Next Article in Journal
Complex Riemannian Spacetime: Removal of Black Hole Singularities and Black Hole Paradoxes
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamics of Abundant Wave Solutions to the Fractional Chiral Nonlinear Schrodinger’s Equation: Phase Portraits, Variational Principle and Hamiltonian, Chaotic Behavior, Bifurcation and Sensitivity Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Three Bounded Solutions for a Degenerate Nonlinear Dirichlet Problem
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

New Bounds for the Davis–Wielandt Radius via the Moore–Penrose Inverse of Bounded Linear Operators

1
College of Sciences, Inner Mongolia University of Technology, Hohhot 010051, China
2
School of Mathematical Sciences, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot 010021, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Axioms 2025, 14(6), 439; https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms14060439
Submission received: 12 April 2025 / Revised: 30 May 2025 / Accepted: 2 June 2025 / Published: 4 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Functional Analysis and Operator Theory)

Abstract

:
In this paper, we obtain some new upper bounds involving powers of the Davis–Wielandt radius of bounded linear operators with closed ranges by using the Moore–Penrose inverse. Moreover, by providing some examples, we show that the upper bounds obtained here are better than the existing ones in some situations.

1. Introduction

The inequalities of operators on Hilbert space are interesting and useful for applying operator theory to any field of natural science. Numerical radius inequalities play an important role in various fields of operator theory and matrix analysis [1,2], and there have been many generalizations of the numerical radius. The numerical radius is not only a powerful tool for characterizing the numerical range but also provides a key tool for stability, convergence and error estimation in practical applications [3]. The close relationship between the numerical radius, norm, and spectral radius makes it an indispensable tool in functional analysis and numerical calculations. In research on numerical radius inequalities, researchers mainly focus on improving and generalizing the existing inequalities. The purpose of this paper is to study one of the generalizations of the numerical radius, that is, the Davis–Wielandt radius. By using the Moore–Penrose inverse of bounded linear operators with closed ranges, we will establish some new Davis–Wielandt radius inequalities. Furthermore, by providing numerical examples, we will show that these inequalities are better than the existing inequalities. Let us recall the following necessary definitions and related symbols.
Let ( H , · , · ) be a complex Hilbert space and let B ( H ) be the C * -algebra of all bounded linear operators on H. For A B ( H ) , the Moore–Penrose inverse of A is the operator X B ( H ) that satisfies the following Penrose equations [4]:
A X A = A , X A X = X , ( A X ) * = A X a n d ( X A ) * = X A ,
where ( · ) * denotes the adjoint operator. Note that the Moore–Penrose inverse of A exists if and only if the range of A is closed and that it is unique and denoted by A in this case. Throughout the paper, CR ( H ) denotes the subset of B ( H ) of all operators with closed ranges. Obviously, when H is a finite dimensional space, all operators in B ( H ) have closed ranges. Therefore, each matrix has a unique Moore–Penrose inverse. It is easy to see that, for A CR ( H ) ,
( A * A ) = A A * ,
A * = A * A A = A A A * ,
A = A A A = ( A A ) * A = ( A ) * | A | 2 ,
and
A = A A A = A ( A A ) * = | A * | 2 ( A ) * ,
where | A | = ( A * A ) 1 2 and | A * | = ( A A * ) 1 2 . Recently, Sababheh et al. [5] and Bhunia et al. [6] studied the numerical radius of bounded linear operators by using the Moore–Penrose inverse. For further discussion of the Moore–Penrose inverse of bounded linear operators, we direct readers to [7,8].
For A B ( H ) , the numerical range of A is defined as [9]
W ( A ) = { A x , x : x H , x = 1 } .
The numerical radius and the operator norm of A, denoted as w ( A ) and A , respectively, are defined as
w ( A ) = sup { | A x , x | : x H , x = 1 }
and
A = sup { A x : x H , x = 1 } .
It is well known that w ( · ) defines a norm on B ( H ) , which is equivalent to the operator norm · . Namely, for every A B ( H ) , the following inequalities hold:
1 2 A w ( A ) A .
The concept of numerical radius is useful in studying the bounded linear operators, and there have many generalizations of the numerical radius, such as in, e.g., [10,11,12,13,14,15,16] and the references therein. One of the most interesting generalizations is the Davis–Wielandt radius, which is defined as [17,18]
d w ( A ) = sup { | A x , x | 2 + A x 4 : x H , x = 1 } ,
for A B ( H ) . It is clear that the Davis–Wielandt radius d w ( · ) satisfies the following inequality:
max { w ( A ) , A 2 } d w ( A ) w 2 ( A ) + A 4 .
The second inequality in (1) becomes equality if and only if A is normaloid, i.e., w ( A ) = A (see [19], Corollary 3.2). In recent years, the Davis–Wielandt radius inequalities have been studied by many researchers. For instance, in [20,21], the authors proved that if A B ( H ) , then
d w 2 ( A ) | A | 2 + | A | 4 1 2 | A * | 2 + | A | 4 1 2 .
In [22], Zamani and Shebrawi proved that
d w 2 ( A ) w 2 ( | A | 2 A ) + 2 A 2 w ( A ) ,
d w 2 ( A ) 1 2 w ( A 2 ) + 1 4 w ( | A | 2 + | A * | 2 ) + 1 4 ( 2 w 2 ( A ) c 2 ( A ) + 2 w ( A ) w 2 ( A ) c 2 ( A ) ) ,
d w 2 ( A ) max { A 2 , A 4 } + 2 w ( | A | 2 A ) ,
d w 2 ( A ) 1 2 ( w ( | A | 4 + | A | 2 ) + w ( | A | 4 | A | 2 ) ) + 2 w ( | A | 2 A ) ,
where c ( A ) = inf { | A x , x | : x H , x = 1 } .
In [23], Bhunia et al. proved that
d w 2 ( A ) 1 2 w 2 ( A + A * A ) + w 2 ( A A * A ) ,
d w 2 ( A ) 1 2 | A | 2 + | A * | 2 + 2 | A | 4 ,
d w 2 ( A ) | A | 2 + | A | 4 ,
d w 2 ( A ) 1 2 ( w ( A 2 ) + A 2 ) + A 4 .
For more results on the Davis–Wielandt radius inequalities, the reader may be referred to [24,25,26,27,28].
In this paper, using the Moore–Penrose inverse of bounded linear operators, we obtain some new upper bounds for the Davis–Wielandt radius of bounded linear operators with closed ranges and show that these upper bounds are better than the existing ones mentioned above by numerical examples.

2. Main Results

In order to prove our results, we need the following lemmas:
Lemma 1
([29]). Let A be a non-negative bounded linear operator in Hilbert space H, and let x H be any unit vector. Then, for r 1 , we have
A x , x r A r x , x .
Lemma 2
([30]). Let x , y , e H with e = 1 and α C { 0 } . Then,
| x , e e , y | 1 | α | max { 1 , | α 1 | } x y + | x , y | .
In particular, if α = 2 , then the above inequality becomes the Buzano inequality ([31])
| x , e e , y | 1 2 ( | x , y | + x y ) .
Lemma 3
([32]). Let x , y , e H with e = 1 . Then,
| x , e e , y | r 1 + α 2 x r y r + 1 α 2 | x , y | r .
for every 0 α 1 and r 1 .
Lemma 4
([5]). Let A CR ( H ) . Then,
| A x , y | 2 | A | 2 x , x A A y , y ,
for any x , y H .
We know that R ( A ) is closed if and only if R ( A * ) is closed, while R ( A * ) = R ( A * A ) . So, when A CR ( H ) , then A * A CR ( H ) . Now applying Lemma 4, we obtain the following inequality:
| A * A x , y | 2 | A | 4 x , x A A y , y ,
for A CR ( H ) , x , y H . Indeed,
| A * A x , y | 2 | A * A | 2 x , x A * A ( A * A ) y , y = | A | 4 x , x A * A A A * y , y = | A | 4 x , x A * A * y , y = | A | 4 x , x ( A A ) * y , y = | A | 4 x , x A A y , y .
Now, we are in a position to state our main results.
Theorem 1.
Let A CR ( H ) . Then, for r 1 , we have
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 1 | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 ,
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 1 | A | 4 r + A A 1 2 | A | 8 r + A A 1 2 ,
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 1 | A * | 4 r + | A * | 8 r 1 2 A A + A A 1 2
and
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 1 | A * | 4 r + A A 1 2 | A * | 8 r + A A 1 2 .
Proof. 
Let x H be a unit vector. Then,
( | A x , x | 2 + A x 4 ) r 2 r 1 | A x , x | 2 r + A * A x , x 2 r 2 r 1 | A | 2 x , x r A A x , x r + | A | 4 x , x r A A x , x r = ( b y L e m m a 4 ) 2 r 1 | A | 2 x , x 2 r + | A | 4 x , x 2 r 1 2 A A x , x 2 r + A A x , x 2 r 1 2 = ( b y t h e C a u c h y S c h w a r z i n e q u a l i t y ) 2 r 1 | A | 4 r x , x + | A | 8 r x , x 1 2 ( A A ) 2 r x , x + ( A A ) 2 r x , x 1 2 = ( b y L e m m a 1 ) = 2 r 1 ( | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r ) x , x 1 2 ( A A + A A ) x , x 1 2 .
Taking the supremum over all unit vectors in H, we obtain
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 1 | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 .
Similarly, we can show that
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 1 | A | 4 r + A A 1 2 | A | 8 r + A A 1 2 .
From ([33], Theorem 3.3), we have d w ( A ) = d w ( A * ) , and so we obtain the inequalities (13) and (14). □
In particular, by considering r = 1 in Theorem 1, we obtain the following corollary:
Corollary 1.
Let A CR ( H ) . Then
d w 2 ( A ) min { α , β , γ , δ } ,
where
α = | A | 4 + | A | 8 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 ,
β = | A | 4 + A A 1 2 | A | 8 + A A 1 2 ,
γ = | A * | 4 + | A * | 8 1 2 A A + A A 1 2
and
δ = | A * | 4 + A A 1 2 | A * | 8 + A A 1 2 .
Remark 1.
The inequality in Corollary 1 is better than inequalities (1), (2), (3), (4), (8), (9), and (10); the inequalities in [22], which are Theorems 2.2, 2.5, 2.16, and 2.17; and that in [21], which is Theorem 2.10. The inequalities in [22], namely Theorems 2.2, 2.5, 2.16, and 2.17 and that in [21], namely Theorem 2.10, are shown, respectively, as follows:
d w 2 ( A ) 1 2 w ( | A | 2 + 2 | A | 4 + | A * | 2 ) 1 2 inf x = 1 ( A x A * x ) 2 , d w 2 ( A ) 1 4 w ( ( | A | 2 + A ) 2 ) + w ( ( | A | 2 A ) 2 ) + w ( | A | 2 + 2 | A | 4 + | A * | 2 ) , d w 2 ( A ) max { w ( A ) , w ( | A | 2 ) } ( w ( | A | 4 + | A | 2 ) + 2 w ( | A | 2 A ) ) 1 2 , d w 2 ( A ) A max { w ( A ) , w ( | A | 2 ) } ( 1 + A 2 + 2 w ( A ) ) 1 2 , d w 2 ( A ) 1 4 w 2 ( | A | + i | A * | ) + 1 4 w ( A | A * | ) + 1 8 min { | A | 2 + | A * | 2 + 8 | A | 4 , | A | 2 + | A * | 2 + 8 | A * | 4 } .
