arxiv: v1 [math.fa] 25 Jun 2014

Transcription

1 ON THE DIFFERENCE OF SPECTRAL PROJECTIONS CHRISTOPH UEBERSOHN arxiv: v1 [math.fa] 25 Jun 2014 ABSTRACT. Consider a self-adjoint operator T and a self-adjoint operator S =, ϕ ϕ of rank one acting on a complex separable Hilbert space of infinite dimension. Denote by Dλ := E,λ T + S E,λ T the difference of the spectral projections with respect to the interval, λ. If T is bounded, then we show that: The operator Dλ is unitarily equivalent to a self-adjoint Hankel operator of finite rank for all λ in R \ [min σ esst, max σ esst ], where σ esst denotes the essential spectrum of T. If ϕ is cyclic for T, then Dλ is unitarily equivalent to a bounded selfadjoint Hankel operator for all λ in R except for at most countably many λ in σ esst. Furthermore, we prove a version of the second statement in the case when T is semibounded but not bounded. 1. INTRODUCTION AND MAIN RESULTS When a self-adjoint operator T is perturbed by a bounded self-adjoint operator S, it is important to investigate the spectral properties of the difference ft + S ft, where f is a real-valued Borel function on R. It is also of interest to predict the smoothness of the mapping S ft + S ft with respect to the smoothness of f. There is a vast amount of literature dedicated to these problems, see, e. g., Kreĭn, Farforovskaja, Peller, Birman, Solomyak, Pushnitski, Yafaev [2, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20, 22 25], and the references therein. In the context of compact and Schatten class operators in the space of bounded operators, there are two well-known situations which may be called "extreme" and both of them will appear in this paper, see Sections 4, 5, and 7 below. First, if f is an infinitely differentiable function with compact support and S is trace class, then ft + S ft is a trace class operator; a precise reference for this result by Peller is given below. Second, if f = 1,λ is the characteristic function of the interval, λ with λ in the essential spectrum of T, then it may occur that ft + S ft is not compact, see Kreĭn s example [11,12]. In the latter example, S is a rank one operator, and the difference 1,λ T +S 1,λ T is a bounded self-adjoint Hankel operator that can be computed explicitly for all 0 < λ < 1. Formally, a Date: June 26, Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 47B15; Secondary 47A55, 47B35, 47A10. Key words and phrases. Self-adjoint operators, perturbation theory, Hankel operators, spectrum. 1

2 2 C. UEBERSOHN bounded Hankel operator Γ on L 2 0, is a bounded integral operator Γ : L 2 0, L 2 0, such that the kernel function k of Γ depends only on the sum of the variables: Γgx = 0 kx + ygydy. For an introduction to the theory of Hankel operators, we refer to Peller s book [21]. Inspired by Kreĭn s example, we deal with the following question. Question 1. Let λ R. Is it true that Dλ := E,λ T + S E,λ T, the difference of the spectral projections, is unitarily equivalent to a bounded selfadjoint Hankel operator, provided that S is a rank one operator? Pushnitski [22 25] and Yafaev [25] have been studying the spectral properties of the operator Dλ in connection with scattering theory. If the absolutely continuous spectrum of T contains an open interval and under some smoothness assumptions, the results of Pushnitski and Yafaev are applicable, see Sections 5 and 7 below. In this case, one has σ ess Dλ = [ a, a], where a > 0 depends on λ and can be expressed in terms of the scattering matrix for the pair T, T + S, see [22, Formula 1.3]. Here and for the rest of this paper, we consider a self-adjoint operator T and a self-adjoint operator S α = α, ϕ ϕ : H H of rank one acting on a complex separable Hilbert space H of infinite dimension, where α R and ϕ H is a normed vector. We denote the spectrum and the essential spectrum of T by σt and σ ess T, respectively. Throughout the paper, except for Section 8, T is assumed to be bounded. If F is a self-adjoint operator of finite rank and λ is a real number, then we write Dλ = E,λ T + S α E,λ T, Dλ := E,λ T + F E,λ T. Furthermore, we denote by span{x i H : i I} the linear span generated by the vectors x i, i I, where I is some index set. If there exists a vector x such that span {E Ω T x : Ω BR} := span {E Ω T x : Ω BR} = H, then x is called cyclic for T. Here BR denotes the sigma-algebra of Borel sets of R. The following theorem is the main result of this paper. Theorem 2. 1 The operator Dλ is unitarily equivalent to a self-adjoint Hankel operator of finite rank for all λ in R \ [min σ ess T, max σ ess T ]. 2 Suppose that ϕ is cyclic for T. Then Dλ is unitarily equivalent to a bounded self-adjoint Hankel operator for all λ in R \ σ ess T and for all but at most countably many λ in σ ess T. 3 If ϕ is not cyclic for T, then for all λ R there exists a Hankel operator Γ, depending on λ, such that the spectra of Dλ and Γ coincide. The theory of bounded self-adjoint Hankel operators has been studied intensively by Rosenblum, Howland, Megretskiĭ, Peller, Treil, and others, see [7, 17,

