Spectral Theory and Differential Operators D E Edmunds Full Chapter PDF

Spectral Theory and Differential
Operators D.E. Edmunds

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/spectral-theory-and-differential-operators-d-e-edmun
ds/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Ulam stability of operators Brzd■k
https://ebookmass.com/product/ulam-stability-of-operators-
brzd%c8%a9k/
Graph Spectral Image Processing Gene Cheung
https://ebookmass.com/product/graph-spectral-image-processing-
gene-cheung/
Transforms and Partial Differential Equations T.

Veerarajan
https://ebookmass.com/product/transforms-and-partial-
differential-equations-t-veerarajan/
Linear Algebra and Partial Differential Equations T

Veerarajan
https://ebookmass.com/product/linear-algebra-and-partial-
differential-equations-t-veerarajan/
Fractional operators with constant and variable order
with application to geo-hydrology Atangana A.
https://ebookmass.com/product/fractional-operators-with-constant-
and-variable-order-with-application-to-geo-hydrology-atangana-a/
Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems:

Computing and Modeling (Edwards, Penney & Calvis,
Differential Equations: Computing and Modeling Series)
5th Edition, (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/differential-equations-and-
boundary-value-problems-computing-and-modeling-edwards-penney-
calvis-differential-equations-computing-and-modeling-series-5th-
edition-ebook-pdf/
Fundamentals of advanced mathematics. 3, Differential

calculus, tensor calculus, differential geometry,
global analysis Bourles
https://ebookmass.com/product/fundamentals-of-advanced-
mathematics-3-differential-calculus-tensor-calculus-differential-
geometry-global-analysis-bourles/
First Course in differential equations (11ed) /

Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems
(9ed) Solutions manual Dennis Zill Roberto Martinez
https://ebookmass.com/product/first-course-in-differential-
equations-11ed-differential-equations-and-boundary-value-
problems-9ed-solutions-manual-dennis-zill-roberto-martinez/
Pseudo-Noun Incorporation and Differential Object

Marking Imke Driemel
https://ebookmass.com/product/pseudo-noun-incorporation-and-
differential-object-marking-imke-driemel/
oxford mathematical monographs
Series Editors
J. M. BALL W. T. GOWERS N. J. HITCHIN
L. NIRENBERG R. PENROSE A. WILES
OXFORD MATHEMATICAL MONOGRAPHS
For a full list of titles please visit

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/category/academic/series/science/maths/omm.do
Donaldson and Kronheimer: The Geometry of Four-Manifolds, paperback
Woodhouse: Geometric Quantization, Second Edition, paperback
Hirschfeld: Projective Geometries over Finite Fields, Second Edition
Evans and Kawahigashi: Quantum Symmetries of Operator Algebras
Klingen: Arithmetical Similarities: Prime Decomposition and Finite Group Theory
Matsuzaki and Taniguchi: Hyperbolic Manifolds and Kleinian Groups
Macdonald: Symmetric Functions and Hall Polynomials, Second Edition, paperback
Catto, Le Bris, and Lions: Mathematical Theory of Thermodynamic Limits: Thomas-Fermi
Type Models
McDuff and Salamon: Introduction to Symplectic Topology, paperback
Holschneider: Wavelets: An Analysis Tool, paperback
Goldman: Complex Hyperbolic Geometry
Colbourn and Rosa: Triple Systems
Kozlov, Maz’ya, and Movchan: Asymptotic Analysis of Fields in Multi-Structures
Maugin: Nonlinear Waves in Elastic Crystals
Dassios and Kleinman: Low Frequency Scattering
Ambrosio, Fusco, and Pallara: Functions of Bounded Variation and Free Discontinuity
Problems
Slavyanov and Lay: Special Functions: A Unified Theory Based on Singularities
Joyce: Compact Manifolds with Special Holonomy
Carbone and Semmes: A Graphic Apology for Symmetry and Implicitness
Boos: Classical and Modern Methods in Summability
Higson and Roe: Analytic K-Homology
Semmes: Some Novel Types of Fractal Geometry
Iwaniec and Martin: Geometric Function Theory and Non-linear Analysis
Johnson and Lapidus: The Feynman Integral and Feynman’s Operational Calculus,
paperback
Lyons and Qian: System Control and Rough Paths
Ranicki: Algebraic and Geometric Surgery
Ehrenpreis: The Universality of the Radon Transform
Lennox and Robinson: The Theory of Infinite Soluble Groups
Ivanov: The Fourth Janko Group
Huybrechts: Fourier-Mukai Transforms in Algebraic Geometry
Hida: Hilbert Modular Forms and Iwasawa Theory
Boffi and Buchsbaum: Threading Homology Through Algebra
Vazquez: The Porous Medium Equation
Benzoni-Gavage and Serre: Multi-dimensional Hyperbolic Partial Differential Equations
Calegari: Foliations and the Geometry of 3-Manifolds
Boyer and Galicki: Sasakian Geometry
Choquet-Bruhat: General Relativity and the Einstein Equations
Ignaczak and Ostoja-Starzewski: Thermoelasticity with Finite Wave Speeds
Scott: Traces and Determinants of Pseudodifferential Operators
Franchi and Le Jan: Hyperbolic Dynamics and Brownian Motion: An Introduction
Jain, Srivastava, and Tuganbaev: Cyclic Modules and the Structure of Rings
Ringström: On the Topology and Future Stability of the Universe
Johnson, Lapidus, and Nielsen: Feynman’s Operational Calculus and Beyond: Noncom-
mutativity and Time-Ordering
Edmunds and Evans: Spectral Theory and Differential Operators, Second Edition
Spectral Theory and Differential Operators
second edition
D. E . EDMUNDS
Professor of Mathematics,
University of Sussex
W. D. EVA NS
Professor of Mathematics,
University of Cardiff
1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© D. E. Edmunds and W. D. Evans 2018
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 1987
Second Edition published in 2018
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017962078
ISBN 978–0–19–881205–0
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
To
Rose and Mari
P R E FA CE TO SECO N D E D I T I O N
Since the publication of the first edition of this book in 1987, the theory has developed
rapidly: new and important topics have appeared and old themes are viewed with greater
perspective. However, the core of the book contains material of continuing importance that
is relatively unaffected by such events. This edition differs from the first by virtue of the
correction of a flock of minor errors and improvements of various proofs. In addition, it
contains Notes at the ends of most chapters. These are intended to give the reader some
idea of a variety of recent developments, and provide references that enable more detailed
accounts to be accessed. The emphasis in these Notes naturally reflects our interests and
limitations of our knowledge.
Additional references in the bibliography are indicated as A[·].
P R E FA CE TO F I R ST E D I T I O N
The relationship between the classical theory of compact operators in Banach or Hilbert
spaces and the study of boundary-value problems for elliptic differential equations has
been a symbiotic one, each having a profound effect on the other. In the L2 theory of
elliptic differential equations with smooth coefficients and on bounded domains in Rn , the
problem of eigenfunction expansions rests upon the fact that there is a naturally occurring
operator with a compact self-adjoint resolvent to which the abstract theory may be applied
with great success. On the other hand, the early work of Fredholm, Hilbert, Riesz, and
Schmidt, for example, was stimulated by the needs of problems in integral and differential
equations. The theory of compact self-adjoint operators in Hilbert space is particularly rich,
but when one drops the self-adjointness, substantial difficulties appear: the eigenvalues (if
any) may be non-real, and, what is very important from the point of view of applications,
there is no Max–Min Principle of proven usefulness for the eigenvalues; furthermore, the
question of whether the eigenfunctions form a basis for the underlying Hilbert space is
then much more complex. When we consider compact linear operators acting in a Banach
space, as is often necessary in connection with non-linear problems for example, even greater
difficulties appear: to obtain information about eigenvalues indirect methods often have to
be adopted. In recent years much work has been done in this area, relating eigenvalues to
more geometrical quantities such as approximation numbers and entropy numbers. This
work is not limited to purely abstract theory: much effort has been put into the estimation of
such numbers for embedding maps between Sobolev spaces, the group in the Soviet Union
led by Birman and Solomjak being especially active in this area. These embedding maps
provide a natural link between the abstract theory and problems in differential (and inte-
gral) equations. Boundary-value problems for elliptic differential equations on unbounded
domains or with singular coefficients necessitate the study of non-compact operators. In
such cases the spectrum does not consist wholly of eigenvalues but also has a non-trivial
component called the essential spectrum. In the literature there are many different ways of
looking at the essential spectrum, but whichever way is followed a study of Fredholm and
semi-Fredholm operators is required. A notable result in this area is that due to Nussbaum
and (independently) Lebow and Schechter: the radius of the essential spectrum is the same
for all the commonly used definitions of essential spectrum. This brings in the notion of the
measure of non-compactness of an operator, which is itself related to the entropy numbers
mentioned earlier.
In order to apply the abstract theory to boundary-value problems for elliptic differential
equations the first task is to determine an appropriate function space and an operator that
is a natural realization of the problem. For linear elliptic problems the natural setting is an
L2 space, and in this book we concentrate on the L2 theory for general second order elliptic
equations with either Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions.
x | preface to first edition
Let

n
n
∂
τφ = − Di (aij Dj φ) + bj Dj φ + qφ, Dj := ,
i,j=1 j=1
∂xj
in an open set Ω in Rn , with n 1, and set

⎛ ⎞

n
n
tφ, ψ = ⎝ aij Dj φDi ψ̄ + bj Dj φ ψ̄ + qφ ψ̄ ⎠
i,j=1 j=1
for φ and ψ in C∞ ∞
0 (Ω) or C0 (R ), the choice depending on the boundary conditions
n
under consideration. If the numerical range of t, namely the set

Θ(t) = t φ, φ : |φ|2 = 1 ,
Ω
lies in a sector in the complex plane with angle less than π, one can invoke the theory of
sesquilinear forms to obtain an operator T whose spectrum lies within the aforementioned
sector and that describes the boundary-value problem associated with τ in a weak sense. If
Θ(t) does not lie in a sector other techniques have to be found. In this case we can make use
of the powerful methods which have been developed to tackle the problem of determining
sufficiency conditions for the operator T0 defined by a formally symmetric τ on C∞ 0 (Ω) to
have a unique self-adjoint extension in L2 (Ω), a problem that has attracted a great deal of
attention over the years, particularly because of its importance in quantum mechanics. An
important example is Kato’s distributional inequality, which makes it possible to work with
coefficients having minimal local requirements. Once the operator has been obtained, the
next step is to analyse its spectrum. For non-self-adjoint operators the location of the various
essential spectra is often as much as one can realistically hope for in the absence of the
powerful tools available when the operators are self-adjoint, notably the Spectral Theorem
and Max–Min Principle. Perturbation methods are effective in determining the dependence
of the essential spectra on the coefficients of τ , the effect of these methods being to reduce
the problem to one involving a simpler differential expression. The geometrical properties
of Ω then become prominent and the properties of the embedding maps between Sobolev
spaces that occur naturally achieve a special significance. In this the notion of capacity has
a central role, a fact highlighted in the work of Molcanov, Maz’ja, and others in the Soviet
Union. To obtain information about the eigenvalues one usually has to resort to the indirect
methods developed in the abstract theory. For instance, knowledge of the singular numbers
of T, i.e. the eigenvalues of the non-negative self-adjoint operator |T|, provides information
p
about the l class of the eigenvalues of T.
Our main objective in this book is to present some of the results that have been obtained
during the last decade or so in connection with the problems described in the previous
paragraphs. On the abstract side we deal with operators in Banach spaces whenever possible,
especially as some of the most notable achievements can only be appreciated in this context.
We specialize to Hilbert spaces in the work on elliptic differential equations reported on,
preface to first edition | xi
chiefly because it is in the framework of the L2 theory that most of the relevant recent
advances have been made. Furthermore, for the L p theory with p = 2 we have nothing
substantial to add to what is contained in the books by Goldberg [104] and Schechter
[210]. Despite this, when we prepare tools like the embedding theorems and results on
capacity, we work with L p spaces if this can be done without much additional strain. In an
area as broad as this, one is forced to be selective in one’s choice of topics and, inevitably,
important omissions have to be made. We say very little about eigenfunctions and expansion
theorems, for instance, but we have a clear conscience about this because what we could say
is adequately covered in the book by Gohberg and Krein [103]. In any case, our book is
already long enough.
The book is primarily designed for the mathematician, although we hope that other
scientists will also find something of interest to them here and we have kept this goal
in mind while writing it. The language of the book is functional analysis, and a sound
basic knowledge of Banach and Hilbert space theory is needed. Some familiarity with the
Lebesgue integral and the elements of the theory of differential equations would be helpful,
but only the barest essentials are assumed. We have dispensed with a chapter of preliminaries
in favour of reminders in the body of the text, and where necessary we refer to other books
for background material.
Most of the abstract theory is developed in the first four chapters. Chapters 1 and 2
deal with bounded linear operators in Banach spaces, the main themes being the essential
spectra and the properties of various numbers like entropy numbers and approximation
numbers associated with the bounded linear operators. In Chapter 3 closed linear operators
are studied, particular emphasis being given to the behaviour of their deficiency indices
and Fredholm index when the operators are extended or are perturbed. We illustrate the
abstract results with a comprehensive account of general second-order quasi-differential
equations, and this covers the Weyl limit-point, limit-circle theory for formally symmetric
equations, and also its extensions by Sims and Zhikhar to formally J-self-adjoint equations.
Sesquilinear forms in Hilbert spaces are the subject of Chapter 4. The basic results are the
Lax–Milgram Theorem for bounded coercive forms and the representation theorems for
sectorial forms. Also, there are perturbation results for the forms of general self-adjoint
and m-sectorial operators which have an important role to play later in the location of
the essential spectra of differential operators. Another result that will be important later is
Stampacchia’s generalization of the Lax–Milgram Theorem to variational inequalities.
In Chapter 5 we give a treatment of Sobolev spaces. Apart from their intrinsic interest,
these spaces are an indispensible tool for any work on partial differential equations, and
much of what is done in subsequent chapters hinges on Chapter 5. Furthermore, Sobolev
spaces are an ideal testing ground for examining some of the abstract notions discussed in the
early chapters and accordingly we devote some space to the determination of the measures
of non-compactness and the approximation numbers of embedding maps between Sobolev
spaces.
The remaining chapters deal mainly with second-order elliptic differential operators. The
weak or generalized forms of the Dirichlet and Neumann boundary-value problems are
defined and studied in Chapter 6. The material in Chapter 6 is mainly relevant to bounded
open sets Ω in Rn when the underlying operators have compact resolvents in L2 (),
xii | preface to first edition
in which case the spectra consist wholly of eigenvalues. Also included is Stampacchia’s
weak maximum principle, and this leads naturally to the notion of capacity. Second-order
operators on arbitrary open sets Ω are the theme of Chapter 7. Under weak conditions
on the coefficients of the differential expression, we describe three different techniques
for determining the Dirichlet and Neumann operators. The first applies the First Repre-
sentation Theorem to sectorial forms, the second is one developed by Kato based on his
celebrated distributional inequality, and the third has its roots in the work of Levinson and
Titchmarsh on the essential self-adjointness of the operator defined by − + q on C∞ 0 ()
when q is real. Schrödinger operators are an important special case, especially of the third
class of operators discussed, and some of the results obtained for highly oscillatory potentials
are anticipated by the quantum-mechanical interpretation of the problem.
The central result of Chapter 8 is Molcanov’s necessary and sufficient condition for the
self-adjoint realization of − + q (q real and bounded below) to have a wholly discrete
spectrum. This necessitates the study of capacity and, in the wake of the main result, we also
1,p
obtain necessary and sufficient conditions for the embedding W0 (Ω) → Lp (Ω) to be
compact and for important integral inequalities (like the Poincaré inequality) to hold.
In Chapter 9 we study the essential spectra of closed operators in Banach and Hilbert
spaces and then use the abstract theory to locate the various essential spectra of constant
coefficient differential operators in L2 (Rn ) and L2 (0, ∞). In the case when the coefficients
are not constant a useful tool for ordinary differential operators is the so-called Decompo-
sition Principle, which implies that the essential spectra depend only on the behaviour of
the coefficients at infinity. For partial differential operators a Decomposition Principle is
obtained in Chapter 10 as a perturbation result and this is then used to locate the essential
spectra of the general second-order operators in L2 (Ω) discussed in Chapter 8. We analyse
the dependence of the essential spectra on Ω in two different ways. In the first the results are
described in terms of capacity and sequences of cubes that intersect Ω. The second involves
the use of a mean distance function m(x), which is a measure of the distance of x to the
boundary of Ω, and an integral inequality obtained by E. B. Davies. This enables us to give
estimates for the first eigenvalue and the least point of the essential spectrum of the Dirichlet
problem for − on Ω.
The last two chapters are concerned with the eigenvalues and singular values of the
Dirichlet and Neumann problems for − + q. The case of q real, and hence self-adjoint
operators, is treated in Chapter 11, the main result being a global estimate for N(λ), the
number of eigenvalues less than λ when λ is below the essential spectrum. From this
estimate asymptotic formulae are derived for N(λ) when the spectrum is discrete and
λ → ∞ and when the negative spectrum is discrete and λ → 0−. We also obtain the
Cwikel–Lieb–Rosenblyjum estimate for N(λ) when q ∈ Ln/2 (Rn ) with n 3, and include
the elegant Li–Yau proof of the latter result. In Chapter 12 q is complex, and global and
asymptotic estimates are obtained for M(λ), the number of singular values less than λ. From
p
these estimates the l -class of the singular numbers and eigenvalues are derived.
Chapters are divided into sections, and some sections into subsections. For example,
§1.3.2 means subsection 2-of section 3 of Chapter 1; it is simply written as §3.2 when
referred to within the same chapter and as §2 when referred to within the same section.
Theorems, Corollaries, Lemmas, Propositions, and Remarks are numbered consecutively
preface to first edition | xiii
within each section. Theorem 1.2.3 means Theorem 2.3 in §2 of Chapter 1 and is referred
to simply as Theorem 2.3 within the same chapter. Formulae are numbered consecutively
within each section; (1.2.3) means the third equation of §2 of Chapter 1 and is referred to as
(2.3) within the same chapter. The symbol indicates the end of the statement of a result
and indicates the end of a proof.
There are also a glossary of terms and notation, a bibliography, and an index.
We have made no systematic attempt to go into the complicated history of the results
presented here, but hope that the references provided will be helpful to the reader interested
in the background of the material.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the help we have received from many colleagues and
in particular from Robin Dyer, Edward Fraenkel, and Desmond Harris. We are especially
indebted to Hans Triebel, who read the whole manuscript and offered invaluable comments.
Brighton and D. E. E
Cardiff W. D. E
June 1986
CO N T E N TS
Basic Notation xix
1 Linear Operators in Banach Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1 Compact Linear Maps 1
2 Measures of Non-Compactness 11
3 Fredholm and Semi-Fredholm Maps 25
4 The Essential Spectrum 37
Notes 41
2 Entropy Numbers, s-Numbers, and Eigenvalues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1 Entropy Numbers 44
2 Approximation Numbers 50
3 An Axiomatic Approach to s-Numbers 68
4 Non-Compact Maps 75
5 Compact Linear Operators in Hilbert Spaces 77
Notes 91
3 Unbounded Linear Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
1 Closed and Closable Operators 93
2 Numerical Range and Field of Regularity 96
3 Extensions of Closed Operators and Adjoint Pairs 99
4 Symmetric and Self-Adjoint Operators 105
4.1 General Remarks 105
4.2 Symmetric and Self-Adjoint Extensions of Symmetric Operators 108
5 J-Symmetric and J-Self-Adjoint Operators 112
5.1 General Remarks 112
5.2 J-Self-Adjoint and Regularly Solvable Extensions of
J-Symmetric Operators 113
6 Accretive and Sectorial Operators 116
7 Relative Boundedness and Relative Compactness 119
8 Stability Results 124
9 Multiplication Operators 131
10 Second-Order Linear Differential Operators 132
10.1 Quasi-Differential Equations 132
10.2 The Regular Problem on [a, b] 134
10.3 The Case of One Singular End-Point 141
10.4 The Case of Two Singular End-Points 152
10.5 The Limit-Point, Limit-Circle Results of Sims 155
10.6 Examples 160
Notes 164
xvi | contents
4 Sesquilinear Forms in Hilbert Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

