1. Introduction
Let
denote the complex plane and
the space of all holomorphic functions on
with the usual compact open topology. For two given functions
,
, the weighted composition operator on (or between) the subspaces of
is defined by
If
, then
is the composition operator usually denoted by
. If
, then
is the multiplication operator usually denoted by
. For various investigations of these operators acting on holomorphic functions, see [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9].
Let
,
for
. The difference in the operators
and
on (or between) the subspaces of
is defined by
While some basic properties of weighted composition operators have been studied widely and deeply, the topological structure of the composition operators and weighted composition operators has been paid more attention. To this end, Shapiro and Sundberg in [
10] studied whether two composition operators belong to the same connected component when their difference is compact. Influenced by this inspiring question, differences in composition operators or weighted composition operators have been studied and have become a very active topic. For example, Hosokawa in [
11] characterized the bounded and compact difference in weighted composition operators in Bloch spaces. Moorhouse in [
12] gave a characterization of a compact difference for composition operators in weighted Bergman spaces. Some interesting phenomena were also found in the progress of characterizing difference in weighted composition operators. Here, we will just list a few to illustrate this and inspire you. For instance, Choe et al. in [
13] characterized compact difference in composition operators in weighted Bergman space of the upper half-plane, but Matache in [
14] proved that the compact composition operators in this space do not exist. Moorhouse in [
12] proved that the difference in noncompact composition operators can be compact in the weighted Bergman space of the unit disk. All of these have aroused the interest of experts and scholars in this research topic (see [
15,
16,
17,
18] and the references therein).
Next, let us turn our attention to the order-boundedness of operators in holomorphic function spaces. Let
be a positive measure on
and
X be a Banach space of holomorphic functions. Let
,
be a measure space and
We say that an operator
is order-bounded if
T maps the close unit ball
of
X into an order interval of
. From this, we give the following definition.
Definition 1. Let . An operator is said to be order-bounded if there exists a nonnegative function such that for all with , it holds that Hunziker and Jarchow in [
19] introduced this definition, and they also proved that if the composition operator is order-bounded from Hardy space to weighted Bergman space, then it is also compact. Ueki in [
20] characterized the order-boundedness of weighted composition operators from weighted-type space to Bergman space, and proved the equivalent relations between boundedness and ordered boundedness. A sufficient condition for the order-boundedness of weighted composition operators in Dirichlet spaces was given in [
21]. Subsequently, the necessary and sufficient conditions of order-bounded weighted composition operators in Dirichlet spaces was obtained in [
22]. Wolf in [
23] studied the order-bounded weighted composition operators from weighted Bergman spaces with the weights to
. For some other studies, also see [
24,
25,
26,
27,
28].
Inspired by these studies of order-boundedness, it is natural to consider how to characterize the order-bounded weighted composition operators and difference in weighted composition operators between Fock spaces. Indeed, Tien and Khoi in [
29] characterized the boundedness and compactness of differences in weighted composition operators between Fock spaces. This reinforces the need to study the order-bounded difference in weighted composition operators between Fock spaces. Hence, one of the aims of this paper is to characterize order-bounded difference in weighted composition operators between Fock spaces.
In this paper, positive numbers are denoted by C, and they may vary in different situations. The notation (resp. ) means that there is a normal number C such that (resp. ).
2. Preliminaries
For
,
is the space of all
f in
for which
where
is the usual Lebesgue area measure on
. For
, the Fock space
is the set of all functions
such that
If
, then the space
is the set of all functions
such that
If
, it is a Hilbert space with the inner product
By [
30],
is a Banach space for
.
is a complete metric space with the distance
when
.
Let
. On
, the function is defined:
Then,
for
. Indeed,
is the reproducing kernel of
, which means that
for
and all
. Let
be the normalization of
, that is,
From the calculations, it follows that
for
, and
as
.
Here, we would also like to mention some applications of the space
in physics. For instance,
is used to legitimately state quantum that lack definite particle numbers like the states of quantum harmonic oscillators. For various aspects of the theory of weighted composition operators acting on Fock spaces, see [
31,
32,
33,
34,
35,
36].
The following evaluation can be found (see [
30]).
Lemma 1. For each and , it holds that Remark 1. Regardless of whether or , for each and , it holds thatwhere the positive constant C can be taken as . Next, a sufficient condition for the boundedness of the operator was given as follows.
Lemma 2. Let and . The operator is bounded if u and φ satisfy the condition Proof. For
and
, it follows from Remark 1 that
Thus, we have
From (
2), we obtain
By (
1), the operator
is bounded. The proof is completed. □
The following result was obtained in [
31].
Lemma 3. Let and with and u a nonzero function in . Then, the following statements hold.
(i) The operator is bounded if and only if (ii) The operator is compact if and only if The case is not considered in Lemma 3. Indeed, we have the following result for this case.
Lemma 4. Let , and . Then, the operator is bounded.
Proof. For each
, from Remark 1, we have
which shows that the operator
is bounded. The proof is completed. □
In [
33], the author proved that if
u is a nonzero function in
and
is finite, then
with
. From this, we therefore assume that
with
throughout this paper. From Lemmas 3 and 4, we have the next result, which extends the case
(see [
37]) to the case
.
For , we write and for convenience.
Lemma 5. Let , and with . Then, the operator is bounded if and only if either or and .
Proof. If
, then
This means that
is finite. From Lemmas 3 and 4, we obtain that the operator
is bounded.
If
and
, then
which shows that
is finite. By Lemma 3, we find the operator
is bounded.
Conversely, let us assume that
is bounded. Then, from Proposition 3.1 in [
31], we obtain that
is finite and
. By the above proofs, we have
For the case
, form (
5), we see that
is bounded if and only if
. The proof is completed. □
The next results are about the characterizations of compactness. The first was obtained in [
31].
Lemma 6. Let , and . Then, the operator is compact.
By Lemmas 3 and 6, we have
Lemma 7. Let , with and . Then, the operator is compact if and only if .
Proof. Assume that
. By Lemma 6, we can further assume that
. From the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we obtain
Then,
which shows
By Lemma 3, the operator
is compact.
Conversely, let us assume that the operator
is compact. If
, then from the proof of Lemma 5 we have
This limit does not exist. Therefore, we obtain
. The proof is completed. □
Here, we cite the following two results (see [
29]) in order to study the order-boundedness of difference in weighted composition operators between Fock spaces.
Lemma 8. Let and be holomorphic functions on with , and . If the operator is bounded, thenIn this case, with and . Lemma 9. Let and be holomorphic functions on with , and . Then, the operator is compact if and only if both and are compact.
Next, we have an integral estimate.
Lemma 10. Let . For , it holds that Proof. Let
and
. Then,
The proof is completed. □
3. Order-Bounded Weighted Composition Operators
We begin to study the order-bounded weighted composition operators between Fock spaces. For the special symbol functions, we characterize the order-bounded weighted composition operators between Fock spaces and prove that order-boundedness is equivalent to compactness.
First, let us recall that the operator
is order-bounded if and only if there exists a nonnegative function
such that for all
with
, it holds that
Theorem 1. Let and . Then, the operator is order-bounded if and only if u and φ satisfy the condition Proof. Assume that (
6) holds. Let
with
. From Remark 1, we obtain
From (
6), we know that the function
belongs to
, and it follows from (
7) that
. This shows that the operator
is order-bounded.
Now, assume that the operator
is order-bounded. Then, there exists a nonnegative function
such that for
with
, it follows that
For
, from Preliminaries, we know that the function
and
. Then, replacing
f by
in (
8), we obtain
Letting
in (
9), we have
which implies
That is, (
6) holds, and the proof is completed. □
Example 1. Let , , and . Then, the operator is order-bounded.
Proof. Let
. From Theorem 1, we have
Then,
which implies
Hence, the operator
is order-bounded. The proof is completed. □
Example 2. Let , , and . Then, the operator is not order-bounded.
Proof. Let
. From Theorem 1, we have
Then,
Hence, the operator
is not order-bounded. The proof is completed. □
From the next example, we see that there exists some functions u and such the operators are bounded but not order-bounded.
Example 3. Let , and . Then, the operator is bounded but not order-bounded.
Proof. Let
. From Lemma 3, we have
which implies
Hence, the operator
is bounded.
On the other hand, it follows from the calculations that
By Theorem 1, the operator
is not order-bounded. The proof is completed. □
Example 3 shows that we need to further study the relations between the order-boundedness and some properties such as boundedness or compactness of weighted composition operators. For such a problem, we will provide some answers in the sequel.
Since , the following result was obtained.
Corollary 1. Let and . Then, the operator is order-bounded if and only if u and φ satisfy the condition We see that if the operator is order-bounded, then it is bounded. We give the proof as follows.
If the operator
is order-bounded, then there exists a nonnegative function
such that for
with
, it holds that
Thus, for each
with
, it holds that
which shows that the operator
is bounded.
Theorem 2. Let , with and . Then, the operator is order-bounded if and only if .
Proof. Assume that
. Now, we prove that
u and
satisfy the condition (
6). The proof is divided into the following two cases.
Case 1. Assume that
, that is,
. We notice that
. Then, we have
which shows that (
6) holds for this case.
Case 2. Assume that
. We have
Let
and
. We obtain that
and
. At this moment, we have
Let
,
and
. From changing the variables in the integral, we obtain
We have
and
which implies
that is,
which also shows that (
6) holds for this case.
Now, assume that the operator
is order-bounded. From the Definition 1, there exists a nonnegative function
such that for all
with
, it holds that
Replacing
f by
in (
10), we have
Letting
, we obtain
which shows
If
, then by Lemma 10 and the fact
, we have
which contradicts (
11). So, we have
. The proof is completed. □
From Lemma 7 and Theorem 2, we obtain the following result.
Corollary 2. Let , with and . Then, the operator is compact if and only if the operator is order-bounded.
Since , we also have
Corollary 3. Let . Then, the operator is compact if and only if the operator is order-bounded.
We obtain Theorem 2 only for the case . The case is more complicated, so we put forward the following:
Question 1. Let , and with . What is the necessary and sufficient condition for the operator to be order-bounded?
4. Order-Bounded Difference in Weighted Composition Operators
Now, we characterize the order-boundedness of difference in weighted composition operators between Fock spaces. We have successfully applied improved methods and techniques from [
29] to the research of the following Theorem 3.
Theorem 3. Let , and be holomorphic functions with , and on . Then, the operator is order-bounded if and only if both and are order-bounded.
Proof. Assume that the operators
and
are order-bounded. By Theorem 1,
for
, 2.
For
with
, it follows from Lemma 1 that
Choose the function
Then,
which shows
that is,
. Therefore, the operator
is order-bounded.
Conversely, assume that the operator
is order-bounded. By Definition 1, there exists a nonnegative function
such that for all
with
, it holds that
Consider the function
in (
12). Then, we have
Letting
in (
13), we obtain
Also, letting
in (
13), we have
Consequently, combining (
14) and (
15) leads to
Since
for all
, we obtain
We therefore have
and
From Lemma 8, for some
, we conclude that
. Therefore, we see that if
, then
if
, then
where we have used the assumption of
. Next, the proof is divided into the following two cases.
Case 1. Assume that
. By (
18), for
, there exists a positive constant
such that
for all
. It is clear that (
20) is equivalent to
for all
.
It follows from (
16) and (
21) that there exists a positive constant
such that
for all
. By the continuousness, there exists a positive constant
such that
for all
. Consequently, from (
22) and (
23) we obtain
Then
Similarly, we also can obtain
By Theorem 1, both
and
are order-bounded for this case.
Case 2. Assume that
. By (
19), there exists a positive constant
such that
for all
. (
24) implies that
for all
. By (
17) and (
25), there exists a positive constant
such that
for
. On the other hand, there exists a positive constant
such that
for all
.
Therefore, we have
From this, we deduce that
We also can similarly obtain
Also by Theorem 1, both
and
are order-bounded. The proof is completed. □
Remark 2. In the proof of Theorem 4, we have used the two obvious facts for all , and for all .
Example 4. Let , , , , and . Then the operator is order-bounded.
Proof. Let
. From Theorem 1, we have
which implies
Hence, the operator
is order-bounded.
Similarly, we have
Obviously,
From Theorem 1, the operator
is order-bounded. Then, the operator
is order-bounded by Theorem 3. The proof is completed. □
Example 5. , , , and . Then the operator is not order-bounded.
Proof. Let
. From Theorem 1, we have
which implies
Hence, the operator
is order-bounded.
Similarly, we have
Obviously,
From Theorem 1, the operator
is not order-bounded. That is, the operator
is not order-bounded. The proof is completed. □
From the next example, we see that there exists some symbols u and such the operators are bounded but not order-bounded.
Example 6. Let , , , and . Then, the operator is bounded but not order-bounded.
Proof. By Theorem 1, we have
that is,
which shows that the operator
is order-bounded. At the same time,
So, from Lemma 3, the operator
is bounded.
Let
. From Lemma 3, we have
which implies that
Hence, the operator
is bounded.
On the other hand, it follows from the calculations that
From Theorem 1, the operator
is not order-bounded. Then the operator
is bounded but not order-bounded. The proof is completed. □
We have the following result, which can be obtained by Theorems 2 and 3.
Corollary 4. Let , , with , and or for . Then the operator is order-bounded if and only if for .
To sum up, we obtain
Theorem 4. Let , and with , and or for . Then the following statements are equivalent:
(a) is order-bounded;
(b) is compact;
(c) for ;
(d) both and are order-bounded;
(e) both and are compact.
Proof. From Theorem 2 and Corollary 2, it follows that and . Obviously, from Theorem 3. From Lemma 9, is true. The proof is completed. □
Notice that . Therefore, the following result was obtained.
Corollary 5. Let , with , and or for . Then the following statements are equivalent:
(a) is order-bounded;
(b) is compact;
(c) for ;
(d) both and are order-bounded;
(e) both and are compact.
We finish the section by posing the following
Question 2. What will be the results in this section for the case ?