Let $H$ be a $\mathbb R$-Hilbert space, $A$ be a densely-defined self-adjoint linear oprator on $H$, $\lambda\in\mathbb R$ and $A_\lambda:=\left.A\right|_{\mathcal D(A)\:\cap\:{\mathcal N(\lambda-A)}^\perp}$. It's easy to see that $$A_\lambda\left(\mathcal D(A)\cap{\mathcal N(\lambda-A)}^\perp\right)\subseteq{\mathcal N(\lambda-A)}^\perp\tag1$$ and hence $A_\lambda$ is a linear operator on ${\mathcal N(\lambda-A)}^\perp$. Since $\mathcal D(A)$ is dense in $H$, $\mathcal D(A_\lambda)=\mathcal D(A)\cap{\mathcal N(\lambda-A)}^\perp$ is dense in ${\mathcal N(\lambda-A)}^\perp$, i.e. $A_\lambda$ is densely-defined.

Now $$\langle A_\lambda x,y\rangle_H=\langle Ax,y\rangle_H=\langle x,A^\ast y\rangle_H\;\;\;\text{for all }x,y\in\mathcal D(A_\lambda)\tag2$$ and hence $\mathcal D(A_\lambda)\subseteq\mathcal D(A_\lambda^\ast)$ and $\left.A_\lambda^\ast\right|_{\mathcal D(A_\lambda)}=\left.A^\ast\right|_{\mathcal D(A_\lambda)}$, i.e. $A_\lambda$ is symmetric. Are we able to show that $A_\lambda$ is even self-adjoint?


This is true. It might be true under more general assumptions on the space $\mathcal N(\lambda-A)^\perp$, but the fact that this is the complement of an eigenspace makes the relevant calculation very simple here.

Let $z\in \mathcal D(A\lvert_{\mathcal N(\lambda-A)^\perp}^*)$, that is $z\in\mathcal N(\lambda-A)^\perp$ so that $|\langle z , Ax\rangle|≤\|x\|\,C_z$ for all $x\in\mathcal D(A)\cap \mathcal N(\lambda -A)^\perp$. We want to show that $z\in\mathcal D(A\lvert_{\mathcal N(\lambda-A)^\perp})$. This, together with symmetry, shows self-adjointness of $A\lvert_{\mathcal N(\lambda-A)^\perp}$.

Now for any $y\in\mathcal D(A)$ you have $y=x+v$ with $v\in \mathcal D(A)\cap \overline{\mathcal N(\lambda-A)}= \mathcal N(\lambda -A)$, that is $v$ an eigenvector of $A$ to the eigenvalue $\lambda$, and $x\in \mathcal D(A)\cap\mathcal N(\lambda-A)^\perp$. Note that $\|x+v\|^2=\|x^2\|+\|v\|^2$ since $x$ and $v$ are perpendicular. It follows that:

$$\langle z, Ay\rangle = \langle z,Ax\rangle +\lambda\langle z,v\rangle = \langle z,Ax\rangle$$ since $z$ is perpendicular to the eigenvectors to $\lambda$ of $A$. Hence $$|\langle z, Ay\rangle| ≤ \|x\|\,C_z≤\|y\|\,C_z$$ and $z\in\mathcal D(A^*)$. But $\mathcal D(A^*)=\mathcal D(A)$, hence $z\in \mathcal D(A\lvert_{\mathcal N(\lambda-A)^\perp})$ and $A\lvert_{\mathcal N(\lambda -A)^\perp}$ is self-adjoint.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer! The whole point of my considerations is that I'd like to show that $\lambda\in\rho(A_\lambda)$ whenever $\lambda\in\sigma(A)$. I've asked for that here: math.stackexchange.com/q/3376495/47771. The crucial point is the boundedness of $\lambda-A_\lambda$. I guess this won't hold in general, but am willing to assume $\lambda-A$ is nonnegative. Is that sufficient? $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Oct 1 '19 at 13:21
  • $\begingroup$ With $\lambda\in\rho(A_\lambda)$ you mean that $\lambda-A_\lambda$ is invertible (ie $\rho$ is the resolvent)? In that case you should be able to take some bounded, self-adjoint positive (or negative) semi-definite operator without eigenvalues so that $0\in\sigma(A)$. Then $A_\lambda=A$ for all $\lambda$, in particular you find $0\in\sigma(A_0)$ and $0\notin\rho(A_0)$. As an example look at the operator $x$ on $L^2([0,1])$ (or $-x$ if you want $\lambda -A$ to be nonnegative for $\lambda=0$). $\endgroup$ – s.harp Oct 1 '19 at 13:26
  • $\begingroup$ I mean the resolvent set, yes. As shown in the other question, $\lambda-A_\lambda$ is injective and has dense range for all $\lambda\in\mathbb R$, whenever $A$ is bounded and self-adjoint. All what's left to show for $\lambda\in\rho(A_\lambda)$ is that $(\lambda-A_\lambda)^{-1}$ is bounded. I want to show that this holds for all $\lambda\in\sigma(A)$ which are eigenvalues of $A$ (and I'm willing to assume that $\lambda-A$ is nonnegative, if that helps). $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Oct 1 '19 at 13:31
  • $\begingroup$ I think that is false, the germ of an answer is in my previous comment. I'll go to the grocery store, when I come back I'll see about making it more formal! $\endgroup$ – s.harp Oct 1 '19 at 13:34
  • $\begingroup$ I guess (given a fixed $\lambda$) we need to assume that $(\lambda-\varepsilon)-A$ is nonnegative for some $\varepsilon>0$. Then we can apply math.stackexchange.com/a/3375845/47771. I've added details to the other question (math.stackexchange.com/q/3376495/47771). $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Oct 1 '19 at 14:00

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.