Invariance - Normal Linear Transformation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem in linear algebra concerning normal linear transformations on complex finite dimensional vector spaces with a hermitian scalar product. The original poster attempts to prove a relationship between T-invariant and T*-invariant subspaces, specifically focusing on the implications of the normality of the operator T.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Exploratory

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster presents an argument regarding the invariance of subspaces under the transformation T and questions whether the normality of T is necessary for the proof. Other participants engage by suggesting a potential typo in the problem statement and exploring the implications of modifying the exercise.

Discussion Status

The conversation is active, with participants exploring different interpretations of the problem and its requirements. Some guidance has been offered regarding the relationship between T-invariance and T*-invariance, and the implications of T being normal. There is an acknowledgment of the complexity of the problem and its connections to broader mathematical concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential for a typo in the original problem statement and discuss the implications of the normality condition in both finite and infinite dimensional contexts. The discussion touches on the invariant subspace problem in Hilbert spaces, indicating a deeper level of complexity in the topic.

e(ho0n3
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Let W be a complex finite dimensional vector space with a hermitian scalar product and let T: W -> W be linear and normal. Prove that U is a T-invariant subspace of W if and only if V is a T*-invariant subspace, where V is the orthogonal complement of U.

The attempt at a solution
Let u in U and v in V. If U is T-invariant, then (Tu, v) = 0. But (Tu, v) = (u, T*v) so T*v is in V and V is T*-invariant. Similarly, if V is T*-invariant, then U is T-invariant. Note that I haven't used the fact that T is normal. It seems to me that T doesn't have to be normal. Am I wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, you are absolutely correct. However I think there is a typo in the problem: it should have said "V is a T-invariant subspace" instead of "V is a T*-invariant subspace" (which is trivial, as you noted). This modified exercise is a bit more challenging, and does require the fact that T is normal. :)
 
How did you spot that? I'll try to solve the modified exercise.
 
I spotted it because I'm an invariant subspace aficionado. ;) In fact the converse is also true: if an operator T on a finite dimensional complex inner product space has the property that [itex]U^\perp[/itex] is T-invariant whenever U is, then T must be normal.

A subspace U is said to be reducing if both it and its ortho complement are invariant. The reason for this terminology follows from the observation that if U is reducing for T, then the matrix for T with respect to the decomposition [itex]U \oplus U^\perp[/itex] is block diagonal, so that in some sense U "reduces" T to something simpler. We can thus restate your exercise and its converse succinctly as: T is normal iff every T-invariant subspace is reducing.

...at least this is the case in finite dimensions. In infinite dimensions, i.e. in the setting of Hilbert spaces, it is actually not known if this is true; in fact, this problem is equivalent to one of the most notorious open problems in analysis: the invariant subspace problem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K