Arch. Math.

79 (2002) 125–130
0003-889X/02/020125-06 $ 2.70/0
 Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2002

C-supercyclic versus R+ -supercyclic operators

By

T ERESA B ERM ÚDEZ 1) , A NTONIO B ONILLA 2) and A LFREDO P ERIS 3 )

Abstract. An operator T on a complex, separable, infinite dimensional Banach space

X is supercyclic (C-supercyclic) if there is a vector x ∈ X such that the set of complex
scalar multiples of the orbit {x, Tx, T 2 x, . . . } is dense. We study different definitions of
supercyclicity with real numbers (R-supercyclic) and positive real numbers (R+ -super-
cyclic). In particular, we show that T is R-supercyclic if and only if T is R+ -supercyclic,
and we give examples of C-supercyclic operators which are not R+ -supercyclic.

1. Introduction and preliminaries. Hereafter, X denotes a complex, separable, infinite

dimensional Banach space and L(X ) the space of bounded linear operators on X .
D e f i n i t i o n 1.1. Let T ∈ L(X ). Then
1. T is called cyclic if there exists x ∈ X such that span(Orb(T, x)) = X , where
Orb(T, x) := {x, Tx, T 2 x, . . . }.
2. T is called C-supercyclic, resp. R-supercyclic, resp. R+ -supercyclic if there exists x ∈ X
such that COrb(T, x) = X , resp. ROrb(T, x) = X , resp. R+ Orb(T, x) = X .
3. T is called hypercyclic if there exists x ∈ X such that Orb(T, x) = X .
The classes of cyclic and hypercyclic operators are related to an open problem in operator
theory, viz. the invariant subspace or subset problem, respectively. Namely, if every vector
of X \ {0} is a cyclic vector, then there is no proper invariant closed subspace of T . The same
is true with hypercyclic vectors and the invariant subset problem. This problem was solved
by Enflo [7] and Read [19] in a Banach space. However, it is not known if there is a bounded
linear operator on a separable Hilbert space that does not have a closed, invariant subspace
(subset).
The concept of supercyclic (C-supercyclic) operators was introduced by Hilden and Wallen
in [14]. They proved that every unilateral backward shift on a Hilbert space has a supercyclic
vector, and also that a complex finite dimensional Banach space of dimension > 1 cannot

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000): 47A16.

1) Supported by DGICYT Grant PB 97-1489 (Spain)
2) Supported by DGESIC Grant PB 98-0444 (Spain) and PI 99/105 de Cons. Ed. del Gob. Canarias
(Spain)
3 ) Supported by DGESIC Grant PB 97-0333 (Spain)
126 T. B ERM ÚDEZ et al. ARCH . MATH .

support a supercyclic operator. Recently, Salas in [20], inspired by the Hypercyclicity Criterion
(discovered independently by Kitai [15] and Gethner and Shapiro [9]), gave a Supercyclicity
Criterion (a sufficient condition to be supercyclic). Bourdon proved that hyponormal operators
cannot be supercyclic [6].
There is a “similar” definition of R+ -supercyclic given by Beauzamy in [3, p. 42]. An
operator is called supercyclic by Beauzamy if for every nonzero vector x , the set of rays
spanned by the orbit (i.e. R+ Orb(T, x)) is dense in the whole space. Probably the condition “for
every nonzero vector” was motivated by the invariant subspace problem. In fact, Beauzamy [2]
made a simplification of Enflo’s example, giving an operator such that each nonzero vector is
supercyclic.
Herzog proved that every real or complex, separable, infinite dimensional Banach space
(and some finite dimensional Banach spaces) supports a supercyclic operator and also an
R+ -supercyclic operator [13, Theorem 1 & Remark].
It is obvious that
R+ -supercyclic ⇒ R-supercyclic ⇒ C-supercyclic.

Q u e s t i o n 1.1. Are any of the converse implications true?

We prove that the first converse is indeed true in Theorem 2.1, and that the second one is
not true in general in Remark 2.1.
The following version of the Supercyclicity Criterion is a generalization of [17, Theo-
rem 2.2].
Theorem 1.1 (Supercyclicity Criterion). Let T be a bounded linear operator on a separable
Banach space X . Suppose that there exists a strictly increasing sequence of positive integers
{n k }k∈N and a sequence {λnk }k∈N ⊂ C \ {0} for which there are
1. a dense subset X 0 ⊂ X such that
λnk T nk x
→ 0 for every x ∈ X 0 , and
2. a dense subset Y0 ⊂ X and a sequence of mappings Snk : Y0 −→ X such that
(a)
λn1 Snk y
−→ 0 for every y ∈ Y0 ,
k
(b) T nk Snk y −→ y for every y ∈ Y0 .
Then there is a vector z such that {λnk T nk z : k ∈ N} is dense in X .
There are other Supercyclicity Criteria given by Salas [20, Lemma 2.6] and by Feldman,
Miller and Miller [8, Theorem 5.1 & 5.2]. However, Montes and Salas [17] proved that the
version of Salas is equivalent to Theorem 1.1. Moreover, in a forthcoming preprint [4], we
prove that a slight refinement of the version of Feldman, Miller and Miller is also equivalent
to Theorem 1.1.
We recall some properties of operators that satisfy the Supercyclicity Criterion from [17].
R e m a r k 1.1.
1. If T satisfies the Supercyclicity Criterion, then T is R+ -supercyclic.
2. If T satisfies the Supercyclicity Criterion, then σ p (T ∗ ) = ∅, where σ p (T ∗ ) denotes the
point spectrum of the adjoint T ∗ .

P r o b l e m 1.1. [17] Let T be a C-supercyclic operator. Does T satisfy the Supercyclicity

Criterion if σ p (T ∗ ) = ∅?
Vol. 79, 2002 C-supercyclic versus R+ -supercyclic operators 127

2. Main results. Using ideas of Peris’s proof that every finitely hypercyclic (supercyclic)
operator is hypercyclic (supercyclic) [18], we prove that every R-supercyclic operator is
R+ -supercyclic.
In a similar way to [18, Lemma 3] the following result holds.
Lemma 2.1. Either the interior of the closure of R+ Orb(T, x) and R+ Orb(T, y) coincide or
they do not intersect; namely
int(R+ Orb(T, x)) ∩ int(R+ Orb(T, y)) = ∅ ⇐⇒ int(R+ Orb(T, x))
= int(R+ Orb(T, y)).

Theorem 2.1. Let T ∈ L(X ). T is R-supercyclic if and only if T is R+ -supercyclic.

P r o o f. Suppose that T is R-supercyclic. Then there exists x ∈ X such that ROrb(T, x) = X .

Define F1 := R+ Orb(T, x) and F2 := R+ Orb(T, −x). Hence
F1 ∪ F2 = X.
So, if int(Fi ) = ∅, for i = 1 or 2, then T is R+ -supercyclic. In particular, if int(F1 ) = ∅,
then R+ Orb(T, −x) = X . Therefore suppose that int(Fi ) = ∅, for i = 1, 2. Recall that if T is
supercyclic on a complex separable Banach space, then σ p (T ∗ ) is at most one point of C
[12, Proposition 3.1]. Let P be the set of all polynomials and let p ∈ P satisfy p(α) = 0 if
σ p (T ∗ ) = {α}. The range of p(T ) is dense and hence


