Let $\{v_1,...,v_n\} \subset V$ be an orthonormal basis of $V$. Show that the set $\{T(v_1),\dots,T(v_n)\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $V$ if and only if $T$ is unitary.

I have probably gone into more detail than is really necessary but I'm trying to get my head around all of these ideas.

Suppose $T$ is unitary. So we have that $\langle Tv,Tw \rangle = \langle v,w \rangle$ for any $v,w \in V.$

So $\langle Tv_i,Tv_j \rangle=\langle v_i,v_j \rangle=\delta_{ij}$. Thus we have $n$ orthogonal vectors in a space of dimension $n$ and so we have an orthonormal basis.

Now suppose we have an orthonormal basis. So $\langle Tv_i,Tv_j \rangle=\delta_{ij}.$

Let $v=\sum_{i=1}^n \langle v_i,v \rangle v_i$ and let $w=\sum_{j=1}^m \langle v_j,w \rangle v_j.$

$$\langle Tv,Tw \rangle=\langle \sum_{i=1}^n \langle v_i,v \rangle Tv_i, \sum_{j=1}^m \langle v_j,w \rangle Tv_j \rangle = \sum_{i,j} \overline {\langle v_i,v \rangle} \langle v_j,w \rangle \langle Tv_i,Tv_j \rangle=\sum_{i,j} \overline {\langle v_i,v \rangle} \langle v_j,w \rangle \delta_{ij}=\sum_{i,j} \overline {\langle v_i,v \rangle} \langle v_j,w \rangle =\langle v,w \rangle.$$ Thus $T$ is unitary.

Could someone verify if this is correct or not please?

Definition of $v$:

$$v=\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_iv_i$$

Then consider the inner product with $v_i$:

$$\langle v_i,v \rangle =\langle v_i,\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_iv_i \rangle=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i \langle v_i,v \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i \delta_{ij}=\lambda_i$$

  • $\begingroup$ I'm a bit confused about how you define $v$ and $w$. Isn't that a recursive definition? Why is $v$ in the definition of $v$? $\endgroup$ – Noble Mushtak Apr 23 '16 at 11:38
  • $\begingroup$ @NobleMushtak I've made an edit discussing where my definition came from. $\endgroup$ – MHW Apr 23 '16 at 11:46
  • $\begingroup$ OK, that makes more sense. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Noble Mushtak Apr 23 '16 at 11:46
  • $\begingroup$ @NobleMushtak Does it look fine apart from that? $\endgroup$ – MHW Apr 23 '16 at 11:52
  • $\begingroup$ I think this is basically correct, but why in the calculations in the central part of your post you took the conjugate of the first variable, not of the second one? $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Apr 23 '16 at 11:53

This looks correct to me except for one thing:

$$\sum_{i,j} \overline {\langle v_i,v \rangle} \langle v_j,w \rangle \delta_{ij}=\sum_{i,j} \overline {\langle v_i,v \rangle} \langle v_j,w \rangle =\langle v,w \rangle.$$

At this last part, all of the terms where $i \neq j$ are cancelled out by $\delta_{ij}=0$. Thus., the second summation should just be from $i=1$ to $n$, so this is correct:

$$\sum_{i,j} \overline {\langle v_i,v \rangle} \langle v_j,w \rangle \delta_{ij}=\sum_{i=1}^n \overline {\langle v_i,v \rangle} \langle v_i,w \rangle =\langle v,w \rangle.$$

Other than that, I think this is a really good proof!

| cite | improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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