Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I know that if an operator $T$ in $L(V)$ (where $V$ is a finite dimentional vector space over the complex field) is normal than for every vector $v$ in $V$ , $Tv= \lambda v$ iff $T^*v= \lambda^*v$ (where $\lambda^*$ is the complex conjugate of $\lambda$). Why isn't this correct for every operator?

I think that you can take the eigenspace of $\lambda$ (regarding $T$) and this is a $T$-invariant subspace of $V$. So this is also a $T^*$ -invariant subspace and there you get that for every $v,w$ in $\mathrm{eigenspace}(\lambda)$ $\langle v,\lambda^*w\rangle=\langle \lambda v,w\rangle=\langle Tv,w\rangle=\langle v,T^*w\rangle$ and therefor $T^*w=\lambda^*w$. What is my mistake?

share|cite|improve this question
Counterexample $\mathrm{span}\{(1,0)\}\subset \mathbb{R}^2$ is invariant subspace of $$T=\begin{Vmatrix} 1& 1\\0 &1\end{Vmatrix},$$ but not invariant subspace of $T^*$. – Norbert Jun 29 '12 at 13:57
You need $V$ to have an inner product to talk about adjoints, and taking adjoints doesn't preserve invariant subspaces in general. (It does if $T$ is normal, but this just reflects the general fact that commuting operators preserve each other's eigenspaces). – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 29 '12 at 13:59

Your mistake is assuming that if $\lambda$ is eigenvalue of $T$ with eigenvector $v$, then $\overline\lambda$ is eigenvalue of $T^*$ (this is true) also with eigenvector $v$ (this is not true in general; it is when $T$ is normal).

Using Norbert's example, $1$ is eigenvalue of $T$ with eigenvector $v=\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}$. But $v$ is not an eigenvector of $T^*$: $$ T^*v=\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\1&1\end{bmatrix}\,\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix} =\begin{bmatrix}1\\1\end{bmatrix} $$ Still, of course, $1$ is indeed an eigenvalue of $T^*$, but with eigenvector $\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}$.

share|cite|improve this answer

The problem of your reasoning is that $\langle v,\lambda^*w\rangle=\langle \lambda v,w\rangle=\langle Tv,w\rangle=\langle v,T^*w\rangle$ does not imply $T^*w=\lambda^*w$. For this to be true, you must have $\forall v \in V, \langle \lambda v,w \rangle = \langle v,T^*w \rangle$. However, this equality only holds for eigenvector one specific eigenvector of $T$ under this circumstance.

share|cite|improve this answer

For the proof you need:

(1) if $T$ is normal than $kerT = kerT^*$

Take any $v\in$$V$ than because $T$ is normal you get $$<T(v)|T(v)> = <T^*(v)|T^*(v)>$$ So every $v\in$ker$T$ iff also $\in$$kerT^*$

(2) if T is normal than $T-$$\lambda$$Id$ is normal. (this is easy to check).

Now if $v$ is an eigenvector of $T$ with eigenvalue $\lambda$, than $v$$\in$$ker(T-$$\lambda$$Id)$.

Now from (2) we get that $T-$$\lambda$$Id$ is normal, so from (1) we get that $ker(T-$$\lambda$$Id)$ = $ker(T^*-$$\overline\lambda$$Id)$ so than we can say that $v$ is an eigenvector of $T^*$ with eigenvalue of $\overline\lambda$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.