Abstract
This paper investigates a generalization of the spherical numerical radius for a pair of bounded linear operators on a complex Hilbert space H. The generalized spherical numerical radius is defined as , . We derive lower bounds for involving combinations of B and C, where . Additionally, we establish upper bounds in terms of operator norms. Applications include the cases where , with denoting the adjoint of a bounded linear operator A, and , representing the real and imaginary parts of A, respectively. We also explore applications to the so-called Davis–Wielandt p-radius for , which serves as a natural generalization of the classical Davis–Wielandt radius for Hilbert-space operators.
Keywords:
generalized spherical numerical radius; bounded linear operators; operator pairs; Davis–Wielandt radius; operator norms; Hilbert space MSC:
47A12; 47A30; 46C99
1. Introduction
Let be a complex Hilbert space, where the norm induced by the inner product is denoted by . The -algebra of bounded linear operators on H is denoted by . For any operator , its adjoint is represented as , and we define , which is the positive square root of . The real and imaginary parts of A are given by and , respectively.
The operator norm and numerical radius of A are denoted by and , respectively. The operator norm is defined as
while the numerical radius is defined as
It is well known that the numerical radius defines a norm on , which is equivalent to the operator norm . Specifically, the following inequalities hold
For further insights into inequalities involving norms and numerical radii, readers may refer to [,,,,,,,,,] and the references therein.
For a pair of bounded linear operators on H, the spherical operator radius is given by:
As noted in [], defines a norm, and the following inequalities hold:
for , where the constants and 1 are optimal in (1). Additional results on the spherical operator radius can be found in [,,,] and the references therein.
Following [] (see also []), the Davis–Wielandt radius of an operator , denoted by , is defined as
It is evident that , and if and only if . For any scalar , the following relations hold: when , when , and when .
Moreover, the triangle inequality does not generally hold for all . However, it is valid when , as shown in Corollary 2.2 in []. Additionally, it is straightforward to verify that:
Zamani and Shebrawi in Theorem 2.1 [] demonstrated that:
Furthermore, in Theorems 2.13, 2.14, and 2.17 [], the authors established the following bounds:
and
for .
Recently, Bhunia et al. [] [Theorem 2.4] established the following upper bound:
for . Additionally, in [], the authors obtained inequalities for the sum of operators
for .
It is worth noting that for and , we have
Substituting and into (1), we obtain:
which provides both the upper bound from (3) and a corresponding lower bound.
In [], for , the concept of a generalized numerical radius for a pair of operators , known as the p-spherical numerical radius, was introduced as follows:
This concept generalizes two important notions: the Euclidean numerical radius for and the so-called diamond numerical radius for . Specifically, the diamond numerical radius is defined as
In other words, the p-spherical numerical radius we tested in our manuscript interpolates Euclidean numerical radius and diamond numerical radius as special cases, so that we could give the generalized results, including the existing ones. The Davis–Wielandt radius can be derived from the Euclidean numerical radius by choosing . This connection highlights that the spherical radius for naturally extends the Davis–Wielandt radius to values beyond .
Furthermore, in the section dedicated to applications for a single operator, the spherical radius yields several meaningful special cases. These cases provide upper bounds for the power p of the numerical radius , where . This demonstrates the versatility and utility of the spherical radius in unifying and extending various classical concepts in operator theory.
In 2017, Moslehian et al. [] established several fundamental inequalities for the p-spherical numerical radius of a pair of operators , as follows:
and
The authors of [] also applied their findings to the Cartesian decomposition of an operator, expressed as .
For , we define
For , we recover the standard Davis–Wielandt radius (2).
Building on the results mentioned above, this paper introduces new lower and upper bounds for the generalized p-spherical numerical radius and the spherical numerical radius of a pair of operators . We demonstrate that some of these bounds refine recent findings by other researchers. Additionally, we derive new inequalities for the Davis–Wielandt p-radius and the Davis–Wielandt radius as natural consequences. Applications for specific cases where and are also included.
Among other results, we establish the following lower bounds:
and
where , , , and .
We also establish the following upper bounds:
for , and for and , we have
where .
2. Main Results
In this paper, we build upon the results obtained in [] by providing several new lower bounds for in terms of various families of parameters, as well as upper bounds that generalize some results from [,,]. Moreover, we establish new inequalities involving families of parameters for the Davis–Wielandt radius, which are related to recent results obtained in [,].
In this section, we present our primary findings. We assume that throughout this discussion. Our first result is stated as follows.
Theorem 1.
Let and with and such that Then
and
Proof.
Using Hölder’s inequality, we determine for and with that
for all
If we take the power 2 and the supremum over , then we obtain
Similarly, we deduce that
This implies that
Remark 1.
If we set, for example, and in Theorem 1, then we obtain
and
Similar lower bounds can be derived for other choices of the parameters , where two of them are 0 and the others are either or . These cases are left to the interested reader.
To illustrate our result in Theorem 1, we give a numerical example which may be helpful for the readers to understand our result. Take
Then, we have
We also calculate
Thus, we obtain
Thus, the inequality
becomes
The above inequality holds, since is decreasing and if .
Next, we calculate
Thus, the inequality
becomes
The above inequality is also true.
If we take a simpler example such as Then, the inequality (10) becomes which is true. We can confirm that the equality holds when or . Also, the inequality (10) becomes
For simplicity, we consider the case with . For the case , the above inequality is true since is decreasing for and, using this, the inequality becomes . For the case , the inequality similarly becomes , which is true for .
The spherical case is of interest for applications.
Corollary 1.
Let with Then,
and
Remark 2.
Let and with and such that If we take and in Theorem 1, then we have
and
If we take in (14), then we obtain
If then by Corollary 1
and
If we set and in Theorem 1, then for , we deduce that
and
Remark 3.
If then by Corollary 1, we have
and
Let and with such that If we set and in Theorem 1, then
and
If then by Corollary 1, we deduce that
and
We have the following trigonometric inequalities as well:
and
where .
Remark 4.
To address the sharpness question in our lower bounds above, consider, for instance, the inequality
which holds for all . If we set , then we obtain the inequality
which is sharp. Indeed, if is a self-adjoint operator, both sides of the inequality yield the same quantity .
Let us emphasize that we have shown that for self-adjoint operators , equality is achieved in the bound
Thus, any numerical example such as
where are real numbers which will satisfy the equality, since this matrix is symmetric.
To establish some upper bounds for , we first need to recall Kato’s inequality [], which is given by
for , , and any .
Theorem 2.
For any and , we determine for that
and
Proof.
We determine by (30) that
for any , and .
By the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we obtain
for any , and
By McCarthy’s inequality for
We also have
and
for with
Therefore, by the geometric mean-arithmetic mean inequality
for with
We also have the following theorem.
Theorem 3.
For any , , we determine for and that
Proof.
For , we also determine for with that
Observe that for
and, similarly
By (38), we then obtain
for with
By taking the supremum over with in the last inequality, we obtain (37). □
Also, recall the following result for operator matrices, established by F. Kittaneh in [].
Lemma 1.
Let with Then, the operator matrix
is positive, if and only if
for all ,
Using this lemma, we can also state the following result.
Theorem 4.
Let with , , and
are positive. Then, for
and
Proof.
From Lemma 1, we have
and
for all
Therefore, we obtain
for all
We have
which proves the first inequality in (40).
By McCarthy’s inequality, we also have for that
and
giving that
which proves the second part of (40).
We also observe from the above that for
which, by taking the supremum over , gives (41). □
Remark 5.
Under the assumptions of Theorem 4, we observe that for , we obtain
and
For , we obtain the following inequalities for the spherical numerical radius:
and
Corollary 2.
For and , we have
and
Proof.
Observe that the operator matrices
and
are positive. The proof follows now by Theorem 4 by taking and □
Remark 6.
Under the assumptions of Corollary 2, we observe that for , we obtain
and
For , we obtain
and
From a different perspective, we also have the following theorem:
Theorem 5.
