1. Introduction
Along this work
denotes a complex Hilbert space with associated norm
. Let
be the algebra of all bounded linear operators acting on
. An operator
is said to be positive (denoted by
) if
for all
. For every operator
, its range is denoted by
, its null space by
, and its adjoint by
. By
, we mean the closure of
with respect to the norm topology of
. Throughout this paper, we retain the notation
A for a nonzero positive operator on
which clearly induces the following positive semidefinite sesquilinear form
The seminorm on
induced by
is given by
, for every
We remark that
is a norm on
if and only if
A is an injective operator, i.e.,
. In addition, the semi-Hilbert space
is complete if, and only if,
is closed in
Next, when we use an operator, it means that it is an operator in
. For recent contributions related to operators acting on the
A-weighted space
, the readers may consult [
1,
2,
3]. Before we proceed further, we recall that
induces on the quotient
an inner product which is not complete unless
is closed in
. On the other hand, it was proved in [
4] (see also [
5]) that the completion of
is isometrically isomorphic to the Hilbert space
endowed with the following inner product
where
stands for the orthogonal projection onto
. Notice that the Hilbert space
will be simply denoted by
. Let us emphasize that
is dense in
(see [
6]). More results related involving the Hilbert space
can be found in [
6] and the references therein. An application of (
1) gives
The numerical range and the numerical radius of
are defined by
, and
, respectively. It is well known that the numerical radius of Hilbert space operators plays an important role in various fields of operator theory and matrix analysis (cf. [
7,
8,
9,
10]). Recently, several generalizations for the concept of
have been introduced (cf. [
11,
12,
13]). One of these generalizations is the so-called
A-numerical radius of an operator
, which was firstly defined by Saddi in [
14] as
For an account of the recent results related to the
A-numerical radius, we refer the reader to [
15,
16,
17,
18,
19] and the references therein. If
is a
-operator matrix with
for all
, then (
3) can be written as:
In addition, Zamani defined in [
20] the notion of
A-Crawford number of an operator
T as follows:
Zamani used this notion in [
20] in order to derive some improvements of inequalities related to
.
Before continuing, let us recall from [
21] the concept of
A-adjoint operator. For
, an operator
is said to be an
A-adjoint operator of
T if
for all
; that is,
S is the solution in
of the equation
. This kind of operator equations may be investigated by using the well-known Douglas theorem [
22]. Briefly, this theorem says that equation
has a solution
if and only if
. This, in turn, equivalent to the existence of some positive constant
such that
for all
. Furthermore, among its many solutions, there is only one, denoted by
Q, which satisfies
. Such
Q is called the reduced solution of
. Let
and
denote the sets of all operators that admit
A-adjoints and
-adjoints, respectively. An application of Douglas theorem shows that
and
We remark that
and
are two subalgebras of
which are neither closed nor dense in
. It is easy to see that the following property is satisfied:
(see [
18]). The operators from
are called
A-bounded. If
, then the “reduced” solution of the equation
is a distinguished
A-adjoint operator of
T, which will be denoted by
. Observe that
. Here,
denotes the Moore–Penrose inverse of the operator
A. Notice that if
, then
,
and
. Further results involving the operator
and the theory of the Moore–Penrose inverse of Hilbert space operators can be found in [
2,
21,
23] and the references therein. We equip
with the following seminorm
(see [
18] and the references therein). Let us emphasize here that it may happen that
for some
(see [
18]). It is pertinent to point out that
if, and only if,
It can be observed that for
,
if and only if
. Moreover, it is not difficult to see that for
, it holds that
for all
. This yields that
An operator
is called
A-selfadjoint if
. Moreover, it was proved in [
18] that if
T is
A-selfadjoint, then
In addition, Baklouti et al. showed in [
24] that for an
A-selfadjoint operator
T, it holds
where
denotes the set all positive integers. Furthermore, if
, then
T is called
A-positive and we write
. Baklouti et al. [
15] obtained the following
A-numerical radius inequality for
:
The first inequality in (
8) becomes an equality if
and the second inequality becomes an equality if
T is
A-selfadjoint (see [
18]). Several authors improved recently the inequalities (
8) (see, e.g., [
16,
25] and the references therein). In particular, the second author of this paper proved in [
26] Theorem 2.5 that
Obviously, for
, we obtain the well-known inequalities due to Kittaneh (see [
27] Theorem 1).
