Abstract
We relate dual-band general Toeplitz operators to block truncated Toeplitz operators and, via equivalence after extension, with Toeplitz operators with \(4 \times 4\) matrix symbols. We discuss their norm, their kernel, Fredholmness, invertibility and spectral properties in various situations, focusing on the spectral properties of the dual-band shift, which turns out to be considerably complex, leading to new and nontrivial connections with the boundary behaviour of the associated inner function.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Multiband spaces occur naturally in applications. First, multiband signals are seen in speech processing (see [2, 4, 6, 24] for example), as an alternative to the Paley–Wiener space PW(b) of inverse Fourier transforms of functions in \(L^2(-b,b)\), when both high and low frequencies are to be ignored. Second, multiplex signal transmission, as a way of sending several signals down the same channel, has many practical applications, and we refer the reader to [7] for a detailed history of the subject with 137 references, tracing the analysis back to work of Raabe and Shannon in the 1930s and 1940s. Furthermore, in recent years, dual-band filters have become key components in ubiquitous wireless communication devices such as cellular phones [26, 29].
To see a basic example of a multiband space, which in this case is a dual-band space, choose \(0< a < b\) and consider the inverse Fourier transform of the space \(L^2((-b,-a) \cup (a,b))\), which is a space \(M \subset L^2({\mathbb {R}})\). Indeed \(M=PW(b) \ominus PW(a)\).
If we define the inverse Fourier transform formally by
then this extends to an isomorphism between \(L^2(0,\infty )\) and the Hardy space \(H^2({\mathbb {C}}^+)\) on the upper half-plane, and \(L^2(0,b-a)\) corresponds to the model space \(K_\theta :=H^2({\mathbb {C}}^+) \ominus \theta H^2({\mathbb {C}}^+)\) where \(\theta \) is the inner function \(\theta (s)=e^{i(b-a)s}\).
It is now clear that the space M above has the orthogonal decomposition
where
More generally, let \(\theta \) be an inner function in \(H^\infty ({\mathbb {C}}^+)\), and \(\phi \), \(\psi \) unimodular functions in \(L^\infty ({\mathbb {R}})\) such that \(\phi K_\theta \perp \psi K_\theta \). Then we shall consider dual-band spaces \(M:= \phi K_\theta \oplus \psi K_\theta \) and general Wiener–Hopf operators [18, 36] on those spaces.
Toeplitz operators are a basic example of a general Wiener–Hopf operator where the operator on \(L^2\), of the circle or the real line, which is compressed (in this case, to the Hardy space \(H^2\)) is a multiplication operator; in the latter case we say that we have a general Toeplitz operator.
Truncated Toeplitz operators of the form \(A_g^\theta u=P_{\theta } (gu)\), where \(P_\theta \) denotes the orthogonal projection onto \(K_\theta \), are another example of general Toeplitz operators. They have been much studied, since being formally defined by Sarason [35], although they occur much earlier, for example in [1, 34]. Some recent surveys on the subject are in [17, 20].
The dual-band general Toeplitz operator (abbreviated to dual-band Toeplitz operator in what follows) with symbol \(g\in L^\infty \), \(T^M_g\), is defined on the space \(M:= \phi K_\theta \oplus \psi K_\theta \) by
where \(P_M\) is the orthogonal projection onto M.
In the particular case of the two-interval example given earlier, these are unitarily equivalent to convolution operators restricted to the union of two intervals. Clearly, the same definition can also be made in the more usual situation of \(H^2({\mathbb {D}})\), except that now \(\phi ,\psi \) are unimodular in \(L^\infty ({\mathbb {T}})\) and \(g \in L^2({\mathbb {T}})\).
Two degenerate cases may appear: the decomposition \(M={\overline{\theta }} K_\theta \oplus K_\theta \) gives the Paley–Wiener space as a special case, and the decomposition \(K_{\theta ^2}= K_\theta \oplus \theta K_\theta \) is also a special case. In this paper we will assume that \(\bar{\phi }\psi \) and \(\phi \bar{\psi }\) are not constant multiples of the inner function \(\theta \) to avoid those limit cases.
Note that, in contrast with Toeplitz operators and truncated Toeplitz operators, dual-band Toeplitz operators do not act on spaces of holomorphic functions and M is not a direct sum of model spaces, unless \(\phi ,\,\psi \) are constant.
In this paper we relate dual-band Toeplitz operators to block truncated Toeplitz operators of a particular form, allowing for the information on the unimodular functions \(\phi ,\,\psi \) and the symbol g to be encoded in the various components of the matrix symbol of a block truncated Toeplitz operator. By using the concept of equivalence after extension, these are in their turn related to Toeplitz operators with \(4 \times 4\) matrix symbols. We are thus able to discuss their norm, their kernel, Fredholmness, invertibility and spectral properties in various important situations.
We consider in particular the spectral properties of the dual-band shift. In fact this is a very natural particular case to consider since it has the simplest possible symbol apart from constants and it is an important model to understand the different roles played by \(\theta \), on the one hand, and by \(\phi ,\,\psi \), on the other. There are also links with Volterra operators, as first noted by Sarason [33].
This study also highlights the importance of using the equivalence after extension between dual-band Toeplitz operators and block Toeplitz operators. Indeed, it allows one to use the powerful Riemann–Hilbert method, used in a variety of mathematical and physical problems [8, 15, 25], as well as the theory of Wiener–Hopf factorization [9, 30], in order to study kernels, invertibility and Fredholmness of dual-band Toeplitz operators, to obtain explicit expressions for the inverse operators and the resolvent operators and, for the first time, to investigate certain boundary properties of inner functions, such as the existence of an angular derivative in the sense of Carathéodory for \(\theta \) in terms of an \(L^2\) factorization [28].
Our results are presented in the context of \(L^2\) and \(L^\infty \) spaces on the circle \({\mathbb {T}}\), or \(H^2\) and \(H^\infty \) spaces on the disc \({\mathbb {D}}\), but they apply also to the case of \(L^2\) and \(L^\infty \) spaces on the real line \({\mathbb {R}}\) and \(H^2\) and \(H^\infty \) spaces on the upper half-plane \({\mathbb {C}}^+\).
2 General Toeplitz Operators on Dual-Band Spaces
2.1 The Dual-Band Space M
Proposition 2.1
Let \(\theta \in H^\infty \) be inner, and let \(K_\theta = H^2 \ominus \theta H^2\) be the corresponding model space. Then for \(\phi ,\psi \in L^\infty \) unimodular, the spaces \(\phi K_\theta \) and \(\psi K_\theta \) are orthogonal if and only if the truncated Toeplitz operator \(A^\theta _{{\overline{\phi }} \psi }\) is the zero operator.
Proof
If \(f=\psi k_1\) and \(g=\phi k_2\) with \(k_1, k_2 \in K_\theta \), then
and this is zero for all f, g of that form if and only if \(A^\theta _{{\overline{\phi }} \psi }=0\). \(\square \)
Let now \(M:=\phi K_\theta \oplus ^\perp \psi K_\theta \), where \(\theta \) is inner, \(\phi ,\psi \in L^\infty \) are unimodular and we assume that \(A^\theta _{{\overline{\phi }} \psi }=0\), i.e., \({\overline{\phi }}\psi \in \theta H^2 + {\overline{\theta }} \overline{H^2}\) [35, Thm. 3.1]. We also assume throughout the paper that \(\phi \bar{\psi }\) and \(\bar{\phi }\psi \) are not constant multiples of \(\theta \).
M is a closed subspace of \(L^2\) and the operator \(P_M\) defined by
is the orthogonal projection from \(L^2\) onto M.