If we take A = 0 2 0 0 . Then, by calculations, we obtain α = γ = 272 16.49 and β = δ = 17 × 256 65.97 , and so Corollary 1 gives d w 2 ( A ) 16.49 , whereas inequalities (1), (2), (3), (4), (8), (9), and (10), and Theorems 2.2, 2.5, 2.16, 2.17 in [22], and Theorem 2.10 in [21] give d w 2 ( A ) 17 , d w 2 ( A ) 17.89 , d w 2 ( A ) 25.94 , d w 2 ( A ) 17.5 , d w 2 ( A ) 18 , d w 2 ( A ) 20 , d w 2 ( A ) 18 , d w 2 ( A ) 18 , d w 2 ( A ) 17.47 , d w 2 ( A ) 17.89 , d w 2 ( A ) 21.17 and d w 2 ( A ) 17.5 , respectively. Therefore, for this example, the upper bound of d w 2 ( A ) in Corollary 1 is better than the existing bounds mentioned above.
Theorem 2.
Let A CR ( H ) . Then, for r 1 , we have
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 2 | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r + A A + A A
and
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 2 | A * | 4 r + | A * | 8 r + A A + A A .
Proof. 
Let x H be a unit vector. Then,
( | A x , x | 2 + A x 4 ) r 2 r 1 | A x , x | 2 r + A * A x , x 2 r 2 r 1 | A | 2 x , x r A A x , x r + | A | 4 x , x r A A x , x r = ( b y L e m m a 4 ) 2 r 2 | A | 2 x , x 2 r + | A | 4 x , x 2 r + A A x , x 2 r + A A x , x 2 r 2 r 2 | A | 4 r x , x + | A | 8 r x , x + ( A A ) 2 r x , x + ( A A ) 2 r x , x = ( b y L e m m a 1 ) = 2 r 2 ( | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r + A A + A A ) x , x .
Taking the supremum over all unit vectors in H, we obtain
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 2 | A * | 4 r + | A * | 8 r + A A + A A .
Similarly, we can show that
d w 2 r ( A * ) 2 r 2 | A * | 4 r + | A * | 8 r + A A + A A .
Since d w ( A ) = d w ( A * ) , we have
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 2 | A * | 4 r + | A * | 8 r + A A + A A .
Theorem 3.
Let A CR ( H ) , 0 α 1 . Then, for r 1 , we have
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 2 α X + ( 1 α ) Z + | A | 8 r + A A
and
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 2 α X + ( 1 α ) Z + | A * | 8 r + A A ,
where
X = | A | 4 r + A A , Z = | A * | 4 r + A A .
Proof. 
Let x H be a unit vector. Then,
( | A x , x | 2 + A x 4 ) r 2 r 1 | A x , x | 2 r + | | A | 2 x , x | 2 r = 2 r 1 α | A x , x | 2 r + ( 1 α ) | A * x , x | 2 r + | | A | 2 x , x | 2 r 2 r 1 α | A | 2 x , x r A A x , x r + ( 1 α ) | A * | 2 x , x r A A x , x r = + | A | 4 x , x r A A x , x r = ( b y L e m m a 4 ) 2 r 1 α 2 | A | 2 x , x 2 r + A A x , x 2 r + 1 α 2 | A * | 2 x , x 2 r + A A x , x 2 r = + 1 2 | A | 4 x , x 2 r + A A x , x 2 r = 2 r 2 α ( | A | 4 r + ( A A ) 2 r ) x , x + ( 1 α ) ( | A * | 4 r + ( A A ) 2 r ) x , x = = + ( | A | 8 r + ( A A ) 2 r ) x , x = ( b y L e m m a 1 ) = = 2 r 2 α ( | A | 4 r + A A ) x , x + ( 1 α ) ( | A * | 4 r + A A ) x , x = = + ( | A | 8 r + A A ) x , x = = 2 r 2 ( α ( | A | 4 r + A A ) + ( 1 α ) ( | A * | 4 r + A A ) + | A | 8 r + A A ) x , x = 2 r 2 α X + ( 1 α ) Z + | A | 8 r + A A .
Taking the supremum over all unit vectors in H, we obtain inequality (18). Similarly, we can show that
d w 2 r ( A * ) 2 r 2 | α X + ( 1 α ) Z + | A * | 8 r + A A .
Since d w ( A ) = d w ( A * ) , and so we obtain the inequality (19). □
Remark 2.
In particular, if we take α = 1 in inequality (18), then we obtain the inequality (16). If we take α = 0 in inequality (19), we obtain inequality (17).
Now, we observe the following inequality:
| a + b | 2 | a + i b | , a , b R .
By employing the inequality (20), we prove the following theorem:
Theorem 4.
Let A CR ( H ) . Then,
