What can we say about the spectrum of the difference of positive elements?











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Let $mathcal{A}$ be a unital $C^*$-algebra with $a,binmathcal{A}_+$ such that $|a|<|b|$. Does it follow that $a-bnotinmathcal{A}_+$?



I can find very little about the spectrum of the sum or difference of two elements. But I believe there should at least be some useful observations to be made for positive elements. For example, I did prove the following.



Let $mathcal{A}$ be a unital $C^*$-algebra with $ainmathcal{A}$ and $binmathcal{A}_+$ such that $|a|<|b|$. If $C^*(a,b)$ is abelian, then $a-bnotinmathcal{A}_+$?



Proof: Since $binmathcal{A}_+$ we have $|b|=r(b)$, so we find $xinsigma(b)$ with $x>|a|$. Then there exists a homomorphism $h$ on $C^*(a,b)$ such that $h(b)=x$. We find $h(a-b)=h(a)-h(b)leq|a|-h(b)<0$. Since $h(a-b)insigma(a-b)$, we get $a-bnotinmathcal{A}_+$.










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    Let $mathcal{A}$ be a unital $C^*$-algebra with $a,binmathcal{A}_+$ such that $|a|<|b|$. Does it follow that $a-bnotinmathcal{A}_+$?



    I can find very little about the spectrum of the sum or difference of two elements. But I believe there should at least be some useful observations to be made for positive elements. For example, I did prove the following.



    Let $mathcal{A}$ be a unital $C^*$-algebra with $ainmathcal{A}$ and $binmathcal{A}_+$ such that $|a|<|b|$. If $C^*(a,b)$ is abelian, then $a-bnotinmathcal{A}_+$?



    Proof: Since $binmathcal{A}_+$ we have $|b|=r(b)$, so we find $xinsigma(b)$ with $x>|a|$. Then there exists a homomorphism $h$ on $C^*(a,b)$ such that $h(b)=x$. We find $h(a-b)=h(a)-h(b)leq|a|-h(b)<0$. Since $h(a-b)insigma(a-b)$, we get $a-bnotinmathcal{A}_+$.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      Let $mathcal{A}$ be a unital $C^*$-algebra with $a,binmathcal{A}_+$ such that $|a|<|b|$. Does it follow that $a-bnotinmathcal{A}_+$?



      I can find very little about the spectrum of the sum or difference of two elements. But I believe there should at least be some useful observations to be made for positive elements. For example, I did prove the following.



      Let $mathcal{A}$ be a unital $C^*$-algebra with $ainmathcal{A}$ and $binmathcal{A}_+$ such that $|a|<|b|$. If $C^*(a,b)$ is abelian, then $a-bnotinmathcal{A}_+$?



      Proof: Since $binmathcal{A}_+$ we have $|b|=r(b)$, so we find $xinsigma(b)$ with $x>|a|$. Then there exists a homomorphism $h$ on $C^*(a,b)$ such that $h(b)=x$. We find $h(a-b)=h(a)-h(b)leq|a|-h(b)<0$. Since $h(a-b)insigma(a-b)$, we get $a-bnotinmathcal{A}_+$.










      share|cite|improve this question















      Let $mathcal{A}$ be a unital $C^*$-algebra with $a,binmathcal{A}_+$ such that $|a|<|b|$. Does it follow that $a-bnotinmathcal{A}_+$?



      I can find very little about the spectrum of the sum or difference of two elements. But I believe there should at least be some useful observations to be made for positive elements. For example, I did prove the following.



      Let $mathcal{A}$ be a unital $C^*$-algebra with $ainmathcal{A}$ and $binmathcal{A}_+$ such that $|a|<|b|$. If $C^*(a,b)$ is abelian, then $a-bnotinmathcal{A}_+$?



      Proof: Since $binmathcal{A}_+$ we have $|b|=r(b)$, so we find $xinsigma(b)$ with $x>|a|$. Then there exists a homomorphism $h$ on $C^*(a,b)$ such that $h(b)=x$. We find $h(a-b)=h(a)-h(b)leq|a|-h(b)<0$. Since $h(a-b)insigma(a-b)$, we get $a-bnotinmathcal{A}_+$.







      spectral-theory c-star-algebras






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 2 days ago

























      asked Nov 15 at 23:03









      SmileyCraft

      71818




      71818






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          The claim is false, as is the proof you give for the commutative case (the fallacy lies in $|b|-h(a)<0$). Consider $mathcal A=mathbb C$, $a=4$, and $b=7$.



