arxiv: v1 [math.kt] 7 Jun 2013

Transcription

1 Dense domains symmetric operators and spectral triples arxiv:36.58v [math.kt] 7 Jun 23 Iain Forsyth Bram Mesland Adam Rennie Mathematical Sciences Institute Australian National University Canberra Australia Mathematics Institute Zeeman Building University of Warwick Coventry CV4 7AL UK School of Mathematics and Applied Statistics University of Wollongong Wollongong Australia May 7 24 Abstract This article is about erroneous attempts to weaken the standard definition of unbounded Kasparov module or spectral triple. We present counterexamples to claims in the literature that Fredholm modules can be obtained from these weaker variations of spectral triple. Our counterexamples are constructed using self-adjoint extensions of symmetric operators. Contents Introduction 2 From spectral triple to Fredholm module 2 3 The counterexamples 4 3. Finite deficiency indices: the unit interval Infinite deficiency indices: the unit disc An example with noncompact resolvent The dependence of K-homology classes on the choice of extension Another noncompact commutator Introduction In this note we show by counterexample that weaker definitions of unbounded Kasparov module and so spectral triple may not yield KK or K-homology classes. In particular we consider counterexamples arising from extensions of symmetric operators. These counterexamples address errors both in [4 pp 64-65] and subsequent errors in [3]. Recently we found that one of the standard texts on KK-theory [4] is overly ambitious in extending the definition of unbounded Kasparov module. The principal requirement of any definition of unbounded Kasparov module is that it defines a KK-class. This requirement constrains how far the definition can be extended. The work of Baaj-Julg [] provides sufficient iain.forsyth@anu.edu.au b.mesland@warwick.ac.uk renniea@uow.edu.au

2 conditions for this to be guaranteed. Different conditions apply to the definition of relative Fredholm modules which can be obtained from symmetric operators as shown by [2]. The definition of spectral triple that does give a well defined Fredholm module reads as follows see [ 7] and section 2 of the present paper: Definition.. A spectral triple A H D is given by a Hilbert space H a -subalgebra A BH acting on H and a densely defined unbounded self-adjoint operator D such that:. a dom D dom D for all a A so that [D a] is densely defined. Moreover [D a] is bounded on dom D and so extends to a bounded operator in BH for all a A; 2. a + D 2 /2 KH for all a A. We say that A H D is even if in addition there is a Z 2 -grading such that A is even and D is odd. This means there is an operator γ such that γ γ γ 2 Id H γa aγ for all a A and Dγ + γd. Otherwise we say that A H D is odd. It is asserted in [4 pp 64-65] that condition. of the definition may be weakened to. there is a subspace Y of dom D such that Y is dense in H a Y dom D and [D a] is bounded on Y. Moreover [4 Proposition 7..3] asserts that condition ensures that A H D + D 2 /2 is a Fredholm module. Our first and fourth counterexamples prove that this is false by showing that if the algebra A does not preserve the domain of D then the commutators [D + D 2 /2 a] need not be compact even when + D 2 /2 is compact. After writing this work the paper [9] was brought to our attention. In [9 Section 4] Hilsum provides a K-theoretic contradiction of Blackadar s result. Unfortunately the problems in [4] have contributed to further errors in the literature. In [3 Theorems ] the authors assert that a Fredholm module can be obtained from any self-adjoint extension of a symmetric operator D satisfying certain spectral-triple-like conditions [3 Definition. Definition 6.3]. They further claim that the resulting K-homology class is independent of the particular self-adjoint extension. Both these claims are false as our counterexamples show. Acknowledgements. We would like to thank Alan Carey for useful discussions at an early stage of this project. The first and third authors were supported by the Australian Research Council while the second author was supported by the EPSRC grant EP/J658/2. 2 From spectral triple to Fredholm module The idea of the hard part of the proof that a spectral triple A H D defines a Fredholm module due originally to Baaj and Julg [] is to write for a A [D + D 2 /2 a] [D a] + D 2 /2 + D[ + D 2 /2 a]. 2. As we want to show that the left hand side is compact the aim is to show that both terms on the right are compact. For the second term one writes + D 2 /2 π λ /2 + λ + D 2 dλ 2

