5
$\begingroup$

On a Hilbert- (or otherwise inner-product-) space $\mathcal{H}$ with scalar product $S = \langle.|.\rangle_\mathcal{H}$, a self-adjoint operator is is readily defined as a linear mapping $A : \mathcal{H} \to \mathcal{H}$ with the property $$ S (A v, w) = S(v,A w) \quad \forall v,w\in \mathcal{H}. $$ Fair enough, but an inner product is a pretty specific structure on a space. Do we need it to define what self-adjoint means?

It seems that an operator which is self-adjoint with respect to $S$ is also self-adjoint with respect to another scalar product $T$, but I really don't see how one could go about proving this.

If so, would there be a definition of self-adjointness that makes no reference to any particular inner product? A useful candidate would be something like “a self-adjoint operator is one that has a system of eigenvectors $(\psi_i)_i$ which spans the entire space, such that $A(\psi_i) = \lambda_i\cdot \psi_i$ with real $\lambda$”. But is that actually equivalent to the usually given definition? The spectral theorem only goes one way, and makes itself reference to an inner product.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It is not true that self-adjointness is invariant under a change of the inner product. Consider $S(v,w) = v_1w_1+2v_2w_2$ on $\mathbb R^2$. $\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}$ is not self-adjoint with respect to $S$. $\endgroup$ – Tim B. Jan 23 '17 at 22:45
  • $\begingroup$ @LeBtz that's the answer then, isn't it? Though I wonder, would this also work if we consider only positive definite operators? $\endgroup$ – leftaroundabout Jan 23 '17 at 23:01
5
$\begingroup$

Self-adjointness is the operator-theoretic version of symmetry of bilinear forms. The notion of a symmetric bilinear form can be defined without reference to any extra structure but in order to talk about self-adjoint operators, we need some mechanism to convert operators to bilinear forms. An inner product $g$ allows us to do just that. Namely, let $V$ be a finite dimensional real vector space and let $g$ be an inner product. Given a linear map $T$, we can define the bilinear form associated to $T$ to be $\beta^g_T(v,w) := g(Tv,w)$. This gives us a map (in fact, a linear isomorphism) from $\operatorname{End}(V) \cong V^{*} \otimes V$ to $\operatorname{Bil}(V \times V, \mathbb{R}) \cong V \otimes V$.

The operator $T$ is $g$-self-adjoint if the associated bilinear form $\beta^g_T$ is symmetric. By changing $g$ we get different different maps between $\operatorname{End}(V)$ and $\operatorname{Bil}(V \times V, \mathbb{R})$ so $T$ might be $g$-self-adjoint but not $g'$-self-adjoint. This is best seen by invoking the spectral theorem.

In the real case, we know that $T$ is $g$-self-adjoint if and only if $T$ is $g$-orthogonally diagonalizable. Denote by $\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_k$ the distinct eigenvalues of $T$. Then $V = \bigoplus_{i=1}^k \ker(T - \lambda_i I)$ is a direct sum orthogonal decomposition of $V$. If we change the inner product $g$ to an inner product $g'$ such that some $\ker(T - \lambda_i I)$ won't be $g'$-orthogonal to some $\ker(T - \lambda_j I)$ (with $i \neq j$) then by the spectral theorem, $T$ won't be self-adjoint. This is always possible as long as $k > 1$. In other words, the only operators $T$ which are self-adjoint with respect to all inner products are the scalar operators.

