Suppose and . Then is an eigenvalue of iff is an eigenvalue of .
Proof
Consider is an eigenvector of (hence ) where is the corresponding eigenvalue. Then if we fix some :
Notice that by contraction as then , so then has to be non-surjective, so there's some such that it makes the .
Thus so was an eigenvector with eigenvalue . The other way is proved in the same method.
☐
3
Theorem
Suppose and is a subspace of . Then is invariant under iff is invariant under .
Proof is invariant under iff for all we have , which iff for any :
iff iff is invariant under .
☐
4
Theorem
Suppose :
is injective iff is surjective.
is surjective iff is injective.
Proof
Let and .
For (a), is injective iff iff iff (by the FTOLM) . This is iff (by the supposition iff . Thus, again by the FTOLM iff iff iff is surjective.
For (b), is surjective iff iff iff by FTOLM iff (again ) iff iff iff iff is injective.
☐
5
Theorem
for all .
Proof
☐
6
Theorem
Consider the inner product over via:
Define by .
is not self-adjoint
The matrix of w.r.t. to the standard basis is:
This matrix equals its conjugate transpose, even though is not self-adjoint. Explain why this not a contradiction.
Proof
For (a), notice that we can find . Fix and let be arbitrary:
while:
so so by counterexample.
For (b), notice that:
building the matrix:
Notice that this matrix is then:
This isn't a contradiction because (7.10) assumes that our basis is an orthonormal-basis, while here they are not orthogonal, nor normal.
☐
7
Theorem
Suppose are self-adjoint. Then is self-adjoint iff .
Proof
We know and . is self-adjoint iff which is:
☐
8
Theorem
Suppose is a real inner product space. That the set of self-adjoint operators on is a subspace of .
Proof
Consider . We'll show is a subspace of , since clearly it's a subset. Clearly the zero map since:
For additivity, let . Then:
thus .
For homogeneity, let :
since is a real inner product space, so . Thus . Thus is a subspace.
☐
9
Theorem
Suppose is a complex inner product space. Show that the set of self-adjoint operators on is NOT a subspace.
Proof
Notice that this is the same case as HW 3 - Self-Adjoint and Normal Operators#8 EXCEPT for homogeneity, where now may not be . As such, as a counterexample, let , and have the self-adjoint operator be the identity operator on . Then:
Showing is not a subspace.
☐
13
Theorem
There is an example of an operator such that is normal but not self-adjoint.
Proof
Choose by:
notice:
We can derive:
Thus while since:
since
☐
14
Theorem
Suppose is a normal operator on . Suppose also that satisfy the equations:
Then:
Proof
Notice:
so since and have the same eigenvectors, so then and :
and since :
Since is normal then as eigenvectors are orthogonal so above.
☐
16
Theorem
Suppose is normal. Then:
Proof
Let's actually prove that . Let . Then:
We prove the range part using the properties of these ranges and nullspaces:
☐
17
Theorem
Suppose is normal. Then:
for all .
Proof
Let's prove this via induction. For , the theorem is clearly true, so consider some holds for the theorem. We'll prove the case. Notice:
Thus so . Since via the inductive hypothesis, then . For the other way let . Then:
Showing the range is easy since:
☐
19
Theorem
Suppose is normal and . Suppose . Then .
Proof
Because is normal, then all eigenvectors of are orthogonal to one another. Notice that since then is an eigenvector of with . Further notice that since then so is an eigenvector with .
Therefore, are orthogonal, so by doing the dot product.
☐