Duality of uncomplemented null-space and non-closed range and its impact on the regularization of Mazur-type operators

Abstract

Up to now operators with uncomplemented null-space have been playing only a minor role in regularization theory for ill-posed inverse problems in Banach spaces. We show that ill-posedness due to an uncomplemented null-space and ill-posedness due to a non-closed range can be regarded as dual concepts and we may switch between both views at will by restricting or extending the ill-posed operator under consideration in a suitable well-defined way. We apply the duality result to Mazur-type operators, which are a class of bounded linear operators with uncomplemented null-space. Mazur-type operators in their natural form are not accessible to Tikhonov-type regularization, but after transfering ill-posedness to the range Tikhonov regularization can be applied. On the other hand, the null-space view of ill-posedness may open up an alternative path for developing new regularization methods for operators ill-posed in the classical sense, that is, for operators ill-posed due to a non-closed range.

1 Motivation and preliminaries

We are concerned with linear operator equations

$$A\,x\,=\,y\,,$$ (1.1)

where $A:X\to Y$ is a bounded linear operator mapping between Banach space $X$ and $Y$. Here, $y\in Y$ is given and $x\in X$ is being sought. Of particular interest are operators $A$ lacking a continuous (generalized) inverse. To solve such ill-posed operator equations some kind of regularization technique has to be applied, cf., e.g., [16] and [15]. The following definition plays an import role in discussing invertibility of $A$.

Definition 1.

A closed subspace $U\subseteq X$ of a Banach space $X$ is complemented if there exists another closed subspace $V\subseteq X$ such that

$$U\cap V=\{0\}\quad\text{and}\quad U+V=X.$$ (1.2)

Otherwise, $U$ is uncomplemented.

Note that for each closed subspace $U\subseteq X$ there is always another (possibly non-closed) subspace $V\subseteq X$ such that (1.2) holds true. The difficulty lies in finding a closed subspace $V$. The Lindenstrauss-Tzafiri Theorem [9] states that a Banach space contains uncomplemented subspaces if and only if it is not isomorphic to a Hilbert space.

If $A$ is injective, then the inverse $A^{-1}:{\mathcal{R}}(A)\to X$ is well-defined on the range ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ of $A$ and the inverse is bounded if and only if ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ is a closed subset of $Y$. In case of closed range, the inverse may be extended to a bounded linear generalized inverse $A^{\dagger}:Y\to X$ if the range ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ is complemented. But we do not consider such generalizations here, instead we refer the reader to the original work [13]. Note that the closure of ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ is a Banach space on its own. So without loss of generality we may assume that either ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ is dense in $Y$ or ${\mathcal{R}}(A)=Y$.

If $A$ is not injective, that is $A$ has a non-trivial null-space ${\mathcal{N}}(A)\neq\{0\}$, we may take some (possibly non-closed) subspace $U$ such that (1.2) holds with $V:={\mathcal{N}}(A)$. Then the restriction $A|_{U}:U\to Y$ is injective and has range ${\mathcal{R}}(A|_{U})={\mathcal{R}}(A)$. Thus, the discussion above applies to $A|_{U}$. But it turns out that even for a closed range ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ the corresponding inverse $(A|_{U})^{-1}$ may be unbounded. In [5, Proposition 1.11] it has been shown that $(A|_{U})^{-1}$ is bounded if and only if $U$ is a complement of ${\mathcal{N}}(A)$, that is, if and only of $U$ is closed. Consequently, non-closed range ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ and uncomplemented null-space ${\mathcal{N}}(A)$ are two sources of ill-posedness that appear independent of one another at first glance.

Operators with uncomplemented null-space have been playing almost no role in the theory of ill-posed inverse problems during past decades. Results on ill-posedness phenomena and suitable regularization techniques concentrated on the situation of non-closed range, although uncomplemented null-spaces (and also uncomplemented ranges) have already been mentioned in [13, 14]. There, the possible presence of uncomplemented subspaces has been incorporated into the definition of ill-posedness. That definition is discussed and slightly modified in the recent articles [8, 4] in the light of uncomplemented null-spaces and and strictly singular operators.

