Understanding the Adjoint of a Linear Transformation on an Inner Product Space

pivoxa15
Messages
2,250
Reaction score
1
Definition: Let f:V->V be a linear transformation on an inner product space V. The adjoint f* of f is a linear transformation f*:V->V satisfying
<f(v),w>=<v,f*(w)> for all v,w in V.


My question is would <f*(v),w>=<v,f(w)> be equivalent to the above formula in the definition? If so why?

where <,> denote inner products.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, it would be equivalent to your restricted definition. However, a more common, more general definition of "adjoint" is
If f is a linear transformation from one inner product space, U, to another inner product space, V, then the adjoint of f, f*, is the function from V to U such that
<f(u),v>V= <u, f*(v)>U. The subscripts indicate that < , >V is the inner product in V, < , >U is the inner product in U. Of course, since f is from U to V, in order for f(u) to be defined, u must be in U and then f(u) is in V. Conversely, in order for f*(v) to be defined v must be in V and then f*(v) is in U.
In that case, you could not just reverse the inner product. It is still true, however, that "adjoint" is a "dual" concept; the adjoint of f* is f itself.

(Oh, and the very important special case of "self-adjoint" only applies in the case of f:U-> U.)
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top