5
$\begingroup$

Let $T$ be an (unbounded) self-adjoint operator. Assume that there is a bounded operator $S$ such that $TS=ST.$ For which kind of $f$ do we have that $f(T)S=Sf(T)?$

My thought was that using a strategy exploiting Stone's formula for the resolvent and then the Stone-Weierstrass theorem one can show this for $f \in C_0(\mathbb{R}).$ (continuous functions tending to zero).

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is $S$ self-adjoint as well, or at least normal? If yes, then your claim holds for any $f$ by the spectral theorem for commuting families of self-adjoint (or normal) operators. Otherwise I do not know any reference, but your strategy seems to work well. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 10, 2017 at 9:22
  • $\begingroup$ Unfortunately no, $S$ should be some general operator. $\endgroup$
    – Zinkin
    Commented Aug 10, 2017 at 9:32

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Any bounded Borel function $f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$. If $TS = ST$ then (taking adjoint of both sides) $S^*T = TS^*$. Therefore both ${\rm Re}(S) = \frac{1}{2}(S + S^*)$ and ${\rm Im}(S) = \frac{1}{2i}(S - S^*)$ commute with $T$, and since they are self-adjoint it follows from standard spectral theory that they commute with $f(T)$. Taking linear combinations, $S$ commutes with $f(T)$.

Edit: here is a possibly more direct proof. Suppose $TS = ST$, meaning that $S$ preserves the domain of $T$ and they commute on this domain. Then the same is true with $T + iI$ in place of $T$ (since the domain doesn't change), and that operator is invertible. Multiplying both sides of $(T + iI)S = S(T + iI)$ by $(T + iI)^{-1}$ (no problems here, $(T + iI)^{-1}$ is bounded and takes everything into the domain of $T + iI$) yields $S(T + iI)^{-1} = (T + iI)^{-1}S$.

Now $(T + iI)^{-1}$ is normal (its adjoint is $(T - iI)^{-1}$), so by standard spectral theory $S$ commutes with every bounded Borel function of $(T + iI)^{-1}$. But every bounded Borel function of $T$ is also a bounded Borel function of $(T + iI)^{-1}$, QED.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ May I ask what is the statement of the spectral theorem for commuting operators which is used here? My understanding (e.g. Proposition 3.2 of arxiv.org/pdf/1406.6966.pdf) is that the spectral theorem is pretty tricky to formulate when we're dealing with two unbounded operators. But maybe things are simpler when one of the two operators is bounded? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 15, 2018 at 15:23
  • $\begingroup$ @AndréHenriques: fair enough. I think if $A$ and $B$ are self-adjoint, with $A$ bounded, and $AB = BA$ in the sense that $A$ preserves the domain of $B$ and they commute on this domain, then you can simultaneously realize them as multiplication operators. No doubt something like this is true even if both are unbounded. But I now see a more direct proof that doesn't use this, which I will add to my answer. $\endgroup$
    – Nik Weaver
    Commented Apr 15, 2018 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ I would be very interested to have a reference for your claim: namely that if $A$ and $B$ are self-adjoint, with $A$ bounded, and $AB=BA$ in the sense that $A$ preserves the domain of $B$ and they commute on this domain, then one can simultaneously realize them as multiplication operators. I have tried (for my own independent reasons) to look online for a version of the spectral theorem that states exactly that, and I haven't been able to locate one. So your help would be very welcome. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 15, 2018 at 16:51
  • $\begingroup$ It might be folklore. I don't know a reference. But the second proof I gave above is easily adapted to yield this conclusion --- if $S$ is self-adjoint and it commutes with the normal operator $(T + iI)^{-1}$, then they can be simultaneously realized as multiplication operators by usual bounded spectral theory. And $T$ would be a multiplication operator in this picture too. $\endgroup$
    – Nik Weaver
    Commented Apr 15, 2018 at 18:00
  • $\begingroup$ I just asked a follow-up question: mathoverflow.net/questions/298129/… $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2018 at 22:27

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.