Bourbaki

Theorem 4 (Krein–Rutman)

Tag 02V4, permanent. Cite it as [Bourbaki, Tag 02V4].

Théories spectrales, chapter III, § 6. Propriétés spectrales des endomorphismes des espaces de Banach

Let E be a complete normed space over R\mathbf{R}. Let C be a closed total salient convex cone in E and let u∈L(E)u\in \mathscr{L}(E) be a compact linear mapping such that u(C)⊂Cu(C)\subset C. If the spectral radius ϱ(u)\varrho (u) is >0>0, then ϱ(u)\varrho (u) is an isolated point of the spectrum of uu, and there exists a nonzero eigenvector x∈Cx\in C of uu for the eigenvalue ϱ(u)\varrho (u).

Let E(C)E_{(\mathbf{C})} be the complexified space of E and u(C)u_{(\mathbf{C})} the endomorphism of E(C)E_{(\mathbf{C})} obtained by extension of the scalars from uu. The spectral radius of u(C)u_{(\mathbf{C})} is equal to ϱ(u)(\varrho (u) (I, p. 86); we denote it simply by ϱ\varrho. Since ϱ>0\varrho >0, the complex spectrum of uu is not reduced to 0. There therefore exists λ0∈\lambda_0\in Sps(u(C))_s(u_{(\mathbf{C})}) such that ∣λ0∣=ϱ|\lambda_0|=\varrho (Prop. 5 of III, p. 90). Let e0e_0 be the spectral projector of u(C)u_{(\mathbf{C})} associated with λ0\lambda_0.

The resolvent λ↦R(u(C),λ)=(λ−u(C))−1\lambda \mapsto R(u_{(\mathbf{C})}, \lambda ) = (\lambda -u_{(\mathbf{C})})^{-1} is holomorphic on the complement of the spectrum of u(C)u_{(\mathbf{C})} (Theorem 1 of I, p. 24). The complex number λ0\lambda_0 is a pole of the resolvent and its residue is the spectral projector e0(e_0(I, p. 131).

Let yy and y′y' be elements of E such that y+iy′∈E(C)y+iy'\in E_{(\mathbf{C})} is an eigenvector of u(C)u_{(\mathbf{C})} for the eigenvalue λ0\lambda_0. Since e0(y+iy′)=y+iy′≠0e_0(y+iy') =y+iy'\not = 0, there exists an element x0∈Cx_0\in C such that e0(x0)≠0e_0(x_0)\not = 0 (Lemma 4). Since C is closed and salient, its polar C∘C^{\circ} is total (EVT, II, p. 48, Corollary 1), and there then exists a linear form ℓ0∈C∘\ell_0\in C^{\circ} such that ⟨e0(x0),ℓ0⟩≠0\langle e_0(x_0), \ell_0\rangle \not = 0.

Consider the function ff defined by f(0)=0f(0) = 0 and by

f(z)=⟨R(u(C),z−1)x0,ℓ0⟩ f(z) =\langle R(u_{(\mathbf{C})}, z^{-1})x_0, \ell_0\rangle

for z∈Cz\in \mathbf{C} such that z−1∉z^{-1}\notin Sp(u(C)u_{(\mathbf{C})}). This function satisfies

f(z)=ℓ0((∑n=0+∞zn+1u(C)n)x0)=∑n=0∞⟨un(x0),ℓ0⟩zn+1(1) f(z) =\ell_0((\sum^{+\infty}_{n=0}z^{n+1}u^n_{(\mathbf{C})})x_0)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\langle u^n(x_0), \ell_0\rangle z^{n+1} \tag{1}

for ∣z∣<1/ϱ|z|<1/\varrho (Theorem 1 of I, p. 24, d)) and is therefore holomorphic in the disc with centre 0 and radius 1/ϱ1/\varrho.

