arXiv:2103.09961v2 [math.FA] 6 Apr 2021 unra prtron operator subnormal nteter f(clradoeao)mmn rbes t origin its problems; operator moment ) of characterization and Embry’s (scalar celebrated of the inequality. theory Hansen’s the to appeals particular on one in first functions, The monotone 1.1. operator Theorem proving for techniques different infruae yR .Cro .H e n .Yo se[ (see Yoon J. and Lee H. S. Curto, E. R. by formulated tion h ffimtv nwr nfc,w rvdamr eea result. general more a proved we fact, In answer. affirmative the nw that known h eodnmdato n .H zfaic(f [ (cf. Szafraniec H. F. and w operators author subnormal second-named bounded) the necessarily not (i.e., unbounded ope ibr space Hilbert complex elln.Adneydfie operator defined densely A line. real medn)and embedding) E one operator bounded A endoperator defined w entosaeeuvln.Floig[ Following equivalent. are definitions two in tete oetproblem. moment Stieltjes tion, perdidpnetyi [ in independently appeared A ( of A n[ In h rsn ae sasqe o[ to sequel a is paper present The Theorem 2010 h ls fbuddqaiomloeaoswsitoue yA. by introduced was operators quasinormal bounded of class The e od n phrases. and words Key ∗ On | A A ( = ) | 23 i.e. , usnra n subnormal and quasinormal Abstract. r quasinormal. are ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics n eto ]w aetopof fti hoe.W s w complet two use We theorem. this of proofs two gave we 3] Section , { hroso one n none quasinormal unbounded and bounded of roots th A normal E ∗ A ( . ([ 1.1 σ ) ) A A Sh A nti ae,w rv htbt ls A class both that prove we paper, this In w ieetdfiiin fubuddqaiomloperators quasinormal unbounded of definitions different Two . } in ⊂ A ( 23 = K H AE aelPeryk n a Stochel Jan and Pawe Pietrzycki l na(ope)Hletspace Hilbert (complex) a on H { hoe 1.2]) Theorem , Nh quasinormal n omloperator normal a and usnra prtr unra prtr prtrmonot operator operator, subnormal operator, quasinormal is and ( σ quasinormal 19 o l oe subsets Borel all for ) o all for A n n[ in and ] .Introduction 1. n n sqaioml then quasinormal, is hroso none usnra operators quasinormal unbounded of roots th operators h } 23 A D ∈ ( 32 ,weeteatossoe htteques- the that showed authors the where ], rmr 72,4B5 eodr 76,44A60. 47A63, Secondary 47B15; 47B20, Primary . if 1 in { 32 subnormal Let .A hw n[ in shown As ]. ( A S H 5 p] esyta lsddensely closed a that say we pp.], 154 , .Tefudtoso h hoyof theory the of foundations The ). omtswt h pcrlmeasure spectral the with commutes scle unra fteeeit a exists there if subnormal called is n N eapstv nee.If integer. positive a be in σ ftenneaiepr fthe of part nonnegative the of } H K 1 2 3 34 33, 32, 31, ( uhthat such ssi obe to said is A n hroso bounded of roots th { hyponormal sas quasinormal. also is 15 hoe .] these 3.1], Theorem , 7 xrse nterms in expressed s rbe .] has 1.1]) Problem , K ⊆ H r eeoe by developed ere h te relies other The oteter of theory the to quasinormal rw n[ in Brown osbc to back goes ) ti well is It ]). } (isometric n func- one A (1.1) sa is ely 4 if ]. 2 P.PIETRZYCKIANDJ.STOCHEL of the Stieltjes operator moment problem (see [8]), later on developed by Lambert and Agler (see [20, 1]). Problem [7, Problem 1.1] can be naturally generalized in two directions: by enlarging the class of nth roots, and by allowing the operators in question to be closed and unbounded. Problem 1.2 (see [23, Problem 5.1]). Let A be a subnormal (hyponormal, etc.) operator which is bounded, or unbounded and closed. Assume that for some integer n > 2, An is quasinormal. Does it follow that A is quasinormal? We continued our research started in [23] in both these directions. It turn out that the technique of proving Theorem 1.1 that appeals to the theory of operator monotone functions, is more appropriate for bounded operators (in particular for hyponormal nth roots), while that based on the theory of moments, is better suited to unbounded subnormal operators. We obtained the following results. Theorem 1.3. Let n N. If A is a class A operator on (in particular p-hyponormal operator for p∈ (0, 1] or log-hyponormal operator)H and An is quasi- normal, then A is also quasinormal.∈ Theorem 1.4. Let A be a closed densely defined operator in and n N. If A is a subnormal operator and An is quasinormal, then A is alsoH quasinormal.∈ Similar results to above theorems are known in literature. Stampfli showed that the hyponormal nth roots of normal operators are normal (see [27, Theorem 5]). However, if A is a hyponormal operator and An is subnormal, then A doesn’t have to be subnormal (see [28, pp. 378/379]). We can now summarize these Stampfli results together with Theorems 1.1 and 1.3 in the following theorem. Theorem 1.5. If X, Y normal, quasinormal, subnormal, hyponormal are such that X Y (cf. (1.1)) then∈ { the following statment: } ⊆ nth roots of the class Y of operators of the class X are class X is true except in the case of X = subnormal and Y = hyponormal when is false. Investigating the missing case when X = quasinormal and Y = hyponormal in the above theorem was our other motivation to continue our research started in [23]. In the proofs of both Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 we use the following characterization of quasinormal operators (the “moreover” part of Theorem 1.6 follows from the observation that due to (1.2), E is the spectral measure of A∗A) Theorem 1.6 ([8, 15]). Let A be closed densely defined operator in (in particular on ). Then the following conditions are equivalentH : H (i) A is quasinormal, (ii) A∗kAk = (A∗A)k for k =0, 1, 2,..., (iii) there exists a Borel spectral measure E on R+ such that

A∗kAk = xkE(dx), k =0, 1, 2,.... (1.2) ZR+ Moreover, the spectral measure E in (iii) is unique and E(( A 2, ))=0. k k ∞ ON nTH ROOTS OF BOUNDED AND UNBOUNDED QUASINORMAL OPERATORS 3

This characterization was given by Embry (see [8, page 63]) for bounded oper- ators and then was extended to unbounded closed densely defined operators by Z. J. Jablo´nski, I. B. Jung, and second-named author (see [15, Theorem 3.6] cf. also [35]). Although the condition (ii) looks much more complicated than (i), it leads to calculations on positive operators and allows the use of techniques related to such operators like operator inequalities, functional calculus, spectral decomposition, operator monotone and operator convex functions. Research on the reduced Embry’s characterization of quasinormality (see [23, Problem 1.4]) has led first-named author to the following result.

Lemma 1.7 ([22, Lemma 3.7]). Let α, β R+ be such that α<β and A, B B( ) be such that B is positive and injective.∈ Then the following conditions ar∈e equivalent:H (i) A∗A 6 B and A∗BsA = Bs+1 for s = α, β, (ii) A and B commute and A∗A = B.

This lemma is the key ingredient in the proof of Theorem 1.3. The proof of Lemma 1.7 makes use of the theory of operator convex functions and related to this theory Davis-Choi-Jensen inequality. For more information on on the reduced Embry’s characterization of quasinormality we refer the reader to (see e.g., [35, 36, 17, 15, 21, 22]). In view of Theorem 1.6 two chains of inequalities in the following theorem, can be viewed as a weak analogue of the property (ii) of quasinormal operators in Theorem 1.6 for hyponormal operators.

Theorem 1.8 (see [14, Theorem 1], cf. [39, Theorem 1]). If A is class A opera- tor (in particular p-hyponormal operator for p (0, 1] or log-hyponormal operator). Then ∈ √k A∗kAk > ... > √3 A∗3A3 > √A∗2A2 > A∗A and √k AkA∗k 6 ... 6 √3 A3A∗3 6 √A2A∗2 6 AA∗ for all k N. ∈ This theorem, in turn, is a consequence of the famous Furuta inequality and plays a key role in the proof of Theorem 1.3 Other questions concerning square roots (or more generally nth roots) in se- lected classes of operators have been studied since at least the early 50’s (see e.g., [11, 12, 24, 38, 6]). It is also worth mentioning that there are subnormal (or even isometric) operators which have no square roots (see [10, Problem 151]; see also [11]).

2. Preliminaries In this paper, we use the following notation. The fields of real and complex numbers are denoted by R and C, respectively. The symbols Z+, N and R+ stand for the sets of nonnegative integers, positive integers and nonnegative real numbers, respectively. We write B(X) for the σ-algebra of all Borel subsets of a topological Hausdorff space X. 4 P.PIETRZYCKIANDJ.STOCHEL

∞ A sequence γn of real numbers is said to be a Stieltjes moment sequence { }n=0 if there exists a positive Borel measure µ on R+ such that

n γn = t dµ(t), n Z+. (2.1) ZR+ ∈

A positive Borel measure µ on R+ satisfying (2.1) is called a representing measure of ∞ ∞ γn n=0. If γn n=0 is a Stieltjes moment sequence which has a unique representing { } { } ∞ measure, then we say that γn n=0 is determinate. It is well known that if a Stieltjes moment sequence has a representing{ } measure with compact support, then it is determinate. The reader is referred to [2] for comprehensive information regarding the Stieltjes moment problem. Let A be a linear operator in a complex . Denote by (A), A¯ and A∗ the domain, the closure and the adjoint of A respectivelyH (providedD they exist). A subspace of (A) is called a core for A if is dense in (A) with respect to the graph normE of AD. We write B( ) for the setE of all boundedD operators in whose domain are equal to . H H Let be a Hilbert space.H Denote by B( ) the C∗-algebra of all bounded H H ∗ linear operators on , and by IH the identity operator on . As usual, A stands for the adjoint of AH B( ). We say that an operator A HB( ) is ∈ H ∈ H positive if Ah,h > 0 for all h , • an orthogonalh projectioni if A =∈A H∗ and A = A2, • selfadjoint if A = A∗, • normal if A∗A = AA∗, • quasinormal if A(A∗A) = (A∗A)A, • subnormal if it is (unitarily equivalent to) the restriction of a normal • operator to its invariant subspace. hyponormal if A∗A > AA∗ • class A if A2∗A2 > (A∗A)2 • Let A be a σ-algebra of subsets of a set X and let F : A B( ) be a semispectral measure, that is F ( )f,f is a positive measure for→ everyHf , 1h · i ∈ H and F (X)= IH. Denote by L (F ) the vector space of all A -measurable functions f : X C such that f(x) F (dx)h,h < for all h . Then for every → X | |h i ∞ ∈ H f L1(F ), there existsR a unique operator fdF B( ) such that (see e.g., [29, ∈ X ∈ H Appendix]) R

fdFh,h = f(x) F (dx)h,h , h . (2.2) D ZX E ZX h i ∈ H

If F is a spectral measure, that is F (∆) is an orthogonal projection for every ∆ A , ∈ then X fdF coincides with the usual spectral integral. In particular, if F is the spectralR measure of a A, then we write f(A) = X fdF for any F -essentially bounded Borel function f : C C; the map f f(RA) is called the Stone-von Neumann functional calculus. We→ refer the reader7→ to [25, 37, 26] for the necessary information on spectral integrals, including the for normal operators and the Stone-von Neumann functional calculus, which we will need in this paper. ON nTH ROOTS OF BOUNDED AND UNBOUNDED QUASINORMAL OPERATORS 5

3. Class A nth roots of bounded quasinormal operators In this section, we will give proof of Theorem 1.3. As mentioned in the intro- duction, the proof of this claim is a consequence of two important inequalities from the : Davis-Choi-Jensen inequality and Furuta inequality.

Proof of Theorem 1.3. Applying assertion (ii) of Theorem 1.6 to An, we see that (An)∗k(An)k = [(An)∗(An)]k, k N. ∈ Since A is hyponormal the above together with Theorem 1.8 implies that √k A∗kAk = √n A∗nAn, k > n (3.1) and

3 √n A∗nAn > ... > √A∗3A3 > √A∗2A2 > A∗A. (3.2) Operator A has the 2 2 matrix representation × B 0 A =  C 0  with respect to the orthogonal decomposition (A∗) (A) = , where B := R ⊕ N H P A ∗ , C := QA N , P := P ∗ and Q := I P . An induction argument |R(A ) | (A) R(A ) − shows that k k B 0 A = − , k N.  CBk 1 0  ∈ It is now a routine matter to verify that ∗k k ∗k−1 ∗ k−1 ∗ B B + B C CB 0 A kAk = , k N.  0 0  ∈ We claim that B is injective. Let h (A∗) be such that Bh = 0, then ∈ R Bh,f =0, f (A∗). h i ∈ R Since B = P A ∗ , the last line takes the form: |R(A ) PAh,f =0, f (A∗), h i ∈ R which yields Ah, A∗g =0, g . h i ∈ H We see that the last condition is equivalent to A2h = 0. Therefore h (A∗2A2)= (√A∗2A2). ∈ N N This and (3.2) (recall that n > 2) give

Ah 2 = A∗Ah,h 6 √A∗2A2h,h =0 k k h i h i which yields h (A). Since h (A∗), we see that h = 0. Hence B is injective. By (3.1), we have∈ N ∈ R

∗ ∗n n k ∗nk+1 nk+1 ∗n n nk+1 A (A A ) A = A A = (A A ) n , k =1, 2 6 P.PIETRZYCKIANDJ.STOCHEL

This implies that ∗ ∗n n ∗n−1 ∗ n−1 k ∗n n ∗n−1 ∗ n−1 nk+1 B (B B + B C CB ) B 0 (B B + B C CB ) n 0 =  0 0   0 0  (3.3) for k 1, 2. Similarly since √n A∗nAn > A∗A, we get ∈

√n B∗nBn + B∗n−1C∗CBn−1 0 B∗B + C∗C 0 > (3.4)  0 0   0 0  B∗B 0 > .  0 0  Let D := n B∗nBn + B∗n−1C∗CBn−1. p By (3.3) and (3.4), we obtain D > B∗B and B∗DrB = Dr+1, r = n, 2n. Applying Lemma 1.7 to B and D, we deduce that D = B∗B and C = 0, which yields √n A∗nAn = A∗A. This combined with (3.1) and (3.2) gives A∗nAn = (A∗A)n, n N, ∈ which completes the proof. 

4. Subnormal nth roots of unbounded quasinorml operators In this section, we will give proof of Theorem 1.4. Comparing the proof of the Theorem 1.4 below with the second proof of [23, Theorem 1.2 ] one can convince himself that the case of closed densely defined operator is much more delicate. We will start with the auxiliary lemma. Lemma 4.1. Let A be a subnormal operator in and N be its normal extension in . Then for all k N H K ∈ (N k) (A∗k) D ∩H⊆D and ∗k ∗k PHN D ∗ ∩H A . | (N ) ⊆ Moreover, if Ak is densely defined foe some k N then ∈ (A∗k) ((Ak)∗). D ⊆ D Proof. We proceed by induction on k. For the case of k = 1, take g (N) . Since (N)= (N ∗), we get ∈ D ∩ H D D ∗ ∗ Ah,g = Nh,g = h,N g = h, PHN g , h (A). h i h i h i h i ∈ D ∗ ∗ ∗ This implies that g (A ) and PHN g = A h, which yields ∈ D ∗ ∗ PHN D ∗ ∩H A . | (N ) ⊆ Assume that assertion ∗k ∗k PHN D ∗ ∩H A (4.1) | (N ) ⊆ ON nTH ROOTS OF BOUNDED AND UNBOUNDED QUASINORMAL OPERATORS 7 holds for a fixed k N. Let g (N k+1) . Then g (N k) and since (N k+1)= (N ∗k+1∈ ) ∈ D ∩ H ∈ D ∩ H D D ∗k (4.1) ∗k ∗k Ah, A g = Ah, PHN g = Ah,N g h i h i h i = Nh,N ∗kg = h,N ∗k+1g h i h i ∗k+1 = h, PHN g , h i ∗k ∗ ∗k+1 ∗k+1 for h (A). This implies that A g (A ) and A g = PHN g. This means∈ that D ∈ D ∗k+1 ∗k+1 PHN D k+1 ∩H A . | (N ) ⊆  Proof of Theorem 1.4. Let N B( ) be a minimal normal extension of ∈ K A of spectral type (always exist see [33, Proposition 1]), GN : B(C) B( ) be the spectral measure of N and P B( ) be the orthogonal projection→ of Konto . Then the map Θ : B(C) B(∈) definedK by K H → H ΘN (∆)= P GN (∆) H, ∆ B(C), | ∈ is a semispectral measure.1 If h (Ak), then ∈ D k 2 k 2 2k A h = N h = z GN (dz)h,h k k k k ZC | | h i