Let with and
are positive. Then,
where and
In particular, the following inequality for the spherical numerical radius holds
Proof.
We also determine for and that
Observe that for
and similarly,
for ,
By (43), we obtain
for ,
By taking the supremum over we obtain
which proves (42). □
We can also state the following corollary.
Corollary 3.
For and , we have
where and
In particular, the following inequality for the spherical numerical radius holds:
Proof.
The proof now follows by Theorem 5 by taking and □
Now, let us move on to some applications for the pair . We note that for , with and , we have
By (5), we then obtain for and with and such that that
If with then applying Corollary 1 with and , we obtain
and
For any , , and , we have by Theorem 2 with and that
and
The case gives for that
and
By Theorem 3, for any , , , and , we have
In particular, for ,
From Corollary 3 for and , we obtain
and
Now, if we take and , we obtain
From Corollary 3 we obtain for and that
where and
Now, if we take and then
where and
Our focus now shifts to presenting some applications for the Davis–Wielandt p-radius.
Let and with and such that Then by (5) for , we obtain
Let with Then, by Corollary 1 for , we obtain the following lower bounds for the Davis–Wielandt radius:
and
Further, we can provide the following upper bounds.
From Theorem 2 for , we obtain for any , and that
and
For , we obtain
and
for
In particular, for , we derive
and
For , we have the following upper bounds for the Davis–Wielandt radius
and
for
In particular, for , we obtain
and
From Theorem 3, for any and , we have, for and , that
which for gives
For , we obtain
and in particular,
We conclude this paper with some applications for the pair .
Let and . For the pair , we consider the functional
Observe that and if and only if .
Also, by the properties of the r-spherical numerical radius, we have for that
and for , we have
which shows that is a norm on
For , we put
For , we observe that
Let and with and such that Then, by (5) for , we have
If , then by (17), we obtain
Let with Then, by Corollary 1 with , we obtain
and
We determine for and from Theorem 2 that
and
For , we obtain
and
for
If we take then we have
For , we obtain
and
for
If we take then we obtain
From Theorem 3 we obtain for , and that
For , we derive that
for which gives for that
For , we obtain
for which gives for that
3. Conclusions
As we have seen, the authors have shown the lower and upper bounds for the generalized r–numerical radius for a pair of the bounded linear operators B and C. It is natural to consider the bounds of the following r–numerical radius introduced in [] for n–tuples of the bounded linear operators :
Then we can obtain the following bounds of by the usual numerical radius by using a proof similar to that of Theorems 1 and 2.
Proposition 1.
Let with and such that for any . For any and ,
Proof.
For any , by using the same method as in the proof of Theorem 1,
Taking the supremum over with , we obtain the result. □
Proposition 2.
Let and . For any ,
Proof.
We calculate by the same method as that used in the proof of Theorem 2,
Taking the power on both sides and the supremum over with , we obtain the result. □
We consider the case . To this end, we review that the following inequalities hold (e.g., [] [Theorem 2.11]):
for every unit vector and a positive operator A such that for positive scalars , where is often called the generalized Kantorovich constant and is given by
Then, we can obtain the following result.
Proposition 3.
Let and . For any such that and for some scalar and all . Then,
Proof.
We calculate by a method similar to that used in the proof of Proposition 2,
In the third inequality above, we used the first inequality in (44). Taking the power on both sides and the supremum over with , we obtain the result. □
From Proposition 2, we see that
In [], the following upper bounds have been established for :
and
It may be of interest to compare (45) with (46) and (47). By the convexity of the function for on , we have
Also, we easily observe that our inequality (45) coincides with the inequality (47) when . In addition, there is no general ordering between and for and . Of course, our inequality (45) and the inequality (47) have different conditions regarding p, so they should not be directly compared. However, we believe that there is no superiority or inferiority between the upper bounds in our inequality (45) and the inequality (47) for .
However, we would like to emphasize that the important point in the main results is that we precisely derive upper and lower bounds for the pair of operators.
Author Contributions
Authors declare that they have contributed equally to this paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP2025R187), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
The authors sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions, which have significantly enhanced this paper. Furthermore, the first author wishes to express her deep appreciation for the support received from the Distinguished Scientist Fellowship Program under Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP2025R187), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
- Bag, S.; Bhunia, P.; Paul, K. Bounds of numerical radius of bounded linear operators using t-Aluthge transform. Math. Inequal. Appl. 2020, 23, 991–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhunia, P.; Paul, K. Furtherance of numerical radius inequalities of Hilbert space operators. Arch. Math. 2021, 117, 537–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhunia, P.; Paul, K. Development of inequalities and characterization of equality conditions for the numerical radius. Linear Algebra Appl. 2021, 630, 306–315. [Google Scholar]
- Bhunia, P.; Paul, K. Proper improvement of well-known numerical radius inequalities and their applications. Results Math. 2021, 76, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhunia, P.; Paul, K. New upper bounds for the numerical radius of Hilbert space operators. Bull. Sci. Math. 2021, 167, 102959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dragomir, S.S. On the Boas-Bellman inequality in inner product spaces. Bull. Austral Math. Soc. 2004, 69, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirzallah, O.; Kittaneh, F.; Shebrawi, K. Numerical radius inequalities for certain 2×2 operator matrices. Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory 2011, 71, 129–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kittaneh, F. A numerical radius inequality and an estimate for the numerical radius of the Frobenius companion matrix. Studia Math. 2003, 158, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kittaneh, F. Numerical radius inequalities for Hilbert space operators. Studia Math. 2005, 168, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamazaki, T. On upper and lower bounds for the numerical radius and an equality condition. Studia Math. 2007, 178, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popescu, G. Unitary invariants in multivariable operator theory. Mem. Am. Math. Soc. 2009, 200, 91. [Google Scholar]
- Ammar, A.; Frakis, A.; Kittaneh, F. New bounds for the Euclidean operator radius of two Hilbert space operators with applications. Bol. Soc. Mat. Mex. 2024, 30, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dragomir, S.S. Some inequalities for the Euclidean operator radius of two operators in Hilbert spaces. Linear Algebra Its Appl. 2006, 419, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jana, S.; Bhunia, P.; Paul, K. Euclidean operator radius inequalities of a pair of bounded linear operators and their applications. Bull. Braz. Math. Soc. New Ser. 2023, 54, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jana, S.; Bhunia, P.; Paul, K. Euclidean operator radius and numerical radius inequalities. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2308.09252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, C. The shell of a Hilbert-space operator. Acta Sci. Math. 1968, 29, 69–86. [Google Scholar]
- Wielandt, H. On eigenvalues of sums of normal matrices. Pac. J. Math. 1955, 5, 633–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhunia, P.; Bhanja, A.; Bag, S.; Paul, K. Bounds for the Davis-Wielandt radius of bounded linear operators. Ann. Funct. Anal. 2021, 12, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zamani, A.; Shebrawi, K. Some upper bounds for the Davis-Wielandt radius of Hilbert space operators. Mediterr. J. Math. 2020, 17, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhunia, P.; Paul, K.; Batik, S. Further refinemenmts of Davis-Wieland radius inequalities. Oper. Matrices 2023, 17, 767–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dragomir, S.S. Some inequalities of Kato type for sequences of operators in Hilbert spaces. Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 2012, 48, 937–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moslehian, M.S.; Sattari, M.; Shebrawi, K. Extensions of Euclidean operator radius inequalities. Math. Scand. 2017, 120, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kato, T. Notes on some inequalities for linear operators. Math. Ann. 1952, 125, 208–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kittaneh, F. Notes on some inequalities for Hilbert space operators. Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 1988, 24, 283–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujii, M.; Hot, J.M.; Pečarić, J.; Seo, Y. Recent developments of Mond–Pečarić method in operator inequalities, Monographs in Inequalities. In Monographs in Inequalities; Element: Zagreb, Croatia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
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. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).