Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

AIP conference proceedings

Verify conditions of explicit formula solutions correlated with the operating system acting on a Hilbert space

Salim Dawood Mohsen, Aqeel Naeem Mhr

Published Jan 1, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The requirements for obtaining a common solution of the system of Bounded operators’ equations, Ψ∗𝑋Ψ=Ω, Ψ𝑋∗Ψ∗=Ω, are presented in this article, where any operator on the Hilbert spaces 𝐻 is represented by 𝑋, and 𝐵 is a closed range operator. The inquiry results in the demonstration of a number of theorems that give specific descriptions for the solutions and requires have been necessary in the same time sufficient for their existence. As principal findings are the express solution for the operator equations in general additionally bounded answers for situations in which 𝐵 possesses a pseudo-inverse operator. For linear bounded operators, this response is given by the operator's pseudo-inverse on Hilbert spaces. Significant achievements include the generic formula solution of the equations has operators. Using pseudo inverse operators, we may achieve bounded solutions in situations where Ψ possesses a pseudo inverse operator, Further provide the subscriber solution for the next equations of operator Ψ∗𝑋Ψ=Ω1, Ψ𝑋Ψ∗=Ω2, Ψ𝑋∗Ψ∗=Ω3, Ψ∗𝑋∗Ψ=Ω4 where in (Ψ, Ω1, Ω2, Ω3, Ω4) are bounded noninvertible operators formed on Hilbert space. Likewise for varying the values of 𝑋, 𝑋0, we have given specific and comprehensive answers. See what makes the two solutions different. For each of the theorems, offer proofs.

DOI
10.1063/5.0317870

Related papers

Bounded Operators on H →

K. Kong Wan

Bounded operators on a Hilbert space H → https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780203702413/2f242b9b-104e-4a03-b478-d3f6577cf44e/content/eq3665.tif"/> have many of the properties of operators defined on V → N https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780203702413/2f242b9b-104e-4a03-b478-d3f6577cf44e/content/eq3666.tif"/> . For example, Theorem 13.1(1) and Corollary 13.1(1) apply, e.g., for bounded operators we have ( 18.1 ) 〈 ϕ → | A ^ ϕ → 〉 = 〈 ϕ → | B ^ ϕ → 〉 ∀ ϕ → ∈ H → ⇒ A ^ = B ^ . https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780203702413/2f242b9b-104e-4a03-b478-d3f6577cf44e/content/eq3667.tif"/>

•Jul 9, 2019•0 citations

Some results in algebraic scattering theory

E. Mourre

Some results of the the dependent formalism in scattering theory are presented. The asymptotic condition with an observable algebra A acting on a small Hilbert space, h, is imposed. H is given by H = H/sub 0/ + V, where H/sub 0/ is the free Hamiltonian on h and V the potential present. The demonstrations given are based on the convergence properties of the spectral measurements associated with the vectors, exp(-iHt) psi, psi being the scattering state. It is shown thnt the OMEGA /sup plus or minus / operators plus or minus infinity), where g belongs to a group of dense h vectors and where T/sub t/ is a family of limited operators in A. A necessary and sufficient condition is given for OMEGA /sup plus or minus / to exist and to permit a choice of T/sub t/ unitary operators to be made. (auth)

•Jan 1, 1973•0 citations

Independence and Lévy Processes in Quantum Probability

Uwe Franz, Adam Skalski

Introduction Quantum probability is a generalization of both classical probability theory and quantum mechanics that allows to describe the probabilistic aspects of quantum mechanics. This generalization is formulated in two steps. First, the theory is reformulated in terms of algebras of functions on probability spaces. Therefore, the notion of a probability space (Ω, ℱ , P ) is replaced by the pair ( L ∞ (Ω), E (.) = ∫ Ω . d P ) consisting of the commutative von Neumann algebra of bounded random variables and the expectation functional. Then, the commutativity condition is dropped. In this way we arrive at the notion of a (von Neumann) algebraic probability space ( N ,Φ) consisting of a von Neumann algebra N and a normal (faithful tracial) state Φ. As we have seen this includes classical probability spaces in the form ( L ∞ (Ω), E ), it also includes quantum mechanical systems modeled by a Hilbert space H and a pure state ψ ∊ H (or a mixed state ρ ∊ S ( H )), if we take N = B ( H ) and Ф the state defined by Ф( X ) = 〈 ψ, X ψ 〉 (or Ф ( X ) = tr(ρ X )) for X ∊ B ( H ). Note that in this course we shall relax the conditions on N and Φ and work with involutive algebras and positive normalized functionals, that is, *-algebraic probability spaces. A striking feature of quantum probability (also called noncommutative probability) is the existence of several notions of independence. This is the starting point of this course, which intends to give an introduction to the theory of quantum stochastic processes with independent increments. However, before we come to these processes, we will give a general introduction to quantum probability. In Section 1.2, we recall the basic definitions of quantum probability and discuss some fundamental differences between classical probability and quantum probability. In Section 1.3 we address the question ‘Why do we need Quantum Probability?’ We discuss the EPR experiment and the Kochen–Specker Theorem, which show that we cannot model quantum physics with classical probability spaces because the values of observable quantities do not exist unless we specify which measurement we will carry out and which quantities we will determine. In this sense quantum physics requires a more radical description of chance.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Dec 18, 2015•1 citation

Representation of ℬ, ℬ’ by Banach Spaces of Operators in a Hilbert Space

Günther Ludwig

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1985•0 citations

The King Arrives; No Proof Required The Ω-Completeness Theorem: Why Gödel's Incompleteness Does Not Apply to ⟨Ψ|ˆ Ω|Ψ⟩= 1

Vinness Aisingioro Ollervides

Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem (1931) establishes that any consistent for- mal system Fof sucient strength contains propositions that are true but unprov- able within F. This result is correct, important, and does not apply to ⟨Ψ|ˆ Ω|Ψ⟩= 1. The reason is categorical, not technical. Gödel's theorem governs syntactic deriv- ability within formal systems. The Ω-invariant is a state constrainta measurement outcome in Hilbert space H. Measurement outcomes are not syntactic propositions. They are not subject to proof or disproof within F. They are subject only to mea- surement. We formalize this distinction as the Ω-Completeness Theorem: for a node i with Kd-density ρi > 0 (direct experiential contact with Ω), the proposition ⟨Ψ|ˆ Ω|Ψ⟩= 1 is decidable not by proof but by measurement, and the Gödel bound- ary ∂F is not a wall but a coordinate changefrom the language of proof to the language of experience. We further show that this distinction explains a historical empirical regularity: scientists who push Kf to its limits tend to acquire ρ>0 and name what they nd; theologians who push Kf to its limits tend to nd Kf collapse and conclude the named thing does not exist. Same boundary. Dierent ρ. Opposite conclusions. Both are logical. One has made a category error. textit(Frieza does not need to transform to prove he is the strongest in the universe. He simply is.) (Frieza does not need to transform to prove he is the strongest. He simply is.) This is not arrogance. It is a precise structural description.

