Let $E$ be a complex Hilbert space and $\mathcal{L}(E)$ be the algebra of all bounded linear operators on $E$.

For $A= (A_1,\cdots,A_d)\in\mathcal{L}(E)^d$ (not necessary to be commuting). Why $$\lim_{n\to+\infty}\bigg(\bigg\|\sum_{f\in F(n,d)} A_{f}^* A_{f}\bigg\|^{\frac{1}{2n}} \bigg)\;\text{exists}?,$$ where $F(n,d)$ denotes the set of all functions from $\{1,\cdots,n\}$ into $\{1,\cdots,d\}$ and $A_f:=A_{f(1)}\cdots A_{f(n)}$, for $f\in F(n,d)$.

I try to apply Fekete's lemma: For every subadditive sequence $(a_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}^*}$, the limit $\displaystyle \lim _{n\to \infty }\frac{a_n}{n}$ exists and is equal to $\displaystyle \inf_{n\in \mathbb{N}^*}\frac{a_n}{n}$. (The limit may be ${\displaystyle -\infty }$).

But I'm facing difficulties in the choice of the sequence $(a_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}^*}$.

Thank you for your help.


2 Answers 2


A simple calculation shows that $$\sum_{f\in F(n+m,d)}A_f^*A_f=\sum_{g\in F(m,d)} A_g^*\left(\sum_{f\in F(n,d)}A_f^*A_f\right)A_g$$ Let $a_n:=\left\|\sum_{f\in F(n,d)}A_f^*A_f\right\|$. By use of the above equality we have $$0\leq a_{m+n}\leq a_ma_n$$ so $\lim_n a_n^{\frac 1n}$ exists.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Could you explain in more detail how you obtain the submultiplicative inequality? $\endgroup$
    – R W
    Jan 24, 2018 at 20:39
  • $\begingroup$ A matrix trick will show that. In fact, for any positive operator $E$ and any collection $D_1,\ldots,D_m$ of operators, one has $$\|\sum_{j=1}^{m}D_j^{*}ED_j \| \leq \|\sum_{j=1}^{m}D_j^{*}D_j\|\cdot\|E\|.$$ $\endgroup$
    – T. Le
    Jan 24, 2018 at 20:56

Short answer: because it's an instance of the spectral radius formula.

Details. Let's start with the following inequality on operator norms. Given a finite family $A:=(A_j)_{j\in J}$ of operators $A_j \in\mathcal{L}(H)$, and a symmetric operator $L\in \mathcal{L}_{sym}(H)$, one has $$\big\|\sum_{j\in J}A_j^*LA_j\big\|\le \big\|\sum_{j\in J}A_j^*A_j\big\|\ \|L\|\ ,$$ with an obvious equality, incidentally, for $L=I$. Indeed, for any $x\in H$, $$ \big(\sum_{j\in J}A_j^*LA_jx, \ x\big) = \sum_{j\in J}(A_j^*LA_jx,x) = \sum_{j\in J}(LA_jx,A_jx)\le \sum_{j\in J}\|L\|(A_jx,A_jx)$$ $$= \|L\| \sum_{j\in J}(A_j^*A_jx,x)\le\|L\|\ \big\|\sum_{j\in J}A_j^*A_j\big\|\ \|x\|^2,$$ and since the same holds for $-L$ the claimed inequality between operator norms follows.

We can interpret the latter in the following simple way: the bounded linear operator ${\bf T} \in\mathcal{L} \big(\mathcal{L}_{sym}(H)\big)$ defined by ${\bf T} L=\sum_{j\in J}A^*_jLA_j\in \mathcal{L}_{sym}(H)$ for any $L\in \mathcal{L}_{sym}(H)$ has operator norm $\|{\bf T} \|=\|\sum_{j\in J}A_j^*A_j\big\|$.

Also note that ${\bf T}^n$ is of the same nature of ${\bf T}$, corresponding to a larger family, namely $(A_f)_{f\in J^n}$:

$${\bf T}^nL=\sum_{f\in J^n} A_f^*LA_f $$ so that in particular $\|{\bf T}^n\|=\|\sum_{f\in J^n} A_f^*A_f\|$, and the limit you wrote is (the square root of) the spectral radius of ${\bf T}$, namely $$\rho({\bf T})=\lim_{n\to \infty}\|{\bf T}^n\|^{1/n}=\inf_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\|{\bf T}^n\|^{1/n}.$$

  • $\begingroup$ I think that in order to get $$\big\|\sum_{j\in J}A_j^*LA_j\big\|\le \big\|\sum_{j\in J}A_j^*A_j\big\|\ \|L\|\ ,$$ the operator $L$ should be positive not $L\in \mathcal{L}_{sym}(H)$. $\endgroup$
    – Student
    Feb 1, 2018 at 16:45
  • $\begingroup$ I added a line of explanation. Is it ok now? $\endgroup$ Feb 1, 2018 at 16:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes. Incidentally $\mathbf{T}$ is completely positive. $\endgroup$
    – lcv
    Feb 1, 2018 at 20:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Icv and what is the Stinespring representation of ${\bf T}$? $\endgroup$ Feb 1, 2018 at 22:43

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.