One can define a conjugation \(C_M\) on \(L^2\) which keeps M invariant (and is therefore a conjugation on M when restricted to that space). Recall that a conjugation C on a complex Hilbert space \({\mathcal {H}}\) is an antilinear isometric involution, i.e.,
The study of conjugations, which generalize complex conjugation, is motivated by applications in physics, in connection with the study of complex symmetric operators [21,22,23]. These are the operators \( A \in {\mathcal {L}}({\mathcal {H}})\) such that \(CAC=A^*\) for a conjugation C on \({\mathcal {H}}\). We can define a natural conjugation \(C_\theta \) on any model space \(K_\theta \) by
and it is known that any bounded truncated Toeplitz operator is \(C_\theta \)- symmetric [19, Chap. 8]. For \({\mathcal {H}}=M\), we have the following result.
Proposition 2.2
The antilinear operator \(C_M\) defined by
is a conjugation on \(L^2\) preserving M as an invariant subspace.
Proof
If \(f \in M\) has the form \(f=\phi k_1+\psi k_2\) with \(k_1,k_2 \in K_\theta \), then
from which the conjugation properties are easily verified. \(\square \)
2.2 A Matrix Representation
Let now \(T^M_g \) for \(g \in L^2\) be the operator densely defined in M by
the density of \(L^\infty \cap M\) in M following easily from the density of \(L^\infty \cap K_\theta \) in \(K_\theta \), which was given in [35].
If this operator is bounded, we also denote by \(T^M_g\) its unique bounded extension to M. The operator \(T^M_g\) is bounded, in particular, whenever \(g \in L^\infty \). It is easy to see that \((T^M_g)^*= T^M_{{\overline{g}}}\).
Theorem 2.3
Let \(T^M_g\) be a bounded general Toeplitz operator on the dual-band space \(M:=\phi K_\theta \oplus ^\perp \psi K_\theta \), where \(\theta \) is inner and \(\phi ,\psi \in L^\infty \) are unimodular. Then \(T^M_g\) is unitarily equivalent to the block truncated Toeplitz operator
on \(K_\theta \oplus K_\theta \). Hence \(T^M_g=0\) if and only if each of the four truncated Toeplitz operators composing W is 0.
Proof
Let \(M_\phi \) denote the operator of multiplication by \(\phi \), and similarly for other multiplication operators. We have the factorization
This has the form \(U^*AU\), where U is a unitary operator from M onto \(K_\theta \oplus K_\theta \). Using the fact that \(M_{{\overline{\phi }}}\) maps \(\phi K_\theta \) bijectively to \(K_\theta \) and \(P_{\phi K_\theta }=M_\phi P_{K_\theta } M_{{\overline{\phi }}}\), it is easy to verify that the identity (2.6) holds. \(\square \)
There are some simplifications possible here, since some of these four blocks may be 0. The basic properties of matrix-valued truncated Toeplitz operators were studied in [27].
Theorem 2.4
If \(T^M_g\) is bounded, then it is \(C_M\)-symmetric.
Proof
We wish to check the identity \(T^M_g C_M= C_M (T^M_g)^*\). Note that by Proposition 2.2, we have
where U is the unitary mapping given in (2.6). Hence
while
and these are equal since \(AC_\theta =C_\theta A^*\) for any truncated Toeplitz operator A. \(\square \)
3 Equivalence After Extension
Definition 3.1
[3, 37,38,39] The operators \(T: X\rightarrow \widetilde{X}\) and \(S: Y\rightarrow \widetilde{Y}\) are said to be (algebraically and topologically) equivalent if and only if \(T=ESF\) where E, F are invertible operators. More generally, T and S are equivalent after extension if and only if there exist (possibly trivial) Banach spaces \(X_0\), \(Y_0\), called extension spaces, and invertible bounded linear operators \(E:\widetilde{Y}\oplus Y_0\rightarrow \widetilde{X}\oplus X_0\) and \(F:X\oplus X_0\rightarrow Y\oplus Y_0\), such that
In this case we say that \(T{\mathop {\sim }\limits ^{\mathsf {*}}}S\).
It was shown in [14] that for \(g \in L^\infty \) the scalar Toeplitz operator \(A^\theta _g\) is equivalent by extension to the block Toeplitz operator with symbol
This result was used in [13] to study spectral properties of \(A^\theta _g\) and, more generally, to study asymmetric truncated Toeplitz operators.
Motivated by the result of Theorem 2.3, we now consider the truncated Toeplitz operator \(A^\theta _G\) acting on \(K_\theta \oplus K_\theta \), where \(G=\begin{pmatrix}g_{11} &{} g_{12} \\ g_{21} &{} g_{22} \end{pmatrix}\in (L^\infty )^{2\times 2}\), and link it with the Toeplitz operator \(T_{\mathcal {G}}\) acting on \((H^2)^4\), where
Clearly, for \(p,q,r,s \in H^2\), we have \((p,q,r,s) \in \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{\mathcal {G}}\) if and only if \(p,q \in K_\theta \) and \(\displaystyle \begin{pmatrix}g_{11} &{} g_{12} \\ g_{21} &{} g_{22} \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}p \\ q \end{pmatrix} + \theta \begin{pmatrix}r \\ s \end{pmatrix} \in \overline{H^2_0} \oplus \overline{H^2_0}\). So \((p,q) \in \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits A^\theta _G\), and likewise given \((p,q) \in \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits A^\theta _G\) there exist \(r,s \in H^2\) with \((p,q,r,s) \in \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{\mathcal {G}}\).
The following theorem shows that the result in [13, Thm. 2.3] can be extended to block truncated Toeplitz operators and in fact we can give the result more generally for \(n \times n\) blocks. We shall write \(P_\theta \) for the orthogonal projection from \((H^2)^n\) onto \((K_\theta )^n\), and \(Q_\theta \) for the complementary projection from \((H^2)^n\) onto \(\theta (H^2)^n\).
Theorem 3.2
Let \(G \in (L^\infty )_{n \times n}\) and let \(I_n\) be the \(n \times n\) identity matrix. The operator \(A^\theta _G=P_\theta G P_\theta :K_\theta ^n \rightarrow K_\theta ^n\) is equivalent after extension to \(T_{\mathcal {G}}:(H^2)^{2n} \rightarrow (H^2)^{2n}\) with
Proof
We have, following the proof of [13, Thm. 2.3],
because
where
\(F_1: K_\theta ^n \oplus \theta (H^2)^n \rightarrow (H^2)^n \oplus \{0\}^n\) and \(E_1: (H^2)^n \oplus \{0\}^n \rightarrow K_\theta ^n \oplus \theta (H^2)^n\) are invertible operators, defined in the obvious way. On the other hand, it is clear that, denoting by \(P^+\) the orthogonal projection from \(L^2\) onto \(H^2\),
Now,
where \(E, F: (H^2)^n \rightarrow (H^2)^n\) are invertible operators with
and
\(\square \)
Corollary 3.3
For \(g \in L^\infty \), one has \(T^M_g {\mathop {\sim }\limits ^{\mathsf {*}}}T_{\mathcal {G}}\) with
Proof
This is an immediate consequence of Theorems 2.3 and 3.2 . \(\square \)
We clearly have the following corollary of the above.
Corollary 3.4
The operators \(T^M_g\) and W are invertible (resp., Fredholm) if and only if \(T_{\mathcal {G}}\) is invertible (resp., Fredholm), with \({\mathcal {G}}\) given by (3.4).
More general results will be proved later.