2k k = z ΘN (dz)h,h = x FN (dx)h,h ZC | | h i ZR+ h i for k Z , where FN : B(R ) B( ) is the semispectral measure defined by ∈ + + → H −1 FN (∆)= Θ(φ (∆)), ∆ B(R ), ∈ + and φ: C R is given by φ(z)= z 2 for z C. Hence → + | | ∈ k 2 k k A h = x FN (dx)h,h , h (A ), k Z+. (4.2) k k ZR+ h i ∈ D ∈ k Since A is closed and subnormal, A is closed for every k Z+ (see [30, Proposition n ∈ 5.3]). Since A is quasinormal, there exist a spectral measure En : B(R+) B( ) (see Theorem 1.6 ) such that → H

∗nk nk k A A = x En(dx), k Z+, (4.3) ZR+ ∈ ∗ Set B := √xEn(dx). Then B = B > 0 and R+ R −1 B = ψ2 (x)En(dx)= x(En ψ2)(dx), ZR+ ZR+ ◦ 2 so En ψ2 is the spectral measure of B, where ψ2 : R+ R+, ψ2(x)= x . Moreover, we have◦ →

2k 2k k B = x (En ψ2)(dx)= x En(dx), k Z+. (4.4) ZR+ ◦ ZR+ ∈

1 In the case of unbounded operator ΘN may depend on the choice of N; in our situation it does not depend on N becouse of the existence of bounded vectors, anyway we do not need this information. 8 P.PIETRZYCKIANDJ.STOCHEL

Combined with (4.3), this yields (An)∗k(An)k = B2k, k Z . (4.5) ∈ + Set 2 Hj := ((En ψ )[0, j]) = (En[0, j ]), j N. R ◦ 2 R ∈ ∞ ∞ Let := Hj . Then = . It is easly seen that (B). This together E j=1 E H E ⊆ D with (4.5)S implies that Ankh 2 = Bkh 2, h , k Z . (4.6) k k k k ∈E ∈ + Moreover, (4.5) ∞(B) ∞(A) E ⊆ D ⊆ D k+1 k ∞ because (A ) (A ), k Z+. Hence (A)= , because = . It follows that forD all h :⊆ D ∈ D H E H ∈E k (4.4) 2k (4.5) nk 2 x En(dx)h,h = B h.h = A h ZR+ h i h i k k

(4.2) n k = (x ) FN (dx)h,h ZR+ h i

k −1 = x (FN ψn )(dx),h,h , k Z+. ZR+ h ◦ i ∈ Therefore, we get

k k −1 x En(dx)h,h = x FN ψn )(dx),h,h h , k Z+. (4.7) ZR+ h i ZR+ h ◦ i ∈E ∈ However, since h there exist j N such that ∈E ∈ 2 h Hj = (En[0, j ]) ∈ R so k k 2k 2 x En(dx)h,h = x En(dx)h,h j h , k Z+. 2 ZR+ h i Z[0,j ] h i≤ k k ∈ k ∞ This implies that the Stieltjes moment sequence R x En(dx)h,h is (Ham- { + h i}k=0 burger) determinate (see e.g., [16, Lemma 2.1.2]).R Combined with (4.7), this implies that −1 En(∆)h,h = (FN ψ )(∆)h,h , h , ∆ B(R ) h i h ◦ n i ∈E ∈ + Since = , we deduce that E H −1 En(∆) = (FN ψ )(∆), ∆ B(R ) (4.8) ◦ n ∈ + However the map B(R ) ∆ ψ−1(∆) B(R ) is bijective, we conclude form + ∋ → n ∈ + (4.8) that FN is a spectral measure. Combined with (4.3), this yields

k 2 k ∗ A h = x FN (dx)h,h , h (A ), k Z (4.9) k k ZR+ h i ∈ D ∈ and FN is a spectral measure. We will show that

k 2k x FN (dx) = (N ) , k Z. (4.10) D ZR D ∩ H ∈ +  Observe that ON nTH ROOTS OF BOUNDED AND UNBOUNDED QUASINORMAL OPERATORS 9

2k 4k 4k x FN (dx)h,h = z ΘN (dz)h,h = z GN (dz)h,h (4.11) ZR+ h i ZC | | h i ZC | | h i Therefore k h x FN (dx) ∈ D ZR +  if and only if

2k x FN (dx)h,h < . ZR+ h i ∞ This in turn by (4.11) is equivalent to

4k z GN (dz)h,h < . ZC | | h i ∞ We see that above is equivalent to

h (N 2k) . ∈ D ∩ H Next, we prove that

k ∗k k x FN (dx) (A A ), k Z+. (4.12) D ZR ⊂ D ∈ +  First, we show that

k k x FN (dx) (A ), k Z+. (4.13) D ZR ⊂ D ∈ +  For this pourpose observe that ∞ ∞ 2 n := (En[0, j ]) = (En[0, j ]) E R R j[=1 j[=1 ∞ ∞

= (En(ψn[0, j])) = (FN [0, j]) R R j[=1 j[=1 that is ∞

= (FN [0, j]). (4.14) E R j[=1 Set k Jk := x FN (dx), k Z+. ZR+ ∈ ∞ Take h (Jk) and set hj := FN ([0, j])h for j N. Then, by (4.14), hj ∈ D ∈ { }j=0 ⊂ (Jk). Since h hj = FN ((j, ))h, we obtain E ∩ D − ∞ 2 2 2k Jk(h hj ) = JkFN ((j, ))h = x FN (dx)h,h 0 k − k k ∞ k Z(j,∞) h i → 10 P. PIETRZYCKI AND J. STOCHEL

∞ as j . Hence Jkhj Jkh as j . It follows from (4.9) that ( hj j=0 →∞ ∞ → → ∞ { } ⊂ (A), see (4.5) and (4.6)) E ⊂ D

k 2 (4.9) k A (hj hl) = x FN (dx)(hj hl), (hj hl) k − k ZR+ h − − i − ∈D hj hl (Jk) k = x FN (dx)(hj hl), (hj hl) hZR+ − − i

= Jk(hj hl), (hj hl) h − − i k This implies that A hj g as j for some g . However A is closed and → k → ∞ ∈ H subnormal this implies that A is closed (see [30, Proposition 5.3]) and hj h as k k k → j , so h (A ) and A hj A h. By (4.9) we have → ∞ ∈ D → k 2 A hj = Jkhj,hj k k h i Letting j to infinity, we get k 2 A h = Jkh,h k k h i which completes the proof of (4.13) and shows that

k 2 k k 2k A h = x FN (dx)h,h , h ( x FN (dx)) = (N ) , k Z+ k k hZR+ i ∈ D ZR+ D ∩ H ∈ (4.15) k 2k We now turn to the proof of (4.12). Take h ( R x FN (dx)= (N ) . By ∈ D + D ∩ H (4.13) h (Ak) and consequently by Lemma 4.1R ∈ D Akh = N kh (N k) (A∗k) ∈ D ∩H⊂D so h (A∗kAk), which proves (4.12). Combined with (4.15), this leads to ∈ D (4.12) A∗kAkh,h = Akh, Akh = Akh 2 h i h i k k k k = x FN (dx)h,h , h ( x FN (dx)). hZR+ i ∈ D ZR+

k Since x FN (dx) is densely defined, we get R+ R k ∗k k x FN (dx) A A . ZR+ ⊆

Note that A∗kAk is symetric. Indeed, by closedness of A, we get

(A∗kAk)∗ A∗kA∗∗k = A∗kAk. ⊇ By maximality of selfadjoint operators, we obtain

∗k k k A A = x FN (dx) ZR+ and FN is a spectral measure. Using Theorem 1.6 completes the proof.  ON nTH ROOTS OF BOUNDED AND UNBOUNDED QUASINORMAL OPERATORS 11

