Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was reading my lecture notes for functional analysis when I came across the following statement:

Let $(e_{n})$ be a total orthonormal sequence in a separable Hilbert space H. The right shift operator, defined as the linear operator $T: H\rightarrow{}H$ such that $Te_{n} = e_{n+1}$ for all n, is bounded.

The statement seems intuitively correct to me, but I find the proof of it quite confusing. The proof goes like this:

Proof: For $\forall x\in{}H$, since $(e_{n})$ is total, write $\displaystyle x=\lim_{n\rightarrow{\infty}}x_{n}$, where $\displaystyle x_{n}=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\left<x,e_{k}\right>e_{k}$. Then we have $||Tx_{n}||^{2}=||\sum_{k=1}^{n}\left<x,e_{k}\right>Te_{k}||^{2}=||\sum_{k=1}^{n}\left<x,e_{k}\right>e_{k+1}||^{2}= \sum_{k=1}^{n}|\left<x,e_{k}\right>|^{2}$. Therefore $||Tx||^{2}\stackrel{(\ast)}{=}\lim_{n\rightarrow{\infty}}||Tx_{n}||^{2}=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}|\left<x,e_{k}\right>|^{2}=||x||^{2}$. Thus, $T$ is bounded and isometric.

However, I think there is something fishy with the proof: In the equality $(\ast)$, I believe the proof is using that $\displaystyle ||Tx||=||T\left(\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}x_{n}\right)||=||\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}Tx_{n}||=\lim_{n\rightarrow{\infty}}||Tx_{n}||$. But for the second equality to hold, it is already assuming that T is indeed continuous, which implies boundedness. And that makes it a circular reasoning here...

Is my judgement about the proof right? If this proof is indeed wrong, can anybody suggest a correct way to prove the statement?

share|improve this question
    
There is a mistake: $Te_n = e_{n+1}$. –  Siminore Apr 28 '12 at 14:53
    
@Siminore Oops :) –  Vokram Apr 28 '12 at 14:54
    
A question: how do you extend the definition of $T$ on the basis to any element of $H$? I mean: what is $Tx$ if $x \in H$? –  Siminore Apr 28 '12 at 14:56
    
@Siminore Yeah your question got me... It seems without continuity you can't really define $Tx$ for arbitrary $x$... Hmm so are you suggesting that if we ever want to define the right shift operator, we should assume already that it is continuous and bounded? –  Vokram Apr 28 '12 at 15:01
    
I think this proof is not so meaningless because with assumptions that $T$ is bounded it is also proves that $T$ is isometric. –  Norbert Apr 28 '12 at 15:05
show 11 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 6 down vote accepted

You are right that there is circularity here.

The problem is in your definition of the right shift operator as "the" linear operator such that $T e_n = e_{n+1}$. In fact, there are many such linear operators. (Using Zorn's lemma, we can extend $\{e_n\}$ to a Hamel basis for $H$ by adding some additional vectors $\{u_\alpha\}$. Then we can define an operator $T$ by setting $T e_n = e_{n+1}$ and setting $T_{u_\alpha}$ to be whatever we want, and this uniquely defines a linear operator.)

So the statement that $T x = \lim T x_n$ will have to be part of the definition of $T$. Following your approach, given $x \in H$, let $x_n = \sum_{k=1}^n \langle x,e_k \rangle e_k$. Then $T x_n$ is unambiguously given by $\sum_{k=1}^n \langle x, e_k \rangle e_{k+1}$. Show that the sequence $\{T x_n\}$ is Cauchy and hence converges to some $y \in H$. Then we can define $Tx$ to be $y$.

Now that $T$ is well defined, one can go ahead and check that $T$ is linear, bounded, and an isometry.

The moral is that defining a linear operator on a total orthonormal set is only well defined if the operator is assumed to be bounded.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you so much Nate, it is a enlightening explanation. –  Vokram Apr 28 '12 at 19:38
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.