4 Kernels, Ranges and Solvability Relations
The equivalence after extension proved in Theorem 3.2 implies certain relations between the kernels, the ranges, and the invertibility and Fredholm properties of the two operators \(T^M_g\) and \(T_{\mathcal {G}}\) with \({\mathcal {G}}\) given by (3.4) [3, 37], and therefore it implies certain relations between the solutions of
and those of
In this section we study these relations, which also allow for a better understanding of the equivalence after extension obtained in the previous section.
Theorem 4.1
\(T^M_g f_M=h_M\) with \(f_M,h_M \in M\) if and only if \(T_{\mathcal {G}}F_+=H_+\) with \(F_+ = (f_{j+}) \in (H_2^+)^4\,,\,H_+\in (H_2^+)^4\) given by
and
Consequently, if \(f_M \in \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T^M_g\), then \(F_+ \in \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{\mathcal {G}}\).
Proof
First note that the equation (4.2) is equivalent to the Riemann–Hilbert problem
where \(H_2^+=H^2\) and \(H_2^-= \overline{H^2_0}\). Let
so that \(f_M=\phi f_{1\theta }+\psi f_{2\theta }\) and \(h_M= \phi h_{1\theta }+\psi h_{2\theta }\). Given \(h_M \in M\) we can write, by (2.1), \(T^M_g f_M=h_M\) if and only if \(P_M\,( g\, (\phi f_{1\theta } + \psi f_{2\theta }))= \phi h_{1\theta }+ \psi h_{2\theta }\), or equivalently,
Since \(\phi K_\theta \perp \psi K_\theta \), this is equivalent to
which, in its turn, is equivalent to
where
Equivalently, there exist \(F_{2\pm }\in H_{2\pm }^2\) such that
This system determines \(F_{2+}\) in terms of \(F_{1+}\) as \(F_{2+}=P^+(\bar{\theta }g\,G_1F_{1+})\). So, identifying \(F_\pm \in (H^2_\pm )^4\) with \((F_{1+},F_{2+})\), (4.9) is equivalent to
with \(H_+=(0,0,h_{1\theta },h_{2\theta })\) and \(F_+=(f_{j+})\) where
\(\square \)
Theorem 4.2
\(T_{\mathcal {G}}F_+=H_+\) with \(F_+=({\tilde{f}}_{j+}),H_+ =(h_{j+})\in (H^2)^4\), if and only if \(T^M_g f_M = h_M\), where
and
Proof
We have \(T_{\mathcal {G}}F_+=H_+\) if and only if \({\mathcal {G}}F_+=F_- + H_+\), with \(F_- \in (H_2^-)^4\). Let \({\tilde{F}}_{1\pm }=({\tilde{f}}_{1\pm },{\tilde{f}}_{2\pm })\) and \({\tilde{F}}_{2\pm }=({\tilde{f}}_{3\pm },{\tilde{f}}_{4\pm })\) where \(({\tilde{f}}_{j\pm })=F_\pm \) and let \(H_{1+}= (h_{1+},h_{2+})\,,\,H_{2+}=(h_{3+}\,,\,h_{4+}\). Then \({\mathcal {G}}F_+=F_- + H_+\) if and only if
where \(G_1\) is given in (4.8).
This in turn is equivalent to the system of equations
Taking \( F_{1+}={\tilde{F}}_{1+}-\theta H_{1+}\,,\,F_{2+}={\tilde{F}}_{2+}+ P^+ g\,G_1H_{1+}-P^+\bar{\theta }H_{2+}\) we get
By Theorem 4.1 this is equivalent to \(T^M_g f_M = h_M\) with \(f_M\) and \(h_M\) given by (4.11) and (4.12). \(\square \)
Corollary 4.3
If \(F_+ \in \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{\mathcal {G}}\), with \(F_+=({\tilde{f}}_{j+})\in (H^2)^4\), then \(f_M \in \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T^M_g\) with \(f_M= \phi {\tilde{f}}_{1+} + \psi {\tilde{f}}_{2+}\).
Note that (4.13) shows that any element of the kernel of \(T_{\mathcal {G}}\) is determined by its first two components \({\tilde{f}}_{1+}\) and \({\tilde{f}}_{2+}\), since
and
Let \(P_{1,2}\) be the projection defined by \(P_{1,2}(x,y,u,v)=(x,y)\).
Corollary 4.4
The map
with \(f_{j+}\) given by (4.3) is an isomorphism. We have
From Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 we also obtain the following regarding ranges.
Corollary 4.5
With the same notation as above,
(i) \((h_{1+},h_{2+},h_{3+},h_{4+}) \in \mathop {\mathrm{ran}}\nolimits T_{\mathcal {G}}\) if and only if
(ii) \(\phi h_{1\theta }+\psi h_{2\theta } \in \mathop {\mathrm{ran}}\nolimits T^M_g\) if and only if \((0,0,h_{1\theta },h_{2\theta }) \in \mathop {\mathrm{ran}}\nolimits T_{\mathcal {G}}\).
Moreover, we obtain a relation between the inverses of \(T^M_g\) and \(T_{\mathcal {G}}\) when these operators are invertible.
Corollary 4.6
\(T^M_g\) is invertible if and only if \(T_{\mathcal {G}}\) is invertible and, in that case, \((T^M_g)^{-1} = [\phi P_1,\psi P_2, 0, 0] T_{\mathcal {G}}^{-1} U_0\), where \(P_j(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=x_j\) and \(U_0:M \rightarrow (H_2^+)^4\), is given by \(U_0 h_M = (0,0, P_\theta \overline{\phi }h_M, P_\theta \overline{\psi }h_M)\).
We can also relate the kernels of \(T_g^M\) and its adjoint as follows.
Theorem 4.7
If \(g \in L^\infty \), then \(\mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T^M_g \simeq \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits (T_g^M)^* = \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T^M_{{\overline{g}}}\).
Proof
Since \(T^M_g {\mathop {\sim }\limits ^{\mathsf {*}}}T_{\mathcal {G}}\), we have that \(\mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T^M_g \simeq \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{\mathcal {G}}\) and \(\mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits (T^M_g)^* \simeq \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{\mathcal {G}}^*\). So it is enough to prove that \(\mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{\mathcal {G}}\), with \({\mathcal {G}}\) given by (3.4), is isomorphic to \(\mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{\mathcal {G}}^* = \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{{\overline{{\mathcal {G}}}}^T}\). Since
we have
where \(\psi _+= {\overline{z}} \overline{\phi _-} \in (H^2)^4\) and \(\psi _- = {\overline{z}} \overline{\phi _+} \in (\overline{H^2_0})^4\). Since
it is clear that \(\mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{{\overline{{\mathcal {G}}}}^{-1}} \simeq \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{{\overline{{\mathcal {G}}}}^T}\). \(\square \)
Corollary 4.8
If \(T^M_g\) is Fredholm, then it has index 0. Consequently, \(T^M_g\) is invertible if and only if it is Fredholm and injective.
5 The Norm and the Spectrum for Analytic Symbols
Clearly the norm of the dual-band Toeplitz operator \(T^M_g\) is the same as the norm of the block truncated Toeplitz operator W. One important case that can be analysed is when g is in \(H^\infty \) (in the language of dual-band signals, this corresponds to a causal convolution on \(L^2((-b,-a) \cup (a,b))\)).
The following is an easy generalization of scalar results which apparently go back to [34].
Proposition 5.1
Suppose that the symbol
is in \((H^\infty )_{2 \times 2}\). Then
where the vectorial Hankel operator \(\Gamma _{{\overline{\theta }} \Phi } : (H^2)^2 \rightarrow (L^2 \ominus H^2)^2\) is defined by \(\Gamma _{{\overline{\theta }} \Phi }v = P_{(L^2 \ominus H^2)^2} {\overline{\theta }} \Phi v\).
Proof
Since the symbol \(\Phi \) is analytic, if we write \((u_1,u_2) \in H^2 \oplus H^2\) as \((k_1+\theta \ell _1, k_2 + \theta \ell _2)\) with the \(k_j \) in \(K_\theta \) and \(\ell _j \in H^2\), then we have \(W(u_1,u_2)=W(k_1,k_2)\) implying that the norm of the truncated Toeplitz operator W is the same when the domain is \(H^2 \oplus H^2\) or \(K_\theta \oplus K_\theta \).
But \(Wu = \theta (P_{-} \oplus P_{-}) {\overline{\theta }} \Phi u = \theta \Gamma _{{\overline{\theta }} \Phi }u\), and so
by the vectorial form of Nehari’s theorem [32, Sec. 2.2]. \(\square \)
Some results on the spectrum of W can be derived using known results on the scalar case, particularly in the context of Proposition 2.1. Note that the hypotheses of this theorem are satisfied in the original example given by (1.1) and (1.2).
Theorem 5.2
Suppose that \(g \in H^\infty \) and that \({\overline{\phi }} \psi \in \theta H^\infty \) or \({\overline{\phi }} \psi \in \overline{\theta H^\infty }\). Then
where the infimum is taken over \({\mathbb {D}}\) .
Proof
Assume that \(g \in H^\infty \) and that \({\overline{\phi }} \psi \in \theta H^\infty \). Note that W has the form
and we claim that W is invertible if and only if \(A^\theta _g\) is. For the necessity note that for arbitrary block operator matrices, if we have
then \(AP=I\) and \(SA=I\), so \(S=SAP=P\), and A is invertible with inverse P.
The sufficiency follows from the formula
The spectrum of \(A^\theta _g\) for \(g \in H^\infty \) is described in [31, p. 66], and the \(H^\infty ({\mathbb {C}}^+)\) case may be found in [13]. \(\square \)
For the essential spectrum of \(A^\theta _g\) we may similarly prove the following result.
Theorem 5.3
Suppose that \(g \in H^\infty \) and that \({\overline{\phi }} \psi \in \theta H^\infty \). Then
where z is taken in \({\mathbb {D}}\).
Proof
The method of proof of Theorem 5.2 adapted to inversion modulo the compact operators (i.e., in the Calkin algebra) shows directly that \(\sigma _e(T^M_g)=\sigma _e(A^\theta _g)\), and an expression for this is known from results in [5, 13]. \(\square \)
These results are of particular interest in the case of the restricted shift or truncated shift \(S_M\) on M, with \(g(z)=z\). We thus have
Corollary 5.4
If \(\overline{\phi }\psi \in \theta H^\infty \), then for the restricted shift \(S_M\) on M we have
and
6 The Double-Band Shift: Spectral Properties
In order to have matrix symbols which are essentially bounded, and since \(\bar{\psi }\phi \in \bar{\theta }\overline{H^2}+\theta H^2\), we assume here that \(\overline{\psi }\phi = A_-\overline{\theta }+ A_+\theta \) with \(A_+\in H^\infty \) and \(A_- \in \overline{H^\infty }\). In this case, for \(g=z-\lambda \), we have in W (see (2.5)) \(A^\theta _{\bar{\phi }\psi g}=A^\theta _{{\bar{A}}_+\bar{\theta }(z-\lambda )}\) and \(A^\theta _{\bar{\psi }\phi g}=A^\theta _{ A_-\bar{\theta }(z-\lambda )}\). Using the result of Corollary 3.3 we thus associate to the operator \(T^M_{z-\lambda }\), with \(\lambda \in {\mathbb {C}}\), the matrix symbol
6.1 Eigenvalues and Eigenspaces
By Corollaries 4.3 and 4.4 we have that \(\mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{z - \lambda }^M \simeq \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{{\mathcal {G}}_\lambda }\) and \(f^M \in \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{z- \lambda }^M \) if and only if
where \(f_{1+}\) and \(f_{2+}\) are the two first components of \(\mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{{\mathcal {G}}_\lambda } \subset (H^2)^4\). Note that \(\mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{{\mathcal {G}}_\lambda }\) consists of the solutions \(f_{+} \in (H^2)^4\) of
It is easy to see from (6.3) that all components of \(f_+\) and \(f_-\) are determined by \(f_{1+}\) and \(f_{2+}\).
We will consider the cases \(\lambda \in \mathbb {D}\), \(\lambda \in \mathbb {D}^- = \{ z \in \mathbb {C} : |z| > 1 \} \) and \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T}\) separately.
Proposition 6.1
If \( \lambda \in \mathbb {D}\) then:
-
(i)
\(\mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{z- \lambda }^M = \{ 0 \} \iff \Delta _{\lambda }:= \theta (\lambda )^2 - \overline{A_+(0)}\,\overline{\overline{A_-}(0)}(1-\overline{\theta (0)}\theta (\lambda ))^2 \ne 0\).
-
(ii)
\(\dim \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{z- \lambda }^M = 1 \iff \Delta _{\lambda }=0\) and \(|\theta (\lambda )| + |A_+ (0) | + |\overline{A_-}(0)| \ne 0\).
-
(iii)
\(\dim \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{z- \lambda }^M = 2 \iff \Delta _{\lambda }=0\) and \(\theta (\lambda ) = A_+ (0) = \overline{A_-}(0) =0\).
Proof
From (6.1) and (6.3) we get, for \(f_{\pm } = ( f_{1 \pm }, f_{2 \pm }, f_{3 \pm }, f_{4 \pm } ) \ne 0\),
with \(k_1, k_2 \in \mathbb {C}\), since the left-hand side is in \((H^2)^2\) and the right-hand side of the first equality is in \(\overline{(H^2)}^2\). Therefore
and, since \(\overline{\theta } f_{1+} = f_{1-}\), we have
so \((z-\lambda ) f_{1+} = k_1 + C_1 \theta \) and we have \(k_1 = - C_1 \theta (\lambda )\). It follows that
Analogously,
and it follows that
Since \(f_{3-}, f_{4-} \in \overline{H^2_0}\), we must have
If \(C_1 = C_2 = 0\), we get from (6.4) that \(f_{+} = f_- = 0\). A necessary and sufficient condition for (6.8) to have non zero solutions, \(C_1, C_2\), is that the determinant of the system is zero, i.e., \(\Delta _{\lambda }= 0\). So (i) holds.
If \(\Delta _{\lambda }=0\), then (6.8) is equivalent to
If \( \theta ( \lambda ) \ne 0\), we must have also \(A_+ (0), \overline{A_-}(0) \ne 0\) and the system (6.8) is equivalent to \( C_1= \overline{A_+(0)}\, \frac{1-\overline{\theta (0)}\theta (\lambda )}{\theta (\lambda )}\, C_2\). If \(\theta ( \lambda ) = 0\) then \(A_+ (0) \overline{A_-}(0) = 0\).
If \(A_+(0) = 0, \overline{A_-}(0) \ne 0\), then
if \(A_+(0) \ne 0, \overline{A_-}(0) = 0\), then
if \(A_+(0) = \overline{A_-}(0)\), we have
So (ii) and (iii) hold. \(\square \)
Proposition 6.2
If \(\lambda \in \mathbb {D}^-\) then :
-
(i)
\(\mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{z- \lambda }^M = \{ 0 \} \iff \widetilde{\Delta _{\lambda }} := 1- \overline{A_+ (0)} \overline{\overline{A_-}(0)} ( \overline{\theta (0)} - \overline{\theta (\lambda )})^2 \ne 0\),
-
(ii)
\(\dim \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{z- \lambda }^M = 1 \iff \widetilde{\Delta _{\lambda }} = 0\).