The main objective of the present paper is to present a few new
-numerical radius inequalities for
operator matrices. In Theorem 1, we obtain a bound for the
-numerical radius for the
operator matrix. By particularization, we deduce an improvement of the second inequality (
9). Another bound for
-numerical radius for the
operator matrix is given in Theorem 2. Next, we present an improvement of the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality type using the inner product
. This result is used to find a new bound for
-numerical radius of operator matrix
. Applying the Bohr inequality, we deduce another new bound for the
-numerical radius for the
operator matrix. In addition to these, we aim to establish an alternative and easy proof of the generalized Kittaneh inequalities (
9). In addition, several improvements of the first inequality in (
9) are established.
2. Main Results
To establish our first main result in the present work, we require the following two lemmas.
Lemma 1 ([
28])
. Let . Then, the following assertions hold- (i)
.
- (ii)
.
- (iii)
.
Lemma 2 ([
14])
. Let be such that . Then Now, we can prove the following result, which generalizes Theorem 2.1 in [
29].
Theorem 1. Let . Then, Proof. Let
be such that
. One has
where the last equality follows by using Lemma 1 (i) and (iii). So, by applying (
10) together with the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we obtain
where the last equality follows by using Lemma 1 (iii). Furthermore, by taking again Lemma 1 (iii) into consideration and the fact that
for all
operator matrix
, we see that
By applying the arithmetic–geometric mean inequality, we obtain
Furthermore, it can be verified that
is
-positive. So, by applying the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we obtain
Thus, an application of Lemma 1 (ii) gives
So, by taking the supremum over with in the last inequality, we obtain the desired result. □
By letting
, we obtain the following corollary which considerably improves the second inequality in (
9) and was already proved by the present author in [
26]. Notice that this corollary is also stated by Bhunia et al. in [
30] when
A is an injective linear operator.
In order to prove our next result which generalizes Theorem 2.1 in [
29], we need the following two lemmas. The first one follows immediately by using Lemma 3.1 in [
29] and the second is recently proved in [
31].
Lemma 3. Let be such that . Then Lemma 4. Let be such that . Then, for every with we have Now, we are ready to prove the following theorem.
Theorem 2. Let be such that . Then, where and .
Proof. Let
be such that
. One has
where the last inequality follows by applying the convexity of the function
with
. This implies, by taking Lemma 1 (i) into consideration, that
On the other hand, let
. By using Lemma 3, we obtain
where the last inequality follows by applying the arithmetic–geometric mean inequality. Now, since
and
are
-positive, then an application of Lemma 4 with
gives
A short calculation reveals that
and
Hence, by applying Lemma 1 (i) and (ii), we infer that
where
and
. So, we obtain
This proves the desired by letting the supremum over be such that in the last inequality. □
Next, we present a result which is an improvement of the inequality of Cauchy–Schwarz type,
where
, similar to a result of [
32]; thus:
Lemma 5. for any .
Proof. Using inequality
, we deduce that
for any
and
.
Multiplying by
in the above inequality, we have that
and using again inequality
, we deduce that the inequality of the statement is true. □
Remark 1. Inequality (13) can be written as: for any and .
Theorem 3. Let and . Then, the inequality holds.
Proof. We take the first inequality from Lemma:
for any
and
. Because we need to apply the inequality Hölder–McCarthy for positive operators, it is easy to see that the operators
and
are positive. Now, we replace
and
by
and
, in the above inequality, and we assume that
; then, we obtain
Taking the supremum over with in the above inequality, we obtain the inequality of the statement. □
Remark 2. Through various particular cases of λ in Theorem, we obtain some results, thus: for in the inequality of (14), we deduce inequality and for , we find inequality Corollary 2. Let and . Then, the inequality holds.
Proof. Let
and
. By using Lemma 1 (iii), we obtain
Therefore, we obtain .
Applying relation (ii) from Lemma 1, we find
Using Theorem 3 and the above results, we deduce the inequality of the statement. □
Theorem 4. Let . Then, where , with
Proof. Let
be such that
. We use the classical Bohr inequality [
33]
where
, with
and
However, we have the inequality given by Xu et al. in [
28]:
for all
.
Therefore, we proved the inequality of the statement. □
Our next goal consists of deriving an alternative and easy proof of the generalized Kittaneh inequalities (
9). In all that follows, for any arbitrary operator
, we write
and
In order to provide the alternative proof of (
9), we require the following two lemmas.
Lemma 6 ([
25])
. Let be an A-selfadjoint operator. Then, for all . Lemma 7 ([
20,
25])
. Let . Then Now, we are ready to derive our proof in the next result.
Theorem 5 ([
26])
. Let . Then, Proof. Let
. By making simple computations, we see that
Since
is an
A-selfadjoint operator, then by Lemma 6, we deduce that
. So, in view of (
16), we infer that
This implies that
for all
. Moreover, since
is an
A-selfadjoint operator, then by taking into account (
17), it can be seen that
for all
. Furthermore, clearly, we have
. So, by taking the supremum over all
with
in (
18) and then using (
4) and (
6), we obtain
Therefore, by taking the supremum over all
in the above inequality and then applying Lemma 7, we obtain
On the other hand, by taking
in (
16), we obtain
Hence, the required result follows by combining (
20) together with (
19). □
The following lemma plays a crucial rule in proving our next result.
Lemma 8. Let be A-positive operators. Then, To prove Lemma 8, we need the following two results.
Lemma 9 ([
5,
6])
. Let . Then if and only if there exists a unique such that . Here, is defined by . Furthermore, the following properties hold- (i)
for every .
- (ii)
and for every .
Lemma 10 ([
34])
. Let be such that and . Then Now, we are in a position to prove Lemma 8.
Proof of Lemma 8. Notice first that since
T and
S are
A-positive, then clearly
T and
S are
A-selfadjoint. This implies that
. Thus, by Lemma 9, there exist two unique operators
and
in
such that
and
. Furthermore, since
, then
for all
. So, by taking (
2) into consideration, we see that
On the other hand, the density of
in
yields that
Therefore, the operator
is positive on the Hilbert space
. By using similar arguments, one may prove that
is also positive on
. So, by applying (
21) together with Lemma 9, we observe that
This proves the desired result. □
Now, we are able to establish the next result which provides a refinement of the first inequality in (
9). The inspiration for our investigation comes from [
35].
Proof. Notice first that a short calculation reveals that
Moreover, one may immediately check that the operators
and
are
A-selfadjoint. Thus, by Lemma 6, we deduce that
and
. Therefore, an application of (
22) together with Lemma (8) ensures that
where the last inequality follows by using (
5). In addition, since the operators
and
are
A-selfadjoint, then by applying (
7), we obtain
On the other hand, let
be such that
. Clearly,
T can be decomposed as
. Notice that
and
are
A-selfadjoint operators. This implies that
and
are real numbers. Furthermore, we see that
This implies, by taking the supremum over all
with
in the last inequality, that
In addition, since
is
A-selfadjoint, then an application of (
6) gives
Similarly, it can be proved that
Combing (
24) together with (
25) gives
Hence, by taking (
23) into consideration and then using (
26), we observe that
This finishes the proof of our result. □
By using the inequalities (
24) and (
25), we derive in the next theorem another improvement of the first inequality in Theorem 5:
.
Proof. By applying (
22), we see that
This implies, through (
5), that
On the other hand, it follows from the inequalities (
24) and (
25) that
Combining (
27) together with (
28) yields the desired result. □
Our next result provides also another refinement of the first inequality in Theorem 5.
Proof. Notice first that the third inequality in Theorem 8 follows immediately by applying the inequalities (
24) and (
25). Moreover, the second inequality holds immediately. So, it remains to prove the first inequality. We recall the following elementary equality
An application of (
29) shows that
where the last equality follows from (
22). This immediately proves the first inequality in Theorem 8. Hence, the proof is complete. □
Remark 3. The inequalities from Theorem 5 given by Feki in [26] represent a generalization of the inequalities given by Kittaneh [27]. In Theorems 6 and 7, we present some refinements of the inequalities due to Feki. 3. Conclusions
The main objective of the present paper is to present a few new
-numerical radius inequalities for
operator matrices. In Theorem 1, we obtain a bound for the
-numerical radius for the
operator matrix. We use an inequality of Buzano type (see Lemma 2) to estimate the
-numerical radius of an operator
, where
. By particularization, we deduce an improvement of the second inequality (
9). Another bound for
-numerical radius for the
operator matrix is given in Theorem 2. Next, we present an improvement of the Cauchy–Schwarzv inequality type using the inner product
. This result is used to find a new bound for the
-numerical radius of operator matrix
. Applying the Bohr inequality, we deduce another new bound for the
-numerical radius for the
operator matrix. In addition to these, we aim to establish an alternative and easy proof of the generalized Kittaneh inequalities (
9). We also give a lemma which plays a crucial rule in proving a result concerning to norm
(see Lemma 8). Finally, we establish some improvements of the well-known inequalities due to Kittaneh (see [
27] Theorem 1) and generalized by Feki in [
26]. In the future, we will study better estimates of the
-numerical radius for the
operator matrix and we will study new inequalities involving the Berezin norm and Berezin number of bounded linear operators in Hilbert and semi-Hilbert space. We can also define the
A-Berezin norm and number.