Let $H$ be a Hilbert space with projections $P,Q$, then $lim_{ntoinfty}(PQ)^nx= Rx$ for all $xin H$, where...











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Suppose we have a Hilbert space $mathcal H$, with projections $P,Q$, and let $R$ be the projection onto $Pmathcal Hcap Qmathcal H$, then I would like to show that $(PQ)^nto R$ strongly.



We can clearly reduce to the case where $Pmathcal Hcap Qmathcal H=0$ and $Pmathcal H+Qmathcal H=mathcal H$, in which case we must show that $(PQ)^nto0$ strongly. Now, if the limit $y=lim_{ntoinfty}(PQ)^n x$ exists, then if it is nonzero, then
$$|y| = |PQ y|<|Q y|le| y|$$ which is a contradiction, so once we have convergence, we're done. However, I don't see quite how to show convergence in a general infinite dimensional case.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Do you assume your projections to be orthogonal?
    – Rhys Steele
    Nov 20 at 15:42






  • 1




    (I've just realised there may be some confusion. What I'm asking is if $P$ is the orthogonal projection onto $Pmathcal{H}$ and similarly for $Q$. Not if you are assuming that $P$ is orthogonal to $Q$)
    – Rhys Steele
    Nov 20 at 15:53






  • 1




    Oh I see, then I’m considering non-commuting orthogonal projections, using your terminology.
    – Monstrous Moonshine
    Nov 20 at 15:54















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Suppose we have a Hilbert space $mathcal H$, with projections $P,Q$, and let $R$ be the projection onto $Pmathcal Hcap Qmathcal H$, then I would like to show that $(PQ)^nto R$ strongly.



We can clearly reduce to the case where $Pmathcal Hcap Qmathcal H=0$ and $Pmathcal H+Qmathcal H=mathcal H$, in which case we must show that $(PQ)^nto0$ strongly. Now, if the limit $y=lim_{ntoinfty}(PQ)^n x$ exists, then if it is nonzero, then
$$|y| = |PQ y|<|Q y|le| y|$$ which is a contradiction, so once we have convergence, we're done. However, I don't see quite how to show convergence in a general infinite dimensional case.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Do you assume your projections to be orthogonal?
    – Rhys Steele
    Nov 20 at 15:42






  • 1




    (I've just realised there may be some confusion. What I'm asking is if $P$ is the orthogonal projection onto $Pmathcal{H}$ and similarly for $Q$. Not if you are assuming that $P$ is orthogonal to $Q$)
    – Rhys Steele
    Nov 20 at 15:53






  • 1




    Oh I see, then I’m considering non-commuting orthogonal projections, using your terminology.
    – Monstrous Moonshine
    Nov 20 at 15:54













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











Suppose we have a Hilbert space $mathcal H$, with projections $P,Q$, and let $R$ be the projection onto $Pmathcal Hcap Qmathcal H$, then I would like to show that $(PQ)^nto R$ strongly.



We can clearly reduce to the case where $Pmathcal Hcap Qmathcal H=0$ and $Pmathcal H+Qmathcal H=mathcal H$, in which case we must show that $(PQ)^nto0$ strongly. Now, if the limit $y=lim_{ntoinfty}(PQ)^n x$ exists, then if it is nonzero, then
$$|y| = |PQ y|<|Q y|le| y|$$ which is a contradiction, so once we have convergence, we're done. However, I don't see quite how to show convergence in a general infinite dimensional case.










share|cite|improve this question













Suppose we have a Hilbert space $mathcal H$, with projections $P,Q$, and let $R$ be the projection onto $Pmathcal Hcap Qmathcal H$, then I would like to show that $(PQ)^nto R$ strongly.



We can clearly reduce to the case where $Pmathcal Hcap Qmathcal H=0$ and $Pmathcal H+Qmathcal H=mathcal H$, in which case we must show that $(PQ)^nto0$ strongly. Now, if the limit $y=lim_{ntoinfty}(PQ)^n x$ exists, then if it is nonzero, then
$$|y| = |PQ y|<|Q y|le| y|$$ which is a contradiction, so once we have convergence, we're done. However, I don't see quite how to show convergence in a general infinite dimensional case.







functional-analysis operator-theory hilbert-spaces






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 20 at 15:32









Monstrous Moonshine

2,6891630




2,6891630












  • Do you assume your projections to be orthogonal?
    – Rhys Steele
    Nov 20 at 15:42






  • 1




    (I've just realised there may be some confusion. What I'm asking is if $P$ is the orthogonal projection onto $Pmathcal{H}$ and similarly for $Q$. Not if you are assuming that $P$ is orthogonal to $Q$)
    – Rhys Steele
    Nov 20 at 15:53






  • 1




    Oh I see, then I’m considering non-commuting orthogonal projections, using your terminology.
    – Monstrous Moonshine
    Nov 20 at 15:54


