Proof
From (6.4) we get
Replacing z \((\in \mathbb {D}^-)\) by \( \lambda \) we see that
Analogously, we get \(C_2 = - \overline{\theta }(\lambda ) k_2\), so
It follows that
Since \(f_{3-}, f_{4-} \in \overline{H^2_0}\), we must have, from (6.10),
and discussing this system as in the proof of Proposition 6.1 we conclude that (i) and (ii) hold. Moreover, if \(\widetilde{\Delta _{\lambda }} = 0\) we see that
with \(\beta \in \mathbb {C}\), which determines the kernel of \(T_{z - \lambda }^M\) by (6.2). \(\square \)
To study \(\mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{z - \lambda }^M\) where \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T}\) we will need the following two lemmas.
Lemma 6.3
If \(\phi _+ \in H^2\) then \(\phi _+(z) (z-\lambda ) \rightarrow 0\) when \(z \rightarrow \lambda \in {\mathbb {T}}\) nontangentially in \({\mathbb {D}}\).
Proof
For \(\phi _+ \in H^2\) we have \(|\phi _+(w) | \le \Vert \phi _+\Vert \, \Vert k_w\Vert \), where \(k_w\) is the reproducing kernel function \(k_w(z)=1/(1-\overline{w} z)\), with \(\Vert k_w\Vert = 1/\sqrt{1-|w|^2}\). Hence
and this tends to 0 if z tends nontangentially to \(\lambda \in {\mathbb {T}}\), as this means that \(|z-\lambda | \le C(1-|z|)\) for some constant C. \(\square \)
We say that an inner function \(\theta \) has an angular derivative in the sense of Carathéodory (ADC) if and only if \(\theta \) has a nontangential limit
with \(| \theta (\lambda )| = 1\) and the difference quotient \(\displaystyle \frac{\theta (z)-\theta (\lambda )}{z-\lambda }\) has a nontangential limit \(\theta ^{'}(\lambda )\) at \(\lambda \) [19, 35]. By Theorem 7.4.1 in [19], \(\theta \) has an ADC at \(\lambda \in \mathbb {T}\) if and only if there exists \(a \in \mathbb {T}\) such that \(\displaystyle \frac{\theta (z)-a}{z-\lambda } \in H^2\), which implies, by Lemma 6.3, that there exists the limit \(\theta ( \lambda )\) and we have \(\theta (\lambda ) = a\). Thus we have:
Lemma 6.4
\(\theta \) has an ADC at \(\lambda \in \mathbb {T}\) if and only if:
-
(i)
\(\lim _{z \rightarrow \lambda \hbox { n.t.}}\theta (z)\) exists in \(\mathbb {C}\) (denoted by \(\theta (\lambda )\)) and
-
(ii)
\(\displaystyle \frac{\theta (z)-\theta (\lambda )}{z-\lambda } \in H^2\).
We denote by \(\mathbb {T}_{\text {ADC}}\) the set of all \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T}\) where \(\theta \) has an ADC.
Proposition 6.5
Let \(\lambda \in \mathbb {T}\). If \(\mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{z- \lambda }^M \ne \{ 0 \}\) then \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T}_{\text {ADC}}\).
Proof
Consider again (6.3), now with \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T}\), and assume that \(f_+, f_- \ne 0\). then, as in the proof of Proposition 6.1, we get (6.4) and, if \(k_1 = k_2 = 0\), we have that \( ( z - \lambda ) f_{1+} + \theta f_{3+} = 0\), which implies that
It follows that \( f_{1-} = \frac{C}{z- \lambda }\), so \(C=0\) and therefore \(f_{1-} = f_{1+} = 0\). Analogously, from (6.4) we get \(f_{2+}=0\) if \(k_2 = 0\). Thus, to have a non-zero solution to (6.3) either \(k_1\) or \(k_2\) must be different from 0. Assume that \(k_1 \ne 0\). Then, from (6.4),
From Lemma 6.3 it follows now that there exists \( \theta ( \lambda )\) and \( f_{1+} = C \dfrac{\theta -\theta (\lambda )}{z-\lambda } \in H^2\), so that by Lemma 6.4\( \theta \) has an ADC at \(\lambda \). \(\square \)
Corollary 6.6
If \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T} \setminus \mathbb {T}_{\text {ADC}}\) then \( \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{z - \lambda }^M = \{ 0 \}\).
Proposition 6.7
Let \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T}_{\text {ADC}}\). Then, for \(\Delta _{\lambda }\) defined as in Proposition 6.1,
-
(i)
if \(\Delta _{\lambda }\ne 0\) then \( \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{z - \lambda }^M = \{ 0 \}\),
-
(ii)
if \(\Delta _{\lambda }= 0\) then \(\dim \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{z - \lambda }^M = 1\).
Proof
Analogous to the proof of Proposition 6.1, taking into account Proposition 6.5 and noting that now we cannot have \( \theta ( \lambda )= 0\). \(\square \)
We summarise the previous results as follows.
Theorem 6.8
-
(i)
\(\mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{z - \lambda }^M\) and \(\mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits (T_{z - \lambda }^M)^*\) have the same finite dimension for all \( \lambda \in \mathbb {C}\).
-
(ii)
\( \lambda \in \sigma _p ( T_z^M)\) if and only if \( \lambda \in \mathbb {D}\), \(\Delta _{\lambda }= 0\), or \( \lambda \in \mathbb {D}^-\), \( \widetilde{\Delta _{\lambda }}=0,\) or \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T}_{\text {ADC}}\), \(\Delta _{\lambda }= 0 ,\) where \( \Delta _{\lambda }\) and \( \widetilde{ \Delta _{\lambda }}\) are defined in Proposition 6.1 and 6.2 , respectively.
Remark 6.9
For \(\lambda \in \sigma _p ( T_z^M)\), the previous results provide a description of the eigenspace in each case.
The following corollary applies in particular to the case considered in Theorem 5.2.
Corollary 6.10
If \(A_+ (0) \overline{A_-}(0) = 0\) then \( \lambda \in \sigma _p ( T_z^M) \iff \lambda \in \mathbb {D}\), \(\theta (\lambda ) = 0\).
Corollary 6.11
If \(A_+ (0) \overline{A_-}(0) \ne 0\) then
6.2 Fredholmness and Essential Spectrum
It is easy to see, using equivalence after extension and the theory of Wiener–Hopf factorization (WH factorization) that \( T_{z - \lambda }^M\) is Fredholm for all \( \lambda \in \mathbb {C} \setminus \mathbb {T}\). Indeed, this is a particular case of the following more general result. Here we denote by \({\mathcal {R}}\) the space of all rational functions without poles on \(\mathbb {T}\).
Theorem 6.12
Let R be a rational function without zeros or poles on \(\mathbb {T}\), i.e., \(R \in \mathcal {G}{\mathcal {R}}\). Then \(A_R^M\) is Fredholm.
Proof
It is enough to prove that \(T_{G_R}\), with
is Fredholm. This follows from the fact that \(G_R\) admits a meromorphic factorization ([10, 12], see also [11], Theorem 3.3) of the form \(G_R = M_- M_+^{-1}\) with \(M_-^{\pm 1} \in (\overline{H^{\infty }}+ {\mathcal {R}})^{4\times 4}\) and \(M_+^{\pm 1} \in ({H^{\infty }}+ {\mathcal {R}})^{4\times 4}\) given by:
as can be easily verified. \(\square \)
Corollary 6.13
\(\sigma _e (T_z^M) \subset \mathbb {T}\).
