06.04.2013 Views

Spectral Theory in Hilbert Space

Spectral Theory in Hilbert Space

Spectral Theory in Hilbert Space

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

98 13. FIRST ORDER SYSTEMS<br />

Proof. Let [c, d] be a compact sub<strong>in</strong>terval of I = (a, b) such that<br />

d<br />

c F ∗ (·, λ)W F (·, λ) is <strong>in</strong>vertible and put v1 = v <strong>in</strong> (a, c] and v1 ≡ 0 <strong>in</strong><br />

[d, b). Now let<br />

u1(x) = F (x, λ)(u(c) + J −1<br />

x<br />

F ∗ (y, λ)W (y)v1(y) dy) .<br />

It is clear that u1 = u <strong>in</strong> (a, c] and if we choose v1 appropriately <strong>in</strong><br />

[c, d] we can achieve that u1 ≡ 0 <strong>in</strong> [d, b). In fact, sett<strong>in</strong>g v(x) =<br />

−F (x, λ)( d<br />

c F ∗ (·, λ)W F (·, λ)) −1 Ju(c) <strong>in</strong> this <strong>in</strong>terval will do. <br />

It follows that (u − u1, v − v1) ∈ T1 is 0 near a and equals (u, v)<br />

near b. We can therefore f<strong>in</strong>d a maximal non-degenerate space for Ba<br />

consist<strong>in</strong>g of elements of T1 vanish<strong>in</strong>g near b. Similarly, a maximal nondegenerate<br />

space for Bb consist<strong>in</strong>g of elements of T1 vanish<strong>in</strong>g near a.<br />

Thus Ba and Bb are <strong>in</strong>dependent, as claimed. S<strong>in</strong>ce the signature of<br />

the complete boundary form Bb − Ba is (n+, n−) the <strong>in</strong>dependence of<br />

Ba and Bb implies that n+ = r a − + r b + and n− = r a + + r b −, us<strong>in</strong>g the<br />

notation <strong>in</strong>troduced above for the signatures of Ba and Bb. Accord<strong>in</strong>g<br />

to Corollary 9.15 T1 has selfadjo<strong>in</strong>t restrictions precisely if n+ = n−.<br />

Reason<strong>in</strong>g like <strong>in</strong> the regular case it follows that there are selfadjo<strong>in</strong>t<br />

restrictions def<strong>in</strong>ed by separated boundary conditions precisely if r a + =<br />

r a − and r b + = r b −, from which n+ = n− follows. In fact, from any two of<br />

these relations the third clearly follows.<br />

Consider f<strong>in</strong>ally the case when a is a regular endpo<strong>in</strong>t but b possibly<br />

is s<strong>in</strong>gular. In this case Ba is given by Ba(u1, u2) = iu2(a) ∗ Ju1(a), with<br />

notation as above. Clearly r a + is the number of positive eigenvalues of<br />

iJ and r a − the number of negative eigenvalues. It follows that selfadjo<strong>in</strong>t<br />

restrictions of T1 def<strong>in</strong>ed by separated boundary conditions exist if and<br />

only if the deficiency <strong>in</strong>dices are equal and iJ has an equal number<br />

of positive and negative eigenvalues; <strong>in</strong> particular n must be even. In<br />

the Sturm-Liouville case all these conditions are fulfilled, as we already<br />

know.<br />

Exercises for Chapter 13<br />

Exercise 13.1. Show that u and ũ are elements of the same equivalence<br />

class <strong>in</strong> L2 W if and only if W u = W ũ a.e.<br />

Exercise 13.2. Verify that T0 is the graph of an operator if (13.1)<br />

is equivalent to an equation of the type (10.1) (or more generally an<br />

equation of the type discussed <strong>in</strong> Exercise 13.3) and w > 0 a.e. <strong>in</strong><br />

I. Also show that <strong>in</strong> this case Assumption 13.7 holds. Try to show<br />

this assum<strong>in</strong>g only that w ≥ 0 but w > 0 on a subset of I of positive<br />

measure (this is considerably harder).<br />

c

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!