-bound*]{} of a subset $M \subseteq H$ is defined as $$\label{eq:ell-eins-bdd}
 \abs{M}_1 := \inf  \;  \norm{L} \sup_{x \in M} \sum_{\alpha\in I} 
\abs{\sprod{Rx}{e_\alpha}} \}$$ where the infimum is taken over all pairs of operators $(L, R)$ with $R: H \to \ell_2(I)$ and $L: \ell_2(I) \to H$ such that $L R =
\Id_H$. Let $X$ be a Banach space. An operator $T: X \to
H$, called [*-frame-bounded*]{} if $T$ maps the unit ball of $X$ into an -frame-bounded subset of $X$. In this case, $$\abs{T}_{\ell_1} := \bigl| \{ Tx \suchthat \norm{x}_X\le 1\} \bigr|_1$$ is called the [*-frame-bound*]{} of $T$.

\[lob.r.l1-bdd\]

\[item:l1-bdd-compact\] -frame-bounded sets need not be compact.

\[item:l1-bdd-composition\] Let $X, Y$ be Banach spaces. If $U: X \to H$ is -frame-bounded and $V: Y \to X$ is bounded, then $UV: Y \to H$ is -frame-bounded and $$\abs{UV}_{\ell_1} \le \abs{U}_{\ell_1} \norm{V}.$$

We point out that we do not know yet whether finite unions or simple translates of -frame-bounded sets are again -frame-bounded, something one would certainly expect to hold for a “good” boundedness concept. Consequently, we do not know whether the set of -frame-bounded operators $X \to H$ form a vector space.

\[lob.l.l1-bdd-basic\] Let $H$ be any Hilbert space and $M \subseteq H$. Then the following assertions hold.

\[item:label-lemma-a\] If $M$ is -frame-bounded, then it is norm-bounded, with $$\sup_{x\in M} \norm{x
-bound * ] { } of a subset $ M \subseteq H$ is defined as $ $ \label{eq: ell - eins - bdd } 
  \abs{M}_1: = \inf   \;   \norm{L } \sup_{x \in M } \sum_{\alpha\in I } 
 \abs{\sprod{Rx}{e_\alpha } } \}$$ where the infimum is taken over all pairs of operators $ (L, R)$ with $ radius: H \to \ell_2(I)$ and $ lambert: \ell_2(I) \to H$ such that $ L R = 
 \Id_H$. Let $ X$ be a Banach distance. An operator $ T: X \to 
 H$, call [ * -frame - bounce * ] { } if $ T$ maps the unit of measurement ball of $ X$ into an -frame - bounded subset of $ X$. In this character, $ $ \abs{T}_{\ell_1 }: = \bigl| \ { Tx \suchthat \norm{x}_X\le 1\ } \bigr|_1$$ is called the [ * -frame - bound * ] { } of $ T$. 

 \[lob.r.l1 - bdd\ ] 

 \[item: l1 - bdd - compact\ ] -frame - bound set need not be compact. 

 \[item: l1 - bdd - composition\ ] Let $ X, Y$ be Banach spaces. If $ U: ten \to H$ is -frame - bounded and $ V: Y \to X$ is bounded, then $ ultraviolet: Y \to H$ is -frame - bounded and $ $ \abs{UV}_{\ell_1 } \le \abs{U}_{\ell_1 } \norm{V}.$$ 

 We point out that we do not acknowledge yet whether finite union or simple translates of -frame - bounded sets are again -frame - bounded, something one would certainly ask to hold for a “ good ” boundedness concept. Consequently, we do not know whether the set of -frame - bounded operators $ X \to H$ form a vector space. 

 \[lob.l.l1 - bdd - basic\ ] Let $ H$ be any Hilbert space and $ M \subseteq H$. Then the following assertions hold. 

 \[item: label - lemma - a\ ] If $ M$ is -frame - bounded, then it is norm - jump, with $ $ \sup_{x\in M } \norm{x
-boujd*]{} of a subset $M \subseted H$ is defined cw $$\laben{eq:ell-sins-bdd}
 \xbs{M}_1 := \inf  \;  \norm{L} \sup_{x \in M} \sym_{\alpya\in I} 
\abs{\sprod{Rx}{e_\alphx}} \}$$ where nhe infimym iw taken ovec all palxs of lperctirs $(L, R)$ with $R: H \to \ell_2(I)$ and $L: \ell_2(I) \to H$ sbch that $L R =
\Id_H$. Let $X$ be a Banach s[ace. An ooerator $T: X \to
R$, cakjed [*-rgane-bounded*]{} if $T$ maps the unit gall of $X$ into an -frsme-bounded subset of $X$. In hhis case, $$\abs{T}_{\ell_1} := \bigp| \{ Tx \suchtyat \girm{x}_X\le 1\} \bigf|_1$$ is called the [*-frame-bkund*]{} of $T$.

\[lob.r.l1-bdd\]

\[item:l1-bdd-compacg\] -frake-bounded wers jged not be cimpacn.

\[item:l1-bdd-composition\] Net $X, Y$ be Banach spages. Ih $U: Z \to H$ is -frame-boundev and $V: Y \to X$ is boonded, then $UR: Y \to H$ is -frame-bouneee and $$\abs{GV}_{\elu_1} \le \aba{U}_{\xll_1} \norm{V}.$$

Ae 'oint out tgat we do nit know yet whether fybite unions od simpje translates of -frame-bounded sets are agdin -frame-bounded, something one would certainly gxpect to rold for a “good” boundedness concept. Consequently, fe do vot kkow dyehher the set of -frame-bounded operators $X \to H$ rotm a vector spacc.

\[lob.l.l1-bdd-basic\] Let $H$ br any Hilbert rpace chd $M \subseteq H$. Then the fojlowibg assertyons hold.

\[item:label-lemma-a\] If $M$ iw -frame-boundvd, tyen it is norm-bounbed, with $$\sup_{r\in M} \morm{x
-bound*]{} of a subset $M \subseteq H$ as \abs{M}_1 := \; \norm{L} \sup_{x \}$$ the infimum is over all pairs operators $(L, R)$ with $R: H \ell_2(I)$ and $L: \ell_2(I) \to H$ such that $L R = \Id_H$. Let be a Banach space. An operator $T: X \to H$, called [*-frame-bounded*]{} if maps unit of into an -frame-bounded subset of $X$. In this case, $$\abs{T}_{\ell_1} := \bigl| \{ Tx \suchthat \norm{x}_X\le \bigr|_1$$ is called the [*-frame-bound*]{} of $T$. \[lob.r.l1-bdd\] -frame-bounded sets need not compact. \[item:l1-bdd-composition\] Let $X, Y$ Banach If $U: \to is and $V: Y X$ is bounded, then $UV: Y \to H$ is -frame-bounded and $$\abs{UV}_{\ell_1} \le \abs{U}_{\ell_1} \norm{V}.$$ We point that we know yet finite or translates of -frame-bounded again -frame-bounded, something one would certainly for a “good” boundedness concept. Consequently, we do know whether set of -frame-bounded operators $X \to form a vector space. \[lob.l.l1-bdd-basic\] Let $H$ be Hilbert space and $M \subseteq H$. Then the following assertions hold. \[item:label-lemma-a\] If $M$ is it is norm-bounded, with M} \norm{x
-bound*]{} of a subset $M \subseteq H$ iS defined as $$\Label{Eq:eLl-eInS-bdd}
 \Abs{M}_1 := \Inf  \;  \norm{L} \sup_{x \in m} \Sum_{\aLpha\in I} 
\abs{\sprod{Rx}{e_\alphA}} \}$$ wherE tHE infIMuM is taKen over ALl PAIrs Of OpEraToRS $(L, r)$ with $r: H \tO \ell_2(I)$ anD $L: \ell_2(I) \to H$ sUch ThAt $L R =
\Id_H$. Let $X$ bE A BAnach space. an oPerator $T: X \to
H$, CalLed [*-fraMe-BouNDed*]{} if $t$ maPs the Unit baLL of $X$ inTo an -frame-BoUNded suBSet of $X$. IN THiS casE, $$\abs{T}_{\ell_1} := \bigl| \{ Tx \sucHThAT \norm{x}_X\le 1\} \bigr|_1$$ iS calleD tHE [*-fRAMe-bOunD*]{} of $T$.

\[lob.r.l1-bDd\]

\[Item:l1-BDd-compaCT\] -fRAME-boUNded sets need nOt be compact.

\[ITem:L1-bdd-coMpOsiTIon\] Let $x, Y$ be BAnACh sPaces. If $U: X \to h$ is -fRame-boundEd and $V: y \To X$ is boUNded, theN $UV: Y \to h$ is -FraMe-boUNdEd And $$\AbS{uV}_{\eLL_1} \lE \abS{u}_{\elL_1} \norm{V}.$$

We PoInT out tHat wE DO NOt knOw yEt whEther Finite unions oR siMple TRanSlateS of -frAme-bOuNded sEts are Again -FrAme-bounded, sometHing One would cErtAiNly ExPect tO Hold foR a “gOod” BoundedNess conCEpt. coNSEQuEntly, we do not know whEtHER tHe set of -fRame-boUNdEd OPerators $x \tO H$ fOrm a VECtor sPace.

\[LOb.L.l1-bdd-basIc\] Let $H$ BE aNy hilbert SpAce and $m \sUbsEteQ H$. TheN The fOllowiNg assertIons hOLd.

\[item:label-lemMA-a\] If $M$ is -frame-bOUnDED, tHEn it Is nOrm-bounded, wIth $$\sUP_{x\in m} \norM{X
-bound*]{} of a subset $M\subseteqH$ is  de fin ed  as$$\l abel{eq:ell-ei n s-bd d}
 \abs{M}_1 := \inf \; \n o rm{L }  \ sup_{ x \in M }  \ s u m_{ \a lp ha\ in I}  
\ab s{\ sprod{R x}{e_\alph a}}  \ }$$ where th e  i nfimum istak en over allpai rs ofop era t ors $ (L,  R)$with $ R : H \t o \ell_2( I) $  and $ L : \ell_ 2 ( I)  \to  H$ such that $LR  = \Id_H$. Let $X $ be a  B a na c h  sp ace . An opera to r $T: X \to
H $ ,c a l led [*-frame-boun ded*]{} if$ T$maps t he  un i t ball  of $ X$ int o an -frame -bou nded subs et of$ X$. Int his cas e, $$\ abs {T} _{\e l l_ 1}  :=  \ b igl |  \ { T x  \s uchthat\n or m{x}_ X\le 1 \ }  \bi gr| _1$$  is c alled the [*- fra me-b o und *]{}of $T $.
\[ lob.r .l1-bd d\]
\[ item:l1-bdd-com pact \] -frame -bo un ded  s ets n e ed not  be  co mpact.
\[item : l1- bd d - c om position\] Let $X,  Y $ be  Banachspaces .  I f$ U: X \to  H $ i s -f r a me-bo unde d  a nd $V: Y  \to X $  i sbounded ,then $ UV : Y  \t o H$i s -f rame-b ounded a nd $$ \ abs{UV}_{\ell_ 1 } \le \abs{U} _ {\ e l l_ 1 } \n orm {V}.$$

Wepoin t  out  tha t  w e d o  notknowye t  w h ether finite unions  o r simp le tr anslates of - frame-boun d e d  sets ar e ag a in -frame-bounded , som ething one would ce rtain ly expec t to hold f or a “go od”  bo und edn e s sconcept. Cons e q uent ly , we do  no t knowwhe the r t hese t of -fra me-bound ed  o pe ra tor s $X\ to H$ fo rm  ave cto r spa c e.

\[ lob.l .l1- bd d- b asi c\] Let $H $ be a ny  H ilbe rtsp ace a nd $ M  \s ubseteq  H$. Then  th e  fol lo wi ng asse rtions hold.
\ [item:labe l- lem ma-a\] I f $M$ is  -frame-bounded, then i t  is nor m-b ounde d, w ith $$\su p_{ x\in M } \ n orm{x
-bound*]{} of_a subset_$M \subseteq H$ is_defined as_$$\label{eq:ell-eins-bdd}
_\abs{M}_1 :=_\inf_ \; _\norm{L} \sup_{x \in_M} \sum_{\alpha\in I} 
\abs{\sprod{Rx}{e_\alpha}}_\}$$ where the_infimum_is taken over all pairs of operators $(L, R)$ with $R: H \to \ell_2(I)$_and_$L: \ell_2(I)_\to_H$_such that $L R =
\Id_H$._Let $X$ be a Banach_space. An_operator $T: X \to
H$, called [*-frame-bounded*]{} if $T$_maps_the unit ball_of $X$ into an -frame-bounded subset of $X$. In_this case, $$\abs{T}_{\ell_1} := \bigl| \{_Tx \suchthat \norm{x}_X\le_1\}_\bigr|_1$$_is called the [*-frame-bound*]{}_of $T$.

\[lob.r.l1-bdd\]

\[item:l1-bdd-compact\] -frame-bounded sets need not_be compact.

\[item:l1-bdd-composition\] Let $X, Y$ be_Banach spaces. If $U: X \to H$_is -frame-bounded and $V: Y \to_X$ is bounded, then $UV:_Y \to_H$ is -frame-bounded and $$\abs{UV}_{\ell_1}_\le \abs{U}_{\ell_1} \norm{V}.$$

We_point out_that we do_not know yet whether finite unions_or simple translates_of -frame-bounded sets are again -frame-bounded,_something_one would certainly_expect_to_hold for_a “good” boundedness_concept._Consequently, we_do_not know whether the set of_-frame-bounded_operators $X \to H$ form a vector_space.

\[lob.l.l1-bdd-basic\] Let $H$ be_any_Hilbert space and $M_\subseteq H$. Then the following_assertions hold.

\[item:label-lemma-a\] If $M$ is -frame-bounded,_then it_is norm-bounded,_with $$\sup_{x\in M} \norm{x