In this lecture we will study the first chapter in the theory of dilations of contractions. To proceed in our study of operator spaces and operator algebras, the material we will cover is not strictly needed. However, this is where I want to begin, for several reasons:
- The objects and theorems here motivate (and have motivated historically) the development of the general theory, and help understand it better and appreciate it more.
- We will reach very quickly a nontrivial application of operator theory to function theory, which is quite different from what you all saw in your studies, probably.
- I am stalling, so that the students who need to fill in some prerequisites (like commutative C*-algebras and the spectral theorem, will have time to do so).
- I love this stuff!
Okay, enough explaining, let us begin.
1. Overview
Definition: An operator is said to be
- selfadjoint if
,
- normal if
,
- unitary if
,
- isometric (or an isometry) if
(equivalently, if
for all
,
- coisometric (or a coisometry) if
(i.e., if
is an isometry),
- contractive (or a contraction) if
.
Normal (and hence, selfadjoint and unitary) operators are well understood. In this lecture our goal will be to understand first isometries (and hence also coisometries) and then contractions a little bit better. Before we begin with this, I will now repeat some material from the first lecture in my von Neumann algebras notes to remind ourselves of the nice structure theorem for normal operators.
The spectral theorem is the basic structure theorem for normal operators. It tells us how a general normal operator looks like. Recall that if is a normal operator acting on a finite dimensional space
, then
is unitarily equivalent to a diagonal operator, that is, there exists a unitary operator
such that
,
where (some points in
are possibly repeated).
Moreover, if is a compact normal operator on a Hilbert space, then
unitarily equivalent to a diagonal operator (an infinite diagonal matrix, acting by multiplication on
), the diagonal of which corresponds to the eigenvalues of
, which form a sequence converging to
:
.
If is unitarily equivalent to a diagonal operator where the diagonal elements form a bounded sequence of numbers (not necessarily converging to
), then
is a bounded normal operator (which is not necessarily compact). However, a general bounded normal operator need not be unitarily equivalent to a diagonal operator.
Example: The operator given by
is a selfadjoint bounded operator, and it is an easy exercise to see that this operator has no eigenvalues (so it cannot be unitarily equivalent to a diagonal operator). However, the operator in this example is rather well understood, and it is “sort of” diagonal. The general case is not significantly more complicated than this.
To understand general normal operators, one needs to recall the notions of measure space and of spaces. Let
be a measure space and consider the Hilbert space
. Every
defines a (normal) bounded operator
on
.
Exercise A: In case you never have, prove the following facts (or look them up; Kadison-Ringrose have a nice treatment relevant to our setting). Let be a
-finite measure space and
.
(where
is the essential supremum of
, which is defined to be
).
.
- If
and
defines a bounded operator on
, then
is essentially bounded:
.
- If
, then
and
.
is selfadjoint if and only if
is real valued almost everywhere.
The algebra is an abstract C*-algebra with the usual algebraic operations, the
-operation
, and norm
. The map
is a -representation (i.e., and algebraic homomorphism that preserves the adjoint
), which is isometric (
), so omitting
we can think of
as a C*-subalgebra of
. Since
, the operator
is always normal. It is selfadjoint if and only
is a.e. real valued, and it is unitary if and only if
a.e., which happens if and only if it is isometric. The operator
, where
, is called a multiplication operator. Multiplication operators form a rich collection of examples of normal operators. The spectral theorem says that this collection exhausts all selfadjoint operators: every normal operator is unitarily equivalent to a multiplication operator.
Theorem 1 (the spectral theorem): Let be a normal operator on a Hilbert space
. Then
is unitarily equivalent to a multiplication operator, that is, there exists a measure space
, a unitary operator
, and a complex valued
, such that
.
When is separable,
can be taken to be a locally compact Hausdorff space, and
a regular Borel probability measure.
The spectral theorem allows, in principle, to “solve all problems about normal operators”. Okay, that’s maybe an exaggeration; the spectral theorem reduces any problem about normal operators to problems about multiplication operators. As an example, we prove
Proposition 2 (von Neumann’s inequality for normal operators): Let be a normal contraction. Then for any polynomial
,
.
