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.

4. OPERATORS 29<br />

must both be 0. Hence 〈T1u, v〉 − 〈u, T1v〉 = 0 for any u, v ∈ D(T1), so<br />

the maximal operator is symmetric and therefore selfadjo<strong>in</strong>t (how does<br />

this follow?). It also follows that the maximal operator is the closure of<br />

the m<strong>in</strong>imal operator so the m<strong>in</strong>imal operator is essentially selfadjo<strong>in</strong>t.<br />

Example 4.7. Consider the same operator as <strong>in</strong> Example 4.6 but<br />

for the <strong>in</strong>terval (0, ∞). If u ∈ D(T1) we obta<strong>in</strong> 〈T1u, u〉 − 〈u, T1u〉 =<br />

i|u(0)| 2 . To have a symmetric restriction of T1 we must therefore require<br />

u(0) = 0, and with this restriction on the doma<strong>in</strong> of T1 we obta<strong>in</strong> a<br />

maximal symmetric operator T . If now u ∈ D(T ) and v ∈ D(T1) we<br />

obta<strong>in</strong> 〈T u, v〉−〈u, T1v〉 = iu(0)v(0) = 0 so that T ∗ = T1. T is therefore<br />

not selfadjo<strong>in</strong>t so no matter how we choose the doma<strong>in</strong> the differential<br />

, though formally symmetric, will not be selfadjo<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong><br />

operator −i d<br />

dx<br />

L2 (0, ∞). One says that −i d<br />

dx has no selfadjo<strong>in</strong>t realization <strong>in</strong> L2 (0, ∞).<br />

Example 4.8. We f<strong>in</strong>ally consider the operator of Example 4.6 for<br />

the <strong>in</strong>terval (−π, π). We now have<br />

(4.2) 〈T1u, v〉 − 〈u, T1v〉 = −i(u(π)v(π) − u(−π)v(−π)).<br />

In particular, for u = v it follows that for u to be <strong>in</strong> the doma<strong>in</strong> of a<br />

symmetric restriction of T1 we must require |u(π)| = |u(−π)| so that u<br />

satisfies the boundary condition u(π) = e iθ u(−π) for some real θ. From<br />

(4.2) then follows that if v is <strong>in</strong> the doma<strong>in</strong> of the adjo<strong>in</strong>t, then v will<br />

have to satisfy the same boundary condition. On the other hand, if we<br />

impose this condition, then the result<strong>in</strong>g operator will be selfadjo<strong>in</strong>t<br />

(because its adjo<strong>in</strong>t will be symmetric). It follows that restrict<strong>in</strong>g the<br />

doma<strong>in</strong> of T1 by such a boundary condition is exactly what is required<br />

to obta<strong>in</strong> a selfadjo<strong>in</strong>t restriction. Each θ <strong>in</strong> [0, 2π) gives a different<br />

selfadjo<strong>in</strong>t realization, but there are no others.<br />

The examples show that there may be a unique selfadjo<strong>in</strong>t realization<br />

of our formally symmetric differential operator, none at all, or<br />

<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>itely many depend<strong>in</strong>g on circumstances. It can be a very difficult<br />

problem to decide which of these possibilities occur <strong>in</strong> a given case.<br />

In particular, much effort has been devoted to decide whether a given<br />

differential operator on a given doma<strong>in</strong> has a unique selfadjo<strong>in</strong>t realization.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!