Abstract
Given a densely defined skew-symmetric operator \(A_0\) on a real or complex Hilbert space V, we parameterize all m-dissipative extensions in terms of contractions \(\Phi :{H_{{-}}}\rightarrow {H_{{+}}}\), where \({H_{{-}}}\) and \({H_{{+}}}\) are Hilbert spaces associated with a boundary quadruple. Such an extension generates a unitary \(C_0\)-group if and only if \(\Phi \) is a unitary operator. As a corollary we obtain the parametrization of all selfadjoint extensions of a symmetric operator by unitary operators from \({H_{{-}}}\) to \({H_{{+}}}\). Our results extend the theory of boundary triples initiated by von Neumann and developed by V. I. and M. L. Gorbachuk, J. Behrndt and M. Langer, S. A. Wegner and many others, in the sense that a boundary quadruple always exists (even if the defect indices are different in the symmetric case).
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
A classical subject in Functional Analysis and in Mathematical Physics is the description of all selfadjoint extensions of a symmetric operator. It was J. von Neumann who gave the first result in this direction (see Sect. 5). Generalizations of von Neumann’s Theorem led to the theory of boundary triples which are described in detail in the monographs [8] by V.I. and M.L. Gorbachuk and by K. Schmüdgen [15]. Such boundary triples exist whenever the given symmetric operator has at least one selfadjoint extension. Multiplying by the complex number i, the problem can be reformulated as follows. Let \(A_0\) be a densely defined skew-symmetric operator on a Hilbert space V. Describe all extensions B of \(A_0\) which generate a unitary \(C_0\)-group.
More recently, Wegner [17] used boundary triples to parameterize also all extensions B of \(A_0\) which generate a contractive \(C_0\)-semigroup (which does not necessarily consist of unitary operators). However, it turns out that for this task the notion of boundary triples is too narrow and does not cover all cases.
In the present article we introduce boundary quadruples, a notion with weaker assumptions, which covers all cases. Moreover, we give quite short proofs which might make the new setting attractive.
Let us describe in more details some of the main results. Let V be a Hilbert space over \({{\mathbb {K}}}={{\mathbb {R}}}\) or \({{\mathbb {C}}}\), and let \(A_0\) be a skew-symmetric operator with dense domain. Then \(A_0\) is a restriction of \(A:=-A_0^*\).
A boundary quadruple \(({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}}, G_{{-}},G_{+})\) consists of pre-Hilbert spaces \({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}}\) and surjective linear mappings \(G_{{-}}:D(A)\rightarrow {H_{{-}}}\) and \(G_{+}:D(A)\rightarrow {H_{{+}}}\) such that
for all \(u,v\in D(A)\), with the additional condition
It is remarkable that the purely algebraic assumptions (1.1) and (1.2) imply that the mappings \(G_{{-}}\) and \(G_{+}\) are continuous and that the images \({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}}\) are actually Hilbert spaces. Our main result is the following.
Theorem 1.1
Let B be an extension of \(A_0\). The following are equivalent:
-
(i)
B generates a \(C_0\)-semigroup of contractions;
-
(ii)
There exists a linear contraction \(\Phi :{H_{{-}}}\rightarrow {H_{{+}}}\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} D(B)=\{ w\in D(A):\Phi G_{{-}}w=G_{+}w\}\hbox { and }Bw=Aw,\,\, w\in D(B). \end{aligned}$$
Moreover, B generates a unitary \(C_0\)-group if and only if \(\Phi \) is unitary. In this case we refind the known extension results for symmetric operators in a more general setting.
The literature on boundary triples is very rich. We refer to the references and historical notes in the article [17] by Wegner, the two monographs mentioned above, and also to the monograph of Behrndt, Hassi and de Snoo [6], where extension results are part of an elaborate theory (cf. [6, Corollary 2.1.4.5]), and we refer also to the articles of Behrndt–Langer [4] and Behrndt–Schlosser [5]. In a previous article [2], the present authors studied extensions of derivations in a quite different spirit, the main motivation being non-autonomous evolution equations. Even though some ideas used here have their origins in [2], the present article is completely self-contained. It is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we investigate dissipative operators including a simple proof of Phillips’ Theorem. Boundary quadruples are introduced and investigated in Sect. 3. Extensions which generate a unitary group are characterized in Sect. 4. These results can be transferred to extension results for symmetric operators (Sect. 5). Examples are given in Sect. 6. Section 7 is devoted to the wave equation. Finally we compare boundary triples as they occur in the literature with boundary quadruples in Sect. 8.
2 Dissipative and skew-symmetric operators
Let V be a Hilbert space over \({{\mathbb {K}}}={{\mathbb {R}}}\) or \({{\mathbb {C}}}\). We first recall the definitions of several notions associated with dissipativity. By an operator A on V we always understand a linear mapping, defined on a subspace \(D(A)\) of V, its domain, which takes values in V.
Definition 2.1
-
(a)
An operator A with domain \(D(A)\subset V\) is closed if its graph \({{\mathscr {G}}}(A):=\{(x,Ax):x\in D(A)\}\) is closed in \(V\times V\).
-
(b)
An operator B is an extension of A, in symbols \(A\subset B\), if \(D(A)\subset D(B)\) and \(Bx=Ax\) for \(x\in D(A)\).
-
(c)
An operator A is called closable if there exists a closed operator \({\overline{A}}\) such that \({{\mathscr {G}}}({\overline{A}})=\overline{{{\mathscr {G}}}(A)}\). Then \({\overline{A}} \) is the smallest closed extension of A. It is called the closure of A.
-
(d)
An operator A on V is called dissipative if
$$\begin{aligned} {\textrm{Re}}\langle Ax,x\rangle _V \le 0 \hbox { for all }x\in D(A). \end{aligned}$$ -
(e)
An operator A on V is called maximal dissipative if \(A\subset B\) with B a dissipative operator implies that \(A=B\).
-
(f)
An operator A on V is called m-dissipative if A is dissipative and \((\textrm{Id}-A)D(A)=V\).
We now collect well-known properties to see the link between all the notions defined above.
Proposition 2.2
Let A be an operator on V.
-
(1)
The operator A on V is dissipative if and only if
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert x-tAx\Vert \ge \Vert x\Vert \hbox { for all }x\in D(A),\,\, t>0. \end{aligned}$$(2.1) -
(2)
If A is m-dissipative, then \(D(A)\) is dense in V.
-
(3)
If A is m-dissipative, then A is maximal dissipative.
-
(4)
If A is dissipative and \(D(A)\) is dense in V, then A is closable and \({\overline{A}}\) is dissipative.
-
(5)
If A is dissipative and closed, then, for all \(t>0\), \((\textrm{Id}-tA)D(A)\) is closed.
Proof
(1) follows from the equivalence
Then, letting \(t\rightarrow 0\), we prove the well-known characterization of dissipativity.
(2) is proved in [1, Proposition 3.3.8].
(3) Let \(A\subset B\) where B is dissipative. Let \(x\in D(B)\). The surjectivity of \(\textrm{Id}-A\) implies that there exists \(y\in D(A)\) such that \(x-Bx=y-Ay=y-By\). Therefore \(B(y-x)=y-x\). By 1) applied with \(t=1\), we get \(x=y\), and then \(A=B\).
(4) follows from [1, Lemma 3.4.4] and 1).
(5) Suppose that \((\textrm{Id}-tA)(x_n)\rightarrow y\) for \((x_n)_n\subset D(A)\). Therefore \(((\textrm{Id}-tA)(x_n))_n\) is a Cauchy sequence and by 1) \((x_n)_n\) is also a Cauchy sequence, which converges to say \(x\in V\). It follows that \(Ax_n\rightarrow \frac{x-y}{t}\). Since the graph of A is closed, \(Ax=\frac{x-y}{t}\) and thus \(y=(\textrm{Id}- tA)x\). \(\square \)
Phillips [12, Corollary of Theorem 1.1.1] obtained the equivalence between m-dissipativity and maximal dissipativity on a Hilbert space using the Cayley transform. We give a simple direct proof (see also [17, Theorem 3.1] for still another argument).
Theorem 2.3
(Phillips) Let V be a Hilbert space and A an operator on V. Then A is m-dissipative if and only if A is maximal dissipative and \(D(A)\) is dense.
Proof
One implication follows from 3) in Proposition 2.2.
Conversely, if A is dissipative with dense domain, then, by 4) in Proposition 2.2, A is closable and \({\overline{A}}\) is dissipative. Since A is maximal dissipative, \(A={\overline{A}}\). By 5) in Proposition 2.2 with \(t=1\), we get \((\textrm{Id}-A)D(A)\) is closed in V.
Assume that \(R:=\textrm{Ran}(\textrm{Id}-A)\ne V\). Let us prove that \(D(A)\cap R^\perp =\{0\}\). Let \(x\in D(A)\cap R^\perp \). Then
Hence \(\Vert x\Vert _V^2={\textrm{Re}}\langle Ax,x\rangle _V\le 0\) and so \(x=0\). Define \({\widehat{A}}\) on V by
Then \(A\subset {\widehat{A}}\) and
Thus \({\widehat{A}}\) is dissipative. Hence \(D(A)=D({\widehat{A}})\), i.e. \(R^\perp =\{0\}\). We have shown that \(R=V\); i.e. A is m-dissipative. \(\square \)
By Zorn’s lemma, each densely defined dissipative operator has a maximal dissipative extension.
