3
$\begingroup$

Suppose $H$ is a Hilbert space with orthonormal basis $\{e_i\}_{i\in \mathbb N}$. To every operator $T$, we associate a infinite matrix $[T_{ij}]$, where $T_{ij}=\left<Te_j,e_i\right>$. We know that for any trace class operator $T$, the trace norm is $||T||_1=\operatorname{Tr}(|T|) $.

Q). Suppose $T$ is a trace class operator and $S$ is such that its matrix entries are either equal to the matrix entries of $T$ or they vanish (possibly at infinite number of points). Can I say that $||S||_1\leq ||T||_1$? If not, is there any finite upper bound to such $S$ obtained from $T$?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SinaBaghal fixed. It was a mistake $\endgroup$
    – NewB
    Jul 13, 2021 at 16:28
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If I remember well there is a counterexample in the paper The main triangle projection in matrix spaces and its applications by A. Pelczynski and S. Kwapien; Studia Math. 34 (1970), 43-67. $\endgroup$
    – Dirk Werner
    Jul 13, 2021 at 16:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Since the trace class norm and the operator norm are in duality, wouldn't your multiplier have the same norm in either case? $\endgroup$
    – Dirk Werner
    Jul 13, 2021 at 21:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is clearly so when $T$ has a finite support and therefore also when $T$ does not have finite support. (The finitely supported matrices / operators are dense in the trace class; and $S_n= Q_n T Q_n$ where $Q_n$ is the orthogonal projection onto $\{e_1,\dots,e_n\}^\perp$.) $\endgroup$
    – Dirk Werner
    Jul 18, 2021 at 10:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ `Also trace class can be identified with projective tensor product of Hilbert space': Once you know that, it follows that $H_0\otimes H_0$ is dense, with $H_0=$ linear span of the basis vectors $e_1, e_2, \dots$. $\endgroup$
    – Dirk Werner
    Jul 19, 2021 at 19:34

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
10
$\begingroup$

Here's an algorithm for testing an ad-hoc conjecture $C$ about Hilbert space operators. :-)

  1. Set up the runtime environment correctly by loading the information "Most conjectures are false" into short term memory.

  2. Test $C$ against the zero and the identity operator.

  3. Test $C$ against finite-dimensional diagonal matrices.

  4. Test $C$ against multiplication operators on $\ell^2$ and $L^2$.

  5. Test $C$ against the following $2 \times 2$-matrices: $$ \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}, \quad \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}. $$

  6. Test $C$ against simple modifications (appropriate to the setting of $C$) of the matrices from Step 4.

  7. Write a computer programm to test $C$ against randomly generated $2 \times 2$-matrices; make sure to restrict the matrices that your random generator creates to the set of matrices that occur in $C$.

  8. Repeat Step 6 with $3 \times 3$-matrices.

  9. If you have not found a counterexample yet, there might be a reason to believe that $C$ holds.

Of course this should not be taken completely seriously - but often it works. In my experience, for many ad-hoc conjectures the algorithm stops at Step 5 or earlier. The question from the OP adds another data point to this pattern:

The matrix $$ T = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix} $$ has trace norm $2$, but the matrix $$ S = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ has trace norm $$ \frac{1 + \sqrt{5}}{2} + \frac{\lvert 1 - \sqrt{5} \rvert}{2} = \sqrt{5} > 2. $$

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ +2 if I could, for the answer, and the humour. $\endgroup$
    – Matthew Daws
    Jul 14, 2021 at 8:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also, note that taking suitably large direct sums of this counter-example shows that there is no hope of the conjecture "holding up to a constant" either (which the OP did ask about). $\endgroup$
    – Matthew Daws
    Jul 14, 2021 at 8:30
  • $\begingroup$ @MatthewDaws: Thanks for your comments! Yepp, I agree. The direct sum construction is also quite a useful way to built easy counterexamples. :-) I should probably add this to the list, together with a few typical infinite-dimensional candidates for counterexamples. But at the moment I urgently need to go to bed, so I'll postpone it to a moment when I'm really awake... $\endgroup$
    – Jochen Glueck
    Jul 16, 2021 at 1:34
  • $\begingroup$ @JochenGlueck Thank you! that is a very nice algorithm :) . $\endgroup$
    – NewB
    Jul 16, 2021 at 12:45
  • $\begingroup$ I understand the direct sum argument. Now lets us fix a trace class operator $T$ and define $S_n$ for each $n$ entrywise as $(S_n)_{ij}=T_{ij}$ if $i,j>n$ and 0 else where. Now do you think Is it possible in general to choose $n$ large enough such that $||S_n||_1$ is as small as we wish? $\endgroup$
    – NewB
    Jul 16, 2021 at 18:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.