          EDIT



          Note that now the claim is equivalent to "If $0leq aleq b$, then $|a|leq|b|$." This can be proven as follows: By functional calculus, we have $bleq|b|$, and thus $aleq|b|$. Applying functional calculus again gives $|a|leq|b|$.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • You are totally correct. I stupidly made a mistake in my writing, I confused $a$ and $b$, since I first used different names and then changed them :/ I fixed it now. The question should make sense now.
            – SmileyCraft
            2 days ago










          • No problem. I edited my response, let me know if anything is unclear.
            – Aweygan
            2 days ago










          • First, I think you swapped that $a$ and $b$ now. If that is the case, that is very understandable :P Second, I don't see how the statement is equivalent. Last, how does $bleq|a|$ give $|b|leq|a|$?
            – SmileyCraft
            2 days ago










          • I may have swapped them. I swapped them again, because this looks more natural. The statement I have is the contrapositive to the statement you made. The negation of the statement $a-bnotinmathcal A_+$ is $0leq a-b$ or $bleq a$, and the negation of $|a|<|b|$ is $|b|leq|a|$. Lastly, if $lambda$ is a positive real number, then $0leq bleqlambda$ means that $sigma(b)subset[0,lambda]$, and since the norm of $b$ is its spectral radius, we have $|b|leqlambda$. Now put $lambda=|a|$.
            – Aweygan
            2 days ago












          • Ah of course. Thank you!
            – SmileyCraft
            2 days ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3000454%2fwhat-can-we-say-about-the-spectrum-of-the-difference-of-positive-elements%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          The claim is false, as is the proof you give for the commutative case (the fallacy lies in $|b|-h(a)<0$). Consider $mathcal A=mathbb C$, $a=4$, and $b=7$.



          EDIT



          Note that now the claim is equivalent to "If $0leq aleq b$, then $|a|leq|b|$." This can be proven as follows: By functional calculus, we have $bleq|b|$, and thus $aleq|b|$. Applying functional calculus again gives $|a|leq|b|$.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • You are totally correct. I stupidly made a mistake in my writing, I confused $a$ and $b$, since I first used different names and then changed them :/ I fixed it now. The question should make sense now.
            – SmileyCraft
            2 days ago










          • No problem. I edited my response, let me know if anything is unclear.
            – Aweygan
            2 days ago










          • First, I think you swapped that $a$ and $b$ now. If that is the case, that is very understandable :P Second, I don't see how the statement is equivalent. Last, how does $bleq|a|$ give $|b|leq|a|$?
            – SmileyCraft
            2 days ago










          • I may have swapped them. I swapped them again, because this looks more natural. The statement I have is the contrapositive to the statement you made. The negation of the statement $a-bnotinmathcal A_+$ is $0leq a-b$ or $bleq a$, and the negation of $|a|<|b|$ is $|b|leq|a|$. Lastly, if $lambda$ is a positive real number, then $0leq bleqlambda$ means that $sigma(b)subset[0,lambda]$, and since the norm of $b$ is its spectral radius, we have $|b|leqlambda$. Now put $lambda=|a|$.
            – Aweygan
            2 days ago












          • Ah of course. Thank you!
            – SmileyCraft
            2 days ago















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          The claim is false, as is the proof you give for the commutative case (the fallacy lies in $|b|-h(a)<0$). Consider $mathcal A=mathbb C$, $a=4$, and $b=7$.



          EDIT



          Note that now the claim is equivalent to "If $0leq aleq b$, then $|a|leq|b|$." This can be proven as follows: By functional calculus, we have $bleq|b|$, and thus $aleq|b|$. Applying functional calculus again gives $|a|leq|b|$.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • You are totally correct. I stupidly made a mistake in my writing, I confused $a$ and $b$, since I first used different names and then changed them :/ I fixed it now. The question should make sense now.
            – SmileyCraft
            2 days ago










          • No problem. I edited my response, let me know if anything is unclear.
            – Aweygan
            2 days ago










          • First, I think you swapped that $a$ and $b$ now. If that is the case, that is very understandable :P Second, I don't see how the statement is equivalent. Last, how does $bleq|a|$ give $|b|leq|a|$?
            – SmileyCraft
            2 days ago










          • I may have swapped them. I swapped them again, because this looks more natural. The statement I have is the contrapositive to the statement you made. The negation of the statement $a-bnotinmathcal A_+$ is $0leq a-b$ or $bleq a$, and the negation of $|a|<|b|$ is $|b|leq|a|$. Lastly, if $lambda$ is a positive real number, then $0leq bleqlambda$ means that $sigma(b)subset[0,lambda]$, and since the norm of $b$ is its spectral radius, we have $|b|leqlambda$. Now put $lambda=|a|$.
            – Aweygan
            2 days ago












          • Ah of course. Thank you!
            – SmileyCraft
            2 days ago













          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted






          The claim is false, as is the proof you give for the commutative case (the fallacy lies in $|b|-h(a)<0$). Consider $mathcal A=mathbb C$, $a=4$, and $b=7$.



          EDIT



          Note that now the claim is equivalent to "If $0leq aleq b$, then $|a|leq|b|$." This can be proven as follows: By functional calculus, we have $bleq|b|$, and thus $aleq|b|$. Applying functional calculus again gives $|a|leq|b|$.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          The claim is false, as is the proof you give for the commutative case (the fallacy lies in $|b|-h(a)<0$). Consider $mathcal A=mathbb C$, $a=4$, and $b=7$.



          EDIT



          Note that now the claim is equivalent to "If $0leq aleq b$, then $|a|leq|b|$." This can be proven as follows: By functional calculus, we have $bleq|b|$, and thus $aleq|b|$. Applying functional calculus again gives $|a|leq|b|$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 2 days ago

























          answered Nov 16 at 5:59









          Aweygan

          12.8k21441




          12.8k21441












          • You are totally correct. I stupidly made a mistake in my writing, I confused $a$ and $b$, since I first used different names and then changed them :/ I fixed it now. The question should make sense now.
            – SmileyCraft
            2 days ago










          • No problem. I edited my response, let me know if anything is unclear.
            – Aweygan
            2 days ago










          • First, I think you swapped that $a$ and $b$ now. If that is the case, that is very understandable :P Second, I don't see how the statement is equivalent. Last, how does $bleq|a|$ give $|b|leq|a|$?
            – SmileyCraft
            2 days ago










          • I may have swapped them. I swapped them again, because this looks more natural. The statement I have is the contrapositive to the statement you made. The negation of the statement $a-bnotinmathcal A_+$ is $0leq a-b$ or $bleq a$, and the negation of $|a|<|b|$ is $|b|leq|a|$. Lastly, if $lambda$ is a positive real number, then $0leq bleqlambda$ means that $sigma(b)subset[0,lambda]$, and since the norm of $b$ is its spectral radius, we have $|b|leqlambda$. Now put $lambda=|a|$.
            – Aweygan
            2 days ago












          • Ah of course. Thank you!
            – SmileyCraft
            2 days ago


















          • You are totally correct. I stupidly made a mistake in my writing, I confused $a$ and $b$, since I first used different names and then changed them :/ I fixed it now. The question should make sense now.
            – SmileyCraft
            2 days ago










          • No problem. I edited my response, let me know if anything is unclear.
            – Aweygan
            2 days ago










          • First, I think you swapped that $a$ and $b$ now. If that is the case, that is very understandable :P Second, I don't see how the statement is equivalent. Last, how does $bleq|a|$ give $|b|leq|a|$?
            – SmileyCraft
            2 days ago










          • I may have swapped them. I swapped them again, because this looks more natural. The statement I have is the contrapositive to the statement you made. The negation of the statement $a-bnotinmathcal A_+$ is $0leq a-b$ or $bleq a$, and the negation of $|a|<|b|$ is $|b|leq|a|$. Lastly, if $lambda$ is a positive real number, then $0leq bleqlambda$ means that $sigma(b)subset[0,lambda]$, and since the norm of $b$ is its spectral radius, we have $|b|leqlambda$. Now put $lambda=|a|$.
            – Aweygan
            2 days ago












          • Ah of course. Thank you!
            – SmileyCraft
            2 days ago
















          You are totally correct. I stupidly made a mistake in my writing, I confused $a$ and $b$, since I first used different names and then changed them :/ I fixed it now. The question should make sense now.
          – SmileyCraft
          2 days ago




          You are totally correct. I stupidly made a mistake in my writing, I confused $a$ and $b$, since I first used different names and then changed them :/ I fixed it now. The question should make sense now.
          – SmileyCraft
          2 days ago












          No problem. I edited my response, let me know if anything is unclear.
          – Aweygan
          2 days ago




          No problem. I edited my response, let me know if anything is unclear.
          – Aweygan
          2 days ago












          First, I think you swapped that $a$ and $b$ now. If that is the case, that is very understandable :P Second, I don't see how the statement is equivalent. Last, how does $bleq|a|$ give $|b|leq|a|$?
          – SmileyCraft
          2 days ago




          First, I think you swapped that $a$ and $b$ now. If that is the case, that is very understandable :P Second, I don't see how the statement is equivalent. Last, how does $bleq|a|$ give $|b|leq|a|$?
          – SmileyCraft
          2 days ago












          I may have swapped them. I swapped them again, because this looks more natural. The statement I have is the contrapositive to the statement you made. The negation of the statement $a-bnotinmathcal A_+$ is $0leq a-b$ or $bleq a$, and the negation of $|a|<|b|$ is $|b|leq|a|$. Lastly, if $lambda$ is a positive real number, then $0leq bleqlambda$ means that $sigma(b)subset[0,lambda]$, and since the norm of $b$ is its spectral radius, we have $|b|leqlambda$. Now put $lambda=|a|$.
          – Aweygan
          2 days ago






          I may have swapped them. I swapped them again, because this looks more natural. The statement I have is the contrapositive to the statement you made. The negation of the statement $a-bnotinmathcal A_+$ is $0leq a-b$ or $bleq a$, and the negation of $|a|<|b|$ is $|b|leq|a|$. Lastly, if $lambda$ is a positive real number, then $0leq bleqlambda$ means that $sigma(b)subset[0,lambda]$, and since the norm of $b$ is its spectral radius, we have $|b|leqlambda$. Now put $lambda=|a|$.
          – Aweygan
          2 days ago














          Ah of course. Thank you!
          – SmileyCraft
          2 days ago




          Ah of course. Thank you!
          – SmileyCraft
          2 days ago


















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded



















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3000454%2fwhat-can-we-say-about-the-spectrum-of-the-difference-of-positive-elements%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Bundesstraße 106

          Verónica Boquete

          Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten