1
$\begingroup$

I wish to show the following theorem:

Let $T:H\to H$ be a bounded linear operator on a complex Hilbert space $H$. Then if $\left\langle Tx,x\right\rangle \in\mathbb{R}$ for all $x\in H$, then $T$ is self-adjoint.

My proof is as follows:

If $\left\langle Tx,x\right\rangle \in\mathbb{R}$ for each $x\in H$ then for each $x \in \mathbb{R}$: $$ \left\langle Tx,x\right\rangle =\overline{\left\langle Tx,x\right\rangle }=\overline{\overline{\left\langle x,Tx\right\rangle }}=\left\langle x,Tx\right\rangle $$ so that $T$ is self-adjoint by definition. (For the first equality, I have used the fact that $x \in \mathbb{R} \Leftrightarrow \bar{x} = x$, for the second, I have used the general property in a Hilbert space that $<x,y> = \overline{<y,x>}$ and for the third that for all $x \in \mathbb{C}: \overline{\bar{x}} = x$.)

I'm satisfied with this proof, but the one I have in my textbook is more complicated, showing that $0 = <(T - T^{*})x, x>$ and a Lemma that says that if $Q : X \to X$ is a bounded linear operator on a complex inner product space $X$ and $ <Qx, x> = 0 \forall x \in X$ then $Q = 0$. Am I missing something subtle?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No. For a bounded linear operator, self-adjoint is: $(Tx,y)=(x,Ty)$ for every $x,y$. Note also that the result is only true in complex Hilbert spaces. False for real ones. $\endgroup$ – Julien May 2 '13 at 13:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I believe this is what has been said already, but just to reiterate: You have not successfully shown that $T$ is self-adjoint. To show that $T$ is self-adjoint, you must instead show that $\langle Tx, y \rangle = \langle x, Ty \rangle$ for arbitrary $x$ and $y$. It does not suffice to show the equality for $x = y$. $\endgroup$ – user73640 May 2 '13 at 13:19
1
$\begingroup$

Your argument does not prove the result at this point. For a bounded linear operator, $T$ is self-adjoint ($T^*=T$) iff $(Tx,y)=(x,Ty)$ for every $x,y\in H$. So you need to do more.

Using the textbook lemma is a good idea. It yields a straightforward argument. The proof of that lemma is not very difficult if you are familiar with polarization. It boils down to observing that $$ 2(Qx,y)=(Q(x+y),x+y)-i(Q(x+iy),x+iy)=0\qquad\forall x,y\in H. $$ Then for $y=Qx$, you get $(Qx,Qx)=\|Qx\|^2=0$, whence $Qx=0$ for every $x$, i.e. $Q=0$. So you just have to observe that $Q=T-T^*$ satisfies the condition $$(Qx,x)=(Tx,x)-(T^*x,x)=(Tx,x)-(x,Tx)=(Tx,x)-\overline{(x,Tx)}=(Tx,x)-(Tx,x)=0.$$ The lemma proves that $Q=T-T^*=0$, i.e. $T=T^*$ as desired.

You could also use polarization-like formulae to prove directly that $(Tx,y)=(x,Ty)$. But I think using this lemma is better.

Note that the lemma is false in the real case. Think of $\pi/2$ rotations. For instance, on $\mathbb{R}^2$: $$ Q=\pmatrix{0&-1\\1&0}\quad\Rightarrow\quad (Qx,x)=-x_2x_1+x_1x_2=0\quad\forall x\in\mathbb{R}^2. $$

$\endgroup$

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.