Unifying Different Definitions of Adjoint Map

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter WWGD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definitions Map
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the potential unification of different definitions of adjoint maps in linear algebra and functional analysis. Participants explore the relationships between the adjoint of a linear map in the context of finite-dimensional vector spaces and the adjoint defined in inner-product spaces, considering both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the adjoint of a linear map and the adjoint in inner-product spaces are essentially the same, with the first definition being more general.
  • Another participant questions the equivalence, asking for specific inner-products that could express the dual relationship and vice versa.
  • A participant distinguishes between the Banach adjoint and the Hilbert adjoint, asserting that they are not special cases of a general formula and that (2) is not a special case of (1).
  • It is noted that the Riesz representation theorem allows for the definition of the Hilbert adjoint using the Banach adjoint, suggesting a relationship between the two definitions.
  • One participant emphasizes the isomorphism between an inner product space and its dual, arguing that this connects the two definitions of adjoint maps.
  • Additional resources and attempts to explain adjoints are shared by participants, indicating ongoing exploration of the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the definitions of adjoint maps can be unified or if they represent distinct concepts. There is no consensus on a single broader definition that encompasses both definitions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about finite-dimensional spaces and the applicability of the Riesz representation theorem, which may not hold in infinite-dimensional contexts. The nuances of the definitions and their interrelations remain unresolved.

WWGD
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,804
Reaction score
13,111
Hi, this question seem to fall somewhere between Analysis and Algebra;
I just choose this section; sorry if it is the wrong one. I would appreciate
any suggestions, refs., etc.

I'm basically trying to see if the different definitions of adjoint
maps can be unified into a single definition:

1) Adjoint of a linear map: given a linear map L:V-->W between f.d
vector spaces V,W , the adjoint map L*: W*-->V* is given by, for w* in W*,
for v in V :

L*[(w*)(v)]:=w*(L(v)).

2) Given an inner-product space (V, < ,>) , and a linear map L:V-->V,
the adjoint L* (which may not exist if V is infinite-dimensional) is
defined as L* satisfying:

<Lv,w>=<v,L*w>

for any v,w in V.

Can these two definitions of adjoint be unified into a single, broader
definition of adjoint map?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They are basically the same. The first definition is more general. The second is specifically for inner product spaces.
 
Thanks, but, in what sense are they basically the same? Can you think of an inner-product so that the linear dual can be expressed as an adjoint and viceversa, can the inner-product adjoint be expressed as a linear dual somehow?
 
WWGD said:
Thanks, but, in what sense are they basically the same? Can you think of an inner-product so that the linear dual can be expressed as an adjoint and viceversa, can the inner-product adjoint be expressed as a linear dual somehow?

The adjoint from (1) is usually called the Banach adjoint. The adjoint in (2) is the Hilbert adjoint. The two are not special cases of some general formula. In particular, (2) is not a special case of (1).

Let's work in general Banach and Hilbert spaces here, but let's take everything finite-dimensional (extensions to infinite dimensions exist, but are more technical). So a Banach space here will be a finite-dimensional real vector space (this can always be equipped with a suitable and essentially unique norm). A Hilbert space here is a finite-dimensional real inner-product space.

However, we can use (1) to define (2). The reason is that a Hilbert space satisfies a very particular property called the Riesz representation theorem. It says that

\Phi<img src="/styles/physicsforums/xenforo/smilies/arghh.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":H" title="Gah! :H" data-shortname=":H" />\rightarrow H^*:x\rightarrow &lt; -,x&gt;

is a isomorphism of vector spaces for each Hilbert space.

Then let ##L:H_1\rightarrow H_2## be a linear map between Hilbert spaces. Let ##\Phi_1## and ##\Phi_2## be the above maps for ##H_1## and ##H_2## respectively. Let ##L^\prime:H_2^*\rightarrow H_1^*## be the Banach adjoint. Then we can define the Hilbert adjoint as ##L^*(x) = \Phi_1^{-1}(L^\prime(\Phi_2(x)))##.

It is sometimes standard to identify ##H## with ##H^\prime## through ##\Phi##. So we set ##x = <-,x>##. With this abuse of notation, the Hilbert adjoint is a special case of the Banach adjoint.
 
Yes, I understand that, I know of the Riesz representation theorem, and I too am aware of Riesz representation and how it is used to define the Hilbert adjoint, but the question is whether one of these is a form of the other, or if there is a more general definition that covers both. Maybe I didn't ask the question clearly-enough.
 
Last edited:
Given a vector space, V, its dual, V*, is the space of linear "functionals" on V- that is, the set of a linear functions from V to the real numbers. Given an "inner product space", with inner product, <u, v>, we can associate the functional f(x)= <x, v> to the vector v. That is an isomorphism from the inner product space V to its dual, V*, and maps the "adjoint" defined on inner product spaces to the "adjoint" defined on the general vector spaces.

(That's essentially what micromass said. I don't see why you do not think he completely answered your question.)
 
Here's another answer in case anyone's interested:

http://at.yorku.ca/cgi-bin/bbqa?forum=ask_an_analyst&task=show_msg&msg=4631.0001
 
Last edited by a moderator:
here is my attempt to explain adjoints, see pages 50-60:

http://www.math.uga.edu/%7Eroy/4050sum08.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K