Closedness question about adjoint image

  • Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Image
In summary: The theorem also states that the converse is true if T is also injective.In summary, the question asks whether the dual space of T, denoted by T*(Y*), is always closed in the dual space of X, denoted by X*. There are two definitions for the adjoint of a linear mapping, one for finite-dimensional spaces and one for infinite-dimensional spaces. The first definition is consistent with the matrix transpose, while the second one deals with unbounded operators. There is a theorem that states that T*(Y*) is closed if T(X) is closed, assuming certain conditions are met.
  • #1
jostpuur
2,116
19
If X and Y are norm spaces, T:X->Y is a continuous linear mapping, and T(X) is closed in Y, is T*(Y*) always closed in X*? Here X* and Y* are dual spaces, and T*:Y*->X* is the adjoint of T.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This question is interesting to me, not because I can answer it, which I can't, but because it's by far the most abstract definition I've seen of the adjoint.

The second most, from "Geometric Algebra for Physicists" was the following (roughly). For a linear transformation F : V -> V, in a product space that can produce a scalar component, the adjoint:

[tex]\bar{F}[/tex]

is defined implicitly by:

[tex]
\langle A F(B) \rangle = \langle \bar{F}(A) B \rangle
[/tex]

where [tex]\langle \cdots \rangle[/tex] selects the scalar component of the product.

From that definition, for a real vector space and the scalar component defined by an inner product, I can see how this is consistent with the matrix transpose, if one introduces a basis and reciprocal frame vectors, and expand the linear transformation in terms of components for this basis.

However, it appears to me that your adjoint definition is formulated in a way that allows for it to apply to infinite dimensional spaces. If that's the case, to calculate the adjoint from this definition couldn't use the basis method above (at least I'm not sure how one would calculate the reciprocal frame vectors).

From your definition how one would calculate an adjoint for a given linear mapping. Would you mind giving an example of a mapping T and it's adjoint that fits your definition?
 
  • #3
I have in fact encountered two somewhat different definition for the adjoint. This is the other one. When X and Y are norm spaces, we set

[tex]
X^* := \{x^*:X\to\mathbb{C}\;|\; x^*\;\textrm{is continuous and linear}\}
[/tex]

and similarly Y*. When T:X->Y is continuous linear mapping, we set

[tex]
(T^* y^*)x = y^*(Tx),\quad\forall y^*\in Y^*,\; x\in X.
[/tex]

Notice that this formula defines a linear mapping

[tex]
(T^* y^*): X\to\mathbb{C},\quad (T^* y^*)\in X^*,
[/tex]

and thus also a mapping

[tex]
T^*: Y^*\to X^*.
[/tex]

If we have a Hilbert space H, and a linear mapping T:H->H, then strictly according to the previous definition, we have T*:H*->H*. However, the dual of a Hilbert space is isometric to the space itself, so we can identify all vectors of H* as vectors of H, and let the action of [itex]x^*\in H^*[/itex] be given with the inner product. So [itex]x^*(z)[/itex] becomes replaced by (x|z), if the [itex]x^*\in X^*[/itex] and [itex]x\in X[/itex] assumed to be identified in the isometry. The previous condition then becomes

[tex]
(T^* y|x) = (y|Tx),
[/tex]

so the old formula, that you knew for matrices already, is obtained as a special case.

Then there is another definition, which deals with unbounded operators. If we have T:D(T)->H, with [itex]D(T)\subset H[/itex] being some subspace, it is possible to give some definitions [itex]T^*:D(T^*)\to H[/itex] so that the same inner product formula is still valid for some vectors, but this time the domain issue gets more difficult.
 
  • #4
I found a theorem that says that T*(Y*) is closed if T(X) is closed, assuming that X and Y are Banach spaces and that T is continuous.
 

FAQ: Closedness question about adjoint image

What does the "Closedness question about adjoint image" refer to?

The "Closedness question about adjoint image" is a question in functional analysis that pertains to the closedness of the adjoint image of a linear operator. It is a fundamental question in this field and has important implications in various areas of mathematics and physics.

Why is the closedness of the adjoint image important?

The closedness of the adjoint image is important because it characterizes the properties of a linear operator. It is closely related to the concepts of continuity, boundedness, and invertibility of operators, which are essential in many mathematical and physical applications.

What are the criteria for a linear operator to have a closed adjoint image?

There are several criteria for a linear operator to have a closed adjoint image. One of the most commonly used criteria is the closed range theorem, which states that if the range of a linear operator is closed, then its adjoint image is also closed. Another criterion is the boundedness of the operator, as a bounded operator always has a closed adjoint image.

How does the closedness of the adjoint image relate to the concept of a dual space?

The closedness of the adjoint image is closely related to the concept of a dual space. In functional analysis, the dual space of a vector space is the set of all linear functionals on that space. The closedness of the adjoint image is a necessary condition for the dual space to be well-defined, as it ensures that the adjoint operator is bounded.

What are the applications of the closedness question about adjoint image?

The closedness question about adjoint image has many applications in mathematics and physics. In particular, it is used in the study of differential equations, quantum mechanics, and optimization problems. It also has important implications in the theory of Banach spaces and Hilbert spaces.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
727
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top