0
$\begingroup$

Let $H$ be a complex Hilbert space (not necessary separable).

Spectral Theorem: Let $A_1$ and $A_2$ be two commuting normal operators, then there exists a measure space $(X,\mathcal{E},\mu)$, two functions $\varphi_1,\varphi_2\in L^\infty(\mu)$ and a unitary operator $U:H\longrightarrow L^2(\mu)$, such that each $A_k$ is unitarily equivalent to multiplication by $\varphi_k$, $k=1,2$. i.e. $$UA_kU^*f=\varphi_kf,\;\forall f\in H,\,k=1,2.$$

Is $\mu$ semifinite? i.e. for each $E \in \mathcal{E}$ with $\mu(E) = \infty$ , there exists $F \subset E$ and $F \in \mathcal{E}$ and $0 < \mu(F) < \infty$.

If $H$ is a separable complex Hilbert space, then $(X,\mathcal{E},\mu)$ is a $\sigma$-finite measure space and so $\mu$ is semifinite.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $\mu$ has an infinite atom, then every $L^2$ function must vanish on that set, so it might as well not be there at all. This suggests that you should be able to replace $\mu$ by its semifinite part and get the same $L^2$ space, though I have not checked the details. $\endgroup$
    – Nate Eldredge
    Commented Mar 7, 2018 at 15:30
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, wrong link: I meant math.stackexchange.com/questions/393985/… $\endgroup$
    – Nate Eldredge
    Commented Mar 7, 2018 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ @NateEldredge When we remplace $\mu$ by its semifinite part that doen't mean that $\mu$ is semifinite. Do you agree with me? $\endgroup$
    – Student
    Commented Mar 9, 2018 at 5:06
  • $\begingroup$ What I am asserting is that there always exists a semifinite measure satisfying the given properties. Of course, there will always exist non-semifinite ones as well (take any such measure and if it's semifinite then consider a space with one additional point that has measure infinity). My suspicion is that you can prove there's a semifinite one by saying "let $\mu$ be a measure satisfying the conclusion of the spectral theorem; if it is not semifinite, let $\mu_0$ be its semifinite part and then $\mu_0$ satisfies." But I can't quite finish the proof of this. $\endgroup$
    – Nate Eldredge
    Commented Mar 9, 2018 at 16:06
  • $\begingroup$ @NateEldredge Yes I understand and thank. The answer of Nik Weaver says that $\mu$ is localizable but I don't understand very well the difference between localizable and semifinite. $\endgroup$
    – Student
    Commented Mar 9, 2018 at 16:10

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

The answer is yes. Let me explain why.

Let $v \in E$ be any nonzero vector. Then define $E_0$ to be the closure of the set of vectors of the form $p(A_1,A_1^*, A_2, A_2^*)v$ where $p$ is a complex polynomial. By restricting $p$ to have rational coefficients you can see that $E_0$ is separable. Now the point is that $A_1E_0 \subseteq E_0$ and $A_1E_0^\perp \subseteq E_0^\perp$, and similarly for $A_1^*$, $A_2$, and $A_2^*$. I.e., $E_0$ is a "reducing" subspace. Now you can Zornicate and get a family of mutually orthogonal separable subspaces $E_\alpha$, each of which is reducing for $A_1$ and $A_2$, and which span all of $E$. Apply the spectral theorem separately on each $E_\alpha$.

This shows you something even stronger than semifiniteness --- it shows you that $\mu$ is localizable: the measure space can be decomposed into a disjoint family of finite measure subsets, such that the measure of any set is the sum of the measures of its intersections with the members of this family.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
13
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer but I don't understand why $A_1E_0 \subseteq E_0$ and $A_1E_0^\perp \subseteq E_0^\perp$? $\endgroup$
    – Student
    Commented Mar 8, 2018 at 15:59
  • $\begingroup$ Well, these are exercises. $E_0$ is the smallest subspace which is closed in norm and closed under application of $A_1$, $A_1^*$, $A_2$, and $A_2^*$. $\endgroup$
    – Nik Weaver
    Commented Mar 8, 2018 at 16:16
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. I think that a localizable measure is not in general $\sigma$-finite. Do you agree with me? $\endgroup$
    – Student
    Commented Mar 8, 2018 at 20:16
  • $\begingroup$ No, for example counting measure on any set is localizable. It is a generalization of $\sigma$-finiteness to the nonseparable setting. Here is a little primer on localizablility for you (from a book of mine which is in press). $\endgroup$
    – Nik Weaver
    Commented Mar 8, 2018 at 20:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To be pedantic, I guess we should say that $\mu$ can be taken localizable. There is not a unique $\mu$ satisfying the theorem, and there will certainly exist such $\mu$ that are not semifinite. $\endgroup$
    – Nate Eldredge
    Commented Mar 9, 2018 at 16:08
1
$\begingroup$

If we replace $\mu$ by its semifinite part $\mu_1$ defined as $$ \mu_{1}(E) = \sup\{\mu(A) \mid A \subseteq E \text{ measurable, } \mu(A)< \infty\} \quad \text{for }E \in \mathcal{E}, $$ we have by the following answer (1): $$L^2(\mu)"=" L^2(\mu_1).$$

Thus $\mu$ can be taken semifinite measure.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .