Is the Image of a Normal Operator Equal to Its Adjoint's Image?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a property of normal operators in the context of linear algebra, specifically within an inner product space. The original poster seeks to establish that the image of a normal operator is equal to the image of its adjoint.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss starting points for the proof, including assumptions about elements in the images of the operators. There are attempts to manipulate the relationships between the operators and their adjoints, while some participants express uncertainty about how to proceed with the proof.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various participants providing attempts and suggestions. Some guidance has been offered regarding the structure of the proof, but there remains a lack of consensus on the next steps to take. The exploration of conditions such as finite-dimensionality is also being considered.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the assumption of a finite-dimensional vector space, which may influence the validity of the claims being discussed. There is also mention of potential constraints related to the completeness of the space.

kingwinner
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
0
Q) Let V be an inner product space and T:V->V a linear operator. Prove that if T is normal, then T and T* have the same image. (i.e. imT=imT*)

My Attempt:
<T(v),T(v)>
=<T*T(v),v>
=<TT*(v),v>
=<T*(v),T*(v)>

=>||T(v)|| = || T*(v)||

But this doesn't seem to help...

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You are trying to prove two sets (Im(T) and Im(T*)) are the same. Start by assuming v is in Im(T). Then there exist u such that v= T(u). You want to show that v= T*(w) for some w in V.
 
HallsofIvy said:
You are trying to prove two sets (Im(T) and Im(T*)) are the same. Start by assuming v is in Im(T). Then there exist u such that v= T(u). You want to show that v= T*(w) for some w in V.
I understand the definitions, but I have no idea how to prove this.
Can you give me more hints, please?:smile:
 
My attempt:
v=T(u) for some u E V
=> T*(v)=T*T(u)
=> T*(v)=TT*(u) since T is normal

And now I am stuck, how can I prove that v=T*(w) for some w E V?
 
This seems false unless you're given some other condition on V. Is it finite-dimensional or complete? If so, then from your observation that ||Tv||=||T*v|| we can conclude immediately that kerT=kerT*; on the other hand, it's easy to see that the orthogonal complement of imT* is kerT (i.e. (\text{im} T^*)^{\perp} = \ker T). Now use finite-dimensionality to place things together (in case of completeness, use direct sum decompositions).
 
We are assuming finite-dimensional vector space.

v=T(u) for some u E V
=> T*(v)=T*T(u)
=> T*(v)=TT*(u) since T is normal
I have no idea how to proceed from here...

How is it possible to prove without using (\text{im} T^*)^{\perp} = \ker T?
 
Why don't you want to use it?
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K