1 Bounded Coercive Forms and the Lax-Milgram Theorem 169
2 Sectorial Forms 173
3 The Polar Decomposition of Closed Operators 181
4 Forms of General Self-Adjoint Operators and their Perturbations 184
5 Perturbation of Sectorial Forms 193
6 Variational Inequalities 198
5 Sobolev Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
1 Function Spaces, Approximation, and Regularization 203
1.1 Spaces of Continuous Functions 204
1.2 Functions in Lebesgue Spaces 206
1.3 Partitions of Unity 210
1.4 The Maximal Function 211
1.5 The Fourier Transform 214
2 Weak Derivatives 217
3 Sobolev Spaces: Definitions and Basic Properties 222
3.1 Foundations 222
k, p
3.2 Embeddings and Inequalities for W0 (Ω) 228
3.3 More Embeddings: Continuity Properties 236
3.4 Poincaré Inequalities 243
4 The Boundary of Ω 245
4.1 Boundaries of Class Ck,γ 246
4.2 Other Conditions on the Boundary 248
4.3 A Density Property 250
4.4 Extension Properties 252
4.5 Embedding Theorems for W k, p (Ω) 264
4.6 More About Compact Embeddings 268
4.7 The Poincaré Inequality 271
4.8 The Approximation of Bad Boundaries by Very Smooth Ones 272
4.9 A Counterexample 273
5 Measures of Non-Compactness 276
5.1 Bounded and Precompact Sets in L p (Ω), with 1 p < ∞ 276
5.2 A Formula for α(I) and β̃(I) where I : W 1, p (Ω) → Lp (Ω) with 1 p < ∞ 279
5.3 The Poincaré Inequality and α(I) 282
5.4 Estimates for β̃(I0 ) and β(I0 ) 286
6 Embeddings and Approximation Numbers 291
Notes 302
6 Generalized Dirichlet and Neumann Boundary-Value Problems . . . . . 305
1 Boundary-Value Problems 305
1.1 The Weak Dirichlet Problem 305
1.2 Eigenfunction Expansions for the Dirichlet Problem 313
1.3 The Weak Neumann Problem 315
2 Truncation Rules on W 1, p (Ω) 316
3 A Partial Ordering on W 1, p (Ω) 321
4 A Weak Maximum Principle 323
5 Capacity 327
contents | xvii
7 Second-Order Differential Operators on Arbitrary Open Sets . . . . . . . 331

1 Quasi-m-Sectorial Dirichlet and Neumann Operators 331
1.1 The Dirichlet Problem on Ω 332
1.2 The Neumann Problem on Ω 345
n/2
1.3 τ = − + q with q ∈ Lloc (Ω) when n 3 346
1.4 General Second-Order Elliptic Operators in L2 (Ω; w) 349
1.5 Examples 357
2 m-Accretive Realizations of τ = − +q 362
2.1 Kato’s Inequality 363
2.2 Kato’s Theorem 365
2.3 Supplementary Results 370
3 τ =− + q with im q Semi-Bounded 372
3.1 Local Properties of D (T) 373
3.2 Sufficiency Conditions for T0 = T 378
4 Schrödinger Operators with Strongly Singular Potentials 388
5 Further Remarks on Self-Adjointness and Quantum Mechanics 392
8 Capacity and Compactness Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
1 Capacity and Its Basic Properties 395
2 Some Integral Inequalities 399
1,p
3 Compactness Criterion for the Embedding W0 (Ω) → Lp (Ω) 409
4 Molcanov’s Criterion for a Discrete Spectrum 411
5 Continuous Representatives of W 1,p (Ω) 414
6 Density Results for C∞0 (Ω) 417
9 Essential Spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
1 General Remarks 421
2 Invariance of the Essential Spectra under Perturbations 425
3 Operators with a Compact Resolvent 430
4 Finite-Dimensional Extensions 431
5 Direct and Orthogonal Sums of Operators 432
6 Constant-Coefficient Operators in L2 (Rn ) 435
7 Constant-Coefficient Operators in L2 (0, ∞) 440
8 Relatively Bounded and Relatively Compact Perturbations
of Constant-Coefficient Operators 447
9 The Decomposition Principle for Operators in L2 (a, ∞) 452
Notes 460
10 Essential Spectra of General Second-Order Differential Operators . . . 463
1 A Decomposition Principle 463
2 Essential Spectra of Realizations of τ = − + q in L2 (Ω) 467
3 Essential Spectra of General Second-Order Operators in Shells 471
4 Perturbation Results 475
5 A Result of Persson 482
6 The Essential Spectrum of − D,Ω 485
6.1 Quasi-conical, Quasi-cylindrical, and Quasi-bounded Domains 485
6.2 A Mean-Distance Function 490
xviii | contents
11 Global and Asymptotic Estimates for the Eigenvalues

of − + q when q Is Real . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
1 The Max–Min Principle for Semi-Bounded, Self-Adjoint Operators 498
2 Bounds for N(λ, TD , Ω) and N(λ, TN , Ω) 504
2.1 The Operators TD,Ω and TN,Ω 504
2.2 Variation of Eigenvalues 507
2.3 The Eigenvalues of − D,Q and − N,Q 509
2.4 The Main Estimates 514
3 The Case λ → ∞: An Example 518
4 The Case λ → 0−: An Example 524
4.1 The Tesselation 524
4.2 The Spectrum 529
5 The Case Ω = Rn , q ∈ Ln/2 (Rn ), n 3 537
Notes 545
12 Estimates for the Singular Values of − + q when q is Complex . . . . . 547
1 Introduction 547
2 Bounds for M(λ, TD , Ω) and M(λ, TN , Ω) 548
2.1 The Dirichlet and Neumann Operators 548
2.2 A Lower Bound for M(λ, TD , Ω) 551
2.3 An Upper Bound for M(λ, TD , Ω) 556
3 Asymptotic Results for λ → ∞ 560
4 The lp Classes of the Singular Values and Eigenvalues 566
5 Perturbation Results 568
Notes 569
Bibliography 571
Author Index 583
Notation Index 585
Subject Index 586
B A SI C N OTAT I O N
B(x, r): open ball in Rn , centre x and radius r.

C: complex plane; C± = {z ∈ C : imz ≷ 0}; Cn : n-dimensional complex space; R: real
line; Rn : n-dimensional Euclidean space.
Rn+ = Rn \{0}.
Di u = ∂u/∂xi ; if α = (α1 , . . . , αn ) with αi non-negative integers, Dα u = ∂ |α| u/∂xα1 1 · · · ∂xαn n ,
where |α| = α1 + . . . + αn .
Ω: an open set in Rn ; Ω is a domain if it is also connected.
∂Ω: boundary of Ω; Ω̄: closure of Ω; Ω c = Rn \Ω.
Ω ⊂⊂ Ω: Ω̄ is a compact subset of Ω.
dist (x, ∂Ω): distance from x to Ω c .
N: positive integers; N0 = N ∪ {0}; Z: all integers.
f (t) g(t) as t → a: there exist positive constants c1 , c2 such that c1 f (t)/g(t) c2
for |t − a| (= 0) small enough, if a ∈ R; and for large enough ±t if a = ±∞.
T G : restriction of the operator (or function) T to set G.
f + = max(f , 0), f − = − min(f , 0).
A ⊂ B for sets A, B allows for A = B.
Embedding: a bounded linear injective map of a Banach space X to another such space Y.
lp (1 p ∞): complex sequence space with norm (ξj ) p = (|ξj |p )1/p when 1
p < ∞ and (ξj ) ∞ = sup |ξj | when p = ∞.
j
c0 := {(ξj ) ∈ l∞ : lim ξj = 0}.

j
π n/2
ωn : volume of the unit ball in Rn , i.e. ωn = 1 .
(1+ 2 n)
1
• • • • • • •
Linear Operators in Banach Spaces
Three main themes run through this chapter: compact linear operators, measures of non-
compactness, and Fredholm and semi-Fredholm maps. Each topic is of considerable intrin-
sic interest; our object is not only to make this apparent but also to establish connections
between the themes so as to derive results that will be of great interest later. One such result
is a formula for the radius re (T) of the essential spectrum of a bounded linear map T.
The theory of compact linear operators acting in a Banach space has a classical core that
will be familiar to many, and in view of this we pass rather quickly over it. Perhaps less
well known is the concept of the measure of non-compactness of a set and of a map, a
notion due to Kuratowski [151], who introduced it in 1930 for subsets of a metric space.
The idea lay more or less dormant until 1955, when Darbo [46] showed how it could
be used to obtain a significant generalization of Schauder’s fixed-point theorem. Since
that time, substantial advances have been made both in the theory and in applications,
although the bulk of applications have been to ordinary rather than to partial differential
equations. We try to redress the balance later on in the book by use of the formula for re (T)
in our discussion of the essential spectrum of various partial differential operators. The
interaction between measures of non-compactness and semi-Fredholm maps is of crucial
importance in the derivation of this formula, and accordingly we devote some time to
this interplay.
1. Compact Linear Maps

All vector spaces that will be mentioned will be assumed to be over the complex field, unless
otherwise stated. The norm on a normed vector space X will usually be denoted by • X ,
or by • if no ambiguity is possible.
Given any Banach spaces X and Y, the vector space of all bounded linear maps from X to
Y will be denoted by B (X, Y), or by B (X) if X = Y; with the norm • defined by
T = sup{Tx : x 1}, B (X, Y) is a Banach space. It is natural to try to distinguish
members of B (X, Y) that have particularly good properties. Compact linear maps come
into this category, since they have properties reminiscent of linear maps acting between
finite-dimensional spaces.
Spectral Theory and Differential Operators, 2nd edition, D. E. Edmunds and W. D. Evans 2018.
© D. E. Edmunds and W. D. Evans, 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.
2 | spectral theory and differential operators
Definition 1.1. Let X and Y be Banach spaces and let T : X → Y be linear. The map T is said
to be compact if, and only if, for any bounded subset B of X, the closure T(B) of T(B) is
compact.
Evidently T is compact if, and only if, given any bounded sequence (xn ) in X, the sequence
(Txn ) contains a convergent subsequence. Note also that if T is compact, it is continuous,
since otherwise there would be a sequence (xn ) in X such that xn = 1 for all n ∈ N, and
Txn → ∞ as n → ∞, which is impossible.
Examples.
(i) If T ∈ B (X, Y) and the dimension of the range R (T) := T(X) of T, dim R (T), is
finite, then T must be compact, since if B is a bounded subset of X then T(B) is closed
and bounded, and hence compact.
(ii) Not every bounded linear map is compact: take X = Y = l2 , for each n ∈ N let e(n) be
the element of l2 with mth coordinate δmn (equal to 1 if m = n, and 0 otherwise), and
observe that the identity map of l2 to itself is continuous but not compact, because the
sequence (e(n) ) has no convergent subsequence.
(iii) Let a, b ∈ R, b > a, J = [a, b], and suppose that k : J × J → C is continuous on J × J;
define
b
(Kx)(s) = k(s, t)x(t) dt
a
for all s ∈ J and for all x in the Banach space C(J) of all continuous complex-valued
functions on J (with norm • given by x = max {|x(s)| : s ∈ J}). Then K is a linear
map of C(J) into itself, and in fact, K is compact. To see this, set M = max {|k(s, t)| :
s, t ∈ J}; then Kx M(b − a)x for all x ∈ C(J), and so if B is a bounded subset
of C(J) then K(B) is bounded. Moreover, for all s1 , s2 ∈ J and any x ∈ C(J),
2
b

|(Kx)(s1 ) − (Kx)(s2 )| = [k(s1 , t) − k(s2 , t)]x(t) dt
2
a
b b
|k(s1 , t) − k(s2 , t)|2 dt · |x(t)|2 dt.
a a
Thus, given any ε > 0, there exists a δ > 0 such that |(Kx)(s1 ) − (Kx)(s2 )| < ε if
x 1 and |s1 − s2 | < δ (s1 , s2 ∈ J). Hence {Kx : x ∈ C(J), x 1} is equicon-
tinuous and bounded, and thus relatively compact, by the Arzela–Ascoli Theorem (cf.
Yosida [265], p. 85).
Denote by K (X, Y) the family of all compact linear maps from X to Y, and put
K (X) = K (X, X). The following proposition is a well-known consequence of the
definition of compactness:
Proposition 1.2. Let X, Y, Z be Banach spaces. Then K (X, Y) is a closed linear subspace of
B (X, Y); if T1 ∈ B (X, Y) and T2 ∈ B (Y, Z) then T2 T1 is compact if either T1 or T2 is
compact.
linear operators in banach spaces | 3
This proposition implies that K (X) is a closed two-sided ideal in the Banach algebra
B (X).
It has already been noted that if T ∈ B (X, Y) is of finite rank, that is, dim R (T) < ∞,
then T ∈ K (X, Y). In particular, B (X, Y) = K (X, Y) if either X or Y is finite-dimensional.
The following result complements this, and throws new light on Example (ii) above.
Theorem 1.3. Let X be a Banach space and suppose that the identity map of X to itself is
compact. Then dim X < ∞.
This follows directly from the following lemma:
Lemma 1.4. Let (Xn ) be a sequence of finite-dimensional linear subspaces of a Banach space X
such that for all n ∈ N, Xn ⊂ Xn+1 and Xn = Xn+1 . Then given any n ∈ N with n 2,
there exists xn ∈ Xn , with xn = 1, such that xn − x 1 for all x ∈ Xn−1 . In particular,
xn − xm 1 when m < n; the sequence (xn ) has no convergent subsequences.
Proof. Let yn ∈ Xn \Xn−1 . The function y → y − yn is positive and continuous on Xn−1

and approaches infinity as y → ∞; hence it has a minimum, at zn ∈ Xn−1 , say, and
0 < zn − yn x + zn − yn
for any x ∈ Xn−1 . The point xn := (yn − zn )/yn − zn then has all the required
properties. 2
A related result is the following:
Lemma 1.5 (Riesz’s Lemma). Let M be a proper, closed, linear subspace of a normed vector
space X. Then, given any θ ∈ (0, 1), there is an element xθ ∈ X such that xθ = 1 and dist
(xθ , M) θ.
Proof. Let x ∈ X\M. Since M is closed, d := dist (x, M) > 0. Thus, given any θ ∈ (0, 1),
there exists mθ ∈ M such that x−mθ d/θ . The element xθ := (x−mθ )/x−mθ
has all the properties needed. 2
Compactness of a linear map is preserved by the taking of the adjoint. Before this
result is given in a formal way, some remarks about notation are desirable. Given any
normed vector space X, by the adjoint space X ∗ of X is meant the set of all conjugate linear
continuous functionals on X; that is, f ∈ X ∗ if, and only if, f : X → C is continuous and
f (αx + βy) = αf (x) + βf (y) for all α, β ∈ C and all x, y ∈ X. Our choice of conjugate-
linear functionals, rather than the more common linear functionals, is dictated solely by the
convenience that will result later on in the book. With the usual definitions of addition and
multiplication by scalars, the adjoint space X ∗ becomes a Banach space when given the norm
• defined by
f = sup{|(f , x)| : x = 1},
where (f , x) is the value of f at x. (This is often denoted by f (x) as above. Strictly speaking,
we should write (f , x)X , but the subscript will be omitted if no ambiguity is possible. The
same omission will be made for inner products in a Hilbert space.) Given any T ∈ B (X, Y),
the adjoint of T is the map T ∗ ∈ B (Y ∗ , X ∗ ) defined by (T ∗ g, x) = (g, Tx) for all g ∈ Y ∗ and
x ∈ X; note that (αS + βT)∗ = αS∗ + βT ∗ for all α, β ∈ C and all S, T ∈ B (X, Y). These
conventions about adjoints will apply even when the underlying spaces are Hilbert spaces,
and there will therefore be none of the usual awkwardness about the distinction between
Banach-space and Hilbert-space adjoints of a map that has to be made when linear, rather
than conjugate-linear, functionals are used. Of course, many of the results to be given below
would also hold had X ∗ been defined to be the space of all continuous linear functionals
on X. Note that the Riesz Representation Theorem (cf. Taylor [231], Theorem 4.81-C)
enables any Hilbert space H to be identified with H∗ ; and that in view of this, given any
T ∈ B (H1 , H2 )(H1 and H2 being Hilbert spaces), T ∗ ∈ B (H2 , H1 ). If H1 = H2 = H
then both T and T ∗ belong to B (H): the map T is said to be self-adjoint if T = T ∗ .
Theorem 1.6. Let X and Y be Banach spaces and let T ∈ B (X, Y). Then T ∈ K (X, Y) if, and
only if, T ∗ ∈ K (Y ∗ , X ∗ ).
The well-known proof may be found in Yosida [265], p. 282.

The notion of the adjoint of a map T will also be needed when T is unbounded. Thus let
D (T) be a linear subspace of X that is dense in X (i.e. D (T) = X) and let T: D (T) → Y be
linear. Let D (T ∗ ) = {g ∈ Y ∗ : there exists f ∈ X ∗ such that (f , x) = (g, Tx) for all x ∈ D (T)};
the adjoint T ∗ of T is the map T ∗ : D (T ∗ ) → X ∗ defined by T ∗ g = f , i.e. (T ∗ g, x) = (g, Tx)
for all x ∈ D (T) and all g ∈ D (T ∗ ). Note that it is essential that D (T) be dense in X for T ∗
to be well-defined. A more detailed discussion of self-adjoint maps in a Hilbert space will
be given in §3.4.
Next, the results of the Fredholm–Riesz–Schauder theory of compact linear maps will
be given; this theory extends in a most direct way the theory of linear maps in finite-
dimensional spaces. The complete picture follows from a series of auxiliary results, a number
of which are of interest in their own right. Throughout the discussion X will stand for a
non-trivial (that is = {0}) Banach space, I will be the identity map from X to X, and, given
any T ∈ B (X) and any λ ∈ C, we shall write Tλ for T − λI. The notions of the resolvent
set and the spectrum of a linear map will also be needed; these will be explained in terms
of a linear map S from a linear subspace D (S) of X to X. The resolvent set, ρ(S), of S
is defined to be {λ ∈ C : (S − λI)−1 exists and belongs to B (X)}; C\ρ(S) is called the
spectrum of S and is written as σ(S). Three disjoint subsets of σ(S) are distinguished:
the point spectrum σp (S) := {λ ∈ σ(S) : S − λI is not injective}, the continuous spectrum
σc (S) := {λ ∈ σ(S) : S−λI is injective, (S−λI) D (S) is dense in X but not equal to X}, and
the residual spectrum σr (S) := {λ ∈ σ(S) : S − λI is injective, (S − λI)D (S) is not dense in
X}. The elements of σp (S) are, of course, eigenvalues of S. In general the three subsets of the
spectrum given above do not exhaust σ(S); it is conceivable that (S−λI)−1 could exist, have
domain X and yet be unbounded. However, this pathology cannot occur in an important
case, namely, when S is closed: recall that a linear map T from a linear subspace D (T) of X
to a normed vector space Y is said to be closed if its graph G (T) := {{x, Tx} : x ∈ D (T)}
is a closed subset of the product space X × Y, when X × Y is given the norm •
defined by
1
{x, y} = (x2 + y2 ) 2 .
It is easy to see that T is closed if, and only if, given any sequence (xn ) in D (T) such that
xn → x and Txn → y, it follows that x ∈ D (T) and Tx = y. For more details on these topics,
see Kato [134] III-5, 6. Finally, we write N (T) for the kernel of T, i.e. {x ∈ D (T) : Tx = 0},
and set nul T = dim N (T); nul T is the nullity of T.
Theorem 1.7. Let T ∈ K (X) and suppose that λ ∈ C\{0}. Then

(i) if R (Tλ ) = X then Tλ is injective and Tλ−1 ∈ B (X);
(ii) R (Tλ ) is closed;
(iii) if Tλ is injective, Tλ−1 ∈ B (X);
(iv) either λ ∈ ρ(T), in which case R (Tλ ) = X, or λ ∈ σp (T), in which case R (Tλ )
is a proper closed linear subspace of X;
(v) nul Tλ < ∞.
Definition 1.8. Let T ∈ B (X) and suppose that λ ∈ σp (T). The geometric multiplicity of λ
is defined to be nul Tλ .
Theorem 1.9. Let T ∈ K (X). Then σp (T) is at most countable and has no accumula-
tion point except possibly 0. Each point of σ(T)\{0} is an eigenvalue of finite geometric
multiplicity.
It is worth remarking that if dim X = ∞ then 0 ∈ σ(T) for all T ∈ K (X). To see
this, suppose that 0 ∈ ρ(T) for some T ∈ K (X); then T −1 ∈ B (X) and so I = TT −1
is compact. Theorem 1.3 now gives the desired contradiction.
At this stage the adjoint T ∗ of T makes an important entrance. If T ∈ K (X), it has
already been observed that T ∗ ∈ K (X ∗ ); and it is easy to see that σ(T) := σ(T ∗ ) = {λ̄ :
λ ∈ σ(T ∗ )}, compactness not being needed for this latter result. It follows that if λ ∈ C\{0},
then λ ∈ σp (T) if, and only if, λ̄ ∈ σp (T ∗ ).
Theorem 1.10. Let T ∈ K (X) and let λ ∈ C\{0}. Then nul Tλ = nul Tλ̄∗ .
These results may be combined to give the following theorem, generally known as the
Fredholm Alternative Theorem:
Theorem 1.11. Let T ∈ K (X) and let λ ∈ C\{0}. Then the non-homogeneous equations
Tλ x = y, (1.1)
Tλ̄∗ y∗ = x∗ (1.2)
have unique solutions for any y ∈ X and any x∗ ∈ X ∗ if, and only if, the homogeneous
equations
Tλ x = 0, (1.3)
∗ ∗
Tλ̄ y = 0 (1.4)
have only the zero solutions. If one of these homogeneous equations has a non-zero solution
then they both have the same finite number of linearly independent solutions, and in this case
(1.1) and (1.2) have solutions if, and only if, y and x∗ are orthogonal to all the solutions of
(1.4) and (1.3) respectively in the sense that (y∗ , y) = 0 and (x∗ , x) = 0 for all y∗ satisfying
(1.4) and all x satisfying (1.3).
The proofs of Theorems 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, and 1.11 can be found in Yosida [265] X-§5.
The next important concept is that of a Fredholm map, but before this can be given, some
preliminary definitions are required.
Let X be a normed vector space and let G ⊂ X. The annihilator G0 of G in X ∗ is
defined by
G0 = {x∗ ∈ X ∗ : (x∗ , g) = 0 for all g ∈ G};
if H ⊂ X ∗ then 0 H, the annihilator of H in X, is defined by
0
H = {x ∈ X : (h, x) = 0 for all h ∈ H}.
If X is reflexive, and in particular if X is a Hilbert space, we shall often write G⊥ in place of G0 ;

and because of the possibility of identification of X with X ∗∗ in this case we shall then use
the notation H⊥ instead of 0 H, and G⊥⊥ for 0 (G0 ). Given any linear subspace G of a normed
vector space X, we have Ḡ = 0 (G0 ): that Ḡ ⊂ 0 (G0 ) is obvious, while if x ∈ 0 (G0 )\Ḡ then
by the Hahn–Banach Theorem there exists x∗ ∈ X ∗ \{0} such that (x∗ , g) = 0 for all g ∈ Ḡ
and (x∗ , x) = 0. Thus x∗ ∈ G0 and so (x∗ , x) = 0. This contradiction proves our assertion.
Similarly, if H is a linear subspace of X ∗ , it is clear that H̄ ⊂ (0 H)0 , but this time the inclusion
may be proper if X is not reflexive. These results imply that G is dense in X if, and only if,
G0 = {0}; and H is weak*-dense in X ∗ if, and only if, 0 H = {0}.
One way in which annihilators occur naturally is in connection with quotient spaces. Recall
that if M is a linear subspace of a vector space X, the quotient space X/M of X by M is the set
of all cosets [x] := x + M(x ∈ X); two cosets [x] and [y] coincide if, and only if, x − y ∈ M.
The quotient X/M may be made into a vector space on defining the linear operations by
λ[x] + μ[y] = [λx + μy],
the zero element of X/M being M. The codimension of M in X is defined to be dim (X/M)
and will sometimes be written as codim M. If M is a closed linear subspace of a normed
vector space X then X/M becomes a normed vector space when provided with the norm
defined by
[x] = inf{y : y ∈ [x]} = dist(x, M) := inf{x − m : m ∈ M};
if, in addition, X is a Banach space, so is X/M. Verification of these assertions will be found
in Kato [134], III-§8; so will the proof of the statement that if M is a closed linear subspace
of a normed vector space then
codim M = dim M0 , codim M0 = dim M. (1.5)
Let M and N be closed linear subspaces of a Banach space X, and suppose that
M ∩ N = {0} and X = M + N := {m + n : m ∈ M, n ∈ N}, so that each element x of X
has a unique decomposition of the form x = y + z, with y ∈ M and z ∈ N. Then X is said
to be the (topological) direct sum of M and N, and we write X = M+̇N. (The notation
X = M ⊕ N will be reserved for the special case in which X is a Hilbert space and the
subspaces M and N are orthogonal.) The subspaces M and N are said to be complementary,
and dim (X/M) = dim N (cf. Lang [152], VIII-§1). It may be shown (cf. Taylor [231],
§4.8) that given a closed linear subspace M of a Banach space X, there is a complementary
subspace N (so that X = M+̇N) if, and only if, there is a projection P ∈ B (X) (i.e. a linear
map P with P2 = P) of X onto M. It is perfectly possible for there to be no closed subspaces
complementary to a given closed subspace, but in important cases this is so, as the following
theorem shows:
Theorem 1.12. Let X be a Banach space and let M be a closed linear subspace of X
with finite dimension or finite codimension. Then M has a complementary closed linear
subspace.
A proof of this theorem may be found in Lang [152] VIII-§1. Improvements of the above
result can be made by use of the following lemma:
Lemma 1.13 (Auerbach’s Lemma). Let X be a Banach space with dim X = n < ∞. Then
there exist elements
x1 , x2 , . . ., xn in X, and elements x∗1 , x∗2 , . . . , x∗n of X ∗ , such that
∗
(xi , xj ) = δij i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n .
The proof of this is given in Pietsch [189], Part 0, B. 4, together with the following
improvement of Theorem 1.12:
Theorem 1.14. Let X be a Banach space and let M be a linear subspace of X with dim
1
M = m < ∞. Then there is a projection P ∈ B (X) of X onto M such that P m 2 .
If N is a closed linear subspace of X with codim N = n < ∞, then, given any ε > 0, there
is a projection Q ∈ B (X) of X onto N such that Q (1 + ε)n.
We shall also need the following notions. A linear subspace M of X is called an invariant
subspace of a linear operator T acting in X if T maps M into itself. If X1 and X2 are invariant
subspaces of T and X = X1 + X2 , then T is said to be reduced by the subspaces X1 and X2
and to have the direct sum decomposition T = T1 +̇T2 , where Ti is the restriction of T to Xi
(i = 1, 2). If X is a Hilbert space and X1 and X2 are orthogonal we write X = X1 ⊕ X2 and
T = T1 ⊕ T2 , and call the sums orthogonal sums.
To round off our discussion of concepts related to the Fredholm maps that will soon be
defined, we mention the following theorem, which gives connections between annihilators,
kernels, adjoints, and ranges. The proof is left as an exercise.
Theorem 1.15. Let X and Y be normed vector spaces and let T ∈ B (X, Y). Then
(i) [R (T)]0 = N (T ∗ );
(ii) R (T) = 0 N (T ∗ );
(iii) R (T) = Y if, and only if, T ∗ is injective;
(iv) 0 [R (T ∗ )] = N (T);
(v) R (T ∗ ) ⊂ N (T)0 ;
(vi) R (T ∗ ) = X ∗ only if T is injective;
(vii) if T is injective, [0 R (T ∗ )]0 = X ∗ .
After all this, it is at last convenient to introduce the notion of a Fredholm map.
Definition 1.16. Let X and Y be Banach spaces and let T ∈ B (X, Y). The map T is said to be
a Fredholm map if, and only if, R (T) is closed and
nul T < ∞, def T := codim R (T) < ∞;
def T is called the deficiency of T. The index ind T of T is defined by
ind T = nul T − def T.
Examples.
(i) Let T: l2 → l2 be the left-shift operator defined by Tx = (x2 , x3 , . . .), where x =
(x1 , x2 , . . .). Then nul T = 1, and since T is surjective, def T = 0. Hence T is a Fredholm
map of index 1.
(ii) Let S: l2 → l2 be the right shift operator given by Sx = (0, x1 , x2 , . . .) where
x = (x1 , x2 , . . .). Here nul S = 0, def S = 1, and so S is a Fredholm map of index −1.
(iii) Let X be a Banach space and let T ∈ K (X). Then, for any λ ∈ C\{0}, we have that
Tλ (= T − λI, I being the identity map of X to itself) is a Fredholm map of index 0.
To verify this, note that by Theorem 1.7, R (Tλ ) is closed and nul Tλ < ∞; and by (1.5),
Theorem 1.15(i), and Theorem 1.10,
def Tλ = codim R (Tλ ) = dim R (Tλ )0 = nul(Tλ )∗ = nul Tλ̄∗ = nul Tλ .
We shall have a lot more to say about Fredholm maps later on in this chapter.
To complete our discussion of compact linear operators in a Banach space setting, the
notion of the algebraic multiplicity of an eigenvalue is introduced.
Definition 1.17. Let X be a Banach space, let T ∈ B (X) and suppose that λ ∈ σp (T).
The linear subspace Mλ of X defined by
∞

Mλ = {x ∈ X : Tλn x = 0 for some n ∈ N} = N (Tλn )
n=1
is called the algebraic (or root) eigenspace corresponding to λ, and non-zero elements of it are
called generalized eigenvectors (or root vectors) corresponding to λ. The dimension of Mλ is
called the algebraic multiplicity of λ.
It is clear that the algebraic multiplicity of an eigenvalue is greater than or equal to its
geometric multiplicity. If the map is compact, a good deal more can be said about the
algebraic multiplicity of eigenvalues, as is shown by the next results.
Lemma 1.18. Let X be a Banach space, let T ∈ K (X), and suppose that λ is a non-zero
eigenvalue of T. Then there exists r ∈ N such that for all n ∈ N with n r,
N (Tλn ) = N (Tλr ).
Proof. It is enough to deal with the case in which λ = 1, as otherwise we may divide through
by λ. Thus suppose that λ = 1 and that the result is false. Then, there is a sequence
(N (T1n ))n ∈ N of subspaces of X such that each subspace is strictly contained in its
successor. By Lemma 1.5, given any n ∈ N with n 2, there exists xn ∈ N (T1n ) such
that xn = 1 and dist[xn , N (T1n−1 )] 12 . Hence, if k ∈ N and k < n,
1
Txn − Txk = xn + T1 xn − xk − T1 xk ,
2
because T1 xn (and hence −T1 xn + xk + T1 xk ) lies in N (T1n−1 ). This contradicts the
compactness of T and completes the proof. 2
Remark 1.19.
(i) In view of Lemma 1.18 there will be a smallest positive integer r such that N (Tλn ) =
N (Tλr ) for all n ∈ N with n r. This smallest integer is called the index of λ (with
respect to T). Note that if r is the index of λ, then the algebraic eigenspace corresponding
to λ is simply N (Tλr ). Moreover, since, by the binomial theorem and Proposition 1.2, we
may write
Tλr = T − λr (−1)r+1 I,
where T ∈ K (X), it follows from Theorem 1.7 that nul Tλr < ∞. Hence every non-
zero eigenvalue λ of a compact linear map T has finite algebraic multiplicity equal to nul
Tλr , where r is the index of λ.
(ii) Under the hypotheses of Lemma 1.18 and with the index of λ denoted by r, it turns out
that there is a positive integer s such that R (Tλs ) = R (Tλn ) for all n s, and that the
smallest such integer s equals r. The proof of this is similar to that of Lemma 1.18. Suppose
that there is no such positive integer s. Then R (Tλn+1 ) R (Tλn ) for each n ∈ N; and
since, by Theorem 1.7, R (Tλn ) is closed, it follows from Lemma 1.5 that given any n ∈ N,
there exists xn ∈ R (Tλn ), say xn = Tλn yn , such that xn = 1 and xn − x 12 for all
x ∈ R (Tλn+1 ). If 1 m < n, then
w := xn + λ−1 Tλ xn − λ−1 Tλ xm
= Tλn yn + λ−1 Tλn+1 yn − λ−1 Tλm+1 ym ∈ R (Tλm+1 );
thus xm − w 12 . However,
1
Txm − Txn = |λ| xm − w |λ|,
2
and the compactness of T is contradicted.
This establishes the existence of s ∈ N, and it remains to prove that s = r. First we claim
that Tλ is a bijection of R (Tλs ) onto itself. To establish this, since Tλ R (Tλs ) = R (Tλs+1 ) =
R (Tλs ), all we have to do is to prove that Tλ is injective on R (Tλs ). If not, then there exists
x1 ∈ R (Tλs )\{0} such that Tλ x1 = 0; and as Tλ R (Tλs ) = R (Tλs ) there is a sequence (xn )
such that Tλ xn = xn−1 for all n ∈ N with n 2. Thus Tλn−1 xn = x1 = 0 and Tλn xn = 0 for
all n 2; hence xn ∈ N (Tλn )\N (Tλn−1 ) for all n 2. This contradicts Lemma 1.18 and
establishes our claim.
Now suppose that x ∈ N (Tλs+1 ) and put y = Tλs x. Then y ∈ R (Tλs ) and Tλ y = 0.
Since Tλ is a bijection of R (Tλs ) onto itself, this implies that y = 0 and hence x ∈ N (Tλs ).
Thus N (Tλs+1 ) ⊂ N (Tλs ), and so N (Tλs+1 ) = N (Tλs ). Hence s r. Finally we prove
that s r. Let x = Tλs−1 y ∈ R (Tλs−1 )\R (Tλs ) and z = Tλ x = Tλs y∈ R (Tλs ). Since Tλs
is a bijection of R (Tλs ) onto itself, there exists a unique y ∈ R (Tλs ) such that Tλs y = z, and
thus y − y ∈ N (Tλs ). Moreover, Tλs−1 (y − y ) = x − Tλs−1 y = 0 since Tλs−1 y ∈ R (Tλs )
while x ∈ / R (Tλs ). Hence y − y ∈ N (Tλs )\N (Tλs−1 ), and s r. The proof is complete.
Theorem 1.20. Let T ∈ K (X), suppose that λ is a non-zero eigenvalue of T, and let r
be the index of λ. Then
X = N (Tλr )+̇R (Tλr ),
and each of the spaces in this direct sum is closed and invariant under T. If β is another
non-zero eigenvalue of T, distinct from λ, and s is its index, then
N (Tβs ) ⊂ R (Tλr ).
Proof. We recall that a subspace M of X is said to be invariant under T if T(M) ⊂ M.

The remarks above make it clear that R (Tλr ) is closed; that N (Tλr ) is closed,
and that N (Tλr ) and R (Tλr ) are invariant under T, is obvious. Suppose that
x ∈ N (Tλr ) ∩ R (Tλr ). Then, since Tλ maps R (Tλr ) bijectively onto itself, it follows
from the fact that Tλr x = 0 that x = 0. Thus N (Tλr )+̇ R (Tλr ) is a direct sum
decomposition of some subspace of X, and, since def Tλr = nul Tλr (as ind Tλr = 0),
it follows that X = N (Tλr )+̇ R (Tλr ).
Now suppose that β ∈ σp (T), β = λ, β = 0, and observe that, since Tλr Tβs = Tβs Tλr ,
the subspaces N (Tλr ) and R (Tλr ) are invariant under Tβs . Let x ∈ N (Tβs ). Then
there is a unique decomposition of x as x = y + z, with y ∈ N (Tλr ) and z ∈ R (Tλr ).
Hence 0 = Tβs x = Tβs y + Tβs z, and since Tβs y ∈ N (Tλr ) and Tβs z ∈ R (Tλr ), it
follows from the uniqueness of the decomposition that Tβs y = 0. However, there are
polynomials P and Q in T such that PTβs + QTλr = I: to see that this is so, observe that
(β − λ)−1 (Tλ − Tβ ) = I, so that for any n ∈ N,
n

−n n j
(β − λ) Tλ (−Tβ )n−j = I.
j=0
j
Take n = r + s: then
r−1
r+s
I = (β − λ)−r−s
j r−j
Tλ (−1)r+s−j Tβs Tβ
j=0
j
r+s

−r−s r+s j−r
+ (β − λ) Tλr Tλ (−Tβ )n−j ,
j=r
j
and our assertion is proved. Thus
y = Iy = PTβs y + QTλr y = 0.
Hence x = z ∈ R (Tλr ), and the proof is complete. 2
Theorem 1.20 implies that given any T ∈ K (X) and any non-zero eigenvalue λ of T, with
index r, there is a bounded projection Pλ of X onto N (Tλr ), the (finite-dimensional)
alge-
braic eigenspace corresponding to λ. In fact, writing X = X1 +̇X2 , where X1 = N Tλr and
X2 = R (Tλr ), we see that Tλ (Xi ) ⊂ Xi and T(Xi ) ⊂ Xi for i = 1, 2; and given any x ∈ X, we
have Pλ x ∈ X1 , (I−Pλ )x ∈ X2 , Pλ Tλ Pλ x = Tλ Pλ x, Pλ Tλ (I−Pλ )x = 0, (I−Pλ )Tλ Pλ x = 0,
and (I − Pλ )Tλ (I − Pλ ) x = Tλ (I − Pλ )x, so that
Pλ Tλ x = Pλ Tλ [Pλ x + (I − Pλ )x] = Pλ Tλ Pλ x = Tλ Pλ x;
that is, Pλ Tλ = Tλ Pλ . Also, (I − Pλ )Tλ = Tλ (I − Pλ ). Thus
Pλ T = TPλ and (I − Pλ )T = T(I − Pλ ).
Let T (i) = T Xi , the restriction of T to Xi (i = 1, 2). Then it is easy to see that σ(T) =
σ(T (1) ) σ(T (2) ); λ obviously belongs to σp (T (1) ); if μ ∈ σp (T), μ = 0 and μ = λ then
for some x ∈ X\{0} we have Tx = μx and thus, by Theorem 1.20, x ∈ N (Tμ ) ⊂ R (Tλr ).
Hence x ∈ / X1 and μ ∈ / σp (T (1) ) = σ(T (1) ): since dim X1 < ∞ we have 0 ∈ / σ(T (1) ),
because otherwise there would exist a non-zero element x of X1 such that Tx = 0, and since
Tλr x = 0, this would imply that λr x = 0, a contradiction.
The significance of all this is that σ(T (1) ) = {λ} and σ(T (2) ) = σ(T)\{λ}.
We shall return to this spectral theory of compact linear operators in Chapter 2 in a
Hilbert-space setting, when a sharpening of the results is possible. Further details of the
theory may be found in Gohberg and Krein [103] and Glazman [102].
2. Measures of Non-Compactness
As we have seen, the compact linear maps possess strikingly good properties. It turns out to
be fruitful to view arbitrary continuous linear maps from the point of view of their deviation
from compact maps; one way in which this can be done is to use the notion of the measure
of non-compactness of bounded subsets of a Banach space, and we now set about the
description of this process.
Definition 2.1. Let A be a bounded subset of a metric space X. The Kuratowski measure
of non-compactness ψX (A) of A is defined by ψX (A) = inf {δ > 0 : A can be covered
by finitely many sets of diameter δ}; the ball measure of non-compactness ψX (A)
of A is defined by ψX (A) = inf{δ > 0 : A can be covered by finitely many open balls of
radius δ}.
We shall often write ψ and ψ in place of ψX and ψX , if X is understood to be the

underlying space.
It is easy to see that for every bounded subset A of X we have ψX (A) ψX (A) 2ψX (A).
However, the two measures of non-compactness are not the same, even when allowance is
made for the obvious factor of 2. To illustrate this, take X = l2 and A = {e(i) ∈ l2 : i ∈ N},
where the ith coordinate of e(i) is 1 and all other entries are zero. Since A has diameter equal
√ √ 1√
to 2, we have ψ(A) 2. However, given any open ball B ⊂ l2 of radius 2 2 + ε, with
1√
ε > 0 small enough, e(i) ∈ B only if the centre of B has ith coordinate 1 − 2 2 − ε; and
evidently this can happen for finitely many indices i only. It follows that no finite set of balls
1√ 1√
of radius 2 2 + ε can cover A, and hence ψ(A) > 2 2. Thus ψ(A) < 2ψ(A).
Despite this, ψ and ψ have many similar properties, and we next establish some of the
more important of these.
Lemma 2.2. Let A and B be bounded subsets of a metric space X. Then

(i) ψ(A) = 0 if, and only if, A is precompact;
(ii) if A ⊂ B then ψ(A) ψ(B);
(iii) ψ(A) = ψ(A);
(iv) ψ(A ∪ B) = max{ψ(A), ψ(B)}.
The same properties hold for ψ.
Proof. Parts (i) and (ii) are obvious. For (iii), we see from (ii) that ψ(A) ψ(A); while if
A ⊂ ni= 1 Ai , then A ⊂ ni= 1 Ai and, since each Ai has the same diameter as Ai , we
have ψ(A) ψ(A); thus ψ(A) = ψ(A).
Finally, (ii) shows that a := max{ψ(A), ψ(B)} ψ(A ∪ B). Given any ε > 0,
there are coverings of A and B by sets A1 , A2 , . . . , An and B1 , B2 , . . . , Bm respectively,
where diam Ai ψ(A) + ε a + ε and diam Bj a + ε for i = 1, 2, . . . , n and
j = 1, 2, . . . , m. Since the Ai and the Bj together form a covering of A ∪ B, it follows
that ψ(A ∪ B) a + ε for each ε > 0. Hence ψ(A ∪ B) a, from which (iv)
follows.
The proofs of (i)–(iv) for ψ are similar. 2
Property (i) above justifies the use of the term ‘measure of non-compactness’.
The next result, due to Kuratowski [151], generalizes the elementary observation that in
a complete metric space a decreasing sequence of compact non-empty sets has non-empty
intersection:
Lemma 2.3. Let X be a complete metric space and let (An ) be a decreasing sequence of non-empty
closed subsets of X such that ψ(An ) → 0 as n → ∞.
Then ∞ n = 1 An is non-empty and compact.
∞
Proof. Since ψ ∞ n = 1 An ψ(Am ) for each m ∈ N, we have ψ n = 1 An = 0; thus
∞
n = 1 An is compact, because it is obviously closed. It remains to prove that it is non-
empty.
For each n ∈ N put ψ(An ) = dn . We can write An = k(n) i = 1 Ai,n , where diam Ai,n
dn + n−1 for 1 i k(n). For some i with 1 i k(1) we have Ai,1 ∩ An = ∅ for
all n ∈ N, since otherwise, for some n ∈ N,
⎛ ⎞

k(1)
An = A 1 ∩ A n = ⎝ Ai,1 ⎠ ∩ An = ∅.
i=1
Let B1 be one of the sets Ai,1 such that Ai,1 ∩ An = ∅ for all n ∈ N; to be precise, let
us take B1 to be that one of the Ai,1 with the smallest subscript i. This is the
beginning
m
of an inductive process. Suppose that we have sets B1 , . . . , Bm such that i = 1 Bi ∩
An = ∅ for all n ∈ N, and with Bi = Aj,i for some j with 1 j k(i), for 1 i m.
Put B = m i = 1 Bi . Our object is to determine a set Bm+1 = Aj,m+1 for some j with
1 j k(m + 1), such that for all n ∈ N we have B ∩ Bm+1 ∩ An = ∅. If for each j
with 1 j k(m + 1) there is an n0 ∈ N such that B ∩ Aj,m+1 ∩ An0 = ∅ then, for
large enough n,

k(m+1)
B ∩ An = B ∩ Am+1 ∩ An = B ∩ Aj,m+1 ∩ An = ∅,
j=1
contrary to the inductive hypothesis. Hence there exists j, with 1 j k(m + 1),
such that B ∩ Aj,m+1 ∩ An = ∅ for all n ∈ N. Taking the smallest such j we define
Bm+1 = Aj,m+1 , and the inductive step is complete.
It follows that for each n ∈ N we have ∅ = nj= 1 Bj ⊂ An . For each n ∈ N take
xn ∈ nj= 1 Bj . Since for each m ∈ N
m

diam Bj diam Bm dm + m−1 ,
1
we see that d(xj , xk ) dm + m−1 if j, k m; thus (xn ) is a Cauchy sequence and there
exists x ∈ X such that xn → x as n → ∞. Since for all n m the element xn belongs to
the closed set Am , we have x ∈ Am for all m ∈ N. Hence x ∈ ∞ 1 Am , and the proof is
complete. 2
Corollary 2.4. Lemma 2.3 holds with ψ replaced by ψ.
Proof. Since ψ(B) 2ψ(B) for every bounded subset B of X, the corollary follows imme-
diately. 2
Further results follow if we work in a normed vector space, rather than in a metric space.
To give these we need a little more of the notation standard in functional analysis. Given any
normed vector space X and any subsets A and B of X we write A+B for {a+b: a ∈ A, b ∈ B},
co A for the intersection of all convex sets containing A, and co A for the intersection of all
closed, convex sets containing A. The sets co A and co A are referred to respectively as the
convex hull and the closed convex hull of A; evidently co A (co A) is the smallest convex (closed
convex) set containing A, and co A = A (co A = A) if, and only if, A is convex (convex and
closed). A characterization of co A is easy to give: it is
n

n
λi xi : n ∈ N; x1 , . . . , xn ∈ A; λ1 , . . . , λn 0, λi = 1 .
i=1 i=1
Moreover, co A = co A. To prove this last statement simply note that co A is plainly closed
and convex; thus co A ⊃ co A. Moreover, co A is closed and contains co A; hence co A ⊂
co A, and thus co A = co A.
Lemma 2.5. Let A and B be bounded subsets of a normed vector space X. Then ψ(A + B)
ψ(A) + ψ(B) and ψ (co A) = ψ (co A) = ψ (A). Similar results hold for ψ.
Proof. Put ψ(A) = d1 and ψ(B) = d2 , and let ε > 0. There are sets S1 , . . . , Sm and
1 1
T1 , . . . , Tn , with diam Si d1 + 2 ε and diam Tj d2 + 2 ε i = 1, . . . ,m; j = 1,
. . . , n) such that A = m i = 1 Si and B =
n
j = 1 Tj . Since A + B = i,j Si + Tj ,
if we can prove that diam (Si + Tj ) d1 + d2 + ε then it will follow that ψ(A +
B) d1 + d2 + ε. Given x1 , x2 ∈ Si + Tj we may write xk = ak + bk (k = 1, 2),
with ak ∈ Si and bk ∈ Tj ; thus x1 − x2 a1 − a2 + b1 − b2 d1 + d2 + ε.
Hence ψ(A + B) d1 + d2 + ε, and since this holds for all ε > 0, we see that
ψ(A + B) ψ(A) + ψ(B).
To show that ψ (co A) = ψ(A) we first prove that, given any bounded convex
subsets C1 and C2 of X,
ψ (co (C1 ∪ C2 )) max {ψ (C1 ) , ψ (C2 )}. (2.1)
To do this, observe that since C1 and C2 are convex,

co (C1 ∪ C2 ) = [λC1 + (1 − λ) C2 ] .
0 λ 1
Next, since C1 and C2 are bounded, there exists M > 0 such that x M for all
x ∈ C1 + C2 . Let ε > 0 and let λ1 , . . . , λm be points of [0, 1] such that if λ ∈ [0, 1],
1
then for some i with 1 i m, we have |λ − λi | < 2 ε/M. Hence

m
co (C1 ∪ C2 ) ⊂ [λi C1 + (1 − λi ) C2 + εB] ,
i=1
where B is the open unit ball in X. Thus, by Lemma 2.2 and the first part of our proof,
ψ (co (C1 ∪ C2 )) max [λi ψ (C1 ) + (1 − λi ) ψ (C2 ) + 2ε]
1 i m
max {ψ (C1 ) , ψ (C2 )} + 2ε.
Since ε may be choosen arbitrarily close to zero, (2.1) follows.
Finally, let δ > ψ(A). Then there exist sets A1 , . . . , Ak , each with diameter δ,
such that A ⊂ kj= 1 Aj . Since diam Aj = diam co Aj , we may and shall assume that the
Aj are convex. Put
B1 = co (A1 ∪ A2 ) , Bn = co (Bn−1 ∪ An ) for 1 < n k.
Then, by (2.1),
ψ(Bk ) max {ψ(A1 ), . . . , ψ(Ak )};

k
this, together with the observation that co A ⊂ co 1 Aj ⊂ Bk , shows that
ψ(co A) ψ(Bk ) max {ψ(A1 ), . . . , ψ(Ak )} δ.
Hence ψ(co A) ψ(A), and since A ⊂ co A it follows that ψ(A) = ψ(co A). Since
co A = co A, we finally obtain ψ (co A) = ψ(co A) = ψ(A).
The argument for ψ is similar but easier, and is therefore omitted. 2
Notice that if A is compact, the lemma gives the familiar result that co A is also compact.
Given a bounded subset A of a normed vector space X, there is not, in general, any simple
way in which ψ(A) or ψ(A) may be calculated. However, if A is a ball or a sphere, the position
is clear. For example, let A = {x ∈ X : x = 1}. If dim X < ∞, then A is compact and thus
ψ(A) = 0. If dim X = ∞, then clearly ψ(A) 2. Suppose that ψ(A) < 2. Then there are
closed sets A1 . . . , An , each having diameter less than 2, such that A = ni= 1 Ai . Let Y be an
n-dimensional linear subspace of X and consider A ∩ Y = ni= 1 (Ai ∩ Y). We now invoke
the Ljusternick–Schnirel’mann–Borsuk Theorem (cf. Lloyd [166]): if the unit sphere in an
n-dimensional normed vector space is covered by n closed sets then at least one of these sets
contains a pair of antipodal points. Thus Aj ∩ Y contains a pair of antipodal points for some
j, and

2 diam Aj ∩ Y diam Aj < 2.
This contradiction shows that ψ(A) = 2. The same argument shows that ψ(A) = 1 if dim
X = ∞.
We now turn to mappings.
Definition 2.6. Let X and Y be Banach spaces and let k 0. A map T : X → Y is called a
k-set-contraction if, and only if, it is continuous and for every bounded set B ⊂ X, we have
ψY (T(B)) kψX (B); it is called a k-ball-contraction if, and only if, it is continuous and
ψY (T(B)) k ψX (B) for every bounded set B ⊂ X. The same terminology is used, with
obvious modifications, when T is not everywhere defined in X.
Examples of such maps are plentiful. Thus if T is continuous and compact, in the sense
that whenever B ⊂ X is bounded, T(B) is compact, then evidently T is a 0-set-contraction.
If T is such that Tx − Ty kx − y for all x, y ∈ X, then it is a k-set-contraction and a
k-ball-contraction. Linear combinations of these two kinds of maps give further examples of
k-set-contractions and k-ball-contractions, as a simple argument shows. The radial retraction

L : X → X defined by

x if x R,
L(x) =
Rx/ x if x > R,
is a 1-set-contraction, since if B is a bounded subset of X then L(B) ⊂ co (B ∪ {0}), and
hence
ψ(L(B)) ψ (co (B ∪ {0})) = ψ (B ∪ {0}) = ψ(B).
Illustrations of the useful properties of k-set-contractions and k-ball-contractions will
be found in the exercises; we mention in particular the analogue of Schauder’s fixed point
theorem, which holds for all such maps. Here, however, our primary interest lies with linear
maps, as we have applications to linear partial differential equations in mind, and it is to these
maps that we now turn.
Definition 2.7. Let X and Y be Banach spaces and let T ∈ B (X, Y). We define βX,Y (T) to be
inf {k : T is a k-set-contraction}; βX,Y (T) is defined to be inf {k:T is a k-ball-contraction}.
Usually we shall write β(T) and β(T) in place of βX,Y (T) and βX,Y (T) respectively.
If T ∈ B (X, Y), it is clear that β(T), β̄(T) T. These inequalities may well be strict;
for if T ∈ K (X, Y)\{0} then β(T) = β(T) = 0 but T > 0.
The following lemma gives various elementary properties of β(T) and β(T).
Lemma 2.8. Let X, Y, Z be Banach spaces and let T ∈ B (X, Y). Then
1
(i) 2 β(T) β(T) 2β(T); and T ∈ K (X, Y) if, and only if, β(T) = 0;
(ii) β(T) = ψ(T(B)), where B is the open unit ball in X;
(iii) if S ∈ K (X, Y), then β(T + S) = β(T) and β(T + S) = β(T);
(iv) if U ∈ B (Y, Z), then β(UT) β(U)β(T) and β(UT) β(U)β(T).
Proof.
(i) This follows directly from the inequality ψ ψ 2ψ mentioned earlier.
X < ∞the result is obvious. Suppose
(ii) If dim that dim X = ∞. Then β(T) =
sup ψ T B : B bounded, ψ(B ) = 1 ψ(T(B)). Moreover, if B is bound-
ed and ψ(B ) = 1, then, given any ε > 0, there exist
n ∈ N and points x1 , x2 , . . . ,
xn ∈ X such that B ⊂ ni= 1 B (xi , 1 + ε). Thus T B ⊂ ni= 1 T (B (xi , 1 + ε))
and
ψ(T(B )) max ψ (T (B (xi , 1 + ε))) = (1 + ε) ψ(T(B)).
1in
Hence ψ(T(B )) ψ(T(B)), and it is now immediate that ψ(T(B)) = β(T).

Parts (iii) and (iv) are entirely elementary, and are left to the reader. 2
Next we deal with the relationships between T and T ∗ from the standpoint of measures
of non-compactness. The first result generalizes Theorem 1.6, which says that T is compact
if, and only if, T ∗ is compact.
Theorem 2.9. Let X and Y be Banach spaces (real or complex) and let T ∈ B (X, Y). Then
β(T ∗ ) β(T) and β(T) β(T ∗ ).
Proof. For the first part it is enough to prove that if T is a k-ball-contraction for some k then
T ∗ is a k-set-contraction with the same k; and to do this it is sufficient to show that
given any set S ⊂ Y ∗ with diam S d, d > 0, and given any ε > 0, then T ∗ (S) can
be covered by finitely many sets, each with diameter kd + ε.
Suppose first that X and Y are real, and let B = {x ∈ X : x 1}. Since ψ(B) 1,
the set T(B) can be covered by a finite number of balls B( y1 ), . . . , B( yn ), with cen-
1
tres at y1 , . . . , yn and with radius k + 2 ε/d. Since S is bounded, it follows that for
∗ ∗
j = 1, . . . , n the set {y ( yj ) : y ∈ S} ⊂ R is relatively compact and can therefore be
1
covered by a finite number of closed intervals Ij,1 , . . . , Ij,M(j) , each of length 2 ε. Let
p = (p1 , . . . , pn ), where each pj ∈ {1, 2, . . . , M(j)}, and put
Ep = {y∗ ∈ S : y∗ (yj ) ∈ Ij, pj for j = 1, 2, . . . , n}.
Then T ∗ (S) ⊂ p T ∗ (Ep ), and since this is a finite union the proof will be complete
if we can show that diam T ∗ (Ep ) kd + ε for all p.
To do this let p be fixed and take any y∗1 , y∗2 ∈ Ep . Then
T ∗ ( y∗1 − y∗2 ) = sup {|( y∗1 − y∗2 , Tx)|: x ∈ B}

= sup {|( y∗1 − y∗2 , y)|: y ∈ T(B)}.
If y ∈ T(B) then y ∈ B(yi ) for some i ∈ {1, 2, . . . , n}; since y∗1 , y∗2 ∈ Ep we have that
|(y∗1 − y∗2 , y1 )| < 2 ε, and since y∗1 − y∗2 d and y − yi k + 2 ε/d it follows
1 1
∗ ∗ 1
that |(y1 − y2 , y − yi )| kd + 2 ε. Thus, for all y ∈ T(B),
|( y∗1 − y∗2 , y)| |( y∗1 − y∗2 , y − yi )| + |( y∗1 − y∗2 , yi )|

kd + ε.
Hence T ∗ ( y∗1 − y∗2 ) kd + ε, which implies that diam T ∗ (Ep ) kd + ε, and

completes the proof of the first part of the theorem when the spaces are real. When
the spaces are complex an obvious modification of the proof suffices; we use rectangles
instead of intervals.
To complete the proof, suppose that T ∗ is a k-ball-contraction. Then, by what we
have proved, T ∗∗ is a k-set-contraction. Let JX and JY be the natural embeddings of X
and Y in X ∗∗ and Y ∗∗ respectively (cf. Taylor [231], §4.31), and let A ⊂ X be bounded.
Since JX is an isometry,
ψ(T ∗∗ ( JX (A))) kψ(JX (A)) = kψ(A),
and since T ∗∗ JX = JY T, we see that ψ( JY T(A)) kψ(A). However, JY is also an

isometry, and thus ψ(T(A)) kψ(A). The proof is complete. 2
Corollary 2.10. Let X and Y be Banach spaces and let T ∈ B (X, Y). Then
1 1
β(T) β(T ∗ ) 2β(T), β(T) β(T ∗ ) 2β(T).
2 2
Proof. By Theorem 2.9 and Lemma 2.8(i),
1
β(T) β(T) β(T ∗ ) 2β(T ∗ ) 2β(T) 4β(T). 2
2
These results can be greatly improved in a Hilbert-space setting: it turns out as a conse-
quence of the next chain of theorems that β(T) = β(T) = β(T ∗ ).
Theorem 2.11. Let H be a Hilbert space and let T ∈ B (H). Then β(T) = β(T ∗ ).
Proof. Since T = T ∗∗ (cf. Taylor [231] §4.9), it is enough to prove that β(T ∗ ) β(T).
Suppose that T is a k-ball-contraction for some k 0. We follow the same line of
argument as in the proof of Theorem 2.9 and first suppose that H is real with inner
product (•, •), the complex case being handled similarly. We simply have to prove that,
given any ball B(z, d) in H, and any ε > 0, then T ∗ (B(z, d)) can be covered by finitely
many balls of radius kd + ε. Let B be the closed unit ball in H; the set T(B) can be
covered by finitely many open balls, B( y1 , k+ 2 εd−1 ), . . . , B(yn , k+ 2 εd−1 ), say. As in
1 1
the proof of Theorem 2.9, we see that T ∗ (B(z, d)) ⊂ p T ∗ (Ep ), where
Ep = {y ∈ B(z, d) : (y, yj ) ∈ Ij, pj for j = 1, 2, . . . , n},

1
the Ij, pj being closed intervals, each of length 2 ε, such that for j = 1, 2, . . . , n the
intervals Ij,1 , . . . , Ij, M(j) cover {(y, yj ) : y ∈ B(z, d)}, and where p = (p1 , p2 , . . . , pn ),
where each pj belongs to {1, 2, . . . , M(j)}.
The sets Ep are closed and convex; given any non-empty set Ep (and we shall discard
any empty ones from now on) and x ∈ H, let Lp x be the (unique) point in Ep nearest
to x. The map Lp is Lipschitz–continuous, with constant 1, and thus, for all y ∈ Ep ,
y − Lp z y − z ḋ.
Now we show that T ∗ (Ep ) ⊂ B(T ∗ Lp z, kd + ε). Given any y ∈ Ep ,
T ∗ ( y − Lp z) = sup{|(Tx, y − Lp z)|: x ∈ B},
and since to each x ∈ B there corresponds yj (1 j n) such that Tx − yj k +

1 −1
2 εd , we have
|(Tx, y − Lp z)| |(Tx − yj , y − Lp z)| + |(y − Lp z, yj )|

1 1
k + εd−1 d + ε = kd + ε;
2 2
thus T ∗ (y − Lp z) kd + ε. It follows that T ∗ (B(z, d)) can be covered by a finite
number of balls of radius kd + ε, and the proof is complete. 2
Corollary 2.12. Let H be a Hilbert space and let T ∈ B (H). Then β(T) β(T).
Proof. By Theorems 2.9 and 2.11, β(T) β(T ∗ ) = β(T). 2
Theorem 2.13. Let H be a Hilbert space and let T ∈ B (H). Then
β(T) = [β(T ∗ T)]1/2 .
Proof. By Lemma 2.8(iv) and Theorem 2.11,
β(T ∗ T) β(T ∗ )β(T) = [β(T)]2 ;
it is therefore enough to establish the reverse inequality. Let k = β(T ∗ T); we shall
1
prove that T is a k 2 -ball-contraction. Let B(z, d) be an arbitrary ball in H and let ε > 0.
There are points y1 , . . . , yn in H such that (T ∗ T)(B) ⊂ nj= 1 B( yj , k + 2 εd−1 ),
1
and, with exactly the same notation as in the proof of Theorem 2.11, we see that
T(B(z, d)) ⊂ p T(Ep ). For any y ∈ Ep ,
T(y − Lp z)2 = (T ∗ T( y − Lp z), y − Lp z)

T ∗ T( y − Lp z)d
(kd + ε)d,
the final inequality following just as in the corresponding stage of the proof of
1 √
Theorem 2.11. Thus T(y − Lp z) k 2 d + (εd), and so T(B(z, d)) can be covered
1 √ 1
by finitely many balls of radius k 2 d + (εd): T is therefore a k 2 -ball-contraction, and
the proof is complete. 2
To obtain further information it is convenient to establish the following general result.
Theorem 2.14. Let X, Y1 , Y2 , Y3 be Banach spaces and let T ∈ B (X, Y1 ), F ∈ B (X, Y2 ), and
G ∈ B (X, Y3 ). Suppose that there are constants p > 0 and q 0 such that for all x ∈ X,
Txp Fxq Gxp−q .
Then
[β(T)]p [β(F)]q [β(G)]p−q .
Proof. Let B be a bounded subset of X and let ε > 0. Evidently we can write F(B) =
n −1
j = 1 Aj , where diam Aj β(F)ψ(B) + ε for each j. Put Dj = F (Aj ) ∩ B; the sets
G(D1 ), . . . , G(Dn ) cover G(B), and since

ψ G(Dj ) β(G)ψ Dj β(G)ψ(B),
there is a covering of G(B) by sets E1 , . . . , Em such that each Ek is contained in some

G(Dj ) and diam Ek β(G)ψ(B) + ε. Set Ck = G−1 (Ek ) ∩ Dj , where j is such that
Ck ⊂ Dj ; then F(Ck ) ⊂ F(Dj ) ⊂ Aj , while diam G(Ck ) β(G)ψ(B) + ε and diam

F(Ck ) β(F)ψ(B) + ε. Hence
[diam T (Ck )]p [diam F (Ck )]q [diam G (Ck )]p−q

[β(F)ψ(B) + ε]q [β(G)ψ(B) + ε]p−q .
Since ε may be chosen arbitrarily close to 0 it follows that
[ψ (T(B))]p [β(F)ψ(B)]q [β(G)ψ(B)]p−q ,
which concludes the proof. 2
Corollary 2.15. Let H be a Hilbert space and let T ∈ B (H). Then β(T) = β(T ∗ ) and
[β(T)]2 = β(T ∗ T).
Proof. Since Tx2 = (x, T ∗ Tx) x T ∗ Tx for all x ∈ H, Theorem 2.14 shows
that [β(T)]2 β(T ∗ T) β(T ∗ )β(T). Application of this inequality to T ∗ gives
[β(T ∗ )]2 β(TT ∗ ) β(T)β(T ∗ ). If either β(T) or β(T ∗ ) is zero, then both are
zero, by Theorem 1.6, and, as T ∗ T is then compact, β(TT ∗ ) = 0. If β(T)β(T ∗ ) = 0
then we have β(T) β(T ∗ ) and β(T ∗ ) β(T). The corollary follows. 2
This result is a useful one en route to our next goal, which is to show that if T ∈ B (H),
then βT) = β(T). First we need another lemma:
Lemma 2.16. Let X be a Banach space and let T ∈ B (X). Then limn → ∞ [β(T n )]1/n and
1/n
limn → ∞ β (T n ) exist and are equal.
Proof. Put r = inf{[β(T n )]1/n : n ∈ N}. Since r lim inf [β (T n )]1/n , if we can prove
n→∞
that lim sup [β (T n )]1/n r, it will follow that limn→∞ [β(T n )]1/n = r. Given any
n→∞
ε > 0, there exists m ∈ N such that [β(T m )]1/m r + ε; given any n ∈ N, there are
unique integers p and q such that n = pm + q with 0 q m − 1. Then
n 1/n m p/n
β T β T [β(T)]q/n (r + ε)pm/n [β(T)]q/n .
Since pm/n → 1 and q/n → 0 as n → ∞, we see that lim sup [β (T n )]1/n r + ε;

n→∞
and, as ε may be chosen arbitrarily close to zero, lim sup [β (T n )]1/n r. Thus
n→∞
limn → ∞ [β(T n )]1/n exists and equals r.
1/n
In the same way it follows that limn → ∞ β (T n ) exists, and equals r , say. Since,
1
by Lemma 2.8(i), 2 β(T) β(T) 2β(T), we see that r = r . 2
Theorem 2.17. Let H be a Hilbert space and let T ∈ B (H) be self-adjoint. Then β(T) =
β(T) = limn→∞ [β (T n )]1/n .
n
Proof. By Corollary 2.15, β(T 2 ) = [β(T)]2 , and, by induction we see that β T 2 =
n
[β(T)]2 for all n ∈ N. Thus β(T) = limn → ∞ [β(T n )]1/n ; and similarly, by virtue of
1/n
Theorem 2.13, β(T) = limn → ∞ β (T n ) . Now use Lemma 2.16. 2
Theorem 2.18. Let H be a Hilbert space and let T ∈ B (H). Then

n 1/2n
β(T) = β(T) = lim β T ∗ T .
n→∞
Proof. Apply Theorem 2.17 to the self-adjoint map T ∗ T: we find that

n 1/n
β T ∗ T = β T ∗ T = lim β T ∗ T .
N→∞
2
Since β(T ∗ T) = [β(T)]2 and β (T ∗ T) = β(T) , by Theorem 2.13 and Corol-
lary 2.15, the result follows. 2
Theorem 2.17 can be improved, in that self-adjointness may be replaced by normality:

recall that a map T is normal if TT ∗ = T ∗ T.
Theorem 2.19. Let H be a Hilbert space and let T ∈ B (H) be normal. Then β(T) =
β(T) = lim [β (T n )]1/n .
n→∞
Proof. Let x ∈ H. Then

2 2
T x = Tx, T ∗ T 2 x = Tx, TT ∗ Tx = T ∗ Tx2 ,
and Tx2 T ∗ Tx x: thus Tx2 T 2 x x. By Theorem 2.14, [β(T)]2
β(T 2 ) [β(T)]2 , and consequently [β(T)]2 = β(T 2 ). Since all powers of a normal
n n
operator are normal, it follows that β T 2 = [β(T)]2 for all n ∈ N. The result is
now obvious. 2
Theorem 2.19 does not apply to all T ∈ B (H). For example, if we take H = l2 and define
T : H → H by Tx = y, where x = (xn ) and y = (yn ), with y2n+1 = 0 and y2n = x2n−1 for all
n, then T ∈ B (H) and T is not compact: hence β(T) > 0. However, T 2 = 0, which implies
that lim [β (T n )]1/n = 0.
n→∞
To take stock of the position, we have shown that if T ∈ B (H) then β(T) = β (T ∗ ) =
β(T) = β (T ∗ ). We now extend our result so as to cope with mappings from one Hilbert
space to another.
Theorem 2.20. Let H1 and H2 be Hilbert spaces over the same field and let T ∈ B (H1 , H2 ).
Then
2
β T ∗ T = [β(T)]2 , β T ∗ T = β(T) ,
and
n 1/2n
β(T) = β(T) = β T ∗ = β T ∗ = lim β T ∗ T .
n→∞
Proof. Since T ∗ T is positive (i.e. (T ∗ Tx, x) 0 for all x ∈ H1 ) and self-adjoint, it has a
unique positive self-adjoint square root G : H1 → H1 (cf. Kato [134] V-§3). For all
x ∈ H1 ,
Tx2 = (x, T ∗ Tx) = (x, G2 x) = Gx2 ,
and hence the map U1 : G(H1 ) → H2 defined by U1 (Gx) = Tx is an isometry; let
U2 : G(H1 ) → H2 be the extension of U1 by continuity. Now let U : H1 → H2
⊥
be the extension of U2 that is zero on G(H1 ) . Evidently U 1 and T = UG.
Thus β(T) β(U)β(G) β(G), and since, by Theorem 2.13, β(G2 ) = [β(G)]2 ,
we obtain the inequality [β(T)]2 β(T ∗ T). Also β(T ∗ T) β(T)β(T ∗ ); thus
[β(T)]2 β(T)β(T ∗ ) and β(T) β(T ∗ ). If we replace T by T ∗ in this last
inequality, we obtain β(T ∗ ) β(T), from which it follows that β(T) = β(T ∗ ) and
β(T ∗ T) = [β(T)]2 . In the same way we obtain the equality β(T ∗ T) = [β(T)]2 . By
Theorem 2.17,
[β(T)]2 = [β(T)]2 = β(T ∗ T) = lim [β((T ∗ T)n )]1/n .

n→∞
The proof is complete. 2
For later use we introduce another way of estimating the departure from compactness of
an operator. Let X and Y be Banach spaces and for any T ∈ B (X, Y) put
c(T) = inf{ε > 0 : there is a linear subspace M of X with

codim M < ∞ and such that Tx εx for all x ∈ M}.
The function c: B (X, Y) → R has all the properties of a norm save that it may have a non-
trivial kernel: such a function is called a semi-norm. To see that this is so, it is enough to
establish the triangle inequality, as the remaining property of semi-norms is obvious. Let
T1 , T2 ∈ B (X, Y) and let εi > c(Ti ) (i = 1, 2). Note that it is sufficient to consider only
closed subspaces M in the definition of c(T), for if codim M < ∞ and Tx εx for all
x ∈ M then the same holds with M̄ in place of M. Thus there are closed linear subspaces M1
and M2 of X, each with finite codimension, such that Ti x εi x for all x ∈ Mi (i = 1, 2).
Consideration of the natural map
J : X/ (M1 ∩ M2 ) → (X/M1 ) × (X/M2 )
given by
J (x + (M1 ∩ M2 )) = (x + M1 , x + M2 )
shows that M := M1 ∩ M2 has finite codimension in X. Hence for all x ∈ M,
(T1 + T2 ) x T1 x + T2 x (ε1 + ε2 )x.
It follows that c(T1 + T2 ) ε1 + ε2 , and from this the triangle inequality is immediate.
A connection between c(T) and β(T) is given by the following theorem:
Theorem 2.21. Let X and Y be Banach spaces and let T ∈ B (X, Y). Then
1
β(T) c(T) 2β(T).
2
Proof. Given any ε > 0 there are elements y1 , . . . , yn of Y such that
min{Tx − yk : k = 1, . . . , n} β(T) + ε
for all x ∈ X with x 1. By the Hahn–Banach Theorem, there exist y∗1 , . . . , y∗n ∈ Y ∗
such that for all k ∈ {1, 2, . . . , n}, y∗k = 1 and y∗k (yk ) = yk ; let M = 0 {T ∗ y∗1 , . . . ,
T ∗ y∗n } and observe that codim M = dim M0 = dim (0 G)0 , where G is the vector space
spanned by the T ∗ y∗k , of dimension m n. Let g1 , g2 , . . . , gm be a basis for G. If
f ∈ (0 G)0 , then f (x) = 0 for all x ∈ X such that g1 (x) = . . . = gm (x) = 0, and thus,
by Taylor [231] §3.5-C, f ∈ G. As G is plainly contained in (0 G)0 , this shows that
G = (0 G)0 , and hence codim M = m < ∞. Let x ∈ M be such that x 1, and
let yk be one of the elements y1 , . . . , yn that is closest to Tx. Since x ∈ M, we have
(y∗k , Tx) = (T ∗ y∗k , x) = 0, and so
yk = (y∗k , yk ) = (y∗k , yk − Tx) yk − Tx β(T) + ε.

Thus
Tx Tx − yk + yk 2[β(T) + ε]
from which it follows that c(T) 2β(T).
To establish the remaining inequality, let ε > 0 and observe that there is a closed
linear subspace M of X with codim M < ∞ such that, for all x ∈ M,
Tx [c(T) + ε]x.
Let P be a bounded projection of X onto M (cf. Theorem 1.14), so that I − P is of finite
rank. For any x ∈ X,
Tx T Px + T(I − P)x
[c(T) + ε]Px + T (I − P)x
[c(T) + ε]x + (2T + ε)(I − P)x,
the last inequality following from the fact that Px x + (I − P)x and c(T)
T. By the compactness of I − P there are elements x1 , . . . , xn of the closed unit ball
B of X such that
min{(I − P)(x − xk ) : k = 1, 2, . . . , n} < ε/(2T + ε)
for all x ∈ B. Given any x ∈ B let xk minimize the left-hand side above: then
T(x − xk ) [c(T) + ε]x − xk + (2T + ε)(I − P)(x − xk )
2[c(T) + ε] + ε.
Hence β(T) 2c(T), and the proof is complete. 2

Corollary 2.22. Let T ∈ B (X, Y). Then c(T) = 0 if, and only if, T ∈ K (X, Y); and
c(T) = c(T + K) for all K ∈ K (X, Y).
Proposition 2.23. Let X, Y, Z be Banach spaces and let S ∈ B (X, Y) and T ∈ B (Y, Z). Then
c(TS) c(T)c(S).
Proof. Given any ε > 0, there is a closed linear subspace M of X, with codim M < ∞,
such that Sx [c(S) + ε]x for all x ∈ M; there is also a closed linear subspace
N of Y, with codim N < ∞, such that Ty [c(T) + ε]y for all y ∈ N. Let
W = {x ∈ M : Sx ∈ N}; then W is a closed linear subspace of X with codim W < ∞.
This is because there is a finite-dimensional linear subspace F of Y such that
Y = N +̇ F, by Theorem 1.12; thus X = S−1 (N) +̇ (S−1 (F)\[N (S)\{0}]), and so
codim S−1 (N) < ∞; hence, as in the paragraph preceding Theorem 2.21, it follows
that W = S−1 (N) ∩ M has finite codimension. Moreover,
TSx [c(T) + ε][c(S) + ε]x
for all x ∈ W, and thus
c(TS) [c(T) + ε][c(S) + ε],
from which the proposition is immediate. 2
Remark 2.24. The material in this section is drawn from the basic work of many authors,
including Darbo [46], Goldstein and Markus [105], Lebow and Schechter [154], and
Nussbaum [183]; in particular, the results concerning the relationship between the measures
of non-compactness of a map and that of its adjoint are based upon the papers of Stuart
[225] and Webb [253, 254].
Exercise. Throughout these exercises X and Y will stand for Banach spaces.
(1) For i = 1, 2, let Ti : X → Y be a ki -set contraction. Prove that T1 +T2 is a (k1 +k2 )-set
contraction.
(2) Prove Darbo’s fixed-point theorem: given any closed non-empty bounded convex subset
C of X and any map T : C → C that is a k-set contraction for some k ∈ [0, 1), then T
has a fixed point in C. (Hint: define C1 = co T(C) and Cn+1 = co T(Cn ) (n ∈ N); use
Lemma 2.3 and Schauder’s fixed-point theorem.)
(3) Given any subset C of X, any map S : C → Y is said to be condensing if it is continuous
(C is assumed to have the topology induced by that of X) and ψ(S(B)) < ψ(B) for all
bounded subsets B of C with ψ(B) > 0. Show that if (a) C is closed, non-empty, and
bounded, (b) T : C → X is condensing, and (c) I is the identity map from X to itself,
then I − T is proper; that is, (I − T)−1 (K) is compact whenever K is a compact subset
of X.
(4) Let C be a non-empty closed bounded convex subset of X and let T : C → C be condens-
ing. Prove that T has a fixed point. (Hint : let x0 ∈ C; consider Tt x = tTx + (1 − t)x0
(0 t < 1); use Darbo’s Theorem and Exercise 3.)
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Infolge der Reformation war der
Schwerpunkt der Kultur immer mehr nach dem Steigende
Norden verlegt. Hier wehte eine frischere Luft, Bedeutung
während der Süden weit mehr dem Einfluss der Leipzigs.
katholischen Kaiser, den Einflüsterungen des

Klerus und den Plackereien der kaiserlichen Bücherkommissionen
und Zensoren preisgegeben war. Auch die städtischen Behörden in
Frankfurt a. M. hatten nicht den Wert eines vollständig unbehelligten
buchhändlerischen Verkehrs genügend erkannt.
Nichts war deshalb natürlicher, als dass der Norden sich von
den Büchermessen Frankfurts zu emanzipieren und in der
berühmten Messstadt des Nordens — wo die Regierung jetzt
liberaleren Ansichten huldigte, die Zensur in humanerer Weise üben
liess und die Bücher von der Accise befreit hatte — einen
selbständigen Büchermarkt zu gründen wünschte. Zur Michaelis-
Messe 1594 erschien der erste Leipziger Messkatalog,
herausgegeben von dem Buchhändler und Buchdrucker Henning
Gross, zu dem sich in den Jahren 1598-1619 ein zweiter Katalog
von Abraham Lamberg gesellte, der 1620 mit dem von Gross
vereinigt wurde. Zwar konnte Leipzig als Verlagsplatz im Jahre 1595
nur 68 Artikel gegen 117 in Frankfurt aufweisen, aber schon 1600
war das Verhältnis ein besseres, nämlich 125 gegen 148, und 1632
trug Leipzig seinen glänzendsten Sieg davon mit 221 Werken gegen
68 aus Frankfurt. Die Messkataloge von 1565-1640 verzeichnen
8216 in Leipzig erschienene Werke, davon kommen 243, als die
stärkste Zahl einer Jahresproduktion, auf das Jahr 1613.
Aber der Rückschlag der ungünstigen Zeiten

Rückschlag.
sowohl für den Buchhandel als für die
Buchdruckerei konnte nicht ausbleiben und
Leipzig litt mit ganz Sachsen vorzugsweise unter den Drangsalen
des dreissigjährigen Krieges. Mangelhafte Schriften, nachlässige
Korrektur, schlechtes Papier kennzeichnen die Mehrzahl der Bücher
aus damaliger Zeit. Nicht besser war es mit der Xylographie bestellt.
Hiergegen halfen natürlich weder Beschränkungen der
Buchdruckereien auf Leipzig, Wittenberg und Dresden, noch
kurfürstl. konzessionierte Buchdruckereiordnungen, Taxen zur
Regulierung der Papier- und Bücherpreise und Visitationsabschiede
an die Universitäten, worin Rektor und Dekane ermahnt werden, für
guten Druck und sorgfältige Korrektur zu sorgen.
Selbst nach dem endlich eingetretenen

Neuer Auf-
Frieden dauerte es lange, ehe sich die schwung.
Buchdruckerei von ihrem tiefen Verfall erholen
konnte. Trotzdem hat Leipzig, selbst aus der trübsten Periode,
Druckwerke und Drucker aufzuweisen, die jeder Zeit Ehre gemacht
haben würden, und hörte nie auf, namhafte Werke aus allen
Gebieten der Wissenschaften an das Tageslicht zu fördern. Ein
wesentlicher und andauernder Aufschwung tritt jedoch erst gegen
Ende des xvii. Jahrhunderts ein. Die Zahl der angesehenen
Verlagshandlungen wuchs, unter denen die von M. G. Weidmann, J.
F. Gleditsch, Joh. Fritsch, Joh. Fr. Zedler, Joh. S. Heinsius zu
nennen sind.
Der Messkatalog[12], dieser Gradmesser des Buchhandels, wies

eine Steigerung auf. Leipzig, das Frankfurt im Jahre 1604 zum
erstenmale überholt hatte und von da ab bald vorangeht bald
zurückbleibt, behält nun, mit Ausnahme des Jahres 1680, die
Führung und weist im Jahre 1689 310 Werke gegen Frankfurts 90
auf; 1699 319 gegen 109 und im Jubeljahre 1740 253 gegen 74. Die
Zahl der Presserzeugnisse Leipzigs von 1641 bis 1740 betrug
19711, wozu das Jahr 1698 mit 401 Artikeln das stärkste Kontingent
stellte.
Mit den Buchhändlern mussten die

Bernh. Christ.
Buchdrucker Schritt halten. Unter letzteren Breitkopf.
zeichneten sich aus: Heinr. Christ. Takke durch
orientalische Schriften, ganz besonders aber Bernh. Christoph
Breitkopf[13]. Er war am 2. März 1695 in Klausthal geboren. 1718
kam er nach Leipzig, heiratete 1719 die Witwe des Buchdruckers
Joh. Kasp. Müller, und übernahm die Buchdruckerei, die damals
sehr in Verfall geraten war. Breitkopfs Tüchtigkeit und
Rechtschaffenheit liessen ihn jedoch Gönner finden, die ihn in den
Stand setzten, sich herauszuarbeiten und den „Goldenen Bären“ zu
bauen, der das Geschäft 135 Jahre lang beherbergen sollte und
Veranlassung zu dem Druckerzeichen dem „Bären“ gab. Der
„Silberne Bär“ ward dem goldenen gegenüber 1765-67 erbaut. Die
Offizin, im Jahre 1722 die dreizehnte in der Rangordnung, war 1742
schon die dritte und der Besitzer zur Zeit des Jubelfestes 1740
angesehener Oberältester der Innung, welche damals 17 Prinzipale
mit 137 Gehülfen zählte. Auf dem Boden des tüchtigen
Druckerhandwerks erwuchs bald ein ansehnlicher Bücherverlag, der
1723 mit einer hebräischen Handbibel begann. Die Messkataloge
von 1725 bis 1761 weisen 656 Verlagswerke Breitkopfs auf. Den
wesentlichen Charakter erhielt der Verlag jedoch durch die engen
Beziehungen Breitkopfs zu J. Chr. Gottsched und dessen Frau
Luise, geb. Kulmus. Gottsched blieb bis zu seinem Ende Breitkopfs
Freund und Hausgenosse im Goldenen Bären. Seine Druckerei
übergab Breitkopf 1745 seinem Sohn; im Verlage wirkte er noch bis
1762 und starb hochbetagt und geehrt am 26. März 1777. Er erlebte
es noch, wie Gottsched ihm 1736 prophezeit hatte, dass, obwohl er
als der erste Buchdrucker Deutschlands gegolten hatte, sein Sohn
ihn noch überstrahlte. Die Geschichte darf aber nicht vergessen,
dass dies dem Sohne vielleicht nur dadurch möglich geworden ist,
dass der Vater ihm die Druckerei in einem Zustande hinterliess, der
ihm gestattete, sich ohne Schranken seinen, mitunter sehr
kostspieligen Versuchen und Erfindungen hinzugeben.
Ein schlagendes Beispiel, wie das

Wittenberg.
Buchdruckergewerbe mit dem geistigen Leben
fällt und steigt, giebt WITTENBERG[14], wo Hans Lufft, der
Luthers Wirksamkeit die Kunst zu einer schnellen Bibeldrucker.
Blüte trieb. Melchior Lotter d. jüng. (1519-
1523) begann die Reihe der Reformationsdrucker. Ihm folgte Georg
Rhawe (1520-1548), welcher sowohl Schriften von Luther als von
Melanchthon druckte. Sein Hortulus animæ mit Cranachs
Zeichnungen ist ebenso geschätzt wie Gabr. Schnellboltzs
Sammlung von Portraits in einer so vorzüglichen Ausführung, dass
man die Zeichnungen Lucas Cranach zuschreibt. Der bekannteste
unter Wittenbergs Buchdruckern ist Hans Lufft, „der Bibeldrucker“
(1525-1584). Er druckte 1534 die Luthersche Bibelübersetzung, die
1541, 1545 und 1546 in neuen Auflagen wiederholt wurde. Da auch
die meisten andern Schriften Luthers aus seinen Pressen
hervorgingen, so gewann sein Geschäft eine grosse Ausdehnung.
Für den Bibeldruck allein arbeiteten fortwährend drei bis vier
Pressen, und man behauptet, dass gegen 100000 Exemplare der
Bibel aus seiner Offizin hervorgegangen sind. Die Pressen von Hans
Weyss, Peter Seitz und Johann Kraft wurden ebenfalls durch die
Reformation im Gang erhalten.
Auch in HAMBURG eröffnete die

Hamburg.
Reformation der Presse ein weiteres Feld, jedoch
hatte sie hier mit einer besonderen Schwierigkeit
zu kämpfen. Während die hochdeutsche Schriftsprache durch die
Reformation fast überall Boden gewann, blieb sie hier dem Volke ein
mehr oder weniger fremdes Idiom. Die Verleger Hamburgs konnten
für Werke in niederdeutscher Sprache nur auf ein kleines, mehr
lokales, Publikum rechnen, anderseits die für das Volk bestimmten
Schriften nicht hochdeutsch drucken. Hierin trat erst zu Anfang des
xvii. Jahrhunderts eine Änderung ein.
In ROSTOCK bestand schon 1476 eine

Rostock.
angesehene Buchdruckerei der „Brüder des
gemeinsamen Lebens“. Die Reformation
bereitete ihr den Untergang (1534) und zwar zum grossen Verdruss
der Gelehrten. Noch im Jahre 1564 klagt der Professor Chyträus,
dass es in Rostock nur einen Buchhändler mit einer Druckerpresse
und einem Lehrling gebe, sodass viele gelehrte Ausländer nicht
einmal wüssten, dass in Rostock eine hohe Schule vorhanden sei.
BERLIN[15] war im Jahre 1500 zwar die

Berlin.
Residenz der Kurfürsten in den Marken, aber
eine unbedeutende Stadt, die nicht einmal eine
Buchdruckerei besass, während Stendal und Kloster Zinna bei
Jüterbogk deren vor dem Schluss des xv. Jahrhunderts hatten
(vergl. S. 53), und Frankfurt a. d. O. wenigstens 1502 eine solche,
wenn auch nur in einem kleinen Massstabe, durch Martin Tretter
erhielt.
Erst um das Jahr 1540, zu einer Zeit, wo der

Joh. Weiss.
Süden Deutschlands bereits über seinen
typographischen Glanzpunkt hinaus war, erfolgte
die Einführung der Kunst in Berlin und zwar auf besonderen Betrieb
des Kurfürsten Joachim ii., welcher 1539 Johann Weiss, der schon
seit 1525 als ein anerkannt tüchtiger Buchdrucker in Wittenberg
gewirkt hatte, nach Berlin berief. Das erste dort gedruckte Buch, die
Kirchenordnung im Kurfürstenthum der Marken, erschien 1540.
Bis 1544 lieferte Weiss etwa 20 Druckwerke, von da ab hört

man weiter nichts von ihm, und da auch die in Frankfurt a. d. O.
bestehende einzige Buchdruckerei von Joh. Hanaw eingegangen
war, so hatte die Mark Brandenburg 1544 keine Buchdruckerei.
Frankfurt a. d. O. erhielt endlich, nachdem Nikolaus Wolrab

dort auf kurze Zeit (1547-1549) aufgetreten und dann wieder
verschwunden war, in Joh. Eichhorn aus Nürnberg einen tüchtigen
Buchdrucker mit einem alleinigen Privilegium für die Mark
ausgerüstet (1567). In Berlin findet sich aber fast 30 Jahre lang
keine Spur einer Buchdruckerei, bis 1574 Leonhard Thurneysser
zum Thurn als solcher erscheint.
Dieser Leonhard Thurneysser war kein

Leonh. Thurn-
gewöhnlicher, aber ein unsteter Mensch. eysser.
Geboren zu Basel 1530, war er nach einander
Goldschmied, Naturhistoriker, Chemiker, Bergmann, Arzt, in allen
Eigenschaften tüchtig; bald arm, bald reich. Nach langen Reisen in
Europa und Asien kam er 1568 zurück und erwarb sich Ruf als Arzt
durch seine Wunderkuren, die er auch mit Glück an der Gemahlin
des Kurfürsten Johann Georg in Frankfurt a. d. O., wo er sich wegen
des Druckes seiner Werke aufhielt, übte. Der Kurfürst nahm ihn in
seine Dienste und gab ihm in Berlin ein Lokal in dem Grauen Kloster,
um dort zunächst für seine eigenen Werke eine Druckerei
einzurichten, aber auch, um für den Kurfürsten zu drucken. Die
Offizin stattete Thurneysser auf das beste nicht nur mit deutschen,
sondern auch mit allerlei orientalischen Schriften aus. Später kam
eine Schriftgiesserei und Holzschneiderei dazu. Seine Bücher sind
sehr sorgfältig gedruckt. Bedeutend und weit verbreitet war sein
Verlag von Kalendern, die zu der Zeit überhaupt fast nur von Ärzten
herausgegeben wurden.
In Thurneyssers damals glänzenden Verhältnissen trat aber ein

allmählicher Rückgang ein. Unruhig wie er war, siedelte er 1579
nach Basel über und ging dort eine unglücklich ausfallende Ehe ein,
die durch einen Prozess ihm grossen pekuniären Verlust brachte.
Nach Berlin zurückgekehrt, verliess er 1584 heimlich die Stadt und
verschwand von der Bühne. Die Druckerei hatte er schon 1577 für
1100 Thaler an seinen tüchtigen Gehülfen Michael Hentzke
verkauft, der bereits 1580 starb. Dessen Witwe heiratete Nik. Voltz,
einen tüchtigen Buchdrucker, der jedoch aus Mangel an Mitteln
gezwungen war, einen Teilhaber zu nehmen, den er in dem Rektor
des Gymnasiums zum Grauen Kloster, Wilh. Hilden, fand. Sie
druckten jeder unter seinem Namen, bis Voltz 1586 wieder in den
alleinigen Besitz des Geschäftes kam, mit welchem er 1593 nach
Frankfurt a. d. O. zog. Hier fand er 1619 sein Ende, jedoch ohne
bessere Erfolge seiner Thätigkeit erreicht zu haben.
Von 1593 bis 1599 tritt nun wieder eine

Christoph
Pause in der Druckthätigkeit Berlins ein. In Runge.
diesem Jahr berief der Kurfürst Joachim Friedrich
iii. Christoph Runge, Buchdrucker zu Neudamm, nach Berlin, wo
er bis 1607 druckte. Sein Sohn Georg, später sein Enkel Christoph,
setzten das Geschäft fort. Letzterer entwickelte mit seiner gut
ausgestatteten Offizin eine bedeutende Thätigkeit. Bei ihm wurde
1615 die erste Zeitung Berlins gedruckt. Sein sorgenvolles Leben
schloss im Jahre 1681[16].
Im Jahre 1660 wurde der erste
Hofbuchdrucker ernannt, Georg Schultze, der Die Hofbuch-
eine gut eingerichtete Buchdruckerei aus Guben drucker.
mit nach Berlin brachte, wo ihm im Schlosse ein
Lokal eingeräumt wurde. Er starb 1685. Seine Nachfolger im Amte
brachten es nicht weit, und von 1721 ab, in welchem Jahre der
damalige Inhaber kassiert wurde, hört man nichts weiteres von der
Schlossdruckerei.
Dieserart waren die bescheidenen Anfänge der

Buchdruckerkunst in der jetzigen Kaiserresidenz, Millionenstadt und
dem Hauptsitz deutscher Wissenschaft und Kunst.
DIE SKANDINAVISCHEN LÄNDER.

DÄNEMARK[17]. Die Einführung der
Dänemark.
kirchlichen Reformation war nicht ein so Die Reformation.
entscheidender Wendepunkt in dem geistigen
Leben Dänemarks, wie in dem Deutschlands. Der Lud. Dietz und
die Bibel.
König Christian ii. begünstigte zwar die
Bestrebungen der Humanisten und der
Die Universität.
Reformatoren, konnte sie aber während seiner
unruhigen und blutigen Laufbahn nicht genügend Die Zensur.
stützen. Die erste dänische Ausgabe des Neuen
Testaments wurde so zu sagen unter seinen Der Buchhandel.
Augen in Leipzig 1524 gedruckt. Überhaupt war

der Buchdruck in Dänemark noch nicht imstande, mit den
Bedürfnissen Schritt zu halten und viele Bücher wurden in Paris,
Antwerpen, Köln, Lübeck, Magdeburg und Rostock ausgeführt, an
letzterem Orte durch die Fratres vitæ communis, namentlich aber
durch Ludw. Dietz, der 1533 Luthers Bibel plattdeutsch gedruckt
hatte. Sein Name hatte in Dänemark einen so guten Klang, dass er
vom König Christian iii., als dieser den Vorsatz gefasst hatte, eine
schöne Ausgabe der Bibel veranstalten zu lassen, nach
Kopenhagen berufen wurde, wo er das Vorhaben des Königs in
würdigster Weise ausführte. Der Vorschlag war von dem Reformator
Bugenhagen ausgegangen, der auch die erwähnte plattdeutsche
Bibel besorgt hatte, welche noch um ein Jahr eher erschien, als die
erste vollständige hochdeutsche Bibel durch Hans Lufft. Dietz wurde
mit seinem Gehülfen und seiner Druckerei 1548 nach Kopenhagen
kostenfrei übergeführt; dort erhielt er freies Quartier, eine Ladung
Holz, 200 Reichsthaler Handgeld und für jedes der 3000 Exemplare
der Auflage 1 Gulden. Durch eine Abgabe von 2 Reichsthalern auf
jede Kirche in Dänemark wurden die Kosten für das Papier
zuwegegebracht. Am Johannistage 1550 war der Druck zur grössten
Zufriedenheit beendigt und Dietz und seine Offizin wurden wieder
nach Rostock gebracht. Diese Bibel ist ein vorzügliches Druckwerk,
mit guten Holzschnitten geschmückt, welche teilweise schon früher
in Deutschland benutzt waren. Das Portrait des Königs und ein
Titelblatt sind von Jakob Binck ausgeführt. Ein anderer Deutscher,
Hans Stockelmann, war der erste eigentliche
Universitätsbuchdrucker (1574) und genoss als solcher bedeutende
Vorteile. Die Universität besass jedoch keine rechte geistige
Selbständigkeit und man blickte nach Wittenberg als nach einem
Richterstuhl ohne Appell in Angelegenheiten der Kirche und der
Wissenschaft. Die Zensur, die sich 1524 Eingang verschafft hatte,
um gegen Luthers Schriften angewendet zu werden, wurde nun
umgekehrt von den Protestanten nach Herzenslust geübt. Die
Herausgabe eines Spottliedes gegen einen Bischof kostete 1586
dem Prediger Jakob Nielsen den Kopf. Die Einfuhr gedruckter
Bücher wurde 1562 verboten. Ein litterarisches Eigentumsrecht
erkannte die damalige Zeit nicht an. Selbstverständlich konnte der
Buchhandel keine grossen Fortschritte machen; eine zunftmässige
Organisation desselben bestand nicht und die Bücher waren
verhältnismässig teuer und selten. Unter den Verlegern fand, wie in
Deutschland, ein Tauschhandel statt; Kataloge und
Bekanntmachungen waren nicht gebräuchlich, doch besuchten
dänische Buchhändler die Frankfurter und die Leipziger Messen und
erhielten Besuch von deutschen und holländischen Verlegern. 1614
wurden die ersten Zeitungsprivilegien erteilt.
Schriftgiessereien hatte Dänemark noch

Schrift u. Papier.
nicht gehabt und die nötigen Typen führten
Deutschland und Holland ein. Nicht nur das
Druckmaterial, sondern auch die Arbeiter wurden aus dem Auslande
geholt. Mit der Papierfabrikation wollte es auch nicht recht
vorwärts gehen. Die erste Fabrik wurde auf Seeland i. J. 1576
errichtet, prosperierte aber nicht. Sogar berühmte Schriftsteller
mussten den Druck ihrer Werke einstellen, weil das benötigte Papier
nicht zu beschaffen war.
Im Jahre 1589 legte der berühmte Astronom Tycho de Brahe,

neben seiner schon seit 1584 bestehenden Privatdruckerei auf der
kleinen Insel Hveen im Öresund, auch eine Papierfabrik an; dieselbe
hörte jedoch bald auf. Bei ihm hielt sich der berühmte holländische
Buchdrucker und Geograph Wilh. Janszoon Blaeu längere Zeit auf
und arbeitete zusammen mit ihm zu wissenschaftlichen Zwecken.
Um die Buchbinderei war es nicht ganz

Buchbinderei.
übel bestellt, sie wurde aber hauptsächlich von
Franzosen und Deutschen betrieben. Von letzteren berief man z. B.
im Jahre 1550 Christoph Schoch aus Wittenberg und Paul
Knobloch aus Lübeck, um die 2000 Exemplare der obenerwähnten
Bibel Christians iii. zu binden, wofür sie neben freier Station den
hohen Preis von 2 Mark dänisch pro Stück erhielten.
Wie der Glanz und die Herrlichkeit der

Verfall
Geistlichkeit vor der kirchlichen Reformation der Wissenschaft.
erloschen war, so sank nach der grossen
politischen Umwandlung durch die Einführung des absoluten
Königtums im Jahre 1660 die Macht des Adels auf immer und damit
auch die von ihm der Litteratur und den Wissenschaften gewährte
Unterstützung. Ein freies, aufgeklärtes und wohlhabendes
Bürgertum als Ersatz gab es noch nicht. Von den Königen wurden
zwar viele Hofbuchdrucker und Hofbuchhändler ernannt, es handelte
sich jedoch nur um leere Titel. Pietismus und Bigotterie herrschten in
den oberen Kreisen und verbreiteten sich nach unten, um dann dem
Materialismus Platz zu machen. Lateinisch war immer noch die
Sprache der Gelehrten, wer nicht lateinisch schrieb, schrieb deutsch
und es dauerte lange, ehe die dänische Sprache und Litteratur zu
Ehren kamen. Die Zensur wurde mit Strenge gehandhabt; der
Nachdruck blühte und die Einfuhr von Büchern war hoch besteuert.
Glänzend konnte demnach der Zustand der

Buchhandel.
Buchdruckerei und des Buchhandels nicht sein.
Hierzu kam noch der grosse Brand von E. H. Berling.
Kopenhagen 1728, nach welchem das Geschäft
ganz darnieder lag und erst durch Georg Höpfner wieder zu Ehren
kam. Im Jahre 1722 gab es ausserhalb Kopenhagens keine Presse
in Dänemark, 1769 arbeiteten 12 Buchdruckereien. Vieles wurde
jedoch in Deutschland gedruckt, wenn auch nicht viel besser. Ein
Deutscher, Ernst Heinrich Berling, hatte um 1740 eine
Schriftgiesserei angelegt, und das Verbot der Einfuhr von Schriften-
Guss erlangt. Aber dieses Verbot scheint nicht beachtet worden zu
sein. Die Fraktur war die allgemein gebräuchliche Type und ein
Versuch des Buchdruckers Jokum Wielandt, 1723, sie durch
Antiqua zu ersetzen, misslang. Im Jahre 1754 wollte man eine „Freie
dänische Buchdruckerei“ begründen mit ähnlicher Tendenz wie die
„Gelehrte Buchhandlung“ in Deutschland; sie endigte mit gleichem
Misserfolg. Im Jahre 1720 war das erste kritische Blatt erschienen.
Mit den Zeitungen sah es keineswegs gut aus. Die in deutscher
Sprache geschriebenen waren reine Abklatsche der elenden
Hamburger Zeitungen. 1666 erschien eine gereimte dänische
Zeitung „Dansk Mercurius“. Erst ein Kopenhagener Lokalblatt „Die
Nachrichten des Adress-Komptoires“ hatte einen solchen Erfolg,
dass nun auch Provinzstädte Lust bekamen an dem Gewinne
teilzunehmen, was dann auch die Verbreitung der Buchdruckereien
mit sich brachte.
In dem mit Dänemark politisch und

Norwegen.
sprachlich verbundenen NORWEGEN ging die
wissenschaftliche und litterarische Bewegung
ganz in der dänischen auf, so dass die Buchdruckereien dort nicht
festen Fuss fassen konnten. Das erste Buch wurde in CHRISTIANIA
i. J. 1643 von einem wandernden Buchdrucker, Tyge Nielsen aus
Kopenhagen, gedruckt. Eine fest angesiedelte Offizin erhielt
Norwegen erst durch einen Deutschen, Valentin Kuhn.
Auf ISLAND herrschte und herrscht noch die

