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.

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

Is the set $Q$ of all operators that have the property that the image is orthogonal to the kernel, and the kernel isn't the null space, only a subset of the set $T$ of the selfadjoint operators or equal to it ? (would this hold in an infinite dimensional space (modulo some closures of the image or kernel) as well ?)

I know that $Q\subseteq T$, but does equality also hold ?

share|cite|improve this question
I don't understand: every injective operator has the property that the image is orthogonal to the kernel. Or are you asking whether $\operatorname{Im}A \subset (\ker{A})^\perp$ for all self-adjoint $A$? – t.b. Aug 18 '12 at 11:44
Yes, but not every selfadjoint operator is injective; so the fact the for selfadjoint operators we still have that the image is orthogonal to the kernel is a more general statement. I just wanted to know if the converse of this statement is also true. – user36772 Aug 18 '12 at 12:35
Take a block diagonal matrix consisting of one zero block and another block containing invertible non-symmetric matrix. That's in $Q$ but not in $T$. – t.b. Aug 18 '12 at 12:41
Identity is self-adjoint but has null kernel, so it is in $T$ but not $Q$. – tomasz Aug 18 '12 at 12:42
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Take any non-symmetric invertible real matrix. Its image is the whole space, its kernel is zero and these are orthogonal. Yet the operator is not self-adjoint for the standard inner product.

[Added] Your edit does not make much difference, just othogonally project onto a proper finite-dimensional subspace and then apply a non-self-adjoint invertible operator of that subspace to itself; now the kernel is nonzero and orthogonal to the image (the space projected onto) but the operator is not self-adjoint. In spite of your "knowing" it, the claim $Q\subseteq T$ is just false.

share|cite|improve this answer
Sorry, I meant operators whose kernel isn't just the nullspace. I edited my question to hopefully make it more readable. – user36772 Aug 18 '12 at 12:37

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.