1
$\begingroup$

Are there any reference that we can find the following

Theorem: Let $A$ be a positive (resp. negative) self-adjoint unbounded operator on a Hilbert space $H$. Then, the spectrum of $A$ is contained in the positive real-axis (resp. negative real-axis).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why do you ask about "unbounded operator" in the title? $\endgroup$ – Artem Aug 20 '16 at 13:32
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, it's an unbounded operator. I edited my question. Thanks $\endgroup$ – Z. Alfata Aug 20 '16 at 13:41
  • $\begingroup$ Strictly saying, the definition of a self-adjoint operator includes being "bounded." If your operator is unbounded then it is not self-adjoint. Anyway, a very readable and rigorous discussion is given in Linear Operator Theory in Engineering and Science. $\endgroup$ – Artem Aug 20 '16 at 13:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Artem : If $A : \mathcal{D}(A)\subseteq H \rightarrow H$ is a closed, densely-defined linear operator on a Hilbert space $H$, then the adjoint $A^*$ is also a closed, densely-defined linear operator. And it is quite possible to have $A=A^*$, which is what selfadjoint is defined to be in this context. $\endgroup$ – DisintegratingByParts Aug 20 '16 at 14:13
  • $\begingroup$ @TrialAndError Then it looks like it depends on the definition. Say in the book I referenced above selfadjoint must be defined everywhere, and the operator that you are talking about is called symmetric. $\endgroup$ – Artem Aug 20 '16 at 17:33
2
$\begingroup$

Assume that $A : \mathcal{D}(A) \subset H\rightarrow H$ is an unbounded selfadjoint operator on a real or complex Hilbert space $H$ such that $(Ax,x) \ge 0$ for all $x\in\mathcal{D}(A)$. For $\lambda > 0$, $$ \lambda(x,x) \le ((A+\lambda I)x,x)\le \|(A+\lambda I)x\|\|x\|,\;\;\; x\in\mathcal{D}(A). $$ Therefore, $$ \lambda\|x\| \le \|(A+\lambda I)x\|,\;\; x\in\mathcal{D}(A). $$ Such an inequality forces the range of $A+\lambda I$ to be closed because because, if $(A+\lambda I)x_n$ converges to $y$, then $\{ (A+\lambda I)x_n \}$ is a Cauchy sequence and the above forces $\{ x_n \}$ to be a Cauchy sequence, which must converge to some $x$ because $H$ is complete. Then, because $A$ is closed, $y = (A+\lambda I)x$. So the range of $A+\lambda I$ is closed. The range of $A+\lambda I$ must be all of $X$ because it is closed and $y \in \mathcal{R}(A+\lambda I)^{\perp}$ iff $$ ((A+\lambda I)x,y)=0,\;\;\; x\in\mathcal{D}(A). $$ By the definition of adjoint, $y \in \mathcal{D}(A^*)=\mathcal{D}(A)$ and $(A+\lambda I)y=0$. However, $\mathcal{N}(A+\lambda I)=\{0\}$ which gives $y=0$. Hence, $-\lambda\in\rho(A)$, as was to be shown.

$\endgroup$

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.