1
$\begingroup$

This is probably a very easy question, but I'm stuck at it for hours now. In what follows, $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$ is the space of all bounded Borel measurable functions on $\mathbb{R}$. Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a Hilbert space, $A$ a bounded self-adjoint operator on $\mathcal{H}$ and $\psi \in \mathcal{H}$ be fixed. By Riesz-Markov Theorem, there exists a measure $\mu_{\psi}$ on $\sigma(A)$ (the spectrum of $A$) such that: $$\langle \psi, f(A)\psi\rangle = \int_{\sigma(A)}f(\lambda)d\mu_{\psi}(\lambda) $$ for every continuous function $f$ defined on $\sigma(A)$. Thus, if $g\in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$ we can define $g(A)$ by the rule: $$\langle \psi, g(A),\psi\rangle = \int_{\sigma(A)}g(\lambda)d\mu_{\psi}(\lambda)$$ for every $\psi \in \mathcal{H}$. The polarization identity allows us to obtain $\langle g(A)\psi,\phi\rangle$ from the above identity. If $T_{\psi}$ is a bounded linear operator $T_{\psi}:\mathcal{H}\to \mathcal{H}$ given by $\phi \mapsto T_{\psi}(\phi) := \langle g(A)\psi, \phi\rangle$, then, by Riesz Representation Theorem there exists $\varphi \in \mathcal{H}$ such that: $$T_{\psi}(\phi) = \langle \varphi, \phi \rangle $$ for every $\phi \in \mathcal{H}$. Thus, we may define $g(A):\mathcal{H}\to \mathcal{H}$ as the linear map satisfying: $$g(A)\psi := \varphi$$

Question: $g(A)$ is linear by construction but how can I prove it is bounded? Also, using only the above construction, if $g$ is real valued, does it follow that $g(A)$ is self-adjoint?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Aren't all $*$-homomorphisms between $C^*$-algebras bounded? $\endgroup$ Aug 24, 2020 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, but I haven't proved it is a $*$-homomorphism yet. I just proved it for $C(\sigma(A))$, not for $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$. $\endgroup$
    – Idontgetit
    Aug 24, 2020 at 19:26
  • $\begingroup$ Just to clarify, the $*$-homomorphism will be the map $\phi: \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}) \to B(\mathcal{H})$, where $B(\mathcal{H})$ is the set of all bounded linear operators from $\mathcal{H}$ to itself, right? Thus, I need to prove that $g(A) = \phi(g)$ is bounded, so that the above map makes sense. $\endgroup$
    – Idontgetit
    Aug 24, 2020 at 19:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you want to prove that $\phi$ itself is bounded. $\endgroup$ Aug 24, 2020 at 19:33

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

You can define $\mu_{\phi,\psi}$ by the Riesz-Markov theorem analogically (i.e. as the measure corresponding to $f \mapsto \langle f(A)\phi, \psi\rangle$). We have $$|\langle f(A) \phi, \psi\rangle| \leq ||f||_\infty ||\phi|| \;||\psi||.$$ Hence, $||\mu_{\phi,\psi}|| \leq ||\phi|| \; ||\psi||$. Note that this measure is actually the polarization of measures $\mu_\phi$ and $\mu_\psi$.

Now fix $g \in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$. We have $$|T_\psi(\phi)| = \left| \int_{\sigma(A)} g(\lambda) d \mu_{\phi,\psi}(\lambda) \right| \leq ||g||_\infty ||\mu_{\phi,\psi}|| \leq ||g||_\infty ||\phi|| \; ||\psi||$$ and so $||T_\psi|| \leq ||g||_\infty ||\psi||$. Finally $$||g(A) \psi|| = ||\varphi|| = ||T_\psi|| \leq ||g||_\infty ||\psi||$$ which proves that $||g(A)|| \leq ||g||_\infty$.

For your second question, we first show that $\mu_\phi$ is a nonegative measure. This holds as for each nonnegative $f \in C(\sigma(A))$ we have that $f(A)$ is positive. Hence, $$\int_{\sigma(A)} f d\mu_\phi = \langle f(A)\phi,\phi \rangle \geq 0.$$

Now for real valued $g \in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$ we have $$\langle g(A)\phi,\phi \rangle = \int_{\sigma(A)}g d \mu_\phi \in \mathbb{R}.$$ Hence $g(A)$ is self-adjoint.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer! Just to clarify, what's your definition of $||\mu_{\phi,\psi}||$? $\endgroup$
    – Idontgetit
    Aug 24, 2020 at 22:05
  • $\begingroup$ It is analogous to the definition of $\mu_\phi$: The mapping $C(\sigma(A)) \rightarrow B(\mathcal{H})$, $f \mapsto \langle f(A) \phi, \psi \rangle$ is a continuous linear functional, which is represented (by the Riesz-Markov theorem) by the measure $\mu_{\phi,\psi}$. @MathMath $\endgroup$ Aug 25, 2020 at 6:36
  • $\begingroup$ Great. I got it. Thanks. Do you know if I can prove the result not using $\mu_{\psi,\phi}$? Because I defined $\langle f(A)\phi,\psi\rangle$ by means of the polarization identity and I couldn't be able to get the same estimate using it. However, if I approach as you did, I'd have to show that the $\mu_{\psi,\phi}$ you got by Riesz-Markov is equivalent to my definition using the polarization identity, and this would be very boring to do! $\endgroup$
    – Idontgetit
    Aug 25, 2020 at 18:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Showing that the definitions are equivalent is not that hard or long. It follows as $\langle f(A) \phi, \psi \rangle$ is in fact the polarization of $\langle f(A) \phi,\phi \rangle$ and as the Riesz reprezentation is linear. Defining $\mu_{\phi,\psi}$ will also come very handy later for proving some of the properties of borel calculus. @MathMath $\endgroup$ Aug 25, 2020 at 22:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .