![Arxiv:2008.04758V3 [Math.FA]](http://data.docslib.org/img/812fd7d80c63237c2240df74f5780ec1-1.webp)
arXiv:2008.04758v3 [math.FA] 24 Sep 2020 qiaety fadol if only and if equivalently, rbe 9].Frmr nomto nsbomladquasinormal [ and to subnormal reader on the co information refer not more For but subnormal 195]). are Problem operators quasinormal that well-known yterslso hi rvosatce [ articles previous their of results the by eeitoue yP amsi [ in Halmos P. by introduced were of ti uiaiyeuvln o h etito fanra prtrto operator normal a of turn, restriction In the subspace. to) vector) (closed equivalent (unitarily is it in tete oetproblem. moment Stieltjes tion, that rv h olwn oegnrlrsl seas hoe . o an for In 4.1 Theorem answer. also affirmative an (see in has result left 1.1 general statement). assuming Problem more general without that following general, show the in we prove true paper, is this this In whether [ to (see as quasinormal question be must quasinormal, nitgrgetrthan greater integer an A 2010 narcn ae [ paper recent a In Problem noperator An e od n phrases. and words Key 1 hypoe htalf netbesbomloperator subnormal invertible left a that proved They Theorem A se[ (see nti ae,b a prtr ema abuddlna oper linear bounded “a mean we operator” “an by paper, this In 2 Abstract. h olwn question: following the usnra.De tflo that follow it Does quasinormal. htqeto ntearaie nfc,w rv oegener more a prove we fact, In affirmative. subnormal the in question that sqaioml osi olwthat follow it Does quasinormal. is ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics Subnormal 40 hoe .0) h lse fsbomladqaiomlopera quasinormal and subnormal of classes The 7.20]). Theorem , . ([ 1.1 1.2 1 n . A narcn ae [ paper recent a In hroso usnra prtr r quasinormal. are operators quasinormal of roots th 6 7 16, 11 Let na(ope)Hletspace Hilbert (complex) a on 11 rbe 1.1]) Problem , aelPeryk n a Stochel Jan and Pawe Pietrzycki l 1 A suethat Assume . usnra prtr unra prtr prtrmonot operator operator, subnormal operator, quasinormal ,R .Cro .H e n .Yo,prilymotivated partially Yoon, J. and Lee H. S. Curto, E. R. ], ]. n U easbomloeao naHletspace Hilbert a on operator subnormal a be hroso usnra operators quasinormal of roots th | Let A | r quasinormal are = A .Introduction 1. easbomloeao,adasm that assume and operator, subnormal a be | A A 11 15 | scalled is A U ,R .Cro .H e n .Yo asked Yoon J. and Lee H. S. Curto, E. R. ], . n yA rw n[ in Brown A. by and ] where , squasinormal? is A Let rmr 72,4B5 eodr 76,44A60. 47A63, Secondary 47B15; 47B20, Primary ,10 9, 1 n 11 sqaioml Then quasinormal. is A A hoe .].I ean nopen an remains It 2.4]). Theorem , quasinormal easbomloeao,adassume and operator, subnormal a be ,akdtefloigquestion following the asked ], A squasinormal is = U H | nti ae,w answer we paper, this In A | ssi obe to said is steplrdecomposition polar the is if A ator”. A 5 ? ( ,rsetvl.I is It respectively. ], A hs square whose lrsl that result al ∗ A vrey(e [ (see nversely A ( = ) squasinormal. is prtr we operators A subnormal t invariant its H 2 A vnmore even vertibility. is ∗ and at we fact, n func- one A ) A A n tors 2 or , 16 be is if , 2 P.PIETRZYCKIANDJ.STOCHEL
In Section 3 we give two proofs of Theorem 1.2. In both cases we use Embry’s characterization of quasinormal operators which, for the reader’s convenience, is stated explicitly below. In fact, this characterization takes two equivalent forms described by the conditions (ii) and (iii) of Theorem 1.3. In the first proof of Theorem 1.2 we exploit the condition (ii), while in the second the condition (iii). This is because we use two completely different techniques for proving Theorem 1.2. The first one appeals to the theory of operator monotone functions, in particular to Hansen’s inequality. The other relies on the theory of (scalar and operator) moment problems; its origin goes back to the celebrated Embry’s characterization of subnormal operators expressed in terms of the Stieltjes operator moment problem [13], later on developed by Lambert [26] and Agler [1, Theorem 3.1]. In the next section, we give basic information on these techniques. Similar questions to that in Problem 1.1 concerning square roots (or more generally nth roots) in selected classes of operators have been studied since at least the early 50’s (see e.g., [17, 18, 31, 41, 8]). In particular, it is known that the hyponormal nth roots of normal operators are normal (see [35, Theorem 5]). However, if A is a hyponormal operator and An is subnormal, then A doesn’t have to be subnormal (see [36, pp. 378/379]). It is also worth mentioning that there are subnormal (or even isometric) operators which have no square roots (see [16, Problem 145]; see also [17]). We now state Embry’s characterization of quasinormal operators (the “more- over” part of Theorem 1.3 follows from the observation that due to (1.1), E is the spectral measure of A∗A). Theorem 1.3 (Embry’s characterization [13, page 63]). Let A be an operator on H. Then the following conditions are equivalent: (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,.... (1.1) ZR+ Moreover, the spectral measure E in (iii) is unique and E((kAk2, ∞))=0. (We refer the reader to [23, Theorem 3.6] for the version of the above theorem for operators that are not necessarily bounded; cf. also [38]). The condition (ii) of Theorem 1.3 leads to the following question. Problem 1.4. For what subsets S of {1, 2, 3,...} does the system of equations A∗kAk = (A∗A)k, k ∈ S, (1.2) imply the quasinormality of A? This problem, to some extent related to the theory of operator monotone and operator convex functions, has been studied by several authors (see [38, 39, 24, 23, 29, 30]). In particular, A is quasinormal if any of the following conditions holds: • A is compact (hyponormal, a unilateral or bilateral weighted shift) and satisfies (1.2) with S = {n}, where n is a fixed integer greater than 1 (see [38, p. 198], [30, Theorem 5.3] and [29, Theorem 3.3]), • A is log-hyponormal and satisfies (1.2) with S = {n}, where n is a fixed integer greater than 2 (see [39, Theorem 4.1]), SUBNORMAL nTH ROOTS OF QUASINORMAL OPERATORS ARE QUASINORMAL 3
• A satisfies (1.2) with S = {m,n,p,m + p,n + p}, where m,n,p are fixed positive integers such that m
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. ∞ A sequence {γn}n=0 of real numbers is said to be a Stieltjes moment sequence 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 [3] for comprehensive information regarding the Stieltjes moment problem. Let H be a Hilbert space. Denote by B(H) the C∗-algebra of all bounded ∗ linear operators on H, and by IH the identity operator on H. As usual, A stands for the adjoint of A ∈ B(H). We say that an operator A ∈ B(H) is • positive if hAh,hi > 0 for all h ∈ H, • an orthogonal projection if A = A∗ 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. Let A be a σ-algebra of subsets of a set X and let F : A → B(H) be a semispectral measure, that is hF (·)f,fi is a positive measure for every f ∈ H, 1 and F (X)= IH. Denote by L (F ) the vector space of all A -measurable functions C f : X → such that X |f(x)|hF (dx)h,hi < ∞ for all h ∈ H. Then for every R 4 P.PIETRZYCKIANDJ.STOCHEL
1 B f ∈ L (F ), there exists a unique operator X fdF ∈ (H) such that (see e.g., [37, Appendix]) R
fdFh,h = f(x)hF (dx)h,hi, h ∈ H. (2.2) D ZX E ZX 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 normal operator A, then we write f(A) = C fdF for any F -essentially bounded Borel function f : C → C; the map f 7→ f(AR ) is called the Stone-von Neumann functional calculus. We refer the reader to [32, 40, 33] for the necessary information on spectral integrals, including the spectral theorem for normal operators and the Stone-von Neumann functional calculus, which we will need in this paper. The following fact can be deuced from the spectral theorem [32, Theorem 12.23] by applying the Stone-von Neumann functional calculus (cf. also [40, Theorem 7.20]). Theorem 2.1. If p is a positive number, then the commutants of a positive operator and its pth power coincide. Let J ⊂ R be an interval (which may be open, half-open, or closed; finite or infinite). A continuous function f : J → R is said to be operator monotone if f(A) 6 f(B) for any two selfadjoint operators A, B ∈ B(H) such that A 6 B and the spectra of A and B are contained in J. In 1934 K. L¨owner [27] proved that a continuous function defined on an open interval is operator monotone if and only if it has an analytic continuation to the complex upper half-plane which is a Pick function (cf. [12, 20]). Operator monotone functions constitute an important class of real-valued functions that has a variety of applications in other branches of mathematics. What is more, operator monotone functions have integral represen- tations with respect to suitable positive Borel measures. In particular, a continuous function f : (0, ∞) → R is operator monotone if and only if there exists a positive ∞ 1 Borel measure ν on [0, ∞) such that 0 1+λ2 dν(λ) < ∞ and ∞ λR 1 f(t)= α + βt + 2 − dν(λ), t ∈ (0, ∞), (2.3) Z0 1+ λ t + λ where α ∈ R and β ∈ R+ (see [20, Theorem 5.2] or [4, p. 144]). Below, we give an important example of a function which is operator monotone. Example 2.2. For p ∈ (0, 1), the function f : [0, ∞) ∋ t → tp ∈ R is operator monotone and has the following integral representation (see [4, Exercise V.1.10(iii)] or [4, Exercise V.4.20]) sin pπ ∞ tλp−1 tp = dλ, t ∈ [0, ∞). π Z0 t + λ The fact that the function in Example 2.2 is operator monotone is known as the L¨owner-Heinz inequality. Theorem 2.3 (L¨owner-Heinz inequality [21, 27]). If A, B ∈ B(H) are positive operators such that B 6 A and p ∈ [0, 1], then Bp 6 Ap. Another inequality related to operator monotone functions that is needed in this paper is the Hansen inequality [19]. In [38, Lemma 2.2], M. Uchiyama gave a necessary and sufficient condition for equality to hold in the Hansen inequality SUBNORMAL nTH ROOTS OF QUASINORMAL OPERATORS ARE QUASINORMAL 5 when the external factor is a nontrivial orthogonal projection (see the “moreover” part of Theorem 2.4 below). The key ingredient of the proof of [38, Lemma 2.2] is the integral representation (2.3) of operator monotone functions (to be more precise, a version of (2.3) for the interval J = R+ as in [4, pp. 144-145]). In the original formulation of this lemma, Uchiyama assumed that the underlying Hilbert space H is separable. This assumption can be dropped due the fact that for each vector h ∈ H the smallest closed vector subspace of H reducing both A and T and containing h is separable. Theorem 2.4 ([19, 38]). Let A ∈ B(H) be a positive operator, T ∈ B(H) be a contraction and f : [0, ∞) → R be a continuous operator monotone function such that f(0) > 0. Then T ∗f(A)T 6 f(T ∗AT ). (2.4) Moreover, if f is not an affine function and T is an orthogonal projection such that T 6= IH, then equality holds in (2.4) if and only if T A = AT and f(0) = 0. For more information on operator monotone functions the reader is referred to [27, 12, 19, 4, 20, 34].
3. Proofs of the main theorem In this section, we will give two proofs of Theorem 1.2. We start with a proof that uses the technique of operator monotone functions, including Uchiyama’s con- dition guaranteeing equality in Hansen’s inequality. First proof of Theorem 1.2. Let N ∈ B(K) be a normal extension of A. There is no loss of generality in assuming that H⊥ := K ⊖ H 6= {0}. Then N has the 2 × 2 matrix representation A B N = , (3.1) 0 C with respect to the orthogonal decomposition K = H ⊕ H⊥, where B is a bounded linear operator from H⊥ to H and C ∈ B(H⊥) (see [7, p. 39]). The orthogonal projection P ∈ B(K) of K onto H has the 2 × 2 matrix representation
IH 0 P = . 0 0 Clearly P 6= IK. It is now a routine matter to verify that ∗k k ∗ ∗ (3.1) A A 0 P (N N)kP = PN kN kP = , k ∈ Z . (3.2) 0 0 + Since An is quasinormal, Theorem 1.3(ii) yields n ∗k n k n ∗ n k (A ) (A ) = [(A ) (A )] , k ∈ Z+. (3.3) Fix any integer κ > 2. Using the Stone-von Neumann functional calculus, we obtain ∗n n ∗ (3.2) A A 0 P (N N)nP = 0 0 ∗κn κn 1 (3.3) (A A ) κ 0 = 0 0
(3.2) ∗ κn 1 = (P (N N) P ) κ . (3.4) 6 P.PIETRZYCKIANDJ.STOCHEL
1 Let f : [0, ∞) → R be the function given by f(x) = x κ for x ∈ [0, ∞). It follows from Theorem 2.3 (or Example 2.2) that f is an operator monotone function. Using the Stone-von Neumann functional calculus again and (3.4), we get Pf((N ∗N)κn)P = f(P (N ∗N)κnP ). We conclude from Theorem 2.4 that P commutes with (N ∗N)κn. By Theorem 2.1, P commutes with N ∗N. This in turn implies that ∗k k A A 0 (3.2) ∗ = P (N N)kP 0 0 = (P (N ∗N)P )k ∗ (3.2) (A A)k 0 = , k ∈ N. 0 0 ∗k k ∗ k Hence A A = (A A) for all k ∈ Z+. Combined with Theorem 1.3, this implies that A is quasinormal. We now turn to the second proof of the main theorem. This time the proof is based on the technique of (semi) spectral integrals and the Stieltjes moment problem. Second proof of Theorem 1.2. Let N ∈ B(K) be a minimal normal ex- tension of A, GN : B(C) → B(K) be the spectral measure of N and P ∈ B(K) be the orthogonal projection of K onto H. Then the map Θ : B(C) → B(H) defined by
Θ(∆)= P GN (∆)|H, ∆ ∈ B(C), 2 k k is a semispectral measure such that Θ({z ∈ C: |z| > kNk}) = 0. Since A = N |H ∗k ∗k and A = PN |H for all k ∈ Z+, the Stone-von Neumann functional calculus gives
∗k k ∗k k 2k A A = PN N |H = |z| Θ(dz), k ∈ Z+. (3.5) ZC
Let F : B(R+) → B(H) be the semispectral measure defined by −1 F (∆)= Θ(φ (∆)), ∆ ∈ B(R+), 2 2 where φ: C → R+ is given by φ(z)= |z| for z ∈ C. Then F ((kNk , ∞))=0. By (2.2), (3.5) and the measure transport theorem (cf. [2, Theorem 1.6.12]), we have
∗k k k A A = x F (dx), k ∈ Z+. (3.6) ZR+ Since An is quasinormal, Theorem 1.3 implies that
∗nk nk k A A = x En(dx), k ∈ Z+, (3.7) ZR+ where En : B(R+) → B(H) is a spectral measure. Let ψn : R+ → R+ be given by n ψn(x)= x for x ∈ R+. Applying the measure transport theorem and (2.2), we get
k (3.7) ∗nk nk x En(dx) = A A ZR+
(3.6) k = [ψn(x)] F (dx) ZR+
2By [25, Proposition 5] and [7, Proposition II.2.5], the definition of Θ does not depend on the choice of N. SUBNORMAL nTH ROOTS OF QUASINORMAL OPERATORS ARE QUASINORMAL 7
k −1 Z = x (F ◦ ψn )(dx), k ∈ +, (3.8) ZR+ −1 B R B where F ◦ ψn : ( +) → (H) is the semispectral measure defined by −1 −1 B R (F ◦ ψn )(∆)= F (ψn (∆)), ∆ ∈ ( +). (3.9) −1 2n Clearly, (F ◦ ψn )((kNk , ∞)) = 0. Using the well-known fact that a Stieltjes mo- ment sequence having a representing measure with compact support is determinate (see e.g., [6, (1.4)]), we deduce from (2.2) and (3.8) that −1 B R En(∆) = (F ◦ ψn )(∆), ∆ ∈ ( +). (3.10) B R −1 B R Since En is a spectral measure and the map ( +) ∋ ∆ → ψn (∆) ∈ ( +) is bijective, we conclude form (3.10) that F is a spectral measure. Combined with (3.6) and Theorem 1.3, this implies that A is quasinormal.
4. A generalization and related matter Following the discussion in Introduction concerning the reduced Embry’s char- acterization of quasinormality (see Problem 1.4), we now deal with operators sat- isfying the following identity T ∗κT κ = (T ∗T )κ, (4.1) where κ is a fixed integer greater than 1. By Theorem 1.3, any quasinormal operator T satisfies the single equation (4.1), but not conversely (see (1.3)). It is worth mentioning that operators satisfying (4.1) with κ = 2 were investigated in [24]; they form a subclass of paranormal operators (see [23, Corollary 4.2]; see also [14, Theorem 3.5.1.1] for a similar result stated for a wider collection of the so-called class A operators). An inspection of the first proof of Theorem 1.2 (see Section 3) reveals that the following more general result is true. Theorem 4.1. Let A be a subnormal operator on a Hilbert space H and n,κ be integers greater than 1. Assume that T = An satisfies the single equation (4.1). Then A is quasinormal. Also, the second proof of Theorem 1.2 can be adapted to prove Theorem 4.1. Namely, it suffices to apply Theorem 4.2 below, which is of independent interest, ∗n n −1 to the operator T = A A , the semispectral measure F ◦ ψn and the exponents α = 1 and β = κ (see (3.8)). Theorem 4.2. Let T ∈ B(H) be a positive operator on a Hilbert space H and α, β be two distinct positive numbers. Assume that F : B(R+) → B(H) is a semis- pectral measure with compact support. Then the following conditions are equivalent: (i) F is a spectral measure, (ii) T n = xnF (dx) for all n ∈ Z , R+ + (iii) T p = R xpF (dx) for all p ∈ R , R+ + (iv) T p = R xpF (dx) for p = α, β. R+ R Before we turn to the proof of Theorem 4.2, we will give a necessary and suffi- cient condition for a semispectral measure to be spectral. The proof of Lemma 4.3 below combines the two techniques used in this article. 8 P.PIETRZYCKIANDJ.STOCHEL
Lemma 4.3. Let F : B(R+) → B(H) be a semispectral measure with compact support and p be a positive number other than 1. Assume that p xF (dx) = xpF (dx). (4.2) ZR+ ZR+ Then F is a spectral measure. Proof. First we consider the case when p> 1. By Naimark’s dilation theorem (see [28, Theorem 6.4]), there exist a Hilbert space K containing H and a spectral measure E : B(R+) → B(K) such that
F (∆)= P E(∆)|H, ∆ ∈ B(R+), (4.3) K is the only closed vector subspace of K reducing E and containing H, (4.4) where P ∈ B(K) is the orthogonal projection of K onto H. It suffices to show that K = H, because then by (4.3), F = E. Suppose to the contrary that P 6= IK. It follows from (4.3) and (4.4) that the closed supports of E and F coincide (see e.g., the proof of [22, Theorem 4.4]), so E has compact support. Therefore T := xF (dx) ∈ B(H) and S := xE(dx) ∈ B(K), and both operators T and S R+ R+ Rare positive. Using the Stone-vonR Neumann functional calculus, we get
(2.2)&(4.2) hT jf,gi = xj hF (dx)f,gi ZR+ (4.3) = xj hE(dx)f,gi = hSj f,gi, f,g ∈ H, j =1, p, ZR+ which implies that j j T = PS |H, j =1, p. (4.5) Let T˜ ∈ B(K) be defined by T˜ = T ⊕ 0. It follows from (4.5) that T˜j = PSjP, j =1, p. Combined with the Stone-von Neumann functional calculus and (4.2), this yields Pf(Sp)P = f(PSpP ),
1 where f is as in the first proof of Theorem 1.2, that is f(x)= x p for x ∈ R+ (note 1 p that 0 < p < 1). Using Theorem 2.4, we deduce that P commutes with S and thus by Theorem 2.1, H reduces S. Hence, H reduces the spectral measure E (see [33, Proposition 5.15]). By (4.4), K = H, which gives a contradiction. This proves the conclusion of the lemma for p> 1. We now consider the case when p< 1. Given α ∈ (0, ∞), we define the function ψα : R+ → R+ by α ψα(x)= x , x ∈ R+. (4.6) Using (2.2), the measure transport theorem and the Stone-von Neumann functional calculus, one can deduce from (4.2) that 1/p −1 1/p −1 x (F ◦ ψp )(dx) = x (F ◦ ψp )(dx), ZR+ ZR+ −1 where F ◦ ψp is defined as in (3.9) with p in place of n. Therefore, by the previous −1 paragraph, F ◦ ψp is a spectral measure and consequently so is F . SUBNORMAL nTH ROOTS OF QUASINORMAL OPERATORS ARE QUASINORMAL 9
We are now ready to provide the promised proof. Proof of Theorem 4.2. (iv)⇒(i) By (2.2) and the measure transport theo- rem, we have
p p p/α −1 T = x F (dx)= x (F ◦ ψα )(dx), p = α, β, ZR+ ZR+ where ψα is as in (4.6). Applying the Stone-von Neumann functional calculus yields β/α −1 β/α −1 x (F ◦ ψα )(dx) = x (F ◦ ψα )(dx). ZR+ ZR+ Using Lemma 4.3 with p = β/α implies that F is a spectral measure. The implications (i)⇒(ii) and (i)⇒(iii) are immediate from the Stone-von Neu- mann functional calculus. The implications (iii)⇒(ii) and (iii)⇒(iv) are obvious. Finally, the implication (ii)⇒(i) is a direct consequence of (iv)⇒(i). Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank Professor M. H. Mor- tad for reminding them of Problem 1.1.
References
[1] J. Agler, Hypercontractions and subnormality, J. Operator Theory 13 (1985), 203–217. [2] R. B. Ash, Probability and measure theory, Harcourt/Academic Press, Burlington, 2000. [3] C. Berg, J. P. R. Christensen, P. Ressel, Harmonic analysis on semigroups, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984. [4] R. Bhatia, Matrix analysis, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 169, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997. [5] A. Brown, On a class of operators, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 4 (1953), 723–728. [6] P. Budzy´nski, Z. J. Jab lo´nski, I. B. Jung, J. Stochel, Unbounded weighted composition operators in L2-spaces, Lect. Notes Math., 2209, Springer 2018. [7] J. B. Conway, The theory of subnormal operators, Math. Surveys Monographs, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1991. [8] J. B. Conway, B. B. Morrel, Roots and logarithms of bounded operators on Hilbert space, J. Funct. Anal. 70 (1987), 171–193. [9] R. E. Curto, S. H. Lee, J. Yoon, k-hyponormality of multivariable weighted shifts, J. Funct. Anal. 229 (2005), 462–480. [10] R. E. Curto, S. H. Lee, J. Yoon, Hyponormality and subnormality for powers of commuting pairs of subnormal operators, J. Funct. Anal. 245 (2007), 390–412. [11] R. E. Curto, S. H. Lee, J. Yoon, Quasinormality of powers of commuting pairs of bounded operators, J. Funct. Anal. 278 (2020), 108342. [12] W. F. Donoghue, Monotone matrix functions and analytic continuation, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1974. [13] M. R. Embry, A generalization of the Halmos-Bram criterion for subnormality, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 35 (1973), 61–64. [14] T. Furuta, Invitation to linear operators, Taylor & Francis, Ltd., London, 2001. [15] P. R. Halmos, Normal dilations and extensions of operators, Summa Brasil. Math. 2 (1950), 125–134. [16] P. R. Halmos, A Hilbert space problem book, Springer-Verlag, New York Inc., 1982. [17] P. R. Halmos, G. Lumer, J. J. Schaffer, Square roots of operators, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 4 (1953), 142–149. [18] P. R. Halmos, G. Lumer, Square roots of operators II, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 5 (1954), 589–595. [19] F. Hansen, An operator inequality, Math. Ann. 246 (1980), 249–250. [20] F. Hansen, The fast track to L¨owner’s theorem, Linear Algebra Appl. 438 (2013), 4557–4571. [21] E. Heinz, Beitr¨age zur St¨orungstheorie der Spektralzerlegung, Math. Ann. 123 (1951), 415– 438. 10 P. PIETRZYCKI AND J. STOCHEL
[22] Z. J. Jab lo´nski, Complete hyperexpansivity, subnormality and inverted boundedness condi- tions, Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory 44 (2002), 316–336. [23] Z. J. Jab lo´nski, I. B. Jung, J. Stochel, Unbounded quasinormal operators revisited, Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory 79 (2014), 135–149. [24] A. A. S. Jibril, On operators for which T ∗2T 2 = (T ∗T )2, Int. Math. Forum, 46 (2010), 2255–2262. [25] I. B. Jung, J. Stochel, Subnormal operators whose adjoints have rich point spectrum, J. Funct. Anal. 255 (2008), 1797–1816. [26] A. Lambert, Subnormality and weighted shifts, J. London Math. Soc. 14 (1976), 476–480. [27] K. L¨owner, Uber¨ monotone Matrixfunktionen, Math. Z. 38 (1934), 177–216. [28] W. Mlak, Dilations of Hilbert space operators (general theory), Dissertationes Math. 153 (1978), 61p. [29] 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. [30] P. Pietrzycki, Reduced commutativity of moduli of operators, Linear Algebra Appl. 557 (2018), 375–402. [31] C. R. Putnam, On square roots of normal operators, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1957), 768–769. [32] W. Rudin, Functional analysis, McGraw-Hill Series in Higher Math., McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1973. [33] K. Schm¨udgen, Unbounded self-adjoint operators on Hilbert space, Graduate Texts in Math- ematics, 265, Springer, Dordrecht, 2012. [34] B. Simon, Loewner’s theorem on monotone matrix functions, Grundlehren Math. Wissen. 354, Springer, 2019. [35] J. G. Stampfli, Hyponormal operators, Pacific J. Math., 12 (1962), 1453–1458. [36] J. G. Stampfli, Which weighted shifts are subnormal?, Pacific J. Math., 17 (1966), 367–379. [37] J. Stochel, Decomposition and disintegration of positive definite kernels on convex ∗- semigroups, Ann. Polon. Math. 56 (1992), 243–294. [38] M. Uchiyama, Operators which have commutative polar decompositions, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl. 62 (1993), 197–208. [39] M. Uchiyama, Inequalities for semibounded operators and their applications to log- hyponormal operators, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., 127 (2001), 599–611. [40] J. Weidmann, Linear operators in Hilbert spaces, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1980. [41] W. Wogen, Subnormal roots of subnormal operators, Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory 8 (1985), 432–436.
Wydzia l Matematyki i Informatyki, Uniwersytet Jagiellonski,´ ul.Lojasiewicza 6, PL-30348 Krakow´ E-mail address: [email protected]
Wydzia l Matematyki i Informatyki, Uniwersytet Jagiellonski,´ ul.Lojasiewicza 6, PL-30348 Krakow´ E-mail address: [email protected]