  • Do you assume your projections to be orthogonal?
    – Rhys Steele
    Nov 20 at 15:42






  • 1




    (I've just realised there may be some confusion. What I'm asking is if $P$ is the orthogonal projection onto $Pmathcal{H}$ and similarly for $Q$. Not if you are assuming that $P$ is orthogonal to $Q$)
    – Rhys Steele
    Nov 20 at 15:53






  • 1




    Oh I see, then I’m considering non-commuting orthogonal projections, using your terminology.
    – Monstrous Moonshine
    Nov 20 at 15:54
















Do you assume your projections to be orthogonal?
– Rhys Steele
Nov 20 at 15:42




Do you assume your projections to be orthogonal?
– Rhys Steele
Nov 20 at 15:42




1




1




(I've just realised there may be some confusion. What I'm asking is if $P$ is the orthogonal projection onto $Pmathcal{H}$ and similarly for $Q$. Not if you are assuming that $P$ is orthogonal to $Q$)
– Rhys Steele
Nov 20 at 15:53




(I've just realised there may be some confusion. What I'm asking is if $P$ is the orthogonal projection onto $Pmathcal{H}$ and similarly for $Q$. Not if you are assuming that $P$ is orthogonal to $Q$)
– Rhys Steele
Nov 20 at 15:53




1




1




Oh I see, then I’m considering non-commuting orthogonal projections, using your terminology.
– Monstrous Moonshine
Nov 20 at 15:54




Oh I see, then I’m considering non-commuting orthogonal projections, using your terminology.
– Monstrous Moonshine
Nov 20 at 15:54










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










I work in your reduced case and consider instead the operator $A = QPQ$ and note that
$$|(PQ)^nx| = |PA^{n-1}x| leq |A^{n-1}x|$$
so it will suffice to show that $A^n to 0$ strongly as $n to infty$.



The reason it is more convenient to consider $A$ is that $A$ is a self-adjoint operator and so we can apply the spectral theorem in the following form.




Theorem: Let $A$ be a bounded, self-adjoint operator on a Hilbert space $mathcal{H}$. Then there is a finite measure space $(Omega,Sigma,mu)$ and a real valued, essentially bounded function $f$ on $Omega$ and a unitary operator $U:mathcal{H} to L_{mu}^2(Omega)$ such that $$U^*MU = A$$ where $M$ is the multiplication operator defined by $$[Mphi](x)=f(x)phi (x)$$ We also have $|M| = |f|_{infty}$.




It is not so hard to check that if $A$ is additionally a positive operator, as in our case, then we must have $f geq 0$ a.e. and so since for $A = QPQ$ we have that $$1 geq |A| = |M| = |f|_infty,$$ we have here that $f(x) in [0,1]$ a.e.



Now it is clear that $P mathcal{H} cap Q mathcal{H} subseteq ker(A-I)$. In fact, this is an equality since $QPQx = x$ implies that
$$|x| = |QPQx| leq |PQ x| leq |Qx| leq |x|$$
and so $|Qx| = |x|$ and hence by, by pythagoras, we must have $Qx = x$. Then by a similar argument with
$$|x| = |QPQx| = |QPx| leq |Px| leq |x|$$
we see that $Px = x$ also so that $x in ker(A-I)$ implies that $x in P mathcal{H} cap Q mathcal{H}$.



In particular, $P mathcal{H} cap Q mathcal{H} = emptyset$ implies that $ker(M-I) = emptyset$ where $M$ is the multiplication operator associated to $A$. This means that $mu({s: f(s) = 1}) = 0$ so now $f(x) in [0,1)$ a.e.



We are finally ready to complete the proof. By conjugating with our unitary operators it is enough to show that $|M^k phi| to 0$ for every $phi in L_mu^2(Omega)$. This is easy.



$$|M^k phi|^2 = int_Omega |f^k phi|^2 to 0$$
by the D.C.T. since $|f^k phi| to 0$ and $|f^k phi| leq |phi| in L_mu^2(Omega)$.






share|cite|improve this answer























    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006463%2flet-h-be-a-hilbert-space-with-projections-p-q-then-lim-n-to-inftypqn%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    3
    down vote



    accepted










    I work in your reduced case and consider instead the operator $A = QPQ$ and note that
    $$|(PQ)^nx| = |PA^{n-1}x| leq |A^{n-1}x|$$
    so it will suffice to show that $A^n to 0$ strongly as $n to infty$.



    The reason it is more convenient to consider $A$ is that $A$ is a self-adjoint operator and so we can apply the spectral theorem in the following form.