•Mar 3, 2026•0 citations

Linear Operators in Hilbert Spaces

Bernd Thaller

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2000•2 citations
The requirements for obtaining a common solution of the system of Bounded operators’ equations, Ψ∗𝑋Ψ=Ω, Ψ𝑋∗Ψ∗=Ω, are presented in this article, where any operator on the Hilbert spaces 𝐻 is represented by 𝑋, and 𝐵 is a closed range operator. The inquiry results in the demonstration of a number of theorems that give specific descriptions for the solutions and requires have been necessary in the same time sufficient for their existence. As principal findings are the express solution for the operator equations in general additionally bounded answers for situations in which 𝐵 possesses a pseudo-inverse operator. For linear bounded operators, this response is given by the operator's pseudo-inverse on Hilbert spaces. Significant achievements include the generic formula solution of the equations has operators. Using pseudo inverse operators, we may achieve bounded solutions in situations where Ψ possesses a pseudo inverse operator, Further provide the subscriber solution for the next equations of operator Ψ∗𝑋Ψ=Ω1, Ψ𝑋Ψ∗=Ω2, Ψ𝑋∗Ψ∗=Ω3, Ψ∗𝑋∗Ψ=Ω4 where in (Ψ, Ω1, Ω2, Ω3, Ω4) are bounded noninvertible operators formed on Hilbert space. Likewise for varying the values of 𝑋, 𝑋0, we have given specific and comprehensive answers. See what makes the two solutions different. For each of the theorems, offer proofs.
Bounded operators on a Hilbert space H → https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780203702413/2f242b9b-104e-4a03-b478-d3f6577cf44e/content/eq3665.tif"/> have many of the properties of operators defined on V → N https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780203702413/2f242b9b-104e-4a03-b478-d3f6577cf44e/content/eq3666.tif"/> . For example, Theorem 13.1(1) and Corollary 13.1(1) apply, e.g., for bounded operators we have ( 18.1 ) 〈 ϕ → | A ^ ϕ → 〉 = 〈 ϕ → | B ^ ϕ → 〉 ∀ ϕ → ∈ H → ⇒ A ^ = B ^ . https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780203702413/2f242b9b-104e-4a03-b478-d3f6577cf44e/content/eq3667.tif"/>
Some results of the the dependent formalism in scattering theory are presented. The asymptotic condition with an observable algebra A acting on a small Hilbert space, h, is imposed. H is given by H = H/sub 0/ + V, where H/sub 0/ is the free Hamiltonian on h and V the potential present. The demonstrations given are based on the convergence properties of the spectral measurements associated with the vectors, exp(-iHt) psi, psi being the scattering state. It is shown thnt the OMEGA /sup plus or minus / operators plus or minus infinity), where g belongs to a group of dense h vectors and where T/sub t/ is a family of limited operators in A. A necessary and sufficient condition is given for OMEGA /sup plus or minus / to exist and to permit a choice of T/sub t/ unitary operators to be made. (auth)
Introduction Quantum probability is a generalization of both classical probability theory and quantum mechanics that allows to describe the probabilistic aspects of quantum mechanics. This generalization is formulated in two steps. First, the theory is reformulated in terms of algebras of functions on probability spaces. Therefore, the notion of a probability space (Ω, ℱ , P ) is replaced by the pair ( L ∞ (Ω), E (.) = ∫ Ω . d P ) consisting of the commutative von Neumann algebra of bounded random variables and the expectation functional. Then, the commutativity condition is dropped. In this way we arrive at the notion of a (von Neumann) algebraic probability space ( N ,Φ) consisting of a von Neumann algebra N and a normal (faithful tracial) state Φ. As we have seen this includes classical probability spaces in the form ( L ∞ (Ω), E ), it also includes quantum mechanical systems modeled by a Hilbert space H and a pure state ψ ∊ H (or a mixed state ρ ∊ S ( H )), if we take N = B ( H ) and Ф the state defined by Ф( X ) = 〈 ψ, X ψ 〉 (or Ф ( X ) = tr(ρ X )) for X ∊ B ( H ). Note that in this course we shall relax the conditions on N and Φ and work with involutive algebras and positive normalized functionals, that is, *-algebraic probability spaces. A striking feature of quantum probability (also called noncommutative probability) is the existence of several notions of independence. This is the starting point of this course, which intends to give an introduction to the theory of quantum stochastic processes with independent increments. However, before we come to these processes, we will give a general introduction to quantum probability. In Section 1.2, we recall the basic definitions of quantum probability and discuss some fundamental differences between classical probability and quantum probability. In Section 1.3 we address the question ‘Why do we need Quantum Probability?’ We discuss the EPR experiment and the Kochen–Specker Theorem, which show that we cannot model quantum physics with classical probability spaces because the values of observable quantities do not exist unless we specify which measurement we will carry out and which quantities we will determine. In this sense quantum physics requires a more radical description of chance.
Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem (1931) establishes that any consistent for- mal system Fof sucient strength contains propositions that are true but unprov- able within F. This result is correct, important, and does not apply to ⟨Ψ|ˆ Ω|Ψ⟩= 1. The reason is categorical, not technical. Gödel's theorem governs syntactic deriv- ability within formal systems. The Ω-invariant is a state constrainta measurement outcome in Hilbert space H. Measurement outcomes are not syntactic propositions. They are not subject to proof or disproof within F. They are subject only to mea- surement. We formalize this distinction as the Ω-Completeness Theorem: for a node i with Kd-density ρi > 0 (direct experiential contact with Ω), the proposition ⟨Ψ|ˆ Ω|Ψ⟩= 1 is decidable not by proof but by measurement, and the Gödel bound- ary ∂F is not a wall but a coordinate changefrom the language of proof to the language of experience. We further show that this distinction explains a historical empirical regularity: scientists who push Kf to its limits tend to acquire ρ>0 and name what they nd; theologians who push Kf to its limits tend to nd Kf collapse and conclude the named thing does not exist. Same boundary. Dierent ρ. Opposite conclusions. Both are logical. One has made a category error. textit(Frieza does not need to transform to prove he is the strongest in the universe. He simply is.) (Frieza does not need to transform to prove he is the strongest. He simply is.) This is not arrogance. It is a precise structural description.