Blueprint:
s-Numbers of Bounded Linear Operators
between Banach Spaces

7.3 The maximal difference theorem

The maximal difference theorem \(a_n \le e\, (n+1)\, h_n\) is due to Ullrich [ 12 ] . It is driven by the determinant quantities of Definition 7.8, which are squeezed between the two quantities of interest: they do not decay faster than the approximation numbers allow (Lemma 7.11, via the explicit rank-\(k\) approximant \(L = SA(BSA)^{-1}BS\)), and consecutive ratios are bounded by the Hilbert numbers (Lemma 7.12, via contractive compressions).

Definition 7.8 Determinant quantities
✓
#

Call a pair \((A, B)\) admissible for \(S \in \mathcal{L}(X, Y)\) and \(k \in \mathbb {N}_0\) if \(A : \ell _2^k \to X\) and \(B : Y \to \ell _2^k\) are contractions. For such a pair \(B \circ S \circ A\) is an endomorphism of the \(k\)-dimensional Hilbert space \(\ell _2^k\), so its determinant is a scalar, and

\[ \Delta _k(S) \; :=\; \sup \bigl\{ \, |\det (B \circ S \circ A)| : (A, B) \text{ admissible for } S \text{ and } k \, \bigr\} . \]

One has \(\Delta _0(S) = 1\) (the determinant on the trivial space is \(1\)) and \(\Delta _k(S) \le \| S\| ^k\), via \(\prod _i a_i(T) = |\det T|\) (Lemma 7.9) and \(a_i(T) \le \| T\| \le \| S\| \).

Lemma 7.9
✓

For an endomorphism \(T\) of a nonzero finite-dimensional inner-product space, \(\prod _{k {\lt} \dim } a_k(T) = |\det T|\).

Proof ▼

The approximation numbers coincide with the singular values \(\sigma _k(T)\) (Theorem 6.11), and \(|\det T| = \prod _k \sigma _k(T)\) is linear algebra: \(|\det T|^2 = \det (T^* T) = \prod _k \lambda _k(T^* T) = \prod _k \sigma _k(T)^2\).

The bordered-determinant identity is the elementary column-operation form of the Schur determinant formula; it needs no invertibility of the top-left block.

Lemma 7.10 Bordered determinant
✓
#

Let \(R\) be a commutative ring, \(M\) a \((k+1) \times (k+1)\) matrix over \(R\) and \(w \in R^k\) such that, above the corner, the last column of \(M\) is the combination of the first \(k\) columns with coefficients \(w\), i.e. \(M_{i,\mathrm{last}} = \sum _j M_{ij} w_j\) for \(i {\lt} k\). Then

\[ \det M \; =\; \Bigl( M_{\mathrm{last},\mathrm{last}} - \sum _j M_{\mathrm{last},j}\, w_j \Bigr) \cdot \det M' , \]

where \(M'\) is the top-left \(k \times k\) block of \(M\).

Proof ▼

Subtracting from the last column the combination of the other columns with coefficients \(w\) leaves the determinant unchanged and clears the column above the corner; Laplace expansion along it gives the claim.

For every \(S \in \mathcal{L}(X, Y)\) and \(k \in \mathbb {N}_0\),

\[ \frac{k^k}{(k+1)^{k+1}}\; a_k(S)\; \Delta _k(S) \; \le \; \Delta _{k+1}(S). \]
Proof ▼

Fix an admissible pair \((A, B)\) for \(\Delta _k(S)\) and put \(T := BSA\); if \(\det T = 0\) there is nothing to prove. Otherwise \(T\) is invertible, so \(L := SA\, T^{-1}BS\) factors through \(\ell _2^k\), hence has rank at most \(k\), hence \(\| S - L\| \ge a_k(S)\) by the definition of the approximation numbers. Pick \(x \in B_X\) with \(\| (S-L)x\| \) almost \(\| S - L\| \) and a Hahn–Banach functional \(b \in B_{Y^*}\) norming \((S-L)x\), and border the pair by them: \(A_0(\xi \oplus \tau ) := \lambda \, A\xi + \mu \, \tau \, x\) and \(B_0 y := (\lambda \, B y) \oplus (\mu \, b(y))\) with \(\lambda ^2 + \mu ^2 = 1\). Contractivity of \(A_0\) is the two-term Cauchy–Schwarz inequality \(\lambda a + \mu b \le \sqrt{a^2+b^2}\), and \(\| B_0 y\| ^2 = \lambda ^2\| By\| ^2 + \mu ^2 |b(y)|^2 \le \| y\| ^2\). Above the corner, the last column of the matrix of \(B_0SA_0\) is the combination of the first \(k\) columns with coefficients \((\mu /\lambda )\, \zeta \), where \(\zeta := T^{-1}B(Sx)\), so Lemma 7.10 gives

\[ \det (B_0 S A_0) \; =\; \lambda ^{2k} \mu ^2\, b\bigl((S-L)x\bigr) \det T . \]

The weights \(\lambda ^2 = k/(k+1)\), \(\mu ^2 = 1/(k+1)\) maximise \(\lambda ^{2k}\mu ^2\), whose value is then exactly \(k^k/(k+1)^{k+1}\); taking the supremum over \((A, B)\) finishes. Note that no near-maximiser has to be selected: every admissible pair is improved.

In particular, if \(a_n(S) {\gt} 0\) then \(\Delta _k(S) {\gt} 0\) for all \(k \le n+1\), by induction from \(\Delta _0(S) = 1\) and \(a_k(S) \ge a_n(S)\).

\(\Delta _{n+1}(S) \le h_n(S)\, \Delta _n(S)\).

Proof ▼

For admissible \((A, B)\) and \(T := B S A\) on \(\ell _2^{n+1}\), \(|\det T| = \prod _{k \le n} a_k(T)\) (Lemma 7.9). The last factor satisfies \(a_n(T) \le \| B\| \| A\| \, h_n(S) \le h_n(S)\). For the top \(n\) factors, the diagonal factorisation \(B_1 T A_1 = \operatorname {diag}(a_0(T), \dots , a_n(T))\) through contractions (Theorem 6.7), compressed to the first \(n\) coordinates by the coordinate embedding/projection, is itself admissible for \(\Delta _n(S)\), whence \(\prod _{k {\lt} n} a_k(T) \le \Delta _n(S)\). Again every admissible pair is bounded, so the bound passes to the supremum \(\Delta _{n+1}(S)\).

For every \(S \in \mathcal{L}(X, Y)\) and \(n \in \mathbb {N}_0\),

\[ a_n(S) \; \le \; \frac{(n+1)^{n+1}}{n^n}\, h_n(S) \; \le \; e\, (n+1)\, h_n(S). \]
Proof ▼

If \(a_n(S) = 0\) there is nothing to prove. Otherwise chain the growth lemma (Lemma 7.11) at \(k = n\) with the upper bound (Lemma 7.12): \(\frac{n^n}{(n+1)^{n+1}}\, a_n(S)\, \Delta _n(S) \le \Delta _{n+1}(S) \le h_n(S)\, \Delta _n(S)\), and cancel \(\Delta _n(S) {\gt} 0\). Finally \((n+1)^{n+1}/n^n = (n+1)(1 + 1/n)^n \le e\, (n+1)\) from \(1 + x \le e^x\) at \(x = 1/n\).

Since the Hilbert numbers are the smallest and the approximation numbers the largest s-number sequence, the theorem bounds any s-number sequence by any other: the maximal possible difference between two s-number sequences is a factor linear in \(n\). This is the conjecture of Carl and Pietsch [ 1 ] , proved up to the constant \(e\) in [ 12 ] .

Corollary 7.14
✓
#

Let \(\mathbb {K} \in \{ \mathbb {R}, \mathbb {C}\} \). For all s-number sequences \(s, t\), every \(S \in \mathcal{L}(X, Y)\) and every \(n \in \mathbb {N}_0\),

\[ s_n(S) \; \le \; e\, (n+1)\, t_n(S) . \]
Proof ▼

By the sandwich theorem (Theorem 4.2) the Hilbert numbers are the smallest and the approximation numbers the largest s-number sequence, so Theorem 7.13 gives \(s_n(S) \le a_n(S) \le e\, (n+1)\, h_n(S) \le e\, (n+1)\, t_n(S)\).

Taking \(t = b\) and \(s = c\) resp. \(s = d\) gives the Mityagin–Henkin conjecture [ 6 ] , again up to the constant \(e\).

Let \(\mathbb {K} \in \{ \mathbb {R}, \mathbb {C}\} \). For every \(S \in \mathcal{L}(X, Y)\) and every \(n \in \mathbb {N}_0\),

\[ \max \bigl(c_n(S), d_n(S)\bigr) \; \le \; e\, (n+1)\, b_n(S) . \]
Proof ▼

Apply Corollary 7.14 with \(t := b\) and \(s := c\) resp. \(s := d\) (both are s-number sequences) and take the maximum.

The factor \(n+1\) is order-optimal: the inclusion \(I \colon \ell _1 \to \ell _\infty \) of Section 8.3 satisfies \(c_n(I) \ge \tfrac 12\) while \(h_n(I) = (n+1)^{-1}\), so no bound \(a_n \le \varphi (n)\, h_n\) can hold with \(\varphi (n) = o(n)\) (Corollary 8.15).