Genericity of wild holomorphic functions and common hypercyclic vectors. (Q1424499): Difference between revisions

If \(X\) is a Fréchet space and \(T :X\to X\) is a continuous linear operator, then \(T\) is called hypercyclic if there is a vector \(x\in X\) whose orbit \(\{x,Tx,T^2x,\dots\}\) is dense in \(X\). In this case, \(x\) is called a hypercyclic vector for \(T\). By a Baire category argument, it follows that the set of hypercyclic vectors for a hypercyclic operator \(T\) is residual. The authors consider three uncountable families of hypercyclic operators and ask whether they have a common hypercyclic vector. It follows from \textit{G. D. Birkhoff}'s classical result [C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 189, 473--475 (1929; JFM 55.0192.07)] that for \(a\neq 0\), every translation operator \(T_\alpha\) defined by \(T_\alpha f(z) = f(z+\alpha)\) acting on the space of entire functions \(H(\mathbb{C})\) is hypercyclic. In Theorem 1, the authors prove that there exists a dense \(G_\delta\)-set of entire functions that are hypercyclic for each \(T_\alpha\), \(\alpha\neq 0\). In [J. Anal. Math. 2, 72--87 (1952; Zbl 0049.05603)], \textit{G. R. MacLane} proved that the differentiation operator \(D : H(\mathbb{C})\to H(\mathbb{C})\) is hypercyclic. In Theorem 2 of the present paper, it is shown that the family \(\{\lambda D |\lambda\neq 0\}\) admits a dense \(G_\delta\)-set of common hypercyclic vectors. A basic tool in the proof of Theorem 2 is a new general criterion for common hypercyclicity (Theorem 12). Hypercyclic operators also exist when \(X\) is a Banach space or a Hilbert space. \textit{S. Rolewicz} [Stud. Math. 32, 17--22 (1969; Zbl 0174.44203)] proved that any scalar multiple \(\lambda B\), \(| \lambda| > 1\), of the backward shift on the space \(\ell^2\) is hypercyclic. Recently, \textit{E. Abakumov} and \textit{J. Gordon} [J. Funct. Anal. 200, No.~2, 494--504 (2003; Zbl 1033.47007)] have shown that there exists a dense \(G_\delta\)-set of common hypercyclic vectors for the family \(\{\lambda B : | \lambda| > 1\}\). In Theorem 4, the authors give a different proof of this result.