[Math] Question on the proof of the spectral mapping theorem for polynomials

functional-analysisproof-explanationspectral-theory

Theorem 13.9 in these lecture notes is the polynomial spectral mapping theorem:

Theorem 13.9 For a polynomial $p$ we have $\sigma(p(T)) = p(\sigma(T))$.

My questions:

  1. First direction: Why would $q(T) (p(T) – p(\lambda) I)$ be an inverse for $T – \lambda I$?
    Update: @RobertIsrael said that instead $(p(T) – p(\lambda) I)^{-1} q(T)$ should be $(p(T) – p(\lambda) I)^{-1}$ be?
    According to the lines in the proof above, we have
    $$
    (p(T) – p(\lambda) I)^{-1}
    = ((T – \lambda I) q(T))^{-1}
    \overset{?!}{=} q(T)^{-1} (T – \lambda I)^{-1},
    $$

    but as $\lambda \in \sigma(T)$ by assumption, $(T – \lambda I)^{-1}$ doesn't exist, right?

  2. For the second direction: Why does $x_i \in \sigma(T)$ imply that $p(x_i) – \mu = 0$? I thought that $x_i \in \sigma(T)$ only implies that $T – x_i I$ is not boundedly invertible.
    Since $\mu \in \sigma(p(T))$ we have that $p(T) – \mu I = c \prod_{k = 1}^{n} (T – x_i I)$ is not boundedly invertible but how does that help?

In both statements there seem to be a notion of "a product of operators is not invertible iff all factors aren't invertible", but how can that be true? Consider i.e. shift operators on a sequence spaces such that $ST = I$, i.e. the left and right shift operators, then the above mentioned notion doesn't hold, right?

Best Answer

(1). It should be: "for otherwise $(p(T)-p(\lambda) I)^{-1} q(T)$ would give a bounded inverse for $T - \lambda I$."

(2). $p(x_i) - \mu = 0$ by substituting $x = x_i$ in the equation $p(x) - \mu =c \prod_{i} (x - x_i)$

EDIT: Note that all polynomial functions of $T$ and their inverses (when they exist) commute. Thus from $q(T) r(T) = r(T) q(T)$, if $r(T)^{-1}$ exists we multiply by $r(T)^{-1}$ on both sides to get $r(T)^{-1} q(T) = q(T) r(T)^{-1}$.

The point in (1) is that $p(x) - p(\lambda) = (x -\lambda) q(x)$ means $p(T) - p(\lambda) I = (T - \lambda I) q(T) = q(T) (T - \lambda I)$, and so if $(p(T) - p(\lambda) I)^{-1}$ existed we could multiply the equation by that to get $I = (T - \lambda I) q(T) (p(T) - p(\lambda) I)^{-1} = q(T) (p(T) - p(\lambda) I)^{-1} (T - \lambda I)$, i.e. $q(T) (p(T) - p(\lambda)I)^{-1}$ is an inverse for $T - \lambda I$.