By the Lumer–Phillips Theorem [1, Theorem 3.4.5 and Proposition 3.3.8], an operator A on V generates a \(C_0\)-semigroup of contractions if and only if A is m-dissipative.
Now we introduce the basic objects of this article, a skew-symmetric operator which can be characterized as follows. We continue to consider the real and complex case simultaneously.
Proposition 2.4
Let A be an operator on V. The following assertions are equivalent:
-
(i)
\({\textrm{Re}}\langle Au,u\rangle _V=0\) for all \(u\in D(A)\);
-
(ii)
\(\pm A\) is dissipative;
-
(iii)
A is skew-symmetric, i.e.
$$\begin{aligned} \langle Au,v\rangle _V +\langle u,Av\rangle _V=0 \end{aligned}$$for all \(u,v\in D(A)\).
Proof
\((i)\Longleftrightarrow (ii)\) is obvious.
\((iii)\Rightarrow (i)\) Take \(u=v\).
\((i)\Rightarrow (iii)\) Note that
This proves (iii) in the real case. If \({{\mathbb {K}}}={{\mathbb {C}}}\), then replacing u by \(\lambda u\) we see that
for all \(\lambda \in {{\mathbb {C}}}\) and hence \(\langle Au,v\rangle _V +\langle u,Av\rangle _V=0\) for all \(u,v\in D(A)\). \(\square \)
If B is a densely defined operator on V, the adjoint \(B^*\) of B is defined as follows. For \(v,f\in V\),
Using this definition we see that a densely defined operator \(A_0\) on V is skew-symmetric if and only if \(A_0\subset (-A_0)^* \).
Our aim is to describe all dissipative extensions of such an operator \(A_0\). It turns out that they all are restrictions of \((-A_0)^*\). A proof using Cayley transform is given in [8, Chapter 3, Theorem 1.3 p. 150] and [17, Proposition 2.8]. We give a much shorter direct proof.
Theorem 2.5
Let \(A_0\) be a densely defined skew-symmetric operator and B a dissipative operator such that \(A_0\subset B\). Then \(B\subset (-A_0)^*\).
Proof
Let \(y\in D(B)\). Let \(x\in D(A_0)\). Then
Hence, for \(t>0\),
Dividing by t and letting \(t\rightarrow 0\), we get
Since the above inequality holds for \(\pm x\), it follows that
If \({{\mathbb {K}}}={{\mathbb {R}}}\), since \(x\in D(A_0)\) is arbitrary, this implies that \(y\in D(A_0^*)\) and \(By=(-A_0)^* y\).
If \({{\mathbb {K}}}={{\mathbb {C}}}\), replacing t by \(\lambda t\) with \(\lambda \in {{\mathbb {C}}}\), the above argument shows that
for all \(\lambda \in {{\mathbb {C}}}\) and \(x\in D(A_0)\). Choosing \(\lambda =1\) and then \(\lambda =i\), we get
and the conclusion follows as in the case \({{\mathbb {K}}}={{\mathbb {R}}}\). \(\square \)
3 Boundary quadruples and m-dissipative restrictions
In this section we introduce and study the basic notion of this article. Let V be a Hilbert space over \({{\mathbb {K}}}={{\mathbb {R}}}\) or \({{\mathbb {C}}}\) and let \(A_0\) be a densely defined skew-symmetric operator on V. Let \(A=(-A_0)^*\). Then, as a consequence of the definition of the adjoint
Definition 3.1
A boundary quadruple \(({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}},G_{{-}},G_{+})\) for \(A_0\) consists of pre-Hilbert spaces \({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}}\) and linear maps \(G_{{-}}:D(A)\rightarrow {H_{{-}}}\), \(G_{+}: D(A)\rightarrow {H_{{+}}}\) satisfying
for all \(u,w\in D(A)\),
and
We will see below that these assumptions imply that \({H_{{-}}}\) and \({H_{{+}}}\) are actually complete and that \(G_{{-}},G_{+}\) are continuous (with respect to the graph norm on \(D(A)\)).
Boundary quadruples do always exist. Below are two possible constructions which always work. However, for concrete examples, other choices might be convenient. We let
Then \(b:D(A)\times D(A)\rightarrow {{\mathbb {K}}}\) is a symmetric sesquilinear form. We call it the boundary form associated with \(A_0\).
We first show that Condition (3.3) implies the following interpolation property.
Lemma 3.2
Let \(x_{{-}}\in G_{{-}}D(A)\), \(x_+\in G_{+}D(A)\). Then there exists \(w\in D(A)\) such that \(G_{{-}}w=x_{{-}}\) and \(G_{+}w=x_+\).
Proof
There exist \(w_1,w_2\in D(A)\) such that \(x_{{-}}=G_{{-}}w_1\), \(x_+=G_{+}w_2\). By (3.3), \(w_1=w_{1-} + w_{1+}\) and \(w_2=w_{2-} + w_{2+}\) with \(w_{1-},w_{2-}\in \ker G_{{-}}\), \(w_{1+},w_{2+}\in \ker G_{+}\). Let \(w=w_{1+} + w_{2-}\). Then
Similarly
\(\square \)
Remark 3.3
The interpolation property of Lemma 3.2 is equivalent to (3.3). Indeed, given \(w\in D(A)\) and assuming the interpolation property, we find \(w_1\in D(A)\) such that \(G_{+}w_1=G_{+}w\) and \(G_{{-}}w_1=0\). Thus \(w_1\in \ker G_{{-}}\) and \(w-w_1\in \ker G_{+}\), \(w=(w-w_1)+w_1\in \ker G_{+}+\ker G_{{-}}\).
We consider \(D(A)\) with the graph norm
Then \(D(A)\) is a Hilbert space with \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{D(A)}\) as corresponding norm. We first prove that \(G_{{-}}\) and \(G_{+}\) are automatically continuous for this norm.
Lemma 3.4
The operators \(G_{{-}}:D(A)\rightarrow {H_{{-}}}\), \(G_{+}:D(A)\rightarrow {H_{{+}}}\) are continuous.
Proof
Consider the mapping \(G:D(A)\rightarrow {\overline{{H_{{-}}}}}\times {\overline{{H_{{+}}}}}\) given by
where \({\overline{{H_{{-}}}}}\), \({\overline{{H_{{+}}}}}\) are the completions of \({H_{{-}}}\) and \({H_{{+}}}\) respectively. It suffices to show that G has a closed graph. For that let \(w_n\rightarrow w\) in \(D(A)\) such that \(G(w_n)\rightarrow (x_{{-}},x_+)\in {\overline{{H_{{-}}}}}\times {\overline{{H_{{+}}}}}\). Note that b is symmetric and hence automatically continuous as a consequence of the Closed Graph Theorem. Thus
for all \(v\in D(A)\). Thus
for all \(v\in D(A)\). Let \(z_{\hbox {\tiny {-}}}\in G_{{-}}D(A)\), \(z_+\in G_{+}D(A)\). By the interpolation property of Lemma 3.2, there exists \(v\in D(A)\) such that \(z_{\hbox {\tiny {-}}}=G_{{-}}v\), \(z_+=G_{+}v\). Thus
Passing to limits this remains true for all \(z_{\hbox {\tiny {-}}}\in {\overline{{H_{{-}}}}}\), \(z_+\in {\overline{{H_{{+}}}}}\).
Choosing \(z_{+}=x_+-G_{+}w\) and \(z_{\hbox {\tiny {-}}}=G_{{-}}w-x_{{-}}\), it follows that
Hence \(x_+=G_{+}w\), \(x_{{-}}=G_{{-}}w\). \(\square \)
Next we show that \({H_{{-}}}\) and \({H_{{+}}}\) are complete. We could deduce it from [2, Proposition 4.10] but we prefer to give a direct proof.
Proposition 3.5
The spaces \(G_{{-}}D(A)=:{H_{{-}}}\) and \(G_{+}D(A)=:{H_{{+}}}\) are complete.
Proof
a) We show that \(G_{{-}}D(A)\) is closed in the completion \({\overline{{H_{{-}}}}}\) of \({H_{{-}}}\). Let \(x_0\in \overline{G_{{-}}D(A)}\). Define the continuous linear form \(F:D(A)\rightarrow {{\mathbb {K}}}\) by
Since D(A) equipped with the graph norm is a Hilbert space, there exist \(w_1,w_2\in V\) such that
for all \(u\in D(A)\). In fact, by the definition of the graph norm, the mapping \(u\mapsto (u,Au)\) is an isometric isomorphism from D(A) to the graph G(A) of A. By the Hahn–Banach Theorem, the linear form \((u,Au)\mapsto F(u)\) on G(A) has an extension to a linear form on \(V\times V\). This gives us the vectors \(w_1\) and \(w_2\) in V.
In particular,
for all \(u\in D(A_0)\). Thus \(w_1=Aw_2\). Consequently,
for all \(u\in D(A)\). In particular,
for all \(u\in \ker G_{+}\). Since, by (3.3), \(G_{{-}}\ker G_{+}=G_{{-}}D(A)\), it follows that
for all \(y\in G_{{-}}D(A)={H_{{-}}}\). Since \(x_0+G_{{-}}w_2\in {\overline{{H_{{-}}}}}\), it follows that \(x_0 +G_{{-}}w_2=0\). Hence \(x_0=-G_{{-}}w_2\in G_{{-}}D(A)={H_{{-}}}\).
b) Note that \(({H_{{+}}},{H_{{-}}},G_{+},G_{{-}})\) is a boundary quadruple for \(-A_0\). Thus it follows from a) that \({H_{{+}}}\) is complete. \(\square \)
Now we give two examples of boundary quadruples which always exist.
Example 3.6
(First example) Consider \(W:=D(A)\) with the graph norm, as before. Since b is symmetric there exists a selfadjoint operator \(B\in {{\mathscr {L}}}(W)\) such that \(b(u,v)=\langle Bu,v\rangle _V\) for all \(u,v\in V\). By the spectral theorem [14, VIII.3], up to a unitary equivalence, \(W=L^2(\Omega ,\mu )\) and \(Bf=mf\) for all \(f\in W\) and some real-valued \(m\in L^\infty (\Omega ,\mu )\) where \((\Omega ,\Sigma ,\mu )\) is a measure space. Define \(G_{+}f=\sqrt{m^+}f\) and \(G_{{-}}f=\sqrt{m^-} f\) for all \(f\in L^2(\Omega ,\mu )\), where \(m^+=\max (m,0)\) and \(m^-=-\min (m,0)\). Then \((G_{{-}}L^2(\Omega ,\mu ), G_{+}L^2(\Omega ,\mu ),G_{{-}},G_{+})\) is a boundary quadruple.
Example 3.7
(Second example) The second construction depends on the following decomposition
where \(\overline{A_0}\) is the closure of \(A_0\) (which is again skew-symmetric). A proof can be found in [17, Lemma 2.5] or [8, Chapter 3, Theorem 1.1, p. 148] or [13, X.1 Lemma]. We give a proof to be as self-contained as possible, and we treat again the real and complex case simultaneously. First we note the decomposition
which is a Hilbert direct sum since \({\overline{\textrm{Ran}}}(\textrm{Id}-A_0)=\textrm{Ran}(\textrm{Id}-\overline{A_0})\) (a consequence of dissipativity) and
Proof of (3.6)
a) Linear independence. Let \(0=x_0 +x_++x_{{-}}\) with
Then \(0=(\textrm{Id}-\overline{A_0})x_0 +2x_{{-}}\). Since \(2x_{{-}}\in \ker (\textrm{Id}+A)\), it follows from (3.7) that \(2x_{{-}}=0\) and \((\textrm{Id}-\overline{A_0})x_0=0\). From dissipativity we obtain now
hence \(x_0=0\). Thus also \(x_+=0\).
b) Let \(x\in D(A)\). By (3.7) there exist \(x_0\in D(\overline{A_0})\) and \(y_0\in \ker (\textrm{Id}+ A)\) such that
Thus \(x-x_0-\frac{y_0}{2} \in \ker (\textrm{Id}-A)\) and
\(\square \)
Proposition 3.8
For \(w\in D(A)\), let \(w=w_0+w_+ +w_{-}\) be the decomposition according to (3.6), where \(w_0\in D(\overline{A_0}),\,\, w_+,w_{-}\in D(A)\), \(Aw_+=w_+, \,\,-A w_{\hbox {{-}}}=w_{\hbox {{-}}}\). Then \(G_{+}w:=\sqrt{2}w_+\), \(G_{{-}}w:=\sqrt{2}w_{-}\) defines a boundary quadruple \(({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}},G_{{-}},G_{+})\), with \({H_{{-}}}=\ker (\textrm{Id}+A)\) and \({H_{{+}}}=\ker (\textrm{Id}-A)\).
Proof
(a) Let \(u,v\in D(A)\). Then
with the notation defined above. In fact, using that,
for all \(w\in D(A)\), this is straightforward.
(b) \(\ker G_{+}+\ker G_{{-}}=\{ w\in D(A):w_+=0\}+\{w\in D(A):w_{-}=0\}=D(A)\). Thus (3.2) and (3.3) are satisfied. \(\square \)
Let \(({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}},G_{{-}},G_{+})\) be a boundary quadruple, which is fixed for the remainder of this section. We will decribe all m-dissipative extensions of \(A_0\) in terms of this quadruple.
Recall that \(A_0\) is closable and that \(\overline{A_0}\) is skew-symmetric again. The domain of \(\overline{A_0}\) may be described by the boundary quadruple as follows.
Proposition 3.9
One has \(D(\overline{A_0})=\ker G_{+}\cap \ker G_{{-}}\) and \(\overline{A_0}w=Aw\) for all \(w\in D(\overline{A_0})\).
Proof
\("\subset "\) Let \(u\in D(A_0)\). Then for all \(v\in D(A)\),
By Lemma 3.2 there exists \(v\in D(A)\) such that \(G_{+}u=G_{+}v\) and \(G_{{-}}v=-G_{{-}}u\). Thus
Hence \(u\in \ker G_{+}\cap \ker G_{{-}}\). Since \(G_{+}\) and \(G_{{-}}\) are continuous for the graph norm on \(D(A)\), it follows that
\("\supset "\) Let \(w\in \ker G_{{-}}\cap \ker G_{+}\). Then
for all \(u\in D(A)\). Hence
for all \(u\in D(A_0^*)\). By [1, Proposition B10, p. 472] this implies that \(w\in D(\overline{A_0}) \) and \(\overline{A_0}w=Aw\). \(\square \)
Now we can describe all m-dissipative extensions of \(A_0\). Recall that \({H_{{+}}}:=\textrm{Ran}G_{+}\) and \({H_{{-}}}=\textrm{Ran}G_{{-}}\) are complete. If \(\Phi \in {{\mathscr {L}}}({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}})\) is a contraction, then we define the operator \(A_\Phi \) on V by
Then clearly \(A_0\subset A_\Phi \subset A\).
Theorem 3.10
Let B be an operator on V such that \(A_0\subset B\). The following assertions are equivalent:
-
(i)
B is m-dissipative;
-
(ii)
There exists a linear contraction \(\Phi :{H_{{-}}}\rightarrow {H_{{+}}}\) such that \(B=A_\Phi \).
To say that \(\Phi :{H_{{-}}}\rightarrow {H_{{+}}}\) is a contraction means, by definition, that \(\Vert \Phi x\Vert _{{H_{{+}}}}\le \Vert x\Vert _{{H_{{-}}}}\) for all \(x\in {H_{{-}}}\). Since for \(w\in D(A_\Phi )\), one has
each operator \(A_\Phi \) is dissipative. Before proving Theorem 3.10 we show that \(A_\Phi \) determines \(\Phi \). More precisely the following holds.
Proposition 3.11
Let \(\Phi _1,\Phi _2:{H_{{-}}}\rightarrow {H_{{+}}}\) be two contractions. If \(A_{\Phi _1}\subset A_{\Phi _2}\), then \(\Phi _1=\Phi _2\).
Proof
Let \(x\in {H_{{-}}}\). By Lemma 3.2 there exists \(w\in D(A)\) such that \(G_{{-}}w=x\), \(G_{+}w=\Phi _1(x)\). Thus \(w\in D(A_{\Phi _1})\). It follows from the hypothesis that \(w\in D(A_{\Phi _2})\), i.e.
\(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 3.10
Let B be a dissipative extension of \(A_0\). Then by Theorem 2.5, \(B\subset A\). Since
one has \(\Vert G_{+}u\Vert _{{H_{{+}}}}^2\le \Vert G_{{-}}u\Vert _{{H_{{-}}}}^2\) for all \(u\in D(B)\). Thus \(\Phi G_{{-}}u:=G_{+}u\) defines a contraction from \(G_{{-}}D(B)\) to \({H_{{+}}}\). Then \(\Phi \) has a contractive extension from \({H_{{-}}}\rightarrow {H_{{+}}}\) which we still denote by \(\Phi \) (extend first \(\Phi \) to the closure of \(G_{{-}}D(B)\) by continuity and then by 0 on \((G_{{-}}D(B))^\perp \)). From our definition it follows that \(B\subset A_\Phi \). Proposition 3.11 now shows that the maximal dissipative operators extending \(A_0\) are exactly the operators \(A_\Phi \) where \(\Phi :{H_{{-}}}\rightarrow {H_{{+}}}\) is a linear contraction. Now the claim follows from Phillips’ Theorem (Proposition 2.4). \(\square \)
Corollary 3.12
The mapping \(\Phi \mapsto A_\Phi \) is a bijection between the set of all contractions \(\Phi :{H_{{-}}}\rightarrow {H_{{+}}}\) and the set of all m-dissipative extensions of \(A_0\).
Proof
This follows from Theorem 3.10 and Proposition 3.11. \(\square \)
Let us consider some special cases.
Proposition 3.13
The following assertions are equivalent:
-
(i)
\(\langle Au,v\rangle _V +\langle u,Av\rangle _V=0\) for all \(u,v\in D(A)\);
-
(ii)
\(G_{{-}}=G_{+}=0\);
-
(iii)
\(\overline{A_0}=A\);
-
(iv)
\(-A^*=A\).
Proof
\((ii)\Rightarrow (i)\) This follows from (3.2).
\((i)\Rightarrow (iv)\) Property (i) implies that \(-A\subset A^*\). But \(A^*=-A_0^{**}=-\overline{A_0}\subset -A\). This proves (iv).
\((iv)\Rightarrow (iii)\) One always has \(\overline{A_0}=A_0^{**}\) and \((\overline{A_0})^*=A_0^*\). Thus (iv) implies that \(\overline{A_0}=A_0^{**}=-A^*=A\).
\((iii)\Rightarrow (ii)\) This follows from Proposition 3.9. \(\square \)
Proposition 3.13 describes when both operators \(G_{+},G_{{-}}\) are zero; it turns out that this is independent of the boundary quadruple. Next we consider the case when \(G_{+}=0\).
Proposition 3.14
Assume that \(G_{+}=0\). Then A is the only m-dissipative extension of \(A_0\). However, if \(G_{{-}}\ne 0\), then there exists an infinite number of generators B of a \(C_0\)-semigroup such that \(A_0\subset B\).
Proof
One has
for all \(u\in D(A)\). Thus A is dissipative. It follows from Theorem 2.5 that A is maximal dissipative and hence m-dissipative by Phillips’Theorem. If \(G_{{-}}\ne 0\), then \(D(\overline{A_0})=\ker G_{{-}}\ne D(A)\). Thus it follows from [11, A-II, Theorem 1.33 p. 46] that \(A_0\) has infinitely many extensions generating a \(C_0\)-semigroup. \(\square \)
Thus in the case where \(G_{+}=0\) and \(G_{{-}}\ne 0\), only one of the infinitely many \(C_0\)-semigroups having an extension of \(A_0\) as generator is contractive. Next we consider the case when \(G_{{-}}=0\).
Proposition 3.15
If \(G_{{-}}=0\), then \(\overline{A_0}\) is the only m-dissipative extension of \(A_0\).
Proof
One has \({H_{{-}}}=\{0\}\). Thus \(\Phi =0\) is the only contraction from \({H_{{-}}}\) to \({H_{{+}}}\). Thus
\(\square \)
As a consequence \(\overline{A_0}\) is also the only extension of \(A_0\) generating a \(C_0\)-semigroup.
We conclude this section by establishing isomorphisms between boundary quadruples.
Theorem 3.16
Let \(({H_{{-}}}, {H_{{+}}},G_{{-}},G_{+})\) be a boundary quadruple for \(A_0\). Let \({\tilde{G_{{-}}}}:D(A)\rightarrow {\tilde{{H_{{-}}}}}\) and \({\tilde{G_{+}}}:D(A)\rightarrow {\tilde{{H_{{+}}}}}\) be linear where \({\tilde{{H_{{-}}}}}\) and \({\tilde{{H_{{+}}}}}\) are Hilbert spaces. The following assertions are equivalent:
-
(i)
\(({\tilde{{H_{{-}}}}},{\tilde{{H_{{+}}}}},{\tilde{G_{{-}}}},{\tilde{G_{+}}})\) is a boundary quadruple;
-
(ii)
-
(a)
\( {\tilde{G_{{-}}}}D(A)={\tilde{{H_{{-}}}}}\) and \({\tilde{G_{+}}}D(A)={\tilde{{H_{{+}}}}}\);
-
(b)
There exists an isomorphism \(\Psi :H\rightarrow {\tilde{H}}\) where \(H:={H_{{-}}}\oplus {H_{{+}}}\) and \( {\tilde{H}}:={\tilde{{H_{{-}}}}}\oplus {\tilde{{H_{{+}}}}}\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} \Psi (G_{{-}}u,G_{+}u)=({\tilde{G_{{-}}}}u,{\tilde{G_{+}}}u)\hbox { for all }u\in D(A) \end{aligned}$$and
$$\begin{aligned} \Psi ^*{\tilde{C}} \Psi =C, \end{aligned}$$where \(C(x_{-},x_+)=(-x_{-},x_+)\) for \(x_{-}\in {H_{{-}}}\), \(x_+\in {H_{{+}}}\) and \({\tilde{C}} (\tilde{x_{-}},\tilde{x_+})=(-\tilde{x_{-}},\tilde{x_+})\) for \(\tilde{x_{-}}\in {\tilde{{H_{{-}}}}}\), \(\tilde{x_+}\in {\tilde{{H_{{+}}}}}\).
-
(a)
Proof
\((i)\Rightarrow (ii)\) Assume that \(({\tilde{{H_{{-}}}}},{\tilde{{H_{{+}}}}},{\tilde{G_{{-}}}},{\tilde{G_{+}}})\) is a boundary quadruple. Then a) follows from Proposition 3.5. To prove b), consider the mapping \(G:=(G_{{-}},G_{+}):D(A)\rightarrow H:={H_{{-}}}\oplus {H_{{+}}}\) given by \(G(u)=(G_{{-}}u,G_{+}u)\) and similarly \({\tilde{G}}:=({\tilde{G_{{-}}}},{\tilde{G_{+}}}):D(A)\rightarrow {\tilde{H}}:={\tilde{{H_{{-}}}}}\oplus {\tilde{{H_{{+}}}}}\). By Proposition 3.9, \(\ker G=\ker {\tilde{G}}=D(\overline{A_0})\). Thus \(G_0:=G_{|D(A_0)^\perp }\) and \(\tilde{G_0}:={{\tilde{G}}}_{|D(A_0)^\perp }\) define two isomorphisms \(G_0:D(A_0)^\perp \rightarrow H\) and \(\tilde{G_0}:D(A_0)^\perp \rightarrow {\tilde{H}}\). Thus \(\Psi :=\tilde{G_0}G_0^{-1}\in {{\mathscr {L}}}(H,{\tilde{H}})\) is an isomorphism. Since
if \(u\in D(\overline{A_0})\) or \(v\in D(\overline{A_0})\), it follows that \({\tilde{G}}=\Psi G\). Notice that
for all \(u,v\in D(A)\), where \(Gu=(G_{{-}}u,G_{+}u)\in {H_{{-}}}\oplus {H_{{+}}}=H\). Similarly \({\tilde{G}}u\) is written as a vector. Let \(u\in D(A)\). Then for all \(v\in D(A)\),
Since G is surjective, it follows that \(CGu =\Psi ^*{\tilde{C}}\Psi G u\) for all \(u\in D(A)\). Consequently, \(C=\Psi ^*{\tilde{C}}\Psi \).
\((ii)\Rightarrow (i)\) This is shown by reversing the arguments leading to "(i) implies (ii)". \(\square \)
4 Unitary groups
Let V be a Hilbert space over \({{\mathbb {K}}}={{\mathbb {R}}}\) or \({{\mathbb {C}}}\). In this section we want to determine all extensions of a densely defined skew-symmetric operator which generate a unitary group. We recall the following two well-known facts. An operator B on V generates a \(C_0\)-group \((U(t))_{t\in {{\mathbb {R}}}}\) if and only if \(\pm B\) generate \(C_0\)-semigroups \((U_\pm (t))_{t\ge 0}\). In that case, \(U(t)=U_+(t)\) and \(U(-t)=U_{-}(t)\) for \(t\ge 0\). Moreover, if B generates a \(C_0\)-semigroup \((S(t))_{t\ge 0}\), then \(B^*\) generates the \(C_0\)-semigroup \((S(t)^*)_{t\ge 0}\). By a unitary \(C_0\)-group we mean a \(C_0\)-group of unitary operators. The following is well-known.
Proposition 4.1
Let B be an operator on V. The following assertions are equivalent:
-
(i)
B generates a unitary \(C_0\)-group;
-
(ii)
\(\pm B\) is m-dissipative;
-
(iii)
\(D(B)\) is dense and \(-B=B^*\).
Proof
\((ii)\Longleftrightarrow (i)\) \(\pm B\) are m-dissipative if and only \(\pm B\) generate contractive \(C_0\)-semigroups \((U_{\pm }(t))_{t\ge 0}\). This in turn is equivalent to B generating a contractive hence isometric group; i.e. a unitary \(C_0\)-group.
\((i)\Rightarrow (iii)\) Let B be the generator of the unitary group \((U(t))_{t\in {{\mathbb {R}}}}\). Then \(B^*\) generates the semigroup \((U(t)^*)_{t\ge 0}\) and \(-B\) the \(C_0\)-semigroup \((U(-t))_{t\ge 0}\). Since \(U(-t)=U(t)^*\) for all \(t\ge 0\), it follows that \(-B=B^*\).
\((iii)\Rightarrow (i)\) If \(-B=B^*\), then B is skew-symmetric and \(G_{+}=G_{{-}}=0\) by Proposition 3.13. By Proposition 3.14, \(-B^*=B\) generates a contractive \(C_0\)-semigroup. Applying the same result to \(-B\) instead of B we deduce that also \(-B\) generates a contractive \(C_0\)-semigroup. Thus B generates a unitary \(C_0\)-group. \(\square \)
Now we describe all generators of a unitary \(C_0\)-group which are extensions of a given skew-symmetric operator.
Recall that V is a real or complex Hilbert space. Let \(A_0\) be a densely skew-symmetric operator on V and let \(A=-A_0^*\). Let \(({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}},G_{{-}},G_{+})\) be a boundary quadruple for \(A_0\). We let \({H_{{-}}}=\textrm{Ran}G_{{-}}\), \({H_{{+}}}=\textrm{Ran}G_{+}\) and if \(\Phi \in {{\mathscr {L}}}({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}})\) is a contraction, we define \(A_\phi \subset A\) as before on the domain
Theorem 4.2
Let B be an operator on V such that \(A_0\subset B\). The following assertions are equivalent:
-
(i)
B generates a unitary \(C_0\)-group;
-
(ii)
there exists a unitary operator \(\Phi \in {{\mathscr {L}}}({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}})\) such that \(B=A_\Phi \).
Proof
\((i)\Rightarrow (ii)\) Let B be the generator of a unitary group. Then \(\pm B\) are m-dissipative. By Theorem 3.10 there exists a contraction \(\Phi :{H_{{-}}}\rightarrow {H_{{+}}}\) such that \(B=A_\Phi \). Apply Theorem 3.10 to \(-B\) instead of B and observe that \(({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}},G_{+},G_{{-}})\) is a boundary quadruple for \(-A_0\); here we just interchanged \(G_{{-}}\) and \(G_{+}\). Thus we find a contraction \(\Psi :{H_{{+}}}\rightarrow {H_{{-}}}\) such that
Let \(x_{{-}}\in {H_{{-}}}\). We claim that \(\Psi \Phi x_{{-}}=x_{{-}}\). In fact, by the Interpolation Lemma (Lemma 3.2) there exists \(w\in D(A)\) such that \(G_{{-}}w=x_{{-}}\) and \(G_{+}w=\Phi x_{{-}}\). Thus \(\Phi (G_{{-}}w)=G_{+}w\) and so \(w\in D(A_\Phi )=D(B)\). Hence \(w\in D(-B)=D(B)\). Consequently,
This proves the claim. One similarly shows that \(\Phi \Psi x_+=x_+\) for all \(x_+\in {H_{{+}}}\). Thus \(\Phi \) is unitary.
\((ii)\Rightarrow (i)\) Assume that \(\Phi :{H_{{-}}}\rightarrow {H_{{+}}}\) is unitary and \(B=A_\Phi \). In particular
Thus \(-B \) is m-dissipative by Theorem 3.10. We have shown that \(\pm B\) are m-dissipative. \(\square \)
Corollary 4.3
The following assertions are equivalent:
-
(i)
there exists a generator B of a unitary group such that \(A_0\subset B\);
-
(ii)
\({H_{{-}}}\) and \({H_{{+}}}\) are isomorphic as Hilbert spaces;
-
(iii)
\(\ker (\textrm{Id}-A)\) and \(\ker (\textrm{Id}+ A)\) are isomorphic.
Proof
\((i)\Longleftrightarrow (ii)\) follows from Theorem 4.2.
\((ii)\Longleftrightarrow (iii)\) follows from Proposition 3.8. \(\square \)
5 Selfadjoint extensions of symmetric operators
In this section we consider a complex Hilbert space V. An operator S on V is called symmetric if
If S is densely defined, then S is symmetric if and only if \(S\subset S^*\). An operator T on V is called selfadjoint if \(D(T)\) is dense in V and \(T=T^*\).
It is immediate that an operator S is symmetric if and only if iS is skew-symmetric.
Selfadjointness can be characterized by Stone’s Theorem.
Theorem 5.1
(Stone) Let T be an operator on H. The following assertions are equivalent:
-
(i)
T is selfadjoint;
-
(ii)
iT generates a unitary \(C_0\)-group.
Proof
Let T be densely defined. Then \((iT)^*=-iT^*\). Thus T is selfadjoint if and only if \((iT)^*=-iT\). By Proposition 4.1, this is equivalent to (ii). \(\square \)
Theorem 5.1 allows us to transport our results from Sect. 4 to the characterization of all selfadjoint extensions of a symmetric operator. To that aim, let S be a densely defined symmetric operator on V.
Definition 5.2
A boundary quadruple \(({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}},,G_{{-}},G_{+})\) for S consists of complex pre-Hilbert spaces \({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}}\) and linear surjective maps \(G_{{-}}:D(S^*)\rightarrow {H_{{-}}}\), \(G_{+}:D(S^*)\rightarrow {H_{{+}}}\) such that
for all \(u,v\in D(S^*)\), and
Proposition 5.3
A boundary quadruple \(({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}},G_{{-}},G_{+})\) for S always exists. Then \({H_{{-}}}\) and \({H_{{+}}}\) are complete and \(G_{{-}},G_{+}\) are continuous if \(D(S^*)\) carries the graph norm.
Proof
The operator \(A_0:=iS\) is skew-symmetric and \(-A_0^*=iS^*\). Let \(({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}}, G_{{-}},G_{+})\) be a boundary quadruple for \(A_0\). Then
for all \(u,v\in D(S^*)\). Now the existence follows from Example 3.6 and Proposition 3.8. Proposition 3.5 says that \({H_{{-}}}\) and \({H_{{+}}}\) are complete and Lemma 3.4 that \(G_{{-}},G_{+}\) are continuous. \(\square \)
Let \(({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}},G_{+},G_{{-}})\) be a boundary quadruple for S. Then we have the following two results.
Proposition 5.4
The following assertions are equivalent:
-
(i)
S has a selfadjoint extension;
-
(ii)
\({H_{{+}}}\) and \({H_{{-}}}\) are isomorphic, i.e. there exists a unitary operator from \({H_{{+}}}\) onto \({H_{{-}}}\);
-
(iii)
\(\ker (i\textrm{Id}-S^*)\) and \(\ker (i\textrm{Id}+S^*)\) are isomorphic.
Theorem 5.5
Assume that \({H_{{+}}}\) and \({H_{{-}}}\) are isomorphic. Let T be an operator such that \(S\subset T\). The following assertions are equivalent:
-
(i)
T is selfadjoint;
-
(ii)
there exists a unitary operator \(\Phi :{H_{{+}}}\rightarrow {H_{{-}}}\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} D(T)=\{ w\in D(S^*):\Phi G_{+}w=G_{{-}}w\},\,\, Tw=S^*w \end{aligned}$$for all \(w\in D(T)\).
Proof of Proposition 5.4 and Theorem 5.5
Let \(A_0=iS\). Then we have \(A=-A_0^*=iS^*\). Thus Proposition 5.4 follows from Corollary 4.3. Let \(S\subset T\). Then \(iS\subset iT\). By Theorem 5.1, T is selfadjoint if and only if iT generates a unitary \(C_0\)-group. By Theorem 4.2, this is equivalent to (ii) of Theorem 5.5\(\square \)
Specified to the boundary quadruple of Proposition 3.5, Theorem 5.5 is a variant of [13, Theorem X.2]. A boundary triple for S as defined in [15, Chapter 14] is essentially equivalent to a boundary quadruple in which \({H_{{+}}}\) and \({H_{{-}}}\) are isomorphic. Then Theorem 5.5 also follows from the equivalence of (i) and (iii) in [15, Theorem 4.10].
6 Examples
Let H be a Hilbert space over \({{\mathbb {K}}}={{\mathbb {R}}}\) or \({{\mathbb {C}}}\) and let \(-\infty \le a<b\le \infty \),
Define the Sobolev space
\(H^1((a,b),H) := \{ u\in L^2((a,b),H):\exists u'\in L^2((a,b),H)\hbox { such that } -\int _a^b \varphi '(t)u(t)dt = \int _a^b u'(t)\varphi (t) dt \hbox { for all }\varphi \in {{\mathscr {C}}}_c^\infty ((a,b),{{\mathbb {R}}})\}\).
Then \(H^1((a,b),H)\) is a Hilbert space for the norm
Lemma 6.1
One has
-
(a)
\(H^1((a,b),H)\subset {{\mathscr {C}}}([a,b],H)\) if \(-\infty<a,b<\infty \).
-
(b)
\(H^1((a,\infty ),H)\subset \{ u\in {{\mathscr {C}}}([a,\infty ),H):\lim _{t\rightarrow \infty }u(t)=0 \}\) if \(a>-\infty \).
-
(c)
\(H^1((-\infty ,b),H)\subset \{ u\in {{\mathscr {C}}} ((-\infty ,b],H):\lim _{t\rightarrow -\infty } u(t)=0\}\) if \(b<\infty \).
-
(d)
\(H^1((-\infty ,\infty ),H)\subset \{ u\in {{\mathscr {C}}} ((-\infty ,\infty ),H):\lim _{t\rightarrow \pm \infty } u(t)=0\}\).
This can be proved as in the scalar case, see [7, Theorem 8.2 and Corollary 8.9] and [3, Sec. 8.5] for a vector-valued version.
Here we identify each \(u\in H^1((a,b),H)\) with the unique \({\widetilde{u}}\in {{\mathscr {C}}}([a,b]\cap {{\mathbb {R}}},H)\) such that \({\widetilde{u}}(t)=u(t)\) a.e. (taking the intersection with \({{\mathbb {R}}}\) is convenient when [a, b] is not compact). The following integration-by-parts formula holds, see [7, Corollary 8.9 and 8.10].
Lemma 6.2
Let \(u,v\in H^1((a,b), H)\). Then \(\langle u'(\cdot ),v(\cdot )\rangle _H,\,\, \langle u(\cdot ),v'(\cdot )\rangle _H\in L^1 ((a,b),H)\) and
Example 6.3
Let \(V=L^2((a,b),H)\), \(D(A_0)={{\mathscr {C}}}_c^\infty ((a,b),H)\), \(A_0u =u'\). Then \(A_0\) is skew-symmetric with dense domain. Let B be an operator on V such that \(A_0\subset B\).
-
(a)
Assume that \(-\infty<a<b<\infty \). Then B is m-dissipative if and only if there exists a contraction \(\Phi \in {{\mathscr {L}}}(H)\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} D(B)=\{ u\in H^1((a,b),H):\Phi u(a)=u(b) \}. \end{aligned}$$Moreover B generates a unitary \(C_0\)-semigroup if and only if \(\Phi \) is unitary.
-
(b)
Let \(-\infty =a<b<\infty \). Then B is m-dissipative if and only if \(D(B)=\{u\in H^1(-\infty ,b),H):u(b)=0\} \). In that case the semigroup \((S(t))_{t\ge 0}\) generated by B is given by \((S(t)f)(x)=f(x+t)\) if \(x+t\le b\) and \((S(t)f)(x)=0\) if \(x+t> b\). This B is the only generator of a \(C_0\)-semigroup which is an extension of \(A_0\).
-
(c)
Let \(-\infty<a<b=\infty \). Then B is m-dissipative if and only if \(D(B)=H^1((a,\infty ),H)\). In that case the semigroup \((S(t))_{t\ge 0}\) generated by B is given by
$$\begin{aligned} (S(t)f)(x)=f(x+t)\hbox { for }x\in (a,\infty ),\, t>0,\, f\in V. \end{aligned}$$There are infinitely many other non-contractive \(C_0\)-semigroups having as generator an extension of \(A_0\).
-
(d)
\(-\infty =a,b=\infty \). Then \(D(\overline{A_0})=H^1({{\mathbb {R}}},H)\) and \(\overline{A_0}\) generates a unitary \(C_0\)-group given by \((U(t)f)(x)=f(x+t)\).
Proof
A boundary quadruple \(({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}},G_{{-}},G_{+})\) is given by \({H_{{-}}}=G_{{-}}D(A)\) and \({H_{{+}}}=G_{+}D(A))\) where :
\(G_{+}u=u(b)\) and \(G_{{-}}u=u(a)\) in the case a),
\(G_{{-}}=0\) and \(G_{+}u=u(b)\) in the case b),
\(G_{+}=0\) and \(G_{{-}}u=u(a)\) in the case c),
\(G_{{-}}=G_{+}=0\) in the case d).
Now a) follows from Theorem 3.10, b) from Proposition 3.14, c) from Proposition 3.13 and d) from Theorem 5.5. \(\square \)
Next we give an example where arbitrary closed subspaces \(H_1,H_2\) of H occur as \(G_{{-}}D(A)\) and \(G_{+}D(A)\).
Example 6.4
Let H be a Hilbert space over \({{\mathbb {K}}}={{\mathbb {R}}}\) or \({{\mathbb {C}}}\), and let \(H_1,H_2\) be closed subspaces of H. We construct a densely defined symmetric operator \(A_0\) on a space V and \(({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}},G_{{-}},G_{+})\), a boundary quadruple, such that \({H_{{+}}}=H_2\), \({H_{{-}}}=H_1 \). For that we let \(-\infty<a<c<b<\infty \),
This is a closed subspace of \(L^2((a,b),H)\). Define the operator \(A_0\) on V by
Thus \(u\in {{\mathscr {C}}}([a,b],H)\) and \(u(a)=u(b)=0\), \(u(c)\in H_1\cap H_2\) for each \(u\in D(A_0)\). Define \(A_0 u=u'\in V\). Then \(D(A_0)\) is dense since
and \(H_0^1((a,c),H_1)\) is dense in \(L^2((a,c),H_1)\) and \(H_0^1((c,b),H_2)\) is dense in \(L^2((c,b),H_2)\). The operator \(A_0\) is skew-symmetric. This is a consequence of Lemma 6.2 since \(\lim _{x\rightarrow c,x<c}v(x)=\lim _{x\rightarrow c,x>c} v(x)\) for all \(v\in D(A_0)\). Moreover, \(A=-A_0^* \) is given by:
and \(Au=u'\).
Define \(G_{+},G_{{-}}:D(A)\rightarrow H\) by \(G_{+}u=u(b)\) and \(G_{{-}}u=u(a)\). Then we see that \((G_{{-}}D(A),G_{+}D(A),G_{{-}},G_{+})\) is a boundary quadruple for \(A_0\) and \(G_{+}D(A)=H_2\), \(G_{{-}}D(A)=H_1\). We omit the details of the proof.
Next we consider the second derivative. Let \(-\infty<a<b<\infty \), \(V=L^2((a,b),H)\). By
we define the Sobolev space of second order. It follows from Lemma 6.1 that
We define the operators \(G_{{-}},G_{+}\in {{\mathscr {L}}}(H^2(a,b;H),H\times H )\) by
and
We define the symmetric operator S on \(V=L^2(a,b;H)\) by
Theorem 6.5
Let T be an operator such that
The following assertions are equivalent:
-
(i)
iT is m-dissipative;
-
(ii)
There exists a contraction \(\Phi \in {{\mathscr {L}}}(H\times H)\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} D(T)=\{ v\in H^2((a,b),H):G_{+}v=\Phi G_{{-}}v\}. \end{aligned}$$(6.3)
Theorem 6.6
Let T be an operator on V such that \(S\subset T\). The following assertions are equivalent:
-
(i)
T is self-adjoint;
-
(ii)
There exists a unitary operator \(\Phi \in {{\mathscr {L}}}(H\times H)\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} D(T)=\{ v\in H^2((a,b),H): \Phi G_{{-}}v=G_{+}v\}\hbox { and } Tv=v'',\,\, v\in D(T). \end{aligned}$$
We find the three classical cases.
(a) Neumann boundary conditions: \(v'(a)=v'(b)=0\) for \(\Phi =\textrm{Id}\).
(b) Dirichlet boundary conditions: \(v(a)=v(b)=0\) for \(\Phi =-\textrm{Id}\).
(c) Periodic boundary conditions: \(v(a)=v(b)\), \(v'(a)=v'(b)\) for
In each of these three cases the operator T given by \(Tv=v''\) with the domain (6.3) is selfadjoint.
(d) Robin boundary conditions: \((\textrm{Id}_H-\Phi _1)u(a)=i(\textrm{Id}_H +\Phi _1)u'(a)\), \((\textrm{Id}_H-\Phi _2)u(b)=-i(\textrm{Id}_H +\Phi _2)u'(b)\) for
If \(\Phi _1,\Phi _2\in {{\mathscr {L}}}(H)\) are contractions then the operator iT with domain (6.3) given by \(iTv=iv''\) is m-dissipative. If \(\Phi _1,\Phi _2\in {{\mathscr {L}}}(H)\) are unitary, then the operator T with domain (6.3) given by \(Tv=v''\) is selfadjoint.
For the proof of Theorems 6.5 and 6.6 we need the following.
Lemma 6.7
Let \(u\in L^2((a,b),H)\) such that \(u''\in L^2((a,b),H)\); i.e.
Then \(u\in H^2((a,b),H)\).
Proof
We fix \(\Psi \in {{\mathscr {C}}}_c^\infty ((a,b),{{\mathbb {R}}})\) such that \(\int _a^b\Psi (t)dt=1\). Let \(w\in {{\mathscr {C}}}_c^\infty ((a,b),{{\mathbb {R}}})\). Then \({\widetilde{w}}:=w-\left( \int _a^b w(t)dt\right) \Psi \in {{\mathscr {C}}}_c^\infty ((a,b),{{\mathbb {R}}})\) and \(\int _a^b {\widetilde{w}}(t)dt=0\). Thus \(\varphi (t):=\int _a^t {\widetilde{w}}(s)ds\) defines \(\varphi \in {{\mathscr {C}}}_c^\infty ((a,b),{{\mathbb {R}}})\) and \(\varphi '={\widetilde{w}}\), \(w'=\varphi '' + \left( \int _a^b w(t)dt\right) \Psi '\). It follows from the hypothesis that
where \(c=-\int _a^b u''(t)\Psi (t)dt + \int _a^b u(t)\Psi '(t)dt\). Since \(w\in {{\mathscr {C}}}_c^\infty (a,b;{{\mathbb {R}}})\) is arbitrary, this implies that \(u\in H^1((a,b),{{\mathbb {C}}})\) and
Thus \(u'\in H^1((a,b),H)\) and consequently \(u\in H^2((a,b),{{\mathbb {C}}})\). \(\square \)
Remark 6.8
Lemma 6.7 is false in higher dimensions. Indeed, there exists \(u\in {{\mathscr {C}}}({\overline{{{\mathbb {D}}}}})\cap {{\mathscr {C}}}^2({{\mathbb {D}}})\) such that \(\Delta u=0\) but \(u\notin H^1({{\mathbb {D}}})\), where \({{\mathbb {D}}}\) is the open unit disc in \({{\mathbb {R}}}^2\). See [3, Example 6.68], a famous example due to Hadamard.
Proof of Theorems 6.5 and 6.6
It follows from Lemma 6.7 that
and \(S^*u=u''\) for all \(u\in H^2((a,b),H)\). For \(u,v\in H^2((a,b),H)\), integrating by parts yields
where \(G_{{-}}, G_{+}\in {{\mathscr {L}}}(H^2((a,b),H),H\times H)\) are defined by (6.1) and (6.2). This is a computation that we omit. We show that
Let \(u\in H^2((a,b),H)\). Choose \(\psi ,\phi \in {{\mathscr {C}}}^2([a,b],H)\) such that
and
Then
Thus the sum u is in \(\ker G_{{-}}+\ker G_{+}\). Now, Theorem 6.5 is a direct consequence of Theorem 3.10, and Theorem 6.6 follows from Theorem 5.5. \(\square \)
7 The wave equation
In this section we treat the wave equation in terms of quadruples. We are most grateful to Nathanael Skrepek who informed us on the papers [9, 10] by Kurula and Zwart, where boundary triples are used for similar, but different results. We refer to [16] for further results on the Maxwell equations. Let \(\Omega \subset {{\mathbb {R}}}^d\) be a bounded, open set with Lipschitz boundary. We consider the skew-symmetric operator \(A_0\) on \(V:=L^2(\Omega )\times L^2(\Omega )^d\) given by
and
Then \(A:=(-A_0)^*\) is given by
where \(H_{\textrm{div}}(\Omega ):=\{ u\in L^2(\Omega )^d:\textrm{div}u\in L^2(\Omega )\}. \) By \(\Gamma :=\partial \Omega \) we denote the boundary of \(\partial \Omega \) and by \(L^2(\Gamma )\) the Lebesgue space with respect to the surface measure. There exists a unique operator \(\textrm{tr}\in {{\mathscr {L}}}(H^1(\Omega ),L^2(\Gamma )) \) such that \(\textrm{tr}u=u_{|\Gamma }\) if \(u\in H^1(\Omega )\cap {{\mathscr {C}}}({\overline{\Omega }})\). We write \(u_{\Gamma }:=\textrm{tr}u\) for all \(u\in H^1(\Omega )\), and call \(u_{\Gamma }\) the trace of u. Then \(\ker \textrm{tr}=H_0^1(\Omega )\), the closure of \({{\mathscr {C}}}_c^\infty (\Omega )\) in \(H^1(\Omega )\).
The space \(H^{1/2}(\Gamma ):=\textrm{tr}H^1(\Omega )\) is a Hilbert space for the following norm. Let \(g\in H^{1/2}(\Gamma )\). Then there exists a unique \(u\in (\ker \textrm{tr})^\perp ={H_0^1(\Omega )}^\perp \) such that \(u_\Gamma =g\). We let \(\Vert g\Vert _{H^{1/2}(\Gamma )}:=\Vert u\Vert _{H^1(\Omega )}\). Thus
Let \(u\in H_{\textrm{div}} (\Omega )\). Then
for all \(v\in H^1_0(\Omega )\). Thus there exists a unique functional \(\nu \cdot u\in H^{-1/2}(\Gamma )=H^{1/2}(\Gamma ) '\) defined by
for all \(v\in H^1(\Omega )\). Here \(\nu \) stands symbolically for the outer normal (which is a function in \(L^\infty (\Gamma )\)). If \(u\in H^1(\Omega )\) such that \(\Delta u\in L^2(\Omega )\), then \(\nabla u\in H_{\textrm{div}}(\Omega )\) and we let \(\partial _{\nu } u:=\nu \cdot \nabla u\in H^{-1/2}(\Omega )\). Thus
for all \(v\in H^1(\Omega )\).
Denote by \(R:H^{-1/2}(\Gamma )\rightarrow H^{1/2}(\Gamma )\) the Riesz isomorphism defined by
for all \(\varphi \in H^{-1/2}(\Gamma )\), \(v\in H^1(\Gamma )\).
It is well-known and easy to see that the continuous, linear mapping
is surjective. Now we can formulate the main result of this section.
Theorem 7.1
Let \({H_{{-}}}={H_{{+}}}:=H^{1/2}(\Gamma )\) and define
by
Then \(({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}},G_{{-}},G_{+})\) is a boundary quadruple for \(A_0\).
Let \(\Phi \in {{\mathscr {L}}}(H^{1/2}(\Gamma ))\) be a contraction. We define the domain of the operator \(B_\Phi \) on \(V=L^2(\Omega )\times L^2(\Omega )^d\) by
where \( G_{{-}}(u_1,u_2)=\frac{1}{2} u_{1 \Gamma } - R(\nu \cdot u_2)\) and \(G_{+}(u_1,u_2)=\frac{1}{2} u_{1 \Gamma } + R(\nu \cdot u_2)\).
Corollary 7.2
Let B be an operator on V such that \(A_0\subset B\). The following assertions are equivalent:
-
(i)
B is m-dissipative;
-
(ii)
There exists a contraction \(\Phi \in {{\mathscr {L}}}(H^{1/2}(\Gamma ))\) such that \(B=B_\Phi \).
In view of Theorem 3.10, Corollary 7.2 is a direct consequence of Theorem 7.1.
Proof of Theorem 7.1
It follows from the definition of \(\nu \cdot u_2\) for \(u_2\in H_{\textrm{div}} (\Omega )\) that for \(u=(u_1,u_2)\), \(v=(v_1,v_2)\in D(A)=H^1(\Omega )\times H_{\textrm{div}}(\Omega )\),
It remains to show that \(G:=(G_{{-}},G_{+}):D(A)\rightarrow H^{1/2}(\Gamma )\times H^{1/2}(\Gamma )\) is surjective.
Let \(h_{{-}},h_+\in H^{1/2}(\Gamma )\). Using (7.1) we find \(u_1\in H^1(\Omega )\) such that \(u_{1\Gamma }=h_{{-}}+h_+\), and \(u_2\in H_{\textrm{div}}(\Omega )\) such that \(R(\nu \cdot u_2)=\frac{1}{2}(h_+-h_{{-}})\). Thus
and
By Remark 3.3, \(({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}},G_{{-}},G_{+})\) is a boundary quadruple. \(\square \)
We want to express Corollary 7.2 in terms of a well-posedness result. Let \(B:=B_\Phi \) where \(\Phi :H^{1/2}(\Gamma )\rightarrow H^{1/2}(\Gamma )\) is a contraction. We consider the wave equation
For our purposes we call u a weak solution if \(u\in {{\mathscr {C}}}({{\mathbb {R}}}_+,L^2(\Omega ))\) and
for all \(v\in {{\mathscr {C}}}^\infty _c(\Omega )\).
Corollary 7.3
Let \((u_{01},u_{02})\in D(B)\). Then there exists a unique \(u\in {{\mathscr {C}}}^1({{\mathbb {R}}}_+,L^2(\Omega ))\cap {{\mathscr {C}}}({{\mathbb {R}}}_+,H^1(\Omega ))\) such that
Note that by (7.3),
Therefore \(\partial _{\nu } \int _0^t u(s)ds\in H^{-1/2}(\Gamma )\).
Proof
We first prove the existence of a solution. Let
Then \(w\in {{\mathscr {C}}}^1({{\mathbb {R}}}_+, L^2(\Omega )\times L^2(\Omega )^d)\cap {{\mathscr {C}}}({{\mathbb {R}}}_+,D(B))\) and \({\dot{w}}(t)=Bw(t)\) for \(t\ge 0\). Thus
and
Thus, for \(v\in {{\mathscr {C}}}_c^\infty (\Omega )\),
Thus \(u_1\) is a weak solution of (7.3). Since \(T(0)(u_{01},u_{02})=(u_{01},u_{02})\), (7.4) holds. Since \((u_1(t),u_2(t))\in D(B)\) we have
Observe that
This shows that \(u:=u_1\) satisfies (7.5).
