Let
be the linear algebra of a Hilbert space
of dimension at least two. We have seen that there does not exist an algebra homomorphism
. This suggests that the commutativity index of
is very low, or equivalently that its noncommutativity index is very high. To make this precise, we want to determine the center of 
Definition 6.1. Given a subalgebra
of
, a subspace
of
is said to be
–invariant if for every
and every
we have 
Proposition 6.1. If
is an
-invariant subspace, then either
or 
Problem 6.1. Prove Proposition 6.1.
Theorem 6.2. The center of
is the set
of scalar operators.
Proof: Let
be a central element, and let
be an eigenvalue of
By definition, this means that
is not invertible in
which is equivalent to saying that
is a nonzero subspace of
. We claim that, because
is a central element in
the
-eigenspace of
is
-invariant. Indeed, for any
we have

which shows that
is again in the
-eigenspace of
Since this space has positive dimension, Proposition 6.1 forces
so that
for every 
-QED
Having understood the center of
let us consider arbitrary commutative subalgebras of
These can be understood using the Spectral Theorem from Math 202A, which may be stated as follows.
Theorem 6.3. If
are commuting normal operators, then there exists an orthonormal basis
such that 
Since
is isomorphic to
, we can combine the above formulation of the Spectral Theorem with the characterization of commutative algebras obtained in Lecture 1 and the classification of subalgebras of function algebras obtained in Lecture 3 to prove the following.
Theorem 6.4. Every commutative subalgebra of
is isomorphic to a function algebra.
Proof: Let
be a subalgebra of
Since
is a vector space, it has a basis
where
If
is commutative, all of its elements are normal (Theorem 1.3 in Lecture 1), and the basis
of
consists of commuting normal operators. By Theorem 6.3, there exists an orthonormal basis
such that
, and therefore
is a subalgebra of
. Since
is isomorphic to the function algebra
and since every subalgebra of
is isomorphic to a function algebra (Lecture 3), it follows that
is isomorphic to a function algebra.
In fact, we can be more precise (though we don’t need to be):
is isomorphic to
for some partition
of
and we can describe this partition in terms of the eigenspaces of the commuting normal operators
. Namely, each of the operators
,
induces a partition
of
such that
belong to the same block of
if and only if they belong to the same eigenspace of
Letting
be the coarsest partition of
finer than all of the
‘s, a little thought reveals that
is isomorphic to 
-QED
As we have just seen, for any commutative subalgebra
of
the spectral theorem guarantees a corresponding decomposition of
into a direct sum of orthogonal one-dimensional subspaces on which
acts diagonally. If
is a noncommutative subalgebra of
, this is no longer the case. Nevertheless, we can consider the set of all
-invariant subspaces of
which is an induced sublattice of the lattice of all subspaces of
, since the intersection of two
-invariant subspaces is again
-invariant, and likewise the span of the union of two
-invariant subspaces is again
-invariant (exercise: check these statements). For any subalgebra
, the lattice of
-invariant subspaces contains at least
and
An important theorem of Burnside characterizes subalgebras of
for which this minimum is achieved.
Theorem 6.5. (Burnside) A subalgebra
of
has exactly two invariant subspaces if and only if 
Proof: An elementary proof of Burnside’s theorem by induction in the dimension of
can be found here.
-QED
Corollary 6.6. A proper subalgebra
of
has at least four invariant subspaces.
Proof: The zero space and the total space are
-invariant, and since
there is a third
-invariant subspace
by Burnside’s theorem. The orthogonal complement
of
is again a nonzero proper subspace of
and we claim it is
-invariant. Indeed, let
and
Then, for any
we have

where we used the fact that
is
-invariant. This shows
i.e.
is
-invariant.
– QED
We can attempt to classify subalgebras of
by adapting our approach to the classification of subalgebras of
where we looked at subalgebras of
corresponding to partitions of the set
To emulate this approach, we need the Hilbert space analogue of a set partition, in which “nonempty” is replaced with “nonzero” and “disjoint” becomes “orthogonal.”
Definition 6.2. A linear partition of
is a set
of nonzero pairwise orthogonal subspaces of
whose union spans
We refer to the subspaces
as the blocks of
and write

Given a linear partition
of
we define
to be the set of all operators
such that every block
is
-invariant.
Problem 6.2. Prove that
is a subalgebra of 
Here our construction starts to diverge from what we saw in the setting of function algebras: unless
is the linear partition of
consisting of a single block, in which case
the subalgebra
is definitely not isomorphic to the algebra of all linear operators on a Hilbert space. Indeed, consider the case where
is a linear partition of
with two blocks, i.e.
. Let
be an ordered basis of
and let
be an ordered basis of
Then
is an ordered basis of
, and
consists of all operators in
whose matrix relative to this ordered basis has the form
![[A]_{(e_1,\dots,e_m,f_1,\dots,f_n)}=\begin{bmatrix} M_1 & {} \\ {} & M_2 \end{bmatrix},](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5BA%5D_%7B%28e_1%2C%5Cdots%2Ce_m%2Cf_1%2C%5Cdots%2Cf_n%29%7D%3D%5Cbegin%7Bbmatrix%7D+M_1+%26+%7B%7D+%5C%5C+%7B%7D+%26+M_2+%5Cend%7Bbmatrix%7D%2C&bg=FFFFFF&fg=000&s=0&c=20201002)
with
and
Thus,
is not isomorphic to a linear algebra, but rather to a direct sum of linear algebras,

The question now is whether the above can reversed: given a subalgebra
of
does there exist a linear partition
such that
? If
the answer is clearly “yes” since we have
Thus we consider the case where
is a proper subalgebra of
Our starting point is Burnside’s theorem, which guarantees the existence of an
-invariant subspace
. Together with the corollary to Burnside’s theorem, we thus have a linear partition
of
whose blocks are
-invariant. We now ask whether
has a proper non-trivial subspace invariant under
. If it does we can split it into the orthogonal direct sum of two smaller
-invariant subspaces; if not
is said to be
–irreducible. Continuing this process, for both
and
, we get the following.
Theorem 6.7. (Maschke’s theorem) There exists a linear partition
of
whose blocks are
-invariant and
-irreducible subspaces.
Now consider the linear partition
of
into
-invariant,
-irreducible subspaces we have constructed. It is tempting to hope that
Unfortunately, this is not quite correct. For example, consider the case where
is a Hilbert space of even dimension
Let
be an othornormal basis of
, and consider the set
of all operators
such that

Then
is a subalgebra of
– it consists of all operators whose matrix in the basis
is block diagonal with two identical blocks. Now
, where
and
and this is a linear partition of
into
-invariant and
-irreducible subspaces. However, the algebra
is not
— it is the larger algebra of operators whose matrix relative to
is block diagonal, but not necessarily with both blocks being the same. In other words
consists of all matrices of the form

whereas
consists of all matrices of the form

To account for the above situation, we need a notion of equivalence for
-invariant subspaces of
.
Definition 6.3. We say that two
-invariant subspaces
of
are
-equivalent if we can choose bases in
and
such that, for every
the matrix of the restriction of
to
is the same as the matrix of the restriction of of
to 
Now let
be a set parameterizing equivalence classes of
-invariant and
-irreducible subspaces of
For each
let
be a representative of the the equivalence class corresponding to
The following result is a very simple version of the Artin-Wedderburn theorem. We will eventually prove this theorem for a special class of algebras coming from finite groups.
Theorem 6.8. We have 