3 then takes the commutator with a and multiplies by D yielding D[ + D 2 /2 a] π D λ /2 [ + λ + D 2 a] dλ. 2.2 A careful analysis of the naive equality D[ + D 2 /2 a] λ /2 π D 2 + λ + D 2 [D a] + λ + D 2 + D + λ + D 2 [D a]d + λ + D 2 dλ 2.3 appears in [7 Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4]. There and in the intervening remarks it is proved that this equality is valid when a preserves the domain of D. A similar analysis employing the Cauchy integral formula appears in [2 Proposition.]. The remainder of the proof is to show that the right hand side of Equation 2.3 is a norm convergent integral with compact integrand thus showing that the left hand side is compact. The proof of [7 Lemma 2.3] makes it clear that the equality 2.3 requires careful domain considerations and that 2.3 does not hold simply for algebraic reasons. Thus we see that the Baaj-Julg approach to proving compactness of [D + D 2 /2 a] using Equations 2. and 2.2 requires the assumption that a preserves the domain of D. As a slight generalisation it is asserted in [7] that the Baaj-Julg proof can be pushed through provided a maps a core for D into the domain of D. We amplify on this in the next Proposition. Proposition 2.. Let D : dom D H H be a closed operator let X dom D be a core for D and let a BH satisfy a X dom D and 2 [D a] : X H is bounded on X and so extends to an operator in BH. Then a dom D dom D so that [D a] : dom D H is well-defined. If moreover there is an H-norm dense subspace Y dom D such that a Y dom D then [D a] : dom D H extends to an operator in BH. Proof. Since X is a core for D it is dense in dom D in the graph norm. Let x dom D and choose a sequence {x n } n X such that x n x in the graph norm which is equivalent to x n x and Dx n Dx in the usual norm. Since a BH ax n ax and {Dax n } n is Cauchy in the usual norm since Dax n Dax m adx n adx m + [D a]x n [D a]x m a Dx n Dx m + [D a] x n x m. Hence {ax n } n is Cauchy in the graph norm and since D is closed there is some y dom D such that ax n y in the graph norm. This implies that ax n y in the usual norm and since ax n ax in the usual norm we see that y ax. Hence ax dom D. Now suppose that Y dom D a Y dom D. To show that [D a] : dom D H is bounded it is enough to show that [D a] is closeable since then [D a] [D a] X which is everywhere defined and bounded. Let ξ dom D and η Y. Then [D a]ξ η aξ D η Dξ a η ξ a D η ξ D a η ξ [D a ]η. 3

4 Hence dom[d a] Y. Since [D a] is closeable if and only if [D a] is densely defined if Y is dense in H then [D a] is closeable and thus extends to an operator in BH. Corollary 2.2. Condition. of Definition. is equivalent to i. for all a A there exists a core X for D such that a X dom D and such that [D a] : X H is bounded on X. To simplify some later computations with bounded transforms F D + D 2 /2 of unbounded self-adjoint operators we include the following elementary Lemma. Lemma 2.3. Let D be an unbounded self-adjoint operator on the Hilbert space H and suppose that + D 2 /2 is compact. Then with F D + D 2 /2 P + χ [ D P P + and A BH a C -algebra the operator [F a] is compact for all a A if and only if P + ap is compact for all a A. Proof. The phase of D is PhD P + P and is a compact perturbation of F D + D 2 /2 so for a A the commutator [F a] is compact if and only if [PhD a] is compact. Since P + + P we see that [PhD a] P + + P [PhD a]p + + P 2P + ap 2P ap + so that [PhD a] is compact if and only if P + ap P ap + is compact. If P + ap P ap + is compact then so are P + P + ap P ap + P + ap and P P + ap P ap + P ap + so [F a] is compact if and only if P + ap and P ap + are compact. Since P + ap P a P + we have [F a] is compact for all a A if and only if P + ap is compact for all a A. 3 The counterexamples In this section we produce counterexamples to statements appearing in [3 Theorems ]. The first and fourth of these counterexamples also show that the definition of spectral triple using condition. in place of condition. does not guarantee that we obtain a Fredholm module. 3. Finite deficiency indices: the unit interval Initially the authors of [3] confine their attention to symmetric operators with equal and finite deficiency indices [3 Definition. Theorem.2]. We begin with our counterexample to their claims that a Fredholm module is obtained from any self-adjoint extension of such an operator which must also satisfy spectral-triple-like conditions. Our extension will also satisfy the definition of spectral triple using condition.. In particular [4 Proposition 7..3] and [3 Theorem.2] are false. 4

5 The basic properties of the following example are worked out in [ Volume I]. Let H L 2 [ ] and let AC[ ] be the absolutely continuous functions. Set dom D {f AC[ ] : f L 2 [ ] f f } so that D is a closed symmetric operator with adjoint dom D {f AC[ ] : f L 2 [ ]} D i D i The deficiency indices of D are both. The operator D D has normalised eigenvectors D D 2 sinπnx π 2 n 2 2 sinπnx n Z which are known to be complete for L 2 [ ]. Since n 2 π 2 as n it follows that + D D /2 KH. It is clear that C [ ] preserves both dom D and dom D and that [D a] is bounded for all a C [ ]. In particular the data C [ ] L 2 [ ] D satisfy [3 Definition.]. Let D be the self-adjoint extension defined by The eigenvectors of D are d dx. dom D {f AC[ ] : f L 2 [ ] f f}. D e 2πinx 2πn e 2πinx n Z which by Fourier theory form a complete basis for H. Hence the non-negative spectral projection P + associated to D is the projection onto span{e 2πinx : n }. Since D has compact resolvent and is self-adjoint any failure to obtain a Fredholm module and so K-homology class must arise from some function f C[ ] having non-compact commutator with F : D + D 2 /2. Indeed this is the case and to see this let x be the identity function on [ ] which generates C[ ] along with the constant functions. Lemma 2.3 shows that to prove that [F x] is not compact it suffices to prove that P + xp is not compact. Elementary Fourier theory shows that for n Z f ne 2πinx L 2 [ ] x f n e 2πinx δln f n 2πin l + 2 δ ln e 2πilx. n Z nl Z With P + the non-negative spectral projection associated to D and P P + we find that P + xp n Z f n e 2πinx 2πi Then for m N we define the sequence of vectors ξ m n n l m n + m e 2πinx. f n n + l e2πilx. d dx 5

6 Lemma 3.. The sequence {ξ m } m is bounded. Proof. We have ξ m 2 m n m + n 2 mψ m + where ψ k x d k+ /dx k+ logγx is the polygamma function of order k. As m m + ψ m + so lim ξ m 2 lim m m m m +. With ζ m P + xp ξ m and ψ x d/dxlogγx the digamma function we find that ζ m 2 m 4π 2 m 4π 2 2 m n + mn + l 4π 2 l m l m m 4π 2 l n ψ m + ψ l + m l m l 2 m l l + m l + m l n + mn + l n 2 m m 4π 2 l 2 m m 4π 2 m l 2 l 2 m l k 2 l + k + m 2 4π Lemma 3.2. If {ζ m } m has a norm convergent subsequence {ζ m j } j then ζ m j. Proof. We show that lim m ζm e 2πipx for all p Z which shows that if ζ mj ζ then ζ. We have ζm e 2πipx { n m 2πim+nn+p p otherwise. Thus we can ignore the case p <. Computing further gives { m ζm e 2πipx 2πi ψ m+ ψ p+ m p p p m m 2πi ψ m + p m. Since ψ m + logm + as m we see that in all cases ζ m e 2πipx as m. Corollary 3.3. The sequence {ζ m } m has no norm convergent subsequences. Proof. If ζ m had a convergent subsequence {ζ mj } j then ζ m j Equation 3. ζ mj which is a contradiction. by Lemma 3.2. But by Corollary 3.4. The operator P + xp is not compact. Proof. By Lemma 3. {ξ m } m is bounded but {P +xp ξ m } m contains no convergent subsequence. Hence P + xp is not compact. 6

7 In summary we have shown the following: Proposition 3.5. The self-adjoint extension D of the closed symmetric operator D has compact resolvent and for all a C [ ] the commutators [D a] are defined on dom D and are bounded on this dense subset. The bounded transform F : D + D 2 2 has the property that the commutator [F x] is not a compact operator. Therefore C[ ] L 2 [ ] F does not define a Fredholm module. 3.2 Infinite deficiency indices: the unit disc The next three subsections produce counterexamples to three statements appearing in [3 Theorems.3 6.2]. These theorems rely on both the finite deficiency index case and the extended definition in [3 Definition 6.3] which allows for symmetric operators having infinite and equal deficiency indices. The third of the counterexamples below again shows that the definition of spectral triple using condition. in place of condition. does not guarantee that we obtain a Fredholm module. The counterexamples below will be described using a single basic example. For this we let D be the closed unit disc in R 2 and take the Hilbert space L 2 D C 2 with the measure CD f 2π 2π fr θ r dr dθ. Write D : D \ D for the interior of D. We will use the Dirac operator on D for our example. This is a densely defined symmetric operator on L 2 D C 2 which is given in local polar coordinates by D c : e iθ r + ir θ e iθ r + ir θ Let D be the closure of D c and observe that its domain is given by : Cc D C 2 Cc D C 2. dom D {f L 2 D C 2 : f n C c D C 2 f n f D c f n g L 2 D C 2 }. This is also referred to as the minimal domain or minimal extension of the Dirac operator. The maximal domain or maximal extension of the Dirac operator is the domain of its adjoint D. This extension can be described using distributions. The symmetric operator D c induces a dual operator D c : C c D C 2 C c D C 2 on the space of distributions C c D C 2 uniquely determined by the formula D cφ f : φ D c f φ C c D C 2 f C c D C 2. A similar formula embeds L 2 D C 2 into the space of distributions. Using these identifications the domain of D is given by dom D {f L 2 D C 2 : D cf L 2 D C 2 }. The domain of D coincides with the first Sobolev space H D C 2 [6 Proposition 2.7]. With this characterisation it is straightforward to check that for any smooth bounded function a on the disc a : dom D dom D and a : dom D dom D and [D a] is bounded on both dom D and dom D. 7

8 Lemma 3.6. The operator + D D /2 is compact. Proof. The eigenvectors of D D are { Jn rα nk e inθ J n rα nk e inθ } : n Z k 2... where α nk denotes the k-th positive root of the Bessel function J n. These eigenvectors are complete for L 2 D C 2 by arguments similar to those in section 3.5: namely {e inθ : n Z} is complete for S and {J n rα nk : k } is complete for L 2 [ ] r dr for all n Z [5]. We note that D Jn rα D nk e inθ αnk 2 Jn rα nk e inθ D D J n rα nk e inθ αnk 2 J n rα nk e inθ so the eigenvalues of D D are {αnk 2 } nk. Each of these eigenvalues has multiplicity 4. Since α nk as n k it follows that + D D /2 is compact. Since + D D /2 is compact the data C D L 2 D C 2 D satisfies the definition of symmetric unbounded Fredholm module in [3 Definition 6.3]. The closed symmetric operator D has infinite deficiency indices since one may check directly that kerd i span { ±ie inθ I n r e in+θ I n+ r ±ie in+θ I n+ r e inθ I n r } : n N where the I n are modified Bessel functions of the first kind. Thus D has self-adjoint extensions. It is a well known general fact that any closed symmetric extension D ext of D must satisfy dom D dom D ext dom D []. 3.3 An example with noncompact resolvent The arguments in the proofs of [3 Theorems.2 and 6.2] purport to show that all self-adjoint extensions of an operator such as D above give rise to a Fredholm module for C D in this example. As in the finite deficiency index case this fails but it can fail in more ways. The issue of relatively compact resolvent is addressed on [3 page 98]. The assertions about extensions used there are false and we now show how to obtain an extension with noncompact resolvent. Write D D. D + Then define a self-adjoint extension of D by D ext : D + D + There are no non-trivial self-adjoint extensions of a self-adjoint operator. 8

9 where D + D + min is the minimal extension and D + min D max is the maximal extension of D [6 Proposition 2.7]. As in Equation 3.2 in the next section it is easily checked that kerd max {r n e inθ : n... } thus D ext has infinite dimensional kernel and so the resolvent is not compact. As the constant function C D acts as the identity on the Hilbert space this shows that we fail to obtain a spectral triple for C D. Since this also means that F 2 D ext D 2 ext + D 2 ext + D 2 ext is not compact we do not obtain a Fredholm module for CD. 3.4 The dependence of K-homology classes on the choice of extension Next we show that the claim in [3 Theorem 6.2] that the K-homology class of a symmetric operator with equal deficiency indices is independent of the self-adjoint extension is false. This example also shows that [3 Theorem.3] is false. To define our self-adjoint extensions we use boundary conditions. The trace theorem [6 Theorem.4] gives the continuity of f f D as a map dom D H /2 D C 2 L 2 S C 2. Thus we can use the boundary values to specify domains of extensions of D inside dom D. We consider APS-type extensions arising from the projections P N : L 2 S L 2 S N Z defined by P N c k e ikθ c k e ikθ c k e ikθ L 2 S. k Z k N k Z We use P N to define self-adjoint extensions by setting { } ξ dom D PN : dom D : P N ξ D P N+ ξ 2 D ξ 2 D PN ξ : D ξ for ξ dom D PN. The self-adjoint extensions above do define Fredholm modules and so K-homology classes for the algebra of functions constant on the boundary since these functions preserve the domain but each D PN defines a different class. This is easy and not new: see [2 Appendix A] since the index that is the pairing of the K-homology class with the constant function is easily computed to be IndexD PN + N. The reason is that { kerd r span n e inθ } r n e inθ : n and so whilst kerd PN + kerd PN { {} N span{r n e inθ : n < N} N > { {} N > span{r n e inθ : n N } N. 9

10 3.5 Another noncompact commutator In subsection 3. we showed that the weakened definition of spectral triple does not suffice to guarantee that we obtain a Fredholm module. The example there also showed that [3 Theorem.2] is false. Now we show that the problem of noncompact commutators persists in the infinite deficiency index case. This shows that [3 Theorem 6.2] can not be repaired by requiring that the self-adjoint extensions employed have compact resolvents. In this section D P shall denote the self-adjoint extension D P. As D P is an extension of D we find that [D P a] is defined and bounded on the domain of D for all a C D. As in subsection 3. we need to compute commutators with the phase of D P. For k let α nk denote the k th positive zero of the Bessel function J n. Then the eigenvectors of D 2 P are { J n rα n k e inθ } { Jn rα nk e inθ J n rα n k e inθ } J n rα nk e inθ nk. 3.3 nk Lemma 3.7. The eigenvectors 3.3 of D 2 P span L2 D C 2. The corresponding set of eigenvalues is {α 2 nk } nk and hence the resolvent of D P is compact. Proof. With the measure rdrdθ we can take D [ ] S / where is the identification z for z S. It is well known that {e inθ } n is complete for L 2 S so it is enough to show that a {r J n rα n k } k spans L2 [ ] r dr for all n 2... and b {r J n rα nk } k spans L2 [ ] r dr for all n Statement a is true by [5 Theorem 6] and b is true by [5 Theorem 2]. 2 Hence the eigenfunctions above are the entire set of eigenfunctions and the set of eigenvalues is {α 2 nk } nk. Each of these eigenvalues has multiplicity 4. In particular D P has no kernel and since α nk as n k + D 2 P /2 is compact. To facilitate our computations we now describe an orthonormal eigenbasis for D P. Proposition 3.8. The vectors n k ± 2 n k ± J n α n k J n α n k J n rα n k e inθ ±J n rα n k e in θ Jn rα n k e in θ J n rα n k e inθ n k form a normalised complete set of eigenvectors for D P. The corresponding set of eigenvalues is given by D P j n k ± ±α n k j n k ±. 2 In [5] Boas and Pollard take the usual measure on [ ] instead of r dr and a slightly different set of functions but it is easy to see that the two approaches are equivalent.