In fact, a real operator $T$ is $g$-self-adjoint with respect to some inner product $g$ if and only if $T$ is diagonalizable. If $T$ is self-adjoint, it is orthogonally diagonalizable and in particular diagonalizable. For the other direction, if $T$ is diagonalizable we can always take an arbitrary basis of eigenvectors of $T$ and define an inner product $g$ by declaring this basis to be orthonormal - then by the spectral theorem $T$ will be $g$-orthogonal.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ “If we change the inner product $g$ to an inner product $g'$ such that $v_1,…,v_n$ are not orthonormal with respect to $g'$ then by the spectral theorem, $T$ won't be self-adjoint.” – really? The spectral theorem only says that for a given $g$, there exists an orthonormal eigensystem, not whether any eigensystem is orthonormal. $\endgroup$ – leftaroundabout Jan 24 '17 at 1:42
  • $\begingroup$ @leftaroundabout: You are of course correct, I've edited my answer to include a different argument. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – levap Jan 24 '17 at 2:04
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, this makes sense now. In other words, self-adjointness is actually a much stronger and less natural condition than existance of a real-valued eigensystem? Then I wonder, why is it used all the time – is it just because self-adjointness is so useful for efficiently calculating an eigensystem? $\endgroup$ – leftaroundabout Jan 24 '17 at 10:34
  • $\begingroup$ In the presence of an inner product, it is often more convenient to work with an orthonormal basis instead of a non-orthonormal one (for example, you can calculate the expansion coefficients of a vector with respect to an orthonormal basis by projecting, no need to solve a linear system of equations, etc). It is interesting to know then when a linear operator $T$ admits an eigensystem of orthonormal vectors and it turns out that is the case iff the operator is self-adjoint. This is a condition that is easy to check given an orthonormal basis (just see if the matrix representing $T$ $\endgroup$ – levap Jan 24 '17 at 19:59
  • $\begingroup$ with respect to the orthonormal basis is symmetric) unlike checking whether $T$ is diagonalizable which requires you to calculate the spectrum and check the multiplicities. $\endgroup$ – levap Jan 24 '17 at 20:00
0
$\begingroup$

Start with a finite-dimensional space $X$ and a basis $\{b_1,b_2,\cdots,b_n\}$. You can define an inner-product between $x,y \in X$ by expanding $$ x = \alpha_1 b_1 + \alpha_2 b_2 + \cdots + \alpha_n b_n \\ y = \beta_1 b_1 + \beta_2 b_2 + \cdots \beta_n b_n $$ and setting $$ \langle x,y\rangle_{b} = \sum_{j=1}^{n}\alpha_j\beta_j. $$ In this inner product, $\{ b_1,b_2,\cdots, b_n \}$ is an orthonormal basis of $X$. A matrix $A$ is selfadjoint on the inner product space $(X,\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_b)$ if, for example, the elements of $b$ are eigenvectors of $A$ with real eigenvalues. Not every diagonalizable matrix $D$ with real eigenvalues is selfadjoint with respect to a given inner product. However, using this procedure, you can find an inner product with respect to which $D$ is selfadjoint.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

That depends on the inner product, of course, because self-adjointness is all about preservation of inner product between two different bilinear transformations.

To illustrate, consider the Euclidean inner product space $\mathbb R^n$. Let $P$ be a positive definite matrix and define an inner product $\langle x,y\rangle_P=y^TPx$. Then a linear operator $L$ on $\mathbb R^n$ is self-adjoint with respect to $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_P$ if and only if its matrix $A$ in the standard basis satisfies $PA=A^TP$.

Clearly not every matrix $L$ satisfies such a condition, and whether it is self-adjoint with respect to the Euclidean inner product (i.e. whether $A$ is real symmetric) or whether it is positive definite with respect to the Euclidean inner product (i.e. whether $A$ is a positive definite matrix) are completely irrelevant. It could happen that:

  • $L$ is not self-adjoint w.r.t. the Euclidean inner product but it is self-adjoint w.r.t. $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_P$, e.g. when $A=\pmatrix{4&2\\ 3&6}$ and $P=\pmatrix{2&1\\ 1&2}$;
  • $L$ is self-adjoint and even positive definite w.r.t. the Euclidean inner product but it is not self-adjoint w.r.t. $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_P$, e.g. when $A=\pmatrix{1\\ &2}$ and $P=\pmatrix{2&1\\ 1&2}$.
$\endgroup$

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.