Closedness question about adjoint image

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Image
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of adjoint mappings in the context of normed spaces, specifically whether the adjoint image T*(Y*) is closed in X* given that T(X) is closed in Y. Participants explore definitions of adjoints, their implications in finite and infinite dimensional spaces, and related theorems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether T*(Y*) is always closed in X* if T(X) is closed in Y, indicating uncertainty about the relationship between these properties.
  • Another participant expresses interest in the abstract nature of the adjoint definition and seeks clarification on how to calculate an adjoint for a given linear mapping, suggesting that the definition may not easily translate to infinite dimensional spaces.
  • A third participant presents two definitions of the adjoint, discussing the implications of these definitions in the context of norm spaces and Hilbert spaces, and how they relate to the inner product.
  • A later reply mentions a theorem stating that T*(Y*) is closed if T(X) is closed, under the assumption that X and Y are Banach spaces and T is continuous, but does not resolve the initial question about the general case.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether T*(Y*) is always closed in X*. There are multiple competing views regarding the definitions and properties of adjoints, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the specific properties of spaces involved (e.g., whether they are Banach or Hilbert spaces) and the potential complexities introduced by infinite dimensionality. The discussion also highlights the need for clarity in definitions when applying them to different contexts.

jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
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
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K