Island.
von den eingewanderten Norwegern
mitgebrachte altnordische (Norräna-)Sprache und
ein reges geistiges Leben. Die Reformation ward 1551 eingeführt,
und Island erhielt, noch vor dem Mutterlande, eine Buchdruckerei.
Dieselbe wurde auf Veranlassung des letzten katholischen Bischofs
Jon Arason durch dessen Schreiber, den Schweden Jon
Matthiasson, in HOLUM eingerichtet und hier erschien 1531 das
erste Buch Missale Nidarosiense (Drontheimsches Missal). Als der
Bischof, ein Opfer seiner Überzeugung, gefallen war, nahm der
weniger skrupulöse Matthiasson die lutherische Lehre an, behielt die
Druckerei und druckte mehrere evangelische Schriften. Die Offizin
zog öfters hin und her und wurde 1574 von dem Bischof Guldbrand
Thorlakson übernommen, mit neuem Material versehen und
erweitert, so dass sie 1584 eine Folio-Bibel, von der später mehrere
Auflagen erschienen, isländisch drucken konnte. Der Bischof
besorgte selbst eine sehr genaue Korrektur und soll sogar die
zierlichen Initialen gezeichnet und geschnitten haben. Im Jahre 1704
kam die Offizin nach SKALHOLT, wo sie über 40 Drucke lieferte, und
dann, nach längerem Stillstand, 1704 nach Holum zurück.
In SCHWEDEN wurde die Bibel zum

Schweden.
erstenmale 1521 schwedisch gedruckt; 1548 das
Neue Testament in finnischer Sprache. 1594 liess
Karl xi. eine königliche Buchdruckerei einrichten, deren erster
Vorstand Anund Olai war, und die, bald unter deutschen, bald unter
schwedischen Dirigenten, tüchtiges geliefert hat.
Sowohl Gustav ii. Adolf, als seine gelehrte

Pet. v. Selou.
Tochter, Christina, förderten eifrig die
Buchdruckerkunst. Zu einer Zeit, wo diese sonst Heinr. Keyser.
bereits anfing in Misskredit zu kommen, verlieh
Gustav Adolf den Buchdruckern Einkünfte. 1626 berief er aus
Deutschland Peter von Selou, damit er heilige Schriften mit
russischen Typen drucke. 1636 gab er dem alten Bischofssitz
STRENGNÄS eine Druckerei, nur damit der Bischof von Schonen,
Laurentius Paulinus, mit grösserer Bequemlichkeit den Druck seiner
Schriften überwachen konnte. Mit dem Bischof wanderte die
Druckerei später nach Upsala. Dem geschickten Formenschneider
und Kupferstecher Heinrich Keyser schenkte er einen, in
Deutschland erbeuteten Buchdruckerei-Apparat, mit welchem
Keyser, unter der Regierung Christinas, die sehr geschätzte,
sogenannte Bibel der Königin Christina druckte. Bekannt ist Keyser
namentlich durch sein Werk Insignia nobilitatis Suecanae mit sehr
gut ausgeführten Wappen. Als Keyser sich in seinen Hoffnungen auf
guten Erfolg getäuscht sah, zerstörte er in Unmut die Illustrationen,
so dass das Werk sehr selten geworden ist. Der tüchtige Sohn
Keysers druckte in vorzüglicher Weise die schönste Ausgabe der
schwedischen Bibel, die erst 1703, nach seinem 1699 erfolgten
Tode, vollendet wurde.
Die Königin Christina hatte einen bekannten Amsterdamer

Buchdrucker Johann Jansson (nicht der berühmten Blaeu'schen
Familie angehörend) nach Stockholm berufen. Ausser festem Gehalt
wurden ihm manche Vorteile, darunter freie Papiereinfuhr,
zugestanden. Als die Königin die gelehrte Schule in Åbo in Finnland
zur Universität erhoben hatte, berief der akademische Senat 1642
Peter Valdius als Universitätsbuchdrucker. 1713 wurde die
Druckerei, auf Grund der Kriegsunruhen, nach Stockholm gebracht.
Über der in Gothenburg 1650 von Amund Grefwe errichteten

Offizin ruhte ein Unglücksstern. Erst ging ein Schiff, welches neue
Typen und Papier aus Hamburg bringen sollte, unter, und 1669
brannte, mit einem grossen Teil von Gothenburg, die Druckerei ab.
Upsala.
In UPSALA mit seiner schon 1476 gestifteten
Universität hatte Paul Griis 1510 die Kunst eingeführt. Der König
Karl Gustav unterstützte ihn dabei, indem er ihm die Einkünfte eines
Ritterguts überliess. Griechisch, hebräisch, Runen und arabisch
wurden bereits mit dem Anfang des xvii. Jahrhunderts dort gedruckt;
die letztere Schrift wurde von Peter Kirsten aus Breslau eingeführt,
die Runen verbesserte 1702 Peringskjöld.
In Upsala lebte auch der berühmte Gelehrte

Olaus Rudbeck.
Olaus Rudbeck, bekannt durch sein grosses
Werk Atlantica, sive Manheim, von welchem
Band i-iii in Folio mit einem grossen Atlas in den Jahren 1675-1698
fertig wurden. Um den Druck zu fördern, hatte Rudbeck selbst 1686
eine Druckerei angelegt, mit welcher, bei dem grossen Brande
Upsalas 1702, der noch in der Presse befindliche iv. Band so
gründlich vernichtet wurde, dass nur 3 oder 4 Exemplare übrig
geblieben sind.
LUND hatte 1666 durch Karl xi. seine

Lund.
Universität erhalten. Die Versuche, die 1668 und
1676 gemacht wurden, die Druckerkunst dort
heimisch zu machen, waren jedoch für lange Zeit ohne rechten
Erfolg.
[1] Vergl. S. 116, Absatz: Hans Schaeuffelein.

[2] Interessant ist in Bezug auf das Typenwesen im Mittelalter: F.
Soennecken, Das deutsche Schriftwesen. Bonn 1881.
[3] Dr. H. Grotefend, Chr. Egenolff, der erste ständige
Buchdrucker zu Frankfurt a. M. Frankfurt 1881.
[4] Ed. Heyden, Gallerie berühmter Frankfurter. 1861.
[5] H. Helbig, Notice sur P. Schœffer le fils. Gent 1848.
[6] C. F. Schurrer, Slavischer Bücherdruck in Würtemberg im
xvi. Jahrh. Tübingen 1799. — H. C. W. Sillem, Primus Truber.
Erlangen 1861.
[7] Interessante Mitteilungen über diese geschäftliche Verbindung
verbreitet das in Basel 1881 erschienene: Rechnungsbuch des
Froben und Episcopius 1557-1564.
[8] A. Jociscus, Oratio de ortu etc. J. Oporini. Strassburg 1569.
[9] S. Vögelin, Christoph Froschauer, erster berühmter
Buchdrucker in Zürich. Zürich 1840. — E. Camillo Rudolphi, Die
Buchdrucker-Familie Froschauer in Zürich (1521-1595).
Verzeichnis der aus ihrer Offizin hervorgegangenen Druckwerke.
Zürich 1869.
[10] G. Binckert, Leonhard Straub, der erste Buchdrucker in St.
Gallen. 1878.
[11] Jubilæum typgr. Lipsiensium. Leipzig 1640. — Gepriesenes
Andenken. Jubelschrift. Leipzig 1740. — F. Ch. A. Hasse, Kurze
Gesch. d. Leipziger Buchdk. Leipzig 1840. — C. B. Lorck, Die
Druckkunst und der Buchhandel in Leipzig durch vier
Jahrhunderte. Leipzig 1879.
[12] G. Schwetschke, Codex nundinarius Germaniae literatae
bisecularis. Halle 1850.
[13] Dr. O. Hase, Breitkopf und Härtel. Leipzig 1875.
[14] E. G. Eichsfeld, Relation vom Wittenbergischen
Buchdrucker Jubilio 1740. Wittenberg 1740.
[15] G. G. Küster, Historia artis typographicæ in Marchia. Berlin
1746. — Abhandlung, worin etwas von märkischen
Formschneidern. — J. C. W. Moehsen, Beiträge zur Geschichte
der Wissenschaften in Mark Brandenburg. Berlin 1783. — G.
Friedländer, Beiträge zur Buchdruckergeschichte Berlins. Berlin
1834.
[16] J. O. Opel, Die Anfänge der deutschen Zeitungspresse.
Leipzig 1879. — E. Dominik und Otto Wenzel, Zwei Abhandl. in:
„Der Bär“ 1881, Nr. 24 u. 42.
[17] C. Nyrop, Bidrag til den danske Boghandels Historie. 2 Bde.
Kopenh. 1870.
VIII. KAPITEL. [←]
DER DRUCKBETRIEB UND DAS BUCHGEWERBE IN

DEUTSCHLAND.
Die Schriftgiesserei und die Druckschriften. Die Technik des Setzens und
Druckens: Der Satzapparat, die Korrektur, die Presse, die Farbe. Prinzipal,
Geselle und Lehrling. Die Buchbinderkunst. Der Buchhandel: Die
litterarische Produktion, das Verhältnis zwischen Autor und Verleger.
ÖGEN auch abweichende Urteile

Technische Ver-
darüber herrschen, welcher Anteil an besserungen.
der technischen Weiterbildung der
neuen Kunst dem Erfinder selbst, welcher seinen
Genossen und ersten Nachfolgern gehört, so steht doch das eine
fest, dass die Technik der Kunst und der mechanische Apparat,
nachdem die ersten unsicheren Versuche hinter den genannten
lagen, eine derartige Festigkeit im Prinzip und Abrundung in der
Ausführung gewonnen hatten, dass man, trotz der Fortschritte der
Gewerbe und der Anwendung wissenschaftlicher Grundsätze auf
dieselben, in der langen Zeit von dem Jahre 1500 bis zu dem Jahre
1750 nicht imstande war, das Überkommene durch Neues zu
ersetzen[1].
Successive Verbesserungen in der Herstellung der Schriften

und des Druckes traten zwar ein, aber keine durchgreifenden
Reformen. Erst zu Ende des xviii. Jahrhunderts zeigten sich die
Vorboten solcher, jedoch erst dem xix. Jahrhundert war es
beschieden, ihnen Fleisch und Blut zu geben.
In der SCHRIFTGIESSEREI bestanden die

Schriftgiesserei.
Verbesserungen, nachdem man schon frühzeitig
gelernt hatte, die Stempel in Stahl, die Matern in
Kupfer, die Schriften in härterer Metallmischung herzustellen,
hauptsächlich in der Einführung der nach bestimmten Regeln sich
abstufenden Schriftgrössen (Kegel-System), während anfänglich
Zufälligkeiten oder Laune bestimmend waren.
Leider wurde vom Beginn ab weder in Betreff

Kegel und
des Kegels noch der Schrifthöhe eine Schrifthöhe.
Einheitlichkeit in allen Ländern durchgeführt.
Nicht allein verfolgte jedes Land seinen eigenen Weg, sondern in
den einzelnen Ländern, und zwar ganz besonders in Deutschland,
herrschte Verschiedenheit, die sich sogar auf die einzelnen Städte
ausdehnte, ja, selbst in den Druckereien einer und derselben Stadt
sah es oft traurig genug um die Einheitlichkeit aus.
Das Giessinstrument war so eingerichtet

Giessinstrument.
worden, dass die Buchstaben beim Giessen
einen trichterförmigen Anguss erhielten, dessen
Schwere die scharfe Ausprägung des Buchstabenbildes förderte.
Die Interpunktionszeichen wurden vermehrt und erhielten eine
zweckmässigere, weniger prätentiöse Form. Die überaus
zahlreichen Ligaturen der Buchstaben wurden auf eine kleine Zahl
beschränkt und die sogenannten Auszeichnungsschriften zum
Hervorheben einzelner Zeilen oder Wörter eingeführt.
Die Typen wurden mit einer Einkerbung

Signatur.
(Signatur) versehen. Diese diente nicht allein
dem Setzer als Richtschnur, um den Buchstaben
gleich aus dem Kastenfach richtig zu fassen und in den Winkelhaken
einzureihen, sondern auch als Unterscheidung der verschiedenen,
auf einem und demselben Kegel gegossenen Schriftsorten, indem
man mit der Stellung der Signatur auf der unteren, beim Satz
oberen, Langseite der Type wechseln, nach Befinden auch
gleichzeitig mehrere Signaturen anbringen konnte.
Mit der steigenden Zahl der Schriften war

Vermehrung der
dieses Unterscheidungszeichen recht notwendig Schriften.
geworden. Bereits das, 1721 erschienene,
Handbuch von Ernesti weist nicht weniger als 47 verschiedene
Frakturschriften bei 18 Kegelstärken auf. Man sieht auch hieraus,
welche grosse Ansprüche schon damals an die Schriftgiessereien
und Buchdruckereien gestellt wurden. In Deutschland verdoppelten
sich diese Ansprüche, denn man musste auch in Antiqua- und
Kursiv-Schriften wohl versorgt sein. Das erwähnte Handbuch bringt
21 Antiqua- und 14 Kursiv-Proben, daneben 11 Grade Griechisch
und 9 Grade Hebräisch, ausserdem arabische, samaritanische,
armenische, koptische, cyrillische, glagolitische, russische,
hunnische, scytische, wendische Schriften, Runen, Choral- und
gewöhnliche Noten.
Das Clichieren.

Spectral Theory and Differential Operators D E Edmunds Full Chapter 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

Spectral Theory and Differential Operators D E Edmunds Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spectral Theory and Differential

Operators D.E. Edmunds

Ulam stability of operators Brzd■k

Graph Spectral Image Processing Gene Cheung

Transforms and Partial Differential Equations T.

Linear Algebra and Partial Differential Equations T

Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems:

Fundamentals of advanced mathematics. 3, Differential

First Course in differential equations (11ed) /

Pseudo-Noun Incorporation and Differential Object

For a full list of titles please visit

in an open set Ω in Rn , with n 1, and set

under consideration. If the numerical range of t, namely the set

Basic Notation xix

1 Linear Operators in Banach Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

4 Sesquilinear Forms in Hilbert Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

7 Second-Order Differential Operators on Arbitrary Open Sets . . . . . . . 331

11 Global and Asymptotic Estimates for the Eigenvalues

B(x, r): open ball in Rn , centre x and radius r.

c0 := {(ξj ) ∈ l∞ : lim ξj = 0}.

Linear Operators in Banach Spaces

1. Compact Linear Maps

This follows directly from the following lemma:

Proof. Let yn ∈ Xn \Xn−1 . The function y → y − yn is positive and continuous on Xn−1

A related result is the following:

The well-known proof may be found in Yosida [265], p. 282.

Theorem 1.7. Let T ∈ K (X) and suppose that λ ∈ C\{0}. Then

If X is reflexive, and in particular if X is a Hilbert space, we shall often write G⊥ in place of G0 ;

λ[x] + μ[y] = [λx + μy],

[x] = inf{y : y ∈ [x]} = dist(x, M) := inf{x − m : m ∈ M};

codim M = dim M0 , codim M0 = dim M. (1.5)

thus xm − w 12 . However,

Proof. We recall that a subspace M of X is said to be invariant under T if T(M) ⊂ M.

and our assertion is proved. Thus

Hence x = z ∈ R (Tλr ), and the proof is complete. 2

that is, Pλ Tλ = Tλ Pλ . Also, (I − Pλ )Tλ = Tλ (I − Pλ ). Thus

Pλ T = TPλ and (I − Pλ )T = T(I − Pλ ).

We shall often write ψ and ψ in place of ψX and ψX , if X is understood to be the

Lemma 2.2. Let A and B be bounded subsets of a metric space X. Then

Corollary 2.4. Lemma 2.3 holds with ψ replaced by ψ.

To do this, observe that since C1 and C2 are convex,

B1 = co (A1 ∪ A2 ) , Bn = co (Bn−1 ∪ An ) for 1 < n k.

ψ(co A) ψ(Bk ) max {ψ(A1 ), . . . , ψ(Ak )} δ.

k-set-contractions and k-ball-contractions, as a simple argument shows. The radial retraction

Hence ψ(T(B )) ψ(T(B)), and it is now immediate that ψ(T(B)) = β(T).

Ep = {y∗ ∈ S : y∗ (yj ) ∈ Ij, pj for j = 1, 2, . . . , n}.

T ∗ ( y∗1 − y∗2 ) = sup {|( y∗1 − y∗2 , Tx)|: x ∈ B}

|( y∗1 − y∗2 , y)| |( y∗1 − y∗2 , y − yi )| + |( y∗1 − y∗2 , yi )|

Hence T ∗ ( y∗1 − y∗2 ) kd + ε, which implies that diam T ∗ (Ep ) kd + ε, and

ψ(T ∗∗ ( JX (A))) kψ(JX (A)) = kψ(A),

and since T ∗∗ JX = JY T, we see that ψ( JY T(A)) kψ(A). However, JY is also an

Ep = {y ∈ B(z, d) : (y, yj ) ∈ Ij, pj for j = 1, 2, . . . , n},

Now we show that T ∗ (Ep ) ⊂ B(T ∗ Lp z, kd + ε). Given any y ∈ Ep ,

T ∗ ( y − Lp z) = sup{|(Tx, y − Lp z)|: x ∈ B},

and since to each x ∈ B there corresponds yj (1 j n) such that Tx − yj k +

|(Tx, y − Lp z)| |(Tx − yj , y − Lp z)| + |(y − Lp z, yj )|

Proof. By Theorems 2.9 and 2.11, β(T) β(T ∗ ) = β(T). 2

Theorem 2.13. Let H be a Hilbert space and let T ∈ B (H). Then

β(T) = [β(T ∗ T)]1/2 .

Proof. By Lemma 2.8(iv) and Theorem 2.11,

β(T ∗ T) β(T ∗ )β(T) = [β(T)]2 ;

T(y − Lp z)2 = (T ∗ T( y − Lp z), y − Lp z)

To obtain further information it is convenient to establish the following general result.

Proof. Let yn ∈ Xn \Xn−1 . The function y → y − yn is positive and continuous on Xn−1