2

Let $V$ be a hermitian space and $f:V\to V$ is an operator. Show that $f$ is normal operator iff any eigenvector of $f$ is also eigenvector of $f^*$.

My approach:

$\Rightarrow$ Suppose that $f$ is normal operator then one can show that for any scalar $\mu$ the operator $f-\mu\cdot \text{id}$ is also normal. Let $x$ is the eigenvector of $f$ with eigenvalue $\lambda$, i.e. $f(x)=\lambda x$. Then:

$$0=((f-\lambda \cdot \text{id})^*(f-\lambda \cdot \text{id})(x),x)=((f^*-\overline{\lambda} \cdot \text{id})(f-\lambda \cdot \text{id})(x),x)=((f-\lambda \cdot \text{id})(f^*-\overline{\lambda} \cdot \text{id})(x),x)=((f^*-\overline{\lambda} \cdot \text{id})(x),(f^*-\overline{\lambda} \cdot \text{id})(x))$$ which means that $(f^*-\overline{\lambda} \cdot \text{id})(x)=0$, i.e. $f^*(x)=\overline{\lambda}x$. So we have shown that $x$ is the eigenvector for $f^*$ with eigenvalue $\overline{\lambda}$.

$\Leftarrow$ I was not able to prove this direction but anyway let me show what I have done so far. Let $\chi_f(t)\in \mathbb{C}[t]$ is characteristic polynomial of $f$. Let $\{\lambda_1, \dots,\lambda_k\}$ be its distinct roots. Let $v_i$ be corresponding eigenvectors, i.e. $f(v_i)=\lambda_i v_i$. Then $v_i$ are also eigenvectors of $f^*$ i.e. $f^*(v_i)=\overline{\lambda_i} v_i$. Let's take $W=\langle v_1,\dots,v_k\rangle $ and $V=W\oplus W^{\perp}$. And I guess we have to do smth with $W^{\perp}$.

Would be very thankful is someone can show how to prove this direction, please?

RFZ
  • 16,814

1 Answers1

1

One proof is as follows:

Suppose that any eigenvector of $f$ is also an eigenvector of $f^*$. It is clear that for any eigenvector $x$ of $f$, we have $f(f^*(x)) = f^*(f(x))$. With that, we can see that $f(f^*(x)) = f^*(f(x))$ for any $x$ that can be written as a linear combination of eigenvectors of $f$. So, if the eigenvectors of $f$ span $V$ (i.e. if $f$ is diagonalizable), then $f$ must be normal.

We prove that $f$ is diagonalizable inductively on $n = \dim(V)$; the $n = 1$ case is trivial. Let $\lambda,v$ be any eigenvalue/eigenvector pair. We have $f^*(v) = \mu v$ for some $\mu \in \Bbb C$. We note that for any $w \in \langle v \rangle^\perp$, we have $$ (f(w),v) = (w,f^*(v)) = (w,\mu v) = \bar \mu (w,v) = 0. $$ Thus, $f(\langle v \rangle^\perp)\subset \langle v \rangle^\perp$. Now, the restriction $g = f|_{\langle v \rangle^\perp}$ is such that any eigenvector of $g$ is also an eigenvector of $g^*$. By the inductive hypothesis, $g$ must be diagonalizable. We thus conclude that $f$ is diagonalizable, as was desired.


The originally posted proof:

Suppose that any eigenvector of $f$ is also an eigenvector of $f^*$. Note that if $x\neq 0$ is such that $f(x) = \lambda x$ and $g(x) = \mu x$, then we have $$ \lambda (x,x) = (\lambda x,x) = (f(x),x)=(x,f^*(x)) = (x,\mu x) = \bar \mu (x,x), $$ which implies that $\mu = \bar \lambda$. That is, if $x$ is an eigenvector of $f$ associated with $\lambda$, then it is an eigenvector of $f^*$ associated with $\bar \lambda$.

It is clear that for any eigenvector $x$ of $f$, we have $f(f^*(x)) = f^*(f(x))$. With that, we can see that $f(f^*(x)) = f^*(f(x))$ for any $x$ that can be written as a linear combination of eigenvectors of $f$. So, if the eigenvectors of $f$ span $V$ (i.e. if $f$ is diagonalizable), then $f$ must be normal.

So, suppose for the sake of contradiction that $f$ is not diagonalizable. Then there exists a vector $x$ and eigenvalue $\lambda$ for which $(f-\lambda \operatorname{id})(x) \neq 0$ and $(f-\lambda \operatorname{id})^2(x) = 0$. Let $g = f - \lambda I$; note that every eigenvector of $g$ is also an eigenvector of $g^*$. We see that $g(x) \neq 0$, and $g^2(x) = 0$. Thus, $y = g(x)$ is an eigenvector of $g$ associated with $\lambda = 0$. It follows that $g^*(y) = \bar 0 \cdot y = 0$. In other words, we have $g^*(g(x)) = 0$. However, $x \in \ker g^*g = \ker g$, which means that $g(x) = 0$, which is a contradiction.

Ben Grossmann
  • 225,327
  • In the second paragraph you meant "it is clear that for any eigenvector $x$ of ...", right? Btw, thanks for your answer! I am reading it right now. – RFZ Apr 07 '20 at 04:08
  • @Z I don’t see the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote – Ben Grossmann Apr 07 '20 at 04:13
  • Sorry about that! My bad. – RFZ Apr 07 '20 at 04:28
  • Could you explain please how did you get two equalities when you assumed that $f$ is not diagonalizable? – RFZ Apr 07 '20 at 04:36
  • @ZFR This is a n easy statement to prove with Jordan canonical form; do you know what the Jordan form of a linear transformation is? In any case, I'll add a direct proof if I think of one. – Ben Grossmann Apr 07 '20 at 13:49
  • @ZFR see my latest edit; I've put in an alternative proof of diagonalizability (which I like better anyway) – Ben Grossmann Apr 07 '20 at 14:12
  • Hmm. It becomes very easy if you apply Jordan canonical form. Indeed, if it is not diagonalizable then there is a block of order $\geq 2$ with $\lambda$ on diagonal. Take $e_k$ and $e_{k+1}$ such that $f(e_k)=\lambda e_k$ and $f(e_{k+1})=\lambda e_{k+1}+e_k$ then it is easy to check that $e_{k+1}$ is the desired vector, right? Hmm, nice! I have never seen that before. – RFZ Apr 07 '20 at 15:53
  • @ZFR In some contexts, this kind of solution to $(f - \lambda \operatorname{id})^k x = 0$ is called a generalized eigenvector. Computing these is important if you want to find the basis (or change of basis) that puts your transformation in Jordan form. – Ben Grossmann Apr 07 '20 at 15:56
  • Yeah I remember this. But I guess what I have used is also ok. Also let me emphasize one thing: The solution with induction seems to me more natural. The first solution is also nice but it is kinda artificial and tricky. – RFZ Apr 07 '20 at 16:00
  • @ZFR I agree ${}{}$ – Ben Grossmann Apr 07 '20 at 16:03
  • BTW, I have realized that I was trying to prove it by induction but I was doing in wrong direction. Yeah I definitely need more practice. it is kinda frustrating that I cannot solve these problems. – RFZ Apr 07 '20 at 16:03
  • @ZFR If it's any consolation, it took me a while to think of the "natural" solution – Ben Grossmann Apr 07 '20 at 16:04
  • But almost every time you are giving very nice solution and it makes me think that I am very far from good understanding of linear algebra – RFZ Apr 07 '20 at 16:06
  • But I guess it is ok, I have started my path in mathematics maybe 2-3 years ago :) – RFZ Apr 07 '20 at 16:08
  • Please sorry but let me ask you a question: What statement are we proving with induction? I am a bit lost. If any eigenvector of $f$ is also eigenvector of $f^*$ then $f$ is diagonalizable. – RFZ Apr 07 '20 at 17:01
  • @Z Yes. The inductive hypothesis is "if $f$ is an operator on an $(n-1)$-dimensional space $V$ for which any eigenvector of $f$ is also an eigenvector of $f^*$, then $f$ is diagonalizable". – Ben Grossmann Apr 07 '20 at 17:03
  • Great! I got it! Thank you very much for answer and your permanent help! – RFZ Apr 07 '20 at 17:04
  • Hi, please sorry do you have some ideas on this problem? https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3614966/fw-subset-w-fw-perp-subset-w-perp-implies-f-normal-operator – RFZ Apr 08 '20 at 02:05