d w 2 ( A ) 1 2 w | A | 4 + | A | 8 + i ( A A + A A )
and
d w 2 ( A ) 1 2 w | A * | 4 + | A * | 8 + i ( A A + A A ) .
Proof. 
Let x H be a unit vector. Then,
| A x , x | 2 + A x 4 = | A x , x | 2 + A * A x , x 2 | A | 2 x , x A A x , x + | A | 4 x , x A A x , x = ( b y L e m m a 4 ) 1 2 | A | 2 x , x 2 + A A x , x 2 + 1 2 | A | 4 x , x 2 + A A x , x 2 1 2 | A | 4 x , x + A A x , x + 1 2 | A | 8 x , x + A A x , x = ( b y L e m m a 1 ) = | A | 4 + | A | 8 2 x , x + A A + A A 2 x , x 2 | A | 4 + | A | 8 2 x , x + i A A + A A 2 x , x = ( b y i n e q u a l i t y ( 20 ) ) = 2 | A | 4 + | A | 8 2 + i A A + A A 2 x , x = 1 2 | A | 4 + | A | 8 + i ( A A + A A ) x , x
Taking the supremum over all unit vectors in H, we obtain inequality (21). Similar to the proof of inequality (21), and using d w ( A ) = d w ( A * ) , we obtain inequality (22). □
In [34], for Equation (4), the authors show that if H , K B ( H ) are self-adjointed, then
1 2 H 2 + K 2 w 2 ( H + i K ) H 2 + K 2 .
By using the inequality (23), we obtain the following remark, which shows that Theorem 4 improves Theorem 2 for the case r = 2 :
Remark 3.
Since A A and A A are self-adjointed, we have
d w 4 ( A ) 1 2 w 2 | A | 4 + | A | 8 + i ( A A + A A ) 1 2 ( | A | 4 + | A | 8 ) 2 + ( A A + A A ) 2 1 2 2 ( | A | 8 + | A | 16 ) + 2 ( A A + A A = | A | 8 + | A | 16 + A A + A A .
Theorem 5.
Let A CR ( H ) . Then, for r 1 , we have
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 2 3 | A | 4 r + A A
and
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 2 3 | A * | 4 r + A A .
Proof. 
Let x H be a unit vector. Then,
( | A x , x | 2 + A x 4 ) r 2 r 1 | A x , x | 2 r + A * A x , x 2 r 2 r 1 | A | 2 x , x r A A x , x r + | A | 2 x , x 2 r = ( b y L e m m a 4 ) 2 r 1 | A | 2 x , x 2 r + A A x , x 2 r 2 + | A | 2 x , x 2 r 2 r 1 | A | 4 r x , x + ( A A ) 2 r x , x 2 + | A | 4 r x , x = ( b y L e m m a 1 ) = 2 r 2 ( 3 | A | 4 r + A A ) x , x 2 r 2 3 | A | 4 r + A A .
Taking the supremum over all unit vectors in H, we obtain
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 2 3 | A | 4 r + A A .
Similar to the proof of inequality (26), and using d w ( A ) = d w ( A * ) , we obtain inequality (25). □
Remark 4.
In particular, if we take r = 1 in Theorem 5, then we obtain following inequalities:
d w 2 ( A ) 1 2 3 | A | 4 + A A
and
d w 2 ( A ) 1 2 3 | A * | 4 + A A .
Next, we consider an example to show that inequalities (27) and (28) are better than existing inequalities (3), (4), and (23). If we consider A = 1 0 0 1 , then from (27) and (28), we obtain d w 2 ( A ) 2 , whereas the inequalities in (3), (4), and (23) give d w 2 ( A ) 6 , d w 2 ( A ) 17 , and d w 2 ( A ) 4 , respectively. Thus, for this example, the upper bound of d w 2 ( A ) in inequalities (27) and (28) are better than the existing bounds.
Next, based on Lemmas 2 and 4, we obtain the following result:
Theorem 6.
Let A CR ( H ) , α C { 0 } . Then, for r 1 , we have
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 1 1 2 | α | 3 | A | 4 r + A A + max { 1 , | α 1 | } | α | X 1 2 Z 1 2
and
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 1 1 2 | α | 3 | A * | 4 r + A A + max { 1 , | α 1 | } | α | Y 1 2 Z 1 2 ,
where
X = | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r , Y = | A * | 4 r + | A * | 8 r , Z = A A + A A .
Proof. 
Let x H be a unit vector. Then,
