Simultaneous Diagonalization for Two Self-Adjoint Operators

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges of simultaneous diagonalization of self-adjoint operators in infinite-dimensional spaces compared to traditional finite-dimensional cases. Participants express confusion over the phrasing of part (c) and highlight the complexities introduced by infinite dimensions, particularly referencing the Nuclear Spectral theorem. The spectral theorem is noted as a useful tool for finite dimensions, but its extension to infinite dimensions is significantly more complex. Suggestions for further assistance include consulting tutorials or lecturers, as well as resources from MIT's OpenCourseWare. The thread concludes with a note that it has run its course, but further inquiries can be directed to mentors.
LarryC
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
5.png

(a) and (b) are fairly traditional, but I have trouble understanding the phrasing of (c). What makes the infinite dimensionality in (c) different from (a) and (b)?
 

Attachments

  • 5.png
    5.png
    43.1 KB · Views: 961
Physics news on Phys.org
B and C appear contradictory at least the way I read it.

An example of C is take a Hilbert Space and the identity operator. All vectors have the same eigenvalue ie 1 and any orthogonal infinite basis generates a subspace with the same eigenvalue. If this is beginning level linear algebra I think the author of the problem needs to think a bit harder about appropriate questions to ask and its wording. I know finite dimensional linear algebra well, Hilbert Spaces, and even Rigged Hilbert Spaces and would never ask a question like that.

My suggestion is take it along to a tutorial or see your lecturer about it.

Thanks
Bill
 
LarryC said:
(a) and (b) are fairly traditional, but I have trouble understanding the phrasing of (c). What makes the infinite dimensionality in (c) different from (a) and (b)?
Show us your proof for part (b). There's probably a step in there that doesn't necessarily hold for infinite dimension subspaces.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
vela said:
Show us your proof for part (b). There's probably a step in there that doesn't necessarily hold for infinite dimension subspaces.

Yes B is not that hard for finite dimensional spaces - as a hint just look into the spectral theorem. I can write the proof in a few lines using bra-ket notation. Extending that to infinite dimensional spaces is much more difficult (it requires the so called Nuclear Spectral theorem - also called the Gelfand-Maurin theorem) which may be the purpose of the question - infinite dimensional spaces are problematical.

Added later - if you are still stuck then under OCW MIT has a full analysis of this problem. It must be from a standard textbook - maybe Griffiths or something like that otherwise they probably would not have posted a write up on it. So Google is your friend here - and the answer is not 100^% what the question would imply - but its in your court to now. If gets around the infinite dimensional case by using infinite matrices - sneaky - but maybe not quite rigorous.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
The OP seems to have left the thread. How to locate the full answer has been posted, as well some advanced issues with infinite spaces. It looks like it has run its course so will be closed. As always if someone wants to continue drop a line to a mentor, but for now it will remain closed.

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
883
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K