Stone's Theorem On One-parameter Unitary Groups - Formal Statement

Formal Statement

Let U be a strongly continuous 1-parameter unitary group, then there exists a unique self-adjoint operator A such that

Conversely, let A be a self-adjoint operator on a Hilbert space H. Then

is a strongly continuous one-parameter family of unitary operators.

The infinitesimal generator of {Ut}t is the operator . This mapping is a bijective correspondence. A will be a bounded operator if and only if the operator-valued function is norm continuous.

Stone's theorem can be recast using the language of Fourier transform. The real line R is a locally compact abelian group. Nondegenerate representations of the group C*-algebra C*(R) is in one-to-one correspondence with strongly continuous unitary representations R, i.e. strongly continuous one-parameter family of unitary operators. On the other hand, the Fourier transform is a *-isomorphism between C*(R) and C0(R), the C*-algebra of continuous functions on the line vanishing at infinity. So there is a one-to-one correspondence between strongly continuous one-parameter unitary groups and representations of C0(R). Since every representation of C0(R) corresponds to a self-adjoint operator, Stone's theorem holds.

The precise definition of C*(R) is as follows. Form the convolution algebra on Cc(R), the continuous functions of compact support, where the multiplication is convolution. The completion of this algebra in the L1 norm is a *-algebra, denoted by L1(R). C*(R) is then defined to be the enveloping C*-algebra of L1(R), i.e., its completion in the largest possible C*-norm. It is not trivial that C*(R) is isomorphic to C0(R), under the Fourier transform. A result in this direction is the Riemann–Lebesgue lemma, which says the Fourier transform maps L1(R) to C0(R).

Read more about this topic:  Stone's Theorem On One-parameter Unitary Groups

Famous quotes containing the words formal and/or statement:

    “The conviction that the best way to prepare children for a harsh, rapidly changing world is to introduce formal instruction at an early age is wrong. There is simply no evidence to support it, and considerable evidence against it. Starting children early academically has not worked in the past and is not working now.”
    —David Elkind (20th century)

    “One is apt to be discouraged by the frequency with which Mr. Hardy has persuaded himself that a macabre subject is a poem in itself; that, if there be enough of death and the tomb in one’s theme, it needs no translation into art, the bold statement of it being sufficient.”
    —Rebecca West (1892–1983)