    Theorem: Let $A$ be a bounded, self-adjoint operator on a Hilbert space $mathcal{H}$. Then there is a finite measure space $(Omega,Sigma,mu)$ and a real valued, essentially bounded function $f$ on $Omega$ and a unitary operator $U:mathcal{H} to L_{mu}^2(Omega)$ such that $$U^*MU = A$$ where $M$ is the multiplication operator defined by $$[Mphi](x)=f(x)phi (x)$$ We also have $|M| = |f|_{infty}$.




    It is not so hard to check that if $A$ is additionally a positive operator, as in our case, then we must have $f geq 0$ a.e. and so since for $A = QPQ$ we have that $$1 geq |A| = |M| = |f|_infty,$$ we have here that $f(x) in [0,1]$ a.e.



    Now it is clear that $P mathcal{H} cap Q mathcal{H} subseteq ker(A-I)$. In fact, this is an equality since $QPQx = x$ implies that
    $$|x| = |QPQx| leq |PQ x| leq |Qx| leq |x|$$
    and so $|Qx| = |x|$ and hence by, by pythagoras, we must have $Qx = x$. Then by a similar argument with
    $$|x| = |QPQx| = |QPx| leq |Px| leq |x|$$
    we see that $Px = x$ also so that $x in ker(A-I)$ implies that $x in P mathcal{H} cap Q mathcal{H}$.



    In particular, $P mathcal{H} cap Q mathcal{H} = emptyset$ implies that $ker(M-I) = emptyset$ where $M$ is the multiplication operator associated to $A$. This means that $mu({s: f(s) = 1}) = 0$ so now $f(x) in [0,1)$ a.e.



    We are finally ready to complete the proof. By conjugating with our unitary operators it is enough to show that $|M^k phi| to 0$ for every $phi in L_mu^2(Omega)$. This is easy.



    $$|M^k phi|^2 = int_Omega |f^k phi|^2 to 0$$
    by the D.C.T. since $|f^k phi| to 0$ and $|f^k phi| leq |phi| in L_mu^2(Omega)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      3
      down vote



      accepted










      I work in your reduced case and consider instead the operator $A = QPQ$ and note that
      $$|(PQ)^nx| = |PA^{n-1}x| leq |A^{n-1}x|$$
      so it will suffice to show that $A^n to 0$ strongly as $n to infty$.



      The reason it is more convenient to consider $A$ is that $A$ is a self-adjoint operator and so we can apply the spectral theorem in the following form.




      Theorem: Let $A$ be a bounded, self-adjoint operator on a Hilbert space $mathcal{H}$. Then there is a finite measure space $(Omega,Sigma,mu)$ and a real valued, essentially bounded function $f$ on $Omega$ and a unitary operator $U:mathcal{H} to L_{mu}^2(Omega)$ such that $$U^*MU = A$$ where $M$ is the multiplication operator defined by $$[Mphi](x)=f(x)phi (x)$$ We also have $|M| = |f|_{infty}$.




      It is not so hard to check that if $A$ is additionally a positive operator, as in our case, then we must have $f geq 0$ a.e. and so since for $A = QPQ$ we have that $$1 geq |A| = |M| = |f|_infty,$$ we have here that $f(x) in [0,1]$ a.e.



      Now it is clear that $P mathcal{H} cap Q mathcal{H} subseteq ker(A-I)$. In fact, this is an equality since $QPQx = x$ implies that
      $$|x| = |QPQx| leq |PQ x| leq |Qx| leq |x|$$
      and so $|Qx| = |x|$ and hence by, by pythagoras, we must have $Qx = x$. Then by a similar argument with
      $$|x| = |QPQx| = |QPx| leq |Px| leq |x|$$
      we see that $Px = x$ also so that $x in ker(A-I)$ implies that $x in P mathcal{H} cap Q mathcal{H}$.



      In particular, $P mathcal{H} cap Q mathcal{H} = emptyset$ implies that $ker(M-I) = emptyset$ where $M$ is the multiplication operator associated to $A$. This means that $mu({s: f(s) = 1}) = 0$ so now $f(x) in [0,1)$ a.e.



      We are finally ready to complete the proof. By conjugating with our unitary operators it is enough to show that $|M^k phi| to 0$ for every $phi in L_mu^2(Omega)$. This is easy.



      $$|M^k phi|^2 = int_Omega |f^k phi|^2 to 0$$
      by the D.C.T. since $|f^k phi| to 0$ and $|f^k phi| leq |phi| in L_mu^2(Omega)$.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        3
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        3
        down vote



        accepted






        I work in your reduced case and consider instead the operator $A = QPQ$ and note that
        $$|(PQ)^nx| = |PA^{n-1}x| leq |A^{n-1}x|$$
        so it will suffice to show that $A^n to 0$ strongly as $n to infty$.



        The reason it is more convenient to consider $A$ is that $A$ is a self-adjoint operator and so we can apply the spectral theorem in the following form.