Now, to study the Fredholmness of \(A_{z-\lambda }^M\) for \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T}\) we use another factorization of \({\mathcal {G}}_\lambda \). Indeed, more generally, for any \(R\in {\mathcal {R}}\) we can factorise
where both factors depend on the symbol \( R \in \mathcal {R}\) (or the point \(\lambda \) if \(R = z - \lambda \)), but the roles of \(A_-, A_+\) ( i.e., \( \phi \) and \(\psi \)) and \( \theta \) are separated.
Since \(H_R^- \in \mathcal {G} ( \overline{H^{\infty }} + \mathcal {R})^{4 \times 4}\), it follows that \({G}_R\) admits a WH- factorization in \(L^2\) [9] (also known as generalised factorisation [30] or \(\Phi \)-factorisation [28]), whose existence is equivalent to \(T_{G_R}\) being Fredholm [9], if and only if \(\widetilde{G}_R\) admits such a factorization (Theorem 3.10 in [30]). Since \(\widetilde{G}_R\) does not depend on \(A_+\) or \(A_-\), and for \(A_+ = 0\) or \(A_- = 0\) the operator W defined in Theorem 2.3 is triangular, taking into account this theorem we conclude the following:
Theorem 6.14
\(T_R^M\) is Fredholm if and only if \(A_R^{\theta }\) is Fredholm.
The Fredholmness of truncated Toeplitz operators with rational symbols \( R \in \mathcal {R}\) was studied in Section 5 of [13] in the equivalent setting of the real line. For the case \(R= z - \lambda \), taking into account also Corollary 6.13, we have:
Corollary 6.15
The essential spectrum \(\sigma _e ( T_z^M)\) is contained in \( \mathbb {T}\) and does not depend of \(A_+\) or \(A_-\), but only on the point \( \lambda \) and the inner function \(\theta \). We have
Remark 6.16
Since, by Theorems 4.7 and 6.8 , the dimensions of \( \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{z - \lambda }^M\) and \( \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits (T_{z - \lambda }^M)^* \) are equal and finite, we see that if \(\lambda \in \sigma ( \theta )\) the range of \(T_{z - \lambda }^M\) is not closed.
6.3 Invertibility, Spectrum and Resolvent Operators
From Corollary 6.15 and from the description of \( \mathop {\mathrm{ker}}\nolimits T_{z - \lambda }^M\) obtained in Section 6.1, taking moreover into account Corollary 4.8, we easily get the spectrum of the dual-band shift.
Theorem 6.17
(ii)
where \(\Delta _{\lambda }\) and \( \widetilde{\Delta _{\lambda }}\) were defined in Propositions 6.1 and 6.2.
From Theorem 6.17 we see in particular that unlike the essential spectrum, \(\sigma ( T_z^M )\) is in general clearly different from \(\sigma ( A_z^{\theta })\).
For \( \lambda \notin \sigma ( T_z^M)\), i.e., \( \lambda \in \mathbb {D},\) \(\Delta _{\lambda }\ne 0\), or \( \lambda \in \mathbb {D}^- \), \(\widetilde{\Delta _{\lambda }} \ne 0\), or \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T}_{\text {ADC}} \setminus \sigma ( \theta )\), \(\Delta _{\lambda }\ne 0\), we can explicitly define the resolvent operator by using Corollary 4.6 and a bounded canonical Wiener–Hopf factorization of \({\mathcal {G}}_\lambda \), of the form \({\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda } = {\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda -} {\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda +}\), since we have, in that case, \((T_{{\mathcal {G}}_\lambda })^{-1} = ({\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda +})^{-1} P^+ ({\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda -})^{-1} P^+_{|(H^2)^4}\) [9]. That canonical factorization will be given below for \( \lambda \in \mathbb {D} \cup \mathbb {T}_{\text {ADC}} {\setminus } \sigma ( \theta )\) with \( \Delta _{\lambda }\ne 0\); for \( \lambda \in \mathbb {D}^-\), \(\widetilde{\Delta _{\lambda }} \ne 0\), the canonical factorization can be obtained analogously. Those factorizations, which were obtained by solving a Riemann–Hilbert problem of the form \({\mathcal {G}}_\lambda \phi _+ = \phi _-\) with \( \phi _+ \in (H^2)^4\) and \( \phi _- \in (\overline{H^2})^4\) for each of the column factors as in [8], can be checked directly by multiplication of the matricial factors.
Note that if \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T} {\setminus } \sigma ( \theta )\) then \( \theta \) has an analytic continuation to a neighbourhood of \( \lambda \) and there is clearly an ADC for \( \theta \) there with \(\frac{\theta - \theta ( \lambda )}{z - \lambda } \in H^{\infty }\). If \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T}_{\text {ADC}} \cap \sigma ( \theta ) \) then \(\frac{\theta - \theta ( \lambda )}{z - \lambda } \in H^2 {\setminus } H^{\infty }\) (page 505 of [35]); in this case \( {\mathcal {G}}_\lambda \) has an \(L^2\)-factorization [28], but it is not bounded nor a WH factorization, although the factors are given by the same expressions as in the theorem below.
Theorem 6.18
-
(i)
If \( \lambda \in \mathbb {D}\) or \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T}_{\text {ADC}} \setminus \sigma ( \theta )\) and \(\Delta _{\lambda }\ne 0\) then \({\mathcal {G}}_\lambda \) admits a bounded canonical factorization of the form \({\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda } = {\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda -} {\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda +}\) where (i) if \(\Delta = 1 - \overline{A_+(0)}\overline{\overline{A_-}(0)} \overline{\theta (0)}^2 \ne 0,\)
$$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda + }^{-1}= \begin{pmatrix} \theta +\frac{ \overline{A_+(0)} \,\overline{\overline{A_-}(0)}\,\overline{\theta (0)}}{\Delta } &{}\quad \frac{\theta -\theta (\lambda )}{z-\lambda } &{}\quad \frac{-\overline{A_+(0)}}{\Delta } &{}\quad 0 \\ -\frac{\overline{\overline{A_-}(0)}}{\Delta } &{}\quad 0 &{}\quad \theta +\frac{ \overline{A_+(0)}\, \overline{\overline{A_-}(0)}\,\overline{\theta (0)}}{\Delta } &{}\quad \frac{\theta -\theta (\lambda )}{z-\lambda } \\ -(z-\lambda ) &{}\quad -1 &{}\quad 0 &{}\quad 0 \\ 0 &{}\quad 0 &{}\quad -(z-\lambda ) &{}\quad -1 \end{pmatrix}, \end{aligned}$$and
$$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda -} = \begin{pmatrix} 1+ \frac{ \overline{A_+(0)}\,\overline{\overline{A_-}(0)}\,\overline{\theta (0)} }{\Delta } \overline{\theta }&{}\quad \frac{1-\theta (\lambda )\overline{\theta }}{z-\lambda } &{}\quad - \frac{\overline{A_+(0)}}{\Delta }\overline{\theta }&{}\quad 0 \\ - \frac{\overline{\overline{A_-}(0)}}{\Delta }\overline{\theta }&{}\quad 0 &{}\quad 1+ \frac{ \overline{A_+(0)}\,\overline{\overline{A_-}(0)}\,\overline{\theta (0)} }{\Delta } \overline{\theta }&{}\quad \frac{1-\theta (\lambda )\overline{\theta }}{z-\lambda } \\ g_{31}^- &{}\quad -\theta (\lambda ) &{}\quad g_{33}^- &{}\quad \overline{A_+}(1-\theta (\lambda )\overline{\theta }) \\ g_{41}^- &{}\quad A_-(1-\theta (\lambda )\overline{\theta }) &{}\quad g_{43}^- &{}\quad -\theta (\lambda ) \end{pmatrix}, \end{aligned}$$with
$$\begin{aligned} g^-_{31}= & {} -\frac{\overline{ \overline{A_-}(0) } }{\Delta }(z-\lambda )(\overline{A_+}\overline{\theta }-\overline{A_+(0)}\overline{\theta (0)}),\\ g^-_{41}= & {} \frac{z-\lambda }{\Delta } (A_- - \overline{ \overline{A_-}(0) } + \overline{A_+(0)}\,\overline{ \overline{A_-}(0) } \overline{\theta (0)}\,A_-\, (\overline{\theta }-\overline{\theta (0)}))\\ g_{33}^-= & {} \frac{z-\lambda }{\Delta } (\overline{A_+}-\overline{A_+(0)} + \overline{A_+(0)}\, \overline{ \overline{A_-}(0) } \, \overline{\theta (0)}\, \overline{A_+}\,(\overline{\theta }-\overline{\theta (0)})),\\ g_{43}^-= & {} -\frac{\overline{A_+(0)}}{\Delta }(z-\lambda ) (A_-\overline{\theta }- \overline{ \overline{A_-}(0) } \overline{\theta (0)}). \end{aligned}$$Note that in this case \(\det {\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda + }^{-1} = \det {\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda - } =- \Delta _{\lambda }/ \Delta \in \mathbb {C} \setminus \{ 0 \} \).
