The Spectral Theorem in Complex and Real Inner Product Space

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the differences between the Complex Spectral Theorem and the Real Spectral Theorem, particularly regarding the conditions under which operators in inner product spaces have orthonormal bases of eigenvectors. Participants explore the implications of normal and self-adjoint operators in both complex and real inner product spaces, as well as the nature of eigenvalues associated with these operators.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the Complex Spectral Theorem states that a complex inner product space has an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors if and only if the operator is normal, while the Real Spectral Theorem requires the operator to be self-adjoint.
  • Another participant explains that while normal operators satisfy the Complex Spectral Theorem, they do not necessarily satisfy the Real Spectral Theorem unless they have real eigenvalues, which implies self-adjointness.
  • A participant proposes that proving a normal operator with real eigenvalues is self-adjoint could bridge the understanding between the two theorems.
  • One participant shares a lemma regarding self-adjoint operators, stating that they have real eigenvalues, and questions whether the factorization of a polynomial guarantees real roots under certain conditions.
  • Several participants discuss the implications of the minimal polynomial of normal operators and how it relates to the structure of eigenspaces in both complex and real spaces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definitions and implications of the Complex and Real Spectral Theorems but express differing views on the necessity of self-adjointness in the real case and the conditions under which normal operators can have real eigenvalues. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the sufficiency of certain proofs and the implications of polynomial roots.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the dependence on definitions of normal and self-adjoint operators, as well as the conditions under which eigenvalues are considered real. The discussion also touches on the limitations of theorems based on the dimensionality of the vector space and the nature of the minimal polynomial.

vish_maths
Messages
60
Reaction score
1
Hi

I am going through Sheldon Axler - Linear Algebra Done right. The book States the Complex Spectral Theorem as :

Suppose that V is a complex inner product space and T is in L(V,V). Then V has an orthonormal basis consisting of eigen vectors of T if and only if T is normal.

The proof of this theorem seems fine. It uses the property that ||Tv|| = ||T*v|| for a normal operator T, where T* is the adjoint of T.However, the Real Spectral Theorem States that V has an orthonormal basis consisting of eigen vectors of T if and if only if T is self adjoint.

My Doubt : Why does Real Spectral Theorem take into account only self adjoint operators as a necessary condition despite the fact that an operator can be normal and still not self adjoint. When it's normal, the property ||Tv|| = ||T*v|| should be still valid for real inner product space which leads to the desired result.

Would be great if somebody could give me an insight. Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The complex spectral theorem states that exactly the normal operators are the operators which are orthogonally diagonalizable.
The real spectral theorem states that it are the self-adjoint operators. Why the difference?

The real spectral theorem asks for which matrices A\in M_n(\mathbb{R}), there exists an orthogonal basis \{v_1,...,v_n\} and real numbers \lambda_i such that Av_i=\lambda v_i.

Of course, if A satisfies the real spectral theorem, then it satisfies the complex spectral theorem. But vice versa is not the case. Let A be a normal operator, then it satisfies the complex spectral theorem. This means that there exists an orthogonal basis \{v_1,...,v_n\} and complex numbers \lambda_i such that Av_i=\lambda v_i.

But in order to satisfy the real spectral theorem, we demand the \lambda_i to be real (and we demand that entries of A to be real).
So the matrices satisfying the real spectral theorem are exactly the (real) normal matrices with real eigenvalues. Now, it turns out that if a normal matrix has only real eigenvalues, then it is self-adjoint. This is why only self-adjoint matrices satisfy the real spectral theorem.
 
micromass said:
The complex spectral theorem states that exactly the normal operators are the operators which are orthogonally diagonalizable.
The real spectral theorem states that it are the self-adjoint operators. Why the difference?

The real spectral theorem asks for which matrices A\in M_n(\mathbb{R}), there exists an orthogonal basis \{v_1,...,v_n\} and real numbers \lambda_i such that Av_i=\lambda v_i.

Of course, if A satisfies the real spectral theorem, then it satisfies the complex spectral theorem. But vice versa is not the case. Let A be a normal operator, then it satisfies the complex spectral theorem. This means that there exists an orthogonal basis \{v_1,...,v_n\} and complex numbers \lambda_i such that Av_i=\lambda v_i.

But in order to satisfy the real spectral theorem, we demand the \lambda_i to be real (and we demand that entries of A to be real).
So the matrices satisfying the real spectral theorem are exactly the (real) normal matrices with real eigenvalues. Now, it turns out that if a normal matrix has only real eigenvalues, then it is self-adjoint. This is why only self-adjoint matrices satisfy the real spectral theorem.

Hi Micromass,

So, if i prove that if the eigen values of a normal operator T's matrix are all real, then T is self adjoint , this should prove the real spectral theorem from the complex spectral theorem.

Attempt: Given that : T T* = T* T and T is real .
To prove that : T is self adjoint.

Proof : T is normal => ||Tv||=||T*v|| . Now, this means from the complex spectral theorem that T has a diagonal matrix with complex entries.

But, T is real => while calculating the modulus of the column vectors, we can deduce that
the entries on the diagonal are actually real with 0 imaginary components.

=> T is self adjoint since a self adjoint operator has all real eigen values.

Thanks Micromass :)
 
Here is an excerpt from the math 4050 notes on my web page:

Cor: Structure of normal operators.
Assume T:V-->V is a normal operator on a finite dimensional inner product space.
1) If V is a complex space, with minimal polynomial m(T) = ∏(t-cj)^dj, all cj distinct, then V decomposes into an orthogonal direct sum of eigenspaces Vj = ker(T-cj). I.e., all dj = 1, and there is an orthonormal basis of V in which the matrix of T is diagonal.

2) If V is a real space, with minimal polynomial m = ∏(t-ci)^di∏qj^ej, all ci distinct real scalars, and all qj distinct irreducible real monic quadratic polynomials, then
i) V is an orthogonal direct sum of the invariant subspaces ker∏(T-ci) and ker∏qj(T).
ii) The eigenspaces ker∏(T-ci) decompose into one dimensional invariant subspaces, and the invariant subspaces ker∏qj(T) decompose into indecomposable invariant two dimensional subspaces, on each of which qj is the minimal polynomial.
iii) In particular all di =1, and all ej =1. The matrix of T on the eigenspace ker∏(T-ci) is diagonal with ci along the diagonal, and the matrix of T on ker∏qj(T) is a block matrix with 2 by 2 matrices of form
|aj -bj |
|bj aj |, along the diagonal, where the roots of qj are aj ± i bj.
We get all the theorems from steps 1) and 2) by induction.
 
mathwonk said:
Here is an excerpt from the math 4050 notes on my web page:

Cor: Structure of normal operators.
Assume T:V-->V is a normal operator on a finite dimensional inner product space.
1) If V is a complex space, with minimal polynomial m(T) = ∏(t-cj)^dj, all cj distinct, then V decomposes into an orthogonal direct sum of eigenspaces Vj = ker(T-cj). I.e., all dj = 1, and there is an orthonormal basis of V in which the matrix of T is diagonal.

2) If V is a real space, with minimal polynomial m = ∏(t-ci)^di∏qj^ej, all ci distinct real scalars, and all qj distinct irreducible real monic quadratic polynomials, then
i) V is an orthogonal direct sum of the invariant subspaces ker∏(T-ci) and ker∏qj(T).
ii) The eigenspaces ker∏(T-ci) decompose into one dimensional invariant subspaces, and the invariant subspaces ker∏qj(T) decompose into indecomposable invariant two dimensional subspaces, on each of which qj is the minimal polynomial.
iii) In particular all di =1, and all ej =1. The matrix of T on the eigenspace ker∏(T-ci) is diagonal with ci along the diagonal, and the matrix of T on ker∏qj(T) is a block matrix with 2 by 2 matrices of form
|aj -bj |
|bj aj |, along the diagonal, where the roots of qj are aj ± i bj.
We get all the theorems from steps 1) and 2) by induction.

Hi Mathwonk, Thanks a lot. These are helpful.My another query was this lemma :

Suppose T in L(V,V) is self adjoint. Then T has real eigen values.V is a real inner product space

Proof : Let n = dim V and choose v in V with v ≠ 0. Then

(v, Tv , ... , T^n v ) cannot be linearly independent because V has dimension n and we have n+1 vectors. Thus, there exist real numbers ao , ..., an, not all 0 such that

0 = aov + a1Tv+...+anT^n v
= c (T^2 +mT + nI ) ( T^2 + rT+sI)(T - k1I) ... ( T - k2I)

the above factorisation is such that m^2<4n and r^2<4s

Now, we also know that since T is self adjoint each of the quadratic expressions above is invertible . Hence, the roots lie amongst the linear expressions.

However, How can the linear expressions guarantee a real root ( Although i can give an another proof to validate that a self adjoint does have real eigen values but does this expression solely substantiate the cause of T having real eigen values ? ) . Only when the degree of the above equation n is odd , can we be sure that it would by force, have a real eigen value else, we can't be sure.
I would love to hear your views about this.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K