In the present article’s main section, Section 2, we show that ill-posedness in the sense of lacking boundedness of (generalized) inverses resulting from a non-closed range is essentially the same as ill-posedness resulting from an uncomplemented null-space. Hence, both sources of ill-posedness are anything but independent, however they can be regarded as concepts dual to each other. Operators with uncomplemented null-space may be transformed into operators with non-closed range and vice verse.

On the one hand, our results provide a path for applying well-known regularization methods to operators with uncomplemented null-space (by transfering ill-posedness to the range). We illustrate this approach in Section 3 with Mazur-type operators. On the other hand, our results may motivate new regularization methods by transfering ill-posedness to the null-space and developing regularization techniques for such situations.

2 Duality of uncomplemented null-space and non-closed range

Following definition was introduced in [12].

Definition 2.

A closed subspace $U\subseteq X$ of a Banach space $X$ is quasi-complemented if there exists a closed subspace $V\subseteq X$ such that

$$U\cap V=\{0\}\quad\text{and}\quad U+V\text{ is dense in }X.$$ (2.1)

In contrast to complementedness, quasi-complementedness is a rather weak property. In [10] it was shown that in a separable Banach space each closed subspace is quasi-complemented.

The following theorem holds, in particular, for operators $B$ with uncomplemented null-space. Note that assumed quasi-complementedness of the null-space ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ is guaranteed if $X$ is separable.

Theorem 3.

Let $B:X\to Y$ be a bounded operator between Banach spaces $X$ and $Y$ and let $U\subseteq X$ be a quasi-complement of the null-space ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$. Then the restriction $A:=B|_{U}$ is injective and the range ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ of $A$ is dense in the range ${\mathcal{R}}(B)$ of $B$.

Proof.

We have ${\mathcal{N}}(B)\cap U=\{0\}$ and ${\mathcal{N}}(B)+U$ is dense in $X$. The former implies that $A$ is injective. The latter, for each $x\in X$ yields sequences $(z^{(k)})_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ in ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ and $(u^{(k)})_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ in $U$ with $z^{(k)}+u^{(k)}\to x$ for $k\to\infty$. From $B\,(z^{(k)}+u^{(k)})=B\,u^{(k)}=A\,u^{(k)}$ we see $A\,u^{(k)}\to B\,x$ if $k\to\infty$, that is, the range of $A$ is dense in the range of $B$. ∎

Corollary 4.

Let $X$ be separable. Then for each surjective bounded linear operator $B:X\to Y$ there is a closed subspace $U\subseteq X$, such that the restriction $A:=B|_{U}$ is injective and the range ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ is dense in $Y$.

Proof.

Separability of $X$ yields a quasi-complement $U$ of ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$. Thus, Theorem 3 applies. ∎

If $B$ in the corollary is ill-posed due to an uncomplemented null-space, then the corollary yields an, up to some extent, equivalent operator $A$ with possibly non-closed range. Thus, ill-posedness due to an uncomplemented null-space is transfered to ill-posedness due to a non-closed range. That $A$ contains all essential information from $B$ can be seen from the fact that ${\mathcal{N}}(B)+U$ is dense in $X$, that is, we only ‘loose’ the null-space of $B$.

Proposition 5.

Let $B$, $U$, $A$ be as in Corollary 4. The range ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ is closed if and only if $U$ is a complement of the null-space ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$.

Proof.

If ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ is closed, that is ${\mathcal{R}}(A)=Y$, take $u\in U$ such that $A\,u=B\,x$ for some arbitrary $x\in X$. Then $x=(x-u)+u$ shows that $U$ is a complement of ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$.

If, on the other hand, $U$ is a complement of ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$, we find $z\in{\mathcal{N}}(B)$ and $u\in U$ with $x=z+u$ for some arbitrary $x\in X$. Then $A\,u=B\,(z+u)=B\,x$ shows that ${\mathcal{R}}(A)={\mathcal{R}}(B)=Y$. ∎

In other words, the proposition states that in Corollary 4 ill-posedness due to an uncomplemented null-space occurs for $B$ if and only if ill-posedness due to a non-closed range occurs for $A$.

