2013
DOI: 10.7494/opmath.2013.33.3.565
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Putnam-Fuglede property for paranormal and *-paranormal operators

Abstract: Abstract. An operator T ∈ B(H) is said to have the Putnam-Fuglede commutativity property (PF property for short) if T * X = XJ for any X ∈ B(K, H) and any isometry J ∈ B(K) such that T X = XJ * . The main purpose of this paper is to examine if paranormal operators have the PF property. We prove that k * -paranormal operators have the PF property. Furthermore, we give an example of a paranormal without the PF property.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
8
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
2
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These results extend those recently given in [9,13,14] and as applications of our main theorems, we obtain the following:…”
Section: (I)supporting
confidence: 92%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…These results extend those recently given in [9,13,14] and as applications of our main theorems, we obtain the following:…”
Section: (I)supporting
confidence: 92%
“…The following result was given by Duggal-Kubrusl [22] in the contractive case and by Pagacz [9] in the general case but our proof seems more direct, simpler and gives more explicit decomposition than Pagacz's proof. Proposition 2.…”
Section: Main Theoremsmentioning
confidence: 73%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…δ A * ,V (X) = 0) has a non-trivial solution X ∈ B(H), X is also a solution of △ A * ,V (X) = 0 (resp., δ A * ,V (X) = 0). The following theorem is [10, Corollary 2.5] (see also [17]…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Theorem 3.2 of [39] tells us that the PF property for a power bounded operator T is equivalent to the condition that T is the orthogonal sum of a unitary and a power bounded operator of class C ·0 . Therefore (i) is an easy consequence of Pagacz's result and Theorem 4.1.…”
Section: Proofsmentioning
confidence: 99%