3 ON THE DIFFERENCE OF SPECTRAL PROJECTIONS 3 26, 27]. In their 1995 paper [17], Megretskiĭ, Peller, and Treil have shown that every bounded self-adjoint Hankel operator can be characterized by three properties concerning the spectrum and the multiplicity in the spectrum, see [17, Theorem 1]. We present a version of [17, Theorem 1] for differences of two orthogonal projections in Section 2 below. The following theorem is an important ingredient in the proof of Theorem 2. Likewise, it is of independent interest. Theorem 3. Suppose that the normed vector ϕ is cyclic for T. Let λ R \ {min σ ess T, max σ ess T }. Then the kernel of Dλ is 1 infinite dimensional if and only if λ R \ [min σ ess T, max σ ess T ]. 2 trivial if and only if λ min σ ess T, max σ ess T. In particular, one has either Ker Dλ = {0} or dim Ker Dλ =. Note that, according to Theorem 3, the kernel of Dλ is trivial for all λ between min σ ess T and max σ ess T, no matter if the interval min σ ess T, max σ ess T contains points from the resolvent set of T, isolated eigenvalues of T, etc. In Section 3, we show that dim KerDλ I dim KerDλ + I 1 for all λ R, where I denotes the identity operator. The proof of Theorem 3 in Section 4 below is based on a result by Liaw and Treil [15] and some harmonic analysis. In Theorem 3, we assumed that the vector ϕ is cyclic for T. In the case when ϕ is not cyclic for T, Example 4.4 below shows that Question 1 has to be answered negatively, while Proposition 4.3 provides a list of sufficient conditions so that Question 1 has a positive answer. In Section 5, we show that the operator Dλ is non-invertible for all λ in R except for λ in an at most countable subset of σ ess T, see Theorem 5.1. Section 6 completes the proof of Theorem 2. Some examples, including the almost Mathieu operator, are discussed in Section 7 below. In Section 8, we prove an analogue of Theorem 2 2 in the case when T is semibounded but not bounded. The results of this paper will be part of the author s Ph.D. thesis at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. 2. THE MAIN TOOL In this section, we present the main tool for the proof of Theorem 2. First, we state a lemma which follows immediately from [4, Theorem 6.1]. Lemma 2.1. Let Γ be the difference of two orthogonal projections. Then σγ [ 1, 1]. Moreover, the restricted operators Γ H0 and Γ H0 are unitarily equivalent, where the closed subspace H 0 of H is defined by H 0 := [Ker Γ I Ker Γ + I]. In [17], Megretskiĭ, Peller, and Treil solved the inverse spectral problem for self-adjoint Hankel operators. In our situation, [17, Theorem 1] reads as follows:

4 4 C. UEBERSOHN Theorem 2.2. The difference Γ of two orthogonal projections is unitarily equivalent to a bounded self-adjoint Hankel operator if and only if the following three conditions hold: C1 either Ker Γ = {0} or dim Ker Γ = ; C2 Γ is non-invertible; C3 dim KerΓ I dim KerΓ + I 1. Note that if one of the dimensions in condition C3 is infinite, then C3 holds if and only if the other dimension is also infinite. Proof of Theorem 2.2. Combine Lemma 2.1 and [17, Theorem 1]. As will be shown in Section 3, the operator Dλ satisfies condition C3 for all λ R. Therefore, a sufficient condition for Dλ to be unitarily equivalent to a bounded self-adjoint Hankel operator is given by: The kernel of Dλ is infinite dimensional. In Proposition 4.3 below, we present a list of sufficient conditions such that the kernel of Dλ is infinite dimensional. 3. ON THE DIMENSION OF Ker Dλ ± I The main purpose of this section is to show that condition C3 in Theorem 2.2 is fulfilled for all λ R. Let λ R. Since T and S α are fixed, we write P λ := E,λ T + S α and Q λ := E,λ T. Lemma 3.1. Suppose that α > 0. Let λ R. Then Ker P λ Q λ I = {0} and dim Ker P λ Q λ + I 1. Proof. Assume that Ker P λ Q λ I is not trivial. Then there exists a normed vector x H such that P λ Q λ x = x. Hence P λ x = x and Q λ x = 0 and this implies so that T + S α x, x < λ and T x, x λ λ > T + S α x, x = T x, x + α x, ϕ 2 λ, which is a contradiction. This proves Ker P λ Q λ I = {0}. Now assume that there exists an orthonormal system of two vectors x 1, x 2 H such that P λ Q λ x 1 = x 1 and P λ Q λ x 2 = x 2. If a := x 1, ϕ 0 and b := x 2, ϕ 0, then we put x 3 := For at least one j {1, 2, 3}, one has x 1 a x 2 b x 1 a x 2 b. λ > T x j, x j = T + S α x j, x j λ, which is a contradiction. This concludes the proof. The following lemma is proved analogously to Lemma 3.1.

5 ON THE DIFFERENCE OF SPECTRAL PROJECTIONS 5 Lemma 3.2. Suppose that α < 0. Let λ R. Then Ker P λ Q λ + I = {0} and dim Ker P λ Q λ I 1. Taken together, Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2 imply: Lemma 3.3. The operator Dλ fulfills Theorem 2.2 C3 for all λ R. Remark. If we consider an unbounded self-adjoint operator T and an eigenvector x of P λ Q λ, then the proof of Lemma 3.1 does not work, because x might not belong to the domain of T. The following remark shows that we cannot expect Dλ to be unitarily equivalent to a bounded self-adjoint Hankel operator for perturbations of rank 2. Remark Perturbations of higher rank. Let k N, k 2. Denote by l 2 N the space of all complex square summable one-sided sequences x = x 1, x 2,... Consider the bounded self-adjoint diagonal operator T = diag 1, 3/4, 3/8, 3/16,... : l 2 N l 2 N and the self-adjoint diagonal operator F = diag 1, 1/2,..., 1/k, 0,... : l 2 N l 2 N. Then F is of rank k, and we see that dim Ker E,λ T + F E,λ T I = 2 and Ker E,λ T + F E,λ T + I = {0} for all λ 5/4, 1. This violates condition C3 in Theorem ON THE DIMENSION OF Ker Dλ In this section, we deal with the question whether the operator Dλ fulfills condition C1 in Theorem 2.2. It is easy to see that the kernel of Dλ is nontrivial for all λ R if the vector ϕ is not cyclic for T. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the two cases ϕ is cyclic for T. ϕ is not cyclic for T. First, let us recall the well-known fact see, e. g., [28, Lemma 9.8] that ϕ is cyclic for T if and only if ϕ is cyclic for T + S α The case when ϕ is cyclic for T. This subsection is devoted to the proof of Theorem 3. Let λ R. Again, we write P λ = E,λ T + S α and Q λ = E,λ T. Observe that the kernel of P λ Q λ is equal to the orthogonal sum of Ran P λ Ran Q λ and Ker P λ Ker Q λ. Therefore, we will investigate the dimensions of Ran P λ Ran Q λ and Ker P λ Ker Q λ separately. Now we follow [15, pp ] in order to represent the operators T and T + S α such that [15, Theorem 2.1] is applicable. Define Borel probability measures µ and µ α on R by µω := E Ω T ϕ, ϕ and µ α Ω := E Ω T + S α ϕ, ϕ, Ω BR,

6 6 C. UEBERSOHN respectively. According to [28, Proposition 5.18], there exist unitary operators U : H L 2 µ and U α : H L 2 µ α such that UT U = M t is the multiplication operator by the independent variable on L 2 µ, U α T + S α Uα = M s is the multiplication operator by the independent variable on L 2 µ α, and one has both Uϕt = 1 on R and U α ϕs = 1 on R. Clearly, the operators U and U α are uniquely determined by these properties. By [15, Theorem 2.1], the unitary operator V α := U α U : L 2 µ L 2 µ α is given by fx ft 4.1 V α f x = fx α dµt x t for all continuously differentiable functions f : R C with compact support. For the rest of this subsection, we suppose that V α satisfies 4.1. Without loss of generality, we may further assume that T is already the multiplication operator by the independent variable on L 2 µ, i. e., we identify H with L 2 µ, T with UT U, and T + S α with UT + S α U. In order to prove Theorem 3, we need the following lemma. Lemma 4.1. Let λ R \ {max σ ess T }. Then one has that the dimension of Ran P λ Ran Q λ is 1 infinite if and only if λ > max σ ess T. 2 zero if and only if λ < max σ ess T. Proof. The idea of this proof is essentially due to the author s supervisor, Vadim Kostrykin. The well-known fact see, e. g., [28, Example 5.4] that supp µ α = σt + S α implies that the cardinality of λ, supp µ α is infinite [resp. finite] if and only if λ < max σ ess T [resp. λ > max σ ess T ]. Case 1: The cardinality of λ, supp µ α is finite. Since λ > max σ ess T, it follows that dim Ran E [λ, T + S α < and dim Ran E [λ, T <. Therefore, Ran E,λ T Ran E,λ T + S α is infinite dimensional. Case 2: The cardinality of λ, supp µ α is infinite. If λ min σt or λ min σt + S α, then Ran P λ Ran Q λ = {0}, as claimed. Now suppose that λ > min σt and λ > min σt + S α. Let f Ran P λ Ran Q λ. Then one has fx = 0 for µ-almost all x λ and V α f x = 0 for µ α -almost all x λ. Choose a representative f in the equivalence class of f such that fx = 0 for all x λ. Let r 0,. According to [10, Corollary 6.4 a] and the max σesst λ 3 fact that µ is a finite Borel measure on R, we know that the set of continuously differentiable functions R C with compact support is dense in L 2 µ with respect to L 2 µ. Thus, a standard mollifier argument shows that we can choose continuously differentiable functions f n : R C with compact support such that f n f < 1/n and fn x = 0 for all x λ + r, n N. L 2 µ In particular, we may insert f n into Formula 4.1 and obtain f n t V α fn x = α dµt for all x λ + 2r. x t,λ+r

7 It is readily seen that Bg x := ON THE DIFFERENCE OF SPECTRAL PROJECTIONS 7,λ+r gt dµt, x λ + 2r, x t defines a bounded operator B : L 2 1,λ+r dµ L 2 1 [ λ+2r, dµ α with operator norm 1/r. It is now easy to show that ft,λ] x t dµt = 0 for µ α-almost all x λ + 2r. As r 0, in was arbitrary, we get that max σesst λ 3,λ] ft x t dµt = 0 for µ α-almost all x > λ. From now on, we may assume without loss of generality that f is real-valued. Consider the holomorphic function C \, λ] C defined by ft z z t dµt.,λ],λ] Since λ < max σ ess T, the identity theorem for holomorphic functions implies that ft z t dµt = 0 for all z C \, λ]. This yields,λ] ft x t 2 dµt = 0 for all x R, y > 0. + y2 Consider the positive finite Borel measure ν 1 : BR [0, and the finite signed Borel measure ν 2 : BR R defined by ν 1 Ω := dµt, ν 2 Ω := ftdµt; Ω,λ] Ω,λ] note that f belongs to L 1 µ. Define Poisson transforms P νj : {x + iy C : x R, y > 0} C by dν j t P νj x + iy := y x t 2, x R, y > 0, j = 1, 2. + y2 It follows from that R P ν2 x + iy = 0 for all x R, y > 0. Furthermore, since ν 1 is not the trivial measure, one has Now [8, Proposition 2.2] implies that P ν1 x + iy > 0 for all x R, y > 0. 0 = lim y 0 P ν2 x + iy P ν1 x + iy = fx for µ-almost all x λ. Hence fx = 0 for µ-almost all x R. We conclude that Ran P λ Ran Q λ is trivial. This finishes the proof.

8 8 C. UEBERSOHN Analogously, one shows that the following lemma holds true. Lemma 4.2. Let λ R \ {min σ ess T }. Then one has that the dimension of Ker P λ Ker Q λ is 1 infinite if and only if λ < min σ ess T. 2 zero if and only if λ > min σ ess T. Remark. The proof of Lemma 4.1 does not work if T is unbounded. To see this, consider the case where the essential spectrum of T is bounded from above and T has infinitely many isolated eigenvalues greater than max σ ess T. Proof of Theorem 3. Taken together, Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2 imply Theorem The case when ϕ is not cyclic for T. Let λ R. If the kernel of Dλ = E,λ T + S α E,λ T is infinite dimensional, then Dλ fulfills conditions C1 and C2 in Theorem 2.2. The following proposition provides a list of sufficient conditions such that the kernel of Dλ is infinite dimensional. Proposition 4.3. If at least one of the following four cases occurs for X = T or for X = T + S α, then the operator Dλ is unitarily equivalent to a bounded self-adjoint Hankel operator with infinite dimensional kernel for all λ R. 1 The spectrum of X contains an eigenvalue of infinite multiplicity. In particular, this pertains to the case when the range of X is finite dimensional. 2 The spectrum of X contains infinitely many eigenvalues with multiplicity at least two. 3 The restricted operator X E does not have a simple spectrum, where E := {x H : x is an eigenvector of X}. 4 The vector ϕ is an eigenvector of X. Proof. By Lemma 3.3, we know that condition C3 in Theorem 2.2 holds true for all λ R. First, suppose that there exists an eigenvalue λ 0 of X = T with multiplicity m 2, i. e. m {2, 3, 4,...} { }. Define M := E {λ0 }T H {ϕ} {0}. It is easy to show that M is a closed subspace of H such that dim M m 1, T M = T + S α M, T M M and T M M, T + S α M M and T + S α M M. Therefore, M is contained in the kernel of Dλ for all λ R. This shows that the kernel of Dλ is infinite dimensional for all λ R whenever case 1 or case 2 occur for the operator X = T ; in the case when X = T + S α the proof runs analogously. Now suppose that case 3 occurs for X = T. Define the closed subspace N := span { T j ϕ : j N 0 } of H. It is well known see, e. g., [28, p. 195] that T N = T + S α N, T N N and T N N, T + S α N N and T + S α N N.

9 ON THE DIFFERENCE OF SPECTRAL PROJECTIONS 9 Therefore, N is contained in the kernel of Dλ for all λ R. By assumption, it follows that there exists a normed vector ψ in N {x H : x is an eigenvector of T }. According to [30, pp ], the closed subspace Mψ := {ft ψ : f L 2 ϱ} is contained in N, where the Borel probability measure ϱ is defined by Ω E Ω T ψ, ψ =: ϱω. By standard arguments, it follows that Mψ and hence N is infinite dimensional. If X = T + S α, then the proof runs analogously. 4 This is obvious. Now the proof is complete. The following example illustrates that dim Ker Dλ may attain every value in N, provided that ϕ is not cyclic for T. Recall that when dim Ker Dλ is neither zero nor infinity, Theorem 2.2 shows that Question 1 has to be answered negatively. Example 4.4. Essentially, this is an application of Kreĭn s example from [12, pp ]. Let 0 < λ < 1. Consider the integral operators A j, j = 0, 1, with kernel functions a 0 x, y = { sinhxe y if x y sinhye x if x y and a 1x, y = { coshxe y coshye x if x y if x y on the Hilbert space L 2 0,. By [12, pp ], we know that A 0 A 1 is of rank one and that the difference E,λ A 0 E,λ A 1 is a Hankel operator. Furthermore, it was shown in [11, Theorem 1] that E,λ A 0 E,λ A 1 has a simple purely absolutely continuous spectrum filling in the interval [ 1, 1]. In particular, the kernel of E,λ A 0 E,λ A 1 is trivial. Let k N. Now consider operators à j := A j M : L 2 0, C k L 2 0, C k, j = 0, 1, where M C k k is an arbitrary fixed self-adjoint matrix. Then one has dim Ker E,λ Ã0 E,λ Ã1 = k. 5. ON NON-INVERTIBILITY OF Dλ Recall that Dλ = E,λ T + F E,λ T for λ R. In this section, we prove the following theorem. Theorem 5.1. Let F : H H be a self-adjoint operator of finite rank. Let M be the set of all points in σ ess T which can be approximated from above and from below by sequences in the spectrum of T. Then the following assertions hold true. 1 If λ R \ M, then Dλ is a trace class operator. In particular, zero belongs to the essential spectrum of Dλ. 2 Zero belongs to the essential spectrum of Dλ for all but at most countably many λ in M.

10 10 C. UEBERSOHN Theorem 5.1 is proved below. Note that we cannot exclude the case that the exceptional set is dense in σ ess T. Throughout this section, we consider a self-adjoint finite rank operator N F = α j, ϕ j ϕ j : H H, N N, j=1 where ϕ j H form an orthonormal system in H and α j are nonzero real numbers. It is easy to show that if there exists λ 0 in R such that dim E {λ0 }T H = or dim E {λ0 }T + F H =, then dim Ker Dλ = cf. the proof of Proposition above and hence 0 σ ess Dλ for all λ R. Therefore, we henceforth consider the case where 5.1 dim E {λ} T H < and dim E {λ} T + F H < for all λ R. Define the sets M, M, and M + by M := {λ σ ess T : there exist λ ± k σx such that λ k λ, λ+ k λ}, M := {λ σ ess T : there exist λ k σx such that λ k λ} \ M, M + := {λ σ ess T : there exist λ + k σx such that λ+ k λ} \ M, where X = T or X = T + F. We have to show that these sets do not depend on whether X = T or X = T + F. We only show that {λ σ ess T : there exist λ ± k σt s.t. λ k λ, λ+ k λ} = {λ σ esst : there exist λ ± k σt + F s.t. λ k λ, λ+ k λ}; the other cases are proved analogously. follows immediately from the following general fact which is probably well known to specialists. Lemma 5.2. Let X : H H be a bounded self-adjoint operator such that the range of E {λ} X is finite dimensional for all λ R. Suppose that λ 0 is in M with respect to X. Then λ 0 is in M with respect to X + F for all self-adjoint finite rank operators F. Proof. We show the claim by induction on N := rankf N. Let N = 1. It follows easily from the assumptions that E {λ} X + F H is finite dimensional for all λ R. Thus, according to the invariance of the essential spectrum under compact perturbations, we know that λ 0 belongs to one of the three disjoint sets M, M, M + with respect to X + F. Assume for contradiction that λ 0 is in M with respect to X + F ; the case λ 0 M + with respect to X + F runs analogously. Without loss of generality, we may assume that ϕ is cyclic for X +F, where F = α, ϕ ϕ. Choose ε > 0 such that λ 0, λ 0 +ε is contained in the resolvent set of X + F. Then there exist infinitely many simple isolated eigenvalues of X in λ 0, λ 0 +ε. By standard Aronszajn-Donoghue theory of rank one perturbations see, e. g., [28, Theorem 9.10], it easily follows that there exist infinitely many eigenvalues of X + F in λ 0, λ 0 + ε, which is a contradiction. If rankf 2, then we may write X + F = N 1 X + j=1 Now the claim follows by induction. α j, ϕ j ϕ j + α N, ϕ N ϕ N, N 2.

11 ON THE DIFFERENCE OF SPECTRAL PROJECTIONS 11 Lemma 5.3. Let λ R \ M. Then Dλ is a trace class operator. Proof. First, let λ be in R \ σ ess T M +. Then there exists an infinitely differentiable function ψ : R R with compact support such that E,λ T + F E,λ T = ψt + F ψt. Combine [2, p. 156, Equation 8.3] with [20, p. 532] and [20, Theorem 2], and it follows that Dλ is a trace class operator. The case where λ is in M runs analogously; note that, by 5.1, we know that E {λ} T + F E {λ} T is a finite rank operator. Proposition 5.4. One has 0 σ ess Dλ for all but at most countably many λ R. In the proof of Proposition 5.4, we will use the notion of weak convergence for sequences of probability measures. Definition 5.5. Let E be a metric space. A sequence ν 1, ν 2,... of Borel probability measures on E is said to converge weakly to a Borel probability measure ν on E if fdν n = fdν for every bounded continuous function f : E R. lim n If ν 1, ν 2,... converges weakly to ν, then we shall write ν n w ν, n. Proof of Proposition 5.4. First, we note that if λ < min σt σt + F or λ > max σt σt + F, then Dλ is the zero operator, and there is nothing to show. So let us henceforth assume that λ min σt σt + F and λ max σt σt + F. The idea of the proof is to apply Weyl s criterion see, e. g., [28, Proposition 8.11] to a suitable sequence of normed vectors. In this proof, we denote by g, K the supremum norm of a function g : K R, where K is a compact subset of R, and by A op the usual operator norm of an operator A : H H. Choose a sequence x n n N of normed vectors in H such that x 1 {ϕ k : k = 1,..., N}, x 2 {x 1, ϕ k, T ϕ k : k = 1,..., N},..., x n { x 1,..., x n 1, T j ϕ k : j N 0, j n 1, k = 1,..., N },... Consider sequences of Borel probability measures ν n n N and ν n n N that are defined as follows: ν n Ω := E Ω T x n, x n, ν n Ω := E Ω T + F x n, x n, Ω BR. It is easy to see that by Prohorov s theorem see, e. g., [18, Proposition 7.2.3], there exist a subsequence of a subsequence of x n n N and Borel probability measures ν and ν with support contained in σt and σt + F, respectively, such that w w ν nk ν as k and νnkl ν as l. Due to this observation, we consider the sequences x nkl l N, ν nkl l N, and νnkl l N which will be denoted again by x n n N, ν n n N, and ν n n N. Put N T := {µ R : ν{µ} > 0} and N T +F := {µ R : ν{µ} > 0}. Then the set N T N T +F is at most countable. Consider the case where λ does

12 12 C. UEBERSOHN not belong to N T N T +F. Define ξ := min {min σt, min σt + F } 1. Consider the continuous functions f m : R R, m N, that are defined by f m t := 1+mt ξ 1 [ξ 1/m, ξ] t+1 ξ, λ t+ 1 mt λ 1 [λ,λ+1/m] t. The figure below shows qualitatively the graph of f m. FIGURE 1. The graph of f m. 5.2 For all m N, choose polynomials p m,k such that f m p m,k, K 0 as k, where K := [ min σt σt + F 10, max σt σt + F + 10 ]. By construction of x n n N, one has 5.3 p m,k T + F x n = p m,k T x n for all n > degree of p m,k. For all m N, the function 1,λ f m 2 is bounded, measurable, and continuous except for a set of both ν-measure zero and ν-measure zero. Now 5.3 and the Portmanteau theorem see, e. g., [9, Theorem i and iii] imply lim sup E,λ T + F E,λ T x n n 1,λ t f m t 2 dνt R + 1,λ s f m s 2 d νs R + f m T p m,k T op + f m T + F p m,k T + F op 1/2 1/2 for all m N and all k N. First, we send k and then we take the limit m. As m, the sequence 1,λ f m 2 converges to zero pointwise almost everywhere with respect to both ν and ν. Now 5.2 and the dominated convergence theorem imply lim E,λ T + F E,λ T x n = 0. n Recall that x n n N is an orthonormal sequence. Thus, an application of Weyl s criterion see, e. g., [28, Proposition 8.11] concludes the proof. Remark. If T is unbounded, then the spectrum of T is unbounded, so that the proof of Proposition 5.4 does not work. For instance, we used the compactness of the spectra in order to uniformly approximate f m by polynomials. Moreover, it is unclear whether an orthonormal sequence x n n N as in the proof of Proposition 5.4 can be found in the domain of T.

13 ON THE DIFFERENCE OF SPECTRAL PROJECTIONS 13 Proof of Theorem 5.1. Taken together, Lemma 5.3 and Proposition 5.4 imply Theorem 5.1. In order to apply a result of Pushnitski [22] to Dλ, we check the corresponding assumptions stated in [22, p. 228]. First, define the finite rank operators G, F 0 : H H by N N G = F 1 2 = α j 1 2, ϕj ϕ j and F 0 = signf = signα j, ϕ j ϕ j, j=1 respectively. Obviously, one has F = G F 0 G. Define the operator-valued functions h 0 and h on R by h 0 λ = GE,λ T G, hλ = GE,λ T + F G, λ R. In order to fulfill [22, Hypothesis 1.1], we need the following assumptions. Hypothesis. Suppose that there exists an open interval δ contained in the absolutely continuous spectrum of T. Next, we assume that the derivates j=1 ḣ 0 λ = d dλ h 0λ and ḣλ = d dλ hλ exist in operator norm for all λ δ, and that the maps δ λ ḣ0λ and δ λ ḣλ are Hölder continuous with some positive exponent in the operator norm. Now [22, Theorem 1.1] yields that for all λ δ, there exists a nonnegative real number a such that σ ess Dλ = [ a, a]. The number a depends on λ and can be expressed in terms of the scattering matrix for the pair T, T + F, see [22, Formula 1.3]. Example 5.6. Again, consider Kreĭn s example [12, pp ]. That is, H = L 2 0,, the initial operator T = A 0 is the integral operator from Example 4.4, ϕx = 2 e x, and α = 1/2. Put δ = 0, 1. Then Pushnitski has shown in [22, Section 1.3] that, by [22, Theorem 1.1], one has σ ess Dλ = [ 1, 1] for all 0 < λ < 1. In particular, the operator Dλ fulfills condition C2 in Theorem 2.2 for all 0 < λ < PROOF OF THEOREM 2 1 follows easily from Lemma 3.3 and Theorem 2.2, because Dλ = E,λ T + S α E,λ T = E [λ, T E [λ, T + S α is a finite rank operator for all λ in, min σ ess T max σ ess T,. 2 is a direct consequence of Lemma 3.3, Theorem 3, Theorem 5.1, and Theorem If ϕ is not cyclic for T, then, obviously, zero is an eigenvalue of Dλ for all λ R. Hence, according to [16, Theorem 1.1], we know that there exists a Hankel operator Γ, depending on λ, such that σγ = σ Dλ. This concludes the proof of Theorem 2.

14 14 C. UEBERSOHN 7. SOME EXAMPLES First, we consider the case when ϕ is cyclic for T. Example 7.1. Once again, consider Kreĭn s example [12, pp ]. The operators T = A 0 and T + 1 2, ϕ ϕ = A 1, where ϕx = 2 e x, from Example 4.4 both have a simple purely absolutely continuous spectrum filling in the interval [0, 1]. Therefore, Dλ is the zero operator for all λ R \ 0, 1. In Example 5.6 above, we have seen that the operator Dλ fulfills condition C2 in Theorem 2.2 for all 0 < λ < 1. The function ϕ is cyclic for T. Hence, Theorem 3 implies that the kernel of Dλ is trivial for all 0 < λ < 1. Recall that, by Lemma 3.3, we know that Dλ fulfills condition C3 in Theorem 2.2 for all λ R. Therefore, an application of Theorem 2.2 yields that Dλ is unitarily equivalent to a bounded self-adjoint Hankel operator for all λ R. Note that, in this example, there are no exceptional points. Proof of. Let k be in N 0. Define the kth Laguerre polynomial L k on 0, by L k x := ex d k k! x k e x. Furthermore, define ψ dx k k on 0, by ψ k x := x k e x. A straightforward computation shows that { 1 x k+1 A0 ψ k x = 2 e x k k 1 } 2 k+1 2x k l k!. k l! By induction on n N 0, it easily follows that p ϕ belongs to the linear span of A l 0 ϕ, l N 0, l n, for all polynomials p of degree n. In particular, the functions φ j on 0, defined by φ j x := 2 L j 2xe x are elements of span { A l 0 ϕ : l N 0, l n } for all j N 0 with j n. Since φ j j N0 is an orthonormal basis of L 2 0,, it follows that ϕ is cyclic for T. Example 7.1 suggests the conjecture that Theorem 2 2 can be strengthened to hold up to a finite exceptional set. Next, we consider different examples where the multiplicity in the spectrum of T is such that we can apply Proposition 4.3, so that Dλ is unitarily equivalent to a bounded self-adjoint Hankel operator for all λ R. Since, in these situations, S α can be an arbitrary self-adjoint operator of rank one, we do not mention it in the following example. l=0

15 ON THE DIFFERENCE OF SPECTRAL PROJECTIONS 15 Example Let T be an arbitrary orthogonal projection on H. Then zero or one is an eigenvalue of T with infinite multiplicity, and we can apply Proposition Put H = L 2 0, and let T be the Carleman operator, i. e., the bounded Hankel operator such that T gx = 0 gy x + y dy for all continuous functions g : 0, C with compact support. It is well known see, e. g., [21, Chapter 10, Theorem 2.3] that the Carleman operator has a purely absolutely continuous spectrum of uniform multiplicity two filling in the interval [0, π]. Therefore, Proposition 4.3 can be applied. Jacobi operators. Consider a bounded self-adjoint Jacobi operator H acting on the Hilbert space l 2 Z of complex square summable two-sided sequences. More precisely, suppose that there exist bounded real-valued sequences a = a n n and b = b n n with a n > 0 for all n Z such that Hx n = a n x n+1 + a n 1 x n 1 + b n x n, n Z, cf. [31, Theorem 1.5 and Lemma 1.6]. The following result is well known. Proposition 7.3 see [31], Lemma 3.6. Let H be a bounded self-adjoint Jacobi operator on l 2 Z. Then the singular spectrum of H has spectral multiplicity one, and the absolutely continuous spectrum of H has multiplicity at most two. In the case where H has a simple spectrum, there exists a normed cyclic vector for H, and we can apply Theorem 2. Otherwise, H fulfills condition 3 in Proposition 4.3. Let us discuss some examples in the latter case with T = H. Again, S α can be an arbitrary self-adjoint operator of rank one, and we do not mention it in the following. Example 7.4. Consider the discrete Schrödinger operator H = H V on l 2 Z with bounded potential V : Z R, HV x n = x n+1 + x n 1 + V n x n, n Z. If the spectrum of H V contains only finitely many points outside of the interval [ 2, 2], then [3, Theorem 2] implies that H V has a purely absolutely continuous spectrum of multiplicity two on [ 2, 2]. It is well known that the free Jacobi operator H 0 with V = 0 has a purely absolutely continuous spectrum of multiplicity two filling in the interval [ 2, 2]. Last, we consider the almost Mathieu operator H = H κ,β,θ : l 2 Z l 2 Z defined by Hx n = x n+1 + x n 1 + 2κ cos 2πθ + nβ x n, n Z, where κ R \ {0} and β, θ R. In fact, it suffices to consider β, θ R/Z. The almost Mathieu operator plays an important role in physics, see, for instance, the review [14] and the references therein. Here, we are interested in cases where H fulfills at least one condition in Proposition 4.3 above.

16 16 C. UEBERSOHN Proposition If β is rational, then for all κ and θ the Jacobi operator H κ,β,θ is periodic and has a purely absolutely continuous spectrum of uniform multiplicity two. 2 If β is irrational and κ < 1, then for all θ the almost Mathieu operator H κ,β,θ has a purely absolutely continuous spectrum of uniform multiplicity two. Proof. 1 If β is rational, then H κ,β,θ is a periodic Jacobi operator. Hence, it is well known see, e. g., [31, p. 122] that the spectrum of H κ,β,θ is purely absolutely continuous. According to [5, Theorem 9.1], we know that the absolutely continuous spectrum of H κ,β,θ is uniformly of multiplicity two. This proves 1. 2 Suppose that β is irrational. Avila has shown see [1, Main Theorem] that the almost Mathieu operator H κ,β,θ has a purely absolutely continuous spectrum if and only if κ < 1. Again, [5, Theorem 9.1] implies that the absolutely continuous spectrum of H κ,β,θ is uniformly of multiplicity two. This finishes the proof. Problems 4 6 of Simon s list [29] are concerned with the almost Mathieu operator. Avila s result [1, Main Theorem], which we used in the above proof, is a solution for Problem 6 in [29]. 8. THE SEMIBOUNDED CASE Up to now, the self-adjoint operator T was assumed to be bounded. In this section, which is based on Kreĭn s approach in [12, pp ], we will deal with the case when T is semibounded but not bounded. As before, S α is a selfadjoint operator of rank one and Dλ = E,λ T + S α E,λ T for λ R. First, consider the case when T is bounded from below. Choose c R such that 8.1 T + ci 0 and T + S α + ci 0. It suffices to consider Dλ for λ c. Compute Dλ = E [λ, T E [λ, T + S α = E,µ] T ci 1 E,µ] T + Sα ci 1 and T + S α ci 1 = T ci 1 + α, ϕ ϕ. Here µ = 1 ϕ := 8.2 T +1+cI 1 ϕ T +1+cI 1 ϕ, and α R is such that We have shown: α, ϕ ϕ = T + S α ci 1 S α T ci 1. λ+1+c, Lemma 8.1. Let T be a self-adjoint operator which is bounded from below. Let c be such that 8.1 holds. Then Dλ = 0 for all λ < c and Dλ = E,µ] T 8.3 E,µ] T + α, ϕ ϕ for all λ c. Here µ = 1 λ+1+c, T = T ci 1, ϕ = holds. T ϕ T ϕ, and α is such that 8.2 The right-hand side of 8.3 is of the form investigated in Sections 1-7 above, except that here we consider closed intervals, µ].

17 ON THE DIFFERENCE OF SPECTRAL PROJECTIONS 17 Remark. If we consider the difference of the spectral projections associated with the closed interval, µ] instead of the open interval, µ, then all assertions in Theorem 2, Theorem 3, Lemma 3.3, Proposition 4.3, and Theorem 5.1 remain true. All proofs can easily be modified. In particular, we obtain the following corollary. Corollary 8.2. Let T be a bounded self-adjoint operator on H and define Bµ := E,µ] T E,µ] T + S α for µ R. Then one has: 1 The operator Bµ is unitarily equivalent to a self-adjoint Hankel operator of finite rank for all µ in R \ [min σ ess T, max σ ess T ]. 2 Suppose that ϕ is cyclic for T. Then Bµ is unitarily equivalent to a bounded self-adjoint Hankel operator for all µ in R \ σ ess T and for all but at most countably many µ in σ ess T. 3 If ϕ is not cyclic for T, then for all µ R there exists a Hankel operator Γ, depending on µ, such that the spectra of Bµ and Γ coincide. The case when T is bounded from below can now be pulled back to the bounded case. Proposition 8.3. Suppose that T is a self-adjoint operator which is bounded from below but not bounded. Assume further that the spectrum of T is not purely discrete and that the vector ϕ is cyclic for T. Then the kernel of Dλ is trivial for all λ > min σ ess T. Furthermore, Dλ is unitarily equivalent to a bounded self-adjoint Hankel operator for all λ in R \ σ ess T and for all but at most countably many λ in σ ess T. Proof. Let c be such that 8.1 holds. It is easy to show that T ci 1 ϕ is cyclic for T ci 1 if ϕ is cyclic for T. is one-to-one from σ ess T onto σ ess T ci 1 \ {0}. One has that min σ ess T +1+cI 1 = 0 and, since the spectrum of T is not purely discrete, max σ ess T +1+cI 1 1 = λ 0 +1+c, where λ 0 := min σ ess T. Furthermore, it is easy to show that the function x 1 x+1+c 1 Therefore, µ = λ+1+c belongs to the open interval 1 0, λ 0 +1+c λ > λ 0. In view of Lemma 8.1 and the subsequent remark, the claims follow. Moreover, standard computations show: if and only if Corollary 8.4. We obtain the same list of sufficient conditions for Dλ to be unitarily equivalent to a bounded self-adjoint Hankel operator as in Proposition 4.3 above. Proof. Let X = T or X = T + S α and let c be such that 8.1 holds. One has: The real number λ is an eigenvalue of X with multiplicity k N { } 1 if and only if λ+1+c is an eigenvalue of X ci 1 with the same multiplicity k. The restricted operator X E does not have a simple spectrum if and only if the restricted operator X ci 1 E does not have a simple spectrum, where E := {x H : x is an eigenvector of X}.

18 18 C. UEBERSOHN In view of Lemma 8.1 and the subsequent remark, the claim follows. Now, consider the case when T is bounded from above. Choose c R such that T ci 0 and T + S α ci 0. It suffices to consider Dλ for λ c. Compute Dλ = E µ, T + Sα 1 + ci 1 E µ, T 1 + ci 1 = E,µ] T 1 + ci 1 E,µ] T + Sα 1 + ci 1 and T + S α 1 + ci 1 = T 1 + ci 1 + α, ϕ ϕ. Here µ = 1 ϕ := T 1+cI 1 ϕ T 1+cI 1 ϕ, and α R is such that α, ϕ ϕ = T + S α 1 + ci 1 S α T 1 + ci 1. λ 1 c, Now proceed analogously to the case when T is bounded from below. It follows that Proposition 8.3 holds in the case when T is bounded from above but not bounded if we replace λ > min σ ess T by λ < max σ ess T. Furthermore, we obtain the same list of sufficient conditions for Dλ to be unitarily equivalent to a bounded self-adjoint Hankel operator as in Proposition 4.3 above. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to thank his Ph.D. supervisor, Vadim Kostrykin, for fruitful discussions. Furthermore, the author would like to thank Julian Großmann, Stephan Schmitz, and Albrecht Seelmann for reading the manuscript and Konstantin A. Makarov for editorial advice. REFERENCES [1] A. Avila, The absolutely continuous spectrum of the almost Mathieu operator, e-print arxiv: v1 [math.ds] 2008 [2] M. Sh. Birman, M. Solomyak, Double operator integrals in a Hilbert space, Integral Equations Operator Theory , [3] D. Damanik, R. Killip, B. Simon, Schrödinger operators with few bound states, Comm. Math. Phys , [4] C. Davis, Separation of two linear subspaces, Acta Sci. Math. Szeged , [5] P. Deift, B. Simon, Almost periodic Schrödinger operators. III. The absolutely continuous spectrum in one dimension, Comm. Math. Phys , [6] Ju. B. Farforovskaja, An example of a Lipschitzian function of selfadjoint operators that yields a nonnuclear increase under a nuclear perturbation, Zap. Naučn. Sem. Leningrad. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. LOMI , Russian [7] J. S. Howland, Spectral theory of self-adjoint Hankel matrices, Michigan Math. J , [8] V. Jakšić, Y. Last, A new proof of Poltoratskii s theorem, J. Funct. Anal , [9] A. Klenke, Probability Theory, Springer, London, 2014 [10] A. W. Knapp, Basic Real Analysis, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2005 [11] V. Kostrykin, K. A. Makarov, On Krein s example, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc , [12] M. G. Kreĭn, On the trace formula in perturbation theory, Mat. Sbornik N.S , Russian [13] M. G. Kreĭn, Some new studies in the theory of perturbations of self-adjoint operators, in First Math. Summer School, Part I, Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 1964, pp Russian. English transl.: On certain new studies in the perturbation theory for selfadjoint operators, in

19 ON THE DIFFERENCE OF SPECTRAL PROJECTIONS 19 Topics in Differential and Integral Equations and Operator Theory, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1983, pp [14] Y. Last, Spectral theory of Sturm-Liouville operators on infinite intervals: a review of recent developments, in Sturm-Liouville Theory, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2005, pp [15] C. Liaw, S. Treil, Rank one perturbations and singular integral operators, J. Funct. Anal , [16] R. A. Martínez-Avendaño, S. R. Treil, An inverse spectral problem for Hankel operators, J. Operator Theory , [17] A. V. Megretskiĭ, V. V. Peller, S. R. Treil, The inverse spectral problem for self-adjoint Hankel operators, Acta Math , [18] K. R. Parthasarathy, Introduction to Probability and Measure, Hindustan Book Agency, New Delhi, 2005 [19] V. V. Peller, Hankel operators in the perturbation theory of unitary and self-adjoint operators, Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen , Russian. English transl.: Functional Anal. Appl , [20] V. V. Peller, Hankel operators in the perturbation theory of unbounded self-adjoint operators, in Analysis and Partial Differential Equations, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math. 122, Dekker, New York, 1990, pp [21] V. V. Peller, Hankel Operators and Their Applications, Springer, New York, 2003 [22] A. Pushnitski, The scattering matrix and the differences of spectral projections, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc , [23] A. Pushnitski, Spectral theory of discontinuous functions of self-adjoint operators: essential spectrum, Integral Equations Operator Theory , [24] A. Pushnitski, Scattering matrix and functions of self-adjoint operators, J. Spectr. Theory , [25] A. Pushnitski, D. Yafaev, Spectral theory of discontinuous functions of self-adjoint operators and scattering theory, J. Funct. Anal , [26] M. Rosenblum, On the Hilbert matrix, I, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc , [27] M. Rosenblum, On the Hilbert matrix, II, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc , [28] K. Schmüdgen, Unbounded Self-adjoint Operators on Hilbert Space, Springer, Dordrecht, 2012 [29] B. Simon, Schrödinger operators in the twenty-first century, in Mathematical Physics 2000, Imperial College Press, London, 2000, pp [30] M. H. Stone, Linear Transformations in Hilbert Space and Their Applications to Analysis, American Mathematical Society, New York, 1964 [31] G. Teschl, Jacobi Operators and Completely Integrable Nonlinear Lattices, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000 C. UEBERSOHN, FB 08 - INSTITUT FÜR MATHEMATIK, JOHANNES GUTENBERG-UNIVERSITÄT MAINZ, STAUDINGER WEG 9, D MAINZ, GERMANY address: uebersoc@uni-mainz.de