Remark 6.

From Proposition 5 we cannot deduce that a complemented ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ implies a closed ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ for all quasi-complements $U$ of ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$. We only get existence of at least one complement $U$ of ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ such that the corresponding operator $A$ has closed range. For other quasi-complements, ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ may be non-closed although ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ is complemented. The other way round, if we know that ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ is non-closed for a specific choice of $U$, we cannot deduce that ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ is uncomplemented. Perhaps there is another subspace $U$ that is a complement of ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ (and corresponding $A$ has closed range). Note that even in Hilbert spaces closed subspaces may have quasi-complements which aren’t complements (see [6, Section I.15] for an example).

The next theorem is the converse result to Corollary 4. The assumptions could be given in simpler form but we keep them quite general to maintain a high degree of symmetry to Corollary 4. For instance, the assumptions are satisfied if $W:=Y$, $C$ is the identity mapping in $Y$, and $\tilde{X}:=Y\times X$ with norm $\|(w,u)\|_{\tilde{X}}:=\|w\|_{W}+\|x\|_{X}$. The proof of the theorem relies on the Bartle-Graves Theorem [3, Cor. 5J.4] stated in the following Lemma.

Lemma 7.

Let $B:\tilde{X}\to Y$ be a surjective bounded linear operator between arbitrary Banach spaces $\tilde{X}$ and $Y$. Then there exists a continuous (and possibly non-linear) mapping $B^{\dagger}:Y\to\tilde{X}$ such that $B\,B^{\dagger}(y)=y$ for all $y\in Y$.

Proof.

See [3, Cor. 5J.4]. ∎

Theorem 8.

Let $A:X\to Y$ be an injective bounded linear operator between Banach spaces $X$ and $Y$ with dense range ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$. Further let $\tilde{X}=W+U$ be the direct sum of a closed subspace $W$, for which there exists a surjective bounded linear operator $C:W\to Y$ and a closed subspace $U$ isomorphic to $X$ with isomorphism $T:X\to U$. Then there exists a surjective bounded linear operator $B:\tilde{X}\to Y$ such that $A=B\,T$ and $U$ is a quasi-complement of ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ in $\tilde{X}$.

Proof.

For $w+u\in\tilde{X}$ with $w\in W$ and $u\in U$ set

$$B\,(w+u):=C\,w+A\,T^{-1}\,u.$$ (2.2)

Then $B:\tilde{X}\to Y$ is a well-defined surjective linear operator and $A=B\,T$. For proving boundedness of $B$, observe that $W$ and $U$ are a pair of complemented subspaces. Thus, the projection mappings $w+u\mapsto w$ and $w+u\mapsto u$ are continuous (cf. [11, Theorem 3.2.14]) and we obtain

$$\|B\,(w+u)\|_{Y} \leq\|C\|\,\|w\|_{\tilde{X}}+\|A\,T^{-1}\|\,\|u\|_{\tilde{X}}$$ (2.3)

$$\leq\max\bigl\{c_{1}\,\|C\|,\;c_{2}\,\|A\,T^{-1}\|\bigr\}\,\|w+u\|_{\tilde{X}}$$ (2.4)

with constants $c_{1}>0$, $c_{2}>0$.

Injectivity of $A$ ensures ${\mathcal{N}}(B)\cap U=\{0\}$. To show denseness of ${\mathcal{N}}(B)+U$ take $w+u\in\tilde{X}$ with $w\in W$ and $u\in U$. By the denseness of ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ in $Y$ there exists a sequence $(u^{(m)})_{m\in\mathbb{N}}$ in $U$ with $B\,u^{(m)}\to B\,(w+u)$ if $m\to\infty$. Set

$$\tilde{x}^{(m)}:=w+u-B^{\dagger}(B\,(w+u))-\bigl(u^{(m)}-B^{\dagger}(B\,u^{(m)})\bigr),$$ (2.5)

where $B^{\dagger}:Y\rightarrow\tilde{X}$ is the continuous mapping from 7. Obviously, $\tilde{x}^{(m)}\in{\mathcal{N}}(B)$. Further,

$$\tilde{x}^{(m)}+u^{(m)}-(w+u)=B^{\dagger}(B\,u^{(m)})-B^{\dagger}(B\,(w+u))\to 0$$ (2.6)

if $m\to\infty$ by continuity of $B^{\dagger}$, that is, $\tilde{x}^{(m)}+u^{(m)}\to w+u$. ∎

If $A$ in the theorem is ill-posed due to a non-closed range ${\mathcal{R}}(A)\neq Y$, the theorem yields an extension $B$ with closed range and possibly uncomplemented null-space. Thus, ill-posedness of $A$ due to a non-closed range is transfered to ill-posedness of $B$ due to an uncomplemented null-space. That $B$ does not ‘add’ more than necessary can be seen from the fact that $X$ is isomorphic to a quasi-complement $U$ of ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$. This also makes clear that the choice of $C$ in the theorem does not matter. $C$ is an arbitrary surjective operator without any connection to $A$ and only serves as a tool for ‘filling the gap’ between ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ and $Y$ by enlarging the null-space.

Proposition 9.

Let $A$, $B$, $C$, $U$ be as in Theorem 8. The range ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ is closed if and only if $U$ is a complement of the null-space ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$. Further, ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ is complemented in $\tilde{X}$ if ${\mathcal{N}}(C)$ is complemented in $W$.

Proof.

We may apply Corollary 4 to $B$ and $U$ to obtain an operator $\tilde{A}=B|_{U}:U\to Y$. By Proposition 5 its range ${\mathcal{R}}(\tilde{A})$ is closed if and only if $U$ is a complement of ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$. From $A=\tilde{A}\,T$ with the isomorphism $T$ from Theorem 8 we see that ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ is closed if and only if ${\mathcal{R}}(\tilde{A})$ is closed.

If ${\mathcal{N}}(C)$ is complemented in $W$, we find a closed subspace $V$ in $W$ such that ${\mathcal{N}}(C)\cap V=\{0\}$ and ${\mathcal{N}}(C)+V=W$. We show that $V$ also is a complement of ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$. Let $\tilde{x}\in{\mathcal{N}}(B)\cap V$. Then $\tilde{x}\in W$ and $C\,\tilde{x}=B\,\tilde{x}=0$, that is, $\tilde{x}\in{\mathcal{N}}(C)\cap V$, showing $\tilde{x}=0$. Now take arbitrary $\tilde{x}\in\tilde{X}$. Then there are $w\in W$ and $u\in U$ such that $\tilde{x}=w+u$. Further, there are $z\in{\mathcal{N}}(C)$ and $v\in V$ such that $w=z+v$. Surjectivity of $C$ guarantees existence of some $\tilde{w}\in W$ with $C\,\tilde{w}=-A\,u$, that is, with $\tilde{w}+u\in{\mathcal{N}}(B)$. For $\tilde{w}$ we find $\tilde{z}\in{\mathcal{N}}(C)$ and $\tilde{v}\in V$ such that $\tilde{w}=\tilde{z}+\tilde{v}$. Thus, we have

$$\tilde{x}=z+v+u=\tilde{w}+u+z-\tilde{z}+v-\tilde{v}$$ (2.7)

with $\tilde{w}+u+z-\tilde{z}\in{\mathcal{N}}(B)$ (note that ${\mathcal{N}}(C)\subseteq{\mathcal{N}}(B)$) and $v-\tilde{v}\in V$. This shows $\tilde{X}={\mathcal{N}}(B)+V$. ∎

Analogously to Proposition 5, Proposition 9 states that in Theorem 8 ill-posedness due to an uncomplemented null-space occurs for $B$ if and only if ill-posedness due to a non-closed range occurs for $A$.

Note that the Proposition 9 does not state, that ${\mathcal{N}}(C)$ is complemented if ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ is complemented. The authors believe that uncomplemented ${\mathcal{N}}(C)$ is possible even if ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ is complemented. But a rigorous proof is missing.