| A x , x | 2 r + A x 4 r = | A x , x | 2 r + A * A x , x 2 r | A | 2 x , x r A A x , x r + | A | 4 x , x r A A x , x r = ( b y L e m m a 4 ) | A | 2 r x , x x , A A x + | A | 4 r x , x x , A A x = ( b y L e m m a 1 ) 1 | α | | A | 2 r x , A A x + max { 1 , | α 1 | } | A | 2 r x A A x + 1 | α | | A | 4 r x , A A x + max { 1 , | α 1 | } | A | 4 r x A A x = ( b y L e m m a 2 ) = 1 | α | | A | 2 r x , A A x + | A | 4 r x , A A x + max { 1 , | α 1 | } | α | | A | 4 r x , x 1 2 A A x , x 1 2 + | A | 8 r x , x 1 2 A A x , x 1 2 1 | α | | A | 2 r x , A A x + ( A A ) * | A | 4 r x , x + max { 1 , | α 1 | } | α | | A | 4 r x , x + | A | 8 r x , x 1 2 A A x , x + A A x , x 1 2 = 1 | α | | A | 2 r x , A A x + | A | 4 r x , x + max { 1 , | α 1 | } | α | ( | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r ) x , x 1 2 ( A A + A A ) x , x 1 2 1 | α | | A | 2 r x A A x + | A | 4 r x , x + max { 1 , | α 1 | } | α | ( | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r ) x , x 1 2 ( A A + A A ) x , x 1 2 = 1 | α | | A | 4 r x , x 1 2 A A x , x 1 2 + | A | 4 r x , x + max { 1 , | α 1 | } | α | ( | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r ) x , x 1 2 ( A A + A A ) x , x 1 2 1 | α | ( | A | 4 r + A A ) x , x 2 + | A | 4 r x , x + max { 1 , | α 1 | } | α | ( | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r ) x , x 1 2 ( A A + A A ) x , x 1 2 1 2 | α | 3 | A | 4 r + A A + max { 1 , | α 1 | } | α | | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 .
Therefore,
| A x , x | 2 + A x 4 r 2 r 1 | A x , x | 2 r + A x 4 r 2 r 1 1 2 | α | 3 | A | 4 r + A A + max { 1 , | α 1 | } | α | | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 .
Taking the supremum over all unit vectors in H, we obtain the inequality (29). Similar to the proof of inequality (29), and using d w ( T ) = d w ( T * ) , we obtain inequality (30): □
As a special case for α = 2 and r = 1 in Theorem 6, we have the following corollary:
Corollary 2.
Let A CR ( H ) . Then,
d w 2 ( A ) 1 4 3 | A | 4 + A A + 1 2 | A | 4 + | A | 8 1 2 A A + A A 1 2
and
d w 2 ( A ) 1 4 3 | A * | 4 + A A + 1 2 | A * | 4 + | A * | 8 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 .
Remark 5.
We note that, if the inequalities
1 2 | A | 4 + | A | 8 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 1 4 3 | A | 4 + A A
and
1 2 | A * | 4 + | A * | 8 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 1 4 3 | A * | 4 + A A
hold, then inequalities (31) and (32) are the improvements of inequalities (24) and (25) for the case r = 1 in Theorem 5, respectively. Next, we give an example to show that there is A CR ( H ) such that inequalities (33) and (34) hold. Consider A = 0 1 0 0 . Then,
1 2 | A | 4 + | A | 8 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 = 2 2 0.71 < 0.75 3 4 = 1 4 3 | A | 4 + A A
and
1 2 | A * | 4 + | A * | 8 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 = 2 2 0.71 < 0.75 3 4 = 1 4 3 | A * | 4 + A A .
Next, using Lemma 3, we obtain the following Davis–Wielandt radius of the bounded linear operators:
Theorem 7.
Let A B ( H ) , 0 α 1 . Then, for r 1 , we have
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 1 1 + α 4 | A | 2 r + | A * | 2 r + 1 α 2 w r ( A 2 ) + A 4 r
and
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 1 1 + α 4 | A | 2 r + | A * | 2 r + 1 α 2 w r ( A * 2 ) + A 4 r .
Proof. 
Let x H be a unit vector. Then, from the Lemma 3, we obtain
| A x , x | 2 r = | A x , x x , A * x | r 1 + α 2 A x r A * x r + 1 α 2 A x , A * x r 1 + α 2 A x , A x r 2 A * x , A * x r 2 + 1 α 2 A 2 x , x r 1 + α 4 | A | 2 x , x r + | A * | 2 x , x r + 1 α 2 A 2 x , x r 1 + α 4 ( | A | 2 r + | A * | 2 r ) x , x + 1 α 2 A 2 x , x r 1 + α 4 | A | 2 r + | A * | 2 r + 1 α 2 w r ( A 2 ) .
Therefore,
| A x , x | 2 + A x 4 r 2 r 1 | A x , x | 2 r + A x 4 r 2 r 1 1 + α 4 | A | 2 r + | A * | 2 r + 1 α 2 w r ( A 2 ) + A 4 r .
Taking the supremum over all unit vectors in H, we obtain the inequality (35). Similar to the proof of inequality (35), and using d w ( A ) = d w ( A * ) , we obtain inequality (36). □
Remark 6.
If we take α = 0 in inequality (35), then we have
