exists
a star-cyclic vector x for T , which means that there is a vector x ∈ H such that
n ∗m
m,n {T T x} = H (each index m and n runs over all nonnegative integers;
that is, (m, n) ∈ N 0 × N 0 ). In part (b) we consider the complementary case.
(a) Fix a unit vector x ∈ H. Take a compact ∅ = Ω ⊂ C . Let P (Ω) be the set
of all polynomials p(·, ·): Ω × Ω → C in λ and λ (equivalently, p(·, ·): Ω → C
such that λ → p(λ, λ)). Let C(Ω) be the set of all complex-valued continuous
functions on Ω. Thus P (Ω) ⊂ C(Ω). When equipped with the sup-norm, C(Ω)
is a Banach space. The Stone–Weierstrass Theorem for complex functions
(see, e.g., [31, p. 139] or [27, Theorem V.8.1]) says that, if Ω is compact, then
P (Ω)− = C(Ω) in the sup-norm topology.
That is, P (Ω) is dense in the Banach space (C(Ω), · ∞ ). Consider the func-
tional Φ: P (Ω) → C given, for each p ∈ P (Ω), by
Φ(p) = p(T, T ∗ )x ; x,
which is clearly linear on the linear space P (Ω). Moreover,
|Φ(p)| ≤ p(T, T ∗)x2 = p(T, T ∗ ) = r(p(T, T ∗ ))
by the Schwarz inequality, since x = 1 and p(T, T ∗) is normal (thus nor-
maloid). From now on set Ω = σ(T ). According to Theorem 2.8,
|Φ(p)| ≤ r(p(T, T ∗ )) = sup |λ| = sup |p(λ, λ)| = p∞ ,

λ∈σ(p(T,T ∗ )) λ∈σ(T )
when P (σ(T )) is viewed as a linear manifold of the Banach space C(σ(T ))

equipped with the sup-norm · ∞ . Thus Φ: P (σ(T )) → C is bounded too (a
contraction, actually, once |Φ| ≤ 1). Since P (σ(T )) is dense in C(σ(T )) and
since Φ: P (σ(T )) → C is continuous, Φ has a unique bounded linear extension
over C(σ(T )), which we shall denote again by Φ: C(σ(T )) → C .
Claim. Φ: C(σ(T )) → C is positive in the sense that
Φ(ψ) ≥ 0 for every ψ ∈ C(σ(T )) such that ψ(λ) ≥ 0 for every λ ∈ σ(T ).
Proof. Take any ψ ∈ C(σ(T )) such that ψ(λ) ≥ 0 for every λ ∈ σ(T ). Take an
arbitrary ε > 0. Since Φ is continuous and P (σ(T ))− = C(σ(T )), there is a
polynomial pε ∈ P (σ(T )) such that pε (λ, λ) ≥ 0 for all λ ∈ σ(T ), and
|Φ(pε ) − Φ(ψ)| < ε.
The Stone–Weierstrass Theorem for real functions (see, e.g., [31, p. 137] or [27,
Theorem V.8.1]) ensures that there exists a polynomial qε in the real variables
α, β and with real coefficients, (α, β) → qε (α, β) ∈ R , such that
|qε (α, β)2 − pε (λ, λ)| < ε for every λ = α + iβ ∈ σ(T )

(recall that pε (λ, λ) ≥ 0). Now consider the Cartesian decomposition of T ,

namely, T = A + iB, where A and B are commuting self-adjoint operators
(see Proposition 1.O). Then qε (A, B) is self-adjoint, and so qε (A, B)2 is a
nonnegative operator that commutes with T and T ∗ . Observe that
|qε (A, B)2 x ; x − Φ(pε )| = |qε (A, B)2 x ; x − pε (T, T ∗ )x ; x|
= |(qε (A, B)2 − pε (T, T ∗ ))x ; x|
≤ qε (A, B)2 − pε (T, T ∗ )
= r(qε (A, B)2 − pε (T, T ∗ ))
since qε (A, B)2 − pε (T, T ∗ ) is normal, thus normaloid (reason: qε (A, B)2 is a
self-adjoint operator that commutes with the normal operator pε (T, T ∗ )). So
|qε (A, B)2 x ; x − Φ(pε )| ≤ sup |qε (α, β)2 − pε (λ, λ)| ≤ ε,
λ=α+iβ∈σ(T )
according to Theorem 2.8 again. Hence,
|qε (A, B)2 x ; x − Φ(ψ)| ≤ |qε (A, B)2 x ; x − Φ(pε )| + |Φ(pε ) − Φ(ψ)| ≤ 2ε.
But 0 ≤ pε (A, B)2 x ; x, and so 0 ≤ pε (A, B)2 x ; x ≤ 2ε + Φ(ψ) for every
ε > 0, which implies that 0 ≤ Φ(ψ), thus completing the proof.
Now take the bounded, linear, positive functional Φ on C(Ω) (positiveness is
understood in the sense of the above Claim) with Ω = σ(T ), which is compact.
The Riesz Representation Theorem in C(Ω) (see, e.g., [79, Theorem 2.14]) en-
sures the existence of a finite positive measure μ on the σ-algebra AΩ = Aσ(T )
of Borel subsets of Ω (where continuous functions are measurable) such that
%
Φ(ψ) = ψ dμ for every ψ ∈ C(Ω).
Let U : P (Ω) → H be a mapping defined, for each p ∈ P (Ω), by
Up = p(T, T ∗ )x.
Regard P (Ω) as a linear manifold of the Banach space L2 (Ω, μ) equipped

with the L2 -norm · 2 . It is plain that U is a linear transformation. Also,
% %
Up2 = |p| dμ = pp dμ = Φ(pp) = p(T, T ∗ )p(T, T ∗ )x ; x
2 2
= p(T, T ∗ )p(T, T ∗ )∗ x ; x = p(T, T ∗ )∗ x2 = p(T, T ∗)x2
for every p ∈ P (Ω) (since p(T, T ∗) is normal), which says that U is an isom-
etry, thus injective, and so it has an inverse on its range

R(U ) = p(T, T ∗ )x: p ∈ P (Ω) ⊆ H,
say U −1 : R(U ) → P (Ω). For each polynomial p in P (Ω) let q be the polyno-
mial in P (Ω) defined by q(λ, λ) = λp(λ, λ) for every λ ∈ Ω. Let ϕ: Ω → Ω ⊂ C
be the identity function, ϕ(λ) = λ for every λ ∈ Ω, which is bounded (i.e.,

ϕ ∈ L∞ (Ω, μ) because Ω is bounded). In this case we may write
q = ϕp and q(T, T ∗ )x = T p(T, T ∗)x.

Therefore,
U −1 T Up = U −1 T p(T, T ∗ )x = U −1 q(T, T ∗ )x
= U −1 Uq = q = ϕp = Mϕ p,
for every p ∈ P (Ω). Since P (Ω) is dense in the Banach space (C(Ω), · ∞ ),
and since Ω is a compact set in C and μ is a finite positive measure on AΩ ,
it follows that P (Ω) is also dense in the normed space (C(Ω), · 2 ), which
in turn is a dense linear manifold of the Banach space (L2 (Ω, μ), · 2 ), and
hence P (Ω) is dense in (L2 (Ω, μ), · 2 ). That is,
P (Ω)− = L2 (Ω, μ) in the L2 -norm topology.
Moreover, since U is a linear isometry of P (Ω) onto R(U ), which are linear
manifolds of the Hilbert spaces L2 (Ω, μ) and H, it follows that U extends
by continuity to a unique unitary transformation, also denoted by U, of the
Hilbert space P (Ω)− = L2 (Ω, μ) onto the range of U, R(U ) ⊆ H. (In fact, it
extends onto the closure of R(U ), but R(U ) is closed in H because every
isometry of a Banach space into a normed space has a closed range.) Thus if
x is a star-cyclic vector for T ; that is, if m,n {T nT ∗m x} = H, then
−
R(U ) = p(T, T ∗)x: p ∈ P (Ω) = {T n T ∗m x} = H,
m,n
and so U is a unitary transformation in B[L2 (Ω, μ), H] such that
U −1 T U = Mϕ .
Then T on H is unitarily equivalent to the multiplication operator Mϕ on

L2 (Ω, μ) for the identity function ϕ: Ω → Ω ⊂ C on Ω = σ(T ) (i.e., ϕ(λ) = λ
for every λ ∈ Ω). Therefore, since T is normal (thus normaloid) and unitarily
equivalent to Mϕ (thus with the same norm of Mϕ ), it follows that ϕ∞ =
T . Indeed, according to Proposition 3.B,
ϕ∞ = ess sup |ϕ| ≤ sup |λ| = r(T ) = T = Mϕ = ϕ∞ .

λ∈σ(T )
(b) On the other hand, suppose there is no star-cyclic vector for T . Assume
that T and H are nonzero to avoid trivialities. Since T is normal, the nontrivial
n ∗m
subspace Mx = m,n {T T x} of H reduces T for each unit vector x ∈ H.
Consider the set = { Mx : unit x ∈ H} of all orthogonal direct sums of
(in the inclusion ordering). is not
these subspaces, which is partially ordered
empty (if a unit y ∈ Mx ⊥, then My = m,n {T n T ∗m y} ⊆ Mx ⊥ because Mx ⊥
reduces T , and so Mx ⊥ My ). Moreover, every chain in has an upper bound
in (the union of all orthogonal direct sums in a given chain of orthogonal

direct sums in is again an orthogonal direct sum
in ). Thus Zorn’s Lemma
ensures that has a maximal element, say M = Mx , which coincides with
H (otherwise it would not be maximal since M ⊕ M⊥ = H). Summing up:
There exists an indexed family {xγ }γ∈Γ of unit vectors in H generating

a (similarly indexed) collection {Mγ}γ∈Γ of orthogonal nontrivial sub-
spaces of H such that each Mγ = m,n {T nT ∗m xγ } reduces T , each
xγ is star-cyclic for T |Mγ , and H = γ∈Γ Mγ .
Each restriction T |Mγ is a normal operator in B[Mγ ] (cf. Proposition 1.Q).

Thus, by part (a), for each γ ∈ Γ there is a positive finite measure μγ on the
σ-algebra AΩγ of Borel subsets of Ωγ = σ(T |Mγ ) such that T |Mγ in B[Mγ ]
is unitarily equivalent to the multiplication operator Mϕγ in B[L2 (Ωγ , μγ )],
where each ϕγ : Ωγ → Ωγ ⊂ C is the identity function on Ωγ (ϕγ (λ) = λ for
every λ ∈ Ωγ ), which is bounded (ϕγ ∈ L∞ (Ωγ , μγ ) since each Ωγ is compact
in C . Thus there exists a unitary transformation Uγ in B[Mγ , L2 (Ωγ ,μγ )] such
that Uγ T |Mγ = MϕγUγ for each index γ ∈ Γ . Hence the unitary U = γ∈Γ Uγ
2

B[ γ∈Γ Mγ , γ∈Γ L (Ωγ , μγ
in ( γ∈Γ Uγ ) ( γ∈Γ T |Mγ ) =
)] is such that
γ∈Γ Uγ T |Mγ = γ M ϕγ Uγ = ( γ∈Γ Mϕγ ) ( γ∈Γ Uγ ). Therefore,

T = γ∈ΓT |Mγ in B[H] = B[ γ∈Γ Mγ ] is

unitarily equivalent to γ∈Γ Mϕγ in B[ γ∈Γ L2 (Ωγ , μγ )].
Consider the disjoint union of {Ωγ }, which is obtained by reindexing the ele-
ments of each Ωγ as follows. For each γ ∈ Γ write Ωγ = {λδ (γ)}δ∈Δγ so that, if
there is a complex number λ in Ωα ∩ Ωβ for α = β in Γ , then the same complex
number λ is represented as λδ (α) ∈ Ωα for some δ ∈ Δα and λδ (β) ∈ Ωβ for
some δ ∈ Δβ , and these representations are considered as distinct elements.
Therefore the sets Ωα and Ωβ become disjoint. (Regard the sets in {Ωγ } as
subsets of distinct copies of C so that, for distinct indices α, β ∈ Γ , the sets
Ωα and Ωβ are disjoint.) Set Ω = γ∈Γ Ωγ . The disjoint union Ω — un-
like the ordinary union — can viewed
as the union of all σ(T |Mγ ) considering
the multiplicity of each point in γ∈Γ σ(T |Mγ ), disregarding possible overlap-
pings. Note that σ(T |Mγ ) ⊆ σ(T ) since each Mγ reduces T (cf. Proposition
2.F(b)), and so Ω ⊆ γ∈Γ σ(T ) is bounded. Let AΩ be the σ-algebra consist-
ing of all subsets of Ω of the form Λ = γ∈Γ Λγ , where each Λγ is a Borel
subset of Ωγ (i.e., Λγ ∈ AΩγ ). These are referred to as the Borel subsets of
Ω. Let μγ : AΩγ → R be the finite measure on each AΩ γ whose existence was
ensured in part (a). Consider the Borel subsets Λ = j∈J Λj of Ω made up
of disjoint countable unions of Borel subsets of Ωj (i.e., Λj ∈ AΩj ), and let μ
be the measure on AΩ such that μ(Λ) = j∈J μj (Λj ) for every Λ = j∈J Λj
in AΩ with {Λj } being any disjoint collection of sets with each Λj ∈ A Ωj , for
any countable
subset J of Γ . (For a proper subset J of Γ we identify j∈J Λj
with γ∈Γ Λγ when Λγ = ∅ for every γ ∈ J .) Note that μ is positive since
each μj is. (Indeed, Λj = Ωj so that μj (Λj ) > 0 for at least one j in one J .)
Consider the measure space (Ω, AΩ , μ).
Let ϕ: Ω → C be the
function obtained from the functions ϕγ : Ωγ → Ωγ ⊂ C
as follows. If λ ∈ γ∈Γ Ωγ , then λ ∈ Ωβ for some β ∈ Γ , and so set
ϕ(λ) =
ϕβ (λ) = λ (each ϕγ is the identity function on Ωγ ). Since Ω = γ∈Γ Ωγ ,
where Ωγ = σ(T |Mγ ) ⊆ σ(T ), it follows that ϕ ∈ L∞ (Ω, μ) with
ϕ∞ = ess sup |ϕ| ≤ sup |ϕ(λ)| ≤ sup |λ| = r(T ) ≤ T .

λ∈Ω λ∈σ(T )
(Actually, r(T ) = T because T is normaloid.) Now we show that

2
γ∈Γ Mϕγ in B[ γL (Ωγ , μγ )] is
unitarily equivalent to Mϕ in B[L2 (Ω, μ)].

First note that the Hilbert spaces L2 (Ω, μ) and 2
γ∈Γ L (Ωγ , μγ ) are uni-
tarily equivalent. Actually, recall that direct sums and topological sums of
familiesof orthogonal subspaces of a Hilbert space are unitarily equivalent.
Thus 2 ∼ 2 −
γ∈Γ L (Ωγ , μγ ) = ( γ∈Γ L (Ωγ , μγ )) , which

means that there is
a unitary transformation V : γ∈Γ L (Ωγ , μγ ) → ( γ∈Γ L2 (Ωγ , μγ ))−. Next
2

consider the mapping W: γ∈Γ L2 (Ωγ , μγ ) → L2 ( γ∈Γ Ωγ , μ) that assigns to

each ψ = γ∈Γ ψγ in γ∈Γ L2 (Ωγ , μγ ), with each ψγ in L2 (Ωγ , μγ ), the func-

tion W ψ in L2 ( γ∈Γ Ωγ , μ) defined as follows: if λ ∈ γ∈Γ Ωγ , then λ ∈ Ωβ
for some β ∈ Γ and (W $ ψ)(λ) = ψβ (λ).
The $ mapping Wis linear and surjec-
tive. Since W ψ2 = |W ψ|2 dμ = β∈Γ |ψβ |2 dμβ = β∈Γ ψβ 2 = ψ2 ,
it follows
that W is an isometry as well, and so it is a unitary transformation
of ( γ∈Γ L2 (Ωγ , μγ )) onto L2 ( γ∈Γ Ωγ , μ). Then it extends by continuity to
a unitary transformation, also denoted by W, over the whole Hilbert space
( γ∈Γ L2 (Ωγ , μγ ))− onto the Hilbert space L2 ( γ∈Γ Ωγ , μ). In other words,

W:( γ∈Γ L2 (Ωγ , μγ ))− → L2 ( γ∈Γ Ωγ , μ) = L2 (Ω, μ) is unitary. Therefore,

( γ∈Γ L2 (Ωγ , μγ ))− ∼= L2 (Ω, μ), and hence, by transitivity,

L2 (Ωγ , μγ ) ∼
= L2 (Ω, μ).
γ∈Γ

Now take an arbitrary ψ = γ∈Γ ψγ in γ∈Γ L2 (Ωγ , μγ ), and an arbitrary
λ ∈ Ω = γ∈Γ Ωγ so that λ ∈ Ωβ for some β ∈ Γ . Recall that ϕ|Ωβ = ϕβ
(which is the identity function on Ωβ ). Thus W ψ(λ) = ψβ (λ), and therefore
(Mϕ W ψ)(λ) = (Mϕ ψβ )(λ) = ϕ(λ)ψβ (λ) = ϕ|Ωβ (λ)ψβ (λ) = (ϕβ ψβ )(λ). On
−1 −1
the
other hand, since
V ψ = ψ
γ∈Γ γ , itfollows that ( M
γ∈Γ ϕγ )V ψ =
M ψ = ϕ ψ , and so V ( M )V −1 ψ =
γ∈Γ ϕγ γ
γ∈Γ γ γ γ∈Γ ϕγ γ∈Γ γ γ .
ϕ ψ
−1
Hence, (W V ( γ∈Γ Mϕγ )V ψ)(λ) = ( γ∈Γ ϕγ ψγ )β (λ) = (ϕβ ψβ )(λ). Then

Mϕ W = W V ( γ∈Γ Mϕγ )V −1 on γ∈Γ L2 (Ωγ , μγ ), which extends by conti-

nuity over all ( γ∈Γ L2 (Ωγ , μγ ))−. Thus, for the unitary transformation W V,

WV M ϕγ = Mϕ W V,
γ∈Γ
∼
and so γ∈Γ Mϕγ is unitarily equivalent to Mϕ (i.e., γ M ϕγ = Mϕ ) through
∼ ∼
the unitary W V. Then, T = Mϕ by transitivity, since T = γ∈Γ Mϕγ. That is,
T in B[H] is unitarily equivalent to Mϕ in B[L2 (Ω, μ)].

Finally, since ϕ∞ ≤ T and T ∼
= Mϕ , it follows that (cf. Proposition 3.B),
ϕ∞ ≤ T = Mϕ ≤ ϕ∞ .
Remark. Note that ϕ: Ω → C can be viewed as a sort of identity function

(ϕ(λ) = λ ∈ C for every λ ∈ Ω) including multiplicity (and so it may not be
injective), which takes disjoint unions in AΩ into ordinary unions in Aσ(T ) ,
so that ϕ(Ω)− = σ(T ) (by Proposition 2.F(d) since T |Mγ is normal), and each
Λ̃ ∈ Aσ(T ) is such that Λ̃− = ϕ(Λ)− for some Λ ∈ AΩ , and hence Ω is bounded .
The following commutative diagram illustrates the proof of part (b).

T
H
⏐ −−−→ H
⏐
⏐ ⏐
U' 'U

L2 (Ωγ , μγ ) L2 (Ωγ , μγ )
γ∈Γ ⏐ γ∈Γ ⏐
⏐ ⏐
V' 'V
− −
L2 (Ωγ , μγ ) L2 (Ωγ , μγ )
γ∈Γ ⏐ γ∈Γ ⏐
⏐ ⏐
W' 'W
Mϕ
L2 (Ω, μ) −−−→ L2 (Ω, μ).
Definition 3.12. A vector x ∈ H is a cyclic vector for an operator T in B[H]

if H is the smallest invariant subspace for T that contains x. If T has a cyclic
vector, then it is called a cyclic operator . A vector x ∈ H is a star-cyclic vector
for an operator T in B[H] if H is the smallest reducing subspace for T that
contains x. If T has a star-cyclic vector, then it is called a star-cyclic operator .
Observe that x ∈ H is a cyclic vector for an operator T ∈ B[H] if and only

if n {T nx} = H. That is, if and only if {p(T )x: p is a polynomial}− = H;
which means that {Sx: S ∈ P(T )}− = H, where P(T ) is the algebra of all
polynomials in T with complex coefficients. Similarly, it can also be verified
that x ∈ H is a star-cyclic vector for an operator T ∈ B[H] if and only if
{Sx: S ∈ C ∗ (T )}− = H, where C ∗ (T ) stands for the C*-algebra generated by
T , which is the smallest C*-algebra of operators from B[H] containing T and
the identity I. Recall that C ∗ (T ) = P(T, T ∗)−, the closure in B[H] of the set
of all polynomials in two (noncommuting) variables T and T ∗ (in any order)
with complex coefficients. (See, e.g., [27, Proposition IX.3.2] and [5, p. 1].)
Remark. Reducing subspaces are invariant. Thus a cyclic vector is star-cyclic,

and so a cyclic operator is star-cyclic. A normed space is separable if and only if
∗ −
it
is
spanned by a countable set. So,
m ∗n ∗n m
the subspace of H, {Sx: S ∈ P(T,∗T )}− =
m,n {T T x} ∪{T T x} , is separable, and so is {Sx: S ∈ C (T )} =
∗ − −
{Sx: S ∈ P(T, T ) } . Hence, if T ∈ B[H] is a star-cyclic operator, then H is
separable. (See, e.g., [66, Proposition 4.9] and [27, Proposition IX.3.3].) Then,
T ∈ B[H] is cyclic =⇒ T ∈ B[H] is star-cyclic =⇒ H is separable.

If T is normal , then m,n {T n T ∗m x} is the smallest subspace of H that con-
tains x and reduces T , sothat x ∈ H is a star-cyclic vector for a normal
operator T if and only if m,n {T n T ∗m x} = H (cf. proof of Theorem 3.11).
An important result from [19] says that if T is a normal operator, then T is
cyclic whenever it is star-cyclic, and so
T ∈ B[H] is normal and cyclic ⇐⇒ T ∈ B[H] is normal and star-cyclic.
It can also be shown along this line that x is a cyclic vector for a normal
operator T if and only if it is a cyclic vector for T ∗ [50, Problem 164].
Consider the proof of Theorem 3.11. Part (a) deals with the case where the
normal operator T is star-cyclic, while part (b) deals with the case where T is
not star-cyclic. In the former case, H must be separable by the above Remark.
We show next that if H is separable, then the measure in Theorem 3.11 can
be taken to be finite. Indeed, the positive measure μ: AΩ → R constructed in
part (a) is finite. However, the positive measure μ: AΩ → R constructed in
part (b) may fail to be even σ-finite (see, e.g., [50, p. 66]). But finiteness can
be restored by separability.
Corollary 3.13. If T is a normal operator on a separable Hilbert space H,

then there is a finite positive measure μ on a σ-algebra AΩ of subsets of a non-
empty set Ω and a function ϕ in L∞ (Ω, μ) such that T is unitarily equivalent
to the multiplication operator Mϕ on L2 (Ω, μ).
Proof. Consider the argument in part (b) of the proof of Theorem 3.11. Since
the collection {Mγ } is made up of orthogonal subspaces, we may take one
unit vector from each subspace by the Axiom of Choice to get an orthonormal
set {eγ } of unit vectors, which is in a one-to-one correspondence with the set
{Mγ }. Hence {Mγ } and {eγ } have the same cardinality. Since {eγ } is an
orthonormal set, its cardinality is not greater than the cardinality of any
orthonormal basis for H, and so the cardinality of {Mγ } does not surpass the
(Hilbert) dimension of H. If H is separable, then {Mγ } is countable. In this
case, for notational convenience, replace the index γ in the index set Γ with an
integer index n in a countable index set, say N , throughout the proof of part
(b). Since the orthogonal collection {Mn } of subspaces is now countable, it
follows that the family of sets {Ωn }, each Ωn = σ(T |Mn ), is countable. Recall
that each positive measure μn : AΩn → R inherited from part (a) is finite. Take

the positive measure μ on AΩ defined in part (b). Thus μ(Λ) = j∈J μj (Λj )
for every set Λ = j∈J Λj in AΩ (each Λj in AΩj so that Λj ⊆ Ωj ), where J
is
any subset of N . But now Ω = n∈N nΩ and so μ(Ω) = n∈N μn (Ωn ) =
n∈N μ(Ωn ), where μ(Ω
n ) = μ n (Ωn ) < ∞ for each n ∈ N . (Again, we are
identifying each Ωn with m∈N Ωm when Ωm = ∅ for every m = n.) Conclu-
sion: If H is separable, then μ is σ-finite. However, we can actually get a finite
measure. Indeed, without loss of generality, multiply
each original measure μn
by a positive scalar. Then we may assume that n∈N μn (Ω n ) < ∞ (e.g., take
0 < μn (Ωn ) ≤ 2−n for each n ∈ N ). In this case, μ(Ω) = n∈N μn (Ωn ) < ∞,
so that μ: AΩ → R is now finite (rather than just σ-finite). Thus all measures
involved in the proof of Theorem 3.11 are finite whenever H is separable.
Remark. Corollary 3.13 forces the Hilbert space L2 (Ω, μ), with that particular
finite measure μ, to be separable (since it is unitarily equivalent to a separable
Hilbert space H). Recall that there exist nonseparable L2 spaces with finite
measures, and also non-σ-finite measures for which L2 is separable (see, e.g.,
[21, pp. 174, 192, 376] and [51, pp. 2, 3]).
Corollary 3.14. Let T be a normal operator on a Hilbert space H so that

T ∼
= Mϕ on L2 (Ω, μ), where ϕ lies in L∞ (Ω, μ), with μ being the positive
measure on the σ-algebra AΩ of subsets of the nonempty set Ω as in Theorem
3.11. The following assertions are pairwise equivalent .
(a) H is separable.
(b) μ is finite.
(c) T is star-cyclic.
(d) T is cyclic.
Moreover, if any of the above equivalent assertions holds true, then the con-
stant function ψ = 1 (ψ(λ) = 1 for all λ ∈ Ω) lies in L2 (Ω, μ) and is star-
cyclic for Mϕ , and so Mϕ has a star-cyclic vector in L∞ (Ω, μ).
Proof. By Theorem 3.11, T ∼ = Mϕ . That is, T is unitarily equivalent to the
multiplication operator Mϕ on L2 (Ω, μ), where ϕ is a function in L∞ (Ω, μ).
Let U be a unitary transformation in B[L2 (Ω, μ), H] such that U ∗ T U = Mϕ .
Observe that ψ in L2 (Ω, μ) is a cyclic (star-cyclic) vector for the normal op-
erator Mϕ if and only if x =U ψ in H is acyclic (star-cyclic)
vector for the
n ∗m
normal
operator T . Indeed, n {T n
x} = U n {M n
ϕ ψ} and m,n {T T x} =
U m,n {Mϕn Mϕ∗m ψ}. Corollary 3.13 says that (a) implies (b). We show next
that (b) implies (c). Since ϕ: Ω → C is such that ϕ(λ) = λ ∈ C for every
λ ∈ Ω, a trivial induction ensures that Mϕn ψ = λn ψ, Mϕ∗m ψ = λm ψ, and so
∗m
2
m,n {Mϕ Mϕ ψ} = m,n {λ λ ψ}, for every λ in Ω and every ψ ∈ L (Ω, μ).
n n m
If μ is finite, then the constant function 1 (i.e., 1(λ) = 1 for all λ ∈ Ω) lies
in L2 (Ω, μ). Set ψ = 1 in L2 (Ω, μ), and let P (Ω) denote the set of all poly-
nomials p(·, ·): Ω × Ω → C in λ and λ (equivalently, p(·, ·): Ω → C such that
λ → p(λ, λ)). Thus (cf. proof of Theorem 3.11),

L2 (Ω, μ) = P (Ω)− = {λn λm } = {Mϕn Mϕ∗m ψ}
m,n m,n
so that ψ = 1 is a star-cyclic vector for Mϕ . Thus (b) implies (c). The Remark
preceding Corollary 3.13 ensures that (c) =⇒ (d) =⇒ (a).
Remark. Let K be a compact subset of C . The Stone–Weierstrass Theorem (cf.

proof of Theorem 3.11) ensures that P (K)− = C(K) in the sup-norm, where
C(K) is the set of all complex-valued continuous functions on K and P (K) is
the set of all polynomials p(·, ·): K × K → C in λ and λ (or, p(·, ·): K → C such
that λ → p(λ, λ)). Let P (K) denote the set of all polynomials p(·): K → C
in one variable λ. The Lavrentiev Theorem says that if K is compact, then
P (K)− = C(K) in the sup-norm if and only if C \K is connected and K ◦ = ∅
(i.e., if and only if the compact set K has empty interior and no holes), which
extends the classical Weierstrass Approximation Theorem for (complex-
valued) polynomials on compact intervals of the real line, viz., P ([α, β])− =
C([α, β]) in the sup-norm (see [21, p. 18], or [27, Proposition VII.5.3] and [28,
Theorem V.14.20]; for real-valued functions the Weierstrass Theorem holds
for every compact set in the real line — see [31, p. 139]). This underlines the
difference between cyclic and star-cyclic vectors. Note that if T is normal and
P (σ(T ))− = C(σ(T ), then T is reductive (Proposition 3.J). Bram’s result [19]
not only shows that normal operators are cyclic if and only if they are star-
cyclic, but also shows that, under the hypotheses of Corollary 3.14, Mϕ has
a cyclic vector in L∞ (Ω, μ), with Ω = σ(T ) as in part (a) of the proof of
Theorem 3.11 [28, Theorem V.14.21].
Theorem 3.15. (Spectral Theorem – second version). If T ∈ B[H] is nor-

mal, then there is a unique spectral measure E : Aσ(T ) → B[H] such that
%
T = λ dEλ .
If Λ is a nonempty relatively open subset of σ(T ), then E(Λ) = O.

Proof. We shall split the proof into four parts.
(a) Let μ be a positive measure on a σ-algebra AΩ of Borel subsets of a non-
empty bounded set Ω of complex numbers. Consider the multiplication op-
erator Mφ ∈ B[L2 (Ω, μ)] for any φ ∈ L∞ (Ω, μ), and let χΛ : Ω → {0, 1} be the
characteristic function of Λ ∈ AΩ , which is bounded (i.e., χΛ ∈ L∞ (Ω, μ)). Set
E (Λ) = M χΛ
for every Λ ∈ AΩ . It is readily verified that E : AΩ → B[L2 (Ω, μ)] is a spectral
measure in L2 (Ω, μ) (cf. Definition 3.6). Take an arbritrary f ∈ L2 (Ω, μ).
Since a characteristic function of a measurable set is a measurable function,
% % %
χΛ dEλ f ; f = χΛ d π f,f = d πf,f

= πf,f (Λ) = E (Λ)f ; f
%
Λ
%
= M χΛ f ; f = χΛ f f dμ = χΛ |f |2 dμ
for every Λ ∈ AΩ . Let Ψ be the collection of all simple functions ψ: Ω → C of

the form ψ = i λi χΛi with respect to all finite measurable partitions {Λi }
of Ω and all (similarly indexed) sets {λi } of constants in Ω with each λi ∈ Λi
(so that ψ(λi ) = λi ). Since each ψ ∈ Ψ is AΩ -measurable (and bounded),
% % %
ψ dEλ f ; f = λi χΛi dEλ f ; f = λi χΛi |f |2 dμ
i i
% %
= λi χΛi |f | dμ = ψ |f |2 dμ
2
i
for every ψ ∈ Ψ (by the previously displayed identity), which also holds for
the function ϕ: Ω → C such that ϕ(λ) = λ. (Reason: inf ψ∈Ψ ϕ − ψ∞ = 0 so
that ϕ ∈ Ψ − ⊂ L∞ (Ω, μ), thus apply extension by continuity.) Therefore,
% % %
2
ϕ dEλ f ; f = ϕ |f | dμ = ϕ f f dμ = Mϕ f ; f
for every f ∈ L2 (Ω, μ). By the polarization identity (Proposition 1.A) we get
Sf ; g = 14 [S(f + g) ; (f + g)−S(f − g) ; (f − g)+iS(f + ig) ; (f + ig)−
iS(f − ig) ; (f − ig) for every f, g ∈ L2 (Ω, μ) and S ∈ B[L2 (Ω, μ)]. Thus, re-
placing S with E (Λ) on the one hand, and with Mϕ on the other hand,
%
ϕ dEλ f ; g = Mϕ f ; g
for every f, g ∈ L2 (Ω, μ), which means

% %
Mϕ = ϕ(λ) dEλ = λ dEλ .

Uniqueness of the spectral measure E : AΩ → B[H] is proved as follows. Let

P (Ω) be the set of polynomials p(·, ·) on Ω as defined in the proof of Theorem
3.11.
$ If E :$AΩ → B[H] is a spectral $measure in L2 (Ω,$ μ) such that Mϕ =
λ dE λ = λ dEλ , then p(T, T ∗) = p(λ, λ)$ dE
λ = p(λ, λ)
$ dE
λ for every
p ∈ P (Ω) by Lemma 3.10. This means that p dE λ x; y = p dEλ x; y for
every x, y ∈ H, for every p ∈ P (Ω). Fix an arbitrary x ∈ H. So, in particular,
% %
p dE λ x; x = p dEλ x; x

for every p ∈ P (Ω). Let K be the closure of the union of the supports of the
measures E and E , which is compact since Ω is bounded, and let C(K) be the
set of all complex-valued continuous functions on K. The Stone–Weierstrass
Theorem for complex functions says that P (K) is dense in (C(K), · ∞ ), and
so P (K) is dense in (L2 (K, ν), · 2 ) for every finite positive measure ν on AΩ
with support in K (see proof of Theorem 3.11). Since the positive measures
E (·)x ; x = E (·)x2 and E (·)x ; x = E (·)x2 on AΩ are finite, we get
% %
χΛ dE λ x; x = χΛ dEλ x; x
for the characteristic function χΛ of an arbitrary set Λ ∈ AΩ . Thus

% %
E (Λ)x ; x = dE λ x; x = dEλ x; x = E (Λ)x ; x,
Λ Λ
and so (E (Λ) − E (Λ))x ; x = 0, for every Λ ∈ AΩ . Since E (Λ) − E (Λ) is

self-adjoint for every Λ ∈ AΩ , and since the above identity holds for every
x ∈ H, it follows that E is unique. That is (see, e.g., [66, Corollary 5.80]),
E (Λ) − E (Λ) = O for every Λ ∈ AΩ .
This completes the proof for the normal operator Mϕ ∈ B[L2(Ω, μ)]:
$ there is
a unique spectral measure E : AΩ → B[L2 (Ω, μ)] such that Mϕ = λ dEλ .
(b) If T ∈ B[H] is normal, then T ∼ = Mϕ ∈ B[L2 (Ω, μ)] (for a positive measure
on a σ-algebra AΩ of subsets of a bounded set Ω — the disjoint
μ
2
union
γ∈Γ Ωγ ) by Theorem 3.11. Thus there is a unitary U ∈ B[H, L (Ω, μ)] such
that T = U ∗Mϕ U . But E: AΩ → B[H] given by E(Λ) = U ∗E (Λ)U for each
Λ ∈ AΩ is a spectral measure in H (Definition 3.6). Then we get from (a) that
% %
T x ; y = Mϕ U x ; U y = ϕ dEλ U x ; U y = ϕ dEλ x ; y
for every x, y ∈ H, with ϕ: Ω → C such that ϕ(λ) = λ, which means

%
T = λ dEλ .
Since E(Λ) ∼ = E (Λ), uniqueness of E implies uniqueness of E.$ Therefore,

there is a unique spectral measure E : AΩ → B[H] such that T = λ dEλ .

(c) Recall that Ω is the disjoint union γ∈Γ Ωγ with Ωγ = σ(T |Mγ ) ⊆ σ(T ) —
a set of complex numbers in σ(T ) that considers multiplicity of each point λ
in σ(T ). Note that, for each λ ∈ Ω, {λ} ∈ AΩ (cf. proof of Theorem 3.11) and
dim R(E({λ})) = dim R(E ({λ})) = dim R(M χ{λ} ) = dim L2 ({λ}, μ) ∈ {0, 1}.
We shall now incorporate the multiplicity
of λ in dim R(E({λ})) as follows.
For each Λ in Aσ(T ) set ∪Λ = γ∈Γ {Λ(γ) ∈ AΩ γ : Λ(γ) = Λ ∩ Ωγ } in AΩ so
that, for each λ in σ(T ), {λ} ∈ Aσ(T ) and ∪{λ} = γ∈Γ {λ(γ) ∈ Ωγ : λ(γ) = λ}
$
in AΩ . Set Ẽ : Aσ(T ) → B[H] such that Ẽ(Λ) = ∪Λ dEλ = E(∪Λ) for every Λ
$
in Aσ(T ) . This defines a spectral measure Ẽ on Aσ(T ) such that σ(T ) λ dẼλ =
$
λ dEλ , which is unique since E is unique. In particular, for each λ in σ(T )
Ω $
we get Ẽ({λ}) = ∪λ dEλ = E(∪λ), and so dim R(Ẽ({λ})) = dim R(E(∪λ)).
Therefore, using the same notation for Ẽ and E, it follows that multiplicity of
λ is incorporated in dim R(E({λ})) and, $from (b), there is a unique spectral
measure E : Aσ(T ) → B[H] such that T = λ dEλ .
(d) We show that if ∅ = Λ ∈ Aσ(T ) is relatively open in σ(T ), then E(Λ) = O.
Take any ∅ = Λ ∈ Aσ(T ) and consider the definition of ∪Λ ∈ AΩ in part (c).
If Λ is relatively open in σ(T ), then there is a nonempty Λ(γ) ⊆ Λ in Aσ(T |Mγ )
relatively open in σ(T |Mγ ). It can be verified that each positive measure μγ
on AΩγ (cf. part (b) in the proof of Theorem 3.11) is such that support (μγ ) =
σ(T |Mγ ). Thus μγ (Λ(γ)) > 0, and so μ(∪Λ) > 0 (according to the definition
3.5 Fuglede Theorems and Reducing Subspaces 79
2
of μ in the proof $ of Theorem 3.11). However, since χ∪Λ ∈ L (Ω, μ), and since
E (Λ )f ; f = χΛ |f |2 dμ for each Λ ∈ Ω and every f ∈ L2 (Ω, μ),
% %
E (∪Λ)χ∪Λ 2 = E (∪Λ)χ∪Λ ; χ∪Λ = χ∪Λ |χ∪Λ |2 dμ = dμ = μ(∪Λ).
∪Λ
Thus, E (∪Λ) = 0, and therefore Ẽ(Λ) = E(∪Λ) = E (∪Λ) = 0, so

that Ẽ(Λ) = O. Again, use the same notation for Ẽ and E.
$
The representation T = λ dEλ is also referred to as the spectral decom-
position of the normal operator T (see Section 3.2).
3.5 Fuglede Theorems and Reducing Subspaces

Let Aσ(T ) be the σ-algebra of Borel subsets of the spectrum σ(T ) of T . The
following lemma sets up the essential features for proving the next theorem.
$
Lemma 3.16. Let T = λ dEλ be the spectral decomposition of a normal
operator T ∈ B[H] as in Theorem 3.15. If Λ ∈ Aσ(T ) , then
(a) E(Λ)T = T E(Λ). Equivalently, R(E(Λ)) reduces T .
(b) Moreover, if Λ = ∅, then σ(T |R(E(Λ)) ) ⊆ Λ− .
Proof. Consider the spectral decomposition of T . Take any ∅ = Λ ∈ Aσ(T ) .

$ $
(a) Since E(Λ) = χΛ(λ) dEλ and T = λ dEλ , it follows by Lemma 3.8 that
% %
E(Λ)T = λ χΛ(λ) dEλ = χΛ(λ) λ dEλ = T E(Λ),
which is equivalent to saying that R(E(Λ)) reduces T (by Proposition 1.I).

(b) Let AΩ be the σ-algebra of Borel subsets of Ω as in Theorem 3.11.
Take $an arbitrary nonempty Λ$∈ AΩ . Recall from the proof of Theorem 3.15
that λ dEλ = T ∼ = Mϕ = ϕ(λ) dEλ , so that T = U ∗Mϕ U for a uni-
tary U: H → L (Ω, μ), where the spectral measures E : AΩ → B[L2 (Ω, μ)]
2
and E : AΩ → B[H] are given by E (Λ) = M χΛ and E(Λ) = U ∗E (Λ)U . Thus

T |R(E(Λ)) ∼
= Mϕ |R(MχΛ ) .
Indeed, since R(E (Λ)) = U ∗ R(E (Λ)U ), we get
T |R(E(Λ)) = (U ∗Mϕ U )|U ∗ R(E (Λ)U) = U ∗Mϕ |R(E (Λ)) U = U ∗Mϕ |R(MχΛ ) U.
Let μ|Λ be the restriction of μ to the σ-algebra AΛ = ℘(Λ) ∩ AΩ ⊆ AΩ so
that R(M χΛ ) is unitarily equivalent to L2 (Λ, μ|Λ ); that is,

R(M χΛ ) = f ∈ L2 (Ω, μ): f = χΛ g for some g ∈ L2 (Ω, μ) ∼ = L2 (Λ, μ|Λ ).
Consider the following notation: set Mϕ χΛ = Mϕ |L2 (Λ,μ|Λ ) in B[L2 (Λ, μ|Λ )]
(not in B[L2 (Ω, μ)]). Since R(E (Λ)) = R(M χΛ ) reduces Mϕ ,
Mϕ |R(MχΛ ) ∼
= Mϕ χΛ .
Hence T |R(E(Λ)) ∼
= Mϕ χΛ by transitivity, and therefore (cf. Proposition 2.B),
σ(T |R(E(Λ)) ) = σ(Mϕ χΛ ).
Since Λ = ∅, Proposition 3.B ensures that, for ϕ: Ω → C such that ϕ(λ) = λ,
!
σ(Mϕ χΛ ) ⊆ ϕ(Δ)− ∈ C : Δ ∈ AΛ and μ|Λ (Λ\Δ) = 0
!
= ϕ(Δ ∩ Λ)− ∈ C : Δ ∈ AΩ and μ(Λ\Δ) = 0 ⊆ ϕ(Λ)− .
Finally, take an arbitrary Λ̃ ∈ Aσ(T ) and let Ẽ : Aσ(T ) → B[H] be the spectral
measure defined by Ẽ(Λ̃) = E(∪Λ̃) (cf. part (c) in the proof of Theorem 3.15).
Since Λ̃− = ϕ(Λ)− for some Λ ∈ AΩ , and since ∪(ϕ(Λ)− ) ⊆ Λ−, we get
σ(T |R(Ẽ(Λ̃)) ) ⊆ σ(T |R(Ẽ(ϕ(Λ)− )) ) ⊆ σ(T |R(E(Λ− )) ) ⊆ ϕ(Λ− )− = Λ̃− .
Again, use the same notation for E and Ẽ, and for Λ and Λ̃.
The proof of the next theorem follows the same argument used in the proof
of Corollary 3.5, now extended to the general case (see [76, Theorem 1.12]).
$
Theorem 3.17. (Fuglede Theorem). Let T = λ dEλ be the spectral decom-
position of a normal operator in B[H]. If S ∈ B[H] commutes with T , then
S commutes with E(Λ) for every Λ ∈ Aσ(T ) .
Proof. Take any Λ in Aσ(T ) . Suppose ∅ = Λ = σ(T ); otherwise the result is
trivially verified with E(Λ) = O or E(Λ) = I. Set Λ = σ(T )\Λ in Aσ(T ) . Let
Δ and Δ be arbitrary nonempty measurable closed subsets of Λ and Λ . That
is, ∅ = Δ ⊆ Λ and ∅ = Δ ⊆ Λ lie in Aσ(T ) and are closed in C ; and so they
are closed relative to the compact set σ(T ). Lemma 3.16(a) ensures that
E(Λ)T |R(E(Λ)) = T E(Λ)|R(E(Λ)) = T |R(E(Λ)) : R(E(Λ)) → R(E(Λ))
for every Λ ∈ Aσ(T ) . In particular, this holds for Δ and Δ . Take any operator
S on H such that S T = T S. Thus, on R(E(Δ)),
(∗) (E(Δ )SE(Δ))T |R(E(Δ)) = (E(Δ )SE(Δ))(T E(Δ)) = E(Δ )S T E(Δ)
= E(Δ )T SE(Δ) = (T E(Δ ))(E(Δ )SE(Δ))
= T |R(E(Δ )) (E(Δ )SE(Δ)).
Since the sets Δ and Δ are closed and nonempty, Lemma 3.16(b) says that
σ(T |R(E(Δ)) ) ⊆ Δ and σ(T |R(E(Δ ) ) ⊆ Δ ,
and hence, as Δ ⊆ Λ and Δ ⊆ Λ = σ(T )\Λ,
(∗∗) σ(T |R(E(Δ)) ) ∩ σ(T |R(E(Δ )) ) = ∅.
Therefore, according to Proposition 2.T, (∗) and (∗∗) imply that

E(Δ )SE(Δ) = O.
This identity holds for all Δ ∈ C Λ and all Δ ∈ C Λ , where

C Λ = Δ ∈ Aσ(T ) : Δ is a closed subset of Λ .
Now Proposition 3.C says that, in the inclusion ordering,
R(E(Λ)) = sup R(E(Δ)) and R(E(Λ )) = sup R(E(Δ ))
Δ∈C Λ Δ ∈C Λ
and so, in the extension ordering (see, e.g., [66, Problem 1.17]),
E(Λ) = sup E(Δ) and E(Λ ) = sup E(Δ ).
Δ∈C Λ Δ ∈C Λ
Then
E(Λ )SE(Λ) = O.
Since E(Λ) + E(Λ ) = E(Λ ∪ Λ ) = I, this leads to
SE(Λ) = E(Λ ∪ Λ )SE(Λ) = (E(Λ) + E(Λ ))SE(Λ) = E(Λ)SE(Λ).
Thus R(E(Λ)) is S-invariant (cf. Proposition 1.I). Since this holds for every
Λ in Aσ(T ) , it holds for Λ = σ(T )\Λ so that R(E(Λ )) is S-invariant. But
R(E(Λ)) ⊥ R(E(Λ )) (i.e., E(Λ)E(Λ ) = O) and H = R(E(Λ)) + R(E(Λ ))
(since H = R(E(Λ ∪ Λ )) = R(E(Λ) + E(Λ )) ⊆ R(E(Λ)) + R(E(Λ )) ⊆ H).
Hence R(E(Λ )) = R(E(Λ))⊥, and so R(E(Λ))⊥ also is S-invariant. Then
R(E(Λ)) reduces S,
which, by Proposition 1.I, is equivalent to
SE(Λ) = E(Λ)S.
Invariant subspaces were discussed in Section 1.1 (a subspace M is T -

invariant if T (M) ⊆ M). Recall that a subspace M of a normed space X
is nontrivial if {0} = M = X . Reducing subspaces (i.e., subspaces M such
that both M and M⊥ are T -invariant or, equivalently, a subspace M that is
invariant for both T and T ∗ ), and reducible operators (i.e., operators that have
a nontrivial reducing subspace), were discussed in Section 1.5. Hyperinvariant
subspaces were defined in Section 1.9 (subspaces that are invariant for every
operator that commutes with a given operator). Recall that an operator is
nonscalar if it is not a (complex) multiple of the identity — otherwise it is
called a scalar operator (Section 1.7). Scalar operators are clearly normal. A
projection E is nontrivial if O = E = I. Equivalently, a projection is nontrivial
if and only if it is nonscalar . (Indeed, if E 2 = E, then it follows at once that
O = E = I if and only if E = αI for every α ∈ C ).
Corollary 3.18. Consider operators acting on a complex Hilbert space of

dimension greater than 1.
(a) Every normal operator has a nontrivial reducing subspace.

(b) Every nonscalar normal operator has a nontrivial hyperinvariant subspace
which reduces every operator that commutes with it .
(c) An operator is reducible if and only if it commutes with a nonscalar normal
operator .
(d) An operator is reducible if and only if it commutes with a nontrivial or-
thogonal projection.
(e) An operator is reducible if and only if it commutes with a nonscalar op-
erator that also commutes with its adjoint .
$
Proof. Consider the spectral decomposition T = λ dEλ of a normal oper-
ator T as in Theorem 3.15. By Theorem 3.17, if S T = T S, then SE(Λ) =
E(Λ)S or, equivalently, each subspace R(E(Λ)) reduces S, which means that
{R(E(Λ))} is a family of reducing subspaces for every operator that com-
mutes with T . If σ(T ) has a single point, say σ(T ) = {λ}, then T = λI (by
uniqueness of the spectral measure); that is, T is a scalar operator so that ev-
ery subspace of H reduces T . If dim H > 1, then in this case T has plenty of
nontrivial reducing subspaces. Hence, if T is nonscalar, then σ(T ) has more
than one point (and dim H > 1). If λ, μ lie in σ(T ) and λ = μ, then let

D λ = B 1 |λ−μ| (λ) = ν ∈ C : |ν − λ| < 12 |λ − μ|
2
be the open disk of radius 12 |λ − μ| centered at λ. Set
Λλ = σ(T ) ∩ D λ and Λλ = σ(T )\D λ ,
so that σ(T ) is the disjoint union of Λλ and Λλ . Observe that both Λλ and
Λλ lie in Aσ(T ) . Since Λλ and σ(T )\D −
λ are nonempty relatively open subsets
−
of σ(T ) and σ(T )\D λ ⊆ Λλ , it follows by Theorem 3.15 that E(Λλ ) = O and
E(Λλ ) = O. Then I = E(σ(T )) = E(Λλ ∪ Λλ ) = E(Λλ ) + E(Λλ ), and so
E(Λλ ) = I − E(Λλ ) = I. Therefore,
O = E(Λλ ) = I,
which means that R(E(Λλ )) is nontrivial; that is,
{0} = R(E(Λλ )) = H.
This proves (a) (for the particular case of S = T ), and also proves (b) — the
nontrivial R(E(Λλ )) reduces every S that commutes with T . Thus (b) ensures
that if T commutes with a nonscalar normal, then it is reducible. The converse
follows by Proposition 1.I, since every nontrivial orthogonal projection is a
nonscalar normal. This proves (c). Since a projection E is nontrivial if and
only if {0} = R(E) = H, Proposition 1.I ensures that T is reducible if and
only if it commutes with a nontrivial orthogonal projection, which proves
(d). Since every nontrivial orthogonal projection is self-adjoint and nonscalar,

it follows by (d) that if T is reducible then it commutes with a nonscalar
operator that also commutes with its adjoint. Conversely, suppose T is such
that L T = T L and L T ∗ = T ∗ L (and so L∗ T = T L∗) for some nonscalar
operator L. Then (L + L∗ ) T = T (L + L∗ ), where L + L∗ is self-adjoint (thus
normal). If this self-adjoint L + L∗ is not scalar, then T commutes with the
nonscalar normal L + L∗ . On the other hand, if this self-adjoint L + L∗ is
scalar, then the nonscalar L must be normal. Indeed, if L + L∗ = αI, then
L∗ L = L L∗ = αL − L2 , which shows that L is normal. Again, in this case, T
commutes with the nonscalar normal L. Thus, in any case, T commutes with
a nonscalar normal operator so that T is reducible according to (c); and this
completes the proof of (e).
All the equivalent assertions in Corollary 3.5, which hold for compact
normal operators, remain equivalent in the general case (for plain normal, not
necessarily compact operators). Again, the implication (a) ⇒ (c) in Corollary
3.19 below is the Fuglede Theorem (Theorem 3.17).
$
Corollary 3.19. Let T = λ dEλ be a normal operator in B[H] and take any
operator S in B[H]. The following assertions are pairwise equivalent.
(a) S commutes with T .
(b) S commutes with T ∗ .
(c) S commutes with every E(Λ).
(d) R(E(Λ)) reduces S for every Λ.
$
Proof. Let T = λ dEλ be the spectral decomposition of a normal operator
in B[H]. Take any Λ ∈ Aσ(T ) and an arbitrary S ∈ B[H]. First we show that
ST = TS ⇐⇒ SE(Λ) = E(Λ)S ⇐⇒ S T ∗ = T ∗S.
If S T = T S, then SE(Λ) = E(Λ)S by Theorem 3.17 so that πx,S ∗ y (Λ) =

E(Λ)x ; S ∗ y = SE(Λ)x ; y = E(Λ)Sx ; y = πSx,y (Λ), and hence
%
ST ∗ x ; y = T ∗ x ; S ∗ y = λ dEλ x ; S ∗ y
% %
= λ dSEλ x ; y = λ dEλ Sx ; y = T ∗Sx ; y,
for every x, y ∈ H (cf. Lemmas 3.7 and 3.8(a)). Thus
ST = TS =⇒ SE(Λ) = E(Λ)S =⇒ S T ∗ = T ∗S ⇐⇒ S ∗ T = T S ∗.
Since these hold for every S ∈ B[H], and since S ∗∗ = S, it follows that
S∗T = T S∗ =⇒ S T = T S.
This shows that (a), (b), and (c) are equivalent, and (d) is equivalent to (c)
by Proposition 1.I (as in the final part of the proof of Theorem 3.17).
Corollary 3.20. (Fuglede–Putnam Theorem). Suppose T1 in B[H] and T2

in B[K] are normal operators. If X ∈ B[H, K] intertwines T1 to T2 , then X
intertwines T1∗ to T2∗ (i.e., if X T1 = T2 X, then X T1∗ = T2∗ X).
Proof. Take T1 ∈ B[H], T2 ∈ B[K], and X ∈ B[H, K]. Consider the operators
( ) ( )
T1 O O O
T = T1 ⊕ T2 = and S=
O T2 X O
in B[H ⊕ K]. If T1 and T2 are normal, then T is normal. If X T1 = T2 X, then

S T = T S and so S T ∗ = T ∗S by Corollary 3.19. Hence X T1∗ = T2∗ X.

Let Γ be an arbitrary (not necessarily countable) nonempty index set. We
have defined a diagonalizable operator in Section 3.2 as follows.
(1) An operator T on a Hilbert space H is diagonalizable if there is a resolution
of the identity {Eγ }γ∈Γ on H and a bounded family of scalars {λγ }γ∈Γ
such that T u = λγ u whenever u ∈ R(Eγ ).
As we saw in Section 3.2, this can be equivalently stated as follows.
(1 ) An operator T on a Hilbert space H is diagonalizable if it is a weighted
sum of projections for some bounded sequence of scalars {λγ }γ∈Γ and
some resolution of the identity {Eγ }γ∈Γ on H.
Thus every diagonalizable operator is normal by Corollary 1.9, and what the
Spectral Theorem for compact normal operators (Theorem 3.3) says is pre-
cisely that a compact operator is normal if and only if it is diagonalizable —
cf. Corollary 3.5(a) — and so (being normal) a diagonalizable operator is such
that r(T ) = T = supγ∈Γ |λγ | (cf. Lemma 3.1). However, a diagonalizable
operator on a separable Hilbert space was defined in Section 2.7 (Proposition
2.L), whose natural extension to arbitrary Hilbert space (not necessarily sep-
arable) in terms of summable families (see Section 1.3) rather than summable
sequences, reads as follows.
(2) An operator T on a Hilbert space H is diagonalizable if there is an or-
{eγ }γ∈Γ for H and a bounded family {λγ }γ∈Γ of scalars
thonormal basis
such that T x = γ∈Γ λγ x ; eγ eγ for every x ∈ H.
There is no ambiguity here; both definitions coincide: the resolution of the
identity {Eγ }γ∈Γ behind the statement in (2) is given by Eγ x = x ; eγ eγ
x ∈ H and every γ ∈ Γ according to the Fourier series expansion
for every
x = γ∈Γ x ; eγ eγ of each x ∈ H in terms of orthonormal basis {eγ }γ∈Γ . Now
consider the Banach space Γ∞ made up of all bounded families a = {αγ }γ∈Γ
of complex numbers and also the Hilbert space Γ2 consisting of all square-
summable families z = {ζγ }γ∈Γ of complex numbers indexed by Γ . The defini-
tion of a diagonal operator in B[Γ2 ] goes as follows.
(3) A diagonal operator B[Γ2 ] is a mapping D: Γ2 → Γ2 such that Dz =
{αγ ζγ }γ∈Γ for every z = {ζγ }γ∈Γ ∈ Γ2 , where a = {αγ }γ∈Γ ∈ Γ∞ is a
(bounded) family of scalars. (Notation: D = diag{αγ }γ∈Γ .)
A diagonal operator D is clearly diagonalizable by the resolution of the iden-
tity Eγ z = z ; fγ fγ = ζγ fγ given by the canonical orthonormal basis {fγ }γ∈Γ
for Γ2 , viz., fγ = {δγ,β }β∈Γ with δγ,β = 1 if β = γ and δγ,β = 0 if β = γ. So
D is normal with r(D) = D = a∞ = supγ∈Γ |αγ |. Consider the Fourier
series expansion of an arbitrary x in H in terms of any orthonormal basis
{eγ }γ∈Γ for H, namely, x = γ∈Γ x ; eγ eγ , so that we can identify x in
H with the square-summable family {x ; eγ }γ∈Γ in Γ2 (i.e., x is the image
of {x ; eγ }γ∈Γ under a unitary transformation
between the unitary equiva-
lent spaces H and Γ2 ). Thus, if T x = γ∈Γ λγ x ; eγ eγ , then we can iden-
tify T x with the square-summable family {λγ x ; eγ }γ∈Γ in Γ2 , and so we
can identify T with a diagonal operator D that takes z = {x ; eγ }γ∈Γ into
Dz = {λγ x ; eγ }γ∈Γ . This means that T and D are unitarily equivalent :
there is a unitary transformation U ∈ B[H, Γ2 ] such that U T = D U. It is in
this sense that T is said to be a diagonal operator with respect to the orthonor-
mal basis {eγ }γ∈Γ . Thus definition (2) can be rephrased as follows.
(2 ) An operator T on a Hilbert space H is diagonalizable if it is a diagonal
operator with respect to some orthonormal basis for H.
Proposition 3.A. Let T be an operator on a nonzero complex Hilbert space.

The following assertions are equivalent.
(a) T is diagonalizable in the sense of definition (1) above.
(b) H has an orthogonal basis made up of eigenvectors of T .
(c) T is diagonalizable in the sense of definition (2) above.
(d) T is unitarily equivalent to a diagonal operator .
Take a measure space (Ω, AΩ , μ) where AΩ is a σ-algebra of subsets of

a nonempty set Ω and μ is a positive measure on AΩ . Let L∞ (Ω, C , μ) —
short notation: L∞ (Ω, μ), L∞ (μ), or just L∞ — denote the Banach space of
all essentially bounded AΩ -measurable complex-valued functions f : Ω → C on
Ω equipped with the usual sup-norm (i.e., f ∞ = ess sup |f | for f ∈ L∞ ).
Let L2 (Ω, C , μ) — short notation: L2 (Ω, μ), L2 (μ), or just L2 — denote the
Hilbert space of all square-integrable AΩ -measurable complex-valued
$ functions
1
f : Ω → C on Ω equipped with the usual L2 -norm (i.e., f 2 = |f |2 dμ 2
for f ∈ L2 ). Multiplication operators on L2 will be considered next (see, e.g.,
[50, Chapter 7]). The first version of the Spectral Theorem (Theorem 3.11)
says that multiplication operators are prototypes of normal operators.
Proposition 3.B. Let φ: Ω → C and f : Ω → C be complex-valued functions

on a nonempty set Ω. Let μ be a positive measure on a σ-algebra AΩ of
subsets of Ω. Suppose φ ∈ L∞ . If f ∈ L2 , then φf ∈ L2 . Thus consider the
mapping Mφ : L2 → L2 defined by
Mφ f = φf for every f ∈ L2 .
That is, (Mφ f )(λ) = φ(λ)f (λ) for λ ∈ Ω. This is called the multiplication
operator on L2, which is linear and bounded (i.e., Mφ ∈ B[L2 ]). Moreover :
∗ ∗
(a) Mφ = Mφ (i.e., (Mφ f )(λ) = φ(λ) f (λ) for λ ∈ Ω).
(b) Mφ is a normal operator .
(c) Mφ ≤ φ∞ = ess sup |φ| = inf Λ∈NΩ supλ∈ Ω\Λ |φ(λ)|,
where NΩ denotes the collection of all Λ ∈ AΩ such that μ(Λ) = 0.
(d) σ(Mφ ) ⊆ ess R(φ) = essential range of φ

= α ∈ C : μ({λ ∈ Ω: |φ(λ) − α| < ε}) > 0 for every ε > 0

= α ∈ C : μ(φ−1 (Vα )) > 0 for every neighborhood Vα of α

= φ(Λ)− ∈ C : Λ ∈ AΩ and μ(Ω\Λ) = 0 ⊆ φ(Ω)− = R(φ)− .
If, in addition, μ is σ-finite, then
(e) Mφ = φ∞ ,
(f) σ(Mφ ) = ess R(φ).
Particular case: Suppose Ω is a nonempty bounded subset of C and suppose

ϕ: Ω → Ω ⊆ C is the identity function on Ω (i.e., ϕ(λ) = λ for every λ ∈ Ω,
which is bounded). Then ess R(ϕ) = {Λ− ∈ C : Λ ∈ AΩ and μ(Ω\Λ) = 0} ⊆
Ω −, and so ess R(ϕ) ∩ Ω is the smallest relatively closed subset of Ω such that
μ(Ω\(ess R(ϕ) ∩ Ω)) = 0. Equivalently, Ω\(ess R(ϕ) ∩ Ω) is the largest rela-
tively open subset of Ω of measure zero. Thus ess R(ϕ) ∩ Ω is the (bounded
and relatively closed) support of μ. Summing up, if Ω is a nonempty bounded
subset of C , and ϕ: Ω → Ω is the identity function on Ω, then support (μ) =
ess R(ϕ) ∩ Ω. If, in addition, Ω is closed in C , then support (μ) is compact.
Therefore, if Λ in AΩ is nonempty and relatively open, included in the sup-
port of μ, then μ(Λ) > 0. (Indeed, if ∅ = Λ ⊆ ess R(ϕ) ∩ Ω is relatively open
and μ(Λ) = 0, then [Ω\(ess R(ϕ) ∩ Ω)] ∪ Λ is a relatively open subset of Ω
larger than Ω\(ess R(ϕ) ∩ Ω) and of measure zero; which is a contradiction.)
If Ω = N , the set of all positive integers, AΩ = ℘(N ), the power set of N ,
and μ is the counting measure (assigning to each set the number of elements
in it, which is σ-finite), then a multiplication operator is reduced to a diagonal

operator on L2 (N , C , μ) = N2 = +
2
, where the bounded ℘ (N )-measurable func-
tion φ: N → C in L∞ (N , C , μ) = N∞ = + ∞
is the bounded sequence {αk } with
αk = φ(k) for each k ∈ N , so that Mφ = φ∞ = supk |αk | and σ(Mφ ) =
R(φ)− = {αk }−. What the Spectral Theorem says is that a normal operator is
unitarily equivalent to a multiplication operator (Theorem 3.11), which turns
out to be a diagonal operator in the compact case (Theorem 3.3).
Proposition 3.C. Let Ω be a nonempty compact subset of the complex plane

C and let E :AΩ → B[H] be a spectral measure (cf. Definition 3.6). For each
Λ ∈ AΩ set C Λ = {Δ ∈ AΩ : Δ
is a closed subset of Λ}. R(E(Λ)) is the small-
est subspace of H such that Δ∈C Λ R(E(Δ)) ⊆ R(E(Λ)).
Proposition 3.D. Let H be a complex Hilbert space and let T be the unit
circle about the origin of the complex plane. If T ∈ B[H] is normal, then
(a) T is unitary if and only if σ(T ) ⊆ T ,
(b) T is self-adjoint if and only if σ(T ) ⊆ R ,
(c) T is nonnegative if and only if σ(T ) ⊆ [0, ∞),
(d) T is strictly positive if and only if σ(T ) ⊆ [α, ∞) for some α > 0,
(e) T is an orthogonal projection if and only if σ(T ) ⊆ {0, 1}.

Observe that, if T = 10 00 and S = 21 11 in B[C 2 ], then S 2 − T 2 = 43 32 .
Thus O ≤ T ≤ S does not imply T 2 ≤ S 2 . However, the converse holds.
Proposition 3.E. If T, S ∈ B[H] are nonnegative operators, then

1 1
T ≤ S implies T 2 ≤ S 2 .
$
Proposition 3.F. If T = λ dEλ is the spectral decomposition of a nonneg-
1 $ 1
ative operator T on a complex Hilbert space, then T 2 = λ 2 dEλ .
$
Proposition 3.G. If T = λ dEλ is the spectral decomposition of a normal
operator T ∈ B[H], and if λ0 is an isolated point of σ(T ), then
{0} = R(E({λ0 })) ⊆ N (λ0 I − T ).
Every isolated point of the spectrum of a normal operator is an eigenvalue.

Recall: X ∈ B[H, K] intertwines T ∈ B[H] to S ∈ B[K] if X T = SX. If an
invertible X intertwines T to S, then T and S are similar . If, in addition, X
is unitary, then T and S are unitarily equivalent (cf. Section 1.9).
Proposition 3.H. Let T1 ∈ B[H] and T2 ∈ B[K] be normal operators. If

X ∈ B[H, K] intertwines T1 to T2 (i.e., X T1 = T2 X), then
(a) N (X) reduces T1 and R(X)− reduces T2

so that T1 |N (X)⊥ ∈ B[N (X)⊥ ] and T2 |R(X)− ∈ B[R(X)− ]. Moreover ,
(b) T1 |N (X)⊥ and T2 |R(X)− are unitarily equivalent .
A special case of Proposition 3.H says that if a quasiinvertible (i.e., injec-

tive with dense range) bounded linear transformation intertwines two normal
operators, then these normal operators are unitarily equivalent . This happens,
in particular, when X is invertible (i.e., if X is in G[H, K]).
Proposition 3.I. Two similar normal operators are unitarily equivalent .

A subset of a metric space is nowhere dense if its closure has empty in-
terior. Since the spectrum of T ∈ B[H] is closed, σ(T ) is nowhere dense if
and only if it has an empty interior; that is, σ(T )◦ = ∅. The full spectrum
σ(T )# was defined in Section 2.7 (see Proposition 2.S). Note that the con-
dition σ(T ) = σ(T )# is equivalent to saying that C \σ(T ) is connected (i.e.,
that ρ(T ) is connected). An operator T ∈ B[H] is reductive if all its invari-
ant subspaces are reducing. Thus, by Proposition 1.Q, a normal operator is
reductive if and only if its restriction to every invariant subspace is normal .
Normal reductive operators are also called completely normal .
Proposition 3.J. Suppose T ∈ B[H] is a normal operator. If σ(T ) = σ(T )#

and σ(T )◦ = ∅, then T is reductive. If T is reductive, then σ(T )◦ = ∅.
There are normal reductive operators D for which σ(D) = σ(D)#. For
2
instance, consider the diagonal D = diag{λk }k≥0 in B[+ ] with λk = e2πiαk,
where {αk }k≥0 is a distinct enumeration of all rationals in [0, 1). Being a
diagonal, D is normal (unitary, actually) and σ(D) = T (since {αk }k≥0 is
dense in [0, 1]). Thus T = σ(D) ⊂ σ(D)# = D −. However, D is reductive (see,
e.g., [35, Example 13.5]). On the other hand, there are normal operators S
with σ(S)◦ = ∅ that are not reductive. Indeed, every bilateral shift S has an
invariant subspace M such that the restriction S+ = S|M is a unilateral shift
(see, e.g., [62, Proposition 2.13]). Since S is unitary (thus normal) and S+ is
not normal, it follows by Proposition 1.Q that M does not reduce S. Thus S
is not reductive, although σ(S) = T , and so σ(S)◦ = ∅.
Proposition 3.K. Let T be a diagonalizable operator on a nonzero complex

Hilbert space. The following assertions are equivalent.
(a) Every nontrivial invariant subspace for T contains an eigenvector .
(b) Every nontrivial invariant subspace Mfor T is spanned by the eigenvec-
tors of T |M (i.e., it is such that M = λ∈σP (T |M ) N (λI − T |M )).
(c) T is reductive.
There are diagonalizable operators that are not reductive. In fact, since
C is a separable metric space, it includes a countable dense subset, and so
does every compact subset of C . Let Λ be any countable dense subset of an

arbitrary nonempty compact subset Ω of C . Let {λk } be an enumeration of Λ
so that supk |λk | < ∞ (since Ω is bounded). Consider the diagonal operator
2
D = diag{λk } in B[+ ]. As we had seen in Proposition 2.L,
σ(D) = Λ− = Ω.
Therefore, every closed and bounded subset of the complex plane is the spec-
2
trum of some diagonal operator on + . Hence, if Ω ◦ = ∅, then Proposition
3.J ensures that the diagonal D is not reductive.
Notes: A discussion on diagonalizable operators precedes the characterization

in Proposition 3.A (see, e.g., [66, Problem 6.25]). Diagonal operators are ex-
tended to multiplication operators, whose properties that will be needed in the
text are summarized in Proposition 3.B (see, e.g., [27, IX.2.6], [50, Chapter 7],
and [76, p. 13]). For the technical result in Proposition 3.C, which is required
in the proof of the Fuglede Theorem (Theorem 3.17), see [76, Proposition
1.4]. The remaining propositions depend on the Spectral Theorem (Theorem
3.15). Proposition 3.D considers the converse of Proposition 2.A (see, e.g.,
[66, Problem 6.26]). For Proposition 3.E see, for instance, [63, Problem 8.12].
Proposition 3.F is a consequence of Lemma 3.10 and Proposition 1.M (see,
e.g., [66, Problem 6.45]). Proposition 3.G is an important classical result that
shows how the spectral decomposition of a normal operator behaves similarly
to the compact case of Theorem 3.3 for isolated points of the spectrum (com-
pare with the claim in the proof of Lemma 3.2) — see, e.g., [66, Problem 6.28].
Propositions 3.H and 3.I follow from Corollary 3.20 (see, e.g., [27, IX.6.10 and
IX.6.11]). Reductive normal operators are considered in Propositions 3.J and
3.K (see [35, Theorems 13.2 and 13.32] and [76, Theorems 1.23 and 1.25]).
Suggested Reading
Arveson [6] Dunford and Schwartz [40]

Bachman and Narici [8] Halmos [47, 50]
Berberian [14] Helmberg [54]
Conway [27, 29] Kubrusly [66]
Douglas [34] Radjavi and Rosenthal [76]
Dowson [35] Rudin [80]
4
Functional Calculus
Fix an operator T in the operator algebra B[H]. Suppose an operator ψ(T ) in

B[H] can be associated to each function ψ: Ω → C on a nonempty set Ω, in a
suitable algebra of functions F (Ω). The central theme of this chapter inves-
tigates the mapping ΦT : F (Ω) → B[H] defined by ΦT (ψ) = ψ(T ) for every
ψ in F (Ω); that is, the mapping ψ → ψ(T ) that takes each function ψ in a
function algebra F (Ω) to the operator ψ(T ) in the operator algebra B[H]. If
this mapping ΦT is linear and also preserves product (i.e., if it is an algebra
homomorphism), then it is referred to as a functional calculus for T .
4.1 Rudiments of C*-Algebra

Let A and B be algebras over the same scalar field F . If F = C , then these
are referred to as complex algebras. A linear transformation Φ: A → B (of the
linear space A into the linear space B) that preserves products (i.e., such that
Φ(xy) = Φ(x)Φ(y) for every x, y in A) is a homomorphism (or an algebra
homomorphism) of A into B. A unital algebra (or an algebra with identity)
is an algebra with an identity element (i.e., with a neutral element under
multiplication). An element x in a unital algebra A is invertible if there is an
x−1 ∈ A such that x−1 x = xx−1 = 1, where 1 denotes the identity in A. A
unital homomorphism between unital algebras is one that takes the identity
of A to the identity of B. If Φ is an isomorphism (of the linear spaces A onto
the linear space B) and also a homomorphism (of the algebra A onto the
algebra B), then it is an algebra isomorphism of A onto B. In this case A and
B are said to be isomorphic algebras. A normed algebra is an algebra A that
is also a normed space whose norm satisfies the operator norm property, viz.,
xy ≤ x y for every x, y in A. The identity element of a unital normed
algebra has norm 1. A Banach algebra is a complete normed algebra. The
spectrum σ(x) of an element x ∈ A in a unital complex Banach algebra A is
the complement of the set ρ(x) = {λ ∈ C : λ1 − x has an inverse in A}, and
its spectral radius is the number r(x) = supλ∈σ(x) |λ|. An involution ∗: A → A
on an algebra A is a map x → x∗ such that (x∗ )∗ = x, (xy)∗ = y ∗ x∗, and
(αx + β y)∗ = αx∗ + βy ∗ for all scalars α, β and every x, y in A. A ∗-algebra

92 4. Functional Calculus
(or an involutive algebra) is an algebra equipped with an involution. If A and

B are ∗-algebras, then a ∗-homomorphism (a ∗-isomorphism) between them is
an algebra homomorphism Φ: A → B (an algebra isomorphism) that preserves
the involution (i.e., Φ(x∗ ) = Φ(x)∗ in B for every x in A — we are using the
same notation for the involutions on A and B). An element x in a ∗-algebra is
called Hermitian if x∗ = x and normal if x∗ x = xx∗ . An element x in a unital
∗-algebra is unitary if x∗ x = xx∗ = 1. A C*-algebra is a Banach ∗-algebra A
such that x∗ x = x2 for every x in A.
In a ∗-algebra, (x∗ )∗ is usually denoted by x∗∗ . The origin 0 in a ∗-algebra
and the identity 1 in a unital ∗-algebra are Hermitian. Indeed, since (αx)∗ =
αx∗ for every x and every scalar α, we get 0∗ = 0 by setting α = 0. Since
1∗ x = (1∗ x)∗∗ = (x∗ 1)∗ = (1x∗ )∗ = x1∗ and (x∗ 1)∗ = x∗∗ = x, it follows
that 1∗ x = x1∗ = x, and so (by uniqueness of the identity) 1∗ = 1. In a unital
C*-algebra the expression 1 = 1 is a theorem (rather than an axiom) since
12 = 1∗ 1 = 12 = 1 so that 1 = 1 because 1 = 0.
Elementary properties of Banach algebras (in particular, C*-algebras) and
of algebra homomorphisms that will be needed in the sequel are brought
together in the following lemma.
Lemma 4.1. Let A and B be algebras over the same scalar field and let
Φ: A → B be a homomorphism. Take an arbitrary x ∈ A.
(a) If A is a ∗-algebra, then x = a + i b where a∗ = a and b∗ = b in A.
(b) If A, B, and Φ are unital and x is invertible, then Φ(x)−1 = Φ(x−1 ).
(c) If A is unital and normed, and x is invertible, then x−1 ≤ x−1 .
(d) If A is a unital ∗-algebra and x is invertible, then (x−1 )∗ = (x∗ )−1 .
(e) If A is a C*-algebra and x∗ x = 1, then x = 1.
(f) If A is a C*-algebra, then x∗ = x.
Suppose A and B are unital complex Banach algebras.
(g) If Φ is a unital homomorphism, then σ(Φ(x)) ⊆ σ(x).
(h) If Φ is an injective unital homomorphism, then σ(Φ(x)) = σ(x).
1
(i) r(x) = limn xn n .
(j) If A is a unital complex C*-algebra and x∗ = x, then r(x) = x.
From now on assume that A and B are unital complex C*-algebras.
(k) If Φ is a unital ∗-homomorphism, then Φ(x) ≤ x.
() If Φ is an injective unital ∗-homomorphism, then Φ(x) = x.
Proof. Let Φ: A → B be a homomorphism and take an arbitrary x ∈ A.

4.1 Rudiments of C*-Algebra 93
(a) This is the Cartesian decomposition (as in Proposition 1.O). If A is a

∗-algebra, then set a = 12 (x∗ + x) ∈ A and b = 2i (x∗ − x) ∈ A so that a∗ =
1 ∗ ∗ −i ∗ 1 ∗ ∗
2 (x + x ) = a, b = 2 (x − x ) = b, and a + i b = 2 (x + x − x + x) = x.
(b) If A and B are unital algebras, Φ a unital homomorphism, and x invertible,

then 1 = Φ(1) = Φ(x−1 x) = Φ(xx−1 ) = Φ(x−1 )Φ(x) = Φ(x)Φ(x−1 ).
(c) If A is a unital normed algebra, then 1 = 1 = x−1 x ≤ x−1 x when-
ever x is invertible.
(d) If A is a unital ∗-algebra and if x−1 x = xx−1 = 1, then x∗ (x−1 )∗ =
(x−1 x)∗ = (xx−1 )∗ = (x−1 )∗ x∗ = 1∗ = 1, and so (x∗ )−1 = (x−1 )∗ .
(e) If A is a C*-algebra and if x∗ x = 1, then x2 = x∗ x = 1 = 1.
(f) Let A be a C*-algebra. The result is trivial for x = 0 because 0∗ = 0. Since
x2 = x∗ x ≤ x∗ x, it follows that x ≤ x∗ if x = 0. Replacing x
with x∗ and recalling that x∗∗ = x we get x∗ ≤ x.
(g) Let A and B be unital complex Banach algebras, and let Φ be a unital
homomorphism. If λ ∈ ρ(x), then λ1 − x is invertible in A. Since Φ is unital,
Φ(λ1 − x) = λ1 − Φ(x) is invertible in B by (b). Hence λ ∈ ρ(Φ(x)). Thus
ρ(x) ⊆ ρ(Φ(x)). Therefore, C \ρ(Φ(x)) ⊆ C \ρ(x).
(h) If Φ: A → B is injective, then it has an inverse Φ−1 : R(Φ) → B on its range
R(Φ) = Φ(A) ⊆ B which, being the image of a unital algebra under a unital
homomorphism, is again a unital algebra. Moreover, Φ−1 itself is a unital
homomorphism. Indeed, if y = Φ(u) and z = Φ(v) are arbitrary elements in
R(Φ), then Φ−1 (y z) = Φ−1 (Φ(u)Φ(v)) = Φ−1 (Φ(u v)) = u v = Φ−1 (y)Φ−1 (z),
and so Φ−1 is a homomorphism (since inverses of linear transformations are
linear) which is trivially unital (since Φ is unital). Now apply (b) so that
Φ−1 (y) is invertible in A whenever y is invertible in R(Φ) ⊆ B. If λ ∈ ρ(Φ(x)),
then y = λ1 − Φ(x) = Φ(λ1 − x) is invertible in R(Φ), and therefore Φ−1 (y) =
Φ−1 (Φ(λ1 − x)) = λ1 − x is invertible in A, which means that λ ∈ ρ(x). Thus
ρ(Φ(x)) ⊆ ρ(x). Hence ρ(x) = ρ(Φ(x)) by (g).
(i) The proof of the Gelfand–Beurling formula in the complex Banach algebra
B[X ] of Theorem 2.10 holds in any unital complex Banach algebra.
(j) If A is a C*-algebra and if x∗ = x, then x2 = x∗ x = x2 and so, by
induction, x2n = x2n for every integer n ≥ 1. If A is unital and complex,
1 1 1
then r(x) = limn xn n = limn x2n 2n = limn (x2n ) 2n = x by (i).
(k) Let A and B be complex unital C*-algebras and Φ a ∗-homomorphism.
Then Φ(x)2 = Φ(x)∗ Φ(x) = Φ(x∗ )Φ(x) = Φ(x∗ x). Observe that x∗ x
is Hermitian. Thus Φ(x∗ x) is Hermitian since Φ is a ∗-homomorphism. Hence
Φ(x∗ x) = r(Φ(x∗ x)) ≤ r(x∗ x) = x∗ x = x2 by (j) and (g).
() Consider the setup and the argument of the preceding proof and suppose, in
addition, that the unital ∗-homomorphism Φ: A → B is injective. Thus apply
(h) instead of (g) to get () instead of (k).
Remark. Lemma 4.1(k) says that a unital ∗-homomorphism Φ between unital

complex C*-algebras is a contraction, and so it is a contractive unital ∗-homo-
morphism. If it is injective, then Lemma 4.1() says that Φ is an isometry, and
so an isometric unital ∗-homomorphism. Since an isometry of a Banach space
into a normed space has a closed range (see, e.g., [66, Problem 4.41]), it follows
that, if a unital ∗-homomorphism Φ between unital complex C*-algebras A
and B is injective, then the unital ∗-algebra R(Φ) = Φ(A) ⊆ B, being closed in
the Banach space B, is itself a Banach space, and so R(Φ) is a unital complex
C*-algebra. Thus the injective unital ∗-homomorphism Φ: A → B is such that
Φ: A → R(Φ) is an isometric isomorphism (i.e., an injective and surjective
linear isometry), and therefore A and R(Φ) are isometrically isomorphic unital
complex C*-algebras.
These are the elementary results on C*-algebras that will be needed in

this chapter. For a thorough treatment of C*-algebras the reader is referred,
for instance, to [5], [30], [43], and [74].
Throughout this chapter H stands for a nonzero complex Hilbert space,
so that B[H] is a (unital complex) C*-algebra, where involution is defined as
the adjoint operation. Take an arbitrary nonempty set Ω and let F (Ω) =
C Ω be an algebra of complex-valued functions on Ω, where addition, scalar
multiplication, and product are pointwise defined as usual. If F (Ω) is such
that ψ ∗ ∈ F (Ω) whenever ψ ∈ F (Ω), where ψ ∗ is given by ψ ∗ (λ) = ψ(λ) for
every λ ∈ Ω, then complex conjugation defines an involution on F (Ω). In this
case F (Ω) is a commutative ∗-algebra. If, in addition, F (Ω) is endowed with
a norm that makes it complete (and so a Banach space), and if ψ ∗ ψ = ψ2
(which is the case of the sup-norm · ∞ since (ψ ∗ ψ)(λ) = ψ ∗ (λ)ψ(λ) =
ψ(λ)ψ(λ) = |ψ(λ)|2 for every λ ∈ Ω), then F (Ω) is a (complex) C*-algebra.
Take any operator T in B[H]. The first steps towards a functional calculus
n of T . To each polynomial p: σ(T ) → C with
for T are given by polynomials
complex coefficients, p(λ) = i=0 αi λi for λ ∈ σ(T ), associate the operator
n
p(T ) = αi T i .
i=0

Let P (σ(T )) be the unital algebra of all polynomials (in one variable with
complex coefficients) on σ(T ). The map ΦT : P (σ(T )) → B[H] given by
ΦT (p) = p(T ) for each p ∈ P (σ(T ))

m
is a unital homomorphism from P (σ(T )) to B[H]. In fact, if q(λ) = j=0 βj λj ,
n m n m
then (pq)(λ) = i=0 j=0 αi βj λi+j so that ΦT (pq) = i=0 j=0 αi βj T i+j =
ΦT (p)ΦT (q), and also ΦT (1) = 1(T ) = T 0 = I. This can be extended from fi-
nite power series (i.e.,
nfrom polynomials) to infinite power series: if a sequence
{pn }, with pn (λ) = k=0 αk λk for each n, converges in some sense on
∞ σ(T ) to a
∞
limit ψ, denoted by ψ(λ) = k=0 αk λk , then we may set ψ(T ) = k=0 αk T k
1
if the series converges in some topology of B[H]. For instance, if αk = k! for
4.2 Functional Calculus for Normal Operators 95
each k ≥ 0, then {pn } converges pointwise to the exponential function ψ such

that ψ(λ) = eλ for every λ ∈ σ(T ) (on any σ(T ) ⊆ C ), and so we define
∞
1 k
eT = ψ(T ) = k! T
k=0
(where the series converges uniformly in B[H]). However, unlike in the preced-
ing paragraph, complex conjugation does not define an involution on P (σ(T ))
(and so P (σ(T )) is not ∗-algebra under it). Indeed, p∗ (λ) = p(λ) is not a
polynomial in λ — the continuous function p( · ): σ(T ) → C given by p(λ) =
n ∗
i=0 αi λ is not a polynomial in λ (for σ(T ) ⊆ R , even if σ(T ) = σ(T )).
i
The extension of the mapping ΦT to some larger algebras of functions is

the focus of this chapter.
4.2 Functional Calculus for Normal Operators

Let Aσ(T ) be the σ-algebra of Borel subsets of the spectrum σ(T ) of an oper-
ator T on a Hilbert space H. Let B(σ(T )) be the Banach space of all bounded
Aσ(T ) -measurable complex-valued functions ψ : σ(T ) → C on σ(T ) equipped
with the sup-norm, and let L∞ (σ(T ), μ) be the Banach space of all essentially
bounded (i.e., μ-essentially bounded) Aσ(T ) -measurable complex-valued func-
tions ψ: σ(T ) → C on σ(T ), also equipped with the sup-norm · ∞ , for any
positive measure μ on Aσ(T ) . In both cases we have unital commutative C*-
algebras, where involution is defined as complex conjugation, and the identity
element is the characteristic function 1 = χσ(T ) of σ(T ) (carefully note that
this is not the identity function ϕ(λ) = λχσ(T ) on σ(T )). If T is normal, then
let E : Aσ(T$) → B[H] be the unique spectral measure of its spectral decompo-
sition T = λ dEλ as in Theorem 3.15.
Theorem 4.2. Let$T ∈ B[H] be a normal operator and consider its spectral
decomposition T = λ dEλ . For every function ψ ∈ B(σ(T )) there is a unique
operator ψ(T ) ∈ B[H] given by
%
ψ(T ) = ψ(λ) dEλ ,
which is normal. Moreover, the mapping ΦT : B(σ(T )) → B[H] such that

ΦT (ψ) = ψ(T ) is a unital ∗-homomorphism.
Proof. ψ(T ) is unique in B[H] and normal for every ψ ∈ B(σ(T )) by Lemmas
3.7 and 3.9. The mapping ΦT : B(σ(T )) → B[H] is a unital ∗-homomorphism
by Lemma 3.8 and by the linearity of the integral. Indeed,
$
(a) ΦT (α ψ + β φ) = (α ψ + β φ)(T ) = (α ψ(λ) + β φ(λ)) dEλ
= α ψ(T ) + β φ(T ) = α ΦT (ψ) + β ΦT (φ),
$
(b) ΦT (ψφ) = (ψφ)(T ) = ψ(λ)φ(λ) dEλ = ψ(T )φ(T ) = ΦT (ψ)ΦT (φ),
$
(c) ΦT (1) = 1(T ) = dEλ = I,
$
(d) ΦT (ψ ∗ ) = ψ ∗ (T ) = ψ(λ) dEλ = ψ(T )∗ = ΦT (ψ)∗ ,
for every ψ, φ ∈ B(σ(T )) and every α, β ∈ C , where the constant function 1
(i.e., 1(λ) = 1 for every λ ∈ σ(T )) is the identity in B(σ(T )).
Let P (σ(T )) be the set of all polynomials p(·, ·): σ(T ) × σ(T ) → C in λ and
λ (or, p(·, ·): σ(T ) → C such that λ → p(λ, λ)), and let C(σ(T )) be the set of
all complex-valued continuous (thus Aσ(T ) -measurable) functions on σ(T ). So
P (σ(T )) ⊂ P (σ(T )) ⊂ C(σ(T )) ⊂ B(σ(T )),
where the last inclusion follows from the Weierstrass Theorem since σ(T ) is
compact — cf. proof of Theorem 2.2. Except for P (σ(T )), these are all unital
∗-subalgebras of B(σ(T )) and the restriction of the mapping ΦT to any of
them remains a unital ∗-homomorphism into B[H]. Thus Theorem 4.2 holds
for all those unital ∗-subalgebras of the unital C*-algebra B(σ(T )). Note that
P (σ(T )) is a unital subalgebra of P (σ(T )), and the restriction of ΦT to it is a
unital homomorphism into B[H], and so Theorem 4.2 also holds for P (σ(T ))
by replacing ∗-homomorphismn with plain homomorphism. In particular, for p
in P (σ(T )), say p(λ) = i=0 αi λi, we get, if T is normal,
% n % n
p(T ) = p(λ) dEλ = αi λi dEλ = αi T i
i=0 i=0
n,m i j
and, for p in P (σ(T )), say p(λ, λ) = i,j=0 αi,j λ λ (cf. Lemma 3.10), we get
% n,m % n,m
p(T, T ∗ ) = p(λ, λ) dEλ = αi,j λi λj dEλ = αi,j T i T ∗j .
i,j=0 i,j=0
The quotient space of a set modulo an equivalence relation is a partition

of the set. So we may regard B(σ(T )) as consisting of equivalence classes from
L∞ (σ(T ), μ) — bounded functions are essentially bounded with respect to any
measure μ. On the other hand, shifting from restriction to extension, it is sen-
sible to argue that the preceding theorem might be extended from B(σ(T )) to
some L∞ (σ(T ), μ), where bounded would be replaced by essentially bounded.
But essentially bounded with respect to which measure μ ?
A measure μ on a σ-algebra is absolutely continuous with respect to an-
other measure ν on the same σ-algebra if ν(Λ) = 0 implies μ(Λ) = 0 for every
measurable set Λ. Two measures on the same σ-algebra are equivalent if they
are absolutely continuous with respect to each other, which means that they
have the same sets of measure zero. That is, μ and ν are equivalent if, for ev-
ery measurable set Λ, ν(Λ) = 0 if and only if μ(Λ) = 0. (Note: if two positive
measures are equivalent, it may happen that one is finite but not the other.)
Remark. Let E : Aσ(T ) → B[H] be the spectral measure of the spectral decom-
position of a normal operator T, and consider the statements of Lemmas 3.7,
3.8, and 3.9 for Ω = σ(T ). Lemma 3.7 remains true if B(σ(T )) is replaced by
L∞ (σ(T ), μ) for every positive measure μ: Aσ(T ) → R that is equivalent to the

spectral measure E. The proof is essentially the same as that of Lemma 3.7.
In fact, the spectral integrals of functions in L∞ (σ(T ), μ) coincide whenever
they are equal μ-almost everywhere, and so a function in B(σ(T )) has the
same integral of any representative from its equivalence class in L∞ (σ(T ), μ).
Moreover, since μ and E have exactly the same sets of measure zero, we get
φ∞ = ess sup |φ| = inf sup |φ(λ)|

Λ∈Nσ(T ) λ∈ σ(T )\Λ
for every φ ∈ L∞ (σ(T ), μ), where Nσ(T ) denotes the collection of all Λ ∈ Aσ(T )
such that μ(Λ) = 0 or, equivalently, such that E(Λ) = O. Thus the sup-norm
φ∞ of φ: σ(T ) → C with respect to μ dominates the sup-norm with respect
to πx,x for every x ∈ H. Then the proof of Lemma 3.7 remains unchanged if
B(σ(T )) is replaced by L∞$(σ(T ), μ) for any positive measure μ equivalent to
E, since |f (x, x)| ≤ φ∞ dπx,x = φ∞ x2 for every x ∈ H still holds if
φ ∈ L∞ (σ(T ), μ). Hence, for every
$ φ ∈ L∞ (σ(T ), μ), there is a unique opera-
tor F ∈ B[H] such that F = φ(λ) dEλ as in Lemma 3.7. This ensures that
Lemmas 3.8 and 3.9 also hold if B(σ(T )) is replaced by L∞ (σ(T ), μ).
Theorem 4.3. Let $T ∈ B[H] be a normal operator and consider its spectral
decomposition T = λ dEλ . If μ is a positive measure on Aσ(T ) equivalent to
the spectral measure E : Aσ(T ) → B[H], then for every ψ ∈ L∞ (σ(T ), μ) there
is a unique operator ψ(T ) ∈ B[H] given by
%
ψ(T ) = ψ(λ)dEλ ,
which is normal. Moreover, the mapping ΦT : L∞ (σ(T ), μ) → B[H] such that

ΦT (ψ) = ψ(T ) is a unital ∗-homomorphism.
Proof. If μ: Aσ(T ) → R and E : Aσ(T ) → B[H] are equivalent measures, then
the above Remark ensures that the proof of Theorem 4.2 still holds.
There are however instances where it is convenient that a positive measure

μ on Aσ(T ) , besides being equivalent to the spectral measure E, be finite as
∞
well. For example, if ψ lies in $ L 2 (σ(T ), μ)2 and μ is finite, then ψ also lies
2 2
in L (σ(T ), μ), since ψ2 = |ψ| dμ ≤ ψ∞ μ(σ(T )) ≤ ∞; this is especially
significant if it is expected that an essentially constant function will be in
L2 (σ(T ), μ), as will be the case in the proof of Lemma 4.7 below.
Definition 4.4. A scalar spectral measure for a normal operator is a positive

finite measure equivalent to the spectral measure of its spectral decomposition.
In other words, if T is a normal operator and E is the unique spectral

measure of Theorem 3.15, then a positive finite measure μ is a scalar spectral
measure for T if, for every measurable set Λ, μ(Λ) = 0 if and only if E(Λ) = O.
Clearly (by transitivity), every positive finite measure that is equivalent to
some scalar spectral measure for T is again a scalar spectral measure for T .
Definition 4.5. A separating vector for a collection {Cγ }γ∈Γ ⊆ B[H] of op-
erators is a vector e ∈ H such that e ∈ N (C) for every O = C ∈ {Cγ }γ∈Γ .
Take the collection {E(Λ)}Λ∈AΩ of all images of the spectral measure E
associated to a normal operator T on H, where Ω is either the disjoint union of
{Ωγ } or σ(T ) as in proof of Theorem 3.15. For each x, y ∈ H, let πx,y : AΩ → C
be the scalar-valued (complex) measure of Section 3.3 related to E, namely,
πx,y (Λ) = E(Λ)x ; y for every Λ ∈ Ω.
Lemma 4.6. If T ∈ B[H] is normal, then e ∈ H is a separating vector for

{E(Λ)}Λ∈AΩ if and only if πe,e is a scalar spectral measure for T .
Proof. Let E : AΩ → B[H] be the spectral measure for a normal operator T in
B[H]. Note that πx,x (Λ) = E(Λ)x2 for every Λ ∈ AΩ and every x ∈ H,
and so the measure πx,x : AΩ → R is positive and finite for every x ∈ H.
Recall that e ∈ H is a separating vector for the collection {E(Λ)}Λ∈AΩ if
and only if E(Λ)e = 0 whenever E(Λ) = O, or equivalently, if and only if
{E(Λ)e = 0 ⇐⇒ E(Λ) = O}. Conclusion: e ∈ H is a separating vector for the
collection {E(Λ)}Λ∈AΩ if and only if {πe,e (Λ) = 0 ⇐⇒ E(Λ) = O}; that is,
if and only if E and πe,e are equivalent measures. Since πe,e is positive and
finite, this means that πe,e is a scalar spectral measure for T .
Lemma 4.7. If T is a normal operator on a separable Hilbert space H, then

there is a separating vector e ∈ H for {E(Λ)}Λ∈AΩ, and so there is a vector
e ∈ H such that πe,e is a scalar spectral measure for T (by Lemma 4.6).
Proof. Take the positive measure μ on AΩ of Theorem 3.11. If H is separable,
then μ is finite (Corollary 3.13). Let Mϕ be the multiplication operator on
L2 (Ω, μ) with ϕ ∈ L∞ (Ω, μ) given by ϕ(λ) = λ ∈ σ(T ) ⊆ C for every λ ∈ Ω.
Let χΛ ∈ L∞ (Ω, μ) be the characteristic function of each Λ ∈ AΩ . Set E (Λ) =
M χΛ for every Λ ∈ AΩ so that E : AΩ → B[L2 (Ω, μ)] is the spectral measure
in L2 (Ω, μ) for the spectral decomposition (cf. proof (a) of Theorem 3.15)
% %
Mϕ = ϕ(λ) dEλ = λ dEλ
of the normal operator Mϕ ∈ B[L2 (Ω, μ)]. Hence, for each f ∈ L2 (Ω, μ),
% %
πf,f (Λ) = E (Λ)f ; f = M χΛ f ; f = χΛ f f dμ = |f |2 dμ

Λ
for every Λ ∈ AΩ . In particular, set f = 1 = χΩ (the constant function f (λ) = 1
for all λ ∈ Ω, i.e., the characteristic function χΩ of Ω), which lies in L2 (Ω, μ)
because μ is finite. Note that f = 1 = χΩ is a separating vector for {E (Λ)}Λ∈AΩ
since E (Λ)1 = M χΛ 1 = χΛ = 0 if Λ = ∅ in AΩ . Thus π 1,1 is a scalar spectral
measure for Mϕ by Lemma 4.6. Now, if T ∈ B[H] is normal, then T ∼ = Mϕ by
Theorem 3.11. Let E : AΩ → B[H] be the spectral measure in H for T , given
by E(Λ) = U ∗E (Λ)U for each Λ ∈ AΩ , where U is a unitary in B[H, L2 (Ω, μ)]
(cf. proof (b) of Theorem 3.15). Set e = U ∗ 1 ∈ H with the function 1 = χΩ in

L2 (Ω, μ). Note that e is a separating vector for {E(Λ)}Λ∈AΩ because E(Λ)e =
U ∗E (Λ)U U ∗ 1 = U ∗E (Λ)1 = 0 if E(Λ) = O (since E (Λ)1 = 0 when E (Λ) =
U E(Λ)U ∗ = O). Thus πe,e is a scalar spectral measure for T (Lemma 4.6).
Next, take the spectral measure Ẽ : Aσ(T ) → B[H] such that Ẽ(Λ) = E(∪Λ) for
every Λ ∈ Aσ(T ) (cf. proof (c) of Theorem 3.15). Thus Ẽ(Λ) = O implies that
Ẽ(Λ)e = E(∪Λ)e = O, and so e is also a separating vector for {Ẽ(Λ)}Λ∈Aσ(T ).
Hence π̃e,e , such that π̃e,e (Λ) = Ẽ(Λ)e ; e, is a scalar spectral measure for T
(Lemma 4.6). Again, use the same notation: E for Ẽ and πe,e for π̃e,e .
Remark. The preceding proof shows that the scalar spectral measure π 1,1 for
Mϕ is precisely the measure
$ μ of Theorem 3.11. Indeed, π1,1 (Λ) = E (Λ)12 =
2 2
M χΛ 1 = χΛ = Λ dμ = μ(Λ) for every Λ ∈ AΩ . And so is the scalar
spectral measure πe,e for T . That is, μ = π1,1 = πe,e . In fact, for every Λ ∈ AΩ ,
μ(Λ) = π 1,1 (Λ) = E (Λ)1 ; 1 = U E(Λ)U ∗ U e ; U e = E(Λ)e ; e = πe,e (Λ).
Theorem 4.8. Let T ∈ B[H] be a normal operator on$ a separable Hilbert

space H and consider its spectral decomposition T = λ dEλ . Let μ be an
arbitrary scalar spectral measure for T . For every ψ ∈ L∞ (σ(T ), μ) there is
a unique operator ψ(T ) ∈ B[H] given by
%
ψ(T ) = ψ(λ)dEλ ,
which is normal. Moreover, the mapping ΦT : L∞ (σ(T ), μ) → B[H] such that

ΦT (ψ) = ψ(T ) is an isometric unital ∗-homomorphism.
Proof. All but the fact that ΦT is an isometry is a particular case of Theorem
4.3. We show that ΦT is an isometry. Lemma 3.8, the uniqueness in Lemma
3.7, and the uniqueness of the expression for ψ(T ) ensure that, for every x ∈ H,
% %
ΦT (ψ)x = ψ(T ) ψ(T )x ; x = ψ(λ) ψ(λ) dEλ x ; x = |ψ(λ)|2 dπx,x .
2 ∗
$
Suppose ΦT (ψ) = O. Then |ψ(λ)|2 dπx,x = 0 for every x ∈ H. Lemma 4.7
ensures the existence of a separating vector e ∈ H for {E(Λ)}Λ∈Aσ(T ). Thus
$
consider the scalar spectral measure πe,e so that |ψ(λ)|2 dπe,e = 0, and hence
ψ = 0 in L∞ (σ(T ), πe,e ), which means that ψ = 0 in L∞ (σ(T ), μ) for every
measure μ equivalent to πe,e ; in particular, for every scalar spectral measure
μ for T . So {0} = N (ΦT ) ⊆ L∞ (σ(T ), μ), and hence the linear transformation
ΦT : L∞ (σ(T ), μ) → B[H] is injective; thus an isometry by Lemma 4.1().
If T is normal on a separable Hilbert space H, then ΦT : L∞ (σ(T ), μ) → B[H]

is an isometric unital ∗-homomorphism between C*-algebras (Theorem 4.8).
Thus ΦT : L∞ (σ(T ), μ) → R(ΦT ) is an isometric unital ∗-isomorphism between
the C*-algebras L∞ (σ(T ), μ) and R(ΦT ) ⊆ B[H] (see Remark after Lemma
4.1), which is the von Neumann algebra generated by T (see Proposition 4.A).
Theorem 4.9. Let T ∈ B[H] be a normal operator on a$ separable Hilbert

space H and consider its spectral decomposition T = λ dEλ . For every
ψ ∈ C(σ(T )) there is a unique operator ψ(T ) ∈ B[H] given by
%
ψ(T ) = ψ(λ) dEλ ,
which is normal. Moreover, the mapping ΦT : C(σ(T )) → R(ΦT ) ⊆ B[H] such

that ΦT (ψ) = ψ(T ) is an isometric unital ∗-isomorphism, where R(ΦT ) is the
C*-algebra generated by T and the identity I in B[H].
Proof. The set C(σ(T )) is a unital ∗-subalgebra of the C*-algebra B(σ(T )),
which can be viewed as a subalgebra of the C*-algebra L∞ (σ(T ), μ) for every
measure μ (in terms of equivalence classes in L∞ (σ(T ), μ) of each function in
B(σ(T ))). So ΦT : C(σ(T )) → B[H], the restriction of ΦT : L∞ (σ(T ), μ) → B[H]
to C(σ(T )), is an isometric unital ∗-homomorphism under the same assump-
tions of Theorem 4.8. Hence ΦT : C(σ(T )) → R(ΦT ) is an isometric unital ∗-
isomorphism (cf. the paragraph that precedes the theorem statement). Thus it
remains to show that R(ΦT ) is the C*-algebra generated by T and the identity
I. Indeed, take R(ΦT ) = ΦT (C(σ(T ))). Since ΦT (P (σ(T ))) = P(T, T ∗), the
algebra of all polynomials in T and T ∗, since P (σ(T ))− = C(σ(T )) in the sup-
norm topology by the Stone–Weierstrass Theorem (cf. proof of Theorem 3.11),
and ΦT : C(σ(T )) → B[H] is an isometry (thus with a closed range), it follows
that ΦT (C(σ(T ))) = ΦT (P (σ(T ))− ) = ΦT (P (σ(T )))− = P(T, T ∗)− = C ∗ (T ),
where C ∗ (T ) stands for the C*-algebra generated by T and I (see the para-
graph following Definition 3.12, recalling that now T is normal).
The mapping ΦT of Theorems 4.2, 4.3, 4.8, and 4.9 such that ΦT (ψ) = ψ(T )
is referred to as the functional calculus for T , and the theorems themselves
are referred to as the Functional Calculus for Normal Operators. Since
σ(T ) is compact it follows that, for any positive measure μ on Aσ(T ) ,
C(σ(T )) ⊂ B(σ(T )) ⊂ L∞ (σ(T ), μ)
(again, the last inclusion is interpreted in terms of the equivalence classes in

L∞ (σ(T ), μ) of each representative in B(σ(T )), as in the Remark that precedes
Theorem 4.3). Thus ψ lies in L∞ (σ(T ), μ) as in Theorem 4.3 or 4.8 whenever
ψ satisfies the assumptions of Theorems 4.2 and 4.9, and so the next result
applies to any of the preceding forms of the Functional Calculus Theorems.
It says that ψ(T ) commutes with every operator that commutes with T .
$
Corollary 4.10. Let T = λ dEλ be a normal operator in B[H]. Take any ψ
in L∞ (σ(T ), μ), where μ is any positive measure on Aσ(T ) equivalent to the
spectral measure E. Consider the operator ψ(T ) of Theorem 4.3, viz.,
%
ψ(T ) = ψ(λ) dEλ
in B[H]. If S in B[H] commutes with T , then S commutes with ψ(T ).

Proof. If S T = T S, then by Theorem 3.17 (cf. proof of Corollary 3.19),

%
S ψ(T )x ; y = ψ(T )x ; S ∗ y = ψ(λ) dEλ x ; S ∗ y
% %
= ψ(λ) dSEλ x ; y = ψ(λ) dEλ Sx ; y = ψ(T )Sx ; y
for every x, y ∈ H (see Lemma 3.7), which means that S ψ(T ) = ψ(T )S.
If T is a normal operator, then the Spectral Mapping Theorem for poly-

nomials in Theorem 2.8 does not depend on the Spectral Theorem. Observe
that, for a normal operator, the Spectral Mapping Theorem for polynomials
in Theorem 2.7 is a particular case of Theorem 2.8. However, extensions from
polynomials to bounded or continuous functions do depend on the Spectral
Theorem via Theorems 4.8 or 4.9 as we shall see next. The forthcoming The-
orems 4.11 and 4.12 are also referred to as Spectral Mapping Theorems for
bounded or continuous functions of normal operators.
Theorem 4.11. If T is a normal operator on a separable Hilbert space, if μ

is a scalar spectral measure for T , and if ψ lies in L∞ (σ(T ), μ), then

σ(ψ(T )) = ess R(ψ) = ess ψ(λ) ∈ C : λ ∈ σ(T ) = ess ψ(σ(T )).
Proof. If the theorem holds for a scalar spectral measure, then it holds for
any scalar spectral measure. Suppose T is a normal operator on a separable
Hilbert space. Let μ be the positive measure of Theorem 3.11, which is a scalar
spectral measure for T (cf. Remark that follows the proof of Lemma 4.7). Now
set μ̃ = π̃e,e as in the proof of Theorem 4.7, which is again a scalar spectral
measure for T and, as before, use the same notation for μ and μ̃). Take any ψ in
L∞ (σ(T ), μ). By Theorem 4.8, ΦT : L∞ (σ(T ), μ) → B[H] is an isometric (thus
injective) unital ∗-isomorphism between C*-algebras and ΦT (ψ) = ψ(T ). So
σ(ψ) = σ(ΦT (ψ)) = σ(ψ(T ))
by Lemma 4.1(h). Consider the multiplication operator Mϕ on the Hilbert
space L2 (Ω, μ) of Theorem 3.11. Since T ∼
= Mϕ , L2 (Ω, μ) is separable. Since
ϕ(Ω) = σ(T ) (with ϕ(λ) = λ), take ψ ◦ ϕ ∈ L∞ (Ω, μ) (also denoted by ψ) so
−
that the spectrum σ(ψ) coincides in both algebras. Since μ is a scalar spectral
measure for Mϕ (cf. Remark that follows the proof of Lemma 4.7 again), we
may apply Theorem 4.8 to Mϕ . Therefore, using the same argument,
σ(ψ) = σ(ψ(Mϕ )).
Claim. ψ(Mϕ ) = Mψ .
Proof. Let E be the spectral measure for Mϕ , where E (Λ) = M χΛ with χΛ
being the characteristic function of Λ in AΩ as in the proof of Lemma 4.7.

Take the scalar-valued measure πf,g given by πf,g (Λ) = E (Λ)f ; g for every
Λ in AΩ and each f, g ∈ L2 (Ω, μ). Recall from the remark that follows the
proof of Lemma 4.7 that μ = π 1,1 . Observe that, for every Λ in AΩ ,
% % %

d πf,g = π f,g (Λ) = E (Λ)f ; g = χΛ f ; g = f gdμ = f g d π 1,1 .
Λ Λ Λ
So d π f,g = f g d π1,1 (f g is the Radon–Nikodým derivative
$ of π f,g with respect
to π 1,1 ; see proof of Lemma 3.8). Since ψ(Mϕ ) = ψ(λ) dEλ by Theorem 4.8,

% %

ψ(Mϕ )f ; g = ψ d Eλ f ; g = ψ d πf,g
% %
= ψf g d π 1,1 = ψf g dμ = Mψ f ; g
for every f, g ∈ L2 (Ω, μ), and so ψ(Mφ ) = Mψ , proving the claimed identity.
Hence, since μ is finite (thus σ-finite), it follows by Proposition 3.B that
σ(ψ(T )) = σ(ψ(Mϕ )) = σ(Mψ ) = ess R(ψ).
Theorem 4.12. If T is a normal operator on a separable Hilbert space, then

σ(ψ(T )) = ψ(σ(T )) for every ψ ∈ C(σ(T )).
Proof. Recall that C(σ(T )) ⊂ B(σ(T )) ⊂ L∞ (σ(T ), μ) for every measure μ.

Take an arbitrary ψ ∈ C(σ(T )). Since σ(T ) is compact in C , and ψ is con-
tinuous, it follows that R(ψ) = ψ(σ(T )) is compact (see, e.g., [66, Theorem
4.64]), and so R(ψ)− = R(ψ). Consider the setup of the previous proof: μ̃ =
π̃e,e is also denoted by μ (the positive measure of Theorem 3.11), which is a
scalar spectral measure for T and for Mϕ ∼ = T . From Proposition 3.B we get
−1

ess R(ψ) = α ∈ C : μ(ψ (Bε (α))) > 0 for all ε > 0 ⊆ R(ψ),
where Bε (α) stands for the open ball of radius ε centered at α, and also that
μ(Λ) > 0 for every nonempty Λ ∈ Aσ(T ) open relative to σ(T ) = σ(Mϕ ). All
that has been said so far about μ holds for every positive measure equivalent
to it; in particular, it holds for every scalar spectral measure for T . If there is
an α in R(ψ)\ess R(ψ), then there is an ε > 0 such that μ(ψ −1 (Bε (α))) = 0.
Since ψ is continuous, the inverse image ψ −1 (Bε (α)) of the open set Bε (α) in C
must be open in σ(T ), and hence ψ −1 (Bε (α)) = ∅. But this is a contradiction
because, since α ∈ R(ψ), it follows that ∅ = ψ −1 ({α}) ⊆ ψ −1 (Bε (α)). Thus
R(ψ)\ess R(ψ) = ∅, and so R(ψ) = ess R(ψ). Therefore, by Theorem 4.11,
σ(ψ(T )) = ess R(ψ) = R(ψ) = ψ(σ(T )).
4.3 Analytic Functional Calculus:

Riesz Functional Calculus
The approach of this section is rather different from that of Section 4.2. How-
ever, Proposition 4.J will show that the Riesz functional calculus, when re-
stricted to a normal operator on a Hilbert space, coincides with the functional
calculus for normal operators of the previous section (for analytic functions).
4.3 Analytic Functional Calculus: Riesz Functional Calculus 103
Measure theory was the main ingredient for the last four sections of Chap-
ter 3 and also for Section 2 of this chapter. The background for the present
section is complex analysis, where the integrals involved here are all Riemann’s
(unlike the measure theoretic integrals we have been dealing with so far). For
the standard results of complex analysis used in this section the reader is
referred, for instance, to [1], [13], [21], [26], and [79].
An arc is a continuous function from an arbitrary (nondegenerate) closed
interval of the real line into the complex plane, say, α:[0, 1] → C , where Γ =
R(α) = {α(t) ∈ C : t ∈ [0, 1]} is the range of the arc α, which is connected
and compact (continuous image of connected sets is connected, and continuous
image of compact sets is compact). Let G = {#X : ∅ = X ∈ ℘([0, 1])} be the
set of all cardinal numbers of nonempty subsets of the interval [0, 1]. Given an
arc α:[0, 1] → Γ set μ(t) = #{s ∈ [0, 1): α(s) = α(t)} ∈ G for each t ∈ [0, 1).
That is, μ(t) ∈ G is the cardinality of the subset of [0, 1] consisting of all
points s ∈ [0, 1) such that α(s) = α(t), for every t ∈ [0, 1). We say that μ(t)
is the multiplicity of the point α(t) ∈ Γ . Consider the function μ:[0, 1) → G
defined by t → μ(t), which is referred to as the multiplicity of the arc α. To
avoid space-filling curves, assume from now on that Γ is nowhere dense. A
pair (Γ, μ) consisting of the range Γ and the multiplicity μ of an arc is called a
directed pair if the direction in which the arc traverses its range Γ , according
to the natural order of the interval [0, 1], is taken into account. An oriented
curve generated by an arc α:[0, 1] → Γ is the directed pair (Γ, μ), and the arc
α itself is referred to as a parameterization of the curve (Γ, μ) (which is not
unique for (Γ, μ)). If an oriented curve (Γ, μ) is such that α(0) = α(1) for some
parameterization α (and so for all parameterizations), then it is called a closed
curve. A parameterization α of an oriented curve (Γ, μ) is injective on [0, 1)
if and only if μ = 1 (i.e., μ(t) = 1 for all t ∈ [0, 1)). If one parameterization of
(Γ, 1) is injective, then so are all of them. A curve (Γ, 1) parameterized by an
arc α that is injective on [0, 1) is called a simple curve (or a Jordan curve).
Thus an oriented curve consists of a directed pair (Γ, μ), where Γ ⊂ C is the
(nowhere dense) range of a continuous function α:[0, 1] → C called a parame-
terization of (Γ, μ), and μ is a G -valued function that assigns to each point t
of [0, 1) the multiplicity of the point α(t) in Γ (i.e., each μ(t) says how often
α traverses the point γ = α(t) of Γ ). For notational simplicity we shall refer
to Γ itself as an oriented curve when the multiplicity μ is either clear in the
context or is immaterial. In this case we simple say “Γ is an oriented curve”.
By a partition P of the interval [0, 1] we mean a finite sequence {tj }nj=0
of points in [0, 1] such that 0 = t0 , tj−1 < tj for 1 ≤ j ≤ n, and tn = 1. The
variation of a function α:[0, 1] → C is the supremum of the set {ν ∈ R :
total
n
ν = j=1 |α(tj ) − α(tj−1 )|} taken over all partitions P of [0, 1]. A function
α:[0, 1] → C is of bounded variation if its total variation is finite. An oriented
curve Γ is rectifiable if some (and so any) parameterization α of it is of bounded
variation, and its length (Γ) is the total variation of α. An arc α:[0, 1] → C is
continuously differentiable (or smooth) if it is differentiable on the open inter-

val (0, 1), has one-sided derivatives at the end points 0 and 1, and its derivative
α :[0, 1] → C is continuous on [0, 1]. In this case the oriented curve Γ parame-
terized by α is also referred to as continuously differentiable (or smooth). The
linear space of all continuously differentiable functions from [0, 1] to C is usu-
ally denoted by C 1 ([0, 1]). If there is a partition of [0, 1] such that each restric-
tion α|[tj−1 ,tj ] of the continuous α is continuously differentiable (i.e., such that
α|[tj−1 ,tj ] lies in C 1 ([tj−1 , tj ])), then α:[0, 1] → C is a piecewise continuously
differentiable arc (or piecewise smooth arc), and Γ parameterized by it is an
oriented piecewise continuously differentiable curve (or an oriented piecewise
smooth curve). In this case it is known from advanced calculus that Γ is rectifi-
n $ tj
able (α is of bounded variation) with length (Γ) = j=1 tj−1 |α[tj−1 ,tj ] (t)|dt.
A continuous function ψ: Γ → C has a Riemann–Stieltjes integral associ-
ated with parameterization α: [0, 1] → Γ of a rectifiable curve Γ ,
% % 1
ψ(λ) dλ = ψ(α(t)) dα(t).
Γ 0
If, in addition, α is smooth, then
% 1 % 1
ψ(α(t)) dα(t) = ψ(α(t)) α (t) dt.
0 0
Now consider a bounded function f :Γ → Y, where Y is a Banach space. Let
α:[0, 1] → Γ be a parameterization of an oriented curve Γ, and let P = {tj }nj=0
be a partition of the interval [0, 1]. Recall that the norm of P is the number
P = max 1≤j≤n (tj − tj−1 ). A Riemann–Stieltjes sum for the function f with
respect to α based on a given partition P is a vector
n
S(f, α, P ) = f (α(τj )) (α(tj ) − α(tj−1 )) ∈ Y
j=1
with τj ∈ [tj−1 , tj ]. Suppose there is a unique vector S ∈ Y with the following

property: for every ε > 0 there is a δε > 0 such that, if P is an arbitrary partition
of [0,1] with P ≤ δε , then S(f, α, P ) − S ≤ ε for all Riemann–Stieltjes sums
S(f, α, P ) for f with respect to α based on P . When such a vector S exists,
it is called the Riemann–Stieltjes integral of f with respect to α, denoted by
% % 1
S = f (λ) dλ = f (α(t)) dα(t).
Γ 0
If the Y-valued function f :Γ → Y is continuous, and if Γ is rectifiable, then
it can be shown (exactly as in the case of complex-valued functions; see, e.g.,
[21, Proposition 5.3 and p. 385]) that there exists the Riemann–Stieltjes in-
tegral of f with respect to α. If α1 and α2 are parameterizations of Γ, then
for every δ > 0 there are partitions P1 and P2 with norm less than δ such that
S(f, α1 , P1 ) = S(f, α2 , P2 ). Given a rectifiable oriented
$ curve Γ and a contin-
uous Y-valued function on Γ, then the integral Γ f (λ) dλ does not depend on
the parameterization of Γ, and we shall refer to it as the integral of f over Γ.
Let C[Γ, Y] and B[Γ, Y] be the linear spaces of all Y-valued continuous or
bounded functions on Γ , respectively, equipped with the sup-norm, which are
Banach spaces because Γ is compact and Y is complete. Recall that, since Γ is
compact,
$ then C[Γ, Y] ⊆ B[Γ, Y]. It is readily verified that the transformation
: C[Γ, Y] → Y, assigning to each f in C[Γ,
$ Y] its integral in Y, is linear and
bounded (i.e., linear and continuous — ∈ B[C[Γ, Y], Y]). Indeed,
% % 1

f (λ) dλ ≤ sup f (λ) |dα(t)| = f ∞ (Γ ),
Γ λ∈Γ 0
and therefore, for every L ∈ B[Y, Z], where Z also is a Banach space,
% %
L f (λ) dλ = Lf (λ) dλ.
Γ Γ
The reverse (or the opposite) of an oriented curve Γ is an oriented curve
denoted by −Γ obtained from Γ by reversing the orientation of Γ . To reverse
the orientation of Γ means to reverse the order of the domain [0, 1] of its
parameterization α or, equivalently, to replace α(t) with α(−t) for t running
over [−1, 0]. Reversing the orientation of a curve Γ has the effect of replacing
$ $1 $0 $
Γ f (λ) dλ = 0 f (α(t)) dα(t) with 1 f (α(t)) dα(t) = −Γ f (λ) dλ so that
% %
f (λ) dλ = − f (λ) dλ.
−Γ Γ
Also note that the preceding arguments and results all remain valid if the
continuous function f is defined on a subset Λ of C that includes the curve Γ
(by simply replacing it with its restriction to Γ, which remains continuous).
In particular, if Λ is a nonempty open subset of C and Γ is a rectifiable curve
included in Λ, and if f : Λ → Y is a continuous$ function on the open set Λ,
then f has an integral over Γ ⊂ Λ ⊆ C , viz., Γ f (λ) dλ.
Recall that a topological space is disconnected if it is the union of two dis-
joint nonempty subsets that are both open and closed. Otherwise, the topo-
logical space is said to be connected . A subset of a topological space is called
a connected set (or a connected subset ) if, as a topological subspace, it is a
connected topological space itself. Take any nonempty subset Λ of C . A com-
ponent of Λ is a maximal connected subset of Λ, which coincides with the
union of all connected subsets of Λ containing a given point of Λ. Thus any
two components of Λ are disjoint. Since the closure of a connected set is con-
nected, any component of Λ is closed relative to Λ. By a region (or a domain)
we mean a nonempty connected open subset of C . Every open subset of C is
uniquely expressed as a countable union of disjoint regions that are compo-
nents of it (see, e.g., [21, Proposition 3.9]). The closure of a region is sometimes
called a closed region. Carefully note that different regions may have the same
closure (sample: a punctured open disk).
If Γ is a closed rectifiable oriented curve in C and if ζ ∈ C \Γ, then a
classical and important result in complex analysis says that the integral
%
1 1
wΓ (ζ) = 2πi dλ
Γ λ−ζ
has an integer value that is constant on each component of C \Γ and zero
on the unbounded component of C \Γ . The number wΓ (ζ) is referred to as
the winding number of Γ about ζ. If a closed rectifiable oriented curve Γ is a
simple curve, then C \Γ has only two components, just one of then is bounded,
and Γ is their common boundary (this is the Jordan Curve Theorem). In this
case (i.e., for a simple closed rectifiable oriented curve Γ ), wΓ (ζ) takes on only
two values for each ζ ∈ C \Γ , either 0 or ±1, and if for every ζ in the bounded
component of C \Γ we get wΓ (ζ) = 1, then we say that Γ is positively (i.e.,
counterclockwise) oriented and, otherwise, if wΓ (ζ) = −1, then we say that
Γ is negatively (i.e., clockwise) oriented ; and for every ζ in the unbounded
component of C \Γ we get wΓ (ζ) = 0. If Γ is positively oriented, then the
reverse curve −Γ is negatively oriented, and m vice versa. These notions can be
extended as follows. A finite union Γ = j=1 Γj of disjoint closed rectifiable
oriented simple curves Γj is called a path, and its winding number wΓ (ζ) about
ζ ∈ C \Γ is defined by wΓ (ζ) = m j=1 wΓj (ζ). A path Γ is positively oriented if
for every ζ ∈ C \Γ the winding number wΓ (ζ) is either 0 or 1, and negatively
oriented if for every ζ ∈ C \Γ the winding number wΓ (ζ) is either 0 or m−1. If a
path Γ = m j=1 jΓ is positively oriented, then the reverse path −Γ = j=1 −Γj
is negatively oriented. The inside (notation: ins Γ ) and the outside (notation:
out Γ ) of a positively oriented path Γ are the sets

ins Γ = ζ ∈ C : wΓ (ζ) = 1 and out Γ = ζ ∈ C : wΓ (ζ) = 0 .

From now on all paths are positively oriented . Note that if Γ = m j=1 Γj is a
path and if there is a finite subset {Γj }nj =1 of Γ such that Γj ⊂ ins Γj +1 ,
then these nested (disjoint closed rectifiable oriented) simple curves {Γj }
are oppositely oriented, with Γn being positively oriented, because wΓ (ζ) is
either 0 or 1 for every ζ ∈ C \Γ. An open subset of C is a Cauchy domain
(or a Jordan domain) if it has finitely many components whose closures are
pairwise disjoint, and its boundary is a path. The closure of a Jordan domain
is sometimes referred to as a Jordan closed region. Also observe that if Γ is
a path, then {Γ, ins Γ, out Γ } is a partition of C . Since a path Γ is a closed
set in C (finite union of closed sets), and since it is the common boundary
of ins Γ and out Γ, it follows that ins Γ and out Γ are open sets in C , and
their closures are given by the union with their common boundary,
(ins Γ )− = Γ ∪ ins Γ and (out Γ )− = Γ ∪ out Γ.
If Γ is a path, if Y is a Banach space, and if f : Γ → Y is a continuous

function (so that f has an integral over each Γj ), then we define the integral
of the Y-valued f over the path Γ ⊂ C by
% m %
f (λ) dλ = f (λ) dλ.
Γ j=1 Γj
Again, if f : Λ → Y is a continuous function on a nonempty open subset Λ of

C that includes a path Γ, then we define the integral of f over the path Γ
as the integral of the restriction of f to Γ over Γ ⊂ Λ ⊆ C ; that is, as the
integral of f |Γ : Γ → Y (which is continuous as well) over the path Γ :
% %
f (λ) dλ = f |Γ (λ) dλ.
Γ Γ
Therefore, if we are given a nonempty open subset Λ of C , a Banach space
Y, and a continuous function f : Λ → Y, then we have seen how to define the
integral of f over any path Γ included in Λ.
The Cauchy Integral Formula says that if ψ: Λ → C is an analytic func-
tion on a nonempty open subset Λ of C that includes a path Γ and its inside
ins Γ (i.e., Γ ∪ ins Γ ⊂ Λ ⊆ C ) then, for every ζ ∈ ins Γ ,
%
1 ψ(λ)
ψ(ζ) = 2πi dλ.
Γ λ −ζ
In fact, this is a most common application of the general case of the Cauchy
Integral Formula (see, e.g., [21, Problem 5.O]). Observe that the assumption
Γ ∪ ins Γ ⊂ Λ ⊆ C (i.e., (ins Γ )− ⊂ Λ ⊆ C ) simply means that Γ ⊂ Λ ⊆ C
and C \Λ ⊂ out Γ (i.e., wΓ (ζ) = 0 for every ζ ∈ C \Λ), and the assumption
ζ ∈ ins Γ ⊂ Λ is equivalent to saying that ζ ∈ Λ\Γ and wΓ (ζ) = 1. Since the
function ψ(·)[(·) − ζ]−1 : Γ → C is continuous on the path Γ , it follows that
the above integral may be generalized to a Y-valued function.
Thus consider the following special case in a complex Banach space Y.
Throughout this chapter X will denote a nonzero complex Banach space. Set
Y = B[X ], the Banach algebra of all operators on X . Take any operator T
in B[X ] and let RT : ρ(T ) → G[X ] be its resolvent function, which is defined
by RT (λ) = (λI − T )−1 for every λ in the resolvent set ρ(T ), which in turn
is an open and nonempty subset of C (cf. Section 2.1). Let ψ: Λ → C be an
analytic function on a nonempty open subset Λ of C such that Λ ∩ ρ(T ) is
nonempty. Recall from the proof of Theorem 2.2 that RT : ρ(T ) → G[X ] is
continuous, and so is the product ψRT : Λ ∩ ρ(T ) → B[X ], which is defined by
(ψRT )(λ) = ψ(λ)RT (λ) ∈ B[X ] for every λ in the open subset Λ ∩ ρ(T ) of C .
Then we can define the integral of ψRT over any path Γ ⊂ Λ ∩ ρ(T ),
% %
ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ = ψ(λ) (λI − T )−1 dλ ∈ B[X ].
Γ Γ
That is, the integral of the C -valued function ψ(·)[(·) − ζ]−1 : Λ\{ζ} → C , for
each ζ ∈ ins Γ , on any path Γ such that (ins Γ )− ⊂ Λ, is generalized to the
B[X ]-valued function ψ(·)[(·)I − T ]−1 : Λ ∩ ρ(T ) → B[X ], for each T ∈ B[X ],
on any path Γ such that Γ ⊂ Λ ∩ ρ(T ).
We shall see below that ψRT in fact is analytic, where the definition of
a Banach-space-valued analytic function on a nonempty open subset of C is
exactly the same as that for a scalar-valued analytic function.
If Ω is a compact set included in an open subset Λ of C (so Ω ⊂ Λ ⊆ C ),

then there exists a path Γ ⊂ Λ such that Ω ⊂ ins Γ and C \Λ ⊂ out Γ (see,
e.g., [27, p. 200]). As we have seen before, this is equivalent to saying that
Ω ⊂ ins Γ ⊂ (ins Γ )− ⊂ Λ. Take an operator T ∈ B[X ]. Set Ω = σ(T ), which
is compact. Now take an open subset Λ of C such that σ(T ) ⊂ Λ. Let Γ be
any path such that Γ ⊂ Λ and σ(T ) ⊂ ins Γ ⊂ Λ. That is, for a given open
set Λ, let the path Γ satisfy
σ(T ) ⊂ ins Γ ⊂ (ins Γ )− ⊂ Λ.
Since ρ(T ) = C \σ(T ), the above inclusions ensure that Γ ⊂ Λ ∩ ρ(T ) = ∅.
Lemma 4.13. If ψ: Λ → C is an analytic function on a nonempty open subset

Λ of C , then the integral
% %
ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ = ψ(λ) (λI − T )−1 dλ
Γ Γ
does not depend on the choice of any path Γ that satisfies the assumption
σ(T ) ⊂ ins Γ ⊂ (ins Γ )− ⊂ Λ.
Proof. Let T be an arbitrary operator in B[X ] and take its resolvent func-
tion RT : ρ(T ) → G[X ] so that RT (λ) = (λI − T )−1 for every λ ∈ ρ(T ). Let
ψ: Λ → C be an analytic function on an open set Λ ⊆ C that properly includes
σ(T ), so that there is a path Γ satisfying the above assumption. If there was
only one of such a path, then there was nothing to prove. Thus suppose Γ
and Γ are distinct paths satisfying the above assumption. We shall show that
% %
ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ = ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ.
Γ Γ
Claim 1. The product ψRT : Λ ∩ ρ(T ) → B[X ] is analytic on Λ ∩ ρ(T ).

Proof. First note that Λ ∩ ρ(T ) = ∅. The resolvent identity of Section 2.1
ensures that if λ and ν are distinct points in ρ(T ), then
RT (λ) − RT (ν)
+ RT (ν)2 = RT (ν) − RT (λ) RT (ν)
λ−ν
(cf. proof of Theorem 2.2). Since RT : ρ(T ) → G[X ] is continuous,
R (λ) − R (ν)
T
+ RT (ν)2 ≤ lim RT (ν) − RT (λ)RT (ν) = 0
T
lim
λ→ν λ−ν λ→ν
for every ν ∈ ρ(T ). Thus the resolvent function RT : ρ(T ) → G[X ] is analytic on
ρ(T ) and so it is analytic on the nonempty open set Λ ∩ ρ(T ). Since the func-
tion ψ: Λ → C also is analytic on Λ ∩ ρ(T ), and since the product of analytic
functions on the same domain is again analytic, it follows that the product
function ψRT : Λ ∩ ρ(T ) → B[X ] such that (ψRT )(λ) = ψ(λ)RT (λ) ∈ B[X ] for
every λ ∈ Λ ∩ ρ(T ) is analytic on Λ ∩ ρ(T ), concluding the proof of Claim 1.
The Cauchy Theorem says that if ψ: Λ → C is analytic on a nonempty open
subset Λ of C that includes a path Γ and its inside ins Γ , then
%
ψ(λ) dλ = 0
Γ
(see, e.g., [21, Problem 5.O]). This can be extended from scalar-valued func-
tions to Banach-space-valued functions. Let Y be a complex Banach space,
let f : Λ → Y be an analytic function on a nonempty open subset $Λ of C that
includes a path Γ and its inside ins Γ , and consider the integral Γ f (λ).
Claim 2. If f : Λ → Y is analytic on a given nonempty open subset Λ of C
and if Γ is any path such that (ins Γ )− ⊂ Λ, then
%
f (λ) dλ = 0.
Γ
Proof. Take an arbitrary nonzero η in Y ∗ (i.e., take a nonzero bounded linear

functional η : Y → C ), and consider the composition η ◦ f : Λ → C of η with
an analytic function f : Λ → Y, which is again analytic on Λ. Indeed,
η (f (λ)) − η (f (ν)) f (λ) − f (ν)

− η (f (ν)) ≤ η − f (ν)
λ−ν λ−ν
for every pair of distinct points λ and ν in Λ. Since both η and the integral
are linear and continuous,
%
m %
m %
η f (λ) dλ = η f (λ) dλ = η f (λ) dλ

Γ j=1 Γj j=1 Γj
m % %
= η (f (λ)) dλ = η (f (λ)) λ.
j=1 Γj Γ
$
The Cauchy Theorem for scalar-valued functions $ says that Γ η (f (λ)) dλ = 0
(because η ◦ f is analytic on Λ). Therefore, η( Γ f (λ) dλ) = 0. Since this holds
for every η ∈ Y ∗, the Hahn–Banach$ Theorem (see, e.g., [66, Corollary 4.64])
ensures the claimed result, viz., Γ f (λ) = 0.
Take the nonempty open subset ins Γ ∩ ins Γ of C , which includes σ(T ).
Let Δ be the open component of ins Γ ∩ ins Γ including σ(T ). Consider the
(rectifiable positively oriented) simple curve Γ ⊆ Γ ∪ Γ consisting of the
boundary of Δ, and so ins Γ = Δ and Δ− = (ins Γ )− = Δ ∪ Γ . Observe that
σ(T ) ⊂ ins Γ ⊂ (ins Γ )− ⊆ (ins Γ ∩ ins Γ )− ⊂ Λ.
* = ins Γ \Δ (nonempty, since Γ and Γ are dis-

Thus Γ ⊂ Δ ∩ ρ(T ) = ∅. Set Δ
tinct). Orient the boundary of Δ* so as to make it a (positively oriented) path
Γ* ⊆ Γ ∪ (−Γ ) so that ins Γ* = Δ.

* Since ins Γ = Δ ∪ Δ * with Δ ∩ Δ* = ∅ and
$ $ $
*
Γ , Γ, and Γ are positively oriented, Γ f (λ) dλ = Γ f (λ) dλ + Γ* f (λ) dλ for
every B[X ]-valued continuous function f whose domain includes (ins Γ )−. So
% % %
ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ = ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ + ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ.
Γ Γ *
Γ
But Claim 1 ensures that ψRT is analytic on Λ ∪ ρ(T ) and therefore, since
$
Δ*− = (ins Γ*)− ⊂ Λ ∪ ρ(T ), Claim 2 ensures that
Γ* ψ(λ)RT (λ) dλ = 0. Hence
% %
Γ Γ
Similarly (by exactly the same argument),

% %
Γ Γ
Definition 4.14. Take an arbitrary T ∈ B[X ]. If ψ: Λ → C is analytic on an

open set Λ ⊆ C that includes the spectrum σ(T ) of T and if Γ is any path such
that σ(T ) ⊂ ins Γ ⊂ (ins Γ )− ⊂ Λ, then define the operator ψ(T ) in B[X ] by
% %
1
ψ(T ) = 2πi 1
ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ = 2πi ψ(λ) (λI − T )−1 dλ.
Γ Γ
After defining the integral of ψRT over any path Γ such that Γ ⊂ Λ ∩ ρ(T ),
and after ensuring in Lemma 4.13 its invariance for any path Γ such that
σ(T ) ⊂ ins Γ ⊂ (ins Γ )− ⊂ Λ, then it is clear that the preceding definition of
the operator ψ(T ) is motivated by the Cauchy Integral Formula.
Given an operator T in B[X ], we say that a complex-valued function ψ
is analytic on σ(T ) (or analytic on a neighborhood of σ(T )) if it is analytic
on an open set that includes σ(T ). By a path about σ(T ) we mean a path Γ
whose inside (properly) includes σ(T ) (i.e., a path such that σ(T ) ⊂ ins Γ ).
Thus what is behind Definition 4.14 is that, if ψ is analytic on σ(T ), then the
above integral exists as an operator in B[X ], and the integral does not depend
on the path about σ(T ) whose closure of its inside is included in the open set
upon which ψ is defined (i.e., it is included in the domain of ψ).
Lemma 4.15. If φ and ψ are analytic on σ(T ) and if Γ is any path about
σ(T ) such that σ(T ) ⊂ ins Γ ⊂ (ins Γ )− ⊂ Λ, where the nonempty open set
Λ ⊆ C is the intersection of the domains of φ and ψ, then
%
1
φ(T )ψ(T ) = 2πi φ(λ)ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ,
Γ
so that φ(T )ψ(T ) = (φ ψ)(T ) since φ ψ in analytic on σ(T ).

Proof. Let φ and ψ be analytic on σ(T ). Thus φ ψ is analytic on the intersection
Λ of their domains. Let Γ and Γ be arbitrary paths such that
σ(T ) ⊂ ins Γ ⊂ (ins Γ )− ⊂ ins Γ ⊆ Λ.
Thus, by Definition 4.14 and by the resolvent identity (cf. Section 2.1),
%
%
1 1
φ(T )ψ(T ) = 2πi φ(λ) RT (λ) dλ 2πi ψ(ν) RT (ν) dν
Γ
%Γ %
= − 4π1 2 φ(λ)ψ(ν) RT (λ) RT (ν) dν dλ
Γ Γ
% %

= − 4π1 2 φ(λ)ψ(ν) (λ − ν)−1 RT (λ) − RT (ν) dν dλ

%Γ %Γ
= − 4π1 2 φ(λ)ψ(ν) (λ − ν)−1 RT (λ) dν dλ
Γ Γ
% %
+ 4π1 2 φ(λ)ψ(ν) (λ − ν)−1 RT (ν) dλ dν

%Γ Γ %
1
= − 4π2 φ(λ) ψ(ν)(λ − ν)−1 dν RT (λ) dλ
Γ
%Γ %
+ 4π1 2 ψ(ν) φ(λ)(λ − ν)−1 dλ RT (ν) dν.

Γ Γ
$
Since λ ∈ Γ , it follows that λ ∈ ins Γ , and hence Γ ψ(ν)(λ − ν)−1 dν =
(2πi)ψ(λ) by the Cauchy Integral Formula. Moreover, since ν ∈ Γ , it follows
that ν $∈ out Γ (so φ(λ)(λ − ν)−1 is analytic on ins Γ which includes Γ ), and
hence Γ φ(λ)(λ − ν)−1 dλ = 0 by the Cauchy Theorem. Therefore,
%
1
φ(T )ψ(T ) = 2πi φ(λ)ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ.
Γ
Given an operator T ∈ B[X ], let A(σ(T )) denote the set of all analytic
functions on the spectrum σ(T ) of T . That is, ψ ∈ A(σ(T )) if ψ: Λ → C is
analytic on an open set Λ ⊆ C that includes σ(T ). It is readily verified that
A(σ(T )) is a unital algebra, where the domain of the product of two functions
in A(σ(T )) is the intersection of their domains, and the identity element 1 in
A(σ(T )) is the constant function 1(λ) = 1 for all λ ∈ Λ. Note that the identity
function also lies in A(σ(T )) (i.e., if ϕ: Λ → Λ ⊆ C is such that ϕ(λ) = λ for
every λ ∈ Λ, then ϕ ∈ A(σ(T ))). The next theorem is the main result of this
section. (Recall that X is an arbitrary nonzero complex Banach space.)
Theorem 4.16. Riesz Functional Calculus. Take any operator T ∈ B[X ].

For every function ψ ∈ A(σ(T )), let the operator ψ(T ) ∈ B[X ] be defined as
in Definition 4.14, viz.,
%
1
ψ(T ) = 2πi ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ.
Γ
The mapping ΦT : A(σ(T )) → B[X ] such that ΦT (ψ) = ψ(T ) is a homomor-

phism. Moreover,
% m
m
1
ΦT (p) = p(T ) = 2πi αj λj RT (λ) dλ = αj T j
Γ j=0 j=0

for every polynomial p(λ) = m j
j=0 αj λ in one variable with complex coeffi-

cients (i.e., for every p ∈ P (σ(T )) ⊂ A(σ(T ))). In particular,
%
1
ΦT (1) = 1(T ) = 2πi RT (λ) dλ = T 0 = I,
Γ
where 1 denotes the constant function, 1(λ) = 1 for all λ in a neighborhood
of σ(T ), so that ΦT takes the identity element 1 of A(σ(T )) to the identity
operator I in B[X ], and hence ΦT is a unital homomorphism; and
%
1
ΦT (ϕ) = ϕ(T ) = 2πi λ RT (λ) dλ = T,
Γ
where ϕ is the identity function: ϕ(λ) = λ for λ in a neighborhood
of σ(T ).
Furthermore, if ψ has a power series expansion ψ(λ) = ∞ α
k=0 k λk
with radi-
us of convergence greater than r(T ), and so on a neighborhood of σ(T ), then
% ∞
∞
1
ΦT (ψ) = ψ(T ) = 2πi αk λk RT (λ) dλ = αk T k ,
Γ k=0 k=0
∞
where the series k=0 αk T converges in B[X ]. Actually, if {ψn } is a sequence
k
in A(σ(T )) that converges uniformly on every compact subset of its domain

Λ (such that σ(T ) ⊂ ins Γ ⊂ (ins Γ )− ⊂ Λ) to ψ ∈ A(σ(T )), then {ΦT (ψn )}
converges in B[X ] to ΦT (ψ).Thus ΦT :(A(σ(T )), · ∞ ) → B[X ] is continuous.
$
Proof. Since the integral Γ ( · )RT dλ: A(σ(T )) → B[H] is a linear transforma-
tion of the linear space A(σ(T )) into the linear space B[X ], it follows that
ΦT : A(σ(T )) → B[X ] is a linear transformation. That is,
%
1
ΦT (α φ + β ψ) = (α φ + β ψ)(T ) = 2πi (α φ + β ψ)(λ) RT (λ) dλ
% Γ
%
1 1
= α 2πi φ(λ) RT (λ) dλ + β 2πi ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ
Γ Γ
= α φ(T ) + β ψ(T ) = α ΦT (φ) + β ΦT (ψ)
for every α, β ∈ C and every φ, ψ ∈ A(σ(T )). Moreover, by Lemma 4.15,

%
1
ΦT (φ ψ) = (φ ψ)(T ) = 2πi (φ ψ)(λ) RT (λ) dλ
% Γ
1
= 2πi φ(λ)ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ = φ(T )ψ(T ) = ΦT (φ)ΦT (ψ)
Γ
for every φ, ψ ∈ A(σ(T )). Thus Φ is a homomorphism. Recall: the preceding in-
tegrals do not depend on the path Γ such that σ(T ) ⊂ ins Γ ⊂ (ins Γ )− ⊂ Λ.
Suppose ψ is analytic on the whole complex plane (i.e., suppose Λ = C , which
is the case if ψ is a polynomial), and let Γ be any circle about the origin
with radius δ greater than the spectral radius of T ; that is, r(T ) < δ. Since
r(T ) < |λ| for every λ ∈ Γ , it follows by Corollary 2.12(a) that
% ∞ %
1
(2πi) ψ(T ) = ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ = ψ(λ) λk+1
T k dλ
k=0
Γ
% ∞
Γ
%
1 1
=I ψ(λ) λ dλ + T k ψ(λ) λk+1 dλ
Γ k=1 Γ
for every ψ ∈ A(σ(T )), where the above series converges uniformly (i.e., it
converges in the operator norm topology of B[X ]). Next consider two special
cases consisting of elementary polynomials. First let ψ = 1 so that
% ∞ %
1 1 k 1 1
1(T ) = I 2πi λ dλ + T 2πi λk+1
dλ = I + 0 = I,
Γ k=1 Γ
1
$ 1
$since1
2πi Γ λdλ = 1(0) = 1 by the Cauchy Integral Formula and, $for k ≥ 1,
k+1 dλ = 0. Indeed, with α(θ) = ρeiθ for every θ ∈ [0, 2π] we get Γ λ1 dλ =
$Γ2πλ −1
$ 2π −1 −iθ $ 2π
0 α(θ)$ α (θ) dθ = $ 0 ρ e ρ i eiθ dθ = i 0 dθ = 2πi and, for k ≥ 1, we
1 2π $ 2π
also get Γ λk+1 dλ = 0 α(θ)−(k+1) α (θ) dθ = 0 ρ−(k+1) e−i(k+1)θ i ρ eiθ dθ =
$ 2π
i ρ−k 0 e−ikθ dθ = 0. Now let ψ = ϕ, the identity function, so that
% % ∞ %
1 1 1 k 1 1
ϕ(T ) = I 2πi dλ + T 2πi λ dλ + T 2πi λk dλ = 0 + T + 0 = T,
Γ Γ k=2 Γ
1
$ 1
$ $ 2π
since 2πi dλ = 0 by the Cauchy Theorem (i.e., 2πi Γ dλ = 0 α (θ) dθ =
$ 2π iθ Γ
i ρ 0 e dθ = 0) and the other two integrals were computed above. Thus
% %
T 2 = ϕ(T )2 = 2πi
1
ϕ(λ)2 RT (λ) dλ = 2πi1
λ2 RT (λ) dλ
Γ Γ
by Lemma 4.15, and so a trivial induction ensures that
%
1
T j = 2πi λj RT (λ) dλ
Γ
for every integer j ≥ 0. Therefore, by linearity of the integral,
m %
1
p(T ) = αj T j = 2πi p(λ) RT (λ) dλ
j=0 Γ
m
whenever p(λ) = j=0 αj λ ; that is, for every polynomial p ∈ P (σ(T )). Next
j
we extend this result from finite power series (i.e., from polynomials) to infinite
power
∞ series. To say that a function ψ has a power series expansion ψ(λ) =
k
k=0 αk λ∞ a neighborhood of σ(T ) means that the radius of convergence of
on
the series k=0 αk λk is greater than r(T ), which implies that the polynomials
pn (λ) = k=0 αk λk make a sequence {pn }∞
n
n=0 that converges uniformly to ψ
on a closed disk whose boundary is a circle Γ of radius r(T ) + ε about the
origin for some ε > 0, which in turn implies that $ ψ ∈ A(σ(T ))). Thus, since
the integral is linear and continuous (i.e., since ∈ B[C[Γ, B[X ]], B[X ]]), and
according to Corollary 2.12(a), it follows that
∞
ψ(T ) = αk T k .
k=0
Indeed,
% %
∞
1 1
ψ(T ) = 2πi ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ = 2πi αk λk RT (λ) dλ
k=0
∞
Γ
% Γ

∞
1
= αk 2πi λk RT (λ) dλ = αk T k ,
k=0 Γ k=0
∞
where the operator series k=0 αk T k converges uniformly (i.e., it converges
in the operator norm topology to ψ(T ) ∈ B[X ]). In fact, since the scalar series
∞
k=0 αk λ converges uniformly on Γ to ψ ∈ A(σ(T )),
k
%
1
ψ(T ) − pn (T ) = 2πi ψ(λ) − pn (λ) RT (λ) dλ
Γ
%
1

≤ sup ψ(λ) − pn (λ) 2πi
RT (λ) dλ
λ∈Γ Γ

= sup ψ(λ) − pn (λ) → 0 as n → ∞.
λ∈Γ
Hence ΦT (pn ) → ΦT (ψ) in B[X ]. The same argument shows that if {ψn }∞n=0 is
a sequence of functions in A(σ(T )) that converges uniformly on every compact
subset of its domain to ψ ∈ A(σ(T )), then ΦT (ψn ) → ΦT (ψ) in B[X ].
Corollary 4.17. Take any operator in T ∈ B[X ]. If ψ ∈ A(σ(T )), then ψ(T )
commutes with every operator that commutes with T .
Proof. This is the counterpart of Corollary 4.10. Let S be an operator in B[X ].
Claim. If S T = T S, then RT (λ)S = SRT (λ) for every λ ∈ ρ(T ).
Proof. S = S (λI − T )(λI − T )−1 = (λI − T )S (λI − T )−1 if S T = T S, and
so RT (λ)S = (λI − T )−1 (λI − T )S (λI − T )−1 = SRT (λ) for λ ∈ ρ(T ).
Therefore, according to Definition 4.14, since S lies in B[X ],
% %
1 1
S ψ(T ) = S ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ = ψ(λ) SRT (λ) dλ
2πi Γ 2πi Γ
%
1
= ψ(λ) RT (λ)S dλ = ψ(T )S.
2πi Γ
Theorem 2.7 is the Spectral Mapping Theorem for polynomials, which

holds for every Banach space operator. For normal operators on a Hilbert
space, the Spectral Mapping Theorem was extended to larger classes of func-
tions in Theorems 2.8, 4.11, and 4.12. Back to the general case of arbitrary
Banach space operators, Theorem 2.7 can be extended to analytic functions,
and this is again referred to as the Spectral Mapping Theorem.
Theorem 4.18. Take an operator T ∈ B[X ] on a complex Banach space X .

If ψ is analytic on the spectrum of T (i.e., if ψ ∈ A(σ(T ))), then
σ(ψ(T )) = ψ(σ(T )).

4.4 Riesz Decomposition Theorem and Riesz Idempotents 115
Proof. Take T ∈ B[X ] and ψ: Λ → C in A(σ(T )). If λ ∈ σ(T ) (so that λ ∈ Λ),
consider the function φ: Λ → C defined by φ(λ) = 0 and φ(ν) = ψ(λ)−ψ(ν)
λ−ν for
every ν ∈ Λ\{λ}. Since the function ψ(λ) − ψ(·) = φ(·)(λ − ·): Λ → C lies in
A(σ(T )), Lemma 4.15, Theorem 4.16, and Corollary 4.17 ensure that
%
1
ψ(λ)I − ψ(T ) = 2πi [ψ(λ) − ψ(ν)] RT (ν) dν
%Γ
1
= 2πi (λ − ν) φ(ν) RT (ν) dν
Γ
= (λI − T ) φ(T ) = φ(T ) (λI − T ).
If ψ(λ) ∈ ρ(ψ(T )), then ψ(λ)I − ψ(T ) has an inverse [ψ(λ)I − ψ(T )]−1 in
B[X ]. Since ψ(λ)I − ψ(T ) = φ(T ) (λI − T ), we get
[ψ(λ)I − ψ(T )]−1 φ(T ) (λI − T ) = [ψ(λ)I − ψ(T )]−1 [ψ(λ)I − ψ(T )] = I,
(λI − T ) φ(T ) [ψ(λ)I − ψ(T )]−1 = [ψ(λ)I − ψ(T )] [ψ(λ)I − ψ(T )]−1 = I.
Thus λI − T has a left and a right bounded inverse, and so it has an inverse
in B[X ], which means that λ ∈ ρ(T ), which is a contradiction. Therefore, if
λ ∈ σ(T ), then ψ(λ) ∈ σ(ψ(T )), and hence

ψ(σ(T )) = ψ(λ) ∈ C : λ ∈ σ(T ) ⊆ σ(ψ(T )).
Conversely, take any ν ∈ ψ(σ(T )), which means that ν − ψ(λ) = 0 for every
1
λ ∈ σ(T ), and consider the function φ (·) = ν−ψ(·) : Λ → C , which lies in
A(σ(T )) with Λ ⊆ Λ. Take Γ such that σ(T ) ⊂ ins Γ ⊆ (ins Γ )− ⊂ Λ as in
Definition 4.14. Then Lemma 4.15 and Theorem 4.16 ensure that
%
φ (T ) [νI − ψ(T )] = [νI − ψ(T )] φ (T ) = 2πi
1
RT (λ) dλ = I.
Γ

Thus νI − ψ(T ) has a bounded inverse, φ (T ) ∈ B[X ], and so ν ∈ ρ(ψ(T )).
Equivalently, if ν ∈ σ(ψ(T )), then ν ∈ ψ(σ(T )). That is,
σ(ψ(T )) ⊆ ψ(σ(T )).
4.4 Riesz Decomposition Theorem

and Riesz Idempotents
A clopen set in a topological space is a set that is both open and closed in
it. If a topological space has a nontrivial (i.e., proper and nonempty) clopen
set, then (by definition) it is disconnected . Consider an operator T ∈ B[X ] on
a complex Banach space X . There are some different definitions of spectral
set . We stick to the classical one [39, Definition VII.3.17]: A spectral set is a
clopen set in the spectrum σ(T ) (i.e., a subset of σ(T ) ⊆ C that is both open
and closed relative to σ(T )). Suppose Δ ⊆ σ(T ) is a spectral set. Then there
is a function ψΔ ∈ A(σ(T )) (analytic on a neighborhood of σ(T )) such that
+
1, λ ∈ Δ,
ψΔ (λ) =
0, λ ∈ σ(T )\Δ.
It does not matter which value ψΔ (λ) takes for those λ in a neighborhood of
σ(T ) but not in σ(T ). Recall that if Δ is nontrivial (i.e., if ∅ = Δ = σ(T )),
then σ(T ) must be disconnected. Set EΔ = EΔ (T ) = ψΔ (T ) so that
% %
1 1
EΔ = ψΔ (T ) = 2πi ψΔ (λ) RT (λ) dλ = 2πi RT (λ) dλ
Γ ΓΔ
−
for any path Γ such that σ(T ) ⊂ ins Γ and (ins Γ ) is included in a neighbor-
hood of σ(T ) as in Definition 4.14, and ΓΔ is any path for which Δ ⊆ ins ΓΔ
and σ(T )\Δ ⊆ out ΓΔ . The operator EΔ ∈ B[X ] is referred to as the Riesz
idempotent associated with Δ. In particular, the Riesz idempotent associated
with an isolated point λ0 of the spectrum of T , namely, E{λ0 } = E{λ0 } (T ) =
ψ{λ0 } (T ), will be denoted by
% %
1
Eλ0 = 2πi 1
RT (λ) dλ = 2πi (λI − T )−1 dλ,
Γλ0 Γλ0
where Γλ0 is any simple closed rectifiable positively oriented curve (e.g., any
positively oriented circle) enclosing λ0 but no other point of σ(T ).
Let T be an operator in B[X ]. It is readily verified that the collection of all
spectral subsets of σ(T ) forms a (Boolean) algebra of subsets of σ(T ). Indeed,
the empty set and whole set σ(T ) are spectral sets, complements relative to
σ(T ) of spectral sets remain spectral sets, and finite unions of spectral sets
are spectral sets, and so are differences and intersections of spectral sets.
Lemma 4.19. Take any operator T ∈ B[X ] and let EΔ ∈ B[X ] be the Riesz
idempotent associated with an arbitrary spectral subset Δ of σ(T ).
(a) EΔ is a projection such that
(a1 ) E∅ = O, Eσ(T ) = I and Eσ(T )\Δ = I − EΔ .
If Δ1 and Δ2 are spectral subsets of σ(T ), then
(a2 ) EΔ1 ∩Δ2 = EΔ1 EΔ2 and EΔ1 ∪Δ2 = EΔ1 + EΔ2 − EΔ1 EΔ2 .
(b) EΔ commutes with every operator that commutes with T .
(c) R(EΔ ) is a subspace of X that is S-invariant for every operator S ∈ B[X ]
that commutes with T .
Proof. (a) Lemma 4.15 ensures that a Riesz idempotent deserves its name:
2
EΔ = EΔ so that EΔ ∈ B[X ] is a projection. Observe from the definition of
the function ψΔ for an arbitrary spectral subset Δ of σ(T ) that
(i) ψ∅ = 0, ψσ(T ) = 1, ψσ(T )\Δ = 1 − ψΔ ,

(ii) ψΔ1 ∩Δ2 = ψΔ1 ψΔ2 and ψΔ1 ∪Δ2 = ψΔ1 + ψΔ2 − ψΔ1 ψΔ2 .
1
$
Since EΔ = ψΔ (T ) = 2πi ψ (λ)RT (λ) dλ for every spectral subset Δ of
Γ Δ
σ(T ), where Γ is any path as in Definition 4.14, the identities in (a1 ) and (a2 )
follow from the identities in (i) and (ii), respectively (using the linearity of
the integral, Lemma 4.15, and Theorem 4.16).
(b) Suppose S ∈ B[X ] commutes with T . Corollary 4.17 ensures that
ST = TS implies SEΔ = EΔ S.
(c) Thus R(EΔ ) is S-invariant. Moreover R(EΔ ) is a subspace (i.e., a closed

linear manifold) of X since EΔ is bounded and R(EΔ ) = N (I − EΔ ). In
particular, R(EΔ ) is an invariant subspace for T .
Theorem 4.20. Take T ∈ B[X ]. If Δ is any spectral subset of σ(T ), then
σ(T |R(EΔ ) ) = Δ.
Moreover, the map Δ → EΔ that assigns to each spectral subset of σ(T ) the
associated Riesz idempotent EΔ ∈ B[X ] is injective.
Proof. Consider the results in Lemma 4.19(a1 ). If Δ = σ(T ), then EΔ = I so
that R(EΔ ) = X , and hence σ(T |R(EΔ ) ) = σ(T ). On the other hand, if Δ = ∅,
then EΔ = O so that R(EΔ ) = {0}, and hence T |R(EΔ ) : {0} → {0} is the null
operator on the zero space, which implies that σ(T |R(EΔ ) ) = ∅. In both cases
the identity σ(T |R(EΔ ) ) = Δ holds trivially. (Recall that the spectrum of a
bounded linear operator is nonempty on every nonzero complex Banach space.)
Thus suppose ∅ = Δ = σ(T ). Let ψΔ ∈ A(σ(T )) be the function that defines
the Riesz idempotent EΔ associated with Δ,
+
1, λ ∈ Δ,
ψΔ (λ) =
0, λ ∈ σ(T )\Δ,
so that %
1
EΔ = ψΔ (T ) = 2πi ψΔ (λ)RT (λ) dλ
Γ
for any path Γ as in Definition 4.14, and let ϕ ∈ A(σ(T )) be the identity
function on σ(T ), that is,
ϕ(λ) = λ for every λ ∈ σ(T ),
so that (cf. Theorem 4.16)

%
1
T = ϕ(T ) = 2πi ϕ(λ)RT (λ) dλ.
Γ
Claim 1. σ(T EΔ ) = Δ ∪ {0}.

Proof. Since T EΔ = ϕ(T )ψΔ (T ) and

% %
1 1
ϕ(T )ψΔ (T ) = 2πi ϕ(λ)ψΔ (λ) RT (λ) dλ = 2πi (ϕ ψΔ )(λ) RT (λ) dλ,
Γ Γ
and since ϕ ψΔ ∈ A(σ(T )), the Spectral Mapping Theorem ensures that
σ(T EΔ ) = (ϕ ψΔ )(σ(T )) = ϕ(σ(T )) ψΔ (σ(T )) = σ(T ) ψΔ (σ(T )) = Δ ∪ {0}
(cf. Lemma 4.15 and Theorems 4.16 and 4.18).

Claim 2. σ(T EΔ ) = σ(T |R(EΔ ) ) ∪ {0}.
Proof. Since EΔ is a projection, R(EΔ ) and N (EΔ ) are algebraic comple-
ments, which means that R(EΔ ) ∩ N (EΔ ) = ∅ and X = R(EΔ ) ⊕ N (EΔ )
— plain direct sum (no orthogonality in a pure Banach space setup). Thus,
with respect to the complementary decomposition X = R(EΔ ) ⊕ N (EΔ ), we
T |R(E ) O
get EΔ = OI O O = I ⊕ O, and so T EΔ = O
Δ
O = T |R(EΔ ) ⊕ O be-
cause EΔ T = T EΔ . Then λI − T EΔ = (λI − T |R(EΔ) ) ⊕ λI for every λ ∈ C ,
and hence λ ∈ ρ(EΔ T ) if and only if λ ∈ ρ(T |R(EΔ ) ) and λ = 0. Equivalently,
λ ∈ σ(EΔ T ) if and only if λ ∈ σ(T |R(EΔ ) ) or λ = 0.
Claim 3. σ(T |R(EΔ ) ) ∪ {0} = Δ ∪ {0}.
Proof. Claims 1 and 2.
Claim 4. 0 ∈ Δ ⇐⇒ 0 ∈ σ(T |R(EΔ ) ).
Proof. Suppose 0 ∈ Δ. Thus there exists a function φ0 ∈ A(σ(T )) such that
+
0, λ ∈ Δ,
φ0 (λ) = −1
λ , λ ∈ σ(T )\Δ.
Observe that ϕ φ0 lies in A(σ(T )) and
ϕ φ0 = 1 − ψΔ on σ(T ),
and hence, since ϕ(T ) = T and φ0 (T ) ∈ B[X ],
T φ0 (T ) = φ0 (T )T = I − ψΔ (T ) = I − EΔ .
If 0 ∈ σ(T |R(EΔ ) ), then T |R(EΔ ) has a bounded inverse on the Banach space
R(EΔ ), which means that there exists an operator [T |R(EΔ ) ]−1 on R(EΔ ) such
that T |R(EΔ) [T |R(EΔ) ]−1 = [T |R(EΔ ) ]−1 T |R(EΔ ) = I. Consider the operator
[T |R(EΔ ) ]−1 EΔ in B[X ] so that, since T ψΔ (T ) = ψΔ (T )T ,

T [T |R(EΔ ) ]−1 EΔ + φ0 (T ) = [T |R(EΔ ) ]−1 EΔ + φ0 (T ) T = I ∈ B[X ].
Then T has a bounded inverse on X , namely, [T |R(EΔ ) ]−1 EΔ + φ0 (T ), so that

0 ∈ ρ(T ), which is a contradiction (since 0 ∈ Δ ⊆ σ(T )). Therefore,
0∈Δ implies 0 ∈ σ(T |R(EΔ ) ).
Conversely, suppose 0 ∈ Δ. Thus there is a function φ1 ∈ A(σ(T )) such that

+
λ−1 , λ ∈ Δ,
φ1 (λ) =
0, λ ∈ σ(T )\Δ.
Again, observe that ϕ φ1 lies in A(σ(T )) and
ϕ φ1 = ψΔ on σ(T ),
and hence, since ϕ(T ) = T and φ1 (T ) ∈ B[X ],
T φ1 (T ) = φ1 (T )T = ψΔ (T ) = EΔ .
Since φ1 (T )ψΔ (T ) = ψΔ (T )φ1 (T ) by Lemma 4.15, it follows that the operator

φ1 (T ) is R(EΔ )-invariant. So φ1 (T )|R(EΔ ) lies in B[R(EΔ )], and is such that
T |R(EΔ ) φ1 (T )|R(EΔ ) = φ1 (T )|R(EΔ ) T |R(EΔ ) = EΔ |R(EΔ ) = I ∈ B[R(EΔ )].
Then T |R(EΔ ) has a bounded inverse on R(EΔ ), namely, φ1 (T )|R(EΔ ) , so that

0 ∈ ρ(T |R(EΔ ) ). Thus 0 ∈ Δ implies 0 ∈ σ(T |R(EΔ ) ). Equivalently,
0 ∈ σ(T |R(EΔ ) ) implies 0 ∈ Δ.
This concludes the proof of Claim 4.

Claims 3 and 4 ensure the identity
σ(T |R(EΔ ) ) = Δ.
Finally consider the map Δ → EΔ that assigns to each spectral subset of

σ(T ) the associated Riesz idempotent EΔ ∈ B[X ]. We have already seen at
the beginning of this proof that if EΔ = O, then σ(T |R(EΔ ) ) = ∅. Hence
EΔ = O =⇒ Δ=∅
by the above displayed identity (that holds for all spectral subsets of σ(T )).
Take arbitrary spectral subsets Δ1 and Δ2 of σ(T ). From Lemma 4.19(a),
EΔ1 \Δ2 = EΔ1 ∩(σ(T )\Δ2 ) = EΔ1 (I − EΔ2 ) = EΔ1 − EΔ1 EΔ2 ,
where EΔ1 and EΔ2 commute since EΔ1 EΔ2 = EΔ1 ∩Δ2 = EΔ2 EΔ1 , and so
(EΔ1 − EΔ2 )2 = EΔ1 + EΔ2 − 2EΔ1 EΔ2 = EΔ1 \Δ2 + EΔ2 \Δ1 = EΔ1Δ2 ,
where Δ1Δ2 = (Δ1 \Δ2 ) ∪ (Δ2 \Δ1 ) is the symmetric difference. Thus
EΔ1 = EΔ2 =⇒ EΔ1Δ2 = O =⇒ Δ1Δ2 = ∅ =⇒ Δ1 = Δ2 ,
since Δ1Δ2 = ∅ if and only if Δ1 = Δ2 , which proves injectivity.

Remark. Let T be an operator in B[X ] and suppose σ(T ) is disconnected, so

that there are nontrivial sets in the algebra of all spectral subsets of σ(T ). We
show that to each partition of σ(T ) into spectral sets there is a corresponding
decomposition of the resolvent function RT . Indeed, consider a finite partition
{Δj }nj=1 of nontrivial spectral subsets of σ(T ); that is,
∅ = Δj = σ(T ) are clopen subsets of σ(T ) for each j = 1, . . . , n
such that
n
Δj = σ(T ) with Δj ∩ Δk = ∅ whenever j = k.
j=1
Consider the Riesz idempotent associated with each Δj , namely,

%
1
EΔj = 2πi RT (λ) dλ.
ΓΔj
The results of Lemma 4.19 are readily extended for any integer n ≥ 2 so that
each EΔj is a nontrivial projection (O = EΔj = EΔj2 = I) and
n
EΔj = I with EΔj EΔk = O whenever j = k.
j=1
Take an arbitrary λ ∈ ρ(T ). For each j = 1, . . . , n set
Tj = T EΔj and Rj (λ) = RT (λ)EΔj

in B[X ] so that
n n
Tj = T and Rj (λ) = RT (λ).
j=1 j=1
Observe that these operators commute. Indeed, recall that T RT (λ) = RT (λ)T ,
and T EΔj = EΔj T , and hence RT (λ)EΔj = EΔj RT (λ) (cf. Corollary 4.17 and
Lemma 4.19). Therefore, if j = k, then
Tj Tk = Rj (λ)Rk (λ) = Tk Rj (λ) = Rj (λ)Tk = O.
On the other hand, for every j = 1, . . . , n,
Tj Rj (λ) = Rj (λ)Tj = T RT (λ)EΔj
and, since (λI − T )RT (λ) = RT (λ)(λI − T ) = I,

λEΔj − Tj Rj (λ) = Rj (λ) λEΔj − Tj = EΔj .
Moreover, Claim 1 in the proof of Theorem 4.20 says that
σ(Tj ) = Δj ∪ {0}.
Note that the spectral radii are such that r(Tj ) ≤ r(T ). Since Tjk = T k EΔj
for every nonnegative integer k, it follows by Corollary 2.12 that
∞
k ∞ Tj
k
Rj (λ) = (λI − T )−1 EΔj = λ1 T
λ E Δ j = 1
λ λ
k=0 k=0
if λ in ρ(T ) is such that r(T ) < |λ| and, again by Corollary 2.12,
∞ T E Δ j
k ∞ Tj

k
RTj (λ) = (λI − T EΔj )−1 = λ1 λ = 1
λ λ
k=0 k=0
if λ in ρ(Tj ) is such that r(Tj ) < |λ|, where the above series converge uniformly
in B[X ]. Hence, if r(T ) < |λ|, then
Rj (λ) = RT (λ)EΔj = RT Δj = RTj
where each Rj can actually be extended to be analytic in ρ(Tj ).
The properties of Riesz idempotents in Lemma 4.19 and Theorem 4.20 lead
to a major result in operator theory, which says that operators whose spectra
are disconnected have nontrivial hyperinvariant subspaces. (For the original
statement of the Riesz Decomposition Theorem see [77, p. 421].)
Corollary 4.21. (Riesz Decomposition Theorem). Let T ∈ B[X ] be an oper-

ator on a complex Banach space X . If σ(T ) = Δ1 ∪ Δ2 , where Δ1 and Δ2 are
disjoint nonempty closed sets, then T has a complementary pair {M1 , M2 } of
nontrivial hyperinvariant subspaces, viz., M1 = R(EΔ1 ) and M2 = R(EΔ2 ),
such that σ(T |M1 ) = Δ1 and σ(T |M2 ) = Δ2 .
Proof. If Δ1 and Δ2 are disjoint closed sets in C such that σ(T ) = Δ1 ∪ Δ2 ,
then they are both clopen subsets of σ(T ) (i.e., spectral subsets of σ(T )), and
hence the Riesz idempotents EΔ1 and EΔ2 associated with them are such
that their ranges M1 = R(EΔ1 ) and M2 = R(EΔ2 ) are subspaces of X that
are hyperinvariant for T by Lemma 4.19(c). Since Δ1 and Δ2 are nontriv-
ial (i.e., ∅ = Δ1 = σ(T ) and ∅ = Δ2 = σ(T )), it follows that σ(T ) is discon-
nected (since they are both clopen subsets of σ(T )) and the projections EΔ1
and EΔ2 are nontrivial (i.e., O = EΔ1 = I and O = EΔ2 = I by the injectiv-
ity of Theorem 4.20), and so the subspaces M1 and M2 are nontrivial (i.e.,
{0} = R(EΔ1 ) = X and {0} = R(EΔ2 ) = X ). Lemma 4.19(a) ensures that
EΔ1 + EΔ2 = I and EΔ1 EΔ2 = O, which means that EΔ1 and EΔ2 are com-
plementary projections (not necessarily orthogonal even if X were a Hilbert
space), and so their ranges are complementary subspaces (i.e., M1 + M2 = X
and M1 ∩ M2 = {0}) as in Section 1.4. Finally, Theorem 4.20 ensures that
σ(T |M1 ) = Δ1 and σ(T |M2 ) = Δ2 .
Remark. Since M1 = R(EΔ1 ) and M2 = R(EΔ2 ) are complementary sub-

spaces (i.e., M1 + M2 = X and M1 ∩ M2 = {0}), it follows that X can be
identified with the direct sum M1 ⊕ M2 (not necessarily an orthogonal di-
rect sum even if X were a Hilbert space), which means that there exists a
natural isomorphism Ψ : X → M1 ⊕ M2 between the normed spaces X and

M1 ⊕ M2 (see, e.g., [66, Theorem 2.14]). The normed space M1 ⊕ M2 is
not necessarily complete and the invertible linear transformation Ψ is not
necessarily bounded. In other words, X ∼ M1 ⊕ M2 , where ∼ stands for al-
gebraic similarity (i.e., isomorphic equivalence) and ⊕ for direct (not neces-
sarily orthogonal) sum. Thus, since M1 and M2 are both T -invariant (recall
that both EΔ1 and EΔ2 commute with T by Lemma 4.19), it follows that
T ∼ T |M1 ⊕ T |M2 , which means Ψ T Ψ −1 = T |M1 ⊕ T |M2 . (If X were Hilbert
and the subspaces orthogonal, then we might say that they reduce T .)
We say that a pair Δ1 and Δ2 of subsets of σ(T ) are complementary spec-

tral sets for T if, besides being spectral sets (i.e., subsets of σ(T ) that are both
open and closed relative to σ(T )) they also form a nontrivial partition of σ(T );
that is, ∅ = Δ1 = σ(T ), ∅ = Δ2 = σ(T ), Δ1 ∪ Δ2 = σ(T ), and Δ1 ∩ Δ2 = ∅.
Observe that the Riesz Decomposition Theorem says that, for every pair of
complementary spectral sets, the ranges of their Riesz idempotents are com-
plementary nontrivial hyperinvariant subspaces for T , and the spectra of the
restrictions of T to those ranges coincide with themselves.
Corollary 4.22. Let Δ1 and Δ2 be complementary spectral sets for an op-

erator T ∈ B[X ], and let EΔ1 and EΔ2 be the Riesz idempotents associated
with them. If λ ∈ Δ1 , then
EΔ2 (N (λI − T )) = {0},
EΔ2 (R(λI − T )) = R(EΔ2 ),
EΔ1 (N (λI − T )) = N (λI − T ) ⊆ R(EΔ1 ),
EΔ1 (R(λI − T )) = R((λI − T )EΔ1 ) ⊆ R(EΔ1 ).
so that
R(λI − T ) = EΔ1 (R(λI − T )) + R(EΔ2 ).
If dim R(EΔ1 ) < ∞, then dim N (λI − T ) < ∞ and R(λI − T ) is closed .
Proof. Let T be an operator on a complex Banach space X .

Claim 1. If Δ1 and Δ2 are complementary spectral sets and λ ∈ C , then
(a) N (λI − T ) = EΔ1 (N (λI − T )) + EΔ2 (N (λI − T )),

(b) R(λI − T ) = EΔ1 (R(λI − T )) + EΔ2 (R(λI − T )).
Proof. Let EΔ1 and EΔ2 be the Riesz idempotents associated with Δ1 and
Δ2 . Lemma 4.19(a) ensures that R(EΔ1 ) and R(EΔ2 ) are complementary
subspaces (i.e., X = R(EΔ1 ) + R(EΔ2 ) and R(EΔ1 ) ∩ R(EΔ2 ) = ∅, since Δ1
and Δ2 are complementary spectral sets, so that EΔ1 and EΔ2 are comple-
mentary projections). Thus (cf. Section 1.1), there is a unique decomposition
x = u + v = EΔ1 x + EΔ2 x
for every vector x ∈ X , with u ∈ R(EΔ1 ) and v ∈ R(EΔ2 ), where u = EΔ1 x

and v = EΔ2 x (since EΔ1 (R(EΔ2 )) = {0} and EΔ2 (R(EΔ1 )) = {0} because
EΔ1 EΔ2 = EΔ2 EΔ1 = O). So we get the decompositions in (a) and (b).
Claim 2. If λ ∈ σ(T )\Δ for some spectral set Δ of σ(T ), then
EΔ (N (λI − T )) = {0} and EΔ (R(λI − T )) = R(EΔ ).
Proof. Let Δ be any spectral set of σ(T ) and let EΔ be the Riesz idempotent
associated to it. Since R(EΔ ) is an invariant subspace for T (cf. Lemma 4.19),
take the restriction T |R(EΔ ) ∈ B[R(EΔ )] of T to the Banach space R(EΔ ). If
λ ∈ σ(T )\Δ, then λ ∈ ρ(T |R(EΔ ) ). So (λI − T )|R(EΔ ) = λI|R(EΔ ) − T |R(EΔ)
has a bounded inverse, where I|R(EΔ ) = EΔ |R(EΔ ) stands for the identity on
R(EΔ ). Thus, since R(EΔ ) is T -invariant,
RT |R(EΔ ) (λ) (λI − T )EΔ

= (λI|R(EΔ ) − T |R(EΔ) )−1 (λI|R(EΔ ) − T |R(EΔ ) )EΔ
= I|R(EΔ ) EΔ = EΔ ,
where RT |R(EΔ ) : ρ(T |R(EΔ ) ) → G[R(EΔ )] is the resolvent function of T |R(EΔ) .

Now take an arbitrary x ∈ N (λI − T ). Since EΔ T = T EΔ ,
EΔ x = RT |R(EΔ ) (λ) (λI − T )EΔ x = RT |R(EΔ ) (λ) EΔ (λI − T )x = 0.
Therefore,
EΔ (N (λI − T )) = {0}.
Moreover, since
(λI − T )EΔ = λEΔ − T EΔ = λI|R(EΔ ) − T |R(EΔ ) ,
it follows that, if λ ∈ σ(T )\Δ, then λ ∈ ρ(T |R(EΔ ) ), by Theorem 4.20 (where
T |R(EΔ ) ∈ B[R(EΔ )]), so that (see diagram of Section 2.2)
R((λI − T )EΔ ) = R(λI|R(EΔ ) − T |R(EΔ) ) = R(EΔ ).
Since T EΔ = EΔ T , and A(R(B)) = R(AB) for all operators A and B,
EΔ (R(λI − T )) = R(EΔ (λI − T )) = R((λI − T )EΔ ) = R(EΔ ).
This concludes the proof of Claim 2.

From now on suppose λ ∈ Δ1 . In this case, Claim 2 ensures that
EΔ2 (N (λI − T )) = {0},
and so it follows by Claim 1(a) that

N (λI − T ) = EΔ1 (N (λI − T )) ⊆ R(EΔ1 ).

Hence
dim R(EΔ1 ) < ∞ =⇒ dim(N (λI − T )) < ∞.
Again, from Claim 2 we get
EΔ2 (R(λI − T )) = R(EΔ2 ).

Thus, from Claim 1(b),
R(λI − T ) = EΔ1 (R(λI − T )) + R(EΔ2 ),
where (since T EΔ = EΔ T and A(R(B)) = R(AB) for all A and B),
EΔ1 (R(λI − T )) = R(EΔ1 (λI − T )) = R((λI − T )EΔ1 ) ⊆ R(EΔ1 ).
Recall that R(EΔ2 ) is a subspace (i.e., a closed linear manifold) of X (Lemma

4.19). If R(EΔ1 ) is finite dimensional, then EΔ1 (R(λI − T )) is finite dimen-
sional, and so R(λI − T ) is the sum of a finite-dimensional linear manifold
and a closed linear manifold, which is closed (cf. Proposition 1.C). Hence,
dim(R(EΔ1 )) < ∞ =⇒ R(λI − T ) is closed.
Remark. Let λ0 be an isolated point of the spectrum of an operator T in

B[X ]. A particular case of the preceding corollary for Δ1 = {λ0 } says that, if
dim R(Eλ0 ) < ∞, then dim N (λ0 I − T ) < ∞ and R(λ0 I − T ) is closed. We
shall prove the converse in Theorem 5.19 (the next chapter):
dim R(Eλ0 ) < ∞ ⇐⇒ dim N (λ0 I − T ) < ∞ and R(λ0 I − T ) is closed.
Also note that λ0 I − T |R(Eλ0 ) is a quasinilpotent operator on R(Eλ0 ). Indeed,

σ(T |R(Eλ0 ) ) = {λ0 } according to Theorem 4.20, and so the Spectral Mapping
Theorem (Theorem 2.7) ensures that
σ(λ0 I − T |R(Eλ0 ) ) = {0}.
Corollary 4.23. Let T ∈ B∞[X ] be a compact operator. If λ ∈ σ(T )\{0},

then λ is an isolated point of σ(T ) such that
dim R(Eλ ) < ∞,
where Eλ ∈ B[X ] is the Riesz idempotent associated with it, and
{0} = N (λI − T ) ⊆ R(Eλ ) ⊆ N ((λI − T )n )
for some a positive integer n such that
R(Eλ ) ⊆ N (λI − T )n−1 .

Proof. Let T be a compact operator on a nonzero complex Banach space X . We

refer to the results of Section 2.6, which were proved on a Hilbert space but,
as we had mentioned there, still hold on a Banach space. If λ ∈ σ(T )\{0},
then λ is an isolated point of σ(T ) by Corollary 2.20. Take the restriction
T |R(Eλ ) ∈ B[R(Eλ )] of T to the Banach space R(EΔ ), which is again compact
(Proposition 1.V). Recall from Theorem 4.18 that σ(T |R(Eλ ) ) = {λ}. If λ = 0,
then 0 ∈ ρ(T |R(Eλ ) ), and so the compact operator T |R(Eλ ) ∈ B∞ [R(Eλ )] is
invertible, which implies that (cf. Proposition 1.Y)
dim R(Eλ ) < ∞.
Set m = dim R(Eλ ). Note that m = 0 because Eλ = O by the injectivity of

Theorem 4.20. Since σ(T |R(Eλ ) ) = {λ} we get by the Spectral Mapping The-
orem (cf. Theorem 2.7) that σ(λI − T |R(Eλ ) ) = {0}; that is, the operator
λI − T |R(Eλ ) is quasinilpotent on the m-dimensional space R(Eλ ). This im-
plies that λI − T |R(Eλ ) in B[R(Eλ )] is a nilpotent operator for which
(λI − T |R(Eλ ) )m = O.
Indeed, this is a purely finite-dimensional algebraic result that is obtained

together with the well-known Cayley–Hamilton Theorem (see [48, Theorem
58.2]). Thus (since Eλ is a projection that commutes with T whose range is
T -invariant), it follows that
(λI − T )m Eλ = O.
Moreover, since X = {0} we get O = (λI − T )0 = I, and so (since Eλ = O)
(λI − T )0 Eλ = O.
Thus there exists an integer n ∈ [1, m] such that
(λI − T )n Eλ = O and (λI − T )n−1 Eλ = O.

In other words,
R(Eλ ) ⊆ N ((λI − T )n ) and R(Eλ ) ⊆ N (λI − T )n−1 .
(Recall that AB = O if and only if R(B) ⊆ N (A), for all operators A and B.)
The remaining assertions are readily verified. In fact, {0} = N (λI − T ) since
λ ∈ σ(T )\{0} is an eigenvalue of the compact operator T (by the Fredholm
Alternative of Theorem 2.18), and N (λI − T ) ⊆ R(Eλ ) by Corollary 4.22.
Remark. Corollary 4.23 and Proposition 4.F ensure that, if T ∈ B∞[X ] (i.e.,
if T is compact) and λ ∈ σ(T )\{0}, then λ is a pole of the resolvent function
RT : ρ(T ) → G[X ], and the integer n in the statement of the preceding result
is the order of the pole λ. Moreover, it follows from Proposition 4.G that
R(Eλ ) = N ((λI − T )n ).

Consider a set S ⊆ B[H] of operators on Hilbert space H. The commutant S
of S is the set S = {T ∈ B[H]: T S = S T for every S ∈ S} of all operators
that commute with every operator in S, which is a unital subalgebra of B[H].
The double commutant S of S is the unital algebra S = (S ). The Double
Commutant Theorem says that if A is a unital C*-subalgebra of B[H], then
A− = A, where A− stands for the weak closure of A in B[H] (which coincides
with the strong closure — see [27, Theorem IX.6.4]). A von Neumann algebra
A is a C*-subalgebra of B[H] such that A = A, which is unital and is weakly
(thus strongly) closed. Take a normal operator on a separable Hilbert space
H. Let A∗ (T ) be the von Neumann algebra generated by T ∈ B[H], which is
the intersection of all von Neumann algebras containing T , and coincides with
the weak closure of P(T, T ∗) (see the paragraph following Definition 3.12).
Proposition 4.A. Consider the setup of Theorem 4.8. The range of ΦT co-
incides with the von Neumann algebra generated by T (i.e., R(ΦT ) = A∗ (T )).
Proposition 4.B. Take T ∈ B[X ]. If ψ ∈ A(σ(T )) and φ ∈ A(σ(ψ(T ))), then

(φ ◦ ψ) ∈ A(σ(T )) and φ(ψ(T )) = (φ ◦ ψ)(T ). That is,
%
1
φ(ψ(T )) = 2πi φ(ψ(λ)) RT (λ) dλ,
Γ
where Γ is any path about σ(T ) such that σ(T ) ⊂ ins Γ ⊂ (ins Γ )− ⊂ Λ, and
the open set Λ ⊆ C is the domain of φ ◦ ψ.
Proposition 4.C. Let EΔ ∈ B[X ] be the Riesz idempotent associated with a

spectral subset Δ of σ(T ). The point, residual, and continuous spectra of the
restriction T |R(EΔ ) ∈ B[R(EΔ )] of T ∈ B[X ] to R(EΔ ) are given by
σP (T |R(EΔ )) = Δ∩σP (T ), σR (T |R(EΔ )) = Δ∩σR (T ), σC (T |R(EΔ )) = Δ∩σC (T ).
Proposition 4.D. If λ0 is an isolated point of the spectrum σ(T ) of an oper-

ator T ∈ B[X ], then the range of the Riesz idempotent Eλ0 ∈ B[X ] associated
with λ0 is given by
1
R(Eλ0 ) = x ∈ X : (λ0 I − T )n x n → 0 .
Proposition 4.E. If λ0 is an isolated point of the spectrum σ(T ) of an

operator T ∈ B[X ], then (with convergence in B[X ])
∞
RT (λ) = (λI − T )−1 = (λ − λ0 )k Tk
k=−∞
∞ ∞
= (λ − λ0 )−k T−k + T0 + (λ − λ0 )k Tk
k=1 k=1
for every λ in the punctured disk Bδ0 (λ0 )\{0} = {λ ∈ C : 0 < |λ − λ0 | < δ0 } ⊆
ρ(T ), where δ0 = d(λ0 , σ(T )\{λ0 }) is the distance from λ0 to the rest of the
spectrum, and Tk ∈ B[X ] is such that
%
Tk = 1
2πi (λ − λ0 )−(k+1) RT (λ) dλ
Γλ0
for every k ∈ Z , where Γλ0 is any positively oriented circle centered at λ0 with
radius less than δ0 .
An isolated point of σ(T ) is a singularity (or an isolated singularity) of
the resolvent function RT : ρ(T ) → G[X ]. The expansion of RT in Proposition
4.E is the Laurent expansion of RT about an isolated point of the spectrum.
Note that, for every positive integer k (i.e., for every k ∈ N ),
T−k = Eλ0 (T − λ0 I)k−1 = (T − λ0 I)k−1 Eλ0 ,
and so T−1 = Eλ0 , the Riesz idempotent associated with the isolated point λ0 .
The notion of poles associated with isolated singularities of analytic functions
is extended as follows. An isolated point of σ(T ) is a pole of order n of RT ,
for sone n ∈ N , if T−n = O and Tk = O for every k < n (i.e., n is the largest
positive integer such that T−|n| = O). Otherwise, if the number of nonzero
coefficients Tk with negative indices is infinite, then the isolated point λ0 of
σ(T ) is said to be an essential singularity of RT .
Proposition 4.F. Let λ0 be an isolated point of the spectrum σ(T ) of

T ∈ B[X ], and let Eλ0 ∈ B[X ] be the Riesz idempotent associated with λ0 .
(a) The isolated point λ0 is a pole of RT of order n if and only if
(λ0 I − T )n Eλ0 = O and (λ0 I − T )n−1 Eλ0 = O.
Therefore, if λ0 is a pole of RT of order n, then
(b) {0} = R((λ0 I − T )n−1 Eλ0 ) ⊆ N (λ0 I − T ),
and so λ0 is an eigenvalue of T (i.e., λ0 ∈ σP (T )). Actually (by item (a) and

Corollary 4.22), λ0 is a pole of RT of order 1 if and only if
(c) {0} = R(Eλ0 ) = N (λ0 I − T ).
Proposition 4.G. Take T ∈ B[X ]. If λ0 is a pole of RT of order n, then
R(Eλ0 ) = N ((λ0 I − T )n ) and R(EΔ ) = R((λ0 I − T )n ),
where Eλ0 denotes the Riesz idempotent associated with λ0 and EΔ denotes
the Riesz idempotent associated with the spectral set Δ = σ(T )\{λ0 }.
Proposition 4.H. Let EΔ be the Riesz idempotent associated with a spectral

subset Δ of σ(T ). If dim R(EΔ ) < ∞, then Δ is a finite set of poles.
Proposition 4.I. Take T ∈ B[X ]. Let Δ be a spectral subset of σ(T ), and let
EΔ ∈ B[X ] be the Riesz idempotent associated with Δ. If ψ ∈ A(σ(T )), then
ψ ∈ A(σ(T |R(EΔ ) )) and ψ(T )|R(EΔ ) = ψ(T |R(EΔ ) ), so that
% %
1 1
2πi ψ(λ)RT (λ) dλ = 2πi ψ(λ)RT |R(EΔ ) (λ) dλ.
ΓΔ R(EΔ ) ΓΔ
For a normal operator on a complex Hilbert space, the functional calculus

of Sections 4.2 and 4.3 (cf. Theorems 4.2 and 4.16) coincides for every analytic
function on a neighborhood of the spectrum.
$
Proposition 4.J. If T = λ dEλ ∈ B[H] is the spectral decomposition of a
normal operator T on a Hilbert space H and if ψ ∈ A(σ(T )), then
% %
1
ψ(T ) = ψ(λ) dEλ = 2πi ψ(λ) RT (λ) dλ,
Γ
with the first integral as in Lemma 3.7 and the second as in Definition 4.14.
Consider Definition 3.6. The notion of spectral measure E : AΩ → B[X ]
(carrying the same properties of Definition 3.6) can be extended to a (complex)
Banach space X where the projections E(Λ) for Λ ∈ AΩ are not orthogonal
but are bounded. If an operator T ∈ B[X ] is such that E(Λ)T = T E(Λ) and
σ(T |R(E(Λ)) ) ⊆ Λ− (see Lemma 3.16), then T is called a spectral operator (cf.
[41, Definition XV.2.5]). Take ψ ∈ B(Ω),$ a bounded AΩ -measurable complex-
valued function on Ω. An integral ψ(λ) dEλ$ can be definedin this Banach
n
space setting as the uniform limit of integrals φn (λ) dEλ = i=1 αi E(Λi ) of
n
measurable simple functions φn = i=1 αi χΛi (i.e., of finite linear combina-
tions of characteristic functions χΛi of measurable sets Λi ∈ AΩ ) — see, e.g.,
$
[40, pp. 891–893]. If a spectral operator T ∈ B[X ] is such that T = λ dEλ ,
then it is said to be of scalar type (cf. [41, Definition XV.4.1]). Proposition 4.J
holds for Banach $ space spectral
$ operators of scalar type. In this case, the pre-
ceding integral λ dEλ = ϕ(λ) dEλ (of thefunction ϕ(λ) = λ ∈ C for every
n
λ ∈ Ω, defined as the limit of a sequence i=1 βi E(Λi ) of integrals of sim-
ple functions) coincides with the integral of Theorem 3.15 if X is a Hilbert
space, and if the spectral measure E : AΩ → B[X ], with Ω = σ(T ), takes on
orthogonal projections only.
$
Proposition 4.K. If T = λ dEλ ∈ B[H] is the spectral decomposition of a
normal operator T on a Hilbert space H, then the orthogonal projection E(Λ)
coincides with the Riesz idempotent EΛ for every clopen Λ in Aσ(T ) :
% %
1
E(Λ) = dEλ = 2πi RT (λ) dλ = EΛ .
Λ ΓΛ

In particular, let T = k λk Ek be the spectral decomposition of a compact
normal operator T on a Hilbert space, with {λk } = σP (T ) and {Ek } being
a countable resolution of the identity where each orthogonal projection Ek is
such that R(Ek ) = N (λk I − T ) (cf. Theorem 3.3). Take any nonzero eigen-
value λk in σ(T )\{0} = σP (T )\{0} = {λk }\{0} so that dim N (λk I − T ) < ∞
(cf. Theorems 1.19 and 2.18 and Corollary 2.20). Each orthogonal projection
Ek coincides with the Riesz idempotent Eλk associated with each isolated point
0 = λk of σ(T ) according to Proposition 4.K. Therefore, by Corollary 4.23 and

Proposition 4.G, it follows that N (λk I − T ) = N ((λk I − T )nk ) = R(Eλk ),
where the integer nk is the order of the pole λk and the integer dim R(Eλk ) =
dim N (λk I − T ) < ∞ is the finite multiplicity of the eigenvalue λk . Note that
dim R(Eλk ) is sometimes called the algebraic multiplicity of the isolated point
λk of the spectrum, while dim N (λk I − T ) — the multiplicity of the eigen-
value λk — is sometimes referred to as the geometric multiplicity of λk . In
the preceding case (i.e., if T is compact and normal), these multiplicities are
finite and coincide.
Proposition 4.L. Every isolated point of the spectrum of a hyponormal op-

erator is an eigenvalue. In fact, if λ0 is an isolated point of σ(T ), then
{0} = R(Eλ0 ) ⊆ N (λ0 I − T )
for every hyponormal operator T ∈ B[H], where Eλ0 is the Riesz idempotent
associated with the isolated point λ0 of the spectrum of T .
Notes: For Proposition 4.A see, for instance, [27, Theorem IX.8.10]. Propo-
sition 4.B is the composition counterpart of the product-preserving result
of Lemma 4.15 (see, e.g., [56, Theorem 5.3.2] or [39, Theorem VII.3.12]).
For Proposition 4.C see [39, Exercise VII.5.18] or [87, 1st edn. Theorem
5.7-B]. Proposition 4.D follows from Theorem 4.20, since, by Theorem 2.7,
1
λ0 I − T |R(Eλ0 ) is quasinilpotent so that limn (λI − T )n x n = 0 whenever
x ∈ R(Eλ ). For the converse see [87, 1st edn. Lemma 5.8-C]. The Laurent
expansion in Proposition 4.E and also Proposition 4.F are standard results
(see [27, Lemma VII.6.11, Proposition 6.12, and Corollary 6.13]). Proposition
4.G refines the results of Proposition 4.F — see, e.g., [39, Theorem VII.3.24].
For Proposition 4.H see [39, Exercise VII.5.34]. Proposition 4.I is a conse-
quence of Theorem 4.20 (see, e.g., [39, Theorem VII.3.20]). Proposition 4.J
also holds for Banach space spectral operators of the scalar type (cf. [41,
Theorem XV.5.1]), and Proposition 4.K is a particular case of it for the char-
acteristic function in a neighborhood of a clopen set in the σ-algebra of Borel
subsets of σ(T ). Proposition 4.L is the extension of Proposition 3.G from nor-
mal to hyponormal operators, which is obtained by the Riesz Decomposition
Theorem (Corollary 4.21) — see, for instance, [66, Problem 6.28].
Suggested Reading
Arveson [6] Hille and Phillips [56]

Brown and Pearcy [21] Sz.-Nagy and Foiaş [86]
Conway [27, 29] Radjavi and Rosenthal [76]
Dowson [35] Riesz and Sz.-Nagy [77]
Dunford and Schwartz [39, 40, 41] Taylor and Lay [87]
5
Fredholm Theory
The central theme of this chapter investigates compact perturbations. We shall

be particularly concerned with properties of the spectrum of an operator that
are invariant under compact perturbations; that is, properties of the spectrum
of T that are also possessed by the spectrum of T + K for every compact
operator K. As in Sections 1.8 and 2.6, we assume throughout this chapter
that all operators lie in B[H], where H stands for a nonzero complex Hilbert
space, although part of the theory developed here applies equally for operators
on Banach spaces.
5.1 Fredholm Operators and Fredholm Index

Let B∞[H] be the (two-sided) ideal of all compact operators from B[H]. An op-
erator T ∈ B[H] is left semi-Fredholm if there exist A ∈ B[H] and K ∈ B∞[H]
such that AT = I + K, and right semi-Fredholm if there exist A ∈ B[H] and
K ∈ B∞[H] such that T A = I + K. We say that T ∈ B[H] is semi-Fredholm
if it is either left or right semi-Fredholm, and Fredholm if it is both left and
right semi-Fredholm. Let F and Fr be the classes of all left semi-Fredholm
operators and of all right semi-Fredholm operators:

F = T ∈ B[H]: AT = I + K for some A ∈ B[H] and some K ∈ B∞[H] ,

Fr = T ∈ B[H]: T A = I + K for some A ∈ B[H] and some K ∈ B∞[H] .
The classes of all semi-Fredholm and Fredholm operators from B[H] will be
denoted by SF and F , respectively;
SF = F ∪ Fr and F = F ∩ Fr .
According to Proposition 1.W, K ∈ B∞[H] if and only if K ∗ ∈ B∞[H]. Thus
T ∈ F if and only if T ∗ ∈ Fr .
Therefore,

132 5. Fredholm Theory
T ∈ SF if and only if T ∗ ∈ SF ,
T ∈F if and only if T ∗ ∈ F.
The following properties on kernel and range of a Hilbert space operator and
its adjoint (Lemmas 1.4 and 1.5) will often be used throughout this chapter:
N (T ∗ ) = H R(T )− = R(T )⊥ ,
R(T ∗ ) is closed if and only if R(T ) is closed.
Theorem 5.1. (a) An operator T ∈ B[H] is left semi-Fredholm if and only if

R(T ) is closed and N (T ) is finite dimensional .
(b) Hence,

F = T ∈ B[H]: R(T ) is closed and dim N (T ) < ∞ ,

Fr = T ∈ B[H]: R(T ) is closed and dim N (T ∗ ) < ∞ .
Proof. Let A, T , and K be operators on H, where K is compact.

(a1 ) If T is left semi-Fredholm, then there are operators A and K such that
AT = I + K, and so N (T ) ⊆ N (AT ) = N (I + K) and R(AT ) = R(I + K).
The Fredholm Alternative (Corollary 1.20) says that dim N (I + K) < ∞ and
R(I + K) is closed. Therefore,
(i) dim N (T ) < ∞,
(ii) dim T (N (AT )) < ∞,
(iii) R(AT ) is closed.
This implies that
(iv) T (N (AT )⊥ ) is closed.
Indeed, the restriction (AT )|N (A T )⊥ : N (AT )⊥ → H is bounded below by (iii)

since (AT )|N (A T )⊥ is injective with range R(AT ) (Theorem 1.2). Thus there
exists an α > 0 such that αv ≤ AT v ≤ A T v for every v ∈ N (AT )⊥.
Then T |N (A T )⊥ : N (AT )⊥ → H is bounded below, and so T |N (A T )⊥ has a
closed range (Theorem 1.2 again), proving (iv). But (ii) and (iv) imply that
(v) R(T ) is closed.
In fact, since H = N (AT ) + N (AT )⊥ by the Projection Theorem, it follows

that R(T ) = T (H) = T (N (AT ) + N (AT )⊥ ) = T (N (AT )) + T (N (AT )⊥ ).
Thus assertions (ii) and (iv) ensure that R(T ) is closed (since the sum of a
closed linear manifold and a finite-dimensional linear manifold is closed —
5.1 Fredholm Operators and Fredholm Index 133
see Proposition 1.C). This concludes the proof of (v) which, together with (i),
concludes half of the claimed result.
(a2 ) Conversely, suppose dim N (T ) < ∞ and R(T ) is closed. Since R(T )
is closed, it follows that T |N (T )⊥ : N (T )⊥ → H (which is injective because
N (T |N (T )⊥) = {0}) has a closed range R(T |N (T )⊥) = R(T ). Hence it has a
bounded inverse on its range (Theorem 1.2). Let E ∈ B[H] be the orthogonal
projection onto R(E) = R(T |N (T )⊥ ) = R(T ), and define A ∈ B[H] as follows:
A = (T |N (T )⊥ )−1 E.
If u ∈ N (T ), then AT u = 0 trivially. On the other hand, if v ∈ N (T )⊥, then

AT v = (T |N (T )⊥ )−1E T |N (T )⊥ v = (T |N (T )⊥ )−1 T |N (T )⊥ v = v. Thus, for every
x = u + v in H = N (T ) + N (T )⊥, we get AT x = AT u + AT v = v = E x,
where E ∈ B[H] is the orthogonal projection onto N (T )⊥ . Therefore,
AT = I + K,
where −K = I − E ∈ B[H] is the complementary orthogonal projection onto

the finite-dimensional space N (T ). Hence K is a finite-rank operator, and so
compact (Proposition 1.X). Thus T is left semi-Fredholm.
(b) Recalling that T ∈ F if and only if T ∗ ∈ Fr , and R(T ∗ ) is closed if and
only if R(T ) is closed (Lemma 1.5), item (b) follows from item (a).
Corollary 5.2. Take an operator T ∈ B[H].

(a) T is semi-Fredholm if and only if R(T ) is closed and N (T ) or N (T ∗ ) is
finite dimensional .
(b) T is Fredholm if and only if R(T ) is closed and both N (T ) and N (T ∗ )
are finite dimensional .
In other words,

SF = T ∈ B[H]: R(T ) is closed, dim N (T ) < ∞ or dim N (T ∗ ) < ∞ ,

F = T ∈ B[H]: R(T ) is closed, dim N (T ) < ∞ and dim N (T ∗ ) < ∞ .
Therefore, the complement of F,
B[H]\ F = B[H]\(F ∩ Fr ) = (B[H]\ F ) ∪ (B[H]\ Fr ),

is the union of

B[H]\ F = T ∈ B[H]: R(T ) is not closed or dim N (T ) = ∞ ,

B[H]\ Fr = T ∈ B[H]: R(T ) is not closed or dim N (T ∗ ) = ∞ .
Proof. Recall that SF = F ∪ Fr and F = F ∩ Fr . Apply Theorem 5.1. .

Let Z be the set of all integers and set Z = Z ∪ {−∞} ∪ {+∞}, the ex-
tended integers. Take any T in SF so that N (T ) or N (T ∗ ) is finite dimen-
sional. The Fredholm index ind (T ) of T in SF is defined in Z by
ind(T ) = dim N (T ) − dim N (T ∗ ).
It is usual to write α(T ) = dim N (T ) and β(T ) = dim N (T ∗ ), and hence

ind (T ) = α(T ) − β(T ). Since T ∗ and T lie in SF together, we get
ind (T ∗ ) = −ind (T ).
Note: β(T ) = α(T ∗ ) = dim R(T )⊥ = dim(H R(T )− ) = dim(H/R(T )− ),

where the last identity is explained in the forthcoming Remark 5.3(a).
Recall from Theorem 5.1 that T ∈ F implies dim N (T ) < ∞ and, dually,
T ∈ Fr implies dim N (T ∗ ) < ∞. Therefore,
T ∈ F implies ind(T ) = +∞,

T ∈ Fr implies ind (T ) = −∞.
In other words, if T ∈ SF = F ∪ Fr , then
ind (T ) = +∞ implies T ∈ Fr \F = Fr \F ,

ind (T ) = −∞ implies T ∈ F \Fr = F \F .
Remark 5.3. (a) Banach Space. If T is an operator on a Hilbert space H,

then N (T ∗ ) = R(T )⊥ = H R(T )− by Lemma 1.4. Thus Theorem 5.1 and
Corollary 5.2 can be restated with N (T ∗ ) replaced by H R(T )−. However,
consider the quotient space H/R(T )− of H modulo R(T )−, consisting of all
cosets x + R(T )− for each x ∈ H. The natural mapping of H/R(T )− onto
H R(T )− (viz., x + R(T )− → Ex where E is the orthogonal projection on
R(T )⊥) is an isomorphism. Then dim(H/R(T )− ) = dim(H R(T )− ). There-
fore we get the following restatement of Corollary 5.2.
T ∈ B[H] is semi-Fredholm if and only if R(T ) is closed and N (T ) or

H/R(T ) is finite dimensional. It is Fredholm if and only if R(T ) is
closed and both N (T ) and H/R(T ) are finite dimensional.
This is how the theory advances in a Banach space. Many properties, among
those that will be developed in this chapter, work smoothly in any Banach
space. Some of them, in order to be properly translated into a Banach space
setting, will behave well if the Banach space is complemented. A Banach space
is complemented if every subspace of it has a complementary subspace (i.e., if
there exists a subspace N of X such that M + N = X and M ∩ N = {0} for
every subspace M of X ). However, if a Banach space is complemented, then it
is isomorphic to a Hilbert space [72] (i.e., topologically isomorphic, after the
Inverse Mapping Theorem). For instance, Proposition 1.D (on complementary

subspaces and continuous projections) is a significant exemplar of a result that
acquires its full strength only on complemented Banach spaces (which are
identified with Hilbert spaces). Only Hilbert spaces (up to an isomorphism)
are complemented. We shall stick to Hilbert spaces.
(b) Finite Rank. It was actually proved in Theorem 5.1 that
T is left semi-Fredholm if and only if there exists an operator A ∈ B[H]

and a finite-rank operator K ∈ B[H] such that AT = I + K.
Since T is right semi-Fredholm if and only if T ∗ is left semi-Fredholm, which

means that there exists a finite-rank operator K such that AT ∗ = I + K or,
equivalently, such that T A∗ = I + K ∗ , and since K is a finite-rank operator
if and only if K ∗ is (see, e.g., [66, Problem 5.40]), it follows that
T is right semi-Fredholm if and only if there exists an operator A ∈ B[H]

and a finite-rank operator K ∈ B[H] such that T A = I + K.
So the definitions of left semi-Fredholm, right semi-Fredholm, semi-Fredholm,

and Fredholm operators are equivalently stated if “compact” is replaced with
“finite-rank”. For Fredholm operators we can even have the same A when
stating that I − AT and I − T A are of finite rank (cf. Proposition 5.C).
(c) Finite Dimensional. Take any operator T ∈ B[H]. Recall from linear alge-
bra that dim H = dim N (T ) + dim R(T ) (see, e.g., [66, Problem 2.17]. Since
H = R(T )− ⊕ R(T )⊥ by the Projection Theorem, it follows that dim H =
dim R(T ) + dim R(T )⊥. Thus, if H is finite dimensional (so that N (T ) and
N (T ∗ ) are finite dimensional), then ind (T ) = 0. Indeed, if dim H < ∞, then
dim N (T ) − dim N (T ∗ ) = dim N (T ) − dim R(T )⊥
= dim N (T ) + dim R(T ) − dim H
= dim H − dim H = 0.
Since linear manifolds of finite-dimensional spaces are always closed, it follows
by Corollary 5.2 that on a finite-dimensional space every operator is Fredholm
with a null index . That is,

dim H < ∞ =⇒ T ∈ F : ind(T ) = 0 = B[H].
(d) Fredholm Alternative. If K ∈ B∞[H] and λ = 0, then R(λI − K) is

closed and dim N (λI − K) = dim N (λI − K ∗ ) < ∞. This is the Fredholm
Alternative for compact operators of Corollary 1.20, which can be restated in
terms of Fredholm indices, according to Corollary 5.2, as follows.
If K ∈ B∞[H] and λ = 0, then λI − K is Fredholm with ind (λI− K) = 0.
But ind(λI − K) = 0 means dim N (λI − K) = dim R(λI − K)⊥ (recall that
dim N (λI − K ∗ ) = dim R(λI − K)⊥ by Lemma 1.5), and this implies that
N (λI − K) = {0} if and only if R(λI − K)− = H (equivalently, if and only

if R(λI − K)⊥ = {0}). Since R(λI − K) is closed if λI − K is Fredholm, we
get another form of the Fredholm Alternative (cf. Theorems 1.18 and 2.18).
If K ∈ B∞[H] and λ = 0, then N (λI − K) = {0} ⇐⇒ R(λI − K) = H,
which means that λI − K is injective if and only if it is surjective.

(e) Fredholm Index. Corollary 5.2 and some of its straightforward conse-
quences can also be naturally rephrased in terms of Fredholm indices. Note
that dim N (T ) and dim N (T ∗ ) are both finite if and only if ind (T ) is finite
(reason: ind (T ) was defined for semi-Fredholm operators only, so that if one
of dim N (T ) or dim N (T ∗ ) is infinite, then the other must be finite). Thus, T
is Fredholm if and only if it is semi-Fredholm with a finite index, and so

T ∈ SF =⇒ T ∈ F ⇐⇒ |ind (T )| < ∞ .
Since F \Fr = F \F and Fr \F = Fr \F, it follows that

T ∈ SF =⇒ T ∈ Fr \F ⇐⇒ ind(T ) = +∞ ,

T ∈ SF =⇒ T ∈ F \Fr ⇐⇒ ind(T ) = −∞ .
(f) Product. Still from Corollary 5.2, a nonzero scalar operator is Fredholm
with a null index. This is readily generalized:
If T ∈ F , then γ T ∈ F and ind(γ T ) = ind (T ) for every γ ∈ C \{0}.
A further generalization leads to the most important property of the index,

namely its logarithmic additivity: ind(S T ) = ind(S) + ind(T ) whenever such
an addition makes sense.
Theorem 5.4. Take S, T ∈ B[H].

(a) If S, T ∈ F , then S T ∈ F . If S, T ∈ Fr , then S T ∈ Fr .
(Therefore, if S, T ∈ F , then S T ∈ F .)
(b) If S, T ∈ F or S, T ∈ Fr (in particular, if S, T ∈ F ), then
ind(S T ) = ind(S) + ind(T ).
Proof. (a) If S and T are left semi-Fredholm, then there are A, B, K, L in B[H],
being K, L compact, such that BS = I + L and AT = I + K. Then
(AB)(S T ) = A(I + L)T = AT + AL T = I + (K + AL T ).
But K + AL T is compact (because B∞[H] is an ideal of B[H]). Thus S T is left

semi-Fredholm. Summing up: S, T ∈ F implies S T ∈ F . Dually, S, T ∈ Fr
if and only if S ∗, T ∗ ∈ F , which (as we have seen above) implies T ∗ S ∗ ∈ F ,
which means that ST = (T ∗ S ∗ )∗ ∈ Fr .
(b) We shall split the proof of ind (S T ) = ind (S) + ind (T ) into three parts.
(b1 ) Take S, T ∈ F . First suppose ind (S) and ind (T ) are both finite or, equiv-
alently, suppose S, T ∈ F = F ∩ Fr . Consider the surjective transformation
L: N (S T ) → R(L) ⊆ H defined by
Lx = T x for every x ∈ N (S T ),
which is clearly linear with N (L) = N (T ) ∩ N (S T ) by the very definition of

L. Since N (T ) ⊆ N (S T ), it follows that
N (L) = N (T ).
If y ∈ R(L) = L(N (S T )), then y = Lx = T x for some vector x ∈ H such that

S T x = 0, and so Sy = 0, which implies that y ∈ R(T ) ∩ N (S). Therefore,
R(L) ⊆ R(T ) ∩ N (S). Conversely, if y ∈ R(T ) ∩ N (S), then y = T x for some
vector x ∈ H and Sy = 0, so that S T x = 0, which implies that x ∈ N (S T )
and y = T x = Lx ∈ R(L). Thus R(T ) ∩ N (S) ⊆ R(L). Hence,
R(L) = R(T ) ∩ N (S).
Again, as is well known from linear algebra, dim X = dim N (L) + dim R(L)
for every linear transformation L on a linear space X (see, e.g., [66, Problem
2.17]). Thus, with X = N (S T ), and recalling that dim N (S) < ∞,
dim N (S T ) = dim N (T ) + dim (R(T ) ∩ N (S))

= dim N (T ) + dim N (S) + dim (R(T ) ∩ N (S)) − dim N (S).
Since R(T ) is closed, R(T ) ∩ N (S) is a subspace of N (S), so that (by the
Projection Theorem) N (S) = R(T ) ∩ N (S) ⊕ (N (S) (R(T ) ∩ N (S))), and
hence dim (N (S) (R(T ) ∩ N (S))) = dim N (S) − dim (R(T ) ∩ N (S)) (be-
cause dim N (S) < ∞). Thus
dim N (T ) + dim N (S) = dim N (S T ) + dim (N (S) (R(T ) ∩ N (S))).
Swapping T with S ∗ and S with T ∗ (which have finite-dimensional kernels

and closed ranges), it follows by Lemma 1.4 and Proposition 1.H(a,b) that
dim N (S ∗ ) + dim N (T ∗ ) = dim N (T ∗ S ∗ ) + dim(N (T ∗ ) (R(S ∗ ) ∩ N (T ∗ )))

= dim N ((S T )∗ ) + dim(R(T )⊥ (N (S)⊥ ∩ R(T )⊥))
= dim N ((S T )∗ ) + dim(R(T )⊥ (R(T ) + N (S))⊥
= dim N ((S T )∗ ) + dim(N (S) (R(T ) ∩ N (S))).
Therefore,
dim N (S) − dim N (S ∗ ) + dim N (T ) − dim N (T ∗ )

= dim N (S T ) − dim N ((S T )∗ ),
and so
ind (S T ) = ind (S) + ind (T ).
(b2 ) Recall that if S, T ∈ F , then ind (S), ind (T ) = +∞. Suppose S, T ∈ F

and one of ind (S) or ind(T ) is not finite, which means that ind (S) = −∞ or
ind (T ) = −∞. If ind (S) = −∞, then dim N (S ∗ ) = ∞, and so dim R(S)⊥ =
dim N (S ∗ ) = ∞. Since R(S T ) ⊆ R(S), we get R(S)⊥ ⊆ R(S T )⊥, and hence
dim N ((T S)∗ ) = dim R(S T )⊥ = ∞. Since T S ∈ F by item (a), Theorem 5.1
says that dim N (T S) < ∞. Thus ind(T S) = dim N (T S) − dim N ((T S)∗ ) =
−∞. On the other hand, if ind(S) = −∞, then ind (T ) = −∞, and the same
argument leads to ind (S T ) = −∞. So, in both cases, ind(S T ) = ind(T S) and
ind(S T ) = −∞ = ind (S) + ind (T ).
(b3 ) Finally, suppose S, T ∈ Fr . Thus S ∗, T ∗ ∈ F , which (as we have seen in

(b1 ) and (b2 )) implies that ind (T ∗ S ∗ ) = ind(S ∗ T ∗ ) = ind(S ∗ ) + ind (T ∗ ).
But ind (S ∗ ) = −ind(S), ind(T ∗ ) = −ind (T ), ind (T ∗ S ∗ ) = ind((S T )∗ ) =
−ind(S T ), and ind (S ∗ T ∗ ) = ind ((T S)∗ ) = −ind (T S). Thus, if S, T ∈ Fr ,
ind (S T ) = ind (S) + ind (T ).
If S, T ∈ SF \F, so that ind (S) and ind (T ) are both not finite, then the ex-
pression ind(S) + ind (T ) makes sense as an extended integer in Z if and only
if either ind(S) = ind (T ) = +∞ or ind (S) = ind(T ) = −∞. But this is equiv-
alent to saying that either S, T ∈ Fr \F = Fr \F or S, T ∈ F \F = F \Fr .
Therefore, if S, T ∈ SF with one of them in Fr \F and the other in F \Fr ,
then the index expression of Theorem 5.4 does not make sense. Moreover, if
one of them lies in Fr \F and the other lies in F \Fr , then it may hap-
pen that their product is not in SF . For instance, let H be an infinite-
dimensional Hilbert space, and let S+ be the canonical ∞ unilateral shift (of
2
infinite multiplicity) on the Hilbert space + (H) = k=0 H (cf. Section 2.7).
It is readily verified that dim N (S+ ) = ∞, dim N (S+∗ ) = 0, and R(S+ ) is closed
(S+ ) = + (H) k=1 H ∼
∞
2
in + (H). In fact, N
2
= H, N (S+∗ ) = {0}, and
∞
R(S+ ) = {0} ⊕ k=1 H. Therefore, S+ ∈ Fr \F and S+∗ ∈ F \Fr (accord-
ing to Theorem 5.1). However, it is easy to see that S+ S+∗ ∈ SF . Indeed,
S+ S+∗ = O ⊕ I (where
∞ O stands for the null operator on H and I for the iden-
tity operator on k=1 H) does not lie in SF because it is self-adjoint and
dim N (S+ S+∗ ) = ∞ (cf. Theorem 5.1 again).
Corollary 5.5. Take any nonnegative integer n. If T ∈ F (or T ∈ Fr ), then

T n ∈ F (or T n ∈ Fr ) and
ind (T n ) = n ind (T ).
Proof. The result holds trivially for n = 0 (the identity is Fredholm with index
zero), and tautologically for n = 1. Thus suppose n ≥ 2. Theorem 5.4 says
that the claimed result holds for n = 2. By using Theorem 5.4 again, a trivial
induction ensures that the claimed result holds for each n ≥ 2.
The null operator on an infinite-dimensional space is not Fredholm, and so

a compact operator may not be Fredholm. However, the sum of a Fredholm
operator and a compact operator is a Fredholm operator with the same index.
In other words, the index of a Fredholm operator remains unchanged under
compact perturbation, which is referred to as the index stability.
Theorem 5.6. Take T ∈ B[H] and K ∈ B∞[H].

(a) T ∈ F ⇐⇒ T + K ∈ F and T ∈ Fr ⇐⇒ T + K ∈ Fr .
In particular,
T ∈ F ⇐⇒ T + K ∈ F and T ∈ SF ⇐⇒ T + K ∈ SF .
(b) Moreover, for every T ∈ SF ,
ind(T + K) = ind(T ).
Proof. (a) If T ∈ F , then there exist A ∈ B[H] and K1 ∈ B∞[H] such that
AT = I + K1 . So A ∈ Fr . Take an arbitrary K ∈ B∞[H]. Set K2 = K1 + AK,
which lies in B∞[H] because B∞[H] is an ideal of B[H]. Since A(T + K) =
I + K2 , it follows that T + K ∈ F . Therefore, T ∈ F implies T + K ∈ F .
The converse also holds because T = (T + K) − K. Hence
T ∈ F ⇐⇒ T + K ∈ F .
Dually, if T ∈ Fr and K ∈ B∞[H], then T ∗ ∈ F and K ∗ ∈ B∞[H], so that

T ∗ + K ∗ ∈ F , and hence T + K = (T ∗ + K ∗)∗ ∈ Fr . Therefore,
T ∈ Fr ⇐⇒ T + K ∈ Fr .
(b) First suppose T ∈ F . The Fredholm Alternative of Corollary 1.20 says

that I + K1 and I + K2 are Fredholm operators with Fredholm indices zero
(see Remark 5.3(d)). Therefore, AT = I + K1 ∈ F with ind(AT ) = 0 and
A(T + K) = I + K2 ∈ F with ind(A(T + K)) = 0. Note that, since T ∈ F ,
then A ∈ Fr . If T ∈ F , then T + K ∈ F by item (a). In this case, applying
Theorem 5.4 for operators in Fr , we get
ind (T + K) + ind(A) = ind (A(T + K)) = 0 = ind(AT ) = ind (A) + ind (T ).
Since ind(T ) is finite (under the assumption that T ∈ F), it follows that
ind (A) = −ind(T ) is finite as well, and so we may subtract ind (A) to get
ind(T + K) = ind(T ).
On the other hand, if T ∈ F \F = F \Fr , then T + K ∈ F \Fr by (a). In

this case (see Remark 5.3(e)),
ind(T + K) = −∞ = ind(T ).
Dually, if T ∈ Fr \F and K ∈ B∞[H], then T ∗ ∈ F \F and K ∗ ∈ B∞[H]. So
ind (T + K) = −ind(T ∗ + K ∗ ) = −ind(T ∗ ) = ind (T ).
Remark 5.7. (a) Index of A. We have established the following assertion in

the preceding proof.
If T ∈ F and A ∈ B[H] is such that AT = I + K for some K ∈ B∞[H],

then A ∈ F and ind(A) = −ind(T ) = ind (T ∗ ).
Moreover, if T ∈ F, then T ∈ Fr , so that T A = I + K for some K ∈ B∞[H].

Thus A ∈ F . Therefore, a similar argument leads to the dual statement.
If T ∈ F and A ∈ B[H] is such that T A = I + K for some K ∈ B∞[H],

then A ∈ F and ind(A) = −ind(T ) = ind (T ∗ ).
(b) Weyl Operator. A Weyl operator is a Fredholm operator with null index
(equivalently, a semi-Fredholm operator with null index). Let

W = T ∈ F : ind (T ) = 0
denote the class of all Weyl operators from B[H]. Since T ∈ F if and only if
T ∗ ∈ F and ind (T ∗ ) = −ind(T ), it follows that
T ∈W ⇐⇒ T ∗ ∈ W.
Items (c), (d), and (f) in Remark 5.3 ensure that (i) every operator on a
finite-dimensional space is a Weyl operator,
dim H < ∞ =⇒ W = B[H],
(ii) the Fredholm Alternative can be rephrased as
K ∈ B∞[H] and λ = 0 =⇒ λI − K ∈ W,
and (iii) every nonzero multiple of a Weyl operator is again a Weyl operator,
T ∈W =⇒ γ T ∈ W for every γ ∈ C \{0}.
In particular, every nonzero scalar operator is a Weyl operator. In fact, the

product of two Weyl operators is again a Weyl operator (by Theorem 5.4),
S, T ∈ W =⇒ S T ∈ W.
Thus integral powers of Weyl operators are Weyl operators (Corollary 5.5),
T ∈W =⇒ T n ∈ W for every n ∈ N 0 .
5.2 Essential Spectrum and Spectral Picture 141
On an infinite-dimensional space, the identity is Weyl but not compact; and

the null operator is compact but not semi-Fredholm. Actually,
T ∈ F ∩ B∞[H] ⇐⇒ dim H < ∞ ( ⇐⇒ T ∈ W ∩ B∞[H] ).
(Set T = −K in Theorem 5.6 and, for the converse, see Remark 5.3(c).) Also
note that, if T is normal, then N (T ) = N (T ∗ T ) = N (T T ∗ ) = N (T ∗ ) by
Lemma 1.4, and so every normal Fredholm operator is Weyl,
T normal in F =⇒ T ∈ W.
Since T ∈ B[H] is invertible if and only N (T ) = {0} and R(T ) = H (Theorem

1.1), which happens if and only if T ∗ ∈ B[H] is invertible (Proposition 1.L),
it follows by Corollary 5.2 that every invertible operator is Weyl,
T ∈ G[H] =⇒ T ∈ W.
Theorem 5.6 ensures that, for every compact K ∈ B∞[H],
T ∈W =⇒ T + K ∈ W.
5.2 Essential Spectrum and Spectral Picture

An element a in a unital algebra A is left invertible if there is an element a
in A (a left inverse of a) such that a a = 1, where 1 stands for the identity in
A, and it is right invertible if there is an element ar in A (a right inverse of a)
such that aar = 1. An element a in A is invertible if there is an element a−1
in A (the inverse of a) such that a−1 a = a a−1 = 1. Thus a in A is invertible
if and only if it has a left inverse a in A and a right inverse ar in A, which
coincide with its inverse a−1 in A (since ar = a a ar = a ).
Lemma 5.8. Take an operator S in the unital Banach algebra B[H].

(a) S is left invertible if and only if it is injective with a closed range
(i.e., N (S) = {0} and R(S)− = R(S)).
(b) S is left (right ) invertible if and only if S ∗ is right (left ) invertible.
(c) S is right invertible if and only if it is surjective (i.e., R(S) = H).
Proof. S ∈ B[H] is said to have a bounded inverse on its range if there exists
S −1 ∈ B[R(S), H] such that S −1 S = I in B[H] and S S −1 = I in B[R(S)]).
Claim. S is left invertible if and only if it has a bounded inverse on its range.
Proof. If S ∈ B[H] is such that S S = I, then S |R(S) ∈ B[R(S), H] is such
that S |R(S) S = I ∈ B[H]. Consider the operator S S |R(S) in B[R(S)], and
take any y in R(S). Thus y = Sx for some x in H, and so S |R(S) y = S Sx =
x. Then S S |R(S) y = Sx = y, and hence S S |R(S) = I ∈ B[R(S)]. Set S −1 =

S |R(S) ∈ B[R(S), H], and get S −1 S = I in B[H] and S S −1 = I in B[R(S)].
Conversely, any extension of S −1 ∈ B[R(S), H] over the whole space H (cf.
Proposition 1.G(b)) is a left inverse of S ∈ B[H]. This proves the Claim.
(a) But S has a bounded inverse on its range if and only if it is injective (i.e.,
N (S) = {0}) and R(S) is closed, according to Theorem 1.2.
(b) Since S S = I (S Sr = I) if and only if S ∗ S∗ = I (Sr∗ S ∗ = I), it follows
that S is left (right) invertible if and only if S ∗ is right (left) invertible.
(c) Thus we get from items (a) and (b) that S is right invertible if and only if
N (S ∗ ) = {0} and R(S ∗ ) is closed, or equivalently (cf. Lemmas 1.4 and 1.5),
R(S) = R(S)− = H; which means that R(S) = H.
Let T be an operator in B[H]. The left spectrum σ (T ) and the right spec-
trum σr (T ) of T ∈ B[H] are the sets

σ (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T is not left invertible ,

σr (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T is not right invertible ,
so that the spectrum σ(T ) of T ∈ B[H] is given by

σ(T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T is not invertible = σ (T ) ∪ σr (T ).
Corollary 5.9. Take an operator T ∈ B[H].

σ (T ) = λ ∈ C : R(λI − T ) is not closed or N (λI − T ) = {0} ,

σr (T ) = λ ∈ C : R(λI − T ) is not closed or N (λI − T ∗ ) = {0}

= λ ∈ C : R(λI − T ) is not closed or R(λI − T )− = H

= λ ∈ C : R(λI − T ) = H .
Proof. Take T ∈ B[H] and λ ∈ C . Set S = λI − T in B[H]. By Lemma 5.8,

S is not left invertible if and only if R(S) is not closed or S is not injective
(i.e., or N (S) = 0). This proves the expression for σ (T ). By Lemma 5.8, S is
not right invertible if and only if R(S) = H, which means that R(S) = R(S)−
or R(S)− = H, which in turn is equivalent to saying that R(S) = R(S)− or
N (S ∗ ) = {0} (Lemma 1.5), thus proving the expressions for σr (T ).
By Corollary 5.9 and Theorem 2.6 (see also the diagram of Section 2.2),
σ (T ) = σ(T )\σR1 (T ) = σAP (T ), σr (T ) = σ(T )\σP1 (T ) = σAP (T ∗ )∗ ,
and so
σ (T ) and σr (T ) are closed subsets of C .
Indeed, σAP (T ) is closed (cf. Theorem 2.5). Note that σP1 (T ) and σR1 (T )
are open in C (cf. Remarks following Theorems 2.5 and 2.6), and therefore
σAP (T ) = σ(T )\σR1 (T ) = σ(T ) ∩ (C \σR1 (T )) and σAP (T ∗ )∗ = σ(T )\σP1 (T ) =
σ(T ) ∩ (C \σP1 (T )) are closed (and bounded) in C , since σ(T ) is closed (and
bounded); and so is the intersection
,
σ (T ) ∩ σr (T ) = σ(T ) σP1 (T ) ∪ σR1 (T ) = σAP (T ) ∩ σAP (T ∗ )∗ .
The fact that each σP1 (T ) and σR1 (T ) is an open subset of C , and so each
σ (T ) and σr (T ) is a closed subset of C , it a consequence of the property
that T lies in the unital Banach algebra B[H] (so that σ(T ) is a compact
set), which actually happens in any unital Banach algebra. Also recall that
(S S)∗ = S ∗S∗ and (S Sr )∗ = Sr∗ S ∗, so that S is a left inverse of S if and
only if S∗ is a right inverse of S ∗, and Sr is a right inverse for S if and only if
Sr∗ is a left inverse for S ∗. Therefore (as we can also infer from Corollary 5.9),
σ (T ) = σr (T ∗ )∗ and σr (T ) = σ (T ∗ )∗ .
Consider the Calkin algebra B[H]/B∞[H] — the quotient algebra of B[H]

modulo the ideal B∞[H] of all compact operators. If dim H < ∞, then all
operators are compact, so that B[H]/B∞[H] is trivially null. Thus, whenever
the Calkin algebra is brought into play, it will be assumed that dim H = ∞.
Since B∞[H] is a subspace of B[H], it follows that B[H]/B∞[H] is a unital
Banach algebra whenever H is infinite dimensional . Define the natural map
(or the natural quotient map) π: B[H] → B[H]/B∞[H] by

π(T ) = [T ] = S ∈ B[H]: S = T + K for some K ∈ B∞[H] = T + B∞[H]
for every T in B[H]. Recall that the origin of the linear space B[H]/B∞[H] is
[0] = B∞[H] ∈ B[H]/B∞[H], the kernel of the natural map π is

N (π) = T ∈ B[H]: π(T ) = [0] = B∞[H] ⊆ B[H],
and π is a unital homomorphism. Indeed, since B∞[H] is an ideal of B[H],
π(T + T ) = (T + T ) + B∞[H] = (T + B∞[H]) + (T + B∞[H]) = π(T ) + π(T ),

π(T T ) = (T T ) + B∞[H] = (T + B∞[H]) (T + B∞[H]) = π(T ) π(T ),
for every T, T ∈ B[H], and π(I) = [I] is the identity element of the algebra
B[H]/B∞[H]. Moreover, the norm on B[H]/B∞[H] is given by
[T ] = inf T + K ≤ T ,
K∈B∞[H]
so that π is a contraction.
Theorem 5.10. Take any operator T ∈ B[H]. T ∈ F (or T ∈ Fr ) if and

only if π(T ) is left (or right) invertible in the Calkin algebra B[H]/B∞[H].
Proof. We show that the following assertions are pairwise equivalent.

(a) T ∈ F .
(b) There is a pair of operators {A, K} with A ∈ B[H] and K ∈ B∞[H] such
that AT = I + K.
(c) There exists a quadruple of operators {A, K1 , K2 , K3 } with A ∈ B[H] and
K1 , K2 , K3 ∈ B∞[H] such that (A + K1 )(T + K2 ) = I + K3 .
(d) π(A)π(T ) = π(I), identity in B[H]/B∞[H], for some π(A) in B[H]/B∞[H].
(e) π(T ) is left invertible in B[H]/B∞[H].
By definition, (a) and (b) are equivalent, and (b) implies (c) trivially. If (c)
holds, then there exist B ∈ [A] = π(A), S ∈ [T ] = π(T ), and J ∈ [I] = π(I)
such that BS = J. Therefore, π(A)π(T ) = [A] [T ] = [B] [S] = π(B)π(S) =
π(BS) = π(J) = [J] = [I] = π(I), so that (c) implies (d). Now observe that
X ∈ π(A)π(T ) = π(AT ) if and only if X = AT + K1 for some K1 ∈ B∞[H],
and X ∈ π(I) if and only if X = I + K2 for some K2 ∈ B∞[H]. Therefore, if
π(A)π(T ) = π(I), then X = AT + K1 if and only if X = I + K2 , and hence
AT = I + K with K = K2 − K1 ∈ B∞[H]. Thus (d) implies (b). Finally, (d)
and (e) are equivalent by the definition of left invertibility.
Outcome: T ∈ F if and only if π(T ) is left invertible in B[H]/B∞[H]. Dually,
T ∈ Fr if and only if π(T ) is right invertible in B[H]/B∞[H].
The essential spectrum (or the Calkin spectrum) σe (T ) of T ∈ B[H] is the

spectrum of π(T ) in unital Banach algebra B[H]/B∞[H],
σe (T ) = σ(π(T )),
and so σe (T ) is a compact subset of C . Similarly, the left essential spectrum

σe (T ) and the right essential spectrum σre (T ) of T ∈ B[H] are defined as the
left and the right spectrum of π(T ) in the Calkin algebra B[H]/B∞[H]:
σe (T ) = σ (π(T )) and σre (T ) = σr (π(T )),

and so
σe (T ) = σe (T ) ∪ σre (T ).
By using only the definitions of left and right semi-Fredholm operators,

and of left and right essential spectra, we get the following characterization.
Corollary 5.11. If T ∈ B[H], then

σe (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ B[H]\F ,

σre (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ B[H]\Fr .
Proof. Take T ∈ B[H]. Theorem 5.10 says that λI − T ∈ F if and only if

π(λI − T ) is not left invertible in B[H]/B∞[H], which means (definition of
left spectrum) that λ ∈ σ (π(T )). But σe (T ) = σ (π(T )) — definition of
left essential spectrum. Thus λ ∈ σe (T ) if and only if λI − T ∈ F . Dually,
λ ∈ σre (T ) if and only if λI − T ∈ Fr .
Corollary 5.12. (Atkinson Theorem).