3 Regularization of Mazur-type operators

In [2, page 111, item (e)] Banach and Mazur introduced a class of bounded linear operators mapping the sequence space $\ell^{1}$ onto a separable Banach space $Y$.

Definition 10.

A bounded linear operator $B:\ell^{1}\to Y$ mapping into a separable Banach space $Y$ is of Mazur-type if there is a sequence $(\zeta^{(k)})_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ in $Y$ which is dense in the unit sphere and satisfies

$$B\,x=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}x_{k}\,\zeta^{(k)}\quad\text{for all }x=(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots)\in\ell^{1}.$$ (3.1)

Mazur-type operators obviously are well-defined and bounded linear operators. Note that each separable Banach space $Y$ and each choice of the sequence $(\zeta^{(k)})_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$, for fixed $Y$, yield different Mazur-type operators.

Mazur-type operators are surjective and their null-spaces are almost always uncomplemented.

Proposition 11.

Let $B:\ell^{1}\to Y$ be a Mazur-type operator with defining sequence $(\zeta^{(k)})_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$. Then $B$ is surjective and the null-space ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ is complemented if and only if $Y$ is isomorphic to $\ell^{1}$.

Proof.

Surjectivity is shown in [1, proof of Theorem 2.3.1]. That ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ is uncomplemented if $Y$ is not isomorphic to $\ell^{1}$ is a consequence of [1, Corollary 2.3.3]. It remains to show that ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ is complemented if $Y$ is isomorphic to $\ell^{1}$.

Let $Y$ be isomorphic to $\ell^{1}$ and denote by $\tilde{S}$ an isomorphism from $\ell^{1}$ onto $Y$. Moreover, set $f^{(l)}:=\tilde{S}\,e^{(l)}$ for $l\in\mathbb{N}$, where $e^{(l)}$ has a one at position $l$ and zeros else. Then $(f^{(l)})_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a basis in $Y$ equivalent to $(e^{(l)})_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$ in $\ell^{1}$ (cf. [11, Prop. 4.3.2]). In particular, we have

$$Y=\left\{\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}a_{l}\,f^{(l)}:\;a\in\ell^{1}\right\}$$ (3.2)

(cf. [11, Def. 4.3.1]). Without loss of generality we may assume that $(f^{(l)})_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$ is normalized, because there are constants $c>0$ and $C>0$ such that

$$c=c\|e^{(l)}\|_{\ell^{1}}\leq\|f^{(l)}\|_{Y}\leq C\|e^{(l)}\|_{\ell^{1}}=C\quad\text{for }l\in\mathbb{N}.$$ (3.3)

Normalization of the basis yields

$$\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}a_{l}\,f^{(l)}=\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}a_{l}\,\|f^{(l)}\|_{Y}\,\frac{f^{(l)}}{\|f^{(l)}\|_{Y}}$$ (3.4)

for coefficients $a_{1},a_{2},\ldots$. Thus, from [11, Theorem 4.3.6] we see that the normalized basis is equivalent to $(e^{(l)})_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$, too.

By [11, Prop. 4.3.4, Prop. 4.3.2] we find a sequence $(k_{l})_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$ in $\mathbb{N}$ and an isomorphism $S:Y\to Y$ such that $(\zeta^{(k_{l})})_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a Schauder basis in $Y$ and $\zeta^{(k_{l})}=S\,f^{(l)}$ for $l\in\mathbb{N}$. Thus, $(\zeta^{(k_{l})})_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$ is equivalent to $(e^{(l)})_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$, too, resulting in

$$Y=\left\{\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}a_{l}\,\zeta^{(k_{l})}:\;a\in\ell^{1}\right\}.$$ (3.5)

Set

$$U:=\overline{\mathrm{span}\,\{e^{(k_{l})}:\;l\in\mathbb{N}\}}^{\ell^{1}}.$$ (3.6)

Obviously, $U$ is complemented and isomorphic to $\ell^{1}$ and the restriction $A:=B|_{U}$ is surjective. For $x\in\ell^{1}$ we find $u\in U$ with $A\,u=B\,x$, that is, $x-u\in{\mathcal{N}}(B)$. The resulting decomposition $x=x-u+u$ shows $\ell^{1}={\mathcal{N}}(B)+U$. Injectivity of $A$ (cf. proof of Proposition 3) implies ${\mathcal{N}}(B)\cap U=\{0\}$. This indicates that the subspace $U$ is a complement of ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ in $\ell^{1}$, which completes the proof of the proposition. ∎

Due to their uncomplemented null-space Mazur-type operators are ill-posed and regularization techniques have to be employed for obtaining stable (approximate) solutions to operator equations $B\,x=y$. In [4] it was shown that Mazur-type operators are not accessible to Tikhonov regularization

$$\|B\,x-y\|_{Y}^{p}+\alpha\,\|x\|_{\ell^{1}}\to\min_{x\in\ell^{1}}$$ (3.7)

with $p\geq 1$ and regularization parameter $\alpha>0$, because Mazur-type operators are not weak*-to-weak continuous. In particular, it was shown there (cf. [4, Theorem 3.3]) that Tikhonov regularized solutions exist only for a dense subset of right-hand sides $y\in Y$.

By applying Theorem 3 to a Mazur-type operator $B$, we obtain an injective bounded linear operator $A$ with non-closed range, which in principle is accessible to Tikhonov regularization. The next proposition shows that indeed such $A$ is weak*-to-weak continuous. Moreover, the quasi-complement $U$ of the null-space ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ required in Theorem 3 can be made explicit in terms of the defining sequence $(\zeta^{(k)})_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ of the Mazur-type operator under consideration. Weak*-to-weak continuity will be based on the existence of a shrinking basis in $Y$, see, e.g., [1, Def. 3.2.5]. Each reflexive Banach space has a shrinking basis, [1, Theorem 3.2.13]. For separable Hilbert spaces $Y$, the proposition was already proven in [7, Proposition 4] .

Proposition 12.

For each Mazur-type operator $B:\ell^{1}\to Y$ mapping onto a separable Banach space $Y$ there is a closed and complemented subspace $U\subseteq\ell^{1}$ isomorphic to $\ell^{1}$ such that $A:=B|_{U}$ is injective, the range of $A$ is dense in $Y$, and $U$ is a quasi-complement of ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$. If $Y$ has a shrinking basis, then $A$ is weak*-to-weak continuous w. r. t. the predual $c_{0}$ of $\ell^{1}$.

Proof.

Let $(\zeta^{(k)})_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the sequence defining $B$ and take a normalized Schauder basis $(f^{(k)})_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ in $Y$. Then by [11, Prop. 4.3.4, Prop. 4.3.2] we find a sequence $(k_{l})_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$ in $\mathbb{N}$ and an isomorphism $S:Y\to Y$ such that $(\zeta^{(k_{l})})_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a Schauder basis in $Y$ and $\zeta^{(k_{l})}=S\,f^{(l)}$ for $l\in\mathbb{N}$.

Set

$$U:=\overline{\mathrm{span}\,\{e^{(k_{l})}:\;l\in\mathbb{N}\}}^{\ell^{1}}.$$ (3.8)

Obviously, $U$ is complemented and isomorphic to $\ell^{1}$. Further, $A:=B|_{U}$ is injective: for $u=\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}u_{l}\,e^{(k_{l})}\in U$ with $A\,u=0$ we have

$$0=B\,u=\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}u_{l}\,\zeta^{(k_{l})}=\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}u_{l}\,S\,f^{(l)}=S\left(\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}u_{l}\,f^{(l)}\right)$$ (3.9)

and, thus, $\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}u_{l}\,f^{(l)}=0$, which implies $u=0$. To show that ${\mathcal{R}}(A)$ is dense in $Y$ take $y\in Y$ and decompose it w. r. t. the basis $(\zeta^{(k_{l})})_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$:

$$y=\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}a_{l}\,\zeta^{(k_{l})}$$ (3.10)

with some sequence of scalars $a_{1},a_{2},\ldots$. Set

$$u^{(m)}=\sum_{l=1}^{m}a_{l}\,e^{(k_{l})}\in U.$$ (3.11)

Then $A\,u^{(m)}=\sum_{l=1}^{m}a_{l}\,\zeta^{(k_{l})}\to y$ if $m\to\infty$.

${\mathcal{N}}(B)\cap U=\{0\}$ and density of ${\mathcal{N}}(B)+U$ in $\ell^{1}$ can be proven in the same way as in the proof of Theorem 8.

To obtain weak*-to-weak continuity, due to [5, Lemma 9.3] it suffices to show that $B\,e^{(k_{l})}$ converges weakly to zero for $l\to\infty$. We have $B\,e^{(k_{l})}=\zeta^{(k_{l})}=S\,f^{(l)}$ and by assumption $(f^{(l)})_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a shrinking basis. Thus, by [1, Prop. 3.2.7] $(f^{(l)})_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$ converges weakly to zero in $Y$. Because bounded linear operators are always weak-to-weak continuous, this proves the assertion.

Note that the construction of $U$ is based on the fact that each Banach space has a normalized basis $(f^{(l)})_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$. But in the proposition we require existence of a shrinking basis without being normalized. In fact, normalizing a shrinking basis yields a shrinking basis again. This can be seen, for instance, from [11, Prop. 4.4.7, Prop. 4.1.5]. ∎

Note that Mazur-type operators are not only an example to which Corollary 4 can be applied. But they may also serve as a canonical surjection $C$ in Theorem 8 if $W=\ell^{1}$. Choosing $W\neq Y$ provides some control over the properties of the extended domain $\tilde{X}$ of the operator $B$. If $Y$ is not isomorphic to $\ell^{1}$ this choice of $W$ always yields an uncomplemented null-space ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ by Proposition 9.

4 Discussion

Corollary 4 and Theorem 8 show that there is a tight one-to-one correspondence between injective operators $A$ with dense range und surjective operators $B$. In both cases, $A$ is a restriction of $B$ and $B$ is an extension of $A$ (up to the isomorphism $T$). The operator $A$ can be regarded as the essential part of $B$ in the sense that the domain of $A$ is a quasi-complement of the null-space of $B$.

With the results presented in this article, one may transfer ill-posedness due to a non-closed range to ill-posedness expressed in terms of a relationship between the null-space and one of its quasi-complements, and vice versa. See Remark 6 for a more detailed interpretation of this duality.

Whether characterizing ill-posedness in terms of properties of the null-space offers added value depends on whether future ideas emerge on how to algorithmically overcome ill-posedness caused by a uncomplemented null space. The Bartle-Graves Theorem formulated in Lemma 7 always yields a (possibly nonlinear) continuous inverse, even if there is no bounded linear inverse. Attempting to algorithmically approximate such a Bartle-Graves inverse could prove to be a promising path and a rich source of new regularization methods. But at the moment for the authors it is not clear how to tackle this task.

Transfering ill-posedness to the null-space may even yield new regularization methods in Hilbert spaces. The resulting surjective operator has a continuous Bartle-Graves inverse, which might become accessible to algorithmic evaluation or approximation in future. To transfer ill-posedness of an operator $A:X\to Y$ between Hilbert spaces to the null-space in Theorem 8 one may choose $W:=Y$, $C$ the identity mapping in $Y$, and $\tilde{X}:=Y\times X$ with norm

$$\|(w,u)\|_{\tilde{X}}:=\sqrt{\|w\|_{W}^{2}+\|x\|_{X}^{2}.}$$ (4.1)

Then the domain $\tilde{X}$ of the extension $B$ is a Hilbert space again. Remember Remark 6, which states that although each closed subspace of a Hilbert space is complemented there might be quasi-complements which are not complements. Thus, even in Hilbert spaces the null-space ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ may have a quasi-complement $U$ which is not a complement. In this sense ${\mathcal{N}}(B)$ can be regarded as ‘uncomplemented with respect to $U$’.

Next to Mazur-type operators the authors currently are not aware of any other class of operators with uncomplemented null-space. Of particular interest are practically relevant operators with this property.