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 2 1 2 | A | 2 r + | A * | 2 r + w r ( A 2 ) + 2 A 4 r .
It is obvious that inequality (37) improves the inequality in [20], i.e., Theorem 3.1.
In particular, if we consider r = 1 in Theorem 7, then we have the following corollary:
Corollary 3.
Let A B ( H ) . Then
d w 2 ( A ) min { X , Y } ,
where
X = min 0 α 1 1 + α 4 | A | 2 + | A * | 2 + 1 α 2 w ( A 2 ) + A 4
and
Y = min 0 α 1 1 + α 4 | A | 2 + | A * | 2 + 1 α 2 w ( A * 2 ) + A 4 .
Theorem 8.
Let A CR ( H ) , 0 α 1 . Then, for r 1 , we have
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 1 1 + α 4 | A | 4 r + A A + 1 α 2 w r ( A A | A | 2 ) + A 4 r
and
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 1 1 + α 4 | A * | 4 r + A A + 1 α 2 w r ( A A | A * | 2 ) + A 4 r .
Proof. 
Let x H be a unit vector. Then, from the Lemmas 3 and 4, we obtain
| A x , x | 2 r | A | 2 x , x r A A x , x r = | A | 2 x , x x , A A x r 1 + α 2 | A | 2 x r A A x r + 1 α 2 | A | 2 x , A A x r = 1 + α 2 | A | 4 x , x r 2 A A x , x r 2 + 1 α 2 A A | A | 2 x , x r 1 + α 4 | A | 4 x , x r + A A x , x r + 1 α 2 A A | A | 2 x , x r 1 + α 4 ( | A | 4 r + A A ) x , x + 1 α 2 A A | A | 2 x , x r 1 + α 4 | A | 4 r + A A + 1 α 2 w r ( A A | A | 2 ) .
Therefore,
| A x , x | 2 + A x 4 r 2 r 1 | A x , x | 2 r + A x 4 r 2 r 1 1 + α 4 | A | 4 r + A A + 1 α 2 w r ( A A | A | 2 ) + A 4 r .
Taking the supremum over all unit vectors in H, we obtain inequality (38). Similar to the proof of inequality (38), and using d w ( A ) = d w ( A * ) , we obtain inequality (39). □
In particular, if we take r = 1 in Theorem 8, then we obtain the following corollary:
Corollary 4.
Let A CR ( H ) . Then,
d w 2 ( A ) min { M , N } ,
where
M = min 0 α 1 1 + α 4 | A | 4 + A A + 1 α 2 w ( A A | A | 2 ) + A 4
and
N = min 0 α 1 1 + α 4 | A * | 4 + A A + 1 α 2 w ( A A | A * | 2 ) + A 4 .
Remark 7.
Since w ( A A | A | 2 ) 1 2 | A | 4 + A A . Then,
d w 2 ( A ) 1 + α 4 | A | 4 + A A + 1 α 2 w ( A A | A | 2 ) + A 4 1 + α 4 | A | 4 + A A + 1 α 4 | A | 4 + A A + A 4 = 1 2 | A | 4 + A A + A 4 .
Inequality (40) refines the inequalities in (4), (5), and (6) for some operators. Let A = 1 0 0 0 , then (40) gives d w 2 ( A ) 2 , whereas the inequalities in (4), (5), and (6) give d w 2 ( A ) 17 , d w 2 ( A ) 2.41 , and d w 2 ( A ) 2.41 , respectively. Thus, for this example, the inequalities in Theorem 8 for r = 1 are better than the existing inequalities.
Theorem 9.
Let A CR ( H ) , 0 α 1 . Then, for r 1 , we have
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 1 1 + α 2 | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 + 1 α 4 3 | A | 4 r + A A
and
d w 2 r ( A ) 2 r 1 1 + α 2 | A * | 4 r + | A * | 8 r 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 + 1 α 4 3 | A * | 4 r + A A .
Proof. 
Let x H be a unit vector. Then, from the Lemma 3, we have
| A x , x | 2 r + | A | 2 x , x 2 r | A | 2 x , x r A A x , x r + | A | 4 x , x r A A x , x r = | A | 2 x , x x , A A x r + | A | 4 x , x x , A A x r 1 + α 2 | A | 2 x r A A x r + 1 α 2 | A | 2 x , A A x r + 1 + α 2 | A | 4 x r A A x r + 1 α 2 | A | 4 x , A A x r 1 + α 2 | A | 4 x , x r 2 A A x , A A x r 2 + 1 α 2 | A | 2 x r A A x r + 1 + α 2 | A | 8 x , x r 2 A A x , A A x r 2 + 1 α 2 A A | A | 4 x , x r 1 + α 2 | A | 4 x , x r + | A | 8 x , x r 1 2 A A x , x r + A A x , x r 1 2 + 1 α 2 | A | 4 x , x r 2 A A x , A A x r 2 + | A | 4 x , x r 1 + α 2 ( | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r ) x , x 1 2 ( A A + A A ) x , x 1 2 + 1 α 2 | A | 4 x , x r 2 A A x , x r 2 + | A | 4 r x , x 1 + α 2 ( | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r ) x , x 1 2 ( A A + A A ) x , x 1 2 + 1 α 2 | A | 4 r x , x + A A x , x 2 + | A | 4 r x , x 1 + α 2 | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 + 1 α 4 3 | A | 4 r + A A .
