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 have a question about definitions and theorems because I am a little bit confused.

By definition we say that a (possibly unbounded) operator $T$ on a Hilbert space $H$ is normal if $D(T)$ is dense in the Hilbert space $H$ and is closed. Moreover it must hold $TT^*=T^*T$.

A Theorem says that, if $T$ is normal, then $D(T)=D(T^*)$. But to prove that $TT^*=T^*T$ we have to know what $D(T^*)$ is, right?

To show what I mean here an example: if $T:l^2\rightarrow l^2$ is defined by $T((x_n)_n)=(\lambda_nx_n)$ for fixed $(\lambda_n)_n$ with $D(T)=\{x\in l^2:\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{|\lambda_nx_n|}<\infty\}$. I know that the adjoint is given by $T^*((x_n)_n)=(\overline{\lambda_n}x_n)$, but the question is on which domain $D(T^*)$. My idea is that $D(T)=D(T^*)$ because $T$ is a normal operator (from my point of view) because $D(T)$ is dense and the graph of $T$ is closed (why?) but how to prove that? Because if I know that, I may conclude that $D(T)=D(T^*)$ by the theorem about normal operators. Any suggestion? Hints?Solutions?

Maybe I have to work this out in another way.

Thank you very much :)

share|cite|improve this question
"graph of T is closed (why?)" Isn't the graph closed because you defined $T$ to be closed in the second sentence? (at least that's the definition of a closed operator) – Horstenson Jan 14 '14 at 23:13
I'm not so sure about the rest but there is for example the theorem that says $Graph(T^*)=orthogonal_complement(V(Graph(T)))$ (forgot latex symbol) where $V({a,b})={-b,a}$, so you "know" $D(T^*)$ – Horstenson Jan 14 '14 at 23:23
@Horstenson: yes i tried this also but got that G(T^*)=G (\overline{T}) but this is not what you want. If someone can tell more this would be nice. – UuPgol193 Jan 14 '14 at 23:28
@Horstenson: You can use \perp to get $\perp,$ if that's what you were looking for. – Cameron Buie Jan 15 '14 at 16:46
@Cameron Buie thanks, that was what I wanted – Horstenson Jan 15 '14 at 17:46

Let $T : \mathcal{D}(T)\subseteq l^{2}\rightarrow l^{2}$ be the linear operator you have defined. Then $T$ is densely defined because each standard basis element $e_{j}=\{\delta_{j,n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is in $\mathcal{D}(T)$. Define $L : \mathcal{D}(T)\subseteq l^{2}\rightarrow l^{2}$ by $L\{ x_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty} = \{\overline{\lambda_{n}}x_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$. I'll prove to you that $L=T^{\star}$ (equality by domain and action), and prove that $T$ is normal. I believe that will answer your question. I'll use the notation $A \preceq B$ for linear operators to mean that the graph of $A$ is a subset of the graph of $B$; equivalently $\mathcal{D}(A)\subseteq \mathcal{D}(B)$ and $Ax=Bx$ for all $x \in \mathcal{D}(A)$. Keep in mind that $T^{\star}$ is uniquely defined because $T$ is densely-defined. No a priori assumptions are made about the domain of $T^{\star}$. The Hilbert space adjoint may be defined in several different ways. The most useful definition I know is this: $y\in\mathcal{D}(T^{\star})$ iff there exists $z \in X$ such that $$ (Tx,y)=(x,z),\;\;\; x \in \mathcal{D}(T). $$ If such a $z$ exists, then $y \in \mathcal{D}(T^{\star})$ and $T^{\star}y=z$. The reason such a definition is useful is that it gives you a nice equation to play with.

First notice that $$ (Tx,y)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\lambda_{n}x_{n}\overline{y_{n}}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}x_{n}\overline{\overline{\lambda_{n}}y_{n}}=(x,Ly),\;\;\; x,y\in\mathcal{D}(T)=\mathcal{D}(L). $$ Applying the above definition of adjoint with $z=Ly$, one finds that every $y\in \mathcal{D}(L)$ is also in $\mathcal{D}(T^{\star})$ and $T^{\star}y=z$ where $z=Ly$. In other words, $L\preceq T^{\star}$ because $\mathcal{D}(L)\subseteq \mathcal{D}(T^{\star})$ and $T^{\star}y=Ly$ for all $y \in \mathcal{D}(L)$.

Conversely, suppose $y \in \mathcal{D}(T^{\star})$. Equivalently, there exists $z$ such that $$ (Tx,y)=(x,z),\;\;\; x \in \mathcal{D}(T). $$ In particular, the above holds for each standard basis element $x=e_{j}$, which implies $$ \lambda_{j}\overline{y}_{j}=(Te_{j},y)=(e_{j},z)=\overline{z_{j}}. $$ Becuase $\{ z_{j}\} \in l^{2}$, then $\sum_{j}|\lambda_{j}y_{j}|^{2} < \infty$, which implies that $y \in \mathcal{D}(T)=\mathcal{D}(L)$; furthermore $T^{\star}y=z$ is shown by the above to be $Ly$. Therefore $T^{\star}\preceq L$, which completes the proof that $L=T^{\star}$. Hence, $L$ is closed because $T^{\star}$ is closed.

Finally, $x \in \mathcal{D}(T^{\star}T)$ iff $x \in \mathcal{D}(T)$ with $Tx\in\mathcal{D}(T^{\star})$, and, in that case, $T^{\star}Tx = T^{\star}(Tx)$. Equivalently, $$ \sum_{j=0}^{\infty}|\lambda_{j}|^{4}|x_{j}|^{2} < \infty, $$ and, in that case, $$ T^{\star}T \{ x_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty} = \{ |\lambda_{n}|^{2}x_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}. $$ It's not hard to see why $T^{\star}T=TT^{\star}$.

share|cite|improve this answer
The corollary form this argumentation os $D(T)=D(T^*)$ – user121557 Jan 15 '14 at 15:59
@user121557: I'm not sure what you are asking or saying. Please explain. If you want to comment on my post, please add the comment under my post. I just happened to see this, but I didn't get a message. – TrialAndError Jan 15 '14 at 17:02

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.