σe (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ B[H]\F .
Proof. The expressions for σe (T ) and σre (T ) in Corollary 5.11 lead to the
claimed identity, since σe (T ) = σe (T ) ∪ σre (T ) and F = F ∩ Fr .
Thus the essential spectrum is the set of all scalars λ for which λI − T is
not Fredholm. The following equivalent version is also frequently used [7].
Corollary 5.13. (Atkinson Theorem). An operator T ∈ B[H] is Fredholm if

and only if its image π(T ) in the Calkin algebra B[H]/B∞[H] is invertible.
Proof. Straightforward from Theorem 5.10: T is Fredholm if and only if it is
both left and right semi-Fredholm, and π(T ) is invertible in B[H]/B∞[H] if
and only if it is both left and right invertible in B[H]/B∞[H].
This is usually referred to by saying that T is Fredholm if and only if T is

essentially invertible. Thus the essential spectrum σe (T ) is the set of all scalars
λ for which λI − T is not essentially invertible (i.e., λI − T is not Fredholm),
and so the essential spectrum is also called the Fredholm spectrum.
We have already seen that, in the unital Banach algebra B[H], the sets
σ (T ) and σr (T ) are closed in C , because σ(T ) is a compact subset of C .
Similarly, in the unital Banach algebra B[H]/B∞[H],
σe (T ) and σre (T ) are closed subsets of C ,
since σe (T ) = σ(π(T )) is a compact set in C . From Corollary 5.11 we get

C \σe (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ F },

C \σre (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ Fr },
which are open subsets of C . Thus, since SF = F ∪ Fr , it follows that

,
C σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ) = C \σe (T ) ∪ C \σre (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ SF ,
which is again an open subset of C . Therefore, the intersection

σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ B[H]\SF
is a closed subset of C . Observe that, since F = F ∩ Fr , the complement of

the union σe (T ) ∪ σre (T ) is given by (cf. Corollary 5.12)
,
C \σe (T ) = Cσe (T ) ∪ σre (T )

= C \σe (T ) ∩ C \σre (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ F ,
which is an open subset of C .
Corollary 5.14. If T ∈ B[H], then

σe (T ) = λ ∈ C : R(λI − T ) is not closed or dim N (λI − T ) = ∞ ,

σre (T ) = λ ∈ C : R(λI − T ) is not closed or dim N (λI − T ∗ ) = ∞ .
Proof. Theorem 5.1 and Corollary 5.11.
Note that, by Corollaries 5.9 and 5.14,
σe (T ) ⊆ σ (T ) and σre (T ) ⊆ σr (T )

and so
σe (T ) ⊆ σ(T ).
Corollary 5.14 also shows that
σe (T ) = σre (T ∗ )∗ and σre (T ) = σe (T ∗ )∗ ,

and hence
σe (T ) = σe (T ∗ )∗ .
Moreover, by the previous results and the diagram of Section 2.2,
σC (T ) ⊆ σe (T ) ⊆ σ (T ) = σ(T )\σR1 (T ) = σAP (T ),

σC (T ) = σC (T ∗ )∗ ⊆ σe (T ∗ )∗ = σre (T ) ⊆ σr (T ) = σ(T )\σP1(T ) = σAP (T ∗ )∗,
so that ,
σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ) ⊆ σ(T ) σP1 (T ) ∪ σR1 (T ) ,
which is an inclusion of closed sets, and therefore
, ,
σP1 (T ) ∪ σR1 (T ) ⊆ σ(T ) σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ) ⊆ C σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ) ,
which is an inclusion of open sets.
Remark 5.15. (a) Finite Dimensional. For any T ∈ B[H],
σe (T ) = ∅ ⇐⇒ dim H = ∞.
Actually, since σe (T ) was defined as the spectrum of π(T ) in the Calkin alge-
bra B[H]/B∞[H], which is a unital Banach algebra if and only if H is infinite
dimensional (in a finite-dimensional space all operators are compact), and
since spectra are nonempty in a unital Banach algebra, it follows that
dim H = ∞ =⇒ σe (T ) = ∅.
However, if we take the expression in Corollary 5.12 as the definition of the

essential spectrum, viz., σe (T ) = {λ ∈ C : (λI − T ) ∈ B[H]\F }, then the
converse holds by Remark 5.3(c):
dim H < ∞ =⇒ σe (T ) = ∅.
(b) Atkinson Theorem. An argument similar to that in the proof of Corollary

5.13, using each expression for σe (T ) and σre (T ) in Corollary 5.11 separately,
leads to the following result.
An operator T ∈ B[H] lies in F (or in Fr ) if and only if its image

π(T ) in the Calkin algebra B[H]/B∞[H] is left (right) invertible.
(c) Compact Perturbation. Observe that, for every K ∈ B∞[H],
σe (T + K) = σe (T ).
Indeed, since π(T + K) = π(T ), it follows by the very definition of σe (T ) in

B∞[H]/B[H] that σe (T ) = σ(π(T )) = σ(π(T + K)) = σe (T + K), for every
K ∈ B∞[H]. Similarly, the definitions of σe (T ) and of σre (T ) in B∞[H]/B[H]
ensure that σe (T ) = σ (π(T )) = σ (π(T + K)) = σe (T + K), and σre (T ) =
σr (π(T )) = σr (π(T + K)) = σre (T + K), for every K ∈ B∞[H]. Thus
σe (T + K) = σe (T ) and σre (T + K) = σre (T ).
This invariance consists of an important feature of Fredholm theory.
Now take any operator T in B[H]. For each k ∈ Z \{0} set

σk (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ SF and ind (λI − T ) = k .
Recall that a component of a set in a topological space is any maximal con-

nected subset of it. A hole of a set in a topological space is any bounded com-
ponent of its complement. If a set has an open complement (i.e., if it is closed),
then a hole of it must be open. We shall show that each σk (T ) with finite index
is a hole of σe (T ) that lies in σ(T ) (i.e., if k ∈ Z \{0}, then σk (T ) ⊆ σ(T )\σe (T )
is a bounded component of the open set C \σe (T )), and hence it is an open
set. Moreover, we also show that σ+∞ (T ) and σ−∞ (T ) are holes of σre (T ) and
of σe (T ) that lie in σe (T ) and σre (T ) (in fact, σ+∞ (T ) = σe (T )\σre (T ) is a
bounded component of the open set C \σre (T ), and σ−∞ (T ) = σre (T )\σe (T )
is a bounded component of the open set C \σe (T )), and hence they are open
sets. The sets σ+∞ (T ) and σ−∞ (T ) — which are holes of σre (T ) and of σe (T )
but are not holes of σe (T ) — are called pseudoholes of σe (T ).
Let σPF (T ) denote the set of all eigenvalues of T of finite multiplicity,

σPF (T ) = λ ∈ σP (T ): dim N (λI − T ) < ∞

= λ ∈ C : 0 < dim N (λI − T ) < ∞ .
Observe from the diagram of Section 2.2 and Corollary 5.14 that
σAP (T ) = σe (T ) ∪ σPF (T ).
Theorem 5.16. For each k ∈ Z \{0},
(a) σk (T ) = σ−k (T ∗ )∗ .
If k ∈ Z \{0}, then

(b) σk (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ F and ind(λI − T ) = k
+
σPF (T ), 0 < k,
⊆ ∗ ∗
σPF (T ) , k < 0,
so that σk (T ) ⊆ σ(T ), and

σk (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ F and ind(λI − T ) = 0
k∈Z \{0}

= λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ F \W

⊆ λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ F = C \σe (T ).
If k = ±∞, then
(c) σ+∞ (T ) ⊆ σP (T )\σPF (T ) and σ−∞ (T ) ⊆ σP (T ∗ )∗ \σPF (T ∗ )∗ ,

and hence

σk (T ) ⊆ σP (T ) ∪ σR (T ) ⊆ σ(T ).
k∈Z \{0}
Moreover,

σ+∞ (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ SF and ind (λI − T ) = +∞

= λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ Fr \F
= σe (T )\σre (T ) ⊆ C \σre (T ),

σ−∞ (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ SF and ind(λI − T ) = −∞

= λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ F \Fr
= σre (T )\σe (T ) ⊆ C \σe (T ),
which are all open subsets of C , and hence
σ+∞ (T ) ⊆ σe (T ) and σ−∞ (T ) ⊆ σe (T ).
Furthermore, if
+
(d) Z \{0} = N denotes the set of all extended positive integers, and
−
Z \{0} = −N denotes the set of all extended negative integers, then

σP1 (T ) ⊆ + σk (T )
k∈Z \{0}

= λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ SF and 0 < ind (λI − T ) ,

σR1 (T ) ⊆ − σk (T )
k∈Z \{0}

= λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ SF and ind(λI − T ) < 0 ,
so that

σP1 (T ) ∪ σR1 (T ) ⊆ σk (T )
k∈Z \{0}

= λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ SF and ind (λI − T ) = 0
,
⊆ λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ SF = C σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ) ,
which are all open subsets of C .

(e) If k is finite, then σk (T ) is a hole of σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ) (and therefore, a
hole of σe (T )). Otherwise, σ+∞ (T ) is a hole of σe (T ) and σ−∞ (T ) is a
hole of σre (T ), and so σk (T ) is an open subset of C for every k ∈ Z \{0}.
Proof. (a) Recall that λI − T ∈ SF if and only if λI − T ∗ ∈ SF , and also that

ind (λI − T ) = −ind(λI − T ∗ ). Hence λ ∈ σk (T ) if and only if λ ∈ σ−k (T ∗ ).
(b) The expression for σk (T ) — with SF replaced with F — holds since for
finite k all semi-Fredholm operators are Fredholm (cf. Remark 5.3(e)). Take
any k ∈ Z \{0}. If k > 0 and λ ∈ σk (T ), then 0 < ind(λI − T ) < ∞. Hence
0 ≤ dim N (λI − T ∗ ) < dim N (λI − T ) < ∞,
and so 0 < dim N (λI − T ) < ∞. Thus λ is an eigenvalue of T of finite multi-

plicity. Dually, if k < 0 (i.e., −k > 0) and λ ∈ σk (T ) = σ−k (T ∗ )∗ , then λ is an
eigenvalue of T ∗ of finite multiplicity. To close the proof of (b), observe that

C \σe (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ F
according to Corollary 5.12.

(c) If λ ∈ σ+∞ (T ), then
0 ≤ dim N (λI − T ∗ ) < dim N (λI − T ) = ∞,
so that λ is an eigenvalue of T of infinite multiplicity. Dually, if λ ∈ σ−∞ (T ) =

σ+∞ (T ∗ )∗ , then λ is an eigenvalue of T ∗ of infinite multiplicity. The expres-
sions for σ+∞ (T ) and σ−∞ (T ) follow from Remark 5.3(e) and also from Corol-
lary 5.11. Recall that σe (T ) and σre (T ) are closed in C , and so σ+∞ (T ) and
σ−∞ (T ) are open in C . Moreover, the expressions for σ+∞ (T ) and σ−∞ (T )
and Corollary 5.12 ensure that these sets are subsets of σe (T ).
(d) Recall from Section 1.3 that M− = H if and only if M⊥ = {0}. Hence
R(λI − T )− = H if and only if N (λI − T ∗ ) = {0} by Lemma 1.4. In other
words, R(λI − T )− = H if and only if dim N (λI − T ∗ ) = 0. Thus, according
to the diagram of Section 2.2, we get

σP1(T ) = λ ∈ C : R(λI − T ) is closed, 0 = dim N (λI − T ∗ ) = dim N (λI − T )

= λ ∈ C : R(λI − T ) is closed, 0 = dim N (λI − T ∗ ), ind(λI − T ) > 0 .
Therefore, by Corollary 5.2,

σP1 (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ SF , 0 = dim N (λI − T ), ind (λI − T ) > 0

⊆ λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ SF , ind (λI − T ) > 0 = + σk (T ).
k∈Z \{0}
Dually (cf. item (a) and Theorem 2.6),

∗
σR1 (T ) = σP1 (T ∗ )∗ ⊆ + σk (T ∗
)
k∈Z \{0}

∗
= + σ−k (T )∗ = − σk (T ).
k∈Z \{0} k∈Z \{0}
Finally, note that

C \σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ SF
according to Corollary 5.11, as we had verified before.

(e) Recall from item (d) that

σk (T ) ⊆ C \σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ SF .
k∈Z \{0}

Take any λ ∈ k∈Z \{0} σk (T ) so that λI − T ∈ SF . Proposition 5.D ensures
that ind (νI − T ) is constant for every ν in a punctured disk Bε (λ)\{0} cen-
tered at λ for some positive radius ε. Thus, for every pair of distinct extended
integers j, k ∈ Z \{0}, the sets σj (T ) and σk (T ) are not only disjoint, but they
are (bounded) components (i.e., maximal connected subsets) of the open set
C \σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ), and hence they are holes of the closed set σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ).
By item (b), if j, k are finite (i.e., if j, k ∈ Z \{0}), then σj (T ) and σk (T ) are
(bounded) components of the open set C \σe (T ) = C \σe (T ) ∪ σre (T ) and, in
this case, they are holes of the closed set σe (T ). By item (c), σ+∞ (T ) and
σ−∞ (T ) are (bounded) components of the open sets C \σre (T ) and C \σe (T ),
and so σ+∞ (T ) and σ−∞ (T ) are holes of the closed sets σre (T ) and σe (T ),
respectively.
Thus, in any case, σk (T ) is an open subset of C . Therefore,
σ
k∈Z \{0} k (T ) is open as claimed in (d).
The following figure illustrates a simple instance of holes and pseudoholes

of the essential spectrum. Observe that the right and left essential spectra,
σe (T ) and σre (T ), differ only by pseudoholes σ±∞ (T ).
σe (T ) = σe (T ) ∪ σre (T )
| |
| |
| ||
|
σk (T )
| | | |
| | | ♠ |
σe (T ) | ♣ || | ||
σre (T )
| |
σe (T ) ∩ σre (T )
| |
| ♠ |
| ♣ ||
♣ | ♠
σ−∞ (T ) = σre (T )\σe (T ) σ+∞ (T ) = σe (T )\σre (T )
Fig. § 5.2. Holes and pseudoholes of the essential spectrum
Now, for k = 0, we define σ0 (T ) as the following subset of σ(T ).

σ0 (T ) = λ ∈ σ(T ): λI − T ∈ SF and ind (λI − T ) = 0

= λ ∈ σ(T ): λI − T ∈ F and ind (λI − T ) = 0

= λ ∈ σ(T ): λI − T ∈ W .
According to Corollary 5.2, the diagram of Section 2.2, and Theorem 2.6, such
a subset of the spectrum can be rewritten as

σ0 (T ) = λ ∈ σ(T ): R(λI − T ) is closed and

dim N (λI − T ) = dim N (λI − T ∗ ) < ∞

= λ ∈ σP (T ): R(λI − T ) = R(λI − T )− = H and

dim N (λI − T ) = dim N (λI − T ∗ ) < ∞

= λ ∈ σP4 : dim N (λI − T ) = dim N (λI − T ∗ ) < ∞ ,

where σP4 (T ) = λ ∈ σP (T ): R(λI − T )− = R(λI − T ) = H . In fact,
σ0 (T ) ⊆ σPF (T ) ∩ σPF (T ∗ )∗ ⊆ σP (T ) ∩ σP (T ∗ )∗ .
Thus
σ0 (T ) = σ0 (T ∗ )∗ .
Remark 5.17. (a) Fredholm Alternative. According to Remark 5.3(d),

if K ∈ B∞[H] and λ = 0, then λI − K is Fredholm with ind(λI − K) = 0,
which means that λI − K is Weyl (i.e., λI − K ∈ W — see Remark 5.7(b)).
Since σ0 (K) = {λ ∈ σ(K): λI − K ∈ W}, the Fredholm Alternative can be
restated, once again, as follows (compare with Theorem 2.18):
K ∈ B∞[H] =⇒ σ(K)\{0} = σ0 (K)\{0}.
(b) Finite Dimensional. Remark 5.3(c) says that if H is finite dimensional,

then every operator is Weyl (i.e., if dim H < ∞, then W = B[H]). Thus,
dim H < ∞ =⇒ σ(T ) = σ0 (T ).
(c) Compact Perturbation. The expressions for σk (T ), σ+∞ (T ), and σ+∞ (T ),

viz., σk (T ) = {λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ F and ind(λI − T ) = k} for every k ∈ Z \{0},
σ+∞ (T ) = σe (T )\σre (T ), and σ−∞ (T ) = σre (T )\σe (T ) as in Theorem 5.16,
together with the results of Theorem 5.4, ensure that the sets σk (T ) for each
k ∈ Z \{0}, σ+∞ (T ), and σ+∞ (T ), also are invariant under compact pertur-
bation (Remark 5.15(c)). That is, for every K ∈ B∞[H],
σk (T + K) = σk (T ) for every k ∈ Z \{0}.
However, such an invariance does not apply to σ0 (T ). Why? Observe that if

λ ∈ σ0 (T ), then the definition of σ0 (T ) forces λ to be in σ(T ), while in the
definition of σk (T ) for k = 0 this happens naturally. In fact, the definition of
σ0 (T ) forces λ to be in σP (T ). Example: If dim H < ∞ (where all operators
are compact), and if T = I, then we get σ0 (T ) = σ(T ) = {1} and σ0 (T − T ) =
σ(T − T ) = {0}. That is, there is a compact K = −T such that
{0} = σ0 (T + K) = σ0 (T ) = {1}.
This will be generalized in the proof of Theorem 5.24, where it is shown that
σ0 (T ) is never invariant under compact perturbation.
The partition of the spectrum σ(T ) obtained in the following corollary is

called the spectral picture of T [75].
Corollary 5.18. (Spectral Picture). If T ∈ B[H], then

σ(T ) = σe (T ) ∪ σk (T )
k∈Z
and

σe (T ) = σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ) ∪ σ+∞ (T ) ∪ σ−∞ (T ),
5.3 Riesz Points and Weyl Spectrum 153
where
σe (T ) ∩ σk (T ) = ∅,
k∈Z
σk (T ) ∩ σj (T ) = ∅ for every j, k ∈ Z such that j = k,

and
σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ) ∩ σ+∞ (T ) ∪ σ+∞ = ∅.
Proof. The collection {σk (T )}k∈Z is clearly pairwise disjoint. According to

Theorem 5.16(b), and by the definition of σ0 (T ),

σk (T ) = λ ∈ σ(T ): λI − T ∈ F .
k∈Z
Since σe (T ) ⊆ σ(T ), it follows by Corollary 5.12 that

σe (T ) = λ ∈ σ(T ): λI − T ∈ /F .

Hence we get the partition of the spectrum: σ(T ) = σe (T ) ∪ k∈Z σk (T ) with
σe (T ) ∩ k∈Z σk (T ) = ∅. Since σe (T ) = σe (T ) ∪ σre (T ) ⊆ σ(T ), it also fol-
lows from Corollary 5.11 that

σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ) = λ ∈ σ(T ): λI − T ∈ / SF ⊆ σe (T ).
Moreover, Theorem 5.16(c) ensures that

σ+∞ (T ) ∪ σ−∞ (T ) = λ ∈ σ(T ): λI − T ∈ SF \F ,
and that σ+∞ (T ) ∩ σ−∞ (T ) = ∅ . Thus we get the following partition of

the
essential spectrum:
σe (T ) = σe(T ) ∩ σre (T ) ∪ σ+∞ (T ) ∪ σ−∞ (T ) with
σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ) ∩ σ+∞ (T ) ∪ σ+∞ = ∅.
Recall that the collection {σk (T )}k∈Z \{0} consists of pairwise disjoint open
sets (cf. Theorem 5.16), which are subsets of σ(T )\σe (T ). These are the holes
of the essential spectrum σe (T ). Moreover, σ±∞ (T ) also are open sets (cf.
Theorem 5.16), which are subsets of σe (T ). These are the pseudoholes of σe (T )
(they are holes of σre (T ) and σe (T )). Thus the spectral picture of T consists
of the essential spectrum σe (T ), the holes σk (T ) and pseudoholes σ±∞ (T ) (to
each is associated a nonzero index k in Z \{0}), and the set σ0 (T ). It is worth
noticing that any spectral picture can be attained [25] by an operator in B[H]
(see also Proposition 5.G).
5.3 Riesz Points and Weyl Spectrum

The set σ0 (T ) will play a rather important role in the sequel. It consists of
an open set τ0 (T ) and the set π0 (T ) of isolated points of σ(T ) for which their
Riesz idempotents have finite rank. The next proposition says that π0 (T ) is
precisely the set of all isolated points of σ(T ) that lie in σ0 (T ). Let Eλ ∈ B[H]
be the Riesz idempotent associated with an isolated point λ of the spectrum
σ(T ) of an operator T ∈ B[H].
Theorem 5.19. If λ is an isolated point of σ(T ), then the following asser-

tions are pairwise equivalent .
(a) λ ∈ σ0 (T ).
(b) λ ∈ σe (T ).
(c) λI − T ∈ F.
(d) R(λI − T ) is closed and dim N (λI − T ) < ∞.
/ σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ).
(e) λ ∈
(f) dim R(Eλ ) < ∞.
Proof. Let T be an operator on an infinite-dimensional complex Hilbert space.

(a)⇒(b)⇒(c). By definition, we have σ0 (T ) = {λ ∈ σ(T ): λI − T ∈ W} =
{λ ∈ σ(T ): λI − T ∈ F and ind(λI − T ) = 0}. Thus (a) implies (c) tautolog-
ically, and (c) is equivalent to (b) by Corollary 5.12.
(c)⇒(d). By Corollary 5.2, λI − T ∈ F if and only if R(λI − T ) is closed,
dim N (λI − T ) < ∞, and dim N (λI − T ∗ ) < ∞. Thus (c) implies (d) trivially.
(d)⇒(e). By Corollary 5.14, σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ) = {λ ∈ C : R(λI − T ) is not
closed or dim N (λI − T ) = dim N (λI − T ∗ ) = ∞}. Thus (d) implies (e).
From now on suppose λ is an isolated point of the spectrum σ(T ) of T .

(e)⇒(a). Observe that, if λ ∈ σ(T )\σ0 (T ), then λ ∈ σe (T ) ∪ k∈Z \{0} σk (T )

by Corollary 5.18, where k∈Z \{0} σk (T ) is an open subset of C by Theorem
5.16. So it has no isolated point. Thus, if λ is an isolated pont of σ(T )\σ0 (T ),
then λ lies in σe (T ) = (σe (T ) ∩ σre (T )) ∪ (σ+∞ (T ) ∪ σ−∞ (T )), where the set
σ+∞ (T ) ∪ σ−∞ (T ) is open in C , and hence it has no isolated point as well (cf.
Theorem 5.16 and Corollary 5.18 again). Therefore, λ ∈ σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ). In
other words, if λ is an isolated point of σ(T ) and λ ∈ / σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ), then
λ ∈ σ0 (T ). Thus (e) implies (a).
This concludes the proof that (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) are pairwise equivalent.
Next we show that (f) also is equivalent to them.
(f)⇒(d). If λ is an isolated point of σ(T ), then Δ = {λ} is a spectral set for
the operator T . Thus Corollary 4.22 ensures that (f) implies (d).
(a)⇒(f). Let π: B[H] → B[H]/B∞[H] be the natural map of B[H] into the
Calkin algebra B[H]/B∞[H], which is a unital homomorphism of the unital
Banach algebra B[H] to the unital Banach algebra B[H]/B∞[H], whenever the
complex Hilbert space H is infinite dimensional.
Claim. If T ∈ B[H] and ν ∈ ρ(T ), then ν ∈ ρ(π(T )) and

−1
π (νI − T )−1 = ν π(I) − π(T ) .
Proof. Observe that, since B∞[H] is an ideal of B[H],

π (νI − T )−1 π(νI − T ) = (νI − T )−1 + B∞[H] (νI − T ) + B∞[H]
= (νI − T )−1 (νI − T ) + B∞[H]
= I + B∞[H] = π(I) = [I],
where π(I) = [I] is the identity in B[H]/B∞[H]. Therefore,

−1 −1 −1
π (νI − T )−1 = π(νI − T ) = νI − T + B∞[H] = ν π(I) − π(T ) ,
completing the proof of the claimed result.

Suppose the isolated point λ of σ(T ) lies in σ0 (T ). According to Corollary
5.18, λ ∈ σe (T ), which means, by definition, that λ ∈ σ(π(T )), and hence
λ ∈ ρ(π(T )). That is, λπ(I) − π(T ) is invertible in B[H]/B∞[H]. Since the
resolvent function of an element in a unital complex Banach algebra is ana-
lytic on the resolvent set (cf. proof of Claim 1 in the proof of Lemma 4.13),
it then follows that (ν π(I) − π(T ))−1 : Λ → B[H]/B∞[H] is analytic on any
nonempty open subset Λ of C such that (ins Γλ )− ⊂ Λ, where Γλ is any sim-
ple closed rectifiable positively oriented curve (e.g., any positively oriented
circle) enclosing λ but no other point of σ(T ). Thus
$ the Cauchy Theorem (cf.
Claim 2 in the proof of Lemma 4.13) says that Γλ(ν π(I) − π(T ))−1 dν = [O],
where [O] = π(O)
1
$ = B∞[H]−1is the origin in Calkin algebra B[H]/B∞[H]. Then,
with Eλ = 2πi Γλ
(νI − T ) dν standing for the Riesz idempotent associated
with λ, and since π: B[H] → B[H]/B∞[H] is linear and bounded,
% %
−1
π(Eλ ) = 2πi1
π (νI − T )−1 dν = 2πi1
ν π(I) − π(T ) dν = [O],
Γλ Γλ
which means that Eλ ∈ B∞[H]. But the restriction of a compact operator

to an invariant subspace is again compact (cf. Proposition 1.V), and so the
identity I = Eλ |R(Eλ ) : R(Eλ ) → R(Eλ ) on R(Eλ ) is compact, and therefore
dim(R(Eλ )) < ∞ (cf. Proposition 1.Y). Thus (a) implies (f).
A Riesz point of an operator T is an isolated point λ of σ(T ) for which

the Riesz idempotent Eλ has finite rank (i.e., for which dim R(Eλ ) < ∞). Let
σiso (T ) denote the set of all isolated points of the spectrum σ(T ),

σiso (T ) = λ ∈ σ(T ): λ is an isolated point of σ(T ) ,
so that its complement in σ(T ),
σacc (T ) = σ(T )\σiso (T ),

is the set of all accumulation points of σ(T ). Let π0 (T ) denote the set of all
isolated points of σ(T ) that lie in σ0 (T ); that is,
π0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T ).
Recall: σ0 (T ) ⊆ σP4 (T ) ⊆ σP (T ). Thus Theorem 5.19 says that π0 (T ) is

precisely the set of all Riesz points of T , which are eigenvalues of T ,

π0 (T ) = λ ∈ σiso (T ): dim R(Eλ ) < ∞ ⊆ σP (T ),
and also that
σiso (T )\σe (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T ) ⊆ σP4 (T ) ⊆ σP (T ).
Summing up (cf. Theorem 5.19 and the diagram of Section 2.2):

π0 (T ) = λ ∈ σP (T ): λ ∈ σiso (T ) and λ ∈ σ0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T )

= λ ∈ σP (T ): λ ∈ σiso (T ) and λ ∈ σe (T ) = σiso (T )\σe (T )

= λ ∈ σP (T ): λ ∈ σiso (T ) and dim R(Eλ ) < ∞

= λ ∈ σP (T ): λ ∈ σiso (T ) and λ ∈/ σe (T ) ∩ σre (T )

= λ ∈ σP (T ): λ ∈ σiso (T ), dim N (λI − T ) < ∞, and R(λI − T ) is closed

= λ ∈ σP4 (T ): λ ∈ σiso (T ) and dim N (λI − T ) = dim N (λI − T ∗ ) < ∞ .
Let τ0 (T ) denote the complement of π0 (T ) in σ0 (T ),
τ0 (T ) = σ0 (T )\π0 (T ) ⊆ σP4 (T ),
so that {π0 (T ),τ0 (T )} is a partition of σ0 (T ). That is, σ0 (T ) ∩ π(T ) = ∅ and
σ0 (T ) = τ0 (T ) ∪ π0 (T ).
Corollary 5.20. τ0 (T ) is an open subset of C .

Proof. Observe that τ0 (T ) = σ0 (T )\π0 (T ) ⊆ σ(T ) has no isolated point. More-
over, if λ ∈ τ0 (T ), then λI − T ∈ W and λ ∈ C \σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ) (by Theorem
5.19). Thus (since λ is not an isolated point), it follows by Proposition 5.D
that there exists a nonempty open ball Bε (λ) centered at λ and included in
τ0 (T ). Therefore τ0 (T ) is an open subset of C .
Let ∂σ(T ) denote the boundary of σ(T ), as usual.
Corollary 5.21. If λ ∈ ∂σ(T ), then either λ is an isolated point of σ(T ) in

π0 (T ) or λ ∈ σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ).

Proof. If λ ∈ ∂σ(T ), then λ ∈ k∈Z \{0} σk (T ) ∪ σ+∞ (T ) ∪ σ−∞ (T ) because
this is a subset of the closed set σ(T ) that is open in C (cf. Theorem 5.16). Thus
λ ∈ (σe (T ) ∩ σre (T )) ∪ σ0 (T ) by Corollary 5.18. But σ0 (T ) = τ0 (T ) ∪ π0 (T ),
where π0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T ), and so π0 (T ) consists of isolated points only.

However λ ∈ τ0 (T ) because τ0 (T ) also is a subset of closed set σ(T ) that is
open in C (Corollary 5.20). Thus λ ∈ (σe (T ) ∩ σre (T )) ∪ π0 (T ).
Let π00 (T ) denote the set of all isolated eigenvalues of finite multiplicity,
π00 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ).
Since σ0 (T ) ⊆ σPF (T ), it follows that π0 (T ) ⊆ π00 (T ). Indeed,
π0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T ) ⊆ σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ) = π00 (T ).

Corollary 5.22. π0 (T ) = λ ∈ π00 (T ): R(λI − T ) is closed .
Proof. If λ ∈ π0 (T ), then λ ∈ π00 (T ) and R(λI−T ) is closed (since λ ∈ σ0 (T )).
Conversely, if R(λI − T ) is closed and λ ∈ π00 (T ), then R(λI − T ) is closed
and dim N (λI − T ) < ∞ (since λ ∈ σPF (T )), which means by Theorem 5.19
that λ ∈ σ0 (T ) (since λ ∈ σiso (T )). Thus λ ∈ σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T ) = π0 (T ).
The set π0 (T ) of all Riesz points of T is sometimes referred to as the set

of isolated eigenvalues of T of finite algebraic multiplicity (sometimes also
called normal eigenvalues of T [55, p. 5], but we reserve this terminology for
eigenvalues that satisfy the inclusion of Lemma 1.13(a)). The set π00 (T ) of all
isolated eigenvalues of T of finite multiplicity is sometimes referred to as the
set of isolated eigenvalues of T of finite geometric multiplicity.
The Weyl spectrum of an operator T ∈ B[H] is the set
!
σw (T ) = σ(T + K),
K∈B∞[H]
which is the largest part of σ(T ) that remains unchanged under compact
perturbations. That is, σw (T ) is the largest part of σ(T ) such that
σw (T + K) = σw (T ) for every K ∈ B∞[H].
Another characterization of σw (T ) will be given in Theorem 5.24.
Lemma 5.23. (a) If T ∈ SF with ind (T ) ≤ 0, then T ∈ F and there exists

a compact operator K ∈ B∞[H] such that T + K is left invertible (i.e., such
that there exists an operator A ∈ B[H] for which A (T + K ) = I).
(b) If T ∈ SF with ind (T ) ≥ 0, then T ∈ Fr and there exists a compact op-
erator K ∈ B∞[H] such that T + K is right invertible (i.e., such that there
exists an operator A ∈ B[H] for which (T + K )A = I).
(c) If T ∈ SF, then ind (T ) = 0 if and only if there exists a compact opera-
tor K ∈ B∞[H] such that T + K is invertible (i.e., such that there exists an
operator A ∈ B[H] for which A(T + K) = (T + K)A = I).
Proof. Take an operator T in B[H].

Claim . If T ∈ SF with ind(T ) ≤ 0, then T ∈ F and there is a compact
(actually, a finite-rank) operator K ∈ B∞[H] such that N (T + K) = {0}.
Proof. Take T ∈ SF . If ind (T ) ≤ 0, then dim N (T ) − dim N (T ∗ ) ≤ 0. Thus
dim N (T ) ≤ dim N (T ∗ ) and dim N (T ) < ∞ (so that T ∈ F by Theorem 5.1).
Let {ei }ni=1 be an orthonormal basis for N (T ) and let B be an orthonormal
basis for N (T ∗ ) = R(T )⊥ (cf. Lemma 1.4), whose cardinality is not less than
n (since dim N (T ) ≤ dim N (T ∗ )). Take any orthonormal set {fk }nk=1 ⊆ B and
define a map K : H → H by
n
Kx = x ; ej fj for every x ∈ H,
j=1
which is clearly linear, and bounded as well (a contraction, actually). In fact,

this is a finite-rank operator (thus compact); that is, K lies in B0 [H] ⊆ B∞[H],
whose range is included in R(T )⊥. Indeed,

R(K) ⊆ {fj }nj=1 ⊆ B = N (T ∗ ) = R(T )⊥ .
Take any x ∈ N (T ) and consider its Fourier series expansion with respect to
n
the orthonormal basis {ei }ni=1 , namely, x = =1 x ; ei ei . Observe that
n
x2 = |x ; ei |2 = Kx2 for every x ∈ N (T ).
j=1
Now, if x ∈ N (T + K), then T x = −Kx, and hence T x ∈ R(T ) ∩ R(K) ⊆

R(T ) ∩ R(T )⊥ = {0}, so that T x = 0 (i.e., x ∈ N (T )). Thus x = Kx =
T x = 0, and hence x = 0. Therefore we get the claimed result:
N (T + K) = {0}.
(a) If T ∈ SF with ind (T ) ≤ 0, then T ∈ F and there exists K ∈ B∞[H] such

that N (T + K) = {0} by the preceding claim. Now T + K ∈ F according to
Theorem 5.6, and so R(T + K) is closed by Theorem 5.1. Thus T + K is left
invertible by Lemma 5.8.
(b) If T ∈ SF with ind(T ) ≥ 0, then T ∗ ∈ SF with ind(T ∗ ) = −ind(T ) ≤ 0.
Therefore, according to item (a), T ∗ ∈ F , so that T ∈ Fr , and there exists
K ∈ B∞[H] such that T ∗ + K is left invertible. Hence T + K ∗ = (T ∗ + K)∗ is
right invertible with K ∗ ∈ B∞[H] (cf. Proposition 1.W).
(c) If T ∈ SF with ind (T ) = 0, then T ∈ F and there exists K ∈ B∞[H] such
that N (T + K) = {0} by the preceding claim. Since ind(T + K) = ind(T ) =
0 (Theorem 5.6), we get N ((T + K)∗ ) = {0}. So R(T + K)⊥ = {0} (Lemma
1.4), and hence R(T + K) = H. Thus T + K is invertible (Theorem 1.1).
Conversely, if there exists K ∈ B∞[H] such that T + K is invertible, then
T + K is Weyl (recall that every invertible operator is Weyl), and so is T
(Theorem 5.6); that is, T ∈ F with ind(T ) = 0.
According to the claim in the preceding proof, the statement of Lemma

5.23 holds if “compact” is replaced with “finite-rank” (see Remark 5.3(b)).
Theorem 5.24. (Schechter Theorem). If T ∈ B[H], then

σw (T ) = σe (T ) ∪ σk (T ) = σ(T )\σ0 (T ).
k∈Z \{0}
Proof. Take an operator T in B[H].

Claim. If λ ∈ σ0 (T ), then there is a K ∈ B∞[H] such that λ ∈ σ(T + K).
Proof. If λ ∈ σ0 (T ), then λI − T ∈ SF with ind (λI − T ) = 0. Thus, according
to Lemma 5.23(c), λI − (T + K) is invertible for some K ∈ B∞[H], which
implies that λ ∈ ρ(T + K). This completes the proof of the claimed result.
Recall from Corollary 5.18 that

σ(T ) = σe (T ) ∪ σk (T ) ∪ σ0 (T ),
k∈Z \{0}
where the above sets are all pairwise disjoint, so that

-
σ0 (T ) = σ(T ) σe (T ) ∪ σk (T ) .
k∈Z \{0}

Take an arbitrary λ ∈ σ(T ). If λ lies in σe (T ) ∪ k∈Z \{0} σk (T ), then λ lies in

σe (T + K) ∪ k∈Z \{0} σk (T + K) for every K ∈ B∞[H], since
σe (T + K) = σe (T ) and σk (T + K) = σk (T ) for every k ∈ Z \{0}
for every K ∈ B∞[H] (cf. Remarks 5.15(c) and 5.17(c)). On the other hand,
if λ ∈ σ0 (T ), then the preceding claim ensures that there exists K ∈ B∞[H]
for which λ ∈ σ(T + K). Therefore, as the largest part of σ(T ) that remains
invariant under compact perturbation is σw (T ),

σw (T ) = σe (T ) ∪ σk (T ) = σ(T )\σ0 (T ).
k∈Z \{0}
Since σw (T ) ⊆ σ(T ) by the very definition of σw (T ), we get
σe (T ) ⊆ σw (T ) ⊆ σ(T ).
Chronologically, Theorem 5.24 precedes the spectral picture of Corollary 5.18

[81]. Since σk (T ) ⊆ σ(T )\σe (T ) for all k ∈ Z , it also follows that

σw (T )\σe (T ) = σk (T ),
k∈Z \{0}
which is the collection of all holes of the essential spectrum. Thus

σe (T ) = σw (T ) ⇐⇒ σk (T ) = ∅
k∈Z \{0}
(i.e., if and only if the essential spectrum has no holes). Since σw (T ) and
σ0 (T ) are both subsets of σ(T ), it follows by Theorem 5.24 that σ0 (T ) is the
complement of σw (T ) in σ(T ),
σ0 (T ) = σ(T )\σw (T ),
and therefore {σw (T ), σ0 (T )} forms a partition of the spectrum σ(T ):
σ(T ) = σw (T ) ∪ σ0 (T ) and σw (T ) ∩ σ0 (T ) = ∅.
Thus
σw (T ) = σ(T ) ⇐⇒ σ0 (T ) = ∅,
and so, by Theorem 5.24 again,

σe (T ) = σw (T ) = σ(T ) ⇐⇒ σk (T ) = ∅.
k∈Z
Moreover, the Weyl spectrum σw (T ) is always a compact set in C because it

is, by definition, the intersection K∈B∞[H] σ(T + K) of compact sets in C ,
and so σ0 (T ) is closed in C if and only if σ0 (T ) = π0 (T ) ⊆ σiso (T ) (why?).
Here is a third characterization of the Weyl spectrum of T ∈ B[H].
Corollary 5.25. For every operator T ∈ B[H],

σw (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ B[H]\W .
Proof. If λ ∈ ρ(T ), then λT − T is invertible, and so λT − T ∈ W (invertible

operators are Weyl). Therefore, if λT − T ∈ W, then λ ∈ σ(T ), and the result
follows from Theorem 5.24 and the definition of σ0 (T ):

σw (T ) = σ(T )\σ0 (T ) and σ0 (T ) = λ ∈ σ(T ): λI − T ∈ W .
Then the Weyl spectrum σw (T ) is the set of all scalars λ for which λI − T
is not a Weyl operator (i.e., for which λI − T is not a Fredholm operator of
index zero). Since an operator lies in W together with its adjoint, it follows
by Corollary 5.25 that λ ∈ σw (T ) if and only if λ ∈ σw (T ∗ ):
σw (T ) = σw (T ∗ )∗ .
Theorem 5.24 also gives us another characterization of the set W of all Weyl
operators from B[H] in terms of the set σ0 (T ) = σ(T )\σw (T ).
Corollary 5.26.

W = T ∈ B[H]: 0 ∈ ρ(T ) ∪ σ0 (T ) = T ∈ F : 0 ∈ ρ(T ) ∪ σ0 (T ) .
Proof. Take T ∈ B[H]. If T ∈ W, then T ∈ F and T + K is invertible for some

K ∈ B∞[H] by Lemma 5.23(c), which means that 0 ∈ ρ(T + K) or, equiva-
lently, 0 ∈ σ(T + K), and so 0 ∈ σw (T + K). Thus 0 ∈ σw (T ) (cf. definition
of the Weyl spectrum that precedes Lemma 5.23), and hence 0 ∈ ρ(T ) ∪ σ0 (T )
by Theorem 5.24. The converse is (almost) trivial: if 0 ∈ ρ(T ) ∪ σ0 (T ), then
either 0 ∈ ρ(T ), so that T ∈ G[H] ⊂ W by Remark 5.7(b); or 0 ∈ σ0 (T ), which
means that 0 ∈ σ(T ) and T ∈ W by the very definition of σ0 (T ). This proves
the first identity, which implies the second one since W ⊆ F .
Remark 5.27. (a) Finite Dimensional. Take any operator T ∈ B[H]. Since
σe (T ) ⊆ σw (T ), it follows by Remark 5.15(a) that
σw (T ) = ∅ =⇒ dim H < ∞
and, by Remark 5.3(c) and Corollary 5.25,
dim H < ∞ =⇒ σw (T ) = ∅.
Thus
σw (T ) = ∅ ⇐⇒ dim H = ∞.
(b) More on Finite Dimensional. Let T ∈ B[H] be an operator on a finite-

dimensional space. Then B[H] = W by Remark 5.3(c) so that σ0 (T ) = σ(T ) by
the definition of σ0 (T ). Moreover, Corollary 2.9 ensures that σ(T ) = σiso (T )
(since #σ(T ) < ∞), and σ(T ) = σPF (T ) (since dim H < ∞). Hence,
dim H < ∞ =⇒ σ(T ) = σPF (T ) = σiso (T ) = σ0 (T ) = π0 (T ) = π00 (T )
and so, either by Theorem 5.24 or by item (a) and Remark 5.15(a),
dim H < ∞ =⇒ σe (T ) = σw (T ) = ∅.
(c) Fredholm Alternative. The Fredholm Alternative has been restated

again and again in Corollary 1.20, Theorem 2.18, Remark 5.3(d), Remark
5.7(b), and Remark 5.17(a). Here is an ultimate restatement of it. If K is
compact (i.e., K ∈ B∞[H]), then σ(K)\{0} = σ0 (K)\{0} (Remark 5.17(a)).
But σ(K)\{0} ⊆ σiso (K) by Corollary 2.20, and π0 (K) = σiso (K) ∩ σ0 (K).
Therefore (compare with Theorem 2.18 and Remark 5.17(a)),
K ∈ B∞[H] =⇒ σ(K)\{0} = π0 (K)\{0}.
Since π0 (K) = σiso (K)∩σ0 (K) ⊆ σiso (K)∩σPF (K) = π00 (K) ⊆ σPF (T ) ⊆ σP (T ),
σ(K)\{0} = σPF (K)\{0} = π00 (K)\{0} = π0 (K)\{0}.
(d) More on Compact Operators. Take a compact operator K ∈ B∞[H]. Re-

mark 5.3(d) (Fredholm Alternative) says that, if λ = 0, then λI − K ∈ W.
Thus, according to Corollary 5.25, σw (K)\{0} = ∅. If dim H = ∞, then
σw (K) = {0} by item (a). Since σe (K) ⊆ σw (K), it follows by Remark 5.15(a)
that, if dim H = ∞, then ∅ = σe (K) ⊆ {0}. Hence,
K ∈ B∞[H] and dim H = ∞ =⇒ σe (K) = σw (K) = {0}.

Therefore, by the Fredholm Alternative of item (c),

K ∈ B∞[H] and dim H = ∞ =⇒ σ(K) = π0 (K) ∪ {0}, σw (K) = {0}.
(e) Normal Operators. Recall that T is normal if and only if λI − T is

normal. Since every normal Fredholm operator is Weyl (see Remark 5.7(b)),
and according to Corollaries 5.12 and 5.25, it follows that
T normal =⇒ σe (T ) = σw (T ).
Take any T ∈ B[H] and consider the following expressions (cf. Theorem
5.24 or Corollary 5.25, and the very definitions of σ0 (T ), π0 (T ), and π00 (T ) ).
σ0 (T ) = σ(T )\σw (T ), π0 (T ) = σiso (T )∩σ0 (T ), π00 (T ) = σiso (T )∩σPF (T ).
The equivalent assertions in the next corollary define an important class of
operators. An operator for which any of those equivalent assertions holds is
said to satisfy Weyl’s Theorem. This will be discussed later in Section 5.5.
Corollary 5.28. The assertions below are pairwise equivalent.

(a) σ0 (T ) = π00 (T ).
(b) σ(T )\π00 (T ) = σw (T ).
Moreover, if
σ0 (T ) = σiso (T )
(i.e., if σw (T ) = σacc (T )), then the above equivalent assertions hold true. Con-
versely, if any of the above equivalent assertions holds true, then
π0 (T ) = π00 (T ).
Proof. By Theorem 5.24, σ(T )\σ0 (T ) = σ, w (T ), and so (a) implies (b). If (b)
holds, then σ0 (T ) = σ(T )\σw (T ) = σ(T ) σ(T )\π00 (T ) = π00 (T ), because
π00 (T ) ⊆ σ(T ), and so (b) implies (a). Moreover, if σ0 (T ) = σiso (T ) (or, if
their complements in σ(T ) coincide), then (a) holds because σ0 (T ) ⊆ σPF (T ).
Conversely, if (a) holds, then π0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ π00 (T ) =
π00 (T ) because π00 (T ) ⊆ σiso (T ).
5.4 Ascent, Descent, and Browder Spectrum

Take any T ∈ B[H] (or, more generally, take any linear transformation of linear
space into itself). Let N 0 be the set of all nonnegative integers, and consider
the nonnegative integral powers T n of T . It is readily verified that, for n ∈ N 0 ,
N (T n ) ⊆ N (T n+1 ) and R(T n+1 ) ⊆ R(T n ),
which means that {N (T n )} and {R(T n )} are nondecreasing and nonincreas-
ing (in the inclusion ordering) sequences of subsets of H, respectively.
5.4 Ascent, Descent, and Browder Spectrum 163
Lemma 5.29. Let n0 be an arbitrary integer in N 0 .

(a) If N (T n0 +1 ) = N (T n0 ), then N (T n+1 ) = N (T n ) for every n ≥ n0 .
(b) If R(T n0 +1 ) = R(T n0 ), then R(T n+1 ) = R(T n ) for every n ≥ n0 .
Proof. (a) Rewrite the statements in (a) as follows.
N (T n0 +1 ) = N (T n0 ) =⇒ N (T n0 +k+1 ) = N (T n0 +k ) for every k ≥ 0.
The claimed result holds trivially for k = 0. Suppose it holds for some k ≥ 0.
Take an arbitrary x ∈ N (T n0 +k+2 ) so that T n0 +k+1 (T x) = T n0 +k+2 x = 0.
Thus T x ∈ N (T n0 +k+1 ) = N (T n0 +k ), and so T n0 +k+1 x = T n0 +k (T x) =
0, which implies that x ∈ N (T n0 +k+1 ). Hence, N (T n0 +k+2 ) ⊆ N (T n0 +k+1 ).
But N (T n0 +k+1 ) ⊆ N (T n0 +k+2 ) since {N (T n )} is nondecreasing. Therefore
N (T n0 +k+2 ) = N (T n0 +k+1 ), and the claimed result holds for k + 1 whenever
it holds for k, which completes the proof of (a) by induction.
(b) Rewrite the statements in (b) as follows.
R(T n0 +1 ) = R(T n0 ) =⇒ R(T n0 +k+1 ) = R(T n0 +k ) for every k ≥ 1.
The claimed result holds trivially for k = 0. Suppose it holds for some integer
k ≥ 0. Take an arbitrary y ∈ R(T n0 +k+1 ) so that y = T n0 +k+1 x = T (T n0 +k x)
for some x ∈ H, and hence y = T u for some u ∈ R(T n0 +k ). If R(T n0 +k ) =
R(T n0 +k+1 ), then u ∈ R(T n0 +k+1 ), and so y = T (T n0 +k+1 v) for some v ∈ H.
Thus y ∈ R(T n0 +k+2 ). Therefore, R(T n0 +k+1 ) ⊆ R(T n0 +k+2 ). Since the se-
quence {R(T n )} is nonincreasing, it follows that R(T n0 +k+2 ) ⊆ R(T n0 +k+1 ).
Hence R(T n0 +k+2 ) = R(T n0 +k+1 ). Thus the claimed result holds for k + 1
whenever it holds for k, which completes the proof of (b) by induction.
Let N 0 = N 0 ∪ {+∞} denote the set of all extended nonnegative integers

with its natural (extended) ordering. The ascent and descent of an operator
T ∈ B[H] are defined as follows. The ascent of T is the least (extended) non-
negative integer such that N (T n+1 ) = N (T n ), that is,

asc(T ) = min n ∈ N 0 : N (T n+1 ) = N (T n ) ,
and the descent of T is the least (extended) nonnegative integer such that
R(T n+1 ) = R(T n ), that is

dsc(T ) = min n ∈ N 0 : R(T n+1 ) = R(T n ) .
Note that the ascent of T is null if and only if T is injective, and the descent of
T is null if and only if T is surjective. Indeed, since N (I) = {0} and R(I) = H,
asc(T ) = 0 ⇐⇒ N (T ) = {0},
dsc(T ) = 0 ⇐⇒ R(T ) = H.
Again, the notion of ascent and descent holds for every linear transformation
of linear space into itself, and so does the next result.
Lemma 5.30. Take any operator T ∈ B[H].

(a) If asc(T ) < ∞ and dsc(T ) = 0, then asc(T ) = 0.
(b) If asc(T ) < ∞ and dsc(T ) < ∞, then asc(T ) = dsc(T ).
Proof. (a) Suppose dsc(T ) = 0 (i.e., suppose R(T ) = H). If asc(T ) = 0 (i.e., if
N (T ) = {0}), then take 0 = x1 ∈ N (T ) ∩ R(T ) and x2 , x3 in R(T ) = H such
that x1 = T x2 and x2 = T x3 , and so x1 = T 2 x3 . Continuing this way, we can
construct a sequence {xn }n≥1 of vectors in H = R(T ) such that xn = T xn+1
and 0 = x1 = T n xn+1 lies in N (T ), and so T n+1 xn+1 = 0. This implies that
xn+1 ∈ N (T n+1 )\N (T n ) for each n ≥ 1, and hence asc(T ) = ∞ by Lemma
5.29. Summing up: If dsc(T ) = 0, then asc(T ) = 0 implies asc(T ) = ∞.
(b) Set m = dsc(T ), so that R(T m ) = R(T m+1 ), and set S = T |R(T m ) . It
is readily verified by using Proposition 1.E that R(T m ) is T -invariant, and
so S ∈ B[R(T m)]. Note that R(S) = S(R(T m )) = R(S T m ) = R(T m+1 ) =
R(T m ). Thus S is surjective, which means that dsc (S) = 0. Moreover, since
asc(S) < ∞ (because asc(T ) < ∞), it follows by (a) that asc(S) = 0. That is,
N (S) = {0}. Take x ∈ N (T m+1 ) and set y = T m x in R(T m ), so that Sy =
T m+1 x = 0. Thus y = 0, and hence x ∈ N (T m ). Then N (T m+1 ) ⊆ N (T m ),
and so N (T m+1 ) = N (T m ) since {N (T n )} is nondecreasing. This implies that
asc(T ) ≤ m by Lemma 5.29. To prove the reverse inequality, suppose m = 0
(otherwise apply (a)) and take z in R(T m−1 )\R(T m ) so that z = T m−1 u and
T z = T (T m−1u) = T m u lies in R(T m ), for some u in H. Since T m (R(T m )) =
R(T 2m ) = R(T m ), we get T z = T m v for some v in R(T m ). Now note that
T m (u − v) = T z − T z = 0 and T m−1 (u − v) = z − T m−1 v = 0 (reason:
T m−1 v ∈ R(T 2m−1 ) = R(T m ) since v ∈ R(T m ), and z ∈ / R(T m )). Therefore,
(u − v) ∈ N (T m )\N (T m−1 ), and so asc(T ) ≥ m. Outcome: If dsc(T ) = m
and asc(T ) < ∞, then asc(T ) = m.
Lemma 5.31. If T ∈ F, then asc(T ) = dsc(T ∗ ) and dsc(T ) = asc(T ∗ ).

Proof. Take any T ∈ B[H]. We shall use freely the relations between range
and kernel, involving adjoints and orthogonal complements, of Lemma 1.4.
Claim 1. asc(T ) < ∞ if and only if dsc(T ∗ ) < ∞.
dsc(T ) < ∞ if and only if asc(T ∗ ) < ∞.
Proof. Take an arbitrary n ∈ N 0 . If asc(T ) = ∞, then N (T n ) ⊂ N (T n+1 ) so
that N (T n+1 )⊥ ⊂ N (T n )⊥ or, equivalently, R(T ∗(n+1) )− ⊂ R(T ∗n )−, which
implies that R(T ∗(n+1) ) ⊂ R(T ∗n ), and therefore dsc(T ∗ ) = ∞. Dually, if
asc(T ∗ ) = ∞, then dsc(T ) = ∞. That is,
asc(T ) = ∞ =⇒ dsc(T ∗ ) = ∞ and asc(T ∗ ) = ∞ =⇒ dsc(T ) = ∞.

If dsc (T ) = ∞, then R(T n+1 ) ⊂ R(T n ) so that R(T n )⊥ ⊂ R(T n+1 )⊥ or,
equivalently, N (T ∗n ) ⊂ N (T ∗(n+1) ), and therefore asc(T ∗ ) = ∞. Dually, if
dsc(T ∗ ) = ∞, then asc(T ) = ∞. That is,
dsc(T ) = ∞ =⇒ asc(T ∗ ) = ∞ and dsc(T ∗ ) = ∞ =⇒ asc(T ) = ∞.
Summing up: asc(T ) = ∞ if and only if dsc(T ∗ ) = ∞ and dsc(T ) = ∞ if and

only if asc(T ∗ ) = ∞, which completes the proof of Claim 1.
Claim 2. If dsc(T ) < ∞, then asc(T ∗ ) ≤ dsc(T ).
If dsc(T ∗ ) < ∞, then asc(T ) ≤ dsc(T ∗ ).
Proof. If dsc(T ) < ∞, then set n0 = dsc(T ) ∈ N 0 and take any integer n ≥ n0 .
Thus R(T n ) = R(T n0 ), and hence R(T n )− = R(T n0 )− so that N (T ∗n )⊥ =
N (T ∗n0 )⊥, which implies N (T ∗n ) = N (T ∗n0 ). Therefore, asc(T ∗ ) ≤ n0 , and
so asc(T ∗ ) ≤ dsc (T ). Dually, if dsc(T ∗ ) < ∞, then asc(T ) ≤ dsc(T ∗ ). This
completes the proof of Claim 2.
Claim 3. If asc(T ) < ∞ and R(T n ) is closed for every n ≥ asc(T ),
then dsc(T ∗ ) ≤ asc(T ).
If asc(T ∗ ) < ∞ and R(T n ) is closed for every n ≥ asc(T ∗ ),
then dsc(T ) ≤ asc(T ∗ ).
Proof. If asc(T ) < ∞, then set n0 = asc(T ) ∈ N 0 and take an arbitrary integer
n ≥ n0 . Thus N (T n ) = N (T n0 ) or, equivalently, R(T ∗n )⊥ = R(T ∗n0 )⊥, so
that R(T ∗n0 )− = R(T ∗n )−. Suppose R(T n ) is closed. Thus R(T ∗n ) = R(T n∗ )
is closed (Lemma 1.5). Then R(T ∗n ) = R(T ∗n0 ), and therefore dsc(T ∗ ) ≤ n0 ,
so that dsc(T ∗ ) ≤ asc(T ). Dually, if asc(T ∗ ) < ∞ and R(T n ) is closed (i.e.,
R(T ∗n ) is closed — Lemma 1.5) for every integer n ≥ asc(T ∗ ), then it follows
that dsc(T ) ≤ asc(T ∗ ); completing the proof of Claim 3.
Outcome: If R(T n ) is closed for every n ∈ N 0 (so that we can apply Claim 3),
then it follows by Claims 1, 2, and 3 that
asc(T ) = dsc (T ∗ ) and dsc(T ) = asc(T ∗ ).
In particular, if T ∈ F, then T n ∈ F by Corollary 5.5, which implies that

R(T n ) is closed for every n ∈ N 0 by Corollary 5.2. Therefore, if T is Fredholm,
then asc(T ) = dsc(T ∗ ) and dsc(T ) = asc(T ∗ ).
A Browder operator is a Fredholm operator with finite ascent and finite

descent. Let B denote the class of all Browder operators from B[H]:

B = T ∈ F : asc(T ) < ∞ and dsc(T ) < ∞ ;
equivalently, according to Lemma 5.30(b),

B = T ∈ F : asc(T ) = dsc(T ) < ∞
(i.e., B = {T ∈ F : asc(T ) = dsc(T ) = m for some m ∈ N 0 }). Thus

F \ B = T ∈ F : asc(T ) = ∞ or dsc(T ) = ∞
and, by Lemma 5.31,

T ∈B if and only if T ∗ ∈ B.
Two linear manifolds of a linear space X , say R and N , are said to be

algebraic complements of each other (or complementary linear manifolds) if
they sum the whole space and are algebraically disjoint; that is, if
R+N =X and R ∩ N = {0}.
A pair of subspaces (i.e., closed linear manifolds) of a normed space that are
algebraic complements of each other are called complementary subspaces.
Lemma 5.32. If T ∈ B[H] with asc(T ) = dsc(T ) = m for some m ∈ N 0 ,

then R(T m ) and N (T m ) are algebraic complements of each other .
Proof. Take any T ∈ B[H]. (In fact, as will become clear during the proof, this
is a purely algebraic result which holds for every linear transformation of a
linear space into itself with coincident finite ascent and descent.)
Claim 1. If asc(T ) = m, then R(T m ) ∩ N (T m ) = {0}.
Proof. If y ∈ R(T m ) ∩ N (T m ), then y = T m x for some x ∈ H and T m y = 0,
so that T 2m x = T m (T m x) = T m y = 0; that is, x ∈ N (T 2m ) = N (T m ) since
asc(T ) = m. Hence y = T m x = 0, proving Claim 1.
Claim 2. If dsc(T ) = m, then R(T m ) + N (T m ) = H.
Proof. If dsc(T ) = m, then R(T m ) = R(T m+1 ). Set S = T |R(T m ) . Again, by
using Proposition 1.E, it is readily verified that R(T m ) is T -invariant, and so
S ∈ B[R(T m )] with R(S) = S(R(T m )) = R(S T m ) = R(T m+1 ) = R(T m ).
Then S is surjective, and hence S m is surjective too (since {R(S n )} is non-
decreasing). Therefore, R(S m ) = R(T m ). Take an arbitrary vector x ∈ H.
Thus T m x ∈ R(T m ) = R(S m ) so that there exists u ∈ R(T m ) such that
S m u = T m x. Since S m u = T m u (because S m = (T |R(T m ) )m = T m |R(T m ) ), it
follows that T m u = T m x, and so v = x − u is in N (T m ). Then x = u + v lies
in R(T m ) + N (T m ). Hence H ⊆ R(T m ) + N (T m ), proving Claim 2.
Theorem 5.33. Take T ∈ B[H] and consider the following assertions.

(a) T is Browder but not invertible (i.e., T ∈ B and T ∈ G[H]).
(b) T ∈ F is such that R(T m ) and N (T m ) are complementary subspaces for
some m ∈ N .
(c) T ∈ W.
Claim: (a) =⇒ (b) =⇒ (c).
Proof. (a)⇒(b). Recall that T ∈ B[H] is invertible (equivalently, R(T ) = H

and N (T ) = {0}) if and only if T ∈ G[H] (i.e., T ∈ B[H] has a bounded in-
verse) by Theorem 1.1. Moreover, every invertible operator is Fredholm (by
the definition of Fredholm operators), and R(T ) = H and N (T ) = {0} if and
only if asc(T ) = dsc(T ) = 0 (by the definition of ascent and descent). Thus
every invertible operator is Browder, which in turn is Fredholm,
G[H] ⊂ B ⊂ F ,
and it is readily verified that the inclusions are, in fact, proper. Therefore, if
T ∈ B and T ∈ G[H], then asc(T ) = dsc(T ) = m for some integer m ≥ 1, and
so N (T m ) and R(T m ) are complementary linear manifolds of H by Lemma
5.32. If T ∈ B, then T ∈ F , so that T m ∈ F by Corollary 5.5, and hence R(T m )
is closed by Corollary 5.2. Recall that N (T m ) is closed since T m is bounded.
Thus R(T n ) and N (T m ) are subspaces of H.
(b)⇒(c). If (b) holds, then, again, T ∈ F , so that T n ∈ F by Corollary 5.5,
and hence N (T m ) and N (T m∗ ) are finite dimensional, and R(T m ) is closed
by Corollary 5.2. Moreover, suppose there exists m ∈ N such that
R(T m ) + N (T m ) = H and R(T m ) ∩ N (T m ) = {0}.
Since R(T m ) is closed, R(T m ) + R(T m )⊥ = H (Projection Theorem), where

R(T m )⊥ = N (T m∗ ) (Lemma 1.4). Hence,
R(T m ) + N (T m∗ ) = H and R(T m ) ∩ N (T m∗ ) = {0}.
Thus N (T m ) and N (T m∗ ) are both algebraic complements of R(T m ), and so

they have the same (finite) dimension (which, in fact, is the codimension of
R(T m ) — see, e.g., [66, Theorem 2.18]). Therefore, ind(T m ) = 0. Since T ∈ F,
it follows that m ind (T ) = ind (T m ) = 0 (see Corollary 5.5). Thus (recalling
that m = 0), ind (T ) = 0, so that T ∈ W.
Therefore, since G[H] ⊂ W (cf. Remark 5.7(b)), it follows that
G[H] ⊂ B ⊂ W ⊂ F.
Note that the inclusion B ⊂ W can be otherwise proved by using Proposition

5.J. Also note that the assertion “T is Browder and not invertible” (i.e.,
T ∈ B\G[H]) means “T ∈ B and 0 ∈ σ(T )”. The following theorem says that
if this happens, then 0 must be an isolated point of σ(T ); precisely, T ∈ B and
0 ∈ σ(T ) if and only if T ∈ F and 0 ∈ σiso (T ).
Theorem 5.34. Take an operator T ∈ B[H].

(a) If T ∈ B and 0 ∈ σ(T ), then 0 ∈ π0 (T ).
(b) If T ∈ F and 0 ∈ σiso (T ), then T ∈ B.
Proof. (a) Recall: σ0 (T ) = {λ ∈ σ(T ): λI − T ∈ W} and B ⊂ W. Therefore,

if T ∈ B and 0 ∈ σ(T ), then
0 ∈ σ0 (T ).
Moreover, Theorem 5.33 ensures that there is an integer m ≥ 1 for which
R(T m ) + N (T m ) = H and R(T m ) ∩ N (T m ) = {0}.
Equivalently,
R(T m ) ⊕ N (T m ) = H and R(T m ) ∩ N (T m ) = {0}
(where the direct sum is not necessarily orthogonal and equality in fact means
equivalence; that is, up to a topological isomorphism). Since both R(T m ) and
N (T m ) are T m -invariant, it follows that
T m = T m |R(T m ) ⊕ T m |N (T m ) .
Since N (T m ) = {0} (otherwise T m would be invertible) and T m |N (T m ) = O

acts on the nonzero space N (T m ), it follows that T m = T m |R(T m ) ⊕ O. Thus
(see Proposition 2.F even though the direct sum is not orthogonal)
σ(T )m = σ(T m ) = σ(T m |R(T m ) ) ∪ {0}
by Theorem 2.7 (Spectral Mapping). Since T m |R(T m ) : R(T m ) → R(T m ) is

surjective and injective, and since R(T m ) is closed because T m ∈ F , it follows
that T m |R(T m ) ∈ G[R(T m )]. In other words, 0 ∈ ρ(T m |R(T m ) ), and therefore,
0 ∈ σ(T m |R(T m ) ). Thus σ(T m ) is disconnected, and hence 0 is an isolated
point of σ(T )m = σ(T m ). Then 0 is an isolated point of σ(T ). That is,
0 ∈ σiso (T ).
Outcome: 0 ∈ π0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T ).
(b) Take an arbitrary m ∈ N . If 0 ∈ σiso (T ), then 0 ∈ σiso (T m ). Indeed, if 0 is
an isolated pont of σ(T ), then 0 ∈ σ(T )m = σ(T m ), and hence 0 is an isolated
pont of σ(T )m = σ(T m ). Therefore,
σ(T m ) = {0} ∪ Δ,
where Δ is a compact subset of C that does not contain 0, which means that
{0} and Δ are complementary spectral sets for the operator T m (i.e., they
form a disjoint partition for σ(T m )). Let E0 = E{0} ∈ B[H] be the Riesz idem-
potent associated with 0. Corollary 4.22 ensures that
N (T m ) ⊆ R(E0 ).
Claim. If T ∈ F and 0 ∈ σiso (T ), then dim R(E0 ) < ∞.

Proof. Theorem 5.19.
Thus, if T ∈ F and 0 ∈ σiso (T ), then dim N (T m ) ≤ dim R(E0 ) < ∞. Since

{N (T n )} is a nondecreasing sequence of subspaces, {dim N (T n )} is a nonde-
creasing sequence of positive integers, which is bounded by the (finite) integer
dim R(E0 ). This ensures that
T ∈ F and 0 ∈ σiso (T ) =⇒ asc(T ) < ∞.
Since σ(T )∗ = σ(T ∗ ), we get 0 ∈ σiso (T ) if and only if 0 ∈ σiso (T ∗ ), and so
T ∈ F and 0 ∈ σiso (T ) =⇒ asc(T ∗ ) < ∞,
because T ∈ F if and only if T ∗ ∈ F . Therefore, according to Lemma 5.31,

asc(T ) < ∞ and dsc(T ) < ∞, which means (by definition) that T ∈ B.
Theorem 5.34 also gives us another characterization of the set B of all

Browder operators from B[H] (compare with Corollary 5.26).
Corollary 5.35.

B = T ∈ F : 0 ∈ ρ(T ) ∪ σiso (T ) = T ∈ F : 0 ∈ ρ(T ) ∪ π0 (T ) .
Proof. Consider the set π0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T ) of Riesz points of T .

Claim. If T ∈ F, then 0 ∈ σiso (T ) if and only if 0 ∈ π0 (T ).
Proof. Theorem 5.19.
Thus the expressions for B follow from (a) and (b) in Theorem 5.34.
Remark 5.36. (a) Finite Dimensional. Since {N (T n )} is nondecreasing and

{R(T n )} is nonincreasing, we get dim N (T n ) ≤ dim N (T n+1 ) ≤ dim H and
dim R(T n+1 ) ≤ dim R(T n ) ≤ dim H for every n ≥ 0. Thus, if H is finite di-
mensional, then asc(T ) < ∞ and dsc (T ) < ∞. Therefore (see Remark 5.3(c)),
dim H < ∞ =⇒ B = B[H].
(b) Complements. Recall that σ(T )\σiso (T ) = σacc (T ), and also that

σ(T )\π0 (T ) = σ(T )\ σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T )

= σ(T )\σiso (T ) ∪ σ(T )\σ0 (T ) = σacc (T ) ∪ σw (T ).
Hence, since G[H] ⊂ B ⊂ W ⊂ F , we get from Corollary 5.35 that

F \ B = T ∈ F : 0 ∈ σacc (T ) = T ∈ F : 0 ∈ σacc (T ) ∪ σw (T ) .

Since W \ B = W ∩ (F \ B), it follows that W \ B = T ∈ W : 0 ∈ σacc (T ) .
Moreover, since σ0 (T ) = τ0 (T ) ∪ π0 (T ), where τ0 (T ) is an open subset of C
(according to Corollary 5.20), and since π(T ) = σiso (T ) ∩σ0 (T ), it also follows

that σ0 (T )\σiso (T ) = τ0 (T ) ⊆ σacc (T ). Thus W \ B = T ∈ W : 0 ∈ τ0 (T )
by Corollaries 5.26 and 5.35. Summing up:

W \ B = T ∈ W : 0 ∈ σacc (T ) = T ∈ W : 0 ∈ τ0 (T ) .
Furthermore, since σ(T )\σ0 (T ) = σw (T ), we get from Corollary 5. 26 that

F \W = T ∈ F : 0 ∈ σw (T ) .
(c) Another Characterization. An operator T ∈ B[H] is Browder if and only

if it is Fredholm and λI − T is invertible for sufficiently small λ = 0.
Indeed, the identity B = {T ∈ F : 0 ∈ ρ(T ) ∪ σiso (T )} in Corollary 5.35 says
that T ∈ B if and only if T ∈ F and either 0 ∈ ρ(T ) or 0 is an isolated point
of σ(T ) = C \ ρ(T ). Since ρ(T ) is an open subset of C , this means that T ∈ B
if and only if T ∈ F and there exists an ε > 0 such that Bε (0)\{0} ⊂ ρ(T ),
where Bε (0) is the open ball centered at 0 with radius ε. This can be restated
by saying that T ∈ B if and only if T ∈ F and λ ∈ ρ(T ) whenever 0 = |λ| < ε
for some ε > 0. But this is precisely the claimed assertion.
The Browder spectrum of an operator T ∈ B[H] is the set σb (T ) of all

complex numbers λ for which λI − T is not Browder,

σb (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ B[H]\B
(compare with Corollary 5.25). Since an operator lies in B together with its
adjoint, it follows at once that λ ∈ σb (T ) if and only if λ ∈ σb (T ∗ ):
σb (T ) = σb (T ∗ )∗ .
Moreover, by the preceding definition, if λ ∈ σb (T ), then λI − T ∈ / B, so that

either λI − T ∈/ F or λI − T ∈ F and asc(λI − T ) = dsc(λI − T ) = ∞ (cf.
the definition of Browder operators). In the former case, λ ∈ σe (T ) ⊆ σ(T ) ac-
cording to Corollary 5.12. In the latter case, λI − T is not invertible (because
N (λI − T ) = {0} if and only if asc(λI − T ) = 0 — also R(λI − T ) = H if
and only if dsc(λI − T ) = 0), so that λ ∈/ ρ(T ); that is, λ ∈ σ(T ). Therefore,
σb (T ) ⊆ σ(T ).
Since B ⊂ W, it also follows by Corollary 5.25 that σw (T ) ⊆ σb (T ). Hence
σe (T ) ⊆ σw (T ) ⊆ σb (T ) ⊆ σ(T ).
Equivalently, G[H] ⊂ B ⊂ W ⊂ F .
σb (T ) = σe (T ) ∪ σacc (T ) = σw (T ) ∪ σacc (T ).
Proof. Recall that σ(T ) = {λ} − σ(λI − T ) by Theorem 2.7 (Spectral Map-
ping), and so 0 ∈ σ(λI − T )\σiso (λI − T ) if and only if λ ∈ σ(T )\σiso (T ).
Thus, by the definition of σb (T ), and using Corollaries 5.12 and 5.35,

σb (T ) = λ ∈ C : λI − T ∈ F or 0 ∈ ρ(λI − T ) ∪ σiso (λI − T )

= λ ∈ C : λ ∈ σe (T ) or 0 ∈ σ(λI − T )\σiso (λI − T )

= λ ∈ C : λ ∈ σe (T ) or λ ∈ σ(T )\σiso (T )

= σe (T ) ∪ σ(T )\σiso (T ) = σe (T ) ∪ σacc (T ).
However, by Theorem 5.24, σw (T ) = σe (T ) ∪ κ(T ), where κ(T ) ⊆ σ(T ) is an

open set in C . (Indeed, κ(T ) = k∈Z \{0} σk (T ), which is the union of open
sets in C by Theorem 5.16.) Thus κ(T )\σacc (T ) = ∅, so that

σw (T )\σacc (T ) = σe (T ) ∪ κ(T ) \σacc (T )

= σe (T )\σacc (T ) ∪ κ(T )\σacc (T ) = σe (T )\σacc (T ).
The next result is particularly important: it sets another partition of σ(T ).
σb (T ) = σ(T )\π0 (T ).
Proof. By the Spectral Picture (Corollary 5.18) and Corollary 5.37 we get
,
σ(T )\σb (T ) = σ(T ) σe (T ) ∪ σacc (T ) = σ(T )\σe (T ) ∩ (σ(T )\σacc (T )

= σk (T ) ∩ σiso (T ) = σ0 (T ) ∩ σiso (T ) = π0 (T ),
k∈Z
according to the definition of π0 (T ), since σk (T ) is open in C for every

0 = k ∈ Z (Theorem 5.16) and so it has no isolated point.
Since σb (T ) ∪ π0 (T ) ⊆ σ(T ), it follows by Corollary 5.38 that
σb (T ) ∪ π0 (T ) = σ(T ) and σb (T ) ∩ π0 (T ) = ∅,
so that {σb (T ), π0 (T )} forms a partition of the spectrum σ(T ). Thus

π0 (T ) = σ(T )\σb (T ) = λ ∈ σ(T ): λI − T ∈ B ,
and
σb (T ) = σ(T ) ⇐⇒ π0 (T ) = ∅.
π0 (T ) = σiso (T )\σb (T ) = σiso (T )\σw (T ) = σiso (T )\σe (T )

= π00 (T )\σb (T ) = π00 (T )\σw (T ) = π00 (T )\σe (T ).
Proof. The identities involving σb (T ) are readily verified. In fact, recall that
π0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T ) ⊆ σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ) = π00 (T ) ⊆ σiso (T ) ⊆ σ(T ).
Since σb (T ) ∩ π0 (T ) = ∅ and σ(T )\π0 (T ) = σb (T ) (Corollary 5.38), we get
π0 (T ) = π0 (T )\σb (T ) ⊆ π00 (T )\σb (T ) ⊆ σiso (T )\σb (T ) ⊆ σ(T )\σb (T ) = π0 (T ).

To prove the identities involving σw (T ) and σe (T ), proceed as follows. Since

σ0 (T ) = σ(T )\σw (T ) (Theorem 5.24), we get

π0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σ(T )\σw (T ) = σiso (T )\σw (T ).
Moreover,
using Theorem 5.24 again, σw (T ) = σe (T ) ∪ κ(T ), where κ(T ) =
k∈Z \{0} k (T ) is the collection of all holes of σe (T ), which is a subset of σ(T )
σ
that is open in C (union of open sets — Theorem 5.16). Thus
σiso (T )\σw (T ) = σiso (T )\(σe (T ) ∪ κ(T )) = (σiso (T )\σe (T )) ∩ (σiso (T )\κ(T )).
But σiso (T ) ∩ κ(T ) = ∅ because κ(T ) is a subset of σ(T ) that is open in C .

Hence σiso (T )\κ(T ) = σiso (T ), and so
σiso (T )\σw (T ) = σiso (T )\σe (T ).
Finally, recall again that π0 (T ) ⊆ π00 (T ) ⊆ σiso (T ). Also, By Theorem 5.24,

π0 (T ) ⊆ σ0 (T ) = σ(T )\σw (T ) and σe (T ) ⊆ σw (T ) and, as we have just veri-
fied, σiso (T )\σw (T ) = π0 (T ) and σiso (T )\σe (T ) = σiso (T )\σw (T ). Thus,
π00 (T )\σw (T ) ⊆ π00 (T )\σe (T ) ⊆ σiso (T )\σe (T )

= σiso (T )\σw (T ) = π0 (T ) = π0 (T )\σw (T ) ⊆ π00 (T )\σw (T ),
and therefore
π0 (T ) = π00 (T )\σw (T ) = π00 (T )\σe (T ).
Remark 5.40. (a) Finite Dimensional. Take any T ∈ B[H]. Since every op-
erator on a finite-dimensional space is Browder (cf. Remark 5.36(a)), it follows
by the very definition of the Browder spectrum σb (T ) that
dim H < ∞ =⇒ σb (T ) = ∅.
The converse holds by Remark 5.27(a), since σw (T ) ⊆ σb (T ):
dim H = ∞ =⇒ σb (T ) = ∅.
Thus
σb (T ) = ∅ ⇐⇒ dim H = ∞,
and σb (T ) = σ(T )\π0 (T ) (cf. Corollary 5.38) is a compact set in C because
σ(T ) is compact and π0 (T ) ⊆ σiso (T ). Moreover, by Remark 5.27(b),
dim H < ∞ =⇒ σe (T ) = σw (T ) = σb (T ) = ∅.
(b) Compact Operators. Since σacc (K) ⊆ {0} if K is compact (cf. Corollary
2.20), it follows by Remark 5.27(d), Corollary 5.37, and item (a) that
K ∈ B∞[H] and dim H = ∞ =⇒ σe (K) = σw (K) = σb (K) = {0}.

(c) Finite Algebraic and Geometric Multiplicities. We saw in Corollary

5.28 that the set of Riesz points π0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T ) and the set of isolated
eigenvalues of finite multiplicity π00 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ) coincide if any of
the equivalent assertions of Corollary 5.28 holds true. The previous corollary
supplies a collection of conditions equivalent to π0 (T ) = π00 (T ). Indeed, by
Corollary 5.39, the following four assertions are pairwise equivalent.
(i) π0 (T ) = π00 (T ).
(ii) σe (T ) ∩ π00 (T ) = ∅ (i.e., σe (T ) ∩ σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ) = ∅ ).
(iii) σw (T ) ∩ π00 (T ) = ∅ (i.e., σw (T ) ∩ σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ) = ∅ ).
(iv) σb (T ) ∩ π00 (T ) = ∅ (i.e., σb (T ) ∩ σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ) = ∅ ).
Take any T ∈ B[H] and consider again the following relations:
σ0 (T ) = σ(T )\σw (T ), π0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T ), π00 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ).
We have defined a class of operators for which the equivalent assertions of

Corollary 5.28 hold true (namely, operators that satisfy Weyl’s Theorem). The
following equivalent assertions define another important class of operators. An
operator for which any of those equivalent assertions holds is said to satisfy
Browder’s Theorem. This will be discussed later in Section 5.5.
Corollary 5.41. The assertions below are pairwise equivalent.

(a) σ0 (T ) = π0 (T ).
(b) σ(T )\π0 (T ) = σw (T ).
(c) σ(T ) = σw (T ) ∪ π00 (T ).
(d) σ(T ) = σw (T ) ∪ σiso (T ).
(e) σ0 (T ) ⊆ σiso (T ).
(f) σ0 (T ) ⊆ π00 (T ).
(g) σacc (T ) ⊆ σw (T ).
(h) σw (T ) = σb (T ).
Proof. Recall that {σw (T ), σ0 (T )} forms a partition of σ(T ), and also that
π0 (T ) ⊆ π00 (T ) ⊆ σ(T ). Thus (a) and (b) are equivalent and, if (a) holds,
σ(T ) = σw (T ) ∪ σ0 (T ) = σw (T ) ∪ π0 (T ) ⊆ σw (T ) ∪ π00 (T ) ⊆ σ(T ),
so that (a) implies (c); and (c) implies (d) because π00 (T ) ⊆ σiso (T ):
σ(T ) = σw (T ) ∪ π00 (T ) ⊆ σw (T ) ∪ σiso (T ) ⊆ σ(T ).
Since σ0 (T ) = σ(T )\σw (T ), it follows that, if (d) holds, then

σ0 (T ) = σ(T )\σw (T ) = σw (T ) ∪ σiso (T ) \σw (T ) ⊆ σiso (T ),
so that (d) implies (e). Since π0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T ), it follows that (e)

is equivalent to (a). Since π00 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ) and σ0 (T ) ⊆ σPF (T ),
it also follows that (e) is equivalent to (f). Since σacc (T ) and σiso (T ) are
complements of each other in σ(T ), and σw (T ) and σ0 (T ) are complements of
each other in σ(T ), it follows that (e) and (g) are equivalent. Similarly, since
σw (T ) and σ0 (T ) are complements of each other in σ(T ), and σb (T ) and π0 (T )
also are complements of each other in σ(T ) (cf. Theorem 5.24 and Corollary
5.38), it follows that (h) and (a) are equivalent as well.
The Browder spectrum is not invariant under compact perturbation. In

fact, if T ∈ B[H] is such that σb (T ) = σw (T ) (i.e., if T is such that any of the
equivalent assertions in Corollary 5.41 fails — and so all of them fail), then
there exists a compact K ∈ B∞[H] such that
σb (T + K) = σb (T ).
Indeed, if σb (T ) = σw (T ), then σw (T ) ⊂ σb (T ), and so σb (T ) is not invariant

under compact perturbation because σw (T ) is the largest part of σ(T ) that
remains unchanged under compact perturbation. However, as we shall see in
the forthcoming Theorem 5.44 (whose proof is based on Lemmas 5.42 and
5.43 below), σb (T ) is invariant under perturbation by compact operators that
commute with T .
Set A = B[H], where H is an infinite-dimensional complex Hilbert space.
Let A be a unital closed subalgebra of the unital complex Banach algebra A,
thus a unital complex Banach algebra itself. Take an arbitrary operator T in

A. Let B∞[H] = B∞[H] ∩ A denote the collection of all compact operators
from A , and let F denote the class of all Fredholm operators in the unital

complex Banach algebra A . That is (cf. Proposition 5.C),

F = T ∈ A : AT − I and T A − I are in B∞[H] for some A ∈ A .
Therefore, F ⊆ F ∩ A . The inclusion is proper in general (see, e.g., [10, p.

86]), but it becomes an identity if A is a ∗-subalgebra of the C*-algebra A;
that is, if the unital closed subalgebra A is a ∗-algebra (see, e.g., [10, Theorem
A.1.3]). However, if the inclusion becomes an identity, then Corollary 5.12
ensures that the essential spectra in A and in A coincide:
F = F ∩ A =⇒ σe (T ) = σe (T ),
where
σe (T ) = λ ∈ σ (T ): λI − T ∈ A \F
stands for the essential spectrum of T ∈ A with respect to A, with σ (T )
denoting the spectrum of T ∈ A with respect to the unital complex Banach
algebra A. Similarly, let W denote the class of Weyl operators in A,

W = T ∈ F : ind (T ) = 0 ,
and let

σw (T ) = λ ∈ σ (T ): λI − T ∈ A \W
stand for the Weyl spectrum of T ∈ A with respect to A. If T ∈ A, set

σ0 (T ) = σ (T )\σw

(T ) = λ ∈ σ (T ): λI − T ∈ W .
Moreover, let B stand for the class of Browder operators in A,

B = T ∈ F : 0 ∈ ρ (T ) ∪ σiso

(T )

according to Corollary 5.35, where σiso (T ) denotes the set of all isolated points
of σ (T ), and ρ (T ) = C \σ (T ) is the resolvent set of T ∈ A with respect to
the unital complex Banach algebra A. Let

σb (T ) = λ ∈ σ (T ): λI − T ∈ A \B
be the Browder spectrum of T ∈ A with respect to A.
Lemma 5.42. Consider the preceding setup. If T ∈ A, then

σ (T ) = σ(T ) =⇒ σb (T ) = σb (T ).
Proof. Take an arbitrary operator T in A. Suppose

σ (T ) = σ(T ),
so that ρ (T ) = ρ(T ) and σiso

(T ) = σiso (T ). Therefore, if λ ∈ σiso (T ), then
the Riesz idempotent associated with λ,
%
Eλ = 2πi1
(νI − T )−1 dν,
Γλ
lies in A (because σiso

(T ) = σiso (T ), and also (νI − T )−1 ∈ A whenever
(νI − T ) ∈ B[H] since ρ (T ) = ρ(T )). Thus Theorem 5.19 ensures that
−1
λ ∈ σ0 (T ) ⇐⇒ dim R(Eλ ) < ∞ ⇐⇒ λ ∈ σ0 (T )

whenever λ ∈ σiso (T ), since σiso (T ) = σiso (T ). Hence
π0 (T ) = σ0 (T ) ∩ σiso

(T ) = σ0 (T ) ∩ σiso (T ) = π0 (T ).
Then, according to Corollary 5.38,

σb (T ) = σ(T )\π0 (T ) = σ (T )\π0 (T ) = σb (T ).
Let {T } denote the commutant of T ∈ B[H] (i.e., the collection of all

operators in B[H] that commute with T ). This is a unital subalgebra of the
unital complex Banach algebra B[H], which is weakly closed in B[H] (see, e.g.,
[63, Problem 3.7]), and hence uniformly closed (i.e., closed in the operator
norm topology of B[H]). Therefore A = {T } is a unital closed subalgebra of
the unital complex Banach algebra A = B[H].
Lemma 5.43. Consider the preceding setup with A = {T }. If 0 ∈ σ (T ) and

T ∈ W , then 0 ∈ σiso

(T ). In other words,
A = {T } and 0 ∈ σ0 (T ) =⇒
0 ∈ σiso (T ).
Proof. Take any T ∈ B[H]. Let A be a unital closed subalgebra of A = B[H]

that includes T . Suppose 0 ∈ σ0 (T ), which means that 0 ∈ σ (T ) and T ∈ W .
Since T ∈ W , Lemma 5.23(c) says that there exists a compact K ∈ B∞[H] =
B∞[H] ∩ A, actually a finite-rank operator, and an operator A ∈ A such that
A(T + K) = (T + K)A = I.
Hence A ∈ A is invertible with inverse A−1 = T + K ∈ A . If A = {T }, then

AK = KA, and so A−1 K = KA−1. Let A be the unital closed commutative
subalgebra of A generated by A, A−1, and K. Since T = A−1 − K, it follows
that A includes T . Let σiso
(T ) and σiso (T ) stand for the sets of isolated points
of the spectra σ (T ) and σ (T ) of T with respect to the Banach algebras A

and A, respectively. Since A ⊆ A , it follows by Proposition 2.Q(a) that

σ (T ) ⊆ σ (T ). Hence 0 ∈ σ (T ) because 0 ∈ σ0 (T ) ⊆ σ (T ).

Claim. 0 ∈ σiso (T ).
Proof. Let A denote the collection of all algebra homomorphisms of A into
C . Recall from Proposition 2.Q(b) that

σ (A−1 ) = Φ(A−1 ) ∈ C : Φ ∈ A ,
which is bounded away from zero (since 0 ∈ ρ (A−1 )), and

σ (K) = Φ(K) ∈ C : Φ ∈ A = {0} ∪ Φ(K) ∈ C : Φ ∈ AF ,
where AF ⊆ A is a set of nonzero homomorphisms, which is finite because

K is finite rank (and so K has a finite spectrum — Corollary 2.19). Note that
0 ∈ σ (T ) = σ (A−1 − K) if and only if 0 = Φ(A−1 − K) = Φ(A−1 ) − Φ(K)
for some Φ ∈ A . If Φ ∈ A \AF , then Φ(K) = 0 so that Φ(A−1 ) = 0, which is a
contradiction (because 0 ∈ σ(A−1 )). Thus Φ ∈ AF , and hence Φ(A−1 − K) =
Φ(A−1 ) − Φ(K) = 0, so that Φ(A−1 ) = Φ(K), for at most a finite number of
homomorphisms Φ in AF . Therefore, since the set {Φ(A−1 ) ∈ C : Φ ∈ A } =
σ (A−1 ) is bounded away from zero, and since the set

Φ ∈ AF : Φ(A−1 ) = Φ(K) = Φ ∈ AF : 0 ∈ σ (A−1 − K)
is finite, it follows that 0 is an isolated point of σ (A−1 − K) = σ (T ), which

concludes the proof of the claimed result.
Since 0 ∈ σ (T ) ⊆ σ (T ), it then follows that 0 ∈ σiso

(T ).
The next characterization of the Browder spectrum is the counterpart of

the very definition of the Weyl spectrum. It says that σb (T ) is the largest
part of σ(T ) that remains unchanged under compact perturbations in the

commutant of T . That is, σb (T ) is the largest part of σ(T ) such that [69, 59]
σb (T + K) = σb (T ) for every K ∈ B∞[H] ∩ {T }.
Theorem 5.44. For every T ∈ B[H],

!
σb (T ) = σ(T + K).
K∈B∞[H]∩{T }
Proof. Take any operator T ∈ B[H], and let A be a unital closed subalgebra of
the unital complex Banach algebra A = B[H] (thus a unital complex Banach
algebra itself). Let σ (T ), σb (T ), and σw

(T ) be the spectrum, the Browder
spectrum, and the Weyl spectrum of T with respect to A, respectively.
Claim 1. If A = {T }, then σ (T ) = σ(T ).
Proof. Suppose A = {T }. Trivially, T ∈ A. Let P = P(T ) be the collection of
all polynomials p(T ) in T with complex coefficients, which is a unital commu-
tative subalgebra of B[H]. Consider the collection T of all unital commutative
subalgebras of B[H] containing T . Note that every element of T is included
in A, and also that T is partially ordered (in the inclusion ordering) and
nonempty (e.g., P ∈ T ). Moreover, every chain in T has an upper bound in
T (the union of all subalgebras in a given chain of subalgebras in T is again
a subalgebra in T ). Thus Zorn’s Lemma says that T has a maximal element,
say A = A (T ) ∈ T . Hence there is a maximal commutative subalgebra A
of B[H] containing T (which is unital and closed — see the paragraph that
precedes Proposition 2.Q). Therefore,
A ⊆ A ⊆ A.
Let σ (T ) denote the spectrum of T with respect to A. If the preceding
inclusions hold true, and since A is a maximal commutative subalgebra of A,
then Proposition 2.Q(a,b) ensure that the following relations also hold true:
σ(T ) ⊆ σ (T ) ⊆ σ (T ) = σ(T ).
Claim 2. If A = {T }, then σb (T ) = σb (T ).
Proof. Claim 1 and Lemma 5.42.
Claim 3. If A = {T }, then σb (T ) = σw

(T ).
Proof. Recall that λ ∈ σ0 (T ) if and only if λ ∈ σ (T ) and λI − T ∈ W . But
λ ∈ σ (T ) if and only if 0 ∈ σ (λI − T ) by the Spectral Mapping Theorem
(Theorem 2.7). Hence,
λ ∈ σ0 (T ) ⇐⇒ 0 ∈ σ0 (λI − T ).
Since A = {T } = {λI − T } it follows by Lemma 5.43 that

0 ∈ σ0 (λI − T ) =⇒
0 ∈ σiso (λI − T ).
However, applying the Spectral Mapping Theorem again,

0 ∈ σiso (λI − T ) ⇐⇒ λ ∈ σiso (T ).
Therefore,
σ0 (T ) ⊆ σiso

(T ),
which means that (cf. Corollary 5.41)

σw (T ) = σb (T ).

Claim 4. σw (T ) = K∈B∞[H]∩A σ(T + K).
Proof. This is the very definition of the Weyl spectrum of T with respect to
A. That is, σw

(T ) = K∈B [H] σ(T + K), where B∞[H] = B∞[H] ∩ A.
∞
By Claims 2, 3, and 4 we get

!
σb (T ) = σ(T + K).
K∈B∞[H]∩{T }
5.5 Remarks on Browder and Weyl Theorems

This final section consist of a brief survey on Weyl’s and Browder’s Theorems.
As such, and unlike the previous sections, some of the assertions discussed
here, instead of being fully proved, will be accompanied by a reference to
indicate where the proof can be found.
Take any operator T ∈ B[H], and consider the partitions {σw (T ), σ0 (T )}
and {σb (T ), π0 (T )} of the spectrum of T in terms of Weyl and Browder spec-
tra σw (T ) and σb (T ) and their complements σ0 (T ) and π0 (T ) in σ(T ) as in
Theorem 5.24 and Corollary 5.38, so that
σw (T ) = σ(T )\σ0 (T ) and σb (T ) = σ(T )\π0 (T ),
where

σ0 (T ) = λ ∈ σ(T ): λI − T ∈ W and π0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σ0 (T ).
Although σ0 (T ) ⊆ σPF (T ) and σacc (T ) ⊆ σb (T ) (i.e., π0 (T ) ⊆ σiso (T )) for

every operator T , it happens that, in general, σ0 (T ) may not be included in
σiso (T ) or, equivalently, σacc (T ) may not be included in σw (T ). Recall that
π00 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ).
Definition 5.45. An operator T is said to satisfy Weyl’s Theorem (or Weyl’s

Theorem holds for T ) if any of the equivalent assertions of Corollary 5.28 holds
true. Therefore, T satisfies Weyl’s Theorem if
5.5 Remarks on Browder and Weyl Theorems 179
σ0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ),
that is, σ0 (T ) = π00 (T ) or, equivalently, σ(T )\π00 (T ) = σw (T ).
Further necessary and sufficient conditions for an operator to satisfy Weyl’s

Theorem can be found in [44]. See also [58, Chapter 11].
Definition 5.46. An operator T is said to satisfy Browder’s Theorem (or

Browder’s Theorem holds for T ) if any of the equivalent assertions of Corollary
5.41 holds true. Therefore, T satisfies Browder’s Theorem if
σ0 (T ) ⊆ σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ),
that is, σ0 (T ) ⊆ π00 (T ) or, equivalently,
σ0 (T ) = π0 (T ), or σ0 (T ) ⊆ σiso (T ), or
σacc (T ) ⊆ σw (T ), or σw (T ) = σb (T ).
A word on terminology. The expressions “T satisfies Weyl’s Theorem” and

“T satisfies Browder’s Theorem” are the usual terminologies and we shall stick
to them, although saying that T “satisfies Weyl’s (or Browder’s) property”
rather than “satisfies Weyl’s (or Browder’s) Theorem” would perhaps sound
more appropriate.
Remark 5.47. (a) Sufficiency for Weyl’s.
σw (T ) = σacc (T ) =⇒ T satisfies Weyl’s Theorem,
according to Corollary 5.28.

(b) Browder’s not Weyl’s. Consider Definitions 5.45 and 5.46. If T satisfies
Weyl’s Theorem, then it obviously satisfies Browder’s Theorem. An operator T
satisfies Browder’s but not Weyl’s Theorem if and only if the proper inclusion
σ0 (T ) ⊂ σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ) holds true, which implies that there exists an isolat-
ed eigenvalue of finite multiplicity not in σ0 (T ) (i.e., there exists an isolated
eigenvalue of finite multiplicity in σw (T ) = σ(T )\σ0 (T )). Outcome:
If T satisfies Browder’s Theorem but not Weyl’s Theorem, then

σw (T ) ∩ σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ) = ∅.
(c) Equivalent Condition. The preceding result can be extended as follows

(cf. Remark 5.40(c)). Consider the equivalent assertions of Corollary 5.28 and
of Corollary 5.41. If Browder’s Theorem holds and π0 (T ) = π00 (T ), then Weyl’s
Theorem holds (i.e., if σ0 (T ) = π0 (T ) and π0 (T ) = π00 (T ), then σ0 (T ) = π00 (T )
tautologically). Conversely, if Weyl’s Theorem holds, then π0 (T ) = π00 (T ) (see
Corollary 5.28), and Browder’s Theorem holds trivially. Summing up:
Weyl’s Theorem holds ⇐⇒ Browder’s Theorem holds and π0 (T ) = π00 (T ).

In other words, Weyl’s Theorem holds if and only if Browder’s Theorem and
any of the equivalent assertions of Remark 5.40(c) hold true.
(d) Trivial Cases. By Remark 5.27(a), if dim H < ∞, then σ0 (T ) = σ(T ).
Thus, according to Corollary 2.19, dim H < ∞ =⇒ σ0 (T ) = π00 (T ) = σ(T ):
Every operator on a finite-dimensional space satisfies Weyl’s Theorem.
This extends to finite-rank but not to compact operators (see examples in

[38]). On the other hand, if σP (T ) = ∅, then σ0 (T ) = π00 (T ) = ∅:
Every operator without eigenvalues satisfies Weyl’s Theorem.
Since σ0 (T ) ⊆ σPF (T ), this extends to operators with σPF (T ) = ∅.
Investigating quadratic forms with compact difference, Hermann Weyl

proved in 1909 that Weyl’s Theorem holds for self-adjoint operators (i.e.,
every self-adjoint operator satisfies Weyl’s Theorem) [90]. We shall present a
contemporary proof of the original Weyl’s result. First recall from Sections
1.5 and 1.6 the following elementary (proper) inclusion of classes of operators:
Self-Adjoint ⊂ Normal ⊂ Hyponormal.
Theorem 5.48. (Weyl’s Theorem). If T ∈ B[H] is self-adjoint, then
σ0 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ).
Proof. Take any operator T ∈ B[H].

Claim 1. If T is self-adjoint, then σ0 (T ) = π0 (T ).
Proof. If T is self-adjoint, then σ(T ) ⊂ R (Proposition 2.A). Thus no subset of
σ(T ) is open in C , and hence σ0 (T ) = τ0 (T ) ∪ π0 (T ) = π0 (T ) because τ0 (T )
is open in C (Corollary 5.20).
Claim 2. If T is hyponormal and λ ∈ π00 (T ), then R(λI − T ) is closed.
Proof. λ ∈ π00 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ) if and only if λ is an isolated point of
σ(T ) and 0 < dim N (λI − T ) < ∞. Thus, if λ ∈ π00 (T ) and T is hyponormal,
then Proposition 4.L ensures that dim R(Eλ ) < ∞, where Eλ is the Riesz
idempotent associated with λ. Then R(λI − T ) is closed by Corollary 4.22.
Therefore, by Claim 2, if T is hyponormal, then (cf. Corollary 5.22)

π0 (T ) = λ ∈ π00 (T ): R(λI − T ) is closed = π00 (T ).
Thus, in particular, if T is self-adjoint, then π0 (T ) = π00 (T ), and therefore,

according to Claim 1,
σ0 (T ) = π0 (T ) = π00 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ).

The preceding proof actually says that if T is self-adjoint, then T satisfies

Browder’s Theorem and, if T is hyponormal, then π0 (T ) = π00 (T ). Thus if T is
self-adjoint, then T satisfies Weyl’s Theorem by Remark 5.47(c). Theorem 5.48
was extended to normal operators in [83]. This can be verified by using Propo-
sition 5.E, which says that, if T is normal, then σ(T )\σe (T ) = π 00 (T ). But, by
Corollary 5.18, σ(T )\σe (T ) = k∈Z \{0} σk (T ) ∪ σ0 (T ), where k∈Z \{0} σk (T )
is open in C (cf. Theorem 5.16), and π00 (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ) is closed in C .
Thus σ0 (T ) = π00 (T ). Therefore, every normal operator satisfies Weyl’s The-
orem. Moreover, Theorem 5.48 was further extended to hyponormal operators
in [24], and to seminormal operators in [15]. In other words:
If T or T ∗ is hyponormal, then T satisfies Weyl’s Theorem.
Some additional definitions and terminologies will be needed. An operator

is isoloid if every isolated point of its spectrum is an eigenvalue; that is, T is
isoloid if σiso (T ) ⊆ σP (T ). A Hilbert space operator T is said to be dominant
if R(λI − T ) ⊆ R(λI − T ∗ ) for every λ ∈ C or, equivalently, if for each λ ∈ C
there is an Mλ ≥ 0 such that (λI − T )(λI − T )∗ ≤ Mλ (λI − T )∗ (λI − T ) [33].
Therefore, every hyponormal operator is dominant (with Mλ = 1) and isoloid
(Proposition 4.L). Recall that a subspace M of a Hilbert space H is invariant
for an operator T ∈ B[H] (or T -invariant) if T (M) ⊆ M, and reducing if it is
invariant for both T and T ∗. A part of an operator is a restriction of it to an
invariant subspace, and a direct summand is a restriction of it to a reducing
subspace. The main result in [15] reads as follows (see also [16]).
Theorem 5.49. If each finite-dimensional eigenspace of an operator on a

Hilbert space is reducing, and if every direct summand of it is isoloid, then it
satisfies Weyl’s Theorem.
This is a fundamental result that includes many of the previous results

along this line, and has also been frequently applied to yield further results;
mainly through the following corollary.
Corollary 5.50. If an operator on a Hilbert space is dominant and every

direct summand of it is isoloid, then it satisfies Weyl’s Theorem.
Proof. Take any T ∈ B[H]. The announced result can be restated as follows.
If R(λI − T ) ⊆ R(λI − T ∗ ) for every λ ∈ C , and the restriction T |M of
T to each reducing subspace M is such that σiso (T |M ) ⊆ σP (T |M ), then T
satisfies Weyl’s Theorem. To prove it we need the following elementary result,
which extends Lemma 1.13(a) from hyponormal to dominant operators. Take
an arbitrary scalar λ ∈ C .
Claim. If R(λI − T ) ⊆ R(λI − T ∗ ), then N (λI − T ) ⊆ N (λI − T ∗ ).
Proof. Take any S ∈ B[H]. If R(S) ⊆ R(S ∗ ), then R(S ∗ )⊥ ⊆ R(S)⊥, which is
equivalent to N (S) ⊆ N (S ∗ ) by Lemma 1.4, thus proving the claimed result.
If R(λI − T ) ⊆ R(λI − T ∗ ), then N (λI − T ) reduces T by the preceding

Claim and Lemma 1.14(b). Therefore, if R(λI − T ) ⊆ R(λI − T ∗ ) for every
λ ∈ C , then every eigenspace of T is reducing and so is, in particular, every
finite-dimensional eigenspace of T . Thus the stated result is a straightforward
consequence of Theorem 5.49.
Since every hyponormal operator is dominant, every direct summand of a

hyponormal operator is again hyponormal (in fact, every part of a hyponormal
operator is again hyponormal — Proposition 1.P), and every hyponormal op-
erator is isoloid (Proposition 4.L), it follows that Corollary 5.50 offers another
proof that every hyponormal operator satisfies Weyl’s Theorem.
We need a few more definitions and terminologies. An operator T ∈ B[H]
is paranormal if T x2 ≤ T 2 x x for every x ∈ H, and totally hereditarily
normaloid (THN) if all parts of it are normaloid, as well as the inverse of
all invertible parts. (Tautologically, totally hereditarily normaloid operators
are normaloid.) Hyponormal operators are paranormal and dominant, but
paranormal operators are not necessarily dominant. These classes are related
by proper inclusion (see [37, Remark 1] and [38, Proposition 2]):

Hyponormal ⊂ Paranormal ⊂ THN ⊂ Normaloid ∩ Isoloid .
Weyl’s Theorem has been extended to classes of nondominant operators that

properly include the hyponormal operators. For instance, it was extended to
paranormal operators in [88] and, beyond, to totally hereditarily normaloid
operators in [36]. In fact [36, Lemma 2.5]:
If T is totally hereditarily normaloid, then both

T and T ∗ satisfy Weyl’s Theorem.
So Weyl’s Theorem holds for paranormal operators and their adjoints and, in
particular, Weyl’s Theorem holds for hyponormal operators and their adjoints.
Let T and S be arbitrary operators acting on Hilbert spaces. First we con-
sider their (orthogonal) direct sum. Proposition 2.F(b) says that the spectrum
of a direct sum coincides with the union of the spectra of the summands,
σ(T ⊕ S) = σ(T ) ∪ σ(S).
For the Weyl spectra, only inclusion is ensured. In fact, the Weyl spectrum of
a direct sum is included in the union of the Weyl spectra of the summands,
σw (T ⊕ S) ⊆ σw (T ) ∪ σw (S),
but equality does not hold in general [53]. However, it holds if σw (T ) ∩ σw (S)
has empty interior [71],
◦
σw (T ) ∩ σw (S) = ∅ =⇒ σw (T ⊕ S) = σw (T ) ∪ σw (S).
In general, Weyl’s Theorem does not transfer from T and S to their direct sum
T ⊕ S. The above identity involving the Weyl spectrum of a direct sum, viz.,
σw (T ⊕ S) = σw (T ) ∪ σw (S), when it holds, plays an important role in estab-
lishing sufficient conditions for a direct sum to satisfy Weyl’s Theorem. This
was recently investigated in [70] and [38]. As for the problem of transferring
Browder’s Theorem from T and S to their direct sum T ⊕ S, the following
necessary and sufficient condition was proved in [53, Theorem 4].
Theorem 5.51. If both operators T and S satisfy Browder’s Theorem, then

the direct sum T ⊕ S satisfies Browder’s Theorem if and only if
σw (T ⊕ S) = σw (T ) ∪ σw (S).
Now consider the tensor product T ⊗ S of a pair of Hilbert space operators

T and S (for an expository paper on tensor products that will suffice for our
needs see [64]). It is known from [20] that the spectrum of a tensor product
coincides with the product of the spectra of the factors,
σ(T ⊗ S) = σ(T ) · σ(S).
For the Weyl spectrum it was proved in [57] that the inclusion
σw (T ⊗ S) ⊆ σw (T ) · σ(S) ∪ σ(T ) · σw (S)
holds. However, it remained an open question whether the preceding inclusion

might be an identity; that is, it was not known if there existed a pair of
operators T and S for which the above inclusion was proper. This question
was solved quite recently, as we shall see later. Sufficient conditions ensuring
that the equality holds were investigated in [67]. For instance, if
σe (T )\{0} = σw (T )\{0} and σe (S)\{0} = σw (S)\{0}
(which holds, in particular, for compact operators T and S), or if
σw (T ⊗ S) = σb (T ⊗ S)
(the tensor product satisfies Browder’s Theorem), then [67, Proposition 6]
σw (T ⊗ S) = σw (T ) · σ(S) ∪ σ(T ) · σw (S).
Again, Weyl’s Theorem does not necessarily transfer from T and S to their
tensor product T ⊗ S. The preceding identity involving the Weyl spectrum of
a tensor product, namely, σw (T ⊗ S) = σw (T ) · σ(S) ∪ σ(T ) · σw (S), when
it holds, plays a crucial role in establishing sufficient conditions for a tensor
product to satisfy Weyl’s Theorem, as was recently investigated in [84], [67],
and [68]. As for the problem of transferring Browder’s Theorem from T and S
to their tensor product T ⊗ S, the following necessary and sufficient condition
was proved in [67, Corollary 6].
Theorem 5.52. If both operators T and S satisfy Browder’s Theorem, then

the tensor product T ⊗ S satisfies Browder’s Theorem if and only if
σw (T ⊗ S) = σw (T ) · σ(S) ∪ σ(T ) · σw (S).
According to Theorem 5.52, if there exist operators T and S that satisfy

Browder’s Theorem, but T ⊗ S does not satisfy Browder’s Theorem, then
the Weyl spectrum identity, viz., σw (T ⊗ S) = σw (T ) · σ(S) ∪ σ(T ) · σw (S),
does not hold for such a pair of operators. An example of a pair of operators
that satisfy Weyl’s Theorem (and thus satisfy Browder’s Theorem) but whose
tensor product does not satisfy Browder’s Theorem was recently supplied
in [61]. Therefore, [61] and [67] together ensure that there exists a pair of
operators T and S for which the inclusion
σw (T ⊗ S) ⊂ σw (T ) · σ(S) ∪ σ(T ) · σw (S)
is proper; that is, for which the Weyl spectrum identity fails.
Proposition 5.A. F and Fr are open sets in B[H], and so are SF and F.
Proposition 5.B. The mapping ind ( · ): SF → Z is continuous, where the

topology on SF is the topology inherited from B[H], and the topology on Z is
the discrete topology.
Proposition 5.C. Take T ∈ B[H]. The following assertions are equivalent .

(a) T ∈ F .
(b) There exists A ∈ B[H] such that I − AT and I − T A are compact .
(c) There exists A ∈ B[H] such that I − AT and I − T A are finite rank .
Proposition 5.D. Take an operator T in B[H]. If λ ∈ C \σe (T ) ∩ σre (T ),

then there exists an ε > 0 such that dim N (νI − T ) and dim N (νI − T ∗ ) are
constant in the punctured disk Bε (λ)\{0} = {λ ∈ C : 0 < |ν − λ| < ε}.
Proposition 5.E. If T ∈ B[H] is normal, then σe (T ) = σre (T ) = σe (T ) and

σ(T )\σe (T ) = σiso (T ) ∩ σPF (T ) (i.e., σ(T )\σe (T ) = π00 ).
Proposition 5.F. Let D denote the open unit disk centered at the origin of
2
the complex plane, and let T = ∂ D be the unit circle. If S+ ∈ B[+ ] is a unilat-
2 2
eral shift on + = + (C ), then
σe (S+ ) = σre (S+ ) = σe (S+ ) = σC (S+ ) = ∂σ(S+ ) = T ,
and ind(λI − S+ ) = −1 if |λ| < 1 (i.e., if λ ∈ D = σ(S+ )\∂σ(S+ )).
Proposition 5.G. If ∅ = Ω ⊂ C is a compact set, {Λk }k∈Z is a collection

of open sets included in Ω whose nonempty sets are pairwise disjoint, and
Δ ⊆ Ω is a discrete set (i.e., containing only isolated points), then there exists
T ∈ B[H] such that σ(T ) = Ω, σk (T ) = Λk for each k = 0, σ0 (T ) = Λ0 ∪ Δ,
and for each λ ∈ Δ there is a positive integer nλ ∈ N such that dim R(Eλ ) =
nλ (where Eλ is the Riesz idempotent associated with the isolated point λ ∈ Δ).
Recall from Remark 5.27(b,d) that if K ∈ B∞[H] is compact, then either
σw (K) = ∅ if dim H < ∞, or σw (K) = {0} if dim H = ∞. The next result says
that, on an infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert space, every compact oper-
ator is a commutator. (An operator T is a commutator if there are operators
A and B such that T = AB − BA.)
Proposition 5.H. If T ∈ B[H] is an operator on an infinite-dimensional

separable Hilbert space H, then
0 ∈ σw (T ) =⇒ T is a commutator.
Proposition 5.I. Take any operator T in B[H].

(a) If dim N (T ) < ∞ or dim N (T ∗ ) < ∞, then
(a1 ) asc(T ) < ∞ =⇒ dim N (T ) ≤ dim N (T ∗ ),
(a2 ) dsc(T ) < ∞ =⇒ dim N (T ∗ ) ≤ dim N (T ).
(b) If dim N (T ) = dim N (T ∗ ) < ∞, then asc(T ) < ∞ ⇐⇒ dsc(T ) < ∞.
Proposition 5.J. Suppose T ∈ B[H] is a Fredholm operator.

(a) If asc(T ) < ∞ and dsc(T ) < ∞, then ind(T ) = 0.
(b) If ind (T ) = 0, then asc(T ) < ∞ if and only if dsc(T ) < ∞.
Therefore,

B ⊆ W ⊆ T ∈ W : asc(T ) < ∞ ⇐⇒ dsc(T ) < ∞ ,

W \ B = T ∈ W : asc(T ) = dsc(T ) = ∞ .
The next result is an extension of the Fredholm Alternative of Remark

5.7(b), and also of the ultimate form of it in Remark 5.27(c).
Proposition 5.K. Take any compact operator K in B∞[H].

(a) If λ = 0, then λI − K ∈ B.
(b) σ(K)\{0} = π0 (K)\{0} = σiso (K)\{0}.
Proposition 5.L. Take T ∈ B[H]. If σw (T ) is simply connected (so it has

no holes), then T + K satisfies Browder’s Theorem for every K ∈ B∞[H].
Notes: Propositions 5.A to 5.C are standard results on Fredholm and semi-
Fredholm operators. For instance, see [75, Proposition 1.25] or [27, Proposi-
tion XI.2.6] for Proposition 5.A, and [75, Proposition 1.17] or [27, Proposition
XI.3.13] for Proposition 5.B. For Proposition 5.C, see [6, Remark 3.3.3] or
[50, Problem 181]. The locally constant dimension of kernels is considered in
Proposition 5.D (see, e.g., [27, Theorem XI.6.7]), and a finer analysis of the
spectra of normal operators and of unilateral shifts is discussed in Propositions
5.E and 5.F (see, e.g., [27, Proposition XI.4.6] and [27, Example XI.4.10]). Ev-
ery spectral picture is attainable [25]. This is described in Proposition 5.G —
see [27, Proposition XI.6.13]. For Proposition 5.H, see [16, §7]. The results of
Proposition 5.I are from [23, p. 57] (also see [32]), and Proposition 5.J is an
immediate consequence of Proposition 5.I. Regarding the Fredholm Alterna-
tive version of Proposition 5.K, for item (a) see [74, Theorem 1.4.6]; item (b)
follows from Corollary 5.35, which goes back to Corollary 2.20. The compact
perturbation result of Proposition 5.L is from [9, Theorem 11].
Suggested Reading
Aiena [2] Istrǎţescu [58]

Arveson [6] Kato [60]
Barnes, Murphy, Smyth, and West [10] Müller [73]
Caradus, Pfaffenberger, and Yood [23] Murphy [74]
Conway [27, 29] Pearcy [75]
Douglas [34] Schechter [82]
Halmos [50] Sunder [85]
Harte [52] Taylor and Lay [87]
References
1. L.V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978.
2. P. Aiena, Fredholm and Local Spectral Theory, with Applications to Multipliers,
Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2004.
3. N.I. Akhiezer and I.M. Glazman, Theory of Linear Operators in Hilbert Space –
Volume I , Pitman, London, 1981; reprinted: Dover, New York, 1993.
4. N.I. Akhiezer and I.M. Glazman, Theory of Linear Operators in Hilbert Space –
Volume II , Pitman, London, 1981; reprinted: Dover, New York, 1993.
5. W. Arveson, An Invitation to C*-Algebras, Springer, New York, 1976.
6. W. Arveson, A Short Course in Spectral Theory, Springer, New York, 2002.
7. F.V. Atkinson, The normal solvability of linear equations in normed spaces, Mat.
Sbornik 28 (1951), 3–14.
8. G. Bachman and L. Narici, Functional Analysis, Academic Press, New York,
1966; reprinted: Dover, Mineola, 2000.
9. B.A. Barnes, Riesz points and Weyl’s theorem, Integral Equations Operator The-
ory 34 (1999), 187–196.
10. B.A. Barnes, G.J. Murphy, M.R.F. Smyth, and T.T. West, Riesz and Fredholm
Theory in Banach Algebras, Pitman, London, 1982.
11. R.G. Bartle, The Elements of Integration and Lebesgue Measure, Wiley, New
York, 1995; enlarged 2nd edn. of The Elements of Integration, Wiley, New York,
1966.
12. R. Beals, Topics in Operator Theory, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
1971.
13. R. Beals, Advanced Mathematical Analysis, Springer, New York, 1973.
14. S.K. Berberian, Notes on Spectral Theory, Van Nostrand, New York, 1966.
15. S.K. Berberian, An extension of Weyl’s theorem to a class of not necessarily
normal operators, Michigan Math. J. 16 (1969), 273–279.

DOI 10.1007/978-0-8176-8328-3, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
188 References
16. S.K. Berberian, The Weyl spectrum of an operator , Indiana Univ. Math. J. 20
(1971), 529–544.
17. S.K. Berberian, Lectures in Functional Analysis and Operator Theory, Springer,
New York, 1974.
18. S.K. Berberian, Introduction to Hilbert Space, 2nd edn. Chelsea, New York, 1976.
19. J. Bram, Subnormal operators, Duke Math. J. 22 (1955), 75–94.
20. A. Brown and C. Pearcy, Spectra of tensor products of operators, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 17 (1966), 162–166.
21. A. Brown and C. Pearcy, Introduction to Operator Theory I – Elements of Func-
tional Analysis, Springer, New York, 1977.
22. A. Brown and C. Pearcy, An Introduction to Analysis, Springer, New York, 1995.
23. S.R. Caradus, W.E. Pfaffenberger, and B. Yood, Calkin Algebras and Algebras of
Operators on Banach Spaces, Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics,
Vol. 9. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1974.
24. L.A. Coburn, Weyl’s theorem for nonnormal operators, Michigan Math. J. 13
(1966), 285–288.
25. J.B. Conway, Every spectral picture is possible, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 24
(1977), A-431.
26. J.B. Conway, Functions of One Complex Variable, Springer, New York, 1978.
27. J.B. Conway, A Course in Functional Analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, New York,
1990.
28. J.B. Conway, The Theory of Subnormal Operators, Mathematical Surveys and
Monographs, Vol. 36, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1991.
29. J.B. Conway, A Course in Operator Theory, Graduate Studies in Mathematics,
Vol. 21, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 2000.
30. K.R. Davidson, C*-Algebras by Example, Fields Institute Monographs, Vol. 6,
Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1996.
31. J. Dieudonné, Foundations of Modern Analysis, Academic Press, New York,
1969.
32. D.S. Djordjević, Semi-Browder essential spectra of quasisimilar operators, Novi
Sad J. Math. 31 (2001), 115–123.
33. R.G. Douglas, On majorization, factorization, and range inclusion of operators
on Hilbert space, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 17 (1966), 413–415.
34. R.G. Douglas, Banach Algebra Techniques in Operator Theory, Academic Press,
New York, 1972; 2nd edn. Springer, New York, 1998.
35. H.R. Dowson, Spectral Theory of Linear Operators, Academic Press, New York,
1978.
36. B.P. Duggal and S.V. Djordjević, Generalized Weyl’s theorem for a class of op-
erators satisfying a norm condition, Math. Proc. Royal Irish Acad. 104 (2004),
75–81.
References 189
37. B.P. Duggal, S.V. Djordjević, and C.S. Kubrusly, Hereditarily normaloid con-
tractions, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 71 (2005), 337–352.
38. B.P. Duggal and C.S. Kubrusly, Weyl’s theorem for direct sums, Studia Sci.
Math. Hungar. 44 (2007), 275–290.
39. N. Dunford and J.T. Schwartz, Linear Operators – Part I: General Theory,
Interscience, New York, 1958.
40. N. Dunford and J.T. Schwartz, Linear Operators – Part II: Spectral Theory –
Self Adjoint Operators in Hilbert Space, Interscience, New York, 1963.
41. N. Dunford and J.T. Schwartz, Linear Operators – Part III: Spectral Operators,
Interscience, New York, 1971.
42. P.A. Fillmore, Notes on Operator Theory, Van Nostrand, New York, 1970.
43. P.A. Fillmore, A User’s Guide to Operator Algebras, Wiley, New York, 1996.
44. K. Gustafson, Necessary and sufficient conditions for Weyl’s theorem, Michigan
Math. J. 19 (1972), 71–81.
45. K. Gustafson and D.K.M. Rao, Numerical Range, Springer, New York, 1997.
46. P.R. Halmos, Measure Theory, Van Nostrand, New York, 1950; reprinted:
Springer, New York, 1974.
47. P.R. Halmos, Introduction to Hilbert Space and the Theory of Spectral Multi-
plicity, 2nd edn. Chelsea, New York, 1957; reprinted: AMS Chelsea, Providence,
1998.
48. P.R. Halmos, Finite-Dimensional Vector Spaces, Van Nostrand, New York, 1958;
reprinted: Springer, New York, 1974.
49. P.R. Halmos, Shifts on Hilbert spaces, J. Reine Angew. Math. 208 (1961), 102–
112.
50. P.R. Halmos, A Hilbert Space Problem Book , Van Nostrand, New York, 1967;
2nd edn. Springer, New York, 1982.
51. P.R. Halmos and V.S. Sunder, Bounded Integral Operators on L2 Spaces,
Springer, Berlin, 1978.
52. R. Harte, Invertibility and Singularity for Bounded Linear Operators, Marcel
Dekker, New York, 1988.
53. R. Harte and W.Y. Lee, Another note on Weyl’s theorem, Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 349 (1997), 2115–2124.
54. G. Helmberg, Introduction to Spectral Theory in Hilbert Space, North-Holland,
Amsterdam, 1969.
55. D. Herrero, Approximation of Hilbert Space Operators – Volume 1 , 2nd edn.
Longman, Harlow, 1989.
56. E. Hille and R.S. Phillips, Functional Analysis and Semi-Groups, Colloquium
Publications Vol. 31, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1957; reprinted: 1974.
190 References
57. T. Ichinose, Spectral properties of linear operators I , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
235 (1978), 75–113.
58. V.I. Istrǎţescu, Introduction to Linear Operator Theory, Marcel Dekker, New
York, 1981.
59. M.A. Kaashoek and D.C. Lay, Ascent, descent, and commuting perturbations,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 169 (1972), 35–47.
60. T. Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin,
1980; reprinted: 1995.
61. D. Kitson, R. Harte, and C. Hernandez, Weyl’s theorem and tensor products: a
counterexample, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 378 (2011), 128–132.
62. C.S. Kubrusly, An Introduction to Models and Decompositions in Operator The-
ory, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1997.
63. C.S. Kubrusly, Hilbert Space Operators, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2003.
64. C.S. Kubrusly, A concise introduction to tensor product, Far East J. Math. Sci.
22 (2006), 137–174.
65. C.S. Kubrusly, Measure Theory, Academic Press/Elsevier, San Diego, 2007.
66. C.S. Kubrusly, The Elements of Operator Theory, Birkhäuser/Springer, New
York, 2011; enlarged 2nd edn. of Elements of Operator Theory, Birkhäuser,
Boston, 2001.
67. C.S. Kubrusly and B.P. Duggal, On Weyl and Browder spectra of tensor products,
Glasgow Math. J. 50 (2008), 289–302.
68. C.S. Kubrusly and B.P. Duggal, On Weyl’s theorem of tensor products, to appear.
69. D.C. Lay, Characterizations of the essential spectrum of F.E. Browder , Bull.
Amer. Math. Soc. 74 (1968), 246–248.
70. W.Y. Lee, Weyl’s theorem for operator matrices, Integral Equations Operator
Theory 32 (1998), 319–331.
71. W.Y. Lee, Weyl spectrum of operator matrices, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 129
(2001), 131–138.
72. J. Lindenstrauss and L. Tzafriri, On the complemented subspaces problem, Israel
J. Math. 9 (1971), 263–269.
73. V. Müller, Spectral Theory of Linear Operators: and Spectral Systems in Banach
Algebras, 2nd edn. Birkhäuser, Basel, 2007.
74. G. Murphy, C*-Algebras and Operator Theory, Academic Press, San Diego, 1990.
75. C.M. Pearcy, Some Recent Developments in Operator Theory, CBMS Regional
Conference Series in Mathematics No. 36, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1978.
76. H. Radjavi and P. Rosenthal, Invariant Subspaces, Springer, Berlin, 1973; 2nd
edn. Dover, New York, 2003.
77. F. Riesz and B. Sz.-Nagy, Functional Analysis, Frederick Ungar, New York, 1955;
reprinted: Dover, New York, 1990.
References 191
78. H.L. Royden, Real Analysis, 3rd edn. Macmillan, New York, 1988.
79. W. Rudin, Real and Complex Analysis, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1987.
80. W. Rudin, Functional Analysis, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991.
81. M. Schechter, On the essential spectrum of an arbitrary operator. I , J. Math.
Anal. Appl. 13 (1966), 205–215.
82. M. Schechter, Principles of Functional Analysis, Academic Press, New York,
1971; 2nd edn. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 36, Amer. Math. Soc.,
Providence, 2002.
83. J. Schwartz, Some results on the spectra and spectral resolutions of a class of
singular operators, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 15 (1962), 75–90.
84. Y.-M. Song and A.-H. Kim, Weyl’s theorem for tensor products, Glasgow Math.
J. 46 (2004), 301–304.
85. V.S. Sunder, Functional Analysis – Spectral Theory, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1998.
86. B. Sz.-Nagy, C. Foiaş, H. Bercovici, and L. Kérchy, Harmonic Analysis of Opera-
tors on Hilbert Space, Springer, New York, 2010; enlarged 2nd edn. of B. Sz.-Nagy
and C. Foiaş, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1970.
87. A.E. Taylor and D.C. Lay, Introduction to Functional Analysis, Wiley, New York,
1980; reprinted: Krieger, Melbourne, 1986; enlarged 2nd edn. of A.E. Taylor,
Wiley, New York, 1958.
88. A. Uchiyama, On the isolated points of the spectrum of paranormal operators,
Integral Equations Operator Theory 55 (2006), 145–151.
89. J. Weidmann, Linear Operators in Hilbert Spaces, Springer, New York, 1980.
90. H. Weyl, Über beschränkte quadratische Formen, deren Differenz vollstetig ist,
Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 27 (1909), 373–392.
Index
absolutely continuous, 96 bounded below, 1

adjoint, 9 bounded component, 51
algebra homomorphism, 51, 91 bounded inverse, 3
algebra isomorphism, 91 Bounded Inverse Theorem, 3
algebra with identity, 91 bounded linear transformation, 1
algebraic complements, 3, 166 bounded measurable function, 65, 95
algebraic multiplicity, 129, 157 bounded sequence, 2
analytic function, 29 bounded variation, 103
analytic function on neighborhoods, 110 Browder operator, 165
analytic function on spectra, 110, 111 Browder spectrum, 170
approximate eigenvalue, 32 Browder’s Theorem, 173, 179
approximate point spectrum, 32
approximation spectrum, 32 Calkin algebra, 143
arc, 103 Calkin spectrum, 144
ascent of an operator, 163 canonical bilateral shift, 49
Atkinson Theorem, 145 canonical orthonormal basis, 85
Axiom of Choice, 31, 74 canonical unilateral shift, 49
Cartesian decomposition, 24, 93
backward bilateral shift, 49 Cartesian Decomposition Theorem, 25
backward unilateral shift, 49 Cauchy domain, 106
Banach algebra, 91 Cauchy Integral Formula, 107
Banach–Steinhaus Theorem, 2, 41 Cauchy Theorem, 109
bilateral shift, 49 clockwise oriented curve, 106
bilateral weighted shift, 50 clopen set, 115
Bolzano–Weierstrass Property, 57 closed curve, 103
Borel measure, 64 closed region, 105
Borel sets, 64 cohyponormal operator, 12
Borel σ-algebra, 64 coisometry, 14

DOI 10.1007/978-0-8176-8328-3, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
194 Index
commutant, 126, 175 eigenvector, 30

commutator, 185 entire function, 29
commuting operators, 12, 51, 80–83, equivalent measures, 96
101, 114, 116 equivalent operators, 23
compact linear transformation, 18 essential range, 86
compact operator, 18 essential singularity, 127
compact perturbation, 147, 152, 157, essential spectrum, 144
177, 185 essentially bounded functions, 85, 95
compact set, 17 essentially invertible, 145
Compactness Theorem, 17 extension by continuity, 25
complementary linear manifolds, 3, 166
complementary projection, 7 finite algebraic multiplicity, 129, 157
complementary spectral sets, 122 finite geometric multiplicity, 129, 157
complementary subspaces, 3, 166 finite measure, 64
complemented Banach space, 134 finite-rank operators, 45
completely continuous, 18 finite-rank transformation, 24
completely normal, 88 Fourier series expansion, 84, 85
complex algebra, 91 Fredholm Alternative, 21, 44, 135, 136,
component of a set, 51, 105, 147 140, 152, 161, 185
compression spectrum, 32 Fredholm index, 134
connected, 105 Fredholm operator, 131–133
continuous linear transformation, 1 Fredholm spectrum, 145
continuous spectrum, 30 Fuglede Theorem, 80
continuously differentiable, 103, 104 Fuglede–Putnam Theorem, 84
contraction, 2 full spectrum, 52, 87
counterclockwise oriented curve, 106 functional calculus, 91, 94, 100
C*-algebra, 92 Functional Calculus Theorems, 95, 97,
curve, 103 99, 100, 111
cyclic operator, 73, 74
cyclic vector, 73, 74 Gelfand–Beurling formula, 38, 51, 93
geometric multiplicity, 129, 157
densely intertwined, 23
derivative, 29 Hahn–Banach Theorem, 29, 30, 109
descent of an operator, 163 Heine–Borel Theorem, 18
diagonal operator, 85 Hermitian element, 92
diagonalizable operator, 49, 61, 62, 84, Hermitian operator, 11
85, 88 hole, 51, 147, 151, 153
direct sum of operators, 7, 182 holomorphic function, 29
direct sum of spaces, 3, 6, 7 homomorphism, 51, 91
direct summand, 181 hyperinvariant subspace, 23, 81, 121
directed pair, 103 hyponormal operator, 12
disconnected, 105, 115
domain, 105 idempotent function, 7
dominant operator, 181 index stability, 139
double commutant, 126 inside of a path, 106
Double Commutant Theorem, 126 integral over a curve, 105
intertwine, 23, 87
eigenspace, 16, 30 invariant linear manifold, 2
eigenvalue, 30 invariant subspace, 2, 81, 181
Index 195
Inverse Mapping Theorem, 3 nontrivial projection, 81

invertible element, 91, 141 nontrivial subspace, 2, 81
involution, 91 normal eigenvalues, 157
involutive algebra, 92 normal element, 92
irreducible operator, 11 normal operator, 12, 141, 162, 184
isolated eigenvalues, 157 normaloid operator, 15, 43
isolated points of spectra, 154–157 normed algebra, 91
isolated singularity, 127 nowhere dense, 88
isoloid operator, 181 null space, 2
isometric isomorphism, 94 numerical radius, 42
isometrically isomorphic algebras, 94 numerical range, 41
isometry, 14
isomorphic algebras, 91 open mapping, 3
Open Mapping Theorem, 3
Jordan closed region, 106 operator, 1
Jordan curve, 103 operator norm property, 1
Jordan Curve Theorem, 106 opposite oriented curve, 105
Jordan domain, 107 ordinary sum of subspaces, 3
oriented curve, 103
kernel, 2 orthogonal complement, 5
orthogonal complementary subspaces, 6
Laurent expansion, 38, 127 orthogonal direct sum, 5
Laventriev Theorem, 76 orthogonal direct sum of operators, 7
left essential spectrum, 144 orthogonal direct sum of subspaces, 5, 7
left inverse, 141 orthogonal family of projections, 8
left semi-Fredholm operator, 131, 132 orthogonal projection, 8, 13
left spectrum, 142 orthogonal projection on M, 9
length of a curve, 103 orthogonal sequence of projections, 8
linear span, 6 orthogonal sets, 5
Liouville Theorem, 29 Orthogonal Structure Theorem, 6, 8
logarithmic additivity, 136 orthogonal subspaces, 5
orthogonal vectors, 5
measurable set, 64 outside of a path, 106
multiplication operator, 67, 85, 86
multiplicity of a point in an arc, 103 parallelogram law, 22, 43
multiplicity of a shift, 49 parameterization, 103
multiplicity of an arc, 103 paranormal operator, 182
multiplicity of eigenvalue, 30, 60, 129 part of an operator, 181
mutually orthogonal projections, 8 partial isometry, 24
partition of an interval, 103
natural map, 143 path, 106
natural quotient map, 143 path about a set, 110
negatively oriented curve, 106 piecewise continuously differentiable, 104
negatively oriented path, 106 piecewise smooth curve, 104
Neumann expansion, 4 piecewise smooth function, 104
nilpotent operator, 38 point spectrum, 30
nonnegative measure, 64 polar decomposition, 24
nonnegative operator, 12 Polar Decomposition Theorem, 25
nonscalar operator, 81 polarization identity, 21, 42, 77
196 Index
pole, 127 Schechter Theorem, 159

positive measure, 64 self-adjoint element, 92
positive operator, 12 self-adjoint operator, 11
positively oriented curve, 106 semi-Fredholm operator, 131–133
positively oriented path, 106 seminormal operator, 12
power bounded operator, 38 separating vector, 98
power inequality, 42 sequentially compact set, 17
power series, 4, 38, 95, 112 σ-finite measure, 64
power set, 64 similar operators, 23, 88
projection, 7 similarity to a strict contraction, 49
Projection Theorem, 6, 8 simple curve, 103
proper contraction, 2 simple function, 128
pseudohole, 147, 151, 153 singularity, 127
Pythagorean Theorem, 8, 56 smooth curve, 104
smooth function, 103
quasiaffine transform, 23 span of a set, 6
quasiaffinity, 23 spectral decomposition, 59, 79
quasiinvertible transformation, 23 Spectral Mapping for polynomials, 35, 37
quasinilpotent operator, 38 Spectral Mapping Theorems, 35, 37,
quasisimilar operators, 23 101, 102, 114
spectral measure, 64, 128
Radon–Nikodým derivative, 67, 102 spectral operator, 128
range, 2 spectral partition, 31
rectifiable curve, 103 spectral picture, 152
reducible operator, 11, 81 spectral radius, 38, 91
reducing subspace, 11, 81, 181 spectral set, 115
reductive operator, 11, 88 Spectral Theorem: compact case, 58
region, 105 Spectral Theorem: general case, 67, 76
residual spectrum, 30 spectraloid operator, 43, 49
resolution of the identity, 8 spectrum, 27, 91
resolvent function, 28 square-integrable functions, 85
resolvent identity, 28 square root, 23
resolvent set, 27 Square Root Theorem, 25
reverse oriented curve, 105 square-summable family, 6
Riemann–Stieltjes integral, 104 stability, 40
Riesz Decomposition Theorem, 121 ∗-algebra, 91
Riesz Functional Calculus, 111 star-cyclic operator, 73, 74
Riesz idempotent, 116, 154 star-cyclic vector, 67, 73, 74
Riesz point, 155, 156 ∗-homomorphism, 92
Riesz Representation Theorems, 65, 69 ∗-isomorphism, 92
right essential spectrum, 144 Stone–Weierstrass Theorem, 68, 76,
right inverse, 141 77, 100
right semi-Fredholm operator, 131, 132 strict contraction, 2
right spectrum, 142 strictly positive operator, 12
Rosenblum Corollary, 52 strong convergence, 2
strongly stable operator, 40
scalar operator, 16, 81 subspace, 2
scalar spectral measure, 97 summable family, 6
scalar type operator, 128 support of a measure, 64, 86
Index 197
tensor product of operators, 183 unitary operator, 14

topological sum of subspaces, 6 unitary transformation, 14, 23
total variation, 103
totally bounded set, 17 von Neumann algebra, 126
totally hereditarily normaloid, 182
weak convergence, 2
uniform convergence, 2 weakly stable operator, 40
uniform stability, 40 Weierstrass Approximation Theorem, 76
uniformly stable operator, 40, 49 Weierstrass Theorem, 29
unilateral shift, 49, 184 weighted sum of projections, 9
unilateral weighted shift, 50 Weyl operator, 140
unital algebra, 1, 91 Weyl spectrum, 157
unital complex Banach algebra, 2, 27, Weyl spectrum identity, 183
51, 91, 174 Weyl’s Theorem, 162, 178–182
unital homomorphism, 91, 143 winding number, 106
unitarily equivalent operators, 23, 85
unitary element, 92 Zorn’s Lemma, 37, 71, 177

Carlos S. Kubrusly (Auth.) - Spectral Theory of Operators On Hilbert Spaces-Birkhäuser Basel (2012) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carlos S. Kubrusly (Auth.) - Spectral Theory of Operators On Hilbert Spaces-Birkhäuser Basel (2012) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carlos S.

Spectral Theory of Operators

ISBN 978-0-8176-8327-6 e-ISBN 978-0-8176-8328-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012939729

Mathematics Subject Classiﬁcation (2010): 47-XX. 47Axx

 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media

This work is an introduction to the spectral theory of Hilbert space operators.

on Fredholm theory and compact perturbations of the spectrum, where a ﬁner

Rio de Janeiro, March 2012 Carlos S. Kubrusly

5 Fredholm Theory 131

1.1 Notation and Terminology

C.S. Kubrusly, Spectral Theory of Operators on Hilbert Spaces, 1

T  < 1 =⇒ T x < x for every 0 = x ∈ X =⇒ T  ≤ 1.

If T satisﬁes the middle inequality, then it is called a proper contraction.

(the last implication is a consequence of the Banach–Steinhaus Theorem).

which is a linear manifold of X . The range of T is the image of X under T,

which is a linear manifold of Y. If X and Y are normed spaces and T lies

If M and N are linear manifolds of a linear space X , then the ordinary

1.2 Inverse Theorems

Theorem 1.1. (Inverse Mapping Theorem). If X and Y are Banach spaces

Thus an injective and surjective bounded linear transformation between

Theorem 1.2. (Bounded Inverse Theorem). Let X and Y be Banach spaces

Theorem 1.3. (Neumann Expansion). If T ∈ B[X ] is an operator on a Banach

Proof. Take an arbitrary operator

Now it is also readily veriﬁed by induction that, for every n ≥ 0,

Remark. Observe that, under the hypothesis of Theorem 1.3,

1.3 Orthogonal Structure

which is a subspace (i.e., a closed linear manifold) of X , and therefore A⊥ =

of X . In this case, M + N ∼= M ⊕ N : ordinary and direct sums of orthogonal

A pivotal result of Hilbert space theory is the Orthogonal Structure

1.4 Orthogonal Projections

R(E) = N (I − E) and N (E) = R(I − E).

The range of a projection is the set of all its ﬁxed points,

which forms with the kernel a pair of algebraic complements,

R(E) + N (E) = X and R(E) ∩ N (E) = {0}.

An orthogonal projection E : X → X on an inner product space X is a

If {Ek }nk=0 is a ﬁnite

projection E ∈ B[H] such that R(E) = M, which is referred to as the orthogo-

Conversely, if {M γ }γ∈Γ is a family of pairwise orthogonal subspaces of H

The mapping T : D(T ) → H, deﬁned by

1.5 Adjoint Operator

T x ; y = x ; T ∗ y for every x ∈ H and y ∈ K.

In fact, T ∗ ∈ B[K, H] (i.e., T ∗ is bounded and linear), T ∗∗ = T , and

Moreover, if Z is a Hilbert space and S ∈ B[K, Z], then S T ∈ B[H, Z] is such

Lemma 1.4. For every T ∈ B[H, K],

N (T ) = R(T ∗ )⊥ = N (T ∗ T ) and R(T )− = N (T ∗ )⊥ = R(T T ∗ )− .

Proof. x ∈ R(T ∗ )⊥ if and only if x ; T ∗ y = 0 or, equivalently, T x ; y = 0,

Since T x2 = T x ; T x = T ∗ T x ; x for every x in H, it follows that

R(T )− = R(T ∗∗ )⊥⊥ = N (T ∗ )⊥ = N (T ∗∗ T ∗ )⊥

because M⊥⊥ = M− for every linear manifold M and T ∗∗ = T .

Lemma 1.5. R(T ) is closed in K if and only if R(T ∗ ) is closed in H.

R(T⊥ ) = R(T ) and N (T⊥ ) = {0}.

for every y ∈ R(T ). Thus, for an arbitrary x ∈ H, so that x = u + v with

Hence x ; T ∗ zw − w = 0 for every x ∈ H, which means that T ∗ zw = w. Thus

R(T ) = R(T )− if and only if R(T ∗ ) = R(T ∗ )− .

Let T ∈ B[H] be an operator on a Hilbert space H and let M be a subspace

Lemma 1.6. Take an operator T on a Hilbert space H. A subspace M of H

An operator T ∈ B[H] on a Hilbert space H is self-adjoint (or Hermitian) if

T ∈ B[H] is self-adjoint, then T = O if and only if T x ; x = 0 for all x ∈ H.

1.6 Normal Operators

Theorem 1.7. T ∈ B[H] is hyponormal if and only if T ∗ x ≤ T x for

T < 1 =⇒ T x < x for every 0 = x ∈ X =⇒ T ≤ 1.

Conversely, if {M γ }γ∈Γ is a family of pairwise orthogonal subspaces of H

Since T x2 = T x ; T x = T ∗ T x ; x for every x in H, it follows that

Theorem 1.7. T ∈ B[H] is hyponormal if and only if T ∗ x ≤ T x for

Conversely, if E is normal, then E ∗ x = Ex for every x in H (Theorem

If O = E = E ∗ , then E2 = E ∗ E = E 2 = E = 0, and so E = 1:

T n = T mpn+qn = T mpn T qn ≤ T mpnT qn ≤ T mpn T qn.

Now suppose T = 0 to avoid trivialities, set μ = max 0≤k≤m−1 {T k } = 0,

0 ≤ r(T )n = r(T n ) ≤ T n ≤ T n.

An operator T ∈ B[X ] on a normed space X is normaloid if r(T ) = T . Here

Theorem 1.11. r(T ) = T if and only if T n = T n for every n ≥ 1.

T nx2 = T n x ; T n x = T ∗ T n x ; T n−1 x ≤ T ∗ T n xT n−1 x

T ∗T n xT n−1x ≤ T n+1 xT n−1 x ≤ T n+1 T n−1 x2

T nx2 ≤ T n+1 T n−1 x2 ,

Therefore, as T n ≤ T n for every n ≥ 1, and since T = O,

T n+1 = T 2n(T n−1 )−1 ≤ T n+1 ≤ T n+1.

Since T ∗n = T n for each n ≥ 1, it follows that r(T ∗ ) = r(T ). Thus an

(λI − T ∗ )x ≤ (λI − T )x for every x ∈ H and every λ ∈ C

(Parallelogram Law). If X is an inner product space and · is the norm