Therefore,
| A x , x | 2 + A x 4 r 2 r 1 | A x , x | 2 r + | A | 2 x , x 2 r ) 2 r 1 1 + α 2 | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 + 1 α 4 3 | A | 4 r + A A .
Taking the supremum over all unit vectors in H, we obtain inequality (41). Similar to the proof of inequality (41), and using d w ( A ) = d w ( A * ) , we obtain inequality (42). □
Remark 8.
If we take α = 0 and r = 1 in Theorem 9, then Theorem 9 reduces to Corollary 2.
Finally, we compare some upper bounds of the Davis–Wieldant radius obtained by us. In the following remark, we first show that the upper bounds of the Davis–Wieldant radius in Theorem 1 are smaller than those in Theorem 2.
Remark 9.
Let A CR ( H ) , r 1 , x H with x = 1 . Then,
( | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r ) x , x 1 2 ( A A + A A ) x , x 1 2 1 2 ( | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r ) x , x + ( A A + A A ) x , x = 1 2 ( | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r + A A + A A ) x , x 1 2 | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r + A A + A A .
By taking the supremum over all x H with x = 1 , we obtain
| A | 4 r + | A | 8 r 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 1 2 | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r + A A + A A ,
Similarly, we obtain
| A | 4 r + A A 1 2 | A | 8 r + A A 1 2 1 2 | A | 4 r + | A | 8 r + A A + A A ,
| A * | 4 r + | A * | 8 r 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 1 2 | A * | 4 r + | A * | 8 r + A A + A A
and
| A * | 4 r + A A 1 2 | A * | 8 r + A A 1 2 1 2 | A * | 4 r + | A * | 8 r + A A + A A .
Thus, the upper bounds of the Davis–Wieldant radius in Theorem 1 are smaller than those in Theorem 2.
Remark 10.
If the inequalities
1 4 3 | A | 4 + A A 2 4 w | A | 4 + | A | 8 + i ( A A + A A )
and
1 4 3 | A * | 4 + A A 2 4 w | A * | 4 + | A * | 8 + i ( A A + A A )
hold, then the upper bounds of the Davis–Wieldant radius in Corollary 2 are smaller than those in Theorem 4. Indeed, let x H be a unit vector. Then,
1 4 ( 3 | A | 4 + A A ) x , x + 1 2 ( | A | 4 + | A | 8 ) x , x 1 2 ( A A + A A ) x , x 1 2 1 4 ( 3 | A | 4 + A A ) x , x + 1 4 ( | A | 4 + | A | 8 ) x , x + ( A A + A A ) x , x 1 4 ( 3 | A | 4 + A A ) x , x + 2 4 ( | A | 4 + | A | 8 ) x , x + i ( A A + A A ) x , x = 1 4 ( 3 | A | 4 + A A ) x , x + 2 4 ( | A | 4 + | A | 8 + i ( A A + A A ) ) x , x 1 4 3 | A | 4 + A A + 2 4 w | A | 4 + | A | 8 + i ( A A + A A .
Therefore, if 1 4 3 | A | 4 + A A 2 4 w | A | 4 + | A | 8 + i ( A A + A A ) , we obtain
1 4 3 | A | 4 + A A + 1 2 | A | 4 + | A | 8 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 1 + 2 4 w | A | 4 + | A | 8 + i ( A A + A A < 1 2 w | A | 4 + | A | 8 + i ( A A + A A .
Similarly, if 1 4 3 | A * | 4 + A A 2 4 w | A * | 4 + | A * | 8 + i ( A A + A A ) , we obtain
1 4 3 | A * | 4 + A A + 1 2 | A * | 4 + | A * | 8 1 2 A A + A A 1 2 1 + 2 4 w | A * | 4 + | A * | 8 + i ( A A + A A < 1 2 w | A * | 4 + | A * | 8 + i ( A A + A A .
Now, we give an example to show that there is A CR ( H ) such that inequalities (43) and (44) hold. Consider A = 0 2 0 0 . Then,
1 4 3 | A | 4 + A A = 12 < 96.167 2 4 w | A | 4 + | A | 8 + i ( A A + A A
and
1 4 3 | A * | 4 + A A = 12 < 96.167 2 4 w | A * | 4 + | A * | 8 + i ( A A + A A .
Next, we provide numerical examples to illustrate that the upper bounds of the Davis–Wieldant radius obtained by Corollary 1, Corollary 3 and Corollary 4 are generally not comparable.
Remark 11.
Let A 1 = 0 1 0 0 , A 2 = 0 2 0 0 , and A 3 = 1 1 0 0 . Then, the upper bounds of the Davis–Wieldant radii in Corollary 1, Corollary 3, and Corollary 4 are as shown in Table 1.

Author Contributions

X.D. wrote the main manuscript; Y.G. and D.W. were primarily responsible for proposing concepts and revising manuscripts; X.D. and D.W. were responsible for securing funding. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of this manuscript.

Funding

The research is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Inner Mongolia (Grant Nos. 2023QN01012, 2023MS01011), the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Introduced High-level Talent Scientific Research Support Project, and the University Talent Research Start-up Fund of the Inner Mongolia University of Technology.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in this article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to the anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions and comments which have greatly improved this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Gustafson, K.E.; Rao, D.K.M. Numerical Range: The Field of Values of Linear Operators and Matrices; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  2. Horn, R.A.; Johnson, C.R. Topics in Matrix Analysis; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  3. Goldberg, M.; Tandmor, E. On the numerical radius and its applications. Linear Algebra Appl. 1982, 42, 263–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Groetsch, C.W. Generalized Inverses of Linear Operators: Representation and Approximation; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  5. Sababheh, M.; Djordjević, D.S.; Moradi, H.R. Numerical radius and norm bounds via the Moore-Penrose inverse. Complex Anal. Oper. Theory 2024, 18, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bhunia, P.; Kittaneh, F.; Sahoo, S. Improved numerical radius bounds using the Moore-Penrose inverse. Linear Algebra Appl. 2025, 711, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Corach, G.; Maestripieri, A. Weighted generalized inverses, oblique projections, and least-squares problems. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 2005, 26, 659–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fongi, G.; Gonzalez, M. Moore-Penrose inverse and partial orders on Hilbert space operators. Linear Algebra Appl. 2023, 674, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Toeplitz, O. Das algebraische Analogon zu einem Satze von Fejér. Math. Z. 1918, 2, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Abu-Omar, A.; Kittaneh, F. A generalization of the numerical radius. Linear Algebra Appl. 2019, 569, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bhunia, P.; Paul, K. Some improvements of numerical radius inequalities of operators and operator matrices. Linear Multilinear Algebra 2022, 70, 1995–2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zamani, A. Characterization of numerical radius parallelism in C*-algebras. Positivity 2019, 23, 397–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zamani, A.; Wójcik, P. Another generalization of the numerical radius for Hilbert space operators. Linear Algebra Appl. 2021, 609, 114–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chandra Rout, N.; Sahoo, S.; Mishra, D. Some A-numerical radius inequalities for semi-Hilbertian space operators. Linear Multilinear Algebra 2020, 69, 980–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, J.; Wu, D.; Chen, A. The upper bounds of the numerical radius on Hilbert C*-modules. Axioms 2025, 14, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Guesba, M. Some generalizations of A-numerical radius inequalities for semi-Hilbert space operators. Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. 2021, 14, 681–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Davis, C. The shell of a Hilbert space operator. Acta Sci. Math. 1968, 29, 69–86. [Google Scholar]
  18. Wielandt, H. On eigenvalues of sums of normal matrices. Pacific J. Math. 1955, 5, 633–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zamani, A.; Moslehian, M.S.; Chien, M.-T.; Nakazato, H. Norm-parallelism and the Davis-Wielandt radius of Hilbert space operators. Linear Multilinear Algebra 2019, 67, 2147–2158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dong, X.; Wu, D. Davis-Wielandt radius inequalities for off-diagonal operator matrices. Linear Multilinear Algebra 2023, 71, 1158–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bhunia, P.; Paul, K.; Barik, S. Further refinements of Davis-Wielandt radius inequalities. Oper. Matrices 2023, 17, 767–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zamani, A.; Shebrawi, K. Some upper bounds for the Davis-Wielandt radius of Hilbert space operators. Mediterr. J. Math. 2020, 17, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bhunia, P.; Bhanja, A.; Bag, S.; Paul, K. Bounds for the Davis-Wielandt radius of bounded linear operators. Ann. Funct. Anal. 2021, 12, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bhunia, P.; Bhanja, A.; Paul, K. New inequalities for Davis–Wielandt radius of Hilbert space operators. Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 2021, 2, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Alomari, M.W. On the Davis-Wielandt radius inequalities of Hilbert space operators. Linear Multilinear Algebra 2023, 71, 1804–1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Alomari, M.W.; Bakherad, M.; Hajmohamadi, M. A generalization of the Davis-Wielandt radius for operators. Bol. Soc. Mat. Mex. 2024, 30, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Moghaddam, S.F.; Mirmostafaee, A.K.; Janfada, M. Some sharp estimations for Davis-Wielandt radius in B(H). Mediterr. J. Math. 2022, 19, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Guesba, M.; Barik, S.; Bhunia, P.; Paul, K. A-Davis-Wielandt radius bounds of semi-Hilbertian space operators. Bull. Iran. Math. Soc. 2024, 50, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kittaneh, F. Notes on some inequalities for Hilbert space operators. Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 1988, 24, 283–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Khosravi, M.; Drnovsek, R.; Moslehian, M.S. A commutator approach to Buzano’s inequality. Filomat 2012, 26, 827–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Buzano, M.L. Generalizzazione della diseguaglianza di Cauchy-Schwarz. Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Politech. Torino. 1974, 31, 405–409. [Google Scholar]
  32. Aldolat, M.; Kittaneh, F. Upper bounds for the numerical radii of powers of Hilbert space operators. Quaest. Math. 2024, 47, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, C.-K.; Poon, Y.-T.; Sze, N.S. Davis-Wielandt shells of operators. Oper. Matrices 2008, 2, 341–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. El-Haddad, M.; Kittaneh, F. Numerical radius inequalities for Hilbert space operators. II. Stud. Math. 2007, 182, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. The upper bounds of the Davis–Wieldant radii.
Table 1. The upper bounds of the Davis–Wieldant radii.
dw 2 ( A 1 ) dw 2 ( A 2 ) dw 2 ( A 3 )
Corollary 11.41416.4925.843
Corollary 31.25175.457
Corollary 41.25205.744
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dong, X.; Guo, Y.; Wu, D. New Bounds for the Davis–Wielandt Radius via the Moore–Penrose Inverse of Bounded Linear Operators. Axioms 2025, 14, 439. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms14060439

AMA Style

Dong X, Guo Y, Wu D. New Bounds for the Davis–Wielandt Radius via the Moore–Penrose Inverse of Bounded Linear Operators. Axioms. 2025; 14(6):439. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms14060439

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dong, Xiaomei, Yuzhen Guo, and Deyu Wu. 2025. "New Bounds for the Davis–Wielandt Radius via the Moore–Penrose Inverse of Bounded Linear Operators" Axioms 14, no. 6: 439. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms14060439

APA Style

Dong, X., Guo, Y., & Wu, D. (2025). New Bounds for the Davis–Wielandt Radius via the Moore–Penrose Inverse of Bounded Linear Operators. Axioms, 14(6), 439. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms14060439

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop