Let $H$ be a Hilbert space, and $T:D(T)\subset H\rightarrow H$ and $S:D(S)\subset H\rightarrow H$ be unbounded self-adjoint operators.

Is $T+S:D(T)\cap D(S)\rightarrow H$ self-adjoint?

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Usually, $T+S$ is not even densely defined. $\endgroup$ – Andreas Thom Feb 26 '13 at 14:48

The answer is no. $\newcommand{\bR}{\mathbb{R}}$ Consider the Hilbert space of $L^2$-functions

$$ u:[0,1]\to \bR^2,\;\;u(t)=(x(t), y(t)) . $$


$$ D(T)=\Bigl\lbrace u\in H;\;\int_0^1 \bigl\vert u'(t)\bigr\vert^2 dt <\infty,\;;\;x(0)=x(1)=0\;\Bigr\rbrace, $$

$$ D(S)=\Bigl\lbrace u\in H;\;\int_0^1 \bigl|u'(t)\bigr|^2 dt <\infty,\;;\;y(0)=y(1)=0\;\Bigr\rbrace. $$

Denote by $J:\bR^2\to\bR^2$ the linear operator $(x,y)\mapsto (-y,x)$. For $u\in D(T)$ defines

$$ Tu=J\frac{du}{dt}, $$

while for $ u\in D(S)$ define

$$ Su=J\frac{du}{dt}. $$

Both operators $S$ and $T$ are selfadjoint. Note that

$$ D(T)\cap D(S)= \Bigl\lbrace u\in H;\;\int_0^1 \bigl|u'(t)\bigr|^2 dt <\infty,\;\;u(0)=u(1)=0\,\Bigr\rbrace. $$

The operator $A:=T+S:D(A)= D(T)\cap D(S)\to H$ is symmetric, but not selfadjoint. Indeed, $ v\in D(A^*)$ if and only if, there exists $C>0$ such that

$$ \bigl\vert\;(Au, v)_{H} \;\bigr\vert \leq C\Vert u\Vert_H,\;\;\forall u\in D(A). $$

The constant function $t\mapsto v(t)= (1,1)$ satisfies this condition because for any $u\in D(A)$ we have

$$ (Au, v)_H=\int_0^1 \bigl(\; 2Ju'(t), v(t)\;\bigr) dt = 2\int_0^1\frac{d}{dt} \bigl(\; Ju(t), v(t)\;\bigr) =0. $$

We have produced a function $v\in D(A^*)\setminus D(A)$.

  • $\begingroup$ you may want to fix the boundary conditions in the domains and possibly also the operators, which are currently the same. $\endgroup$ – Delio Mugnolo Feb 26 '13 at 18:49
  • $\begingroup$ The boundary conditions are different. The philosophy of this example goes bak about 10 years to work of H. Weyl. Thr selfadjoint extensions of a symmetric operator are classified by the lagrangian subspaces of a certain symplectic vector space associated to this operator. The symmetric extensions correspond to the isotropic subspaces of this symplectic space. I chose the boundary conditions following this principle. The operators I've just described play an important role in symplectic Floer theory. $\endgroup$ – Liviu Nicolaescu Feb 27 '13 at 10:30
  • $\begingroup$ 100 years perhaps? $\endgroup$ – Igor Khavkine Feb 27 '13 at 11:31
  • $\begingroup$ Yep!I meant 100 years. It was really early when I wrote that. L $\endgroup$ – Liviu Nicolaescu Feb 27 '13 at 12:18
  • $\begingroup$ I agree with your idea. I was just saying that there was a typo in your formulae - and there still is. What does it mean $x(0)=x(1)=0$, since you are introducing a class of functions $u$? $\endgroup$ – Delio Mugnolo Feb 27 '13 at 17:55

This is one of the central problems of modern mathematical physics. One could fill libraries with the mathematics generated by the most important special case---the Schrödinger operator. Mathematically, this is the question of when the sum of the Laplace operator and a multiplication operator on $L^2$ is self-adjoint (more precisely, essentially self-adjoint). The writings of Barry Simon, many of which are available online, are a good place to start.


Let $T:D(T)\to H$ be a self-adjoint unbounded operator.

Take $S=-T$ with domain $D(S)=D(T)$.

Then $S$ is a self-adjoint unbounded operator but the sum $T+S$ is the null operator $0:D(T)\to H$, which is not self-adjoint if $D(T)\neq H$.

  • $\begingroup$ Really clear simple counterexample. $\endgroup$ – Tom Collinge Apr 17 '17 at 11:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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