There exists a holomorphic function R~\widetilde{R} defined on an open neighbourhood U of λ0\lambda_0 and with values in L(E)\mathscr{L}(E) such that for zz belonging to U−{λ0}-\{\lambda_0\}, one has

R(u(C),z)=R~(z)+∑n=0+∞(z−λ0)−n−1(u(C)−λ0)ne0 R(u_{(\mathbf{C})}, z) =\widetilde{R}(z) +\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}(z-\lambda_0)^{-n-1}(u_{(\mathbf{C})}-\lambda_0)^ne_0

(Prop. 17 of I, p. 83). For zz such that z−1∈Uz^{-1}\in U and z≠1/λ0z\not = 1/\lambda_0, one therefore has

f(z)=⟨R~(z−1)x0,ℓ0⟩+∑n=0+∞(z−1−λ0)−n−1⟨(u(C)−λ0)ne0(x0),ℓ0⟩ f(z) =\langle \widetilde{R}(z^{-1})x_0, \ell_0\rangle +\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}(z^{-1}-\lambda_0)^{-n-1}\langle (u_{(\mathbf{C})}-\lambda_0)^ne_0(x_0), \ell_0\rangle

The term of the series corresponding to n=0n= 0 is (z−1−λ0)−1⟨e0(x0),ℓ0⟩(z^{-1}-\lambda_0)^{-1}\langle e_0(x_0), \ell_0\rangle. Since ⟨e0(x0),ℓ0⟩≠0\langle e_0(x_0), \ell_0\rangle \not = 0, the uniqueness of the Laurent expansion (VAR, R1, p. 30, 3.3.9) implies that ff cannot be prolonged to a holomorphic function in a neighbourhood of 1/λ01/\lambda_0. In particular, the radius of convergence of the power series expansion (1) of the function ff at the point 0 is equal to 1/ϱ1/\varrho.

The coefficients of the power series (1) are ⟨un(x0),ℓ0⟩⩾0\langle u^n(x_0), \ell_0\rangle \geqslant 0 since u(C)⊂Cu(C)\subset C and ℓ0∈C∘\ell_0\in C^{\circ}. By Lemma 3, the function ff cannot be extended to a holomorphic function in a neighbourhood of 1/ϱ1/\varrho. The resolvent of u(C)u_{(\mathbf{C})} therefore cannot be extended to a holomorphic function in a neighbourhood of ϱ\varrho, that is to say, ϱ∈\varrho \in Sp(uu). This implies that ϱ\varrho is an eigenvalue of u(C)u_{(\mathbf{C})} (prop. 5 of III, p. 90). Since ϱ\varrho is real, it is also an eigenvalue of uu.

Let d⩾1d\geqslant 1 be the order of the pole of the resolvent of u(C)u_{(\mathbf{C})} at ϱ\varrho. Let ee be the endomorphism

e=e= limz→ϱ(z−ϱ)dR(u(C),z)_{z\rightarrow\varrho}(z-\varrho )^dR(u_{(\mathbf{C})}, z).

It is nonzero and commutes with u(C)u_{(\mathbf{C})}, and its image is contained in the eigenspace of u(C)u_{(\mathbf{C})} corresponding to ϱ(\varrho (cf. No.o3^o3 of I, p. 131). Let now ℓ\ell be an element of C∘C^{\circ} and xx an element of C. By Theorem 1 of I, p. 24, d), one has

⟨e(x),ℓ⟩=\langle e(x), \ell \rangle = limzz>ϱ→ϱ(z−ϱ)d∑n⩾0⟨un(x),ℓ⟩z−n−1⩾0_{zz>\varrho\rightarrow\varrho}(z-\varrho )^d\sum_{n\geqslant 0}\langle u^n(x), \ell \rangle z^{-n-1}\geqslant 0.

The bipolar theorem (EVT, II, p 48, th. 1) implies that e(x)∈Ce(x)\in C for all x∈Cx\in C. Since C is total, there exists x∈Cx\in C such that e(x)≠0e(x)\not = 0 (Lemma 4), and then e(x)e(x) belongs to C and is an eigenvector of uu for the eigenvalue ϱ\varrho, as required.

Bourbaki sets the proof directly after the statement, and the corpus does not separate them, so what is above is the statement and its proof together.

Cited by

Nothing.

Cites

Nothing.

Machine translation of the English, by gpt-5.4, gpt-5-6-mini, against glossary version 34. Not checked by a person. That model is a cut down version of the one the rest of this language was written by.