On the Operator Equations $A^n=A^*A$
Souheyb Dehimi, Mohammed Hichem Mortad, Zsigmond Tarcsay

TL;DR
This paper investigates operator equations of the form $A^*A=A^n$ for $n eq 1$, characterizing when solutions are self-adjoint or normal, and introduces a new class of operators for $n extgreater 2$.
Contribution
It provides a detailed analysis of the operator equations $A^*A=A^n$ for $n eq 1$, identifying conditions for self-adjointness and normality, and introduces a new class of operators for $n extgreater 2$.
Findings
Operators satisfying $A^*A=A^n$ with $n eq 1$ are characterized.
For $n eq 1$, solutions are often self-adjoint or normal under certain conditions.
A new class of operators emerges for $n extgreater 2$, positioned between orthogonal projections and normal operators.
Abstract
Let and let be a closed linear operator (everywhere bounded or unbounded). In this paper, we study (among others) equations of the type where and see when they yield (or a weaker class of operators). In case , we have in fact a new class of operators which could placed right after orthogonal projections and just before normal operators.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMatrix Theory and Algorithms · Holomorphic and Operator Theory · Differential Equations and Boundary Problems
On the Operator Equations
Souheyb Dehimi, Mohammed Hichem Mortad∗ and Zsigmond Tarcsay
(The first author): University of Mohamed El Bachir El Ibrahimi, Bordj Bou Arreridj. Algeria.
(The corresponding author) Department of Mathematics, University of Oran 1, Ahmed Ben Bella, B.P. 1524, El Menouar, Oran 31000, Algeria.
[email protected], [email protected].
(The third author) Department of Applied Analysis, Eötvös L. University, Pàzmàny P ter S tàny 1/c., Budapest H-1117, Hungary.
Abstract.
Let and let be a closed linear operator (everywhere bounded or unbounded). In this paper, we study (among others) equations of the type where and see when they yield (or a weaker class of operators). In case , we have in fact a new class of operators which could placed right after orthogonal projections and just before normal operators.
Key words and phrases:
Bounded and unbounded operators. Self-adjoint operators. Quasinormal operators. Closed operators. Spectrum.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 47A62. Secondary 47B20, 47B25
- Corresponding author.
1. Introduction
It was asked in [8] whether entails the self-adjointness of ? This was first answered affirmatively in [18] on finite dimensional vector spaces. Then, the authors in [10] (who were probably not aware of [18]) too obtained positive results in both the finite and the infinite dimensional settings. It is noteworthy that the infinite dimensional case was only alluded superficially in [18] where the authors of that paper were informed by the referee of the possibility of obtaining the self-adjointness of by using the so-called "technique of sequences of local inverses". In this paper, we carry on this interesting investigation to deal with the unbounded case and we reprove some known results using simpler arguments. Some consequences are also given. Then, we treat the more general equations of the type
[TABLE]
Finally, we assume readers are familiar with notions and results in operator theory. Some general references are [4], [11], [13] and [14].
2. The equations with :
Definition**.**
Let . If for some such that , then is called a generalized projection.
Remarks*.*
- (1)
First, we note that for a general (with ), then does not always gives the self-adjointness of even when as we shall shortly see. Second, we notice that if is any orthogonal projection, then it does satisfy for any . 2. (2)
In general, there are unitary operators which do not satisfy such equations even when . We need to find a unitary such that for any . Consider on a finite dimensional space , the following:
[TABLE]
where is the usual transcendental number. Then whilst
[TABLE]
The first major result of the paper is a complete characterization of this apparently new class of operators.
Theorem 2.1**.**
Let be a complex Hilbert space and let be a bounded operator and let . Then is a solution of the equality
[TABLE]
if and only if
- •
* (if ),*
- •
there is a family of orthogonal projections such that such that
[TABLE]
(if ). In this case, we also have (when ).
Proof.
The ”if” part of the statement is clear. We show that the “only if” part is also true. First we are going to prove that
[TABLE]
It is clear from the hypothesis that on the range of , hence also on because of continuity. It suffices therefore to prove that on , i.e., . First we claim that
[TABLE]
Indeed, our assumption clearly implies that , hence by equality we conclude that
[TABLE]
that clearly gives (4). From this we conclude that
[TABLE]
which proves (3).
If then (3) expresses just that is self-adjoint. (Observe that up to this point we did not used that is complex). Suppose now that , then from (3) it follows that is normal and that the function
[TABLE]
vanishes on . In particular, if then either or is a solution of , whence we conclude that
[TABLE]
Let us denote by the spectral measure of and set then it follows from the spectral theorem that and that
[TABLE]
To show the last claim, just apply the spectral radius theorem to the normal operator to obtain when . This marks the end of the proof. ∎
Remark*.*
As alluded to above, any orthogonal projection satisfies the equations with ( is also allowed). This new class of operators lies therefore just between orthogonal projections and normal operators.
Corollary 2.2**.**
Let be satisfying . Then is self-adjoint.
Remark*.*
From Theorem 2.1, it turns out that operators satisfying are just the self-adjoint ones. However, a solution of , need not be self-adjoint, as it can be seen immediately from the general form (2) of those operators.
As an immediate consequence, we have:
Proposition 2.3**.**
If are such that and , then .
Proof.
Let be defined as A=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}0&B\\ C&0\\ \end{array}\right). Then
[TABLE]
By hypothesis, we ought to have , whereby becomes self-adjoint, in which case, , as wished. ∎
Corollary 2.4**.**
Let be self-adjoint and such that and . Then .
Another consequence is the following:
Proposition 2.5**.**
Let be such that . Then is self-adjoint.
Proof.
We may write
[TABLE]
Hence for any , we clearly have that . But it is well known that coincides with . Therefore, or simply
[TABLE]
A glance at Corollary 2.2 finally gives the self-adjointness of , marking the end of the proof. ∎
The method of matrices of operators allows us to establish the following result:
Proposition 2.6**.**
Let be satisfying
[TABLE]
Then there exist three orthogonal projections, , , which are pairwise orthogonal such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let and define by:
[TABLE]
Then B^{2}=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}A^{3}&0\\ 0&A^{3}\\ \end{array}\right). Since B^{*}B=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}{A^{*}}^{2}A^{2}&0\\ 0&A^{*}A\\ \end{array}\right), by hypothesis we must therefore have . Hence, is self-adjoint by Theorem 2.1. This just means that . Consequently, is obviously normal and
[TABLE]
vanishes on . From that it is readily seen that if then either or is a solution of . Whence, we conclude that
[TABLE]
From the spectral theorem it follows that can be written as (5) for some orthogonal projections , , with pairwise orthogonal ranges. The proof is complete. ∎
We can also treat the "skew-adjointness" case. First, we give a result which might already be known to some readers and so it is preferable to include a proof. Recall that a bounded hyponormal operator having a real spectrum is self-adjoint (see e.g. [15]).
Lemma 2.7**.**
Let be hyponormal and having purely imaginary spectrum. Then, is skew-adjoint (that is, ).
Proof.
Set and so too is hyponormal. Hence for by assumption . Hence is self-adjoint, i.e.
[TABLE]
i.e. is clearly skew-adjoint. ∎
Mutatis mutandis, the following result is then easily obtained:
Proposition 2.8**.**
Let be satisfying . Then is skew-adjoint.
The following sharp result is also of interest.
Proposition 2.9**.**
If is such that and where , then either or .
Proof.
By considering the cases and separately, we may as above establish the skew-adjointness of and self-adjointness of respectively. Now, in case is skew-adjoint (when ), we may write
[TABLE]
which gives . In the event of the self-adjointness of , we may just reason similarly to get , and this finishes the proof. ∎
3. The equations with a closed and densely defined operator :
First, we stop by some examples.
Examples 3.1**.**
- (1)
If is a linear operator, then does not necessarily give . The most trivial example is to consider a densely defined and unclosed operator (hence such cannot be self-adjoint) such that
[TABLE]
as in [12], say. Then is trivially satisfied. 2. (2)
* even when is closed*: Indeed, consider any closed, densely defined and symmetric operator which is not self-adjoint. Then and so . 3. (3)
* even when is closed*: In this case, consider any closed, densely defined and symmetric operator which is not self-adjoint. A similar observation as just above then yields . We may even consider a closed, symmetric and semi-bounded such that (see [1], cf. [3]). Then trivially and is not self-adjoint.
Now, we deal with the equation for a closed and densely defined .
Theorem 3.2**.**
Let be a complex Hilbert space and let be a closed and densely defined (unbounded) operator verifying . Then is self-adjoint on its domain .
Proof.
Plainly,
[TABLE]
showing the quasinormality of (as defined in [5], say). By consulting [6] and [9], we know that quasinormal operators are hyponormal. That is, is hyponormal.
According to the proof of Theorem 8 in [2], closed hyponormal operators having a real spectrum are automatically self-adjoint. Once that’s known and in order that be self-adjoint, it suffices therefore to show the realness of its spectrum given that is already closed.
So, let . Since is closed, we have by invoking a spectral mapping theorem (e.g. Theorem 2.15 in [7]) that for is self-adjoint and positive. Now, this forces to be real. Accordingly, , as needed. ∎
Remark*.*
Notice that the previous proof may well be applied to the first claim of Theorem 2.1 when is a Hilbert space over .
As in the bounded case, we have:
Proposition 3.3**.**
Let be two densely defined and closed operators obeying and . Then .
By adopting a very similar idea to the bounded case (by observing that Lemma 2.7 holds for unbounded and closed operators as well), we may easily establish the following result. We include, however, a somewhat different proof which could have been used above anyway.
Proposition 3.4**.**
Let be a closed and densely defined (unbounded) operator such that . Then is skew-adjoint.
Proof.
Set . Then
[TABLE]
Since is closed, Theorem 3.2 applies and gives the self-adjointness of or the skew-adjointness of , as required. ∎
An unbounded version of Proposition 2.9 is also available.
Proposition 3.5**.**
If is a closed, unbounded and densely defined operator such that where , then either or .
Proof.
The proof is similar to the one in the bounded case. For instance, when , we obtain the self-adjointness of . Hence
[TABLE]
which forces (remember that is unbounded). ∎
Finally, we treat the unbounded case. Somehow expectedly, we show the impossibility of the equations (with ) for unbounded closed operators.
Theorem 3.6**.**
Let be a closed and densely defined operator with a domain and let be such that . If , then (and so can be written in the form (2)).
Proof.
Let be a closed and densely defined operator which obeys where . Then (as in the bounded case)
[TABLE]
showing the quasinormality of . It then follows that is hyponormal and so . Hence
[TABLE]
or merely
[TABLE]
Also
[TABLE]
so that
[TABLE]
Now, since is closed, it follows that is closed as it is already quasinormal (see e.g. Proposition 5.2 in [16]). Also, the quasinormality of yields that of (by Corollary 3.8 in [5], say) and so is hyponormal. Therefore,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
In the end, according to Corollary 2.2 in [17], it follows that is everywhere bounded on . Hence and so the Closed Graph Theorem intervenes now to make , as coveted. ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] P. R. Chernoff, A semibounded closed symmetric operator whose square has trivial domain, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 89/2 (1983) 289-290.
- 2[2] S. Dehimi and M. H. Mortad, Bounded and Unbounded Operators Similar to Their Adjoints, Bull. Korean Math. Soc. , 54/1 (2017) 215-223.
- 3[3] S. Dehimi, M. H. Mortad, Chernoff Like Counterexamples Related to Unbounded Operators, (submitted). ar Xiv:1808.09523 v 2.
- 4[4] T. Furuta, Invitation to Linear Operators: From Matrices to Bounded Linear Operators on a Hilbert Space , Taylor & Francis, Ltd., London, 2001.
- 5[5] Z. J. Jabłoński, Il B. Jung, J. Stochel, Unbounded quasinormal operators revisited, Integral Equations Operator Theory , 79/1 (2014) 135-149.
- 6[6] J. Janas, On unbounded hyponormal operators, Ark. Mat. , 27/2 (1989) 273-281.
- 7[7] S. H. Kulkarni, M. T. Nair, G. Ramesh, Some properties of unbounded operators with closed range, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci. , 118/4 (2008) 613-625.
- 8[8] K. R. Laberteux, Problem 10377, Amer. Math. Monthly , 101 (1994) 362.
