Invariant subspace problem explained

In the field of mathematics known as functional analysis, the invariant subspace problem is a partially unresolved problem asking whether every bounded operator on a complex Banach space sends some non-trivial closed subspace to itself. Many variants of the problem have been solved, by restricting the class of bounded operators considered or by specifying a particular class of Banach spaces. The problem is still open for separable Hilbert spaces (in other words, each example, found so far, of an operator with no non-trivial invariant subspaces is an operator that acts on a Banach space that is not isomorphic to a separable Hilbert space).

History

The problem seems to have been stated in the mid-20th century after work by Beurling and von Neumann,[1] who found (but never published) a positive solution for the case of compact operators. It was then posed by Paul Halmos for the case of operators

T

such that

T2

is compact. This was resolved affirmatively, for the more general class of polynomially compact operators (operators

T

such that

p(T)

is a compact operator for a suitably chosen non-zero polynomial

p

), by Allen R. Bernstein and Abraham Robinson in 1966 (see for a summary of the proof).

For Banach spaces, the first example of an operator without an invariant subspace was constructed by Per Enflo. He proposed a counterexample to the invariant subspace problem in 1975, publishing an outline in 1976. Enflo submitted the full article in 1981 and the article's complexity and length delayed its publication to 1987[2] Enflo's long "manuscript had a world-wide circulation among mathematicians"[1] and some of its ideas were described in publications besides Enflo (1976).[3] Enflo's works inspired a similar construction of an operator without an invariant subspace for example by Beauzamy, who acknowledged Enflo's ideas.

In the 1990s, Enflo developed a "constructive" approach to the invariant subspace problem on Hilbert spaces.[4]

In May 2023, a preprint of Enflo appeared on arXiv,[5] which, if correct, solves the problem for Hilbert spaces and completes the picture.

In July 2023, a second and independent preprint of Neville appeared on arXiv,[6] claiming the solution of the problem for separable Hilbert spaces.

Precise statement

H

of dimension > 1 is the question whether every bounded linear operator

T:H\toH

has a non-trivial closed

T

-invariant subspace
: a closed linear subspace

W

of

H

, which is different from

\{0\}

and from

H

, such that

T(W)\subsetW

.

T

. If

x

is an element of the Banach space

H

, the orbit of

x

under the action of

T

, denoted by

[x]

, is the subspace generated by the sequence

\{Tn(x):n\ge0\}

. This is also called the

T

-cyclic subspace
generated by

x

. From the definition it follows that

[x]

is a

T

-invariant subspace. Moreover, it is the minimal

T

-invariant subspace containing

x

: if

W

is another invariant subspace containing

x

, then necessarily

Tn(x)\inW

for all

n\ge0

(since

W

is

T

-invariant), and so

[x]\subsetW

. If

x

is non-zero, then

[x]

is not equal to

\{0\}

, so its closure is either the whole space

H

(in which case

x

is said to be a cyclic vector for

T

) or it is a non-trivial

T

-invariant subspace. Therefore, a counterexample to the invariant subspace problem would be a Banach space

H

and a bounded operator

T:H\toH

for which every non-zero vector

x\inH

is a cyclic vector for

T

. (Where a "cyclic vector"

x

for an operator

T

on a Banach space

H

means one for which the orbit

[x]

of

x

is dense in

H

.)

Known special cases

While the case of the invariant subspace problem for separable Hilbert spaces is still open, several other cases have been settled for topological vector spaces (over the field of complex numbers):

H

is not separable (i.e. if it has an uncountable orthonormal basis). In fact, if

x

is a non-zero vector in

H

, the norm closure of the linear orbit

[x]

is separable (by construction) and hence a proper subspace and also invariant.

T

on a Hilbert space is polynomially compact (in other words

p(T)

is compact for some non-zero polynomial

p

) then

T

has an invariant subspace. Their proof uses the original idea of embedding the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space in a hyperfinite-dimensional Hilbert space (see Non-standard analysis#Invariant subspace problem).

T

on a Banach space commutes with a non-zero compact operator then

T

has a non-trivial invariant subspace. This includes the case of polynomially compact operators because an operator commutes with any polynomial in itself. More generally, he showed that if

S

commutes with a non-scalar operator

T

that commutes with a non-zero compact operator, then

S

has an invariant subspace.[8]

l1

with no invariant subspaces.

l1

without even a non-trivial closed invariant subset, that is that for every vector

x

the set

\{Tn(x):n\ge0\}

is dense, in which case the vector is called hypercyclic (the difference with the case of cyclic vectors is that we are not taking the subspace generated by the points

\{Tn(x):n\ge0\}

in this case).

Notes and References

  1. .
  2. .
  3. See, for example, .
  4. Page 401 in Foiaş. Ciprian. Jung. Il Bong. Ko. Eungil. Pearcy. Carl . On quasinilpotent operators. III . Journal of Operator Theory . 54. 2005. 2. 401–414. . Enflo's method of ("forward") "minimal vectors" is also noted in the review of this research article by Gilles Cassier in Mathematical Reviews:
  5. Enflo . Per H. . May 26, 2023 . On the invariant subspace problem in Hilbert spaces . math.FA . 2305.15442 .
  6. Neville . Charles W. . July 21, 2023 . a proof of the invariant subspace conjecture for separable Hilbert spaces . math.FA . 2307.08176 .
  7. Von Neumann's proof was never published, as relayed in a private communication to the authors of . A version of that proof, independently discovered by Aronszajn, is included at the end of that paper.
  8. See for a review.