Talk:Compact operator on Hilbert space

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated B+ class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
A-BB+ Class
Mid Importance
 Field: Analysis

This article is a misunderstanding. It is pointless to include mathematical proofs of properties of compact operators in an article addressed for a general reader. A reference to a book would be enough.

:i am going to dispense with politeness here. who says this is "addressed for a general reader"? how "general" is general? if general is meant as in the general public, then no, this is not addressed to the general reader. a general reader who can't read this is supposed to be able to read a book? i believe the level of the article is comparable to introductory books on the subject. since you didn't make it clear, far as i see, there are two possibilities here,

:#if you can read, say, bounded operator, or uniform boundedness principle, or any other similar article, and find this article completely incomprehensible, then i would agree that certainly changes are needed. if that's the case, ignore 2. below and let's hear your suggestions. :#otherwise, how about directing your attention to stuff that you are actually competent enough to read and not waste your, and possibly other people's, time with comments like that? Cracking (chemistry) seems like Greek to me. if i left a comment similar to yours on its talk page, it certainly would be unhelpful and very stupid of me.

Mct mht 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
to anon: this is a very late follow up but if you still around, sorry for the tone in my reply above. it was way too harsh. i apologize. Mct mht 22:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
let me apologize again. there's really no excuse for my reaction there. Mct mht 04:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A mistake?[edit]

The restriction of an operator on a closed invariant subspace is self-adjoint? All operators are invariant on the whole space H trivially.

That's definitely not true. Where does the article make that statement? Mct mht (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Answer to "Question to writer"?[edit]

According to Theorem 6.6.1 in Functional Analysis: Applications in Mechanics and Inverse Problems by Lebedev, Vorovich, and Gladwell, separability is not required for the if and only if statement to be true. The Google books link to this book is: [[1]]

I hope this helps resolve the question. (The article's mainpage still contains the question; it should be changed as soon as someone more familiar with Hilbert spaces checks this fact.)

Owlcatowl (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please work on the readibility of the article[edit]

I've taken an entire year of Analysis at the graduate level and have a hard time understanding a lot of this. For instance:

The family of compact operators is a norm-closed, two-sided, *-ideal in L(H). Consequently, a compact operator T cannot have a bounded inverse if H is infinite dimensional. If ST = TS = I, then the identity operator would be compact, a contradiction.

The first sentence needs to be unpacked. If nothing else, there should at least be links to each of:

  • norm-closed
  • two-sided
  • *-ideal
  • L(H)

only the last of which I've been formally exposed to in my education. (at least in the way its named here)

--watson (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)