Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The paper demonstrates the conditions for multipliers in ℓp spaces, indicating their norm can be compact.
For <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mn>0</m:mn> <m:mo><</m:mo> <m:mi>p</m:mi> <m:mo>⩽</m:mo> <m:mi>∞</m:mi> </m:math> 0< p ∞ and <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mn>0</m:mn> <m:mo><</m:mo> <m:mi>r</m:mi> <m:mo>⩽</m:mo> <m:mi>∞</m:mi> </m:math> 0< r ∞ , the space <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:msub> <m:mrow> <m:mi mathvariant="fraktur">M</m:mi> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mi>p</m:mi> <m:mo>,</m:mo> <m:mi>r</m:mi> </m:mrow> </m:msub> </m:math> {{M}}p,r of (coefficient) multipliers from <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:msup> <m:mrow> <m:mi>ℓ</m:mi> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mi>p</m:mi> </m:mrow> </m:msup> </m:math> { }ᵖ to <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:msup> <m:mrow> <m:mi>ℓ</m:mi> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mi>r</m:mi> </m:mrow> </m:msup> </m:math> { }ʳ is completely characterized. This is elementary in most instances. The interesting case <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mn>0</m:mn> <m:mo><</m:mo> <m:mi>r</m:mi> <m:mo><</m:mo> <m:mi>p</m:mi> <m:mo><</m:mo> <m:mi>∞</m:mi> </m:math> 0< r< p< ∞ requires more effort, and it is shown that a sequence of complex numbers belongs to <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:msub> <m:mrow> <m:mi mathvariant="fraktur">M</m:mi> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mi>p</m:mi> <m:mo>,</m:mo> <m:mi>r</m:mi> </m:mrow> </m:msub> </m:math> {{M}}p,r if and only if the sequence of their absolute values has a nonincreasing rearrangement <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mrow> <m:mo>(</m:mo> <m:mrow> <m:msub> <m:mrow> <m:mi>h</m:mi> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mn>0</m:mn> </m:mrow> </m:msub> <m:mo>,</m:mo> <m:msub> <m:mrow> <m:mi>h</m:mi> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mn>1</m:mn> </m:mrow> </m:msub> <m:mo>,</m:mo> <m:msub> <m:mrow> <m:mi>h</m:mi> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mn>2</m:mn> </m:mrow> </m:msub> <m:mo>,</m:mo> <m:mrow> <m:mo>…</m:mo> </m:mrow> </m:mrow> <m:mo>)</m:mo> </m:mrow> </m:math> ({h}₀,{h}₁,{h}₂,… ) satisfying <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="block"> <m:mrow> <m:msup> <m:mrow> <m:mfenced open="(" close=")"> <m:mrow> <m:munderover> <m:mrow> <m:mo>∑</m:mo> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mi>k</m:mi> <m:mo>=</m:mo> <m:mn>0</m:mn> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mi>∞</m:mi> </m:mrow> </m:munderover> <m:msup> <m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mo>(</m:mo> <m:mrow> <m:mi>k</m:mi> <m:mo>+</m:mo> <m:mn>1</m:mn> </m:mrow> <m:mo>)</m:mo> </m:mrow> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mo>(</m:mo> <m:mrow> <m:mi>p</m:mi> <m:mo>−</m:mo> <m:mi>r</m:mi> </m:mrow> <m:mo>)</m:mo> </m:mrow> <m:mo>⁄</m:mo> <m:mi>p</m:mi> </m:mrow> </m:msup> <m:mrow> <m:mo>(</m:mo> <m:mrow> <m:msubsup> <m:mrow> <m:mi>h</m:mi> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mi>k</m:mi> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mi>r</m:mi> </m:mrow> </m:msubsup> <m:mo>−</m:mo> <m:msubsup> <m:mrow> <m:mi>h</m:mi> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mi>k</m:mi> <m:mo>+</m:mo> <m:mn>1</m:mn> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mi>r</m:mi> </m:mrow> </m:msubsup> </m:mrow> <m:mo>)</m:mo> </m:mrow> </m:mrow> </m:mfenced> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mn>1</m:mn> <m:mo>⁄</m:mo> <m:mi>r</m:mi> </m:mrow> </m:msup> <m:mo><</m:mo> <m:mi>∞</m:mi> <m:mo>.</m:mo> </m:mrow> </m:math> {({∑ }ₖ₌₀∞{(k+1)}(p-r)/p({h}ₖʳ-{h}ₖ₊₁ʳ))}1/r< ∞ . In that case, the expression on the left is the norm of the multiplier, and it is a compact operator. Further upper and lower bounds are given for the multiplier norm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Raymond Cheng (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: