4
$\begingroup$

Let $A$ be a symmetric matrix in $\mathbb R^n$ such that $A$ is positive definite and hence satisfies $0< \lambda \le A \le \Lambda < \infty.$

Let $T$ be a densely defined and closed operator from some Hilbert space $H$ into $H^n$. It is a classical theorem by John von Neumann that $T^*T$ is self-adjoint with domain $D(T^*T).$

I wonder whether it is true that for some $C>0$

$$\Vert \langle AT,T \rangle x \Vert \le C (\Vert T^*T x \Vert + \Vert x \Vert) \text{ and all } x \in D(T^*T).$$

Similarly, it seems natural to ask whether we also have that

$$\Vert T^*T x \Vert \le C (\Vert \langle AT,T \rangle x \Vert + \Vert x \Vert) \text{ and all } x \in D(\langle AT,T \rangle)?$$

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Is $A$ fixed, or is it a function of $x$? Do you really allow for $\Lambda = \infty$? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 7, 2020 at 7:02
  • $\begingroup$ @MateuszKwaśnicki I don't want $\Lambda=\infty$, sorry. I am surprised it would make a difference whether $A$ depends on $x$. Does it hold only for non $x$-dependent $A$? $\endgroup$
    – Kung Yao
    Commented Apr 7, 2020 at 7:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $P(D)$ has constant coefficients, and all operators act on $L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$, then the domain of $P(D)$ is indeed $W^{2,2}(\mathbb{R}^n)$: just have a look on the Fourier transform. However, if $A$ is a (non-smooth) function of $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$, then the domain of $P(D)$ can get quite unrelated to the domain of $\Delta$. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 7, 2020 at 7:39
  • $\begingroup$ @MateuszKwaśnicki I see, is there also a proof that does not rely on the Fourier transform?-I am just wondering whether it is true in general for $T$ closed and densely-defined that $\langle A T,T\rangle $ is relatively $T^*T$ bounded under the above assumptions on $A$ (and assuming it is constant)-and such a proof could somehow give hints whether this is indeed true. $\endgroup$
    – Kung Yao
    Commented Apr 7, 2020 at 8:08

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

As I understand your question now, after edit, in dimension two you ask whether $$ \|T_2^* T_1 x\| \leqslant C(\|T_1^* T_1 x + T_2^* T_2 x\| + \|x\|) $$ whenever $T_1$, $T_2$ are densely defined closed operators; $C$ can depend on $T_1$ and $T_2$.

This need not be the case. Let $T_1$ be the identity operator acting on $\ell^2$, and let $T_2$ be given by the matrix $$ T_2 = \pmatrix{0&1&0&0&0&0&\cdots\\0&0&0&0&0&0&\cdots\\0&0&0&2&0&0&\cdots\\0&0&0&0&0&0&\cdots\\0&0&0&0&0&3&\cdots\\0&0&0&0&0&0&\cdots\\\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots} . $$ Then $$ T_1^* T_1 + T_2^* T_2= \pmatrix{1&0&0&0&0&0&\cdots\\0&1 + 1&0&0&0&0&\cdots\\0&0&1&0&0&0&\cdots\\0&0&0&1 + 4&0&0&\cdots\\0&0&0&0&1&0&\cdots\\0&0&0&0&0&1 + 9&\cdots\\\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots} , $$ and $$ T_2^* T_1 = T_2^* = \pmatrix{0&0&0&0&0&0&\cdots\\1&0&0&0&0&0&\cdots\\0&0&0&0&0&0&\cdots\\0&0&2&0&0&0&\cdots\\0&0&0&0&0&0&\cdots\\0&0&0&0&3&0&\cdots\\\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots} . $$ In particular, if $e_k$ is the $k$-th vector of the canonical basis of $\ell^2$, then $$\|T_2^* T_1 e_{2n-1}\| = \|n e_{2n}\| = n,$$ but $$\|T_1^* T_1 e_{2n-1} + T_2^* T_2 e_{2n-1}\| = \|e_{2n-1} + 0\| = 1 .$$ Therefore a constant $C$ with the desired property does not exist.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ thank you. What I don't quite understand at the moment is that your $A=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ no? This does not look positive-definite. Or is your answer assuming that without loss of generality it suffices to show you cannot control off-diagonal entries? $\endgroup$
    – Kung Yao
    Commented Apr 7, 2020 at 23:53
  • $\begingroup$ @KungYao: Yes this is what I meant; sort of "abstract second-order Riesz transforms need not be bounded". The same example shows that, say, $A = \pmatrix{1&1\\1&1}$ leads to an operator $\langle AT,T\rangle = 1 + T_2 + T_2^* + T_2^*T_2$ which fails to satisfy the desired inequality. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8, 2020 at 0:08

You must log in to answer this question.

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