For each vector v in V there is a vector u in V so that. In other words: T is surjective.
.
A more elementary formulation, in terms of matrices, is as follows. Given an m×n matrix A and a m×1 column vectorb, exactly one of the following must hold:
Either:Ax = b has a solution x
Or:ATy = 0 has a solution y with yTb ≠ 0.
In other words, Ax = b has a solution if and only if for any y s.t. ATy = 0, yTb = 0.
Results on the Fredholm operator generalize these results to vector spaces of infinite dimensions, Banach spaces. The integral equation can be reformulated in terms of operator notation as follows. Write to mean with the Dirac delta function, considered as a distribution, or generalized function, in two variables. Then by convolution, T induces a linear operator acting on a Banach spaceV of functions, which we also call T, so that is given by with given by In this language, the Fredholm alternative for integral equations is seen to be analogous to the Fredholm alternative for finite-dimensional linear algebra. The operator K given by convolution with an L2 kernel, as above, is known as a Hilbert–Schmidt integral operator. Such operators are always compact. More generally, the Fredholm alternative is valid when K is any compact operator. The Fredholm alternative may be restated in the following form: a nonzero either is an eigenvalue of K, or lies in the domain of the resolvent
The Fredholm alternative can be applied to solving linear elliptic boundary value problems. The basic result is: if the equation and the appropriate Banach spaces have been set up correctly, then either The argument goes as follows. A typical simple-to-understand elliptic operatorL would be the Laplacian plus some lower order terms. Combined with suitable boundary conditions and expressed on a suitable Banach space X, L becomes an unbounded operator from X to itself, and one attempts to solve where f ∈ X is some function serving as data for which we want a solution. The Fredholm alternative, together with the theory of elliptic equations, will enable us to organize the solutions of this equation. A concrete example would be an elliptic boundary-value problem like supplemented with the boundary condition where Ω ⊆ Rn is a bounded open set with smooth boundary and h is a fixed coefficient function. The function f ∈ X is the variable data for which we wish to solve the equation. Here one would take X to be the spaceL2 of all square-integrable functions on Ω, and dom is then the Sobolev spaceW2,2 ∩ W, which amounts to the set of all square-integrable functions on Ω whose weak first and second derivatives exist and are square-integrable, and which satisfy a zero boundary condition on ∂Ω. If X has been selected correctly, then for μ0 >> 0 the operator L + μ0 is positive, and then employing elliptic estimates, one can prove that L+μ0 : dom → X is a bijection, and its inverse is a compact, everywhere-defined operator K from X to X, with image equal todom. We fix one such μ0, but its value is not important as it is only a tool. We may then transform the Fredholm alternative, stated above for compact operators, into a statement about the solvability of the boundary-value problem -. The Fredholm alternative, as stated above, asserts:
For each λ ∈ R, either λ is an eigenvalue of K, or the operator K - λ is bijective from X to itself.
Let us explore the two alternatives as they play out for the boundary-value problem. Suppose λ ≠ 0. Then either λ is an eigenvalue of K ⇔ there is a solution h ∈ dom of h = λ−1h ⇔ -μ0+λ−1 is an eigenvalue of L. The operator K - λ : X → X is a bijection ⇔ = Id - λ : dom → X is a bijection ⇔ L + μ0 - λ−1 : dom → X is a bijection. Replacing -μ0+λ−1 by λ, and treating the case λ = -μ0 separately, this yields the following Fredholm alternative for an elliptic boundary-value problem:
For each λ ∈ R, either the homogeneous equation u = 0 has a nontrivial solution, or the inhomogeneous equation u = f possesses a unique solution u ∈ dom for each given datum f ∈ X.
The latter function u solves the boundary-value problem - introduced above. This is the dichotomy that was claimed in - above. By the spectral theorem for compact operators, one also obtains that the set of λ for which the solvability fails is a discrete subset of R. The eigenvalues’ associated eigenfunctions can be thought of as "resonances" that block the solvability of the equation.