About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents 
ISRN Mathematical Analysis
VolumeΒ 2012Β (2012), Article IDΒ 676835, 16 pages
doi:10.5402/2012/676835
Research Article

The Theory for 𝐽 -Hermitian Subspaces in a Product Space

Huaqing SunΒ and Jiangang Qi

Department of Mathematics, Shandong University at Weihai, Weihai, Shandong 264209, China

Received 6 January 2012; Accepted 13 February 2012

Academic Editors: S.Β Deng and O.Β Miyagaki

Copyright Β© 2012 Huaqing Sun and Jiangang Qi. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the theory for 𝐽 -Hermitian subspaces. The defect index of a 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace is defined, and a formula for the defect index is established; the result that every 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace has a 𝐽 -self-adjoint subspace extension is obtained; all the 𝐽 -self-adjoint subspace extensions of a 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace are characterized. This theory will provide a fundamental basis for characterizations of 𝐽 -self-adjoint extensions for linear nonsymmetric expressions on general time scales in terms of boundary conditions, including both differential and difference cases.

1. Introduction

The spectral theory for differential and difference has been investigated extensively. In general, under certain definiteness conditions, a formally symmetric differential expression can generate a minimal operator which is symmetric, that is, a densely defined Hermitian operator, in a related Hilbert space and its adjoint, is the corresponding maximal operator (see, e.g., [1–3]). There are many results on self-adjoint extensions of the minimal operators since self-adjoint extension problems are fundamental in the study of spectral theory for differential expressions [2–6]. However, for some formally symmetric differential expressions, their minimal operators may be nondensely defined, or their maximal operators may be multivalued (e.g., [7, Example 2.2]). Further, for a formally symmetric difference expression, even a second-order one, its minimal operator is nondensely defined, and its maximal operator is multivalued in the related Hilbert space in general [8]. Therefore, the classical von Neumann self-adjoint extension theory and the Glazman-Krein-Naimark (GKN) theory for symmetric operators are not applicable in these cases.

The appropriate framework is linear subspaces (linear relations in the terminology of [7, 9, 10]) in a Hilbert space to study the linear differential or difference expressions for which the corresponding operators are nondensely defined or multivalued. Lesch and Malamud studied formally symmetric Hamiltonian systems in the framework of linear subspaces [7]. Coddington studied self-adjoint extensions of Hermitian subspaces in a product space [11]. He had extended the von Neumann self-adjoint extension theory for symmetric operators to Hermitian subspaces. By applying the relevant results in [11], Shi established the GKN theory for Hermitian subspaces [12]. For more results about nondensely defined Hermitian operators or Hermitian subspaces, we refer to [13–15].

The study of spectral problems involving linear differential and difference expressions with complex-valued coefficients is becoming a well-established area of analysis, and many results have been obtained [1, 16–22]. Such expressions are not formally symmetric in general, and hence, the spectral theory of self-adjoint subspaces is not applicable. To study such problems, Glazman introduced a concept of 𝐽 -symmetric operators in [23], where 𝐽 is a conjugation operator given in Section 2. The minimal operators generated by certain differential and difference expressions with complex-valued coefficients are 𝐽 -symmetric operators in the related Hilbert spaces (e.g., [18, 24, 25]). 𝐽 -self-adjoint extension problems are also fundamental in the spectral theory for such expressions. Many results have been obtained on 𝐽 -self-adjoint extensions [24–27]. Knowles gave a complete solution to the problem of describing all the 𝐽 -self-adjoint extensions of any given 𝐽 -symmetric operator provided the regularity field of this operator is nonempty [26]. Given a differential or difference expression, it is in practice difficult however to determine whether the appropriate 𝐽 -symmetric operator has empty or nonempty regularity field. Therefore, Race established the theory for 𝐽 -self-adjoint extensions of 𝐽 -symmetric operators without the restrictions on the regularity fields [24]. However, the appropriate framework is also linear subspaces in a Hilbert space to study the linear nonsymmetric differential or difference expressions for which the corresponding minimal operators are nondensely defined, or the corresponding maximal operators are multivalued. So, the 𝐽 -self-adjoint extension theory mentioned the above needs to be extended to linear subspace when we consider the nonsymmetric Hamiltonian systems which induce the nondensely defined or multivalued operators.

In this present paper, the concept of the defect indices of 𝐽 -Hermitian subspaces is given and a formula for the defect indices is obtained. Further, the result that every 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace has a 𝐽 -self-adjoint subspace extension is given, and the characterizations for all the 𝐽 -self-adjoint subspace extensions of a 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace are established, which can be regarded as the GKN theorem for 𝐽 -Hermitian subspaces.

Remark 1.1. We will apply the results obtained in the present paper to characterizations of 𝐽 -self-adjoint extensions for linear Hamiltonian difference systems in terms of boundary conditions in the near future.

The rest of this present paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, some basic concepts and fundamental results about linear subspaces are introduced. In Section 3, the defect index of a 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace is defined, and a formula for the defect index is given. Section 4 pays attention to the existence of 𝐽 -self-adjoint subspace extensions and the GKN theorem for 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace.

2. Preliminaries

In this section, we introduce some basic concepts and give some fundamental results about linear subspaces in a product space.

Let 𝑋 be a complex Hilbert space with the inner product ⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩ . The norm β€– β‹… β€– is defined by β€– 𝑓 β€– = ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝑓 ⟩ 1 / 2 for 𝑓 ∈ 𝑋 . Let 𝑋 2 be the product space 𝑋 Γ— 𝑋 . By definition, the elements of 𝑋 2 consist of all possible ordered pairs ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) with π‘₯ ∈ 𝑋 and 𝑓 ∈ 𝑋 , and for arbitrary two elements ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) , ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑋 2 and 𝛼 ∈ 𝐢 , 𝛼 ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) = ( 𝛼 π‘₯ , 𝛼 𝑓 ) , ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) + ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) = ( π‘₯ + 𝑦 , 𝑓 + 𝑔 ) . ( 2 . 1 ) The null element of 𝑋 2 is ( 0 , 0 ) . The inner product in 𝑋 2 is defined by ⟨ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) , ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ⟩ βˆ— = ⟨ π‘₯ , 𝑦 ⟩ + ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝑔 ⟩ , ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) , ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑋 2 , ( 2 . 2 ) and β€– β‹… β€– βˆ— denotes the induced norm.

Let 𝑇 be a linear subspace in 𝑋 2 which is called to be a linear relation in [7, 9, 10]. For brevity, a linear subspace is only called a subspace. For subspace 𝑇 in 𝑋 2 , we shall use the following definitions and notations: 𝐷 ( 𝑇 ) = { π‘₯ ∈ 𝑋 ∢ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 f o r s o m e 𝑅 𝑓 ∈ 𝑋 } , ( 𝑇 ) = { 𝑓 ∈ 𝑋 ∢ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 f o r s o m e 𝑇 π‘₯ ∈ 𝑋 } , 𝑇 ( π‘₯ ) = { 𝑓 ∈ 𝑋 ∢ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 } , k e r ( 𝑇 ) = { π‘₯ ∈ 𝑋 ∢ ( π‘₯ , 0 ) ∈ 𝑇 } , βˆ’ 1 = { ( 𝑓 , π‘₯ ) ∢ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 } , 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† = { ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 βˆ’ πœ† π‘₯ ) ∢ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 } . ( 2 . 3 ) Clearly, 𝑇 ( 0 ) = { 0 } if and only if 𝑇 can determine a unique linear operator from 𝐷 ( 𝑇 ) into 𝑋 whose graph is 𝑇 , and 𝑇 βˆ’ 1 is closed if and only if 𝑇 is closed. Since the graph of a linear operator in 𝑋 is a subspace in 𝑋 2 and a linear operator is identified with its graph, the concept of subspaces in 𝑋 2 generalizes that of linear operators in 𝑋 .

Definition 2.1 (see [11]). Let 𝑇 be a subspace in 𝑋 2 .(1)Its adjoint, 𝑇 βˆ— , is defined by 𝑇 βˆ— = ξ€½ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑋 2 ξ€Ύ . ∢ ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝑦 ⟩ = ⟨ π‘₯ , 𝑔 ⟩ βˆ€ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 ( 2 . 4 ) (2) 𝑇 is said to be a Hermitian subspace if 𝑇 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— .(3) 𝑇 is said to be a self-adjoint subspace if 𝑇 = 𝑇 βˆ— .

Lemma 2.2 (see [11]). Let 𝑇 be a subspace in 𝑋 2 , then 𝑇 βˆ— is a closed subspace in 𝑋 2 , 𝑇 βˆ— = ( 𝑇 ) βˆ— , and 𝑇 βˆ— βˆ— = 𝑇 , where 𝑇 is the closure of 𝑇 .

Definition 2.3. An operator 𝐽 defined on 𝑋 is said to be a conjugation operator if for all π‘₯ , 𝑦 ∈ 𝑋 , ⟨ 𝐽 π‘₯ , 𝐽 𝑦 ⟩ = ⟨ 𝑦 , π‘₯ ⟩ , 𝐽 2 π‘₯ = π‘₯ . ( 2 . 5 )

It can be verified that 𝐽 is a conjugate linear, that is, 𝐽 ( π‘₯ + 𝑦 ) = 𝐽 π‘₯ + 𝐽 𝑦 and 𝐽 ( πœ† π‘₯ ) = πœ† 𝐽 π‘₯ for π‘₯ , 𝑦 ∈ 𝑋 and πœ† ∈ 𝐢 , and norm-preserving bijection on 𝑋 satisfying ⟨ 𝐽 π‘₯ , 𝑦 ⟩ = ⟨ 𝐽 𝑦 , π‘₯ ⟩ βˆ€ π‘₯ , 𝑦 ∈ 𝑋 . ( 2 . 6 ) For example, the complex conjugation π‘₯ ↦ π‘₯ in any 𝐿 2 space is a conjugation operator on 𝐿 2 .

Definition 2.4. Let 𝑇 be a subspace in 𝑋 2 , and let 𝐽 be a conjugation operator.(1)Its 𝐽 -adjoint, 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 , is defined by 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 = ξ€½ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑋 2 ξ€Ύ . ∢ ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝐽 𝑦 ⟩ = ⟨ π‘₯ , 𝐽 𝑔 ⟩ βˆ€ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 ( 2 . 7 ) (2) 𝑇 is said to be a 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace if 𝑇 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 .(3) 𝑇 is said to be a 𝐽 -self-adjoint subspace if 𝑇 = 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 .

Remark 2.5. (1) It can be easily verified that 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 is a closed subspace. Consequently, a 𝐽 -self-adjoint subspace 𝑇 is a closed subspace since 𝑇 = 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . In addition, 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 if 𝑇 βŠ‚ 𝑆 .
(2) From the definition, we have that ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝐽 𝑦 ⟩ = ⟨ π‘₯ , 𝐽 𝑔 ⟩ for all ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 and ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 , and that 𝑇 is a 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace if and only if ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝐽 𝑦 ⟩ = ⟨ π‘₯ , 𝐽 𝑔 ⟩ βˆ€ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) , ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 . ( 2 . 8 )
(3) The concepts of 𝐽 -Hermitian and 𝐽 -self-adjoint subspaces generalize those of 𝐽 -symmetric and 𝐽 -self-adjoint operators, respectively (see, e.g., [1, 24] for the concepts of 𝐽 -symmetric and 𝐽 -self-adjoint operators).

Lemma 2.6. Let 𝑇 be a subspace in 𝑋 2 , then(1) 𝑇 βˆ— = { ( 𝐽 𝑦 , 𝐽 𝑔 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 } ,(2) 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 = { ( 𝐽 𝑦 , 𝐽 𝑔 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— } .

Proof. Result (2) follows from result (1) and the second relation of (2.5). So, one needs only to prove result (1). Set 𝐷 1 = { ( 𝐽 𝑦 , 𝐽 𝑔 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 } . Let ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— , then ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝑦 ⟩ = ⟨ π‘₯ , 𝑔 ⟩ for all ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 . So, the second relation of (2.5) yields that ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝐽 ( 𝐽 𝑦 ) ⟩ = ⟨ π‘₯ , 𝐽 ( 𝐽 𝑔 ) ⟩ for all ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 . Hence, ( 𝐽 𝑦 , 𝐽 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . Then ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) = ( 𝐽 2 𝑦 , 𝐽 2 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝐷 1 , which implies that 𝑇 βˆ— βŠ‚ 𝐷 1 . Conversely, let ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝐷 1 , then there exists ( Μƒ 𝑦 , Μƒ 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 such that ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) = ( 𝐽 Μƒ 𝑦 , 𝐽 Μƒ 𝑔 ) . It follows from ( Μƒ 𝑦 , Μƒ 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 that ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝐽 Μƒ 𝑦 ⟩ = ⟨ π‘₯ , 𝐽 Μƒ 𝑔 ⟩ for all ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 , which implies that ( 𝐽 Μƒ 𝑦 , 𝐽 Μƒ 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— , that is, ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— . So, 𝐷 1 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— . Consequently, 𝑇 βˆ— = 𝐷 1 , and result (1) holds.

Remark 2.7. Let 𝑇 be a subspace in 𝑋 2 , then from Lemmas 2.2 and 2.6, and the closedness of 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 , one has that 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 = ( 𝑇 ) βˆ— 𝐽 , and 𝑇 is 𝐽 -Hermitian if 𝑇 is 𝐽 -Hermitian.

Lemma 2.8. Let 𝑇 be a closed 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace, then ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 if and only if ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 and ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝐽 𝑦 ⟩ = ⟨ π‘₯ , 𝐽 𝑔 ⟩ for all ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 .

Proof. Let 𝑇 be a closed 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace. Clearly, the necessity holds by (2) of Remark 2.5. Now, consider the sufficiency. Suppose that ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 and ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝐽 𝑦 ⟩ = ⟨ π‘₯ , 𝐽 𝑔 ⟩ for all ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 , then we get from (2.6) that ⟨ 𝑦 , 𝐽 𝑓 ⟩ = ⟨ 𝑔 , 𝐽 π‘₯ ⟩ for all ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . This, together with (1) of Lemma 2.6, implies that  ⟨ 𝑦 , 𝑓 ⟩ = ⟨ 𝑔 , Μƒ π‘₯ ⟩ for all  ( Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— . So, ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— βˆ— , and hence, ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 by Lemma 2.2. So, the sufficiency holds.

Lemma 2.9. Let 𝑇 be a closed 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace in 𝑋 2 , then(1) ( 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ) βˆ— = { ( 𝐽 𝑦 , 𝐽 𝑔 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 } ,(2) 𝑇 = { ( 𝐽 𝑦 , 𝐽 𝑔 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ ( 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ) βˆ— } .

Proof. Since result (1) and the second relation of (2.5) imply that result (2) holds, it suffices to prove result (1). Set 𝐷 = { ( 𝐽 𝑦 , 𝐽 𝑔 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 } . Let ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝐷 , then there exists ( Μƒ 𝑦 , Μƒ 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 such that ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) = ( 𝐽 Μƒ 𝑦 , 𝐽 Μƒ 𝑔 ) . By Lemma 2.8, ( Μƒ 𝑦 , Μƒ 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 implies that ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝐽 Μƒ 𝑦 ⟩ = ⟨ π‘₯ , 𝐽 Μƒ 𝑔 ⟩ for all ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . Then ( 𝐽 Μƒ 𝑦 , 𝐽 Μƒ 𝑔 ) ∈ ( 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ) βˆ— , that is, ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ ( 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ) βˆ— . So, 𝐷 βŠ‚ ( 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ) βˆ— . Conversely, let ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ ( 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ) βˆ— , then ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝑦 ⟩ = ⟨ π‘₯ , 𝑔 ⟩ for all ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 , that is, ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝐽 ( 𝐽 𝑦 ) ⟩ = ⟨ π‘₯ , 𝐽 ( 𝐽 𝑔 ) ⟩ βˆ€ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . ( 2 . 9 ) Clearly, (2.9) holds for all ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 since 𝑇 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . So, ( 𝐽 𝑦 , 𝐽 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . This, together with (2.9) and Lemma 2.8, implies that ( 𝐽 𝑦 , 𝐽 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 . So, ( 𝐽 ( 𝐽 𝑦 ) , 𝐽 ( 𝐽 𝑔 ) ) ∈ 𝐷 , that is, ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝐷 . Then, ( 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ) βˆ— βŠ‚ 𝐷 and then ( 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ) βˆ— = 𝐷 .

Remark 2.10. Since 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 = ( 𝑇 ) βˆ— 𝐽 by Remark 2.7, Lemma 2.9 yields that ( 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ) βˆ— = { ( 𝐽 𝑦 , 𝐽 𝑔 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 } and 𝑇 = { ( 𝐽 𝑦 , 𝐽 𝑔 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ ( 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ) βˆ— } for a 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace 𝑇 which may not be closed.

3. Defect Index of a 𝐽 -Hermitian Subspace

In this section, the definition of the defect index of a 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace is introduced, and a formula for the defect index is obtained.

Let 𝑇 be a closed 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace. It has been known that 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 is a closed subspace by (1) of Remark 2.5. Then the closedness of 𝑇 and 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 and 𝑇 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 gives that 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 = 𝑇 βŠ• 𝒯 , ( 3 . 1 ) where 𝒯 denotes the orthogonal complement of 𝑇 in 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 , that is, 𝒯 = 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ⊝ 𝑇 . Now, let 𝑆 be a closed 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace extension of 𝑇 , that is, 𝑇 βŠ‚ 𝑆 and 𝑆 is 𝐽 -Hermitian. Then, it follows from the closedness of 𝑆 and 𝑇 that there exists a unique subspace 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 = 𝑆 ⊝ 𝑇 such that 𝑆 = 𝑇 βŠ• 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 . ( 3 . 2 ) Clearly, 𝑆 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 since 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 and 𝑆 βŠ‚ 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 . Then by (3.1) and (3.2), 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 can be expressed as 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 = ξ€½ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝒯 ∢ t h e r e e x i s t ξ€· 𝑦 1 , 𝑔 1 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝑦 ∈ 𝑇 , 2 , 𝑔 2 ξ€Έ ∈ 𝑆 , s u c h t h a t ξ€· 𝑦 2 , 𝑔 2 ξ€Έ = ξ€· 𝑦 1 , 𝑔 1 ξ€Έ ξ€Ύ . + ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ( 3 . 3 ) Further, we have the following result.

Theorem 3.1. Let 𝑇 be a closed 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace, and let 𝑆 be a 𝐽 -self-adjoint subspace extension (briefly, 𝐽 -SSE) of 𝑇 , that is, 𝑇 βŠ‚ 𝑆 and 𝑆 is 𝐽 -self-adjoint, then 𝑇 d i m βˆ— 𝐽 𝑆 𝑆 = d i m 𝑇 . ( 3 . 4 )

Proof. If 𝑇 is a 𝐽 -self-adjoint subspace, then 𝑇 = 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 and 𝑇 is the only 𝐽 -SSE of itself. So, (3.4) holds. Now, suppose that 𝑇 is 𝐽 -Hermitian but not 𝐽 -self-adjoint, that is, 𝑇 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 and 𝑇 β‰  𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . It follows that (3.2) holds with 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 β‰  { 0 } . Let d i m 𝑆 / 𝑇 = π‘š , then (3.2) yields that d i m 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 = π‘š . In the case of π‘š < ∞ , let { ( π‘₯ 𝑗 , 𝑓 𝑗 ) } π‘š 𝑗 = 1 be a basis of 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 , then π‘₯ 𝑆 = 𝑇 βŠ• s p a n ξ€½ ξ€· 1 , 𝑓 1 ξ€Έ , ξ€· π‘₯ 2 , 𝑓 2 ξ€Έ ξ€· π‘₯ , … , π‘š , 𝑓 π‘š . ξ€Έ ξ€Ύ ( 3 . 5 ) Define 𝑇 𝑗 π‘₯ = 𝑇 βŠ• s p a n ξ€½ ξ€· 1 , 𝑓 1 ξ€Έ , ξ€· π‘₯ 2 , 𝑓 2 ξ€Έ ξ€· π‘₯ , … , 𝑗 , 𝑓 𝑗 ξ€Έ ξ€Ύ , 𝑗 = 1 , 2 , … , π‘š . ( 3 . 6 ) Clearly, 𝑇 β‰  𝑇 𝑗 β‰  𝑇 𝑗 + 1 for 𝑗 = 1 , 2 , … , π‘š βˆ’ 1 and 𝑆 = 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 = ξ€· 𝑇 π‘š ξ€Έ βˆ— 𝐽 βŠ‚ ξ€· 𝑇 π‘š βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ βˆ— 𝐽 ξ€· 𝑇 βŠ‚ β‹― βŠ‚ 2 ξ€Έ βˆ— 𝐽 βŠ‚ ξ€· 𝑇 1 ξ€Έ βˆ— 𝐽 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 , ( 3 . 7 ) since 𝑇 βŠ‚ 𝑇 1 βŠ‚ 𝑇 2 βŠ‚ β‹― βŠ‚ 𝑇 π‘š = 𝑆 and 𝑆 is 𝐽 -self-adjoint. Further, 𝑇 𝑗 ( 𝑗 = 1 , 2 , … , π‘š ) is a closed subspace since 𝑇 is closed. It holds that 𝑇 βˆ— β‰  𝑇 βˆ— 𝑗 β‰  𝑇 βˆ— 𝑗 + 1 , 𝑗 = 1 , 2 , … , π‘š βˆ’ 1 . ( 3 . 8 ) Otherwise, for example, suppose that 𝑇 βˆ— 1 = 𝑇 βˆ— 2 , then by Lemma 2.2, we have 𝑇 1 = 𝑇 1 βˆ— βˆ— = 𝑇 2 βˆ— βˆ— = 𝑇 2 since 𝑇 1 and 𝑇 2 are closed. It contradicts 𝑇 1 β‰  𝑇 2 . So, (3.8) holds. It follows from (3.8) and (2) of Lemma 2.6 that 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 β‰  ξ€· 𝑇 𝑗 ξ€Έ βˆ— 𝐽 β‰  ξ€· 𝑇 𝑗 + 1 ξ€Έ βˆ— 𝐽 , 𝑗 = 1 , 2 , … , π‘š βˆ’ 1 . ( 3 . 9 ) We get from (3.7) and (3.9) that d i m 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 / 𝑆 β‰₯ π‘š = d i m 𝑆 / 𝑇 .
In the case of π‘š = + ∞ , we have the linear span of an infinite set in (3.5). So we can construct an infinite sequence of subspaces of the form (3.6) which satisfies the relations like those in (3.7) and (3.9). So, we have d i m 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 / 𝑆 = + ∞ = d i m 𝑆 / 𝑇 .
Next, we prove that d i m 𝑆 / 𝑇 β‰₯ d i m 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 / 𝑆 . Since 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 and 𝑆 are closed subspaces, there exists uniquely a closed subspace 𝐾 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 , 𝑆 = 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ⊝ 𝑆 such that 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 = 𝑆 βŠ• 𝐾 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 , 𝑆 . Set d i m 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 / 𝑆 = π‘š β€² . Then d i m 𝐾 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 , 𝑆 = π‘š β€² . If π‘š β€² < ∞ , let { ( 𝑦 𝑗 , 𝑔 𝑗 ) } π‘š β€² 𝑗 = 1 be a basis of 𝐾 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 , 𝑆 , then 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 𝑦 = 𝑆 βŠ• s p a n ξ€½ ξ€· 1 , 𝑔 1 ξ€Έ , ξ€· 𝑦 2 , 𝑔 2 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝑦 , … , π‘š β€² , 𝑔 π‘š β€² . ξ€Έ ξ€Ύ ( 3 . 1 0 ) Define 𝑆 𝑗 𝑦 = 𝑆 βŠ• s p a n ξ€½ ξ€· 1 , 𝑔 1 ξ€Έ , ξ€· 𝑦 2 , 𝑔 2 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝑦 , … , 𝑗 , 𝑔 𝑗 ξ€Έ ξ€Ύ , 𝑗 = 1 , 2 , … , π‘š β€² . ( 3 . 1 1 ) Clearly, it holds that 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 = 𝑆 β‰  𝑆 𝑗 β‰  𝑆 𝑗 + 1 for 𝑗 = 1 , 2 , … , π‘š β€² βˆ’ 1 and ξ€· 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ξ€Έ βˆ— = 𝑆 βˆ— π‘š β€² βŠ‚ 𝑆 βˆ— π‘š β€² βˆ’ 1 βŠ‚ β‹― βŠ‚ 𝑆 βˆ— 2 βŠ‚ 𝑆 βˆ— 1 βŠ‚ 𝑆 βˆ— = ξ€· 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 ξ€Έ βˆ— , ( 3 . 1 2 ) since 𝑆 βŠ‚ 𝑆 1 βŠ‚ 𝑆 2 βŠ‚ β‹― βŠ‚ 𝑆 π‘š β€² = 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 and 𝑆 is 𝐽 -self-adjoint. Further, 𝑆 𝑗 ( 𝑗 = 1 , 2 , … , π‘š ξ…ž ) is a closed subspace since 𝑆 is closed. Similarly, it holds that ξ€· 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 ξ€Έ βˆ— β‰  𝑆 βˆ— 𝑗 β‰  𝑆 βˆ— 𝑗 + 1 , 𝑗 = 1 , 2 , … , π‘š ξ…ž βˆ’ 1 . ( 3 . 1 3 ) We get from (3.12) and (3.13) that d i m ( 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 ) βˆ— / ( 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ) βˆ— β‰₯ π‘š β€² . It can be verified that ξ€· 𝑆 d i m βˆ— 𝐽 ξ€Έ βˆ— ξ€· 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ξ€Έ βˆ— 𝑆 = d i m 𝑇 ( 3 . 1 4 ) by Lemma 2.9. So, d i m 𝑆 / 𝑇 β‰₯ π‘š ξ…ž = d i m 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 / 𝑆 . Further, it can be verified that d i m 𝑆 / 𝑇 β‰₯ d i m 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 / 𝑆 also holds for π‘š ξ…ž = + ∞ . Based on the above discussions, (3.4) holds.

Remark 3.2. (1) From Theorem 3.1 and its proof, one has that if one of the two dimensions in (3.4) is finite, so is the other and they are equal, and if one of the two dimensions is infinite, so is the other. Here, there is no distinction between degrees of infinity.
(2) The case for 𝐽 -symmetric operators was established in [24, Theorem 3.1].

Remark 3.3. Note that 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 = ( 𝑇 ) βˆ— 𝐽 . We get from Theorem 3.1 that if 𝑆 is a 𝐽 -SSE of 𝑇 , which may not be closed, then it holds that 𝑇 d i m βˆ— 𝐽 𝑇 𝑆 = 2 d i m 𝑇 . ( 3 . 1 5 )
Now, we give the concept of the defect index of a 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace. The concept of the defect index of a 𝐽 -symmetric operator in 𝑋 was given by [24, Definition 3.2].

Definition 3.4. Let 𝑇 be a 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace, then 𝑑 ( 𝑇 ) = ( 1 / 2 ) d i m 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 / 𝑇 is called to be the defect index of 𝑇 .

Remark 3.5. (1) It will be proved that every 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace has a 𝐽 -SSE in Theorem 4.3 in Section 4. So, by (3.15) we have that the defect index of every 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace is a nonnegative integer.
(2) Since 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 = ( 𝑇 ) βˆ— 𝐽 by Remark 2.7 and every 𝐽 -SSE is closed, we have that a 𝐽 -symmetric subspace 𝑇 and its closure 𝑇 have the same defect index and the same 𝐽 -SSEs.

Definition 3.6 (see [12]). Let 𝑇 be a subspace in 𝑋 2 . The set Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) ∢ = { πœ† ∈ 𝐂 ∢ t h e r e e x i s t s 𝑐 ( πœ† ) > 0 s u c h t h a t β€– 𝑓 βˆ’ πœ† π‘₯ β€– β‰₯ 𝑐 ( πœ† ) β€– π‘₯ β€– βˆ€ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 } ( 3 . 1 6 ) is called to be the regularity field of 𝑇 .
It is evident that Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) = Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) for a subspace 𝑇 .

Lemma 3.7. Let 𝑇 be a subspace in 𝑋 , then(1) 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) βŸ‚ = k e r ( 𝑇 βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ) for each πœ† ∈ 𝐂 ,(2)for each πœ† ∈ Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) , ξ‚€ 𝑋 = 𝑅  ξ‚€ 𝑇 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† βŠ• k e r βˆ— βˆ’ πœ†  ( o r t h o g o n a l s u m i n 𝑋 ) , ( 3 . 1 7 ) (3) 𝑋 = 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 βˆ’ πœ† ) for each πœ† ∈ Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) .

Proof. (1) Let πœ† ∈ 𝐂 . It is clear that ξ‚€ 𝑇 k e r βˆ— βˆ’ πœ†  =  ξ‚€ π‘₯ ∈ 𝑋 ∢ π‘₯ ,  πœ† π‘₯ ∈ 𝑇 βˆ—  . ( 3 . 1 8 ) For every π‘₯ ∈ k e r ( 𝑇 βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ) , we have from (3.18) that ( π‘₯ , πœ† π‘₯ ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— . So, ⟨ 𝑔 , π‘₯ ⟩ = ⟨ 𝑦 , πœ† π‘₯ ⟩ for all ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 , which implies that ⟨ 𝑔 βˆ’ πœ† 𝑦 , π‘₯ ⟩ = 0 . Therefore, π‘₯ ∈ 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) βŸ‚ , and then k e r ( 𝑇 βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ) βŠ‚ 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) βŸ‚ . Conversely, for every π‘₯ ∈ 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) βŸ‚ , we have that ⟨ 𝑔 βˆ’ πœ† 𝑦 , π‘₯ ⟩ = 0 for all ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 . It follows that ⟨ 𝑔 , π‘₯ ⟩ = ⟨ 𝑦 , πœ† π‘₯ ⟩ for all ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 . So, ( π‘₯ , πœ† π‘₯ ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— , and hence π‘₯ ∈ k e r ( 𝑇 βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ) by (3.18). So, 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) βŸ‚ βŠ‚ k e r ( 𝑇 βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ) . Consequently, 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) βŸ‚ = k e r ( 𝑇 βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ) , and result (1) is proved.
(2) By result (1) and Lemma 2.2, we have that 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) βŸ‚ = k e r ( ( 𝑇 ) βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ) = k e r ( 𝑇 βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ) . So, by the projection theorem, in order to prove (3.17), it suffices to show that 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) with πœ† ∈ Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) is closed in 𝑋 . It is evident that ξ‚€  𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† βˆ’ 1 =  ( 𝑓 βˆ’ πœ† π‘₯ , π‘₯ ) ∢ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇  . ( 3 . 1 9 ) Let πœ† ∈ Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) . Since Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) = Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) , one has that πœ† ∈ Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) , that is, there exists a constant 𝑐 ( πœ† ) > 0 such that ( β€– 𝑓 βˆ’ πœ† π‘₯ β€– β‰₯ 𝑐 πœ† ) β€– π‘₯ β€– βˆ€ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 . ( 3 . 2 0 ) Then we get from (3.19) and (3.20) that ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) βˆ’ 1 ( 0 ) = { 0 } . So, ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) βˆ’ 1 determines a linear operator from 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) to 𝑋 . Further, the closedness of 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† and (3.20) imply that this operator is a closed and bounded operator. So, its domain 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) is closed in 𝑋 . Therefore, (3.17) holds, and result (2) is proved.
(3) Let πœ† ∈ Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) . We first show that there exists a constant 𝑀 > 0 such that β€– π‘₯ β€– ≀ 𝑀 β€– 𝑓 βˆ’ πœ† π‘₯ β€– βˆ€ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . ( 3 . 2 1 ) Assume the contrary, then there exists a sequence { 𝑓 π‘˜ βˆ’ πœ† π‘₯ π‘˜ } ∞ π‘˜ = 1 βŠ‚ 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 βˆ’ πœ† ) with β€– 𝑓 π‘˜ βˆ’ πœ† π‘₯ π‘˜ β€– = 1 ( π‘˜ = 1 , 2 , … ) such that β€– β€– π‘₯ π‘˜ β€– β€– > π‘˜ , π‘˜ = 1 , 2 , … . ( 3 . 2 2 ) Clearly, ( π‘₯ π‘˜ , 𝑓 π‘˜ ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 and ( 𝑇 ) βˆ— 𝐽 = 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 imply that ( π‘₯ π‘˜ , 𝑓 π‘˜ ) ∈ ( 𝑇 ) βˆ— 𝐽 . So, ⟨ 𝑔 , 𝐽 π‘₯ π‘˜ ⟩ = ⟨ 𝑦 , 𝐽 𝑓 π‘˜ ⟩ for all ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 by (1) of Remark 2.5, which, together with ⟨ πœ† 𝑦 , 𝐽 π‘₯ π‘˜ ⟩ = ⟨ 𝑦 , 𝐽 ( πœ† π‘₯ π‘˜ ) ⟩ , implies that for π‘˜ = 1 , 2 , … , ⟨ 𝑔 βˆ’ πœ† 𝑦 , 𝐽 π‘₯ π‘˜  ξ€· 𝑓 ⟩ = 𝑦 , 𝐽 π‘˜ βˆ’ πœ† π‘₯ π‘˜ ξ€Έ  βˆ€ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 . ( 3 . 2 3 ) Define πœ™ π‘˜ ( 𝑔 βˆ’ πœ† 𝑦 ) = ⟨ 𝑔 βˆ’ πœ† 𝑦 , 𝐽 π‘₯ π‘˜ ⟩ for ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 . Then πœ™ π‘˜ , π‘˜ = 1 , 2 … , are linear functionals in 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) . Since πœ™ π‘˜ ( 𝑔 βˆ’ πœ† 𝑦 ) = ⟨ 𝑦 , 𝐽 ( 𝑓 π‘˜ βˆ’ πœ† π‘₯ π‘˜ ) ⟩ by (3.23) and β€– 𝐽 ( 𝑓 π‘˜ βˆ’ πœ† π‘₯ π‘˜ ) β€– = β€– 𝑓 π‘˜ βˆ’ πœ† π‘₯ π‘˜ β€– = 1 , we have that { πœ™ π‘˜ ( 𝑔 βˆ’ πœ† 𝑦 ) } ∞ π‘˜ = 1 is bounded for any given 𝑔 βˆ’ πœ† 𝑦 ∈ 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) . Note that 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) with πœ† ∈ Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) is closed by the proof of result (2), and hence it is a Hilbert space with the inner product ⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩ . So, by the resonance theorem, { β€– πœ™ π‘˜ β€– } ∞ π‘˜ = 1 is bounded, that is, { β€– 𝐽 π‘₯ π‘˜ β€– } ∞ π‘˜ = 1 is bounded. Since β€– 𝐽 π‘₯ π‘˜ β€– = β€– π‘₯ π‘˜ β€– , π‘˜ = 1 , 2 , … , we have a contradiction with (3.22). So, (3.21) holds.
Inserting (3.21) into β€– π‘₯ β€– + β€– 𝑓 β€– ≀ β€– 𝑓 βˆ’ πœ† π‘₯ β€– + ( 1 + | πœ† | ) β€– π‘₯ β€– , we get that ξ€Ί ξ€· | | πœ† | | ξ€Έ 𝑀 ξ€» β€– π‘₯ β€– + β€– 𝑓 β€– ≀ 1 + 1 + β€– 𝑓 βˆ’ πœ† π‘₯ β€– . ( 3 . 2 4 ) It can be easily verified from the closedness of 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 and (3.24) that 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 βˆ’ πœ† ) is closed in 𝑋 . So, result (1) implies that ξ€· 𝑇 𝑋 = 𝑅 βˆ— 𝐽 ξ€Έ ξ‚€ ξ€· 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† βŠ• k e r βˆ— 𝐽 ξ€Έ βˆ— βˆ’ πœ†  . ( 3 . 2 5 ) By Remark 2.10, k e r ( ( 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ) βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ) = { 𝐽 𝑦 ∢ 𝑦 ∈ k e r ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) } , while it can be verified that k e r ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) = { 0 } for πœ† ∈ Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) = Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) . Therefore, (3.25) yields that result (3) holds.

If Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) β‰  βˆ… , we have the following results which give a formula for the defect index of a 𝐽 -Hermitian space.

Theorem 3.8. Assume that 𝑇 is a 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace with Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) β‰  βˆ… . Let πœ† ∈ Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) , then 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 = 𝑇 Μ‡ + 𝒩 , ( 3 . 2 6 ) where  𝒩 = ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ξ‚€ 𝑇 ∢ 𝑔 βˆ’ πœ† 𝑦 ∈ k e r βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ,   ( 3 . 2 7 ) 𝑑 ( 𝑇 ) = d i m 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) βŸ‚ ξ‚€ 𝑇 = d i m k e r βˆ— βˆ’ πœ†  . ( 3 . 2 8 )

Proof. We first prove (3.26). Since 𝑇 is 𝐽 -Hermitian, one has that 𝑇 is 𝐽 -Hermitian, and hence 𝑇 βŠ‚ ( 𝑇 ) βˆ— 𝐽 = 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . Clearly, 𝒩 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . So, 𝑇 + 𝒩 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . On the other hand, let ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . It follows from (3.17) and πœ† ∈ Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) that there exist ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 and 𝑀 ∈ k e r ( 𝑇 βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ) such that 𝑓 βˆ’ πœ† π‘₯ = 𝑔 βˆ’ πœ† 𝑦 + 𝑀 , that is, ( 𝑓 βˆ’ 𝑔 ) βˆ’ πœ† ( π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑦 ) = 𝑀 . Let  ( Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) = ( π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑦 , 𝑓 βˆ’ 𝑔 ) , then  ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) = ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) + ( Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) and  ( Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝒩 . So, 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 βŠ‚ 𝑇 + 𝒩 , and consequently, 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 = 𝑇 + 𝒩 .
Now, let ( 𝑒 , β„Ž ) ∈ 𝑇 ∩ 𝒩 , then ξ‚€ β„Ž βˆ’ πœ† 𝑒 ∈ 𝑅  ξ‚€ 𝑇 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† , β„Ž βˆ’ πœ† 𝑒 ∈ k e r βˆ— βˆ’ πœ†  . ( 3 . 2 9 ) Consequently, β„Ž βˆ’ πœ† 𝑒 = 0 by 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) βŸ‚ = k e r ( 𝑇 βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ) , which can be obtained from (3.17). Since πœ† ∈ Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) = Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) , one has by Definition 3.6 that there exists a constant 𝑐 ( πœ† ) > 0 such that 0 = β€– β„Ž βˆ’ πœ† 𝑒 β€– β‰₯ 𝑐 ( πœ† ) β€– 𝑒 β€– . It follows that 𝑒 = 0 , which, together with β€– β„Ž βˆ’ πœ† 𝑒 β€– = 0 , implies that β„Ž = 0 . Then, ( 𝑒 , β„Ž ) = ( 0 , 0 ) if ( 𝑒 , β„Ž ) ∈ 𝑇 ∩ 𝒩 . So, (3.26) holds.
Next, we prove (3.28). Let πœ† ∈ Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) . Set π‘ˆ 1 = { ( π‘₯ , πœ† π‘₯ ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 } , then π‘ˆ 1 is closed since 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 is closed. Let π‘ˆ 2 = 𝒩 / π‘ˆ 1 . We will show that d i m π‘ˆ 2 ξ‚€ 𝑇 = d i m k e r βˆ— βˆ’ πœ†  . ( 3 . 3 0 ) Let { πœ“ 𝑗 } π‘š 𝑗 = 1 βŠ‚ k e r ( 𝑇 βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ) be linearly independent, then, by (3) of Lemma 3.7, there exists ( 𝑒 𝑗 , β„Ž 𝑗 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 such that πœ“ 𝑗 = β„Ž 𝑗 βˆ’ πœ† 𝑒 𝑗 , 1 ≀ 𝑗 ≀ π‘š . It follows from πœ“ 𝑗 ∈ k e r ( 𝑇 βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ) that ( 𝑒 𝑗 , β„Ž 𝑗 ) ∈ π‘ˆ 2 for 1 ≀ 𝑗 ≀ π‘š . In addition, if π‘š  𝑗 = 1 𝑐 𝑗 ξ€· 𝑒 𝑗 , β„Ž 𝑗 ξ€Έ ∈ π‘ˆ 1 , 𝑐 𝑗 ∈ 𝐂 , ( 3 . 3 1 ) then βˆ‘ π‘š 𝑗 = 1 𝑐 𝑗 ( β„Ž 𝑗 βˆ’ πœ† 𝑒 𝑗 ) = 0 , that is, βˆ‘ π‘š 𝑗 = 1 𝑐 𝑗 πœ“ 𝑗 = 0 . So, 𝑐 𝑗 = 0 for 1 ≀ 𝑗 ≀ π‘š , and hence { ( 𝑒 𝑗 , β„Ž 𝑗 ) } π‘š 𝑗 = 1 βŠ‚ π‘ˆ 2 is linearly independent (mod  π‘ˆ 1 ). Conversely, let { ( 𝑒 𝑗 , β„Ž 𝑗 ) } π‘š 𝑗 = 1 βŠ‚ π‘ˆ 2 be linearly independent (mod  π‘ˆ 1 ), and let πœ“ 𝑗 = β„Ž 𝑗 βˆ’ πœ† 𝑒 𝑗 , then πœ“ 𝑗 ∈ k e r ( 𝑇 βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ) . If βˆ‘ π‘š 𝑗 = 1 𝑐 𝑗 πœ“ 𝑗 = 0 , then βˆ‘ π‘š 𝑗 = 1 𝑐 𝑗 ( 𝑒 𝑗 , β„Ž 𝑗 ) ∈ π‘ˆ 1 . So, 𝑐 𝑗 = 0 ( 1 ≀ 𝑗 ≀ π‘š ), and hence the set { πœ“ 𝑗 } π‘š 𝑗 = 1 is linearly independent. Based on the above discussions, (3.30) holds. On the other hand, it is evident that d i m  ξ‚€ π‘₯ ,  πœ† π‘₯ ∈ 𝑇 βˆ—  ξ‚€ 𝑇 = d i m k e r βˆ— βˆ’ πœ†  . ( 3 . 3 2 ) Further, by Lemma 2.6, we have that d i m π‘ˆ 1 = d i m  ξ‚€ π‘₯ ,  πœ† π‘₯ ∈ 𝑇 βˆ—  . ( 3 . 3 3 ) It follows from (3.30)–(3.33) that d i m π‘ˆ 1 = d i m π‘ˆ 2 , and hence (3.26) implies that 1 𝑑 ( 𝑇 ) = 2 ξ‚€ 𝑇 d i m 𝒩 = d i m k e r βˆ— βˆ’ πœ†  . ( 3 . 3 4 ) So, (3.28) holds by (1) of Lemma 3.7.

Remark 3.9. From Theorem 3.8, one has the following result: for a 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace 𝑇 , d i m 𝑅 ( 𝑇 βˆ’ πœ† ) βŸ‚ and d i m k e r ( 𝑇 βˆ— βˆ’ πœ† ) are constants in Ξ“ ( 𝑇 ) which are equal to the defect index of 𝑇 . This result extends [24, Theorem 5.7] for 𝐽 -symmetric operators to 𝐽 -Hermitian subspaces. Similarly, there is no distinction between degrees of infinity.

4. 𝐽 -Self-Adjoint Subspace Extensions of a 𝐽 -Hermitian Subspace

In this section, we consider the existence of 𝐽 -SSEs of a 𝐽 -Hermitian space and the characterizations of all the 𝐽 -SSEs.

Define the form [ ∢ ] as [ ] ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) = ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝐽 𝑦 ⟩ βˆ’ ⟨ π‘₯ , 𝐽 𝑔 ⟩ , ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) , ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . ( 4 . 1 ) Then, ⟨ 𝑓 , 𝐽 𝑦 ⟩ = ⟨ π‘₯ , 𝐽 𝑔 ⟩ if and only if [ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ] = 0 . Further, for all π‘Œ 𝑗 = ( π‘₯ 𝑗 , 𝑓 𝑗 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ( 𝑗 = 1 , 2 , 3 ) and πœ‡ ∈ 𝐂 , ξ€Ί π‘Œ 3 ∢ π‘Œ 1 + π‘Œ 2 ξ€» = ξ€Ί π‘Œ 3 ∢ π‘Œ 1 ξ€» + ξ€Ί π‘Œ 3 ∢ π‘Œ 2 ξ€» , ξ€Ί π‘Œ 1 + π‘Œ 2 ∢ π‘Œ 3 ξ€» = ξ€Ί π‘Œ 1 ∢ π‘Œ 3 ξ€» + ξ€Ί π‘Œ 2 ∢ π‘Œ 3 ξ€» , ξ€Ί πœ‡ π‘Œ 1 ∢ π‘Œ 2 ξ€» = ξ€Ί π‘Œ 1 ∢ πœ‡ π‘Œ 2 ξ€» ξ€Ί π‘Œ = πœ‡ 1 ∢ π‘Œ 2 ξ€» , ξ€Ί π‘Œ 1 ∢ π‘Œ 2 ξ€» ξ€Ί π‘Œ = βˆ’ 2 ∢ π‘Œ 1 ξ€» . ( 4 . 2 ) Since the closure 𝑇 of a 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace 𝑇 is also a 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace by Remark 2.7, and 𝑇 and 𝑇 have the same defect indices and the same 𝐽 -SSEs by (2) of Remark 3.5, we shall assume that 𝑇 is closed in the rest of this section. Let 𝑇 be a closed subspace in 𝑋 2 , and let 𝐾 βŠ‚ 𝒯 be a subspace, where 𝒯 is given in (3.1). Let 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 be a restriction of 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 to 𝒯 , that is, 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | | 𝒯 [ ] = { ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝒯 ∢ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) = 0 βˆ€ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝐾 } , ( 4 . 3 )

then 𝐾 is called to be 𝐽 -Hermitian in 𝒯 if 𝐾 βŠ‚ 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 , and 𝐾 is called to be 𝐽 -self-adjoint in 𝒯 if 𝐾 = 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 .

Remark 4.1. From the definition, we have that [ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ] = 0 for all ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝐾 and ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 , and 𝐾 is 𝐽 -Hermitian in 𝒯 if and only if [ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ] = 0 for all ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) , ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝐾 .

Lemma 4.2. Let 𝑇 be a closed 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace, and let 𝐾 βŠ‚ 𝒯 be a subspace. Assume that 𝑆 = 𝑇 βŠ• 𝐾 , then(1) 𝑆 is 𝐽 -Hermitian if and only if 𝐾 is 𝐽 -Hermitian in 𝒯 ,(2) 𝑆 is 𝐽 -self-adjoint if and only if 𝐾 is 𝐽 -self-adjoint in 𝒯 .

Proof. (1) Suppose that 𝑆 is 𝐽 -Hermitian. It can be easily verified that 𝐾 is 𝐽 -Hermitian in 𝒯 by (2) of Remark 2.5, 𝐾 βŠ‚ 𝑆 , and Remark 4.1. So, the necessity holds. We now prove the sufficiency. Suppose that 𝐾 is 𝐽 -Hermitian in 𝒯 . For all ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) , ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑆 , we get from 𝑆 = 𝑇 βŠ• 𝐾 that ξ€· π‘₯ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) = 1 , 𝑓 1 ξ€Έ + ξ€· π‘₯ 2 , 𝑓 2 ξ€Έ , ξ€· π‘₯ 1 , 𝑓 1 ξ€Έ ξ€· π‘₯ ∈ 𝑇 , 2 , 𝑓 2 ξ€Έ ( ξ€· 𝑦 ∈ 𝐾 , 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) = 1 , 𝑔 1 ξ€Έ + ξ€· 𝑦 2 , 𝑔 2 ξ€Έ , ξ€· 𝑦 1 , 𝑔 1 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝑦 ∈ 𝑇 , 2 , 𝑔 2 ξ€Έ ∈ 𝐾 . ( 4 . 4 ) Since 𝑇 is 𝐽 -Hermitian and 𝐾 βŠ‚ 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 , it can be obtained from (2) of Remark 2.5 and Remark 4.1 that [ ] = π‘₯ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ξ€Ί ξ€· 1 , 𝑓 1 ξ€Έ ∢ ξ€· 𝑦 1 , 𝑔 1 + π‘₯ ξ€Έ ξ€» ξ€Ί ξ€· 1 , 𝑓 1 ξ€Έ ∢ ξ€· 𝑦 2 , 𝑔 2 + π‘₯ ξ€Έ ξ€» ξ€Ί ξ€· 2 , 𝑓 2 ξ€Έ ∢ ξ€· 𝑦 1 , 𝑔 1 + π‘₯ ξ€Έ ξ€» ξ€Ί ξ€· 2 , 𝑓 2 ξ€Έ ∢ ξ€· 𝑦 2 , 𝑔 2 ξ€Έ ξ€» = 0 . ( 4 . 5 ) So, 𝑆 is 𝐽 -Hermitian. The sufficiency holds, and result (1) is proved.
(2) First, consider the necessity. Suppose that 𝑆 is 𝐽 -self-adjoint, then 𝐾 is 𝐽 -Hermitian in 𝒯 , that is, 𝐾 βŠ‚ 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 , by result (1). It suffices to show that 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 βŠ‚ 𝐾 . For any given ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑆 , there exist ( π‘₯ 1 , 𝑓 1 ) ∈ 𝑇 and ( π‘₯ 2 , 𝑓 2 ) ∈ 𝐾 such that the first relation of (4.4) holds. Let ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 , then [ ( π‘₯ 2 , 𝑓 2 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ] = 0 by Remark 4.1. Note that ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 by 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . Then [ ( π‘₯ 1 , 𝑓 1 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ] = 0 by (2) of Remark 2.5. Therefore, the first relation of (4.4) yields that [ ] = π‘₯ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ξ€Ί ξ€· 1 , 𝑓 1 ξ€Έ ∢ ξ€» + π‘₯ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ξ€Ί ξ€· 2 , 𝑓 2 ξ€Έ ∢ ξ€» ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) = 0 βˆ€ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑆 . ( 4 . 6 ) So, ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 . Therefore, 𝑆 = 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 yields that ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑆 , which, together with ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 , 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 ∩ 𝑇 = { 0 } , and 𝑆 = 𝑇 βŠ• 𝐾 , implies that ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝐾 . Hence, 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 βŠ‚ 𝐾 , and hence 𝐾 = 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 . The necessity holds.
Next, consider the sufficiency. Suppose that 𝐾 is 𝐽 -self-adjoint in 𝒯 . By result (1), one has that 𝑆 βŠ‚ 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 . It suffices to show that 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 βŠ‚ 𝑆 . Let ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 , then ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 since 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 by 𝑇 βŠ‚ 𝑆 . It follows from (3.1) that there exist ( 𝑦 1 , 𝑔 1 ) ∈ 𝑇 and ( 𝑦 2 , 𝑔 2 ) ∈ 𝒯 such that ξ€· 𝑦 ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) = 1 , 𝑔 1 ξ€Έ + ξ€· 𝑦 2 , 𝑔 2 ξ€Έ . ( 4 . 7 ) We claim that ( 𝑦 2 , 𝑔 2 ) ∈ 𝐾 . In fact, since ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 , we have [ ] ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) = 0 βˆ€ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∈ 𝑆 . ( 4 . 8 ) Inserting the first relation of (4.4) and (4.7) into (4.8) and using (2) of Remark 2.5 and Remark 4.1, we get that [ ( π‘₯ 2 , 𝑓 2 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 2 , 𝑔 2 ) ] = 0 for all ( π‘₯ 2 , 𝑓 2 ) ∈ 𝐾 . Then, ( 𝑦 2 , 𝑔 2 ) ∈ 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 = 𝐾 . It follows from ( 𝑦 2 , 𝑔 2 ) ∈ 𝐾 , 𝑆 = 𝑇 βŠ• 𝐾 , and (4.7) that ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑆 . So, 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 βŠ‚ 𝑆 , and hence 𝑆 = 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 . The sufficiency holds.

Now, we give the following result on the existence of 𝐽 -SSEs.

Theorem 4.3. Every closed 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace has a 𝐽 -SSE.

Proof. Let 𝑇 be a closed 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace. If 𝑇 is 𝐽 -self-adjoint, then this conclusion holds. So, we assume that 𝑇 β‰  𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 . To prove that 𝑇 has a 𝐽 -SSE, it suffices to prove that there exists a 𝐽 -self-adjoint subspace 𝐾 in 𝒯 by Lemma 4.2. The proof uses Zorn’s lemma. Since 𝑇 β‰  𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 , one has that 𝒯 β‰  { 0 } . Choose 0 β‰  ( π‘₯ 0 , 𝑓 0 ) ∈ 𝒯 and set 𝐾 0 = s p a n { ( π‘₯ 0 , 𝑓 0 ) } . Then 𝐾 0 is 𝐽 -Hermitian in 𝒯 since [ ( π‘₯ 0 , 𝑓 0 ) ∢ ( π‘₯ 0 , 𝑓 0 ) ] = 0 . Let 𝒦 be the set of all the 𝐽 -Hermitian subspaces in 𝒯 which contain 𝐾 0 , then 𝒦 is not empty since 𝐾 0 ∈ 𝒦 . Further, let 𝒦 be ordered by extension, that is, 𝐴 < 𝐡 if and only if 𝐴 βŠ‚ 𝐡 , and let β„³ = { 𝐾 𝛼 } be an arbitrary totally ordered subset of 𝒦 . Set  ⋃ 𝐾 = 𝛼 𝐾 𝛼 . Then, it can be verified that  𝐾 is 𝐽 -Hermitian in 𝒯 by Remark 4.1 and the fact that all the elements of β„³ are 𝐽 -Hermitian in 𝒯 . So,  𝐾 is an upper bound of β„³ in 𝒦 . Therefore, 𝒦 has a maximal element by Zorn’s lemma. This means that 𝐾 0 has a maximal 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace extension, denoted by 𝐾 , in 𝒯 . We now prove 𝐾 = 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 . Suppose that 𝐾 β‰  𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 on the contrary. Note that 𝐾 βŠ‚ 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 . Choose ( Μƒ π‘₯ 0 ,  𝑓 0 ) ∈ 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 satisfying ( Μƒ π‘₯ 0 ,  𝑓 0 ) βˆ‰ 𝐾 , and set  Μ‡ 𝐾 = 𝐾 + s p a n { ( Μƒ π‘₯ 0 ,  𝑓 0 ) } . It can be verified by Remark 4.1 and the fact that 𝐾 is 𝐽 -Hermitian in 𝒯 that [ ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) ∢ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ] = 0 holds for all  𝐾 ( π‘₯ , 𝑓 ) , ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ . Note that  𝐾 βŠ‚ 𝒯 . Then,  𝐾 is 𝐽 -Hermitian in 𝒯 , which contradicts the maximality of 𝐾 . Hence, 𝐾 = 𝐾 βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 .

Remark 4.4. Since 𝑇 and its closure have the same 𝐽 -SSEs, we have that every 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace has a 𝐽 -SSE. In addition, Theorem 4.3 extends the relevant result, for example, [1, Chapter III, Theorem 5.8], for 𝐽 -symmetric operators to 𝐽 -Hermitian subspaces.
The following result will give a characterization of all the 𝐽 -SSEs.

Theorem 4.5. Let 𝑇 be a closed 𝐽 -Hermitian subspace. Assume that 𝑑 ( 𝑇 ) = 𝑑 < + ∞ , then a subspace 𝑆 is a 𝐽 -SSE of 𝑇 if and only if 𝑇 βŠ‚ 𝑆 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 , and there exists { ( π‘₯ 𝑗 , 𝑓 𝑗 ) } 𝑑 𝑗 = 1 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 such that(1) ( π‘₯ 1 , 𝑓 1 ) , ( π‘₯ 2 , 𝑓 2 ) , … , ( π‘₯ 𝑑 , 𝑓 𝑑 ) are linearly independent (mod 𝑇 ),(2) [ ( π‘₯ 𝑠 , 𝑓 𝑠 ) ∢ ( π‘₯ 𝑗 , 𝑓 𝑗 ) ] = 0 for 𝑠 , 𝑗 = 1 , 2 , … , 𝑑 ,(3) 𝑆 = { ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ∢ [ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∢ ( π‘₯ 𝑗 , 𝑓 𝑗 ) ] = 0 , 𝑗 = 1 , 2 , … , 𝑑 } .

Proof. First, consider the necessity. Suppose that 𝑆 is a 𝐽 -SSE of 𝑇 , then it holds that 𝑇 βŠ‚ 𝑆 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 since 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 and 𝑆 = 𝑆 βˆ— 𝐽 . We also have that (3.2) holds and 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 in (3.2) is 𝐽 -self-adjoint in 𝒯 by Lemma 4.2. Note that d i m 𝑆 / 𝑇 = 𝑑 by Theorem 3.1. Then d i m 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 = 𝑑 , and let { ( π‘₯ 𝑗 , 𝑓 𝑗 ) } 𝑑 𝑗 = 1 be a basis of 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 , then we get from (3.2) that (1) holds. In addition, since 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 is 𝐽 -self-adjoint in 𝒯 , one has that (2) holds by Remark 4.1. For convenience, set ξ€½ 𝐷 = ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ∢ ξ€Ί ξ€· π‘₯ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∢ 𝑗 , 𝑓 𝑗 ξ€Ύ . ξ€Έ ξ€» = 0 , 𝑗 = 1 , 2 , … , 𝑑 ( 4 . 9 ) Now, we prove 𝑇 βŠ• 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 = 𝐷 , that is, 𝑆 = 𝐷 . Let ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βŠ• 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 , then ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 by 𝑆 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 , and there exist ( Μƒ 𝑦 , Μƒ 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 and 𝑐 𝑗 ∈ 𝐢 such that ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) = ( Μƒ 𝑦 , Μƒ 𝑔 ) + 𝑑  𝑗 = 1 𝑐 𝑗 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑗 , 𝑓 𝑗 ξ€Έ . ( 4 . 1 0 ) Inserting (4.10) into [ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∢ ( π‘₯ 𝑠 , 𝑓 𝑠 ) ] and using (2) of Remark 2.5 and (2) of this theorem, we get that [ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∢ ( π‘₯ 𝑠 , 𝑓 𝑠 ) ] = 0 for 𝑠 = 1 , 2 , … , 𝑑 . So, ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝐷 , and hence 𝑇 βŠ• 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 βŠ‚ 𝐷 . Conversely, suppose that ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝐷 , then by (3.1), there exist ( 𝑦 1 , 𝑔 1 ) ∈ 𝑇 and ( 𝑦 2 , 𝑔 2 ) ∈ 𝒯 such that (4.7) holds. The definition of 𝐷 , (4.7), and (2) of Remark 2.5 implies that for 𝑠 = 1 , 2 , … , 𝑑 , 𝑦 ξ€Ί ξ€· 2 , 𝑔 2 ξ€Έ ∢ ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑠 , 𝑓 𝑠 = ξ€Ί ξ€· π‘₯ ξ€Έ ξ€» ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∢ 𝑠 , 𝑓 𝑠 βˆ’ 𝑦 ξ€Έ ξ€» ξ€Ί ξ€· 1 , 𝑔 1 ξ€Έ ∢ ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑠 , 𝑓 𝑠 ξ€Έ ξ€» = 0 . ( 4 . 1 1 ) So, ( 𝑦 2 , 𝑔 2 ) ∈ ( 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 ) βˆ— 𝐽 | 𝒯 , which implies that ( 𝑦 2 , 𝑔 2 ) ∈ 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 since 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 is 𝐽 -self-adjoint in 𝒯 . One has from (4.7) that ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βŠ• 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 , and consequently, 𝐷 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βŠ• 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 . Hence, 𝑇 βŠ• 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 = 𝐷 , that is, 𝑆 = 𝐷 . The necessity holds.
Next, consider the sufficiency. Suppose that there exists { ( π‘₯ 𝑗 , 𝑓 𝑗 ) } 𝑑 𝑗 = 1 βŠ‚ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 such that conditions (1) and (2) hold and 𝑆 is given in condition (3). From (3.1), we have ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑗 , 𝑓 𝑗 ξ€Έ = ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑗 0 , 𝑓 𝑗 0 ξ€Έ + ξ‚€ Μƒ π‘₯ 𝑗 ,  𝑓 𝑗  , ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑗 0 , 𝑓 𝑗 0 ξ€Έ ξ‚€ ∈ 𝑇 , Μƒ π‘₯ 𝑗 ,  𝑓 𝑗  ∈ 𝒯 , 𝑗 = 1 , 2 , … , 𝑑 . ( 4 . 1 2 ) It can be easily verified that the set { ( Μƒ π‘₯ 𝑗 ,  𝑓 𝑗 ) } 𝑑 𝑗 = 1 satisfies conditions (1) and (2). Let  𝐾 = s p a n { ( Μƒ π‘₯ 1 ,  𝑓 1 ) , ( Μƒ π‘₯ 2 ,  𝑓 2 ) , … , ( Μƒ π‘₯ 𝑑 ,  𝑓 𝑑 ) } , then  𝐾 is 𝐽 -Hermitian in 𝒯 since { ( Μƒ π‘₯ 𝑗 ,  𝑓 𝑗 ) } 𝑑 𝑗 = 1 satisfies condition (2) and  𝐾 βŠ‚ 𝒯 . By the proof of Theorem 4.3, there exists 𝐾 1 βŠ‚ 𝒯 such that 𝐾 1 is 𝐽 -self-adjoint in 𝒯 and  𝐾 βŠ‚ 𝐾 1 . Then, by Lemma 4.2, 𝑇 βŠ• 𝐾 1 is a 𝐽 -SSE of 𝑇 , which, together with Theorem 3.1, yields that ξ€· 𝑑 = d i m 𝑇 βŠ• 𝐾 1 ξ€Έ 𝑇 = d i m 𝐾 1 β‰₯ 𝑑 . ( 4 . 1 3 ) Therefore,  𝐾 βŠ‚ 𝐾 1 and dim   𝐾 = 𝑑 imply that  𝐾 = 𝐾 1 , and hence  𝐾 is 𝐽 -self-adjoint in 𝒯 . With a similar argument to the proof of 𝑇 βŠ• 𝐾 𝑆 , 𝑇 = 𝐷 , we have   𝑇 βŠ• 𝐾 = 𝐷 , ( 4 . 1 4 ) where   𝐷 = ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∈ 𝑇 βˆ— 𝐽 ∢  ξ‚€ ( 𝑦 , 𝑔 ) ∢ Μƒ π‘₯ 𝑗 ,  𝑓 𝑗  .  ξ‚„ = 0 , 𝑗 = 1 , 2 , … , 𝑑 ( 4 . 1 5 ) On the other hand, it can be easily verified that  𝐷 = 𝑆 . So,  𝐾 𝑆 = 𝑇 βŠ• , and hence 𝑆 is 𝐽 -self-adjoint by (2) of Lemma 4.2. The sufficiency holds.

Remark 4.6. The case for 𝐽 -symmetric operators is given by [24, 27]. Theorem 4.5 can be regarded as the GKN theorem for 𝐽 -Hermitian subspaces, which will be used for characterizations of 𝐽 -self-adjoint extensions for linear Hamiltonian difference systems in terms of boundary conditions.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the NNSFs of China (Grants 11101241 and 11071143), the NNSF of Shandong Province (Grant ZR2011AQ002), and the independent innovation fund of Shandong University (Grant 2011ZRYQ003).

References

  1. D. E. Edmunds and W. D. Evans, Spectral Theory and Differential Operators, The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1987.
  2. W. N. Everitt and L. Markus, Boundary Value Problems and Symplectic Algebra for Ordinary Differential and Quasi-Differential Operators, vol. 61, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, USA, 1999.
  3. J. Weidmann, Spectral Theory of Ordinary Differential Operators, vol. 1258 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1987.
  4. S. Z. Fu, β€œOn the self-adjoint extensions of symmetric ordinary differential operators in direct sum spaces,” Journal of Differential Equations, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 269–291, 1992. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar
  5. J. Sun, β€œOn the self-adjoint extensions of symmetric ordinary differential operators with middle deficiency indices,” Acta Mathematica Sinica, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 152–167, 1986. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar
  6. A. Wang, J. Sun, and A. Zettl, β€œCharacterization of domains of self-adjoint ordinary differential operators,” Journal of Differential Equations, vol. 246, no. 4, pp. 1600–1622, 2009. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  7. M. Lesch and M. Malamud, β€œOn the deficiency indices and self-adjointness of symmetric Hamiltonian systems,” Journal of Differential Equations, vol. 189, no. 2, pp. 556–615, 2003. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  8. Y. Shi and H. Sun, β€œSelf-adjoint extensions for second-order symmetric linear difference equations,” Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 434, no. 4, pp. 903–930, 2011. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  9. R. Arens, β€œOperational calculus of linear relations,” Pacific Journal of Mathematics, vol. 11, pp. 9–23, 1961. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  10. H. Langer and B. Textorius, β€œOn generalized resolvents and Q-functions of symmetric linear relations (subspaces) in Hilbert space,” Pacific Journal of Mathematics, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 135–165, 1977.
  11. E. A. Coddington, Extension Theory of Formally Normal and Symmetric Subspaces, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, No. 134, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, USA, 1973.
  12. Y. Shi, β€œThe Glazman-Krein-Naimark theory for Hermitian subspaces,” The Journal of Operator Theory. In press.
  13. E. A. Coddington, β€œSelf-adjoint subspace extensions of nondensely defined symmetric operators,” Advances in Mathematics, vol. 14, pp. 309–332, 1974. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  14. E. A. Coddington and A. Dijksma, β€œSelf-adjoint subspaces and eigenfunction expansions for ordinary differential subspaces,” Journal of Differential Equations, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 473–526, 1976. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar
  15. A. Dijksma and H. S. V. de Snoo, β€œSelf-adjoint extensions of symmetric subspaces,” Pacific Journal of Mathematics, vol. 54, pp. 71–100, 1974. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  16. B. M. Brown, D. K. R. McCormack, W. D. Evans, and M. Plum, β€œOn the spectrum of second-order differential operators with complex coefficients,” Proceedings of The Royal Society of London Series A, vol. 455, no. 1984, pp. 1235–1257, 1999. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  17. B. M. Brown and M. Marletta, β€œSpectral inclusion and spectral exactness for singular non-self-adjoint Sturm-Liouville problems,” Proceedings of The Royal Society of London Series A, vol. 457, no. 2005, pp. 117–139, 2001. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  18. J. Qi, Z. Zheng, and H. Sun, β€œClassification of Sturm-Liouville differential equations with complex coefficients and operator realizations,” Proceedings of The Royal Society of London Series A, vol. 467, no. 2131, pp. 1835–1850, 2011. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  19. A. R. Sims, β€œSecondary conditions for linear differential operators of the second order,” Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, vol. 6, pp. 247–285, 1957. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  20. H. Sun and J. Qi, β€œOn classification of second-order differential equations with complex coefficients,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 372, no. 2, pp. 585–597, 2010. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar
  21. H. Sun, J. Qi, and H. Jing, β€œClassification of non-self-adjoint singular Sturm-Liouville difference equations,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 217, no. 20, pp. 8020–8030, 2011. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  22. R. H. Wilson, β€œNon-self-adjoint difference operators and their spectrum,” Proceedings of The Royal Society of London Series A, vol. 461, no. 2057, pp. 1505–1531, 2005. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  23. I. M. Glazman, β€œAn analogue of the extension theory of Hermitian operators and a non-symmetric one-dimensional boundary problem on a half-axis,” Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, vol. 115, pp. 214–216, 1957 (Russian). View at Zentralblatt MATH
  24. D. Race, β€œThe theory of J-self-adjoint extensions of J-symmetric operators,” Journal of Differential Equations, vol. 57, pp. 258–274, 1985.
  25. Z. J. Shang, β€œOn J-self-adjoint extensions of J-symmetric ordinary differential operators,” Journal of Differential Equations, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 153–177, 1988. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar
  26. I. Knowles, β€œOn the boundary conditions characterizing J-self-adjoint extensions of J-symmetric operators,” Journal of Differential Equations, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 193–216, 1981. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar
  27. J. L. Liu, β€œJ self-adjoint extensions of J symmetric operators,” Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Intramongolicae, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 312–316, 1992.