        Theorem: Let $A$ be a bounded, self-adjoint operator on a Hilbert space $mathcal{H}$. Then there is a finite measure space $(Omega,Sigma,mu)$ and a real valued, essentially bounded function $f$ on $Omega$ and a unitary operator $U:mathcal{H} to L_{mu}^2(Omega)$ such that $$U^*MU = A$$ where $M$ is the multiplication operator defined by $$[Mphi](x)=f(x)phi (x)$$ We also have $|M| = |f|_{infty}$.




        It is not so hard to check that if $A$ is additionally a positive operator, as in our case, then we must have $f geq 0$ a.e. and so since for $A = QPQ$ we have that $$1 geq |A| = |M| = |f|_infty,$$ we have here that $f(x) in [0,1]$ a.e.



        Now it is clear that $P mathcal{H} cap Q mathcal{H} subseteq ker(A-I)$. In fact, this is an equality since $QPQx = x$ implies that
        $$|x| = |QPQx| leq |PQ x| leq |Qx| leq |x|$$
        and so $|Qx| = |x|$ and hence by, by pythagoras, we must have $Qx = x$. Then by a similar argument with
        $$|x| = |QPQx| = |QPx| leq |Px| leq |x|$$
        we see that $Px = x$ also so that $x in ker(A-I)$ implies that $x in P mathcal{H} cap Q mathcal{H}$.



        In particular, $P mathcal{H} cap Q mathcal{H} = emptyset$ implies that $ker(M-I) = emptyset$ where $M$ is the multiplication operator associated to $A$. This means that $mu({s: f(s) = 1}) = 0$ so now $f(x) in [0,1)$ a.e.



        We are finally ready to complete the proof. By conjugating with our unitary operators it is enough to show that $|M^k phi| to 0$ for every $phi in L_mu^2(Omega)$. This is easy.



        $$|M^k phi|^2 = int_Omega |f^k phi|^2 to 0$$
        by the D.C.T. since $|f^k phi| to 0$ and $|f^k phi| leq |phi| in L_mu^2(Omega)$.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        I work in your reduced case and consider instead the operator $A = QPQ$ and note that
        $$|(PQ)^nx| = |PA^{n-1}x| leq |A^{n-1}x|$$
        so it will suffice to show that $A^n to 0$ strongly as $n to infty$.



        The reason it is more convenient to consider $A$ is that $A$ is a self-adjoint operator and so we can apply the spectral theorem in the following form.




        Theorem: Let $A$ be a bounded, self-adjoint operator on a Hilbert space $mathcal{H}$. Then there is a finite measure space $(Omega,Sigma,mu)$ and a real valued, essentially bounded function $f$ on $Omega$ and a unitary operator $U:mathcal{H} to L_{mu}^2(Omega)$ such that $$U^*MU = A$$ where $M$ is the multiplication operator defined by $$[Mphi](x)=f(x)phi (x)$$ We also have $|M| = |f|_{infty}$.




        It is not so hard to check that if $A$ is additionally a positive operator, as in our case, then we must have $f geq 0$ a.e. and so since for $A = QPQ$ we have that $$1 geq |A| = |M| = |f|_infty,$$ we have here that $f(x) in [0,1]$ a.e.



        Now it is clear that $P mathcal{H} cap Q mathcal{H} subseteq ker(A-I)$. In fact, this is an equality since $QPQx = x$ implies that
        $$|x| = |QPQx| leq |PQ x| leq |Qx| leq |x|$$
        and so $|Qx| = |x|$ and hence by, by pythagoras, we must have $Qx = x$. Then by a similar argument with
        $$|x| = |QPQx| = |QPx| leq |Px| leq |x|$$
        we see that $Px = x$ also so that $x in ker(A-I)$ implies that $x in P mathcal{H} cap Q mathcal{H}$.



        In particular, $P mathcal{H} cap Q mathcal{H} = emptyset$ implies that $ker(M-I) = emptyset$ where $M$ is the multiplication operator associated to $A$. This means that $mu({s: f(s) = 1}) = 0$ so now $f(x) in [0,1)$ a.e.



        We are finally ready to complete the proof. By conjugating with our unitary operators it is enough to show that $|M^k phi| to 0$ for every $phi in L_mu^2(Omega)$. This is easy.



        $$|M^k phi|^2 = int_Omega |f^k phi|^2 to 0$$
        by the D.C.T. since $|f^k phi| to 0$ and $|f^k phi| leq |phi| in L_mu^2(Omega)$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 20 at 16:50

























        answered Nov 20 at 16:43









        Rhys Steele

        5,9181828




        5,9181828






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006463%2flet-h-be-a-hilbert-space-with-projections-p-q-then-lim-n-to-inftypqn%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Wiesbaden

            Marschland

            Dieringhausen