Simultaneous Diagonalization for Two Self-Adjoint Operators

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the simultaneous diagonalization of two self-adjoint operators, particularly focusing on the differences in handling infinite dimensional spaces compared to finite dimensional ones. Participants are examining the implications of these differences in the context of linear algebra and operator theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants express confusion regarding the phrasing of part (c) and its implications for infinite dimensionality. There are requests for proofs related to part (b) and discussions about the validity of certain steps in infinite dimensional subspaces. Some participants suggest that the problem's wording may not be appropriate for its intended audience.

Discussion Status

The conversation has explored various interpretations of the problem, with some participants providing guidance on relevant theorems and suggesting resources for further understanding. However, there is no explicit consensus on the issues raised, and the original poster appears to have disengaged from the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem may stem from a standard textbook and mention the potential complexity introduced by infinite dimensional spaces, indicating that assumptions about the audience's familiarity with the topic may need to be reconsidered.

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: 978
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   Reactions: 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
3K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
634
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K