To prove the uniqueness, let u be a solution of (7.3), (7.4) and (7.5). Define \(u_1=u\) and \(u_2(t)=\int _0^t \nabla u(s)ds + u_{02}\). Then \(w(t)=(u_1(t),u_2(t))\in D(B)\), \(w\in {{\mathscr {C}}}^1({{\mathbb {R}}}_+, L^2(\Omega )\times L^2(\Omega )^d)\) and w satisfies (7.3), (7.4) and (7.5). Thus \(w(t)=T(t) (u_{01},u_{02})\). \(\square \)
Remark 7.4
Let \(u_{01}\in H_0^1(\Omega )\), \(u_{02}=0\), \((u^1(t),u^2(t)):=T(t)(u_{01},0)\), \(w(t):=\int _0^t u^1(s) ds\). Then \(w\in {{\mathscr {C}}}^2({{\mathbb {R}}}_+,L^2(\Omega ))\cap {{\mathscr {C}}}^1({{\mathbb {R}}}_+,H^1(\Omega ))\), \(w(t)\in D(B)\), \(\ddot{w}(t)=\Delta w\), \(w(0)=0\), \({\dot{w}}(0)=u_{01}\). Since the semigroup is contractive,
is decreasing. If \(\Phi \) is unitary, then E(t) is constant, the sum of kinetic and potential energy.
8 Relation to the literature
In the monographs [8] by V. I. and M. L. Gorbachuk and [15] by Schmüdgen, boundary triples are used to parameterize selfadjoint extensions of a densely defined symmetric operator. Wegner [17] uses them to investigate m-dissipative extensions of a densely defined skew-symmetric operator, as we do in the present article. However we use boundary quadruples. We now explain the relation of our results to those of Wegner and those presented in the two monographs [8] and [15].
We start with a general algebraic property of triples.
Lemma 8.1
Let W be a vector space, H a pre-Hilbert space and
-
(a)
Then
$$\begin{aligned} G_{{-}}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} (G_2-G_1),\,\, G_{+}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} (G_2+G_1), \end{aligned}$$(8.1)if and only if
$$\begin{aligned} G_1=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} (G_{+}-G_{{-}}),\,\, G_2=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} (G_{+}+G_{{-}}), \end{aligned}$$(8.2) -
(b)
If (8.1) (\(\Longleftrightarrow \) (8.2)) holds, then
$$\begin{aligned} \langle G_1u,G_2v\rangle _H + \langle G_2u,G_1v\rangle _H = \langle G_{+}u,G_{+}v\rangle _H - \langle G_{{-}}u,G_{{-}}v\rangle _H \end{aligned}$$(8.3)for all \(u,v\in W\).
-
(c)
Let \({H_{{-}}}=G_{{-}}W\), \({H_{{+}}}=G_{+}W\), \(H_1=G_1 W\), \(H_2=G_2 W\). Then
$$\begin{aligned} (G_{{-}}, G_{+}):W\rightarrow {H_{{-}}}\times {H_{{+}}}\hbox { is surjective } \end{aligned}$$if and only if
$$\begin{aligned} (G_1,G_2):W\rightarrow H_1\times H_2 \hbox { is surjective.} \end{aligned}$$
Recall from Sect. 3 that
The proof of Lemma 8.1 is straightforward.
Now let \(A_0\) be a skew-symmetric operator on V with dense domain. Let V be a complex Hilbert space. Following Wegner [17, Definition 4.1], a boundary triple \((K,\Gamma _1,\Gamma _2)\) for \(A_0\) consists of a Hilbert space K and linear mappings \(\Gamma _1,\Gamma _2:D(A)\rightarrow K\) such that
for all \(u,v\in D(A)\) and
Let \(W=D(A)\), \(H=K\), \(G_1=\Gamma _2\), \(G_2=\Gamma _1\) and define \(G_{+},G_{{-}}\) by (8.1). Then \((H,H,G_{{-}},G_{+})\) is a boundary quadruple (in the sense of our definition) with \(G_{{-}}W=G_{+}W=H\).
By Theorem 3.10 an operator \(B\supset A_0\) is m-dissipative of and only if there exists a contraction \(\Phi \in {{\mathscr {L}}}(H)\) such that
for all \(w\in D(B)\). It is straightforward that \(\Phi G_{{-}}w=G_{+}w\) if and only if
So we refind [17, Theorem 4.2].
In contrast to boundary quadruples, boundary triples in the sense of Wegner do not always exist. In fact the following holds.
Proposition 8.2
Given a densely defined skew-symmetric operator \(A_0\) on V, the following assertions are equivalent:
-
(i)
There exists a boundary triple for \(A_0\);
-
(ii)
\(\ker (\textrm{Id}-A)\) and \(\ker (\textrm{Id}+A)\) are isomorphic;
-
(iii)
\(A_0\) has an extension which generates a unitary \(C_0\)-group;
-
(iv)
If \(({H_{{-}}},{H_{{+}}},G_{{-}},G_{+})\) is a boundary quadruple, then \(G_{+}W\) and \(G_{{-}}W\) are isomorphic, where \(W=D(A)\).
Proof
\((iv)\Rightarrow (i)\) By assumption there exists a unitary operator \(U:G_1 W\rightarrow G_{{-}}W\). Let \(K=G_{{-}}W\), \(\Gamma _{-}=G_{{-}}\), \(\Gamma _+=UG_{+}\). Then \((\Gamma _{-},\Gamma _+):W\rightarrow K\times K\) is surjective and
Now using Lemma 8.1 we obtain \(\Gamma _1,\Gamma _2:W\rightarrow K\times K\) such that (8.6) and (8.7) holds.
\((i)\Rightarrow (iv)\) This follows from the lines following (8.7).
\((ii)\Longleftrightarrow (iii)\Longleftrightarrow (iv)\). This is Corollary 4.3. \(\square \)
References
Arendt, W., Batty, C. J. K., Hieber, M., Neubrander, F.: Vector-valued Laplace Transforms and Cauchy Problems, 2nd ed. Monographs in Mathematics, vol. 96. Birkhäuser, Basel (2011)
Arendt, W., Chalendar, I., Eymard, R.: Lions’ representation theorem and applications. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 522(2), article no. 126946 (2023)
Arendt, W., Urban, K.: Partial Differential Equations. Springer, New-York (2023)
Behrndt, J., Langer, M.: Elliptic operators, Dirichlet-to-Neumann maps and quasi boundary triples. In: Hassi, S., de Snoo, H., Szafraniec, F. (eds.) Operator Methods for Boundary Value Problems, pp. 121–160. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)
Behrndt, J., Schlosser, P.: Quasi boundary triples, self-adjoint extensions, and Robin Laplacians on the half-space. In Alpay, D., Vajiac, M. B. (eds.), Linear Systems, Signal Processing and Hypercomplex Analysis. Chapman University, November 2017, pp. 49–66. Birkhäuser, Cham (2019)
Behrndt, J., Hassi, S., de Snoo, H.: Boundary Value Problems, Weyl Functions, and Differential Operators. Monographs in Mathematics, vol. 108. Birkhäuser, Cham (2020)
Brezis, H.: Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations. Springer, New York (2011)
Gorbachuk, V. I., Gorbachuk, M. L.: Boundary Value Problems for Operator Differential Equations. Transl. from Russian. Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 48. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1991)
Kurula, M., Zwart, H.: Linear wave systems on \(n\)-D spatial domains. Int. J. Control 88, 1063–1077 (2015)
Kurula, M., Zwart, H.: Feedback theory extended for proving generation of contraction semigroups. J. Evol. Equ. 16(3), 617–647 (2016)
Nagel, R. (ed.): One-parameter Semigroups of Positive Operators. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1184. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (1986)
Phillips, R.S.: Dissipative operators and hyperbolic systems of partial differential equation. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 90, 193–254 (1959)
Reed, M., Simon, B.: Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics. II: Fourier Analysis, Self-adjointness. Academic Press, New York (1975)
Reed, M., Simon, B.: Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics. I: Functional Analysis. Academic Press, New York (1980)
Schmüdgen, K.: Unbounded Self-Adjoint Operators on Hilbert Space, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 265. Springer, Dordrecht (2012)
Skrepek, N.: Well-posedness of linear first order port-Hamiltonian systems on multidimensional spatial domains. Evol. Equ. Control Theory 10(4), 965–1006 (2021)
Wegner, S.A.: Boundary triplets for skew symmetric operators and the generation of strongly continuous semigroups. Anal. Math. 43(4), 657–686 (2017)
Acknowledgements
This research is partly supported by the Bézout Labex, funded by ANR, reference ANR-10-LABX-58. The authors are grateful to N. Skrepek for an interesting discussion on the wave equation. They also thank the referee for reading the manuscript very carefully.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Abdelaziz Rhandi.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Arendt, W., Chalendar, I. & Eymard, R. Extensions of dissipative and symmetric operators. Semigroup Forum 106, 339–367 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00233-023-10338-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00233-023-10338-1