p(T ) R+ Orb(T, x) ∪ R+ Orb(T, −x) = R+ Orb(T, p(T )x) ∪ R+ Orb(T, − p(T )x)
= X.
If one of the following possibilities holds
R+ Orb(T, p(T )x) = X, R+ Orb(T, − p(T )x) = X,
int(R+ Orb(T, p(T )x)) = ∅ or int(R+ Orb(T, − p(T )x)) = ∅,
then T is R+ -supercyclic. We suppose the contrary and we prove that
R+ Orb(T, p(T )x) ⊂ int(R+ Orb(T, p(T )x)) = int(Fi )
for i = 1 or 2. For the last equality, note that we have
int(R+ Orb(T, p(T )x)) ∩ intFi = ∅,
for some i = 1 or 2, since X = F1 ∪ F2 . By Lemma 2.1, we obtain int(R+ Orb(T, p(T )x)) =
intFi . In order to show the final inclusion, suppose that there exist λ ∈ R+ and n ∈ N such that
λ p(T )T n x ∈ F j with j = i . Then
intFi = int(R+ Orb(T, p(T )x)) = int{µ p(T )T k x : µ ∈ R+ , k ⭌ n} ⊂ intF j .
But this is a contradiction since intFi ∩ intF j = ∅. This proves our claim. Define
C := ∪ Orb(T, p(T )x) ⊂ intF1 ∪ intF2 .
{ p∈P : p(α) =0}

Hence
span(Orb(T, x)) \ (αI − T )X ⊂ C ⊂ intF1 ∪ intF2 .
Then C is connected and, taking into account that intF1 ∩ intF2 = ∅, we obtain that C ⊂ intFi
for i = 1 or 2. Consequently, X = C ⊂ Fi .  
128 T. B ERM ÚDEZ et al. ARCH . MATH .

Corollary 2.1. Let T ∈ L(X ). If T is R-finitely supercyclic (i.e. there exists a finite set of
n
vectors {x j }nj=1 such that ∪ ROrb(T, x j ) = X ), then T is R+ -supercyclic.
j=1

P r o o f. It is similar to the proof of Theorem 2.1. 


As a consequence of the above corollary we have the following.
Corollary 2.2. Let {λn }n∈N be a sequence of complex numbers such that λn = rn eiθn with
{rn }n∈N ∪ {θn }n∈N ⊂ R and {eiθn }n∈N = {eiθn1 , . . . , eiθnk }. If there exists x ∈ X such that
(1) {λn T n x : n ∈ N} = X,
+
then T is R -supercyclic.
P r o o f. By (1) we have that
k iθn j
X = {λn T n x : n ∈ N} = ∪ {rn e T n x : n ∈ N}
j=1
k 2k
x : n ∈ N} = ∪ R+ Orb(T, x j ),
iθn j
= ∪ {rn T n e
j=1 j=1
iθn j iθn j
where x j = e x if 1 ⬉ j ⬉ k and x j = −e x if k < j ⬉ 2k . Then Corollary 2.1 proves the
assertion.  
In contrast with Theorem 2.1, the other converse is not true in general.
R e m a r k 2.1. There exist on any X (complex, separable, infinite dimensional Banach
space) C-supercyclic operators which are not R-supercyclic. Indeed, let Y be a closed hy-
perplane of X , and T ∈ L(Y ) a hypercyclic operator (which exists, as shown by Ansari [1]
and Bernal [5] independently). Then we will prove that S := T ⊕ IC ∈ L(X ) is C-supercyclic
but not R-supercyclic. First observe that if x = y ⊕ µ ∈ X (µ = 0), then x ∈ Orb(T, u) ⊕ µ =
µOrb(S, u ⊕ 1) for each u ∈ Y hypercyclic vector for T . Finally, ROrb(S, x) ⊂ Y ⊕ Rµ which
is not dense in X . In fact, M. González, F. León and A. Montes [11] proved a characterization
for certain supercyclic operators in terms of a similar decomposition of the operator. More
precisely, they prove [11, Theorem 5.2] that if S is an operator on a Hilbert space such that
it has a single normal eigenvalue α, then S admits a decomposition of the form S = T ⊕ αIC
such that S is supercyclic if and only if (1/α)T is hypercyclic.
As we will see, the point spectrum of S∗ plays an important role in the analysis of the
R-supercyclicity of S.
arg(α)
Theorem 2.2. (a) If S ∈ L(X ) satisfies σ p (S∗ ) = {α}, where ∈ Q, then S is not
π
R-supercyclic.
arg(α)
(b) For all X and for all α = 0 with ∈ Q, there exists S ∈ L(X ) such that S is
π
R-supercyclic and σ p (S∗ ) = {α}.

P r o o f. (a) Let x ∗ ∈ X ∗ \ {0} such that S∗ x ∗ = αx ∗ . Hence x ∗ (Sn x) = αn x ∗ (x) for every
x ∈ X . If x ∈ X is an R+ -supercyclic vector of S, then
x ∗ ({λSn x : n ∈ N, λ ∈ R}) = x ∗ ({λαn x : n ∈ N, λ ∈ R})
is dense in C. Therefore the argument of α can not be a rational multiple of π .
Vol. 79, 2002 C-supercyclic versus R+ -supercyclic operators 129

arg(α)
(b) If θ := ∈ R \ Q, then there exists {rn }n∈N ⊂ R+ such that
π
{rn αn : n ∈ N} = C.
Let X  be a closed hyperplane of X . The type of operators constructed by Ansari and Bernal
are hereditarily hypercyclic (i.e., {T nk } is hypercyclic for every increasing subsequence {n k }
of a certain sequence of integers), as shown by León and Montes [16]. Define S := |α|T ⊕ αIC
such that T is hereditarily hypercyclic on X  . Then σ p (S∗ ) = {α}. Fix a sequence {n k } such
that there exists β := lim eiθnk π and T is hypercyclic with respect to {n k }. Let x ∈ X  such that
k→∞
{T nk x : k ∈ N} is dense in X  . Given x  ⊕ λ with x  ∈ X  , λ = 0 and given ∅ = U ⊂ X  open
and ε > 0, we first find l, k0 ∈ N such that
 
λ − |λ|eiθ(l+nk )π  < ε, ∀k ⭌ k0 .
The selection of x yields the existence of k ⭌ 0 such that
1
l −1
T nk x ∈ T (U ).
|λ|
Take m := l + n k and define r := |α||λ|m . We conclude
r (Sm (x ⊕ 1)) = |λ|T m x ⊕ |λ|eiθmπ ∈ U ⊕ B(λ, ε),
i.e., x ⊕ 1 is a R+ -supercyclic vector for S. If λ = 0, the proof is similar. 

R e m a r k 2.2. • We already noticed that any operator satisfying the Supercyclicity Cri-
terion is R-supercyclic. The converse is not true in view of Theorem 2.2 (b), since
σ p (S∗ ) = ∅ for all S that satisfy the Supercyclicity Criterion.
• Theorem 2.2 (a) implies that, if αT is R- supercyclic for each α in the unit circle, then
σ p (T ∗ ) = ∅.
Most of the results in this note can be summarized in the following diagram:
Supercyclicity Criterion ⇒ R-supercyclic ⇒ C-supercyclic
 ⇓   ⇐
/
C-supercyclic and
⇐/ R+ -supercyclic
σ p (T ∗ ) = ∅

P r o b l e m 2.1. Which kind of additional conditions are enough to ensure that a C-super-
cyclic operator is R-supercyclic? More precisely, if T is a C-supercyclic operator such that
σ p (T ∗ ) ⊂ {eiθπ : θ ∈ R \ Q}, is T necessarily R-supercyclic?
In connection with Problem 1.1 of Montes and Salas and our Remark 2.2, we ask the
following.
P r o b l e m 2.2. If T is C-supercyclic operator such that σ p (T ∗ ) = ∅, is αT R-supercyclic
for all α in the unit circle?
Observe that a positive answer to the conjecture of Montes and Salas would also give
a positive solution to our problem.
A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t. We thank J. Bonet and K. D. Bierstedt who corrected a first
version of this note. This work was initiated while the third author was visiting the University
of La Laguna. He acknowledges the support and hospitality.

Archiv der Mathematik 79 9

130 T. B ERM ÚDEZ et al. ARCH . MATH .

References

[1] S. I. A NSARI , Existence of hypercyclic operators on topological vector spaces. J. Funct. Anal. 148,
384–390 (1997).
[2] B. B EAUZAMY, Un opérateur sur l’espace de Hilbert dont tous les polynômes sont hypercycliques.
C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. 303, 923–927 (1986).
[3] B. B EAUZAMY, Introduction to operator theory and invariant subspaces, North-Holland Math. Li-
brary 42, Amsterdam 1988.
[4] T. B ERM ÚDEZ , A. B ONILLA , and A. P ERIS , On hypercyclicity and supercyclicity criteria.
Preprint.
[5] L. B ERNAL -G ONZ ÁLEZ, On hypercyclic operators on Banach spaces. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 127,
1003–1010 (1999).
[6] P. B OURDON , Orbits of hyponormal operators. Michigan Math. J. 44, 345–353 (1997).
[7] P. E NFLO , On the invariant subspace problem for Banach spaces. Acta Math. 158, 213–313 (1987).
[8] N. F ELDMAN, L. M ILLER and V. M ILLER , Hypercyclic and supercyclic copyponormal operators.
To appear in: Acta Sci. Math..
[9] R. M. G ETHNER and J. S HAPIRO , Universal vectors for operators on space of holomorphic func-
tions. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 100, 281–288 (1987).
[10] G. G ODEFROY and J. S HAPIRO, Operators with dense invariant cyclic vectors manifolds. J. Funct.
Anal. 98, 229–269 (1991).
[11] M. G ONZ ÁLEZ, F. L E ÓN -S AAVEDRA and A. M ONTES -RODR ÍGUEZ , Semi-Fredholm theory: hy-
percyclic and supercyclic subspaces. Proc. London Math. Soc. 81, 169–189 (2000).
[12] D. H ERRERO , Limits of hypercyclic and supercyclic operators. J. Funct. Anal. 99, 179–190 (1991).
[13] G. H ERZOG , On linear having supercyclic operators. Studia Math. 103, 295–298 (1992).
[14] H. H ILDEN and L. WALLEN , Some cyclic and non-cyclic vectors of certain operators. Indiana
Univ. Math. J. 23, 557–565 (1974).
[15] C. K ITAI , Invariant closed sets for linear operators. Thesis, Univ. Toronto 1982.
[16] F. L E ÓN -S AAVEDRA and A. M ONTES -RODR ÍGUEZ, Linear structure of hypercyclic vectors. J.
Funct. Anal., 148, 524–545 (1997).
[17] A. M ONTES -RODR ÍGUEZ and H. S ALAS , Supercyclic subspaces: spectral theory and weighted
shifts. Adv. Math. 163, 74–134 (2001).
[18] A. P ERIS , Multi-hypercyclic operators are hypercyclic. Math. Z. 236(4), 779–786 (2001).
[19] C. R EAD , The invariant subspace problem for a class of Banach space II: Hypercyclic operators. Is-
rael J. Math. 63, 1–40 (1988).
[20] H. S ALAS , Supercyclicity and weighted shifts. Studia Math. 135, 55–74 (1999).

Eingegangen am 6. 10. 2000  )

Anschrift der Autoren:

Teresa Bermúdez, Antonio Bonilla Alfredo Peris
Departamento de Análisis Matemático E.T.S. Arquitectura
Universidad de La Laguna Departamento de Matemática Aplicada
38271 La Laguna (Tenerife), Spain Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
tbermude@ull.es E-46022 Valencia, Spain
abonilla@ull.es aperis@mat.upv.es

) Eine überarbeitete Fassung ging am 3. 5. 2001 ein.