-
(ii)
If \(\Delta =0\), in which case \(A_+(0)\), \(\overline{A_-}(0)\), \(\theta (0) \ne 0\) and \({A_+(0)}{\theta (0)} = \dfrac{1}{\overline{A_-}(0) \,\theta (0)}\), we have
$$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda + }^{-1}= \begin{pmatrix} - \overline{A_+(0)}(1-\theta \overline{\theta (0)}) &{} \frac{\theta -\theta (\lambda )}{z-\lambda } &{} - \overline{A_+(0)}\overline{\theta (0)} &{} 0 \\ \theta &{} 0 &{} 1 &{} \frac{\theta -\theta (\lambda )}{z-\lambda } \\ -\overline{\theta (0)}\overline{A_+(0)}(z-\lambda ) &{} -1 &{} 0 &{} 0 \\ -(z-\lambda ) &{} 0 &{} 0 &{} -1 \end{pmatrix}, \end{aligned}$$and
$$\begin{aligned} \qquad {\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda -}= \begin{pmatrix} -\overline{A_+(0)}(\overline{\theta }-\overline{\theta (0)}) &{} \frac{1-\theta (\lambda )\overline{\theta }}{z-\lambda } &{} -\overline{A_+(0)}\,\overline{\theta (0)}\, \overline{\theta } &{} 0 \\ \\ 1 &{} 0 &{} \overline{\theta }&{} \frac{1-\theta (\lambda )\overline{\theta }}{z-\lambda } \\ \\ (\overline{A_+}-\overline{A_+(0)})(z-\lambda ) &{} -\theta (\lambda ) &{} (\overline{A_+}\overline{\theta }- \overline{A_+(0)}\overline{\theta (0)})(z-\lambda ) &{} \overline{A_+}(1-\theta (\lambda )\overline{\theta }) \\ \\ -\overline{A_+(0)}A_-(\overline{\theta }-\overline{\theta (0)})(z-\lambda ) &{} A_- (1-\theta (\lambda )\overline{\theta }) &{} 1-\overline{A_+(0)}\overline{\theta (0)}A_-\overline{\theta }(z-\lambda ) &{} -\theta (\lambda ) \end{pmatrix} \end{aligned}$$with
$$\begin{aligned} \det ({\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda +})^{-1}=\det {\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda - }= \overline{A_+(0)}(1-2\overline{\theta (0)}\theta (\lambda ))=-\frac{\Delta _{\lambda }}{\overline{\overline{A_-}(0)}} \in {\mathbb {C}}\!\setminus \!\{0\}. \end{aligned}$$
7 \(L^2\)-Factorization and Angular Derivatives
In Sect. 6.2 the Fredholmness of \(T_{z - \lambda }^M\), or \(T_{{\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda }}\), was studied from a factorization of \({\mathcal {G}}_\lambda \), which we repeat here for convenience:
with
using the fact that \({\mathcal {G}}_\lambda \) admits a WH factorization if and only if \(\widetilde{{\mathcal {G}}}_{\lambda }\) admits a factorization of the same type. Indeed it is well known that the existence of a WH factorization for \( G \in (L^{\infty })^{n \times n }\) is equivalent to the Fredholmness of the Toeplitz operator \(T_G\) (see, e.g. [9, Thm. 1.1] or [28, 30]).
It may happen that \({\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda }\) admits an \(L^2\)-factorization which does not satisfy the condition of boundedness for the densely defined operator \({\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda +}^{-1} P^+ {\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda _-}^{-1}: \mathcal {R}^4 \rightarrow (L^2)^4\) (see [9, 28]) Although in that case one cannot conclude that \(T_{{\mathcal {G}}_{\lambda }}\) is Fredholm, it is still possible to use it to characterize several important properties of the operator, such that as injectivity [28]. This leads us to the question of existence of such a \(L^2\)-factorization for \(\widetilde{{\mathcal {G}}}_{\lambda }\). Somewhat surprisingly, we obtain a necessary and sufficient condition for existence of an ADC of \( \theta \) at \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T}\) in terms of an \(L^2\)-factorization, a relation which appears here for the first time.
Theorem 7.1
Let \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T}\). The inner function \(\theta \) has an ADC at \(\lambda \) if and only if \(\widetilde{{\mathcal {G}}}_{\lambda }\) has an \(L^2\) factorization.
Proof
(i) Assume that \(\widetilde{{\mathcal {G}}}_{\lambda } = \widetilde{{\mathcal {G}}}_{\lambda - } D \widetilde{{\mathcal {G}}}_{\lambda +}\) with \(D = \mathop {\mathrm{diag}}\nolimits \{ z^{k_j} \}\) with \(k_j \in \mathbb {Z}\), \(j = 1,2,3,4\). Since \(\det \widetilde{{\mathcal {G}}}_{\lambda }= 1\), we must have \(\sum _{j=1}^4 k_j =0\). If, for some j, we have \(k_j = -n <0\), then there exists a non-zero solution to
with \(\psi _{1+}, \psi _{2+} \in (H^2)^2\) and \( \psi _{1-}, \psi _{2-} \in (\overline{H^2})^2\), given by the j’th column of the factors. So we have, with \( \overline{\theta } \psi _{1+} = \overline{z}^n \psi _{1-}\),
If \(C=0\) (which necessarily happens if \(n >1\)) then \(\psi _{1+} = \psi _{2+} = 0\) and there is no nontrivial solution to (7.3). So we must have \( n \leqslant 1\) and \(C \ne 0\). For \( n \geqslant 1\), from (7.4),
Now we must also have \(B \ne 0\) because, otherwise we would have \( \psi _{1-} - A = \overline{\theta } C \frac{z^n}{z - \lambda } \in \overline{H^2}\) with \( C \ne 0\), which is impossible because \( \lambda \in \mathbb {T}\). Going back to (7.4), then,
by Lemma 6.3, it follows that \( \theta ( \lambda )\) exists and, since \(\psi _{1+} - \theta A \in (H^2)^2\) we get that \( \frac{\theta - \theta ( \lambda )}{z - \lambda } \in H^2\) and \( \theta \) has an ADC at \( \lambda \) by Lemma 6.4.
(ii) Conversely, suppose that \( \theta \) has an ADC at \( \lambda \). Then \(\widetilde{{\mathcal {G}}}_{\lambda }\) admits the following \(L^2\) factorization (obtained as before by solving a Riemann-Hilbert problem):
- if \( \theta ( \lambda ) \ne \frac{-1}{1 - \overline{\theta (0)}}\), \(\widetilde{{\mathcal {G}}}_{\lambda } = \widetilde{{\mathcal {G}}}_{\lambda -} \widetilde{{\mathcal {G}}}_{\lambda +}\) with
-if \( \theta ( \lambda ) = \frac{-1}{1 - \overline{\theta (0)}}\), \(\widetilde{{\mathcal {G}}}_{\lambda } = \widetilde{{\mathcal {G}}}_{\lambda -} \mathop {\mathrm{diag}}\nolimits {( \overline{z}, \overline{z},z,z)} \widetilde{{\mathcal {G}}}_{\lambda +}\) with
\(\square \)
References
Ahern, P.R., Clark, D.N.: On functions orthogonal to invariant subspaces. Acta Math. 124, 191–204 (1970)
Avdonin, S., Bulanova, A., Moran, W.: Construction of sampling and interpolating sequences for multi-band signals. The two-band case. Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. 17(2), 143–156 (2007)
Bart, H., Tsekanovskiĭ, V.È.: Matricial coupling and equivalence after extension. In: Operator Theory and Complex Analysis (Sapporo, 1991), Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., vol. 59, pp. 143–160. Birkhäuser, Basel (1992)
Beaty, M.G., Dodson, M.M.: Derivative sampling for dual-band signals. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 10, 875–898 (1989)
Bessonov, R.V.: Fredholmness and compactness of truncated Toeplitz and Hankel operators. Integral Equ. Oper. Theory 82(4), 451–467 (2015)
Bezuglaya, L., Katsnelson, V.: The sampling theorem for functions with limited multi-band spectrum. Z. Anal. Anwendungen 12(3), 511–534 (1993)
Butzer, P.L., Dodson, M.M., Ferreira, P.J.S.G., Higgins, J.R., Lange, O., Seidler, P., Stens, R.L.: Multiplex signal transmission and the development of sampling techniques: the work of Herbert Raabe in contrast to that of Claude Shannon. Appl. Anal. 90(3–4), 643–688 (2011)
Câmara, M.C., Cardoso, G.L., Mohaupt, T., Nampuri, S.: A Riemann–Hilbert approach to rotating attractors. J. High Energy Phys. 2017(6), 1–75 (2017)
Câmara, M.C., Diogo, C., Rodman, L.: Fredholmness of Toeplitz operators and corona problems. J. Funct. Anal. 259(5), 1273–1299 (2010)
Câmara, M.C., Lebre, A.B., Speck, F.-O.: Meromorphic factorization, partial index estimates and elastodynamic diffraction problems. Math. Nachr. 157, 291–372 (1992)
Câmara, M.C., Lebre, A.B., Speck, F.-O.: Generalized factorization for a class of Jones-form matrix functions. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. 123A, 401–422 (1993)
Câmara, M.C., Malheiro, M.T.: Meromorphic factorization revisited and application to a group of matrices. Complex Anal. Oper. Theory 2(2), 299–326 (2008)
Câmara, M.C., Partington, J.R.: Spectral properties of truncated Toeplitz operators by equivalence after extension. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 433(2), 762–784 (2016)
Câmara, M.C., Partington, J.R.: Asymmetric truncated Toeplitz operators and Toeplitz operators with matrix symbol. J. Oper. Theory 77, 455–479 (2017)
Cardoso, G.L., Serra, J.C.: New gravitational solutions via a Riemann-Hilbert approach. J. High Energy Phys. 03, 080 (2018). arXiv:1711.01113
Chalendar, I., Chevrot, N., Partington, J.R.: Nearly invariant subspaces for backwards shifts on vector-valued Hardy spaces. J. Oper. Theory 63(2), 403–415 (2010)
Chalendar, I., Fricain, E., Timotin, D.: A survey of some recent results on truncated Toeplitz operators. In: Recent Progress on Operator Theory and Approximation in Spaces of Analytic Functions, Contemp. Math., vol. 679, pp. 59–77. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence (2016)
Devinatz, A., Shinbrot, H.: General Wiener–Hopf operators. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 145, 467–494 (1969)
Garcia, S.R., Mashreghi, J., Ross, W.T.: Introduction to Model Spaces and Their Operators. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 148. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016)
Garcia, S.R., Ross, W.T.: Recent progress on truncated Toeplitz operators. In: Blaschke Products and Their Applications, Fields Inst. Commun., vol. 65, pp. 275–319. Springer, New York (2013)
Garcia, S.R., Prodan, E., Putinar, M.: Mathematical and physical aspects of complex symmetric operators. J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 47, 353001 (2014)
Garcia, S.R., Putinar, M.: Complex symmetric operators and applications. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 358, 1285–1315 (2006)
Garcia, S.R., Putinar, M.: Complex symmetric operators and applications II. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 359, 3913–3931 (2007)
Higgins, J.R.: Sampling Theory in Fourier Analysis and Signal Analysis. Oxford Science Publications, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1996)
Its, A.R.: The Riemann-Hilbert problem and integrable systems. Not. Am. Math. Soc. 50, 1389 (2003)
Jadhav, J.B., Deore, P.J.: Design of a dual-band filter for future wireless communication. In: Singh, R., Choudhury, S. (eds.) Proceeding of International Conference on Intelligent Communication, Control and Devices. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 479 (2017). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1708-787
Khan, R., Timotin, D.: Matrix valued truncated Toeplitz operators: basic properties. J. Complex Anal. Oper. Theory (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11785-017-0675-3
Litvinchuk, G.S., Spitkovskii, I.M.: Factorization of Measurable Matrix Functions, Operator Theory: Advances and Applications, vol. 25. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel (1987)
Lee, H.-M., Tsai, C.-M.: Dual-band filter design with flexible passband frequency and bandwidth. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. (2007). https://doi.org/10.1109/TMTT.2007.895410
Mikhlin, S., Prossdorf, S.: Singular Integral Operators. Springer, Berlin (1986). Translated from German by Albrecht Böttcher and Reinhard Lehmann (1986)
Nikol’skiĭ, N.K.: Treatise on the Shift Operator, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, vol. 273. Springer, Berlin (1986)
Peller, V.V.: Hankel Operators and Their Applications. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, New York (2003)
Sarason, D.: A remark on the Volterra operator. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 12, 244–246 (1965)
Sarason, D.: Generalized interpolation in \(H^\infty \). Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 127, 179–203 (1967)
Sarason, D.: Algebraic properties of truncated Toeplitz operators. Oper. Matrices 1(4), 491–526 (2007)
Speck, F.-O.: General Wiener-Hopf Factorization Methods. Pitman, London (1985)
Speck, F.-O.: Wiener–Hopf factorization through an intermediate space. Integral Equ. Oper. Theory 82(3), 395–415 (2015)
ter Horst, S., Ran, A.C.: Equivalence after extension and matricial coupling coincide with Schur coupling, on separable Hilbert spaces. Linear Algebra Appl. 439(3), 793–805 (2013)
Timotin, D.: Schur coupling and related equivalence relations for operators on a Hilbert space. Linear Algebra Appl. 452, 106–119 (2014)
Tretter, C.: Spectral Theory of Block Operator Matrices and Applications. Imperial College Press, London (2008)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Câmara, M.C., O’Loughlin, R. & Partington, J.R. Dual-Band General Toeplitz Operators. Mediterr. J. Math. 19, 175 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00009-022-02087-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00009-022-02087-2
Keywords
- General Wiener–Hopf operator
- Toeplitz operator
- Truncated Toeplitz operator
- dual-band signal
- Riemann–Hilbert problem
- Wiener–Hopf factorization