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

Let $A$ be a non-empty subset of a Hilbert space $H$. Suppose that $T$ is a linear operator on $H$ such that $T(H) \subseteq A$ and, for every $x \in H, (x-Tx) \perp A$. Then

  1. $T$ is bounded.
  2. $A$ is a closed linear subspace.
  3. $T$ is the orthogonal projection onto $A$.

Using the facts that $T(H) \subseteq A$ and, for every $x \in H, (x-Tx) \perp A$ I've been able to prove that $T$ is self-adjoint. With that, and the Closed Graph Theorem, I was also able to show that $T$ is bounded.

I'm stuck with (2). For some reason I don't see what characterizes $A$; I don't even see why is it a linear subspace. Having (2), my plan is to prove that

$$ Tx = \begin{cases} x & \text{for } x \in A \\ 0 & \text{for } x \notin A \end{cases} \tag{*} $$

since that would imply that, necessarily, $T$ is the orthogonal projection onto $A$.

Any hint, idea, comment, etc. on (2) and (*) will be appreciated.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Let $y \in A$. Then $y-Ty \perp A$. Since $y, Ty \in A$ then we have

$$(y-Ty) \perp (y- Ty)$$


$$y-Ty =0 \,.$$

In particular, $A=T(A) \subset T(H) \subset A$.

This proves that $T(H)=A$, which shows (2). Moreover, you get $T(y)=y$ for all $y \in A$, from where (3) be easy.

share|cite|improve this answer
N.S.: Nice little trick that solves everything. Thank you! – ragrigg Nov 4 '12 at 8:19

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.