Proof: Since unitary equivalence preserves everything, we may assume that . Now,
is a contraction so
a.e. So we find
,
and since a.e., we have
a.e., so
,
as required. (The second equality simply follows from the maximum modulus principle, which, by the way, can be proved using the methods we will use in this lecture).
2. Isometries
Unitary operators are isometric, that’s one basic example. An isometry that is not a unitary is called a proper isometry.
Example (the unilateral shift): Let be a Hilbert space, suppose
. Let
be the Hilbert space consisting of square summable sequences with values in
:
.
has an inner product
.
On we define the unilateral shift (of multiplicity
)
to be given by
.
A simple computation reveals and so
.
Definition: Let be an isometry. A subspace
is called a wandering subspace for
if
.
(Equivalently for all
). We define
(*) .
We have that , and this means that
.
Example: Let be a subspace. Fix
, and let
be given by
and
for all
.
Then is a wandering subspace for
. In particular,
is a wandering subspace.
Definition: An isometry is said to be a unilateral shift (of multiplicity
) if it has a wandering subspace
(with
) for
such that
.
Note that is determined uniquely by (*) as
(**) .
Alright: we have defined THE unilateral shift and the notion of A unilateral shift, what gives?
Exercise A: Let be a unilateral shift. Show that
is unitarily equivalent to THE unilateral shift
on
, where
is given by (**).
- A unilateral shift
is unitarily equivalent to
if and only if
.
(in other words,
).
Definition: Let . A subspace
is said to be
- invariant if
,
- coinvariant if
(equivalent, if
is invariant for
).
- reducing if it is invariant for both
and
(equivalently, if
and
are both invariant for
).
Sometimes, to clarify the operator with respect to which the subspace should satisfy the properties, the terminology invariant for (etc.) is used.
Theorem 3 (Wold decomposition): Let be an isometry. Then there exists a decomposition of
to two reducing subspaces
such that
is unitary on
and
is a unilateral shift. Moreover, this decomposition is determined uniquely by
and
, where
.
Proof: If we define , then
is wandering for
because for all
we have by definition
.
Let us define , and
. Then
is clearly invariant, and
is a unilateral shift.
We will soon show that . Assuming that for the moment, we have that
, so
is invariant, and thus
are reducing. Moreover,
is a surjective isometry, so it is a unitary (showing that a surjective isometry is a unitary is a basic exercise).
To show that we take
and note that
if and only if
for every
. But
where we cancelled out all the terms in the above “telescopic sum”. Now, for all
is the same as
for all
, and we have established that
.
We leave the uniqueness as an exercise.
Definition: Let , and suppose that
is a Hilbert space containing
. An operator
is said to be an extension of
if
.
Theorem 4 (unitary extension of an isometry): Every isometry has a unitary extension.
Proof: Let be an isometry and let
be its Wold decomposition on
. By Exercise A, up to unitary equivalence,
, the unilateral shift of some multiplicity
on
. Letting
be the bilateral shift on
, that is,
is defined by
.
Clearly, is an extension of
, and so
is an extension of
.
Corollary: Von Neumann’s inequality holds for isometries.
Proof: Let be an isometry and let
be a unitary extension. From
follows
and so
.
3. Contractions
In the previous section we showed that every isometry has a unitary extension, and this immediately led to the application that isometries satisfy von Neumann’s inequality. Of course, we cannot hope to show that any operator other than an isometry has a unitary extension, so we need another trick.
Definition: Let , and suppose that
is a Hilbert space containing
. An operator
is said to be an dilation of
if
for all
.
Sometimes, the term dilation refers to the relation , and then the above notion is called a power dilation. There are also situations when
is only assumed for all
for some
, and then
is said to be an N-dilation of
. It is usually not hard to understand from context what notion is the one intended.
Examples: If is an extension of
, then
is a dilation of
. Note that in this case
.
Likewise, if is a co-extension of
(meaning that
is a dilation of
) then it is a dilation, and in this case we have the picture:
,
or (simply changing basis)
.
Both of the above situations are a special case of the following picture
(#)
in which is easily seen to be a dilation of
:
.
It turns out that (#) is the most general form of a dilation.
Proposition 5 (Sarason’s Lemma): Let be a Hilbert spaces, and suppose that
is a (power) dilation of
. Then there exist two subspaces
invariant for
such that
.
Remark: The case where corresponds to the case where
is invariant and
is an extension of
; the case where
correspond to the case where
is co-invariant and
is a co-extension of
.
Remark: In the situation of the above proposition, we say that is a semi-invariant subspace for
. More generally, if
is an operator algebra, then a subspace
is said to be semi-invariant for
if the map
is a homomorphism. Clearly,
is semi-invariant for
if and only it is semi-invariant for
.
Proof of Sarason’s Lemma: (maybe I should leave this as an exercise)
Let us write as in the above remark, and let
(this notation means the closed linear subspace spanned by
where
and
). Then
is clearly invariant, and
. For this to work out we really have no choice but to define
. The only thing that remains to do is to prove that
is invariant for
.
If then the definition of semi-invariant means that
, and so for every
we have that
. By taking sums and limits, we find that
for all
.
To show that is invariant, let
,
, and consider
. Since
, to show that it is in
we need to show that it is orthogonal to
; equivalently, we need to show that
. But by the previous paragraph
, because
. This completes the proof.
Theorem 6 (Sz.-Nagy’s isometric dilation theorem): Let be a contraction on a Hilbert space
. Then there exists a Hilbert space
and an isometry
such that
is a co-extension of
.
is the smallest subspace of
invariant for
that contains
.
Moreover, the pair is unique, in the sense that if
is another such pair satisfying the above requirements, then there exists a unitary
such that
for all
, and such that
.
Remark: The isometry (or more precisely, the pair
) is known as the minimal isometric dilation of
. The theorem can be reformulated (and sometimes is) by saying that every contraction has a minimal coisometric extension.
Proof: Define the defect operator . Note that
is equivalent to
, so the square root makes sense. The operator
measures how much
fails to be an isometry. We now define
(the defect space) and
.
On we define an operator
by
or, in matrix form
(all the empty slots are understood to be zero).
We leave it as an exercise for the reader to complete the proof.
Exercise B: Prove that is an isometry, a co-extension of
, and that it satisfies the minimality requirement. While you are at it, please also show that
is unique.
The uniqueness of the minimal dilation can be strengthened as follows.
Exercise C: Prove that if is an isometric co-extension of
, the there exist two
reducing subspaces
, such that
and
, and such that
is unitary equivalent to the minimal isometric dilation of
. Thus,
breaks up as that
, where
is essentially irrelevant.
Note that if we didn’t insist on creating a minimal isometric dilation, we could have taken
and to be given by the same formula:
Exercise D: If are
contractions, then there exists a Hilbert space
and
isometries
on
such that
for all and all
.
Theorem 7 (Sz.-Nagy’s unitary dilation theorem): Let be a contraction on a Hilbert space
. Then there exists a Hilbert space
and a unitary
such that
is a dilation of
.
is the smallest subspace of
reducing for
that contains
.
Moreover, the pair is unique, in the sense that if
is another such pair satisfying the above requirements, then there exists a unitary
such that
for all
, and such that
.
Remark: The unitary (or more precisely, the pair
) is called the minimal unitary dilation of
.
Proof: Let be the minimal isometric dilation of
, and let
be the unitary extension of
constructed in Theorem 4. Then
is a dilation of
(“my dilation’s dilation is a dilation of mine”). If
is not minimal by some chance, then restrict
to
(the notation should be self-explanatory), and then
is a minimal unitary dilation. Uniqueness is left as an exercise.
Corollary (von Neumann’s inequality): Let be a contraction on a Hilbert space. For every polynomial
,
.
Proof:
.