History
The problem seems to have been stated in the mid-20th century after work by Beurling and von Neumann, [1]  who found (but never published) a positive solution for the case of compact operators. It was then posed by Paul Halmos for the case of operators 
 such that 
 is compact. This was resolved affirmatively, for the more general class of polynomially compact operators (operators 
 such that 
 is a compact operator for a suitably chosen nonzero polynomial 
), by Allen R. Bernstein and Abraham Robinson in 1966 (see Non-standard analysis § Invariant subspace problem for a summary of the proof).
For Banach spaces, the first example of an operator without an invariant subspace was constructed by Per Enflo. He proposed a counterexample to the invariant subspace problem in 1975, publishing an outline in 1976. Enflo submitted the full article in 1981 and the article's complexity and length delayed its publication to 1987. [2]  Enflo's long "manuscript had a world-wide circulation among mathematicians" [1]  and some of its ideas were described in publications besides Enflo (1976). [3]  Enflo's works inspired a similar construction of an operator without an invariant subspace for example by Bernard Beauzamy, who acknowledged Enflo's ideas. [2] 
In the 1990s, Enflo developed a "constructive" approach to the invariant subspace problem on Hilbert spaces. [4] 
In May 2023, a preprint of Enflo appeared on arXiv, [5]  which, if correct, solves the problem for Hilbert spaces and completes the picture.
In July 2023, a second and independent preprint of Neville appeared on arXiv, [6]  claiming the solution of the problem for separable Hilbert spaces.
In September 2024, a peer-reviewed article published in Axioms by a team of four Jordanian academic researchers announced that they had solved the invariant subspace problem. [7]  However, basic mistakes in the proof were pointed out. [8]  [9] 
Precise statement
Formally,  the invariant subspace problem for a complex Banach space 
 of dimension  > 1 is the question whether every bounded linear operator 
  has a non-trivial closed 
-invariant subspace: a closed linear subspace 
 of 
, which is different from 
 and from 
, such that 
.
A negative answer to the problem is closely related to properties of the  orbits 
. If 
 is an element of the Banach space 
, the orbit of 
 under the action of 
, denoted by 
, is the subspace generated by the sequence 
. This is also called the 
-cyclic subspace generated by 
. From the definition it follows that 
 is a 
-invariant subspace. Moreover, it is the minimal
-invariant subspace containing 
: if 
 is another invariant subspace containing 
, then necessarily 
 for all 
 (since 
 is 
-invariant), and so 
. If 
 is non-zero, then 
 is not equal to 
, so its closure is either the whole space 
 (in which case 
 is said to be a cyclic vector for 
) or it is a non-trivial 
-invariant subspace. Therefore, a counterexample to the invariant subspace problem would be a Banach space 
 and a bounded operator 
 for which every non-zero vector 
 is a cyclic vector for 
. (Where a "cyclic vector" 
 for an operator 
 on a Banach space 
 means one for which the orbit 
 of 
 is dense in 
.)
Known special cases
While the case of the invariant subspace problem for separable Hilbert spaces is still open, several other cases have been settled for topological vector spaces (over the field of complex numbers):
- For finite-dimensional complex vector spaces, every operator admits an eigenvector, so it has a 1-dimensional invariant subspace.
 - The conjecture is true if the Hilbert space 
 is not separable (i.e. if it has an uncountable orthonormal basis). In fact, if 
 is a non-zero vector in 
, the norm closure of the linear orbit 
 is separable (by construction) and hence a proper subspace and also invariant. - von Neumann showed [10]  that any compact operator on a Hilbert space of dimension at least 2 has a non-trivial invariant subspace.
 - The spectral theorem shows that all normal operators admit invariant subspaces.
 -  Aronszajn & Smith (1954) proved that every compact operator on any Banach space of dimension at least 2 has an invariant subspace.
 -  Bernstein & Robinson (1966) proved using non-standard analysis that if  the operator 
 on a Hilbert space is polynomially compact (in other words 
 is compact for some nonzero polynomial 
) then 
 has an invariant subspace. Their proof uses the original idea of embedding the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space in a hyperfinite-dimensional Hilbert space (see Non-standard analysis#Invariant subspace problem). -  Halmos (1966), after having seen Robinson's preprint, eliminated the non-standard analysis from it and provided a shorter proof in the same issue of the same journal.
 -  Lomonosov (1973) gave a very short proof using the Schauder fixed point theorem that if the operator 
 on a Banach space commutes with a non-zero compact operator then 
 has a non-trivial invariant subspace.  This includes the case of polynomially compact operators because an operator commutes with any polynomial in itself. More generally, he showed that if 
 commutes with a non-scalar operator 
 that commutes with a non-zero compact operator, then 
 has an invariant subspace. [11]  - The first example of an operator on a Banach space with no non-trivial invariant subspaces was found by  PerEnflo  ( 1976 ,  1987 ), and his example was simplified by Beauzamy (1985).
 - The first counterexample on a "classical" Banach space was found by CharlesRead  ( 1984 ,  1985 ), who described an operator on the classical Banach space 
 with no invariant subspaces. - Later CharlesRead  ( 1988 ) constructed an operator on 
 without even a non-trivial closed invariant subset, that is that for every vector 
 the set
 is dense, in which case the vector is called hypercyclic (the difference with the case of cyclic vectors is that we are not taking the subspace generated by the points 
 in this case). -  Atzmon (1983) gave an example of an operator without invariant subspaces on a nuclear Fréchet space.
 -  Śliwa (2008) proved that any infinite-dimensional Banach space of countable type over a non-Archimedean field admits a bounded linear operator without a non-trivial closed invariant subspace. This completely solves the non-Archimedean version of this problem, posed by van Rooij and Schikhof in 1992.
 -  Argyros & Haydon (2011) gave the construction of an infinite-dimensional Banach space such that every continuous operator is the sum of a compact operator and a scalar operator, so in particular every operator has an invariant subspace.
 
This page is based on this 
Wikipedia article Text is available under the 
CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.