47

The invariant subspace problem (ISP) for Hilbert spaces asks whether every bounded linear operator $A$ on $l^2$ (with complex scalars) must have a closed invariant subspace other than $\{0\}$ and $l^2$. A subspace $E$ is invariant for $A$ if $A(E) \subseteq E$.

Some time ago I noticed a reformulation that has a set-theoretic flavor. Let $P$ be the set of all linear operators $A$ from a finite-dimensional subspace of $l^2$ into $l^2$ such that (1) $\|A\| < 1$ and (2) if $E$ is a nonzero subspace of the domain of $A$ then $A(E) \not\subseteq E$. Order $P$ by reverse inclusion and for any unit vectors $v,w \in l^2$ define $$D_{v,w} = \{A \in P: \langle A^nv,w\rangle \neq 0\mbox{ for some $n$ such that $A^nv$ is defined}\}.$$ It is easy to see that each $D_{v,w}$ is dense in $P$. Having a counterexample to the ISP is the same as having a filter of $P$ that meets each $D_{v,w}$.

My question for the set theory experts on MO is simply whether this version of the problem suggests any possible approaches?

Nik Weaver
  • 42,041
  • 24
    Two obvious observations are that the problem is absolute (Shoenfield) and that one can essentially recast your $P$ as a version of Cohen forcing (by using separability of $l^2$ carefully). Both observations seem to be folklore, but I haven't seen any reasonable way of taking advantage of them. I once attended a talk at the analysis seminar at Berkeley where the speaker began by basically describing a version of $P$, and forcing (and $\mathsf{MA}$), and then quickly hitting a wall and not getting anywhere. This was about 12 years ago, and I haven't seen any scenarios building on it since. – Andrés E. Caicedo Jul 09 '13 at 06:08
  • 32
    I suspect I was the speaker at that talk. – Nik Weaver Jul 09 '13 at 06:26
  • Funny. Did you mention at the end a conjecture about $L$ and one about $\mathsf{PFA}$? – Andrés E. Caicedo Jul 09 '13 at 06:28
  • 5
    I don't think so, but based on the timing there's little doubt you're remembering a talk I gave. It was in a little room on the east side of the building, Don Sarason was sitting in the front row, and you were in the back row. – Nik Weaver Jul 09 '13 at 06:32
  • (Not to beat a dead horse, but I also made the observation about absoluteness in that talk.) – Nik Weaver Jul 09 '13 at 06:57
  • 24
    I have nothing intelligible to say about the question, but the comment thread is awesome. – Asaf Karagila Jul 09 '13 at 07:48
  • My set theory is very weak and my knowledge of the ISP fairly limited, so sorry if this is stupid: but could we imagine for a second that the ISP be independent of ZFC, just like CH? – Julien Jul 10 '13 at 01:03
  • @julien: as far as we know it could be independent, but the fact that it's absolute makes this seem unlikely. "Absolute" means it has the same truth-value in every transitive model of ZFC. So if we can't be sure it isn't independent, we can at least be sure that a straightforward forcing argument won't show this. – Nik Weaver Jul 10 '13 at 03:21
  • (*in transitive models with the same ordinals) – Nik Weaver Jul 10 '13 at 03:43
  • 4
    Nic, don't you get an equivalence for the ISP on a Banach space $X$ just by letting your $w$ vary over the norm one linear functionals? If so, it looks unlikely that you can get a purely set theoretic proof of the ISP or its negation since there are Banach spaces on which the ISP is true and others on which it is false. Some special geometry must play a role. – Bill Johnson Jul 10 '13 at 16:57
  • Of course I don't expect a purely set-theoretic solution, Bil. – Nik Weaver Jul 10 '13 at 18:07
  • 2
    @Sébastien: The observation is right, but I don't think the converse holds. Actually, I think it's easy to find a single operator that generates $B(H)$ as a von Neumann algebra. – Nik Weaver Jul 14 '13 at 23:09
  • 2
    @Sébastien: your observation is not trivially wrong (a counterexample to your observation would be a counterexample to the isp), but it is certainly unknown: one of the "recent" important advances on the isp is a result of Haagerup and Schultz proving the isp for a large class of (but not all) operators that generate a finite von Neumann algebra. Your observation is a far-reaching generalization of their result. – Mikael de la Salle Jul 15 '13 at 14:54
  • 1
    @SébastienPalcoux a lot has been done on the ISP, some serious researchers have thought hard about it, and the observations you make sound to me like part of the folklore. – Yemon Choi Jul 15 '13 at 19:22
  • 1
    @YemonChoi, you're right. I have discovered the ISP with this post and I feel it very interesting, so I express an excess of enthusiasm. In my opinion, restrict the discussion to experts is not a good idea, because firstly, a non-expert today could become an expert tomorrow, secondly, a non-expert could get some new ideas. – Sebastien Palcoux Jul 15 '13 at 20:35
  • 1
    @SébastienPalcoux In theory, not in this concrete case. Unfortunately, all you've mentioned is standard and too basic, so no new ideas are going to come from it, and it is off-topic anyway. – Andrés E. Caicedo Jul 15 '13 at 21:11
  • 1
    @SébastienPalcoux "a non-expert today could become an expert tomorrow" - in the case of the ISP, this seems to me to be ${\bf extremely}^{\bf 4}$ unlikely... – Yemon Choi Jul 16 '13 at 02:51
  • 2
    @YemonChoi, I understand the misunderstanding. In my sentence, "tomorrow" didn't designate "one day", but an indefinite future (1 month, 1 year or 10 years...). Obviously any non-expert today, can become (of course, not in one day). I recommend to stop to argue, because it is off-topic. – Sebastien Palcoux Jul 16 '13 at 07:34
  • @NikWeaver: is it allowed to consider only the sets $(D_{e_{n},e_{m}})$ with $(e_{n})$ an orthonormal basis of $l^{2}$ ? – Sebastien Palcoux Jul 17 '13 at 15:13
  • @Sébastien: no, it's not sufficient. Finding a filter that meets countably many dense sets is trivial. – Nik Weaver Jul 17 '13 at 16:39
  • @Nik: so even if we take $D_{v,w}$ with $v,w$ in a countable dense subset $K \subset l^{2}$, as you said, we can trivially find such a filter, but it's not sufficient for ISP. I'm not sure to understand why... Maybe you can add (in your issue) how you build a counterexample of ISP from such a filter, by enlighting why taking $u, w \in K$ is not sufficient. – Sebastien Palcoux Jul 17 '13 at 17:22
  • 6
    @Sébastien: your comments in this thread have not been helpful. – Nik Weaver Jul 17 '13 at 18:19
  • 10
    @Nik: the purpose of my comments is not to be helpful for you or some experts, their purpose is to better understand your approach. Conversely, your explanations could be very helpful for me and some non-experts. Next, when my understanding will be better, maybe I could help you. – Sebastien Palcoux Jul 17 '13 at 19:03

0 Answers0