11 Proof. From Lemma 3.7 it is straightforward to show that the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of D P are J D n rα n k e inθ J P ±J n rα n k e in θ ±α n rα n k e inθ n k ±J n rα n k e in θ Jn rα D n k e in θ Jn rα P J n rα n k e inθ ±α n k e in θ n k J n rα n k e inθ for n k Note that these eigenvectors are complete for L 2 D C 2 since we can recover our spanning set 3.3 from linear combinations of these. To normalise these eigenvectors we use the following standard integrals which can be found in [2]: J n rα n k e inθ J ±J n rα n k e in θ n rα n k e inθ ±J n rα n k e in θ 2π J 2π nrα 2 n k + Jn rα 2 n k r dr dθ J 2 2 n α n k + Jnα 2 n k Jnα 2 n k and similarly Jn rα n k e in θ Jn rα ±J n rα n k e inθ n k e in θ ±J n rα n k e inθ Jnα 2 n k. Our purpose is to find a function a CD for which the commutator [F a] is not compact where F D P + D 2 P /2 is the bounded transform. Let P + be the non-negative spectral projection associated to D P and let P P +. By Lemma 2.3 we need only show that there is some a CD for which the operator P + ap is not compact. In terms of the eigenbasis of D P for any a CD we can write P + ap i n k + i n k + a j m l j m l. 3.4 ij2 nmkl Now we fix a re iθ. The function re iθ generates CD along with the constant function and fails to preserve the domain of D P ; for instance re iθ 2 k ± / domd P. To show that P + re iθ P is not compact we will construct a bounded sequence of vectors ξ n with the property that P + re iθ P maps ξ n to a sequence with no convergent subsequences. In order to find the sequence ξ n we first derive an explicit formula for P + re iθ P. Lemma 3.9. The operator P + re iθ P can be expressed as P + re iθ 2α mk P m + k + m l α mk α m l α mk + α m l 2 mkl + nkl + k l 2α nl 2 n k + 2 n + l α n k α nl α nl + α n k 2 α k + α l k + 2 l + k α k k + 2 k.

12 Proof. In view of Equation 3.4 we first compute the operators i n k + re iθ j m l for i j 2. Using integration by parts and standard recursion relations and identities for the Bessel functions and their derivatives [2] we find:. Case i j : n k + re iθ m l 2πJ n α n k J m α m l δ nm+ 2π r 2 e in m θ J n rα n k J m rα m l J n rα n k J m rα m l dr dθ r 2 J m+ rα mk J m rα m l r 2 J m rα mk J m rα m l dr J m+ α mk J m α m l 2α mk δ nm+ α mk α m l α mk + α m l 2 ; 2. Case i j 2: n k + re iθ 2 m l 2πJ n α n k J m α m l 2π r 2 e im+n 2θ J n rα n k J m rα m l + J n rα n k J m rα m l dr dθ { J α k J α l r2 J rα k J rα l + r 2 J rα k J rα l dr n m otherwise α k +α l n m and k l α k n m and k l otherwise; 3. Case i 2 j : 2 n k + re iθ m l ; 4. Case i j 2: 2πJ n α n k J m α m l 2 n k + re iθ 2 m l 2πJ n α n k J m α m l δ mn+ 2π 2π r 2 e in+mθ J n rα n k J m rα m l + J n rα n k J m rα m kl dr dθ r 2 e im n θ J n rα n k J m rα m l J n rα n k J m rα m l dr dθ r 2 J n rα n k J n rα nl r 2 J n rα n k J n+ rα nl dr J n α n k J n+ α nl 2α nl δ mn+ α n k α nl α nl + α n k 2. 2

13 The desired equation is now obtained by using these cases in combination with 3.4. For convenience we write and define the sequence l : 2 l k + : k + ξ n : l Lemma 3.. The sequence {ξ n } n is bounded. Proof. As in Lemma 3. we have ξ n 2 n l n n + l l n + l 2 nψ n + where ψ m x d m+ /dx m+ logγx is the polygamma function of order m. As n n + ψ n + so ξ n 2. To simplify the computations we subtract the operator K : k 2α k k + 2 k from P + re iθ P since K is obviously compact. To this end define ζ n : P + re iθ P Kξ n. Our purpose is to show that ζ n has no convergent subsequence. To this end we investigate its limiting behaviour. Lemma 3.. lim inf n ζ n 2π. Proof. We have ζ n kl It is proved in [ Lemma ] that for all l yielding the inequality k +. n + lα k + α l πl /4 < α l < πl /8 3.5 n + lα k + α l > n + lα k + πl /8. 3

14 This allows us to estimate the coefficients of ζ n via n + lα k + α l n + lα k + πl /8 l l πn α k /π + /8 l + α k /π /8 n + l l πn α k /π + /8 l + α k /π /8 l + l l + n l ψ α k /π + 7/8 + ψ n + πn α k /π + /8 ψ n + ψ α k /π + 7/8 π n α k /π + /8 which allows us to bound ζ n by ζ n 2 n π 2 n π 2 k n k 2 ψ n + ψ α k /π + 7/8 n α k /π + /8 ψ n + ψ α k /π + 7/8 n α k /π + / Now α k /π k /4 k /8 by Equation 3.5 and ψ increases monotonically on so for k n we have ψ n + ψ k + <ψ n + ψ k + 3/4<ψ n + ψ α k /π + 7/8. For k n and so For k n we also have ψ n + ψ k + n k j allowing us to obtain the estimate k n k j k + j + k + j + < ψ n + ψ α k /π + 7/8. < n α k /π + /8 < n k + 3/8 2 n ψ n + ψ α k /π + 7/8 > n α k /π + /8 n k n k n k n k + 3/8 2 n k 2 k + n k + n k 2 n k + 2 n 2 n 2 n k + 3/8 2 n k n k j n k 2 n k + 3/8 2 n 2 k + j + n j 2 j 2 n n j2 2 4

15 Thus combining Equations 3.6 and 3.7 yields As n ζ n 2 n π 2 2 n ψ n + ψ α k /π + 7/8 n n α k /π + /8 4nπ k lim inf n ζ n 2 4π 2 Next we analyse the possible limits of convergent subsequences of ζ n should they exist. Lemma 3.2. If {ζ n } n has a norm convergent subsequence {ζ n j } j then ζ n j. Proof. We show that lim n ζ n k + for all k 2... which shows that if ζ nj ζ then ζ. We have ζ n k + l n + lα k + α l Since α k πk π/4 πk π/8 by Equation 3.5 we have Hence ζ n k + π l πn k + /2 As n ψ n lnn. Hence lim n α k + α l < n + lk + l /2 πk + l /2. πn k + /2 l. ψ n + ψ k + /2 ψ n + ψ k + /2 lim πn k + /2 n Hence lim n ζ n k +.. k + l /2 n + l nlnn + ψ k + /2 πn k + /2 Corollary 3.3. The sequence {ζ n } n has no norm convergent subsequences. Proof. If ζ n had a convergent subsequence {ζ nj } j then ζ n j Lemma 3. ζ nj which is a contradiction. by Lemma 3.2. But by Corollary 3.4. The operator P + re iθ P is not compact. Proof. By Lemma 3. {ξ n } n is bounded but {P +re iθ P Kξ n } n contains no convergent subsequence. As P + re iθ P differs from P + re iθ P K by a compact operator P + re iθ P is not compact. 5

16 In summary we have shown the following: Proposition 3.5. The self-adjoint extension D P of the closed symmetric operator D has compact resolvent and for all a C D the commutators [D P a] are defined on dom D and are bounded on this dense subset. The bounded transform F : D P +D 2 P 2 has the property that the commutator [F re iθ ] is not a compact operator. Therefore CD L 2 D C 2 F does not define a Fredholm module. References [] S. Baaj P. Julg Théorie bivariante de Kasparov et opérateurs non bornées dans les C -modules hilbertiens C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris [2] P. Baum R. Douglas M. Taylor Cycles and relative cycles in analytic K-homology J. Diff. Geom [3] H. Bettaieb M. Matthey A. Valette Unbounded symmetric operators in K-homology and the Baum-Connes conjecture J. Funct. Anal [4] B. Blackadar K-Theory for Operator Algebras 2nd edition Cambridge University Press Cambridge 998. [5] R. P. Boas Jr. Harry Pollard Complete sets of Bessel and Legendre functions Ann. of Math [6] B. Booß-Bavnbek K. P. Wojciechowski Elliptic Boundary Problems for Dirac Operators Birkhäuser Boston 993. [7] A. L. Carey J. Phillips Unbounded Fredholm modules and spectral flow Can. J. Math [8] N. Higson J. Roe Analytic K-Homology OUP 2. [9] M. Hilsum Bordism invariance in KK-theory Math. Scand [] L. Lorch M. Muldoon Monotonic sequences related to zeros of Bessel functions Numer. Algor [] M. Reed B. Simon Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics volumes I and II Academic Press 98. [2] G. N. Watson A Treatise on the Theory of Bessel Functions Merchant Books 28. 6