This is a problem our teacher gave us and I have a feeling he forgot to mention some additional data.

Let $H$ be a Hilbert space and $T : H \to H$ a everywhere-defined linear operator such that $T$ is self-adjoint, i.e. $\forall x,y \in H : \langle Tx,y\rangle=\langle x,Ty\rangle$.

Show that $T$ is bounded!

Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality it is clear that if $T$ is idempotent then it's bounded, but with just the information initially provided I don't feel like it's possible to prove the boundedness.

Can somebody shed some light on this? Perhaps with a counter-example?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ My first instinct is to used the closed graph theorem, since your operator is everywhere defined (ie more than densely defined) $\endgroup$ – Joel Jan 12 '18 at 16:39

This follows from the Uniform Boundedness Principle. $\newcommand{\ip}[2]{\langle #1,#2\rangle}$ Say $B$ is the closed unit ball of $H$. For $x\in H$ define $\Lambda_x:H\to\Bbb C$ by $$\Lambda_x y=\ip{Tx}y.$$Note that each $\Lambda_x$ is bounded, in fact with norm $\|Tx\|$. For every $y\in H$ we have $$\sup_{x\in B}|\Lambda_xy|=\sup_{x\in B}|\ip x{Ty}|=\|Ty\|<\infty.$$So Uniform Boundedness implies that $$\sup_{x\in B}\|Tx\|=\sup_{x\in B}||\Lambda_x||<\infty,$$hence $T$ is bounded.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Indeed. Also, by the way, this argument shows that it is not possible to "fill in" a partially-defined unbounded operator artificially, using the Axiom of Choice, etc., to achieve an everywhere-defined (linear) operator, no matter how hard we try. $\endgroup$ – paul garrett Jan 12 '18 at 18:15
  • $\begingroup$ @paulgarrett Surely you mean "without using AC"? I mean if $V$ is a subspace of $X$ and $T:V\to Y$ is linear then it's easy to show (assuming AC) that $T$ extends to a linear map from $X$ to $Y$. $\endgroup$ – David C. Ullrich Jan 12 '18 at 18:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I rather expect the intention was to say that we can't extend an unbounded self-adjoint (or just symmetric) operator to obtain an everywhere defined symmetric operator. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jan 12 '18 at 19:09
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielFischer Ah, you're probably right - in any case that's true and yes it follows from the above. $\endgroup$ – David C. Ullrich Jan 12 '18 at 19:30
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidC.Ullrich, oop, yes, thanks! :) $\endgroup$ – paul garrett Jan 12 '18 at 20:46

The Closed Graph Theorem is a good way. If $x_n\rightarrow x$ and $Tx_n\rightarrow y$, then $$ \langle y,z\rangle = \lim_n \langle Tx_n,z\rangle=\lim_n \langle x_n,Tz\rangle=\langle x,Tz\rangle = \langle Tx,z\rangle,\;\;\; z\in H. $$ This implies that $Tx=y$. Therefore $T$ has a closed graph. So $T$ is bounded.


The operator you has mentioned

$T : H \to H$ a linear operator such that $\forall x,y \in H \; \langle\,Tx,y\rangle=\langle\,x,Ty\rangle $

is an everywhere-defined symmetric operator on a Hilbert space so it is self-adjoint and by Hellinger–Toeplitz theorem it is a bounded operator, but this is not always the situation because there are many self-adjoint operators defined in a dense subspace of $H$ and they are not-bounded.

Note: The self-adjoint operators defined in a dense subspace of $H$, we cannot extend them in an everywhere-defined symmetric operator, we can get only extension for them which is not symmetric the following example is a self-adjoint operator but not bounded.

Let $\Omega$ be any open subset of $ \mathbb{R}^n$ and $(T, D)$ such that $H= L^2(\Omega)$ and $$T= -\Delta \quad and \quad D=\{u\in L^2(\Omega) , \Delta u \in L^2(\Omega)\}$$


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.