References

[1] J. Agler, Hypercontractions and subnormality, J. Operator Theory 13 (1985), 203–217. [2] C. Berg, J. P. R. Christensen, P. Ressel, Harmonic analysis on semigroups, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984. [3] R. Bhatia, Matrix analysis, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 169, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997. [4] A. Brown, On a class of operators, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 4 (1953), 723–728. [5] J. B. Conway, The theory of subnormal operators, Math. Surveys Monographs, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1991. [6] J. B. Conway, B. B. Morrel, Roots and logarithms of bounded operators on Hilbert space, J. Funct. Anal. 70 (1987), 171–193. [7] R. E. Curto, S. H. Lee, J. Yoon, Quasinormality of powers of commuting pairs of bounded operators, J. Funct. Anal. 278 (2020), 108342. [8] M. R. Embry, A generalization of the Halmos-Bram criterion for subnormality, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 35 (1973), 61–64. [9] P. R. Halmos, Normal dilations and extensions of operators, Summa Brasil. Math. 2 (1950), 125–134. [10] P. R. Halmos, A Hilbert space problem book, Springer-Verlag, New York Inc., 1982. [11] P. R. Halmos, G. Lumer, J. J. Schaffer, Square roots of operators, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 4 (1953), 142–149. [12] P. R. Halmos, G. Lumer, Square roots of operators II, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 5 (1954), 589–595. [13] M.Ito, Several properties on class A including p-hyponormal and log-hyponormal operators, Math. Inequal. Appl., 2 (1999), 569–578. [14] M. Ito, On classes of operators generalizing class A and paranormality, Scientiae Mathemat- icae Japonicae Online, Vol. 7, (2002), 353–363 [15] Z. J. Jab lo´nski, I. B. Jung, J. Stochel, Unbounded quasinormal operators revisited, Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory 79 (2014), 135–149. [16] Z. J. Jab lo´nski, I. B. Jung, J. Stochel, Conditionally positive definiteness in operator theory, [17] A. A. S. Jibril, On operators for which T ∗2T 2 = (T ∗T )2, Int. Math. Forum, 46 (2010), 2255–2262. [18] I. B. Jung, J. Stochel, Subnormal operators whose adjoints have rich point spectrum, J. Funct. Anal. 255 (2008), 1797–1816. [19] W. E. Kaufman, Closed operators and pure contractions in Hilbert space, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 87, 83-87 (1983) [20] A. Lambert, Subnormality and weighted shifts, J. London Math. Soc. 14 (1976), 476–480. [21] P. Pietrzycki, The single equality A∗nAn = (A∗A)n does not imply the quasinormality of weighted shifts on rootless directed trees, J. Math. Anal. Appl 435 (2016), 338–348. [22] P. Pietrzycki, Reduced commutativity of moduli of operators, Linear Algebra Appl. 557 (2018), 375–402. [23] P. Pietrzycki, J. Stochel, Subnormal nth roots of quasinormal operators are quasinormal, J. Funct. Anal. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfa.2021.109001 [24] C. R. Putnam, On square roots of normal operators, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1957), 768–769. [25] W. Rudin, Functional analysis, McGraw-Hill Series in Higher Math., McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1973. [26] K. Schm¨udgen, Unbounded self-adjoint operators on Hilbert space, Graduate Texts in Math- ematics, 265, Springer, Dordrecht, 2012. [27] J. G. Stampfli, Hyponormal operators, Pacific J. Math., 12 (1962), 1453–1458. [28] J. G. Stampfli, Which weighted shifts are subnormal?, Pacific J. Math., 17 (1966), 367–379. [29] J. Stochel, Decomposition and disintegration of positive definite kernels on convex ∗- semigroups, Ann. Polon. Math. 56 (1992), 243–294. [30] J.Stochel, Lifting strong commutants of unbounded subnormal operators. Integral Equations and Operator Theory, 43(2), (2002) 189-214. [31] J. Stochel, F. H. Szafraniec, On normal extensions of unbounded operators. I, J. Operator Theory 14 (1985), 31-55. 12 P. PIETRZYCKI AND J. STOCHEL

[32] J. Stochel, F. H. Szafraniec, On normal extensions of unbounded operators. II, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged), 53 (1989), 153-177. [33] J. Stochel, F. H. Szafraniec, On normal extensions of unbounded operators. III. Spectral properties, Publ. RIMS, Kyoto Univ. 25 (1989), 105-139. [34] J. Stochel, F. H. Szafraniec, The complex moment problem and subnormality: a polar de- composition approach, J. Funct. Anal. 159 (1998), 432-491. [35] M. Uchiyama, Operators which have commutative polar decompositions, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl. 62 (1993), 197–208. [36] M. Uchiyama, Inequalities for semibounded operators and their applications to log- hyponormal operators, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., 127 (2001), 599–611. [37] J. Weidmann, Linear operators in Hilbert spaces, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1980. [38] W. Wogen, Subnormal roots of subnormal operators, Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory 8 (1985), 432–436. [39] T.Yamazaki, Extensions of the results on p-hyponormal and log-hyponormal operators by Aluthge and Wang, SUT J. Math. 35, 139-148 (1999)

Wydzia l Matematyki i Informatyki, Uniwersytet Jagiellonski,´ ul.Lojasiewicza 6, PL-30348 Krakow´ Email address: [email protected]

Wydzia l Matematyki i Informatyki, Uniwersytet Jagiellonski,´ ul.Lojasiewicza 6, PL-30348 Krakow´ Email address: [email protected]