Tensor product of Hilbert spaces

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the formation and properties of tensor products of Hilbert spaces, exploring the mathematical framework and implications of such constructions. Participants delve into the definitions, inner products, and the necessity of completion to maintain the Hilbert space structure, while also addressing the concept of bases in both finite and infinite dimensions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the formation of tensor products of Hilbert spaces and questions the necessity of defining them as Hilbert spaces again after taking the completion.
  • Another participant clarifies that the completion is essential to ensure the resulting space is a Hilbert space, as a pre-Hilbert space would not suffice.
  • A different perspective is offered regarding the uniqueness of the completion of a pre-Hilbert space, emphasizing the isometric isomorphism between different completions.
  • Participants discuss the relationship between tensor products of finite-dimensional vector spaces and Hilbert spaces, noting that the same principles apply due to the vector space nature of Hilbert spaces.
  • There is a distinction made between Hamel bases and orthonormal bases, with emphasis on the implications of this difference in infinite-dimensional spaces.
  • One participant suggests that the notion of an orthonormal basis is crucial for understanding the tensor product of Hilbert spaces, particularly in the context of infinite sums.
  • Several participants recommend resources for further reading on the topic, including specific books that address these concepts in detail.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

While there is general agreement on the necessity of completion in defining the tensor product of Hilbert spaces, there are differing views on the implications of bases in finite versus infinite dimensions, particularly regarding the distinction between Hamel and orthonormal bases. The discussion remains unresolved on some nuances related to these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the tensor product of vector spaces and the implications of completeness in Hilbert spaces. There is also an acknowledgment of the complexities introduced by infinite-dimensional spaces, particularly concerning the nature of bases.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and researchers in mathematics and physics who are exploring the properties of Hilbert spaces, tensor products, and the underlying vector space structures.

Yoran91
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

I don't quite understand how tensor products of Hilbert spaces are formed.

What I get so far is that from two Hilbert spaces \mathscr{H}_1 and \mathscr{H}_2 a tensor product H_1 \otimes H_2 is formed by considering the Hilbert spaces as just vector spaces H_1 and H_2.

Next, there is an inner product on this space, which is defined by
\langle \phi_1 \otimes \phi_2 \vert \psi_1 \otimes \psi_2 \rangle \equiv \langle \phi_1 \vert \psi_1 \rangle_1 \langle \phi_2 \vert \psi_2 \rangle_2 on the simple or pure tensors on this tensor product space. This inner product is extended linearly to an inner product on all elemnets of the tensor product space.

This is where my understanding stops. The 'completion' of this tensor product space is now taken, and the result is a Hilbert space, which is then defined as the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces.
This seems weird to me, because it seems artificial - is the tensor product of Hilbert spaces defined such that its a Hilbert space again?

I don't really understand how taking the completion of a space works. Can anyone provide some insight as to how this works?

Thanks for any help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, we want the tensor product of two Hilbert spaces to form a Hilbert space again. If we didn't take the completion, then we would just end up with a pre-Hilbert space. We don't want this, so we take the completion.

The completion of a pre-Hilbert space ##E## is a Hilbert space ##H## with an isometric embedding ##i:E\rightarrow H## such that ##i(E)## is dense in ##H##. If ##i^\prime:E\rightarrow H^\prime## is another such completion, then there is an isometric isomorphism ##f:H\rightarrow H^\prime## such that ##f\circ i = i^\prime##. So the completion is unique up to isometric isomorphism.

A somewhat different description of the tensor product is the following: if ##\{e_i\}_{i\in I}## is an orthonormal basis for ##H_1## and ##\{f_j\}_{j\in J}## is an orthonormal basis for ##H_2##, then ##H_1\otimes H_2## is the Hilbert space with orthonormal basis formed by ##\{e_i\otimes f_j\}_{i\in I, j\in J}##. But this description is dependent of the basis.
 
Yes, the tensor product of two vector spaces is a vector space, so when we want to take the tensor product of two Hilbert spaces, we use the fact that Hilbert spaces are vector spaces. The tensor product of those vector spaces is a vector space, and it can be given an inner product in a natural way. But we want the result to be a Hilbert space, so if the result was a vector space that isn't complete, we use its completion instead, and call that the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces.

If you don't understand the tensor product of vector spaces, this thread should be useful.

The simplest example of completion is that the completion of ##\mathbb Q## is ##\mathbb R##. A sequence in ##\mathbb Q## is said to be a Cauchy sequence if for all ε>0, there's an open ball in ##\mathbb Q## with radius ε that contains all but a finite number of terms of the sequence. Let S be the set of Cauchy sequences in ##\mathbb Q##. We define a relation ~ on S by saying that
$$(x_n)_{n=1}^\infty\sim (y_n)_{n=1}^\infty\text{ if and only if }x_n-y_n\to 0.$$ This is an equivalence relation, so each member of S belongs to exactly one equivalence class. I will denote the equivalence class that contains the Cauchy sequence s by .

The the set of all that contain a constant sequence is obviously in bijective correspondence with ##\mathbb Q##. We can define ##\mathbb R## to be the set of all equivalence classes. In other words, for all in S, if contains a constant sequence, we interpret it as a rational number, and if it doesn't, we interpret it as an irrational real number.
 
Thanks for the help!

I understand now that the Hilbert tensor product of two Hilbert spaces is 'simply' the completion of the tensor product of the underlying vector spaces with respect to the inner product I gave above.
I have one more question, however. In the discussion of regular tensor products, if V and W are finite dimensional vector spaces, with bases v_i and w_j, then the set v_i \otimes w_j is a basis for the tensor product V\otimes W.

I read that the same holds if V and W are Hilbert spaces instead of vector spaces. Why is this?

Is there any good source (book) on this?
 
Yoran91 said:
In the discussion of regular tensor products, if V and W are finite dimensional vector spaces, with bases v_i and w_j, then the set v_i \otimes w_j is a basis for the tensor product V\otimes W.

I read that the same holds if V and W are Hilbert spaces instead of vector spaces. Why is this?
Because Hilbert spaces are vector spaces. (Unless I misunderstood the question, it's as simple as that).

Yoran91 said:
Is there any good source (book) on this?
I like this little book: http://books.google.com/books?id=yT56SqF0xpoC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
Yoran91 said:
Thanks for the help!

I understand now that the Hilbert tensor product of two Hilbert spaces is 'simply' the completion of the tensor product of the underlying vector spaces with respect to the inner product I gave above.
I have one more question, however. In the discussion of regular tensor products, if V and W are finite dimensional vector spaces, with bases v_i and w_j, then the set v_i \otimes w_j is a basis for the tensor product V\otimes W.

I read that the same holds if V and W are Hilbert spaces instead of vector spaces. Why is this?

The notion of basis makes sense in Hilbert space but it is pretty useless in the infinite-dimensional case. The notion that you want to consider is that of an "orthonormal basis". Despite the name, it is somewhat different from the bases in vector spaces.
In vector spaces, you know that ##\{e_i\}_{i\in I}## is a basis if every vector can be written as a finite linear combination of the basis vectors in a unique way. The set ##\{e_i\}_{i\in I}## is then called a (Hamel) basis.
The notion of "orthonormal basis requires all vectors ##\{e_i\}_{i\in I}## to satisfy that they are orthonormal, that is ##<e_i,e_j> = \delta_{ij}##. And furthermore, any vector can be written as a possibly infinite linear combination of the basis vectors.

So a Hamel basis only allows for finite sums. An orthonormal basis allows for infinite sums. With the definition of orthonormal basis, it is indeed true that ##\{e_i\otimes f_j\}_{i\in I, j\in J}## is an orthonormal basis of the tensor product provided that ##\{e_i\}_{i\in I}## and ##\{f_j\}_{j\in J}## are orthonormal bases. If you simply work with Hamel basises, then this fails (because you take the completion, so you add more elements which might not be a linear combination of the basis vectors).

Is there any good source (book) on this?

Fredrik's suggestion is nice. Reed and Simon is another very well-written book.
 
Fredrik said:
Because Hilbert spaces are vector spaces. (Unless I misunderstood the question, it's as simple as that).
Ah, now I see what you meant. You thought that the term "Hilbert space" implies that the space is infinite-dimensional. It doesn't. Every finite-dimensional inner product space over ℂ is a Hilbert space.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K