0
$\begingroup$

Lemma Let $T: \text{dom}(T) \to \mathscr{H}$, where $\mathscr{H}$ is a Hilbert space, be densely defined. Then $T$ is closed and symmetric if and only if $T = T^{**} \subset T^*$.

To better get a feeling for this statement I wanted to construct an operator $T$ which was closed and symmetric but not self-adjoint. Is the following valid to see the necessity of "densely defined"

Let $T: D\to \mathscr{H}$, where $D$ is not closed (then by the closed graph theorem we get that $T$ is closed, right?) be the zero operator, i.e. $T x = 0$ for all $x \in D$. Then $$ \langle T x, y \rangle = \langle 0, y \rangle = 0 = \langle x, 0 \rangle = \langle x, T y \rangle $$ holds for all $x,y \in D$, hence $T$ is symmetric.

Furthermore, by definition, $$ \text{dom}(T^*) = \{ y \in \mathscr{H}: x \mapsto \langle T x, y \rangle \text{ is continuous on } D\} $$ Let $\Phi: D \to \mathbb{C}$, $x \mapsto \langle T x, y \rangle$. Then $\Phi \equiv 0$, and is trivially continuous, hence dom$(T^*) = \mathscr{H} \supsetneq D$. Therefore, we can not have $T = T^*$, i.e. $T$ is not self-adjoint.

Questions

  1. Is this counterexample valid?
  2. How could $D$ look like?
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ The zero operator is closed only if its domain is closed. $\endgroup$
    – s.harp
    Mar 6 '20 at 22:14
  • $\begingroup$ @s.harp So the counterexample is valid if I choose $D$ to be a closed strict subset of $\mathscr{H}$? $\endgroup$
    – Ramanujan
    Mar 6 '20 at 22:17
  • $\begingroup$ And ... because the operator has to be densely-defined, then ... $\endgroup$ Mar 7 '20 at 0:06
2
$\begingroup$

The original study of symmetric operators started with differential operators. The differentiation operator $\partial=\frac{1}{i}\frac{d}{dx}$ is a good example, with different properties on $L^2(-\infty,\infty),L^2[0,\infty), L^2[0,2\pi]$.

Because of needing complete spaces, differentiability is a little tricky to define. For example, how do you define a differentiable function when functions are the same if they are changed on a set of measure $0$, which could change where or if the function is differentiability. The problem is that a function $f\in L^2[0,\infty)$ is really an equivalence class $[f]$ of functions that are equal a.e. to the given function $f$. The standard way of handling this is to say that $[f]\in\mathcal{D}(D)$ on $[0,\infty)$ (or the other intervals,) if there is an element $g$ of the equivalence class $[f]$ such that $g$ is absolutely continuous on $[0,\infty)$ with $g'\in L^2[0,\infty)$. If there are two such elements in the equivalence class, they're actually the same function. So everything is well-defined. And so is the value of $g(0)$. Therefore it makes sense to talk about $f(0)$, provided this sort of meaning is understood.

Then it makes sense to define $\partial : \mathcal{D}(\partial)\subset L^2[0,\infty)\rightarrow L^2[0,\infty)$ by $\partial f=-if'$. If you impose the condition $f(0)$ on $\mathcal{D}(\partial)$, then you have an operator that is symmetric, but not selfadjoint. It is not selfadjoint because the adjoint $\partial^*$ is the same operator, but without the requirement that the functions in the domain vanish at $x=0$. It is easy to verify through integration by parts that $$ \langle \partial f,g\rangle = \langle f,\partial^*g\rangle,\;\;\;f\in\mathcal{D}(\partial),g\in\mathcal{D}(\partial^*). $$ The operator $\partial$ is closed, densely-defined and symmetric, but it is not selfadjoint because the adjoint $\partial^*$ has a strictly larger domain.

$\endgroup$

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.