Proof that all operators are linear

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the claim that all operators acting on a Hilbert space are linear. Participants explore the reasoning behind this assertion, identify potential flaws, and clarify definitions related to operators and their actions on vectors in the context of quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a proof attempting to show that all operators are linear, but acknowledges that this is not true and seeks help in identifying the error in their reasoning.
  • Another participant requests definitions for terms related to operators and the inner product, questioning the linearity of the expressions used in the proof.
  • A clarification is provided that an operator is a map from a Hilbert space to itself, and the action of an operator on a dual vector is defined in a specific way.
  • Concerns are raised about the assumption that the expression involving the operator and bra vectors is linear, with one participant arguing that linearity has not been established for the operator in question.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of using bra-ket notation for nonlinear operators, suggesting that it may not be appropriate.
  • There is a mention of the distinction between an operator acting on kets versus bras, with references to Hermitian operators and their properties.
  • One participant points out a mistake regarding the action of operators on bra vectors, emphasizing that the adjoint operator is relevant in this context.
  • Another participant argues that the original proof only holds under the assumption that the operator is linear, which has not been established.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the linearity of operators and the validity of the proof presented. There is no consensus on whether the original claim about all operators being linear is correct, and multiple competing interpretations of the definitions and properties of operators are present.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the assumptions made regarding the operators and their actions, particularly concerning the linearity of the operators and the definitions of bra and ket vectors. The discussion remains focused on clarifying these concepts without reaching a definitive conclusion.

dEdt
Messages
286
Reaction score
2
"Proof" that all operators are linear

I've "proven" that all operators acting on a Hilbert space are linear. Obviously this isn't true, so there must be a fault in my reasoning somewhere. I having trouble finding it though, and would appreciate input by someone who can.

Let [itex]|\psi\rangle = \alpha |a\rangle+\beta|b\rangle[/itex], [itex]A[/itex] be an arbitrary operator, and [itex]|\phi\rangle[/itex] be an arbitrary vector.
[tex]\langle\phi|A|\psi\rangle =(\langle\phi|A)|\psi\rangle=(\langle\phi|A) (\alpha |a\rangle+\beta|b\rangle)=\alpha (\langle\phi|A)|a\rangle+\beta(\langle\phi|A) |b\rangle= \alpha \langle\phi|(A|a\rangle)+\beta\langle\phi|(A |b\rangle)= \langle\phi| (\alpha A|a\rangle +\beta A|b\rangle).[/tex]

So
[tex]\langle \phi |(A|\psi \rangle)=\langle\phi| (\alpha A|a\rangle +\beta A|b\rangle)[/tex]
for all [itex]\langle \phi |[/itex]. Therefore
[tex]A(\alpha |a\rangle+\beta|b\rangle)= \alpha A|a\rangle +\beta A|b\rangle.[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Please define what you mean with operator.
Also, please define what you mean with [itex]<\varphi|A|\psi>[/itex], [itex]<\varphi|A[/itex]and [itex]A|\psi>[/itex] and why they are linear.
And please explain why [itex](<\varphi|A|)|\psi>=<\varphi|(|A|\psi>)[/itex].
 
Last edited:


An operator is a map from the Hilbert space to itself.
[itex]A|\psi\rangle[/itex] is the vector produced by acting the operator [itex]A[/itex] on the element of the Hilbert space [itex]|\psi\rangle[/itex].

The action of the same operator on a dual vector (or bra vector) is denoted [itex]\langle \phi| A[/itex]. It is defined so that [itex](\langle \phi| A)|\psi \rangle=\langle \psi| (A|\psi \rangle)[/itex] for any bra and ket. This number is thus denoted [itex]\langle \psi| A |\psi \rangle[/itex].
 


At the third equality, you're using that ##\langle\phi|A## is linear. But that "product" is defined by ##\left(\langle\phi|A\right)|\chi\rangle =\langle\phi|\left(A|\chi\rangle\right)## for all ##|\chi\rangle## in the Hilbert space, and I don't see a reason to think that this makes ##\langle\phi|A## linear.

##\langle\phi|A## is clearly linear if both ##\langle\phi|## and ##A## are, but we haven't assumed that A is linear.
 


The third equality holds by the linearity of the inner product, no?
[tex]\langle \chi | \psi \rangle = \langle \chi|( \alpha |a\rangle + \beta |b\rangle)=\alpha \langle \chi| a\rangle + \beta \langle \chi|b\rangle[/tex]
Now just replace [itex]\langle \chi|[/itex] with [itex]\langle \phi|A[/itex].
 


dEdt said:
I've "proven" that all operators acting on a Hilbert space are linear. Obviously this isn't true, so there must be a fault in my reasoning somewhere. I having trouble finding it though, and would appreciate input by someone who can.

Let [itex]|\psi\rangle = \alpha |a\rangle+\beta|b\rangle[/itex], [itex]A[/itex] be an arbitrary operator, and [itex]|\phi\rangle[/itex] be an arbitrary vector.
[tex]\langle\phi|A|\psi\rangle =(\langle\phi|A)|\psi\rangle=(\langle\phi|A) (\alpha |a\rangle+\beta|b\rangle)=\alpha (\langle\phi|A)|a\rangle+\beta(\langle\phi|A) |b\rangle= \alpha \langle\phi|(A|a\rangle)+\beta\langle\phi|(A |b\rangle)= \langle\phi| (\alpha A|a\rangle +\beta A|b\rangle).[/tex]

So
[tex]\langle \phi |(A|\psi \rangle)=\langle\phi| (\alpha A|a\rangle +\beta A|b\rangle)[/tex]
for all [itex]\langle \phi |[/itex]. Therefore
[tex]A(\alpha |a\rangle+\beta|b\rangle)= \alpha A|a\rangle +\beta A|b\rangle.[/tex]

Try to consider A2
 


dEdt said:
Now just replace [itex]\langle \chi|[/itex] with [itex]\langle \phi|A[/itex].
That's exactly what we can't do, because we haven't proved that ##\langle\phi|A## is a bra, i.e. that it's a bounded linear map from the Hilbert space into ℂ.

What you proved in post #1 is that for all ##A:\mathcal H\to\mathcal H##, if ##\left\langle\phi\right|A\in \mathcal H^*##, then ##A## is linear.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JuanC97


dEdt said:
The third equality holds by the linearity of the inner product, no?
[tex]\langle \chi | \psi \rangle = \langle \chi|( \alpha |a\rangle + \beta |b\rangle)=\alpha \langle \chi| a\rangle + \beta \langle \chi|b\rangle[/tex]
Now just replace [itex]\langle \chi|[/itex] with [itex]\langle \phi|A[/itex].

The inner product between a bra and a ket is linear because a bra is (defined to be) a linear map from the space H of kets to the complex numbers. ##\langle \phi | A## defines a map from H to the complex numbers but it is not necessarily a linear map unless A is linear. Accordingly the bra-ket notation becomes quite misleading as ##(\langle \phi | A)## is not a bra, even though it looks like one.

We are (or at least I am) accustomed to think of a bra ##\langle \phi |## as a row vector, while kets are column vectors. This is valid because any linear map from a vector space to the complex numbers can be written as a row vector where the linear map is implemented by multiplying the row vector by the column vector we are mapping. However, if A is not linear then the map from H to the complex numbers given by ##(\langle \phi | A)## cannot be thought of as a row vector. There is no row vector that implements this map from H to the complex numbers.
 


dEdt said:
I've "proven" that all operators acting on a Hilbert space are linear. Obviously this isn't true, so there must be a fault in my reasoning somewhere. I having trouble finding it though, and would appreciate input by someone who can.

Let [itex]|\psi\rangle = \alpha |a\rangle+\beta|b\rangle[/itex], [itex]A[/itex] be an arbitrary operator...

I don't think that bra-ket notation can be used for nonlinear operators.
 
  • #10


Just to point out a mistake. A cannot act on <Χ|... it's A* that acts on <X|.
In your analysis you chose to say that
A=A* (or in other words that your operator is Hermitian)
However Hermitian operators are LINEAR.
 
Last edited:
  • #11


Morgoth said:
Just to point out a mistake. A cannot act on <X|... it's A* that acts on <X|.
Any operator can "act" on a bra in the sense that we can define <X|A to be the (not necessarily linear) functional such that (<X|A)|Y> = <X|(A|Y>). A* is not fundamentally different from A. They're both operators.
 
  • #12


When A*=A, we are talking about hermitian operators.
If you really want A to act on BRAs you have to have the A* acting on KETs.
that is because the direct product of bra and ket is a complex number:
<g|f>=<f|g>*
that is the reason if A acts on the kets you get the A[del] acting on bras, or vice versa.
The action of the same operator on both sides holds true only for hermitian operatos (which are linear).
In fact he proved that hermitian operators are linear...


((P.S. SOMEONE INFORM ME HOW TO USE BRA-KET IN LATEX XD))
 
Last edited:
  • #13


Morgoth said:
When A*=A, we are talking about hermitian operators.
Right, but no one mentioned A* above, did they?

Morgoth said:
If you really want A to act on BRAs you have to have the A* acting on KETs.
You don't have to have an A* at all. The OP considered an arbitrary map from a Hilbert space into the same Hilbert space, and A* is usually only defined for linear A. I don't think it can be defined for arbitrary A.

Morgoth said:
((P.S. SOMEONE INFORM ME HOW TO USE BRA-KET IN LATEX XD))
Start by clicking the quote button next to one of the posts above, e.g. my post #4, to see how we're doing it. The codes you need to know are \langle and \rangle. See this FAQ post for general information about LaTeX at PF.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K