On Tensor Products of Bounded Linear Operators

Abstract

This paper studies tensor products of bounded linear operators on Hilbert spaces. It establishes bilinearity of the tensor product mapping and shows that key operator properties, including rank-one, finite-rank, compactness, and injectivity, are preserved under tensorization. Spectral behavior is analyzed at the level of eigenvalues, where multiplicativity is obtained. In addition, a structural decomposition for tensor products involving bounded and diagonal operators is derived. The paper also shows that compactness is preserved under tensor products when both factor operators are compact, and in particular when one factor is compact and the other acts on a finite-dimensional space. These results provide a coherent and systematic framework for understanding tensor products of bounded linear operators and lay a foundation for further developments in spectral theory.

Share and Cite:

Omamo, A.O. , Omoke, P.M. and Kangogo, W. (2026) On Tensor Products of Bounded Linear Operators. Open Access Library Journal, 13, 1-1. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1115393.

1. Introduction

In study of theory of composite systems of Hilbert spaces, the theory of tensor products of bounded linear operators forms the center of attention. Considering Hilbert spaces, say H and K , and operators DB( H ) and EB( K ) , the product DE is a bounded operator on HK , and the properties of operators can be applied to product spaces. Tensor products have been widely studied in spectral theory, operator spaces, and multilinear analysis (Ichinose, [1]; Paulsen & Smith [2]; Blecher & Paulsen [3]; Kubrusly & Vieira [4]. These studies establish that tensor products preserve fundamental properties such as boundedness and continuity, and provide tools for analyzing operator behavior in product spaces.

In addition, tensor products play a significant role in understanding operator norms, numerical ranges, and spectral characteristics. Several works have examined inequalities and structural properties associated with tensor products (Gau, Wang, & Wu [5]; Saito [6]; Dash [7], highlighting their importance in both matrix analysis and operator theory. Related studies on numerical radius and operator inequalities (Shebrawi & Albadawi [8]; Bhunia & Paul [9]; Bhunia, Paul, & Sen [10]) further demonstrate the rich interplay between tensor structures and operator behavior.

Despite these advances, a unified structural characterization of tensor products of bounded linear operators particularly concerning preservation of operator classes and structural decomposition remains limited. While previous work has addressed specific aspects such as spectral inequalities or numerical radius bounds (Hirzallah, Kittaneh, & Shebrawi [11]; Ismailov & Ipek [12]), a systematic framework integrating algebraic, analytical, and structural properties under tensorization is still lacking.

Motivated by this gap, this paper develops a systematic framework for understanding tensor products of bounded linear operators on Hilbert spaces. Specifically, we establish bilinearity of the tensor product mapping and show that tensor products preserve key operator classes, including rank-one, finite-rank, and compact operators. We derive spectral properties at the level of eigenvalues, demonstrating their multiplicativity, and prove that injectivity is preserved under tensor products. Define the algebraic tensor product and the completed Hilbert tensor product separately at first mention. Let HK denote the algebraic tensor product, consisting of finite linear combinations of elementary tensors, and let HK denote its Hilbert space completion under the induced inner product.

Then state explicitly that for DB( H ) and EB( K ) , the operator DE is first defined on the algebraic tensor product HK by

( DE )( xy )=( Dx )( Ey ),xH,yK,

Extended linearly to all of HK , and then extended uniquely by continuity to a bounded linear operator on the completed tensor product HK . Finally, we provide a detailed characterization of rank-one operators and their tensor products, including explicit norm computations.

These results provide a unified framework that integrates algebraic, structural, and analytical properties of tensor products of operators, forming a foundation for further investigations in spectral theory.

2. Preliminaries

Assume that the Hilbert space H and K are complex. The Banach algebras of bounded operators on H and K are denoted as B( H ) and B( K ) respectively, equipped with the operator norm, D = sup x =1 Dx , DB( H ) . And the space of compact operators denoted by K( H ) .

2.1. Tensor Product of Hilbert Spaces

Let H and K be complex Hilbert spaces.

We first distinguish between the algebraic tensor product and the completed Hilbert tensor product. The algebraic tensor product, denoted by HK , consists of all finite linear combinations of elementary tensors of the form

u= i=1 n x i y i , x i H, y i K.

Define an inner product on elementary tensors by

x 1 y 1 , x 2 y 2 = x 1 , x 2 H y 1 , y 2 K ,

and extend it linearly to HK .

The Hilbert tensor product HK is then defined as the completion of HK with respect to the norm induced by this inner product (Ryan [13]). This construction yields a Hilbert space suitable for the study of composite operator systems.

2.2. Tensor Product of Operators

Let DB( H ) and EB( K ) . The tensor product operator DE is first defined on the algebraic tensor product HK by

( DE )( xy )=( Dx )( Ey ),xH,yK,

And extended linearly to all of HK (Ryan [13]).

Moreover, the operator satisfies the norm inequality

DE D E (Gau, Wang, & Wu [5]),

which shows that DE is bounded on HK .

Therefore, DE extends uniquely by continuity to a bounded linear operator on the completed Hilbert tensor product HK (Ryan [13]; Kubrusly & Vieira [4]).

2.3. Fundamental Properties

The tensor product of bounded linear operators satisfies the following properties:

(i) Bilinearity

The mapping ( D,E )DE is linear in each argument (Paulsen & Smith, [2]).

(ii) Adjoint Compatibility

( DE ) * = D * E * (Kubrusly & Vieira, [4]).

(iii) Compactness Preservation

If DK( H ) and EK( K ) , then DEK( HK ) .

2.4. Rank-One Operators

An operator that is rank one between a normed space, X , and Y is defined as P( x )=ϕ( x )y , where ϕ X * and yY .

P( x )=ϕ( x )y , where ϕ X * and yY . Such operators are bounded and satisfy P = ϕ y (Bhunia & Paul, [9]).

3. Main Results

Proposition 3.1

Suppose DB( H ) and EB( K ) . Define the mapping Φ:B( H )×B( K )B( HK ) , Φ( D,E )=DE . Then Φ is bilinear.

Proof

To establish bilinearity, we show that the mapping is linear in each argument separately.

Linearity in the First Variable

Fix EB( K ) . Define the operator P ( D,E ) on elementary tensors by

P ( D,E ) ( xy )=( Dx )( Ey ),xH,yK.

Let D 2 B( H ) and α,β . Then for each elementary tensor xyHK , we get

( ( α D 1 +β D 2 )E )( xy )=( ( α D 1 +β D 2 )x )( Ey ).

Using linearity of operators,

α( D 1 x )( Ey )+β( D 2 x )( Ey )=α( D 1 E )( xy )+β( D 2 E )( xy ).

Hence, ( α D 1 +β D 2 )E=α( D 1 E )+β( D 2 E ) on elementary tensors. By linearity, this identity extends to finite sums in HK , and by continuity to completed tensor product space HK .

Furthermore, since norm satisfies

DE D E ,

the operator extends continuously. Therefore, the mapping DDE is linear.

Linearity in the Second Variable

Now fix DB( H ) . Let E 1 , E 2 B( K ) and α,β . For each ( xyHK ) ,

( D( α E 1 +β E 2 ) )( xy )=Dx( ( α E 1 +β E 2 )y ).

Using linearity in K,

=Dx( α E 1 y+β E 2 y ) =α( Dx E 1 y )+β( Dx E 2 y ) =α( D E 1 )( xy )+β( D E 2 )( xy ).

Thus, D( α E 1 +β E 2 )=α( D E 1 )+β( D E 2 ) on HK , and by continuity, on HK . Given that the function is linear in both arguments, it follows that Φ is bilinear.

Proposition 3.2

Suppose DB( H ) and EB( K ) . Let xH and yK are eigenvectors of D and E, respectively, such that Dx=λx and Ey=μy , for some scalars λ,μ . Then ( DE )( xy )=( λμ )( xy ) , therefore xy is an eigenvector of DE with eigenvalue λμ .

Proof

According to the tensor product of operators definition, we have

( DE )( xy )=( Dx )( Ey ).

Using the eigenvector relations Dx=λx and Ey=μy , it can be seen that

( DE )( xy )=( λx )( μy ).

By the bi-linearity of the tensor product, scalar multiplication can be factored out as

( λx )( μy )=λμ( xy ).

Therefore, ( DE )( xy )=λμ( xy ) , this demonstrates that xy is an eigenvector of DE with eigenvalue λμ .

Proposition 3.3

Let DB( H ) and EB( K ) be finite-rank operators. Then the tensor product operator DEB( HK ) is also finite-rank. Moreover, rank( DE )rank( D )rank( E ) .

Proof. Since D is a finite-rank operator, Ran( D ) is finite-dimensional. Choose a basis

{ u 1 , u 2 ,, u m }

for Ran( D ) , where m=rank( D ) . Similarly, since E is finite-rank, choose a basis

{ v 1 , v 2 ,, v n }

for Ran( E ) , where n=rank( E ) .

Let xyHK be an elementary tensor. By definition of the tensor product operator,

( DE )( xy )=DxEy.

Since DxRan( D ) and EyRan( E ) , there exist scalars α i , β j such that

Dx= i=1 m α i u i ,Ey= j=1 n β j v j .

Therefore,

( DE )( xy )=( i=1 m α i u i )( j=1 n β j v j ).

Using bilinearity of the tensor product, we obtain

( DE )( xy )= i=1 m j=1 n α i β j ( u i v j ).

Hence,

( DE )( xy )span{ u i v j :1im,1jn }.

By linearity, the same inclusion holds for every element of the algebraic tensor product HK , since every element of HK is a finite linear combination of elementary tensors. Thus,

( DE )( HK )span{ u i v j :1im,1jn }.

Let

M=span{ u i v j :1im,1jn }.

Then M is finite-dimensional, and hence closed in HK . Since HK is dense in HK and DE is bounded, for every zHK there exists a sequence ( z r )HK such that z r z . Therefore,

( DE ) z r ( DE )z.

But each ( DE ) z r M , and since M is closed, it follows that

( DE )zM.

Hence,

Ran( DE )M.

Consequently,

rank( DE )=dimRan( DE )dimMmn=rank( D )rank( E ).

Therefore, DE is finite-rank.

rank( DE )rank( D )rank( E ).

Lemma 3.4

Let DK( H ) and EK( K ) be compact operators. Then the tensor product operator DEK( HK ) is also compact.

Proof

Since D and E are compact operators, there exist sequences of finite-rank operators D n B( H ) and E m B( K ) such that

D n D 0and E m E 0.

Consider the difference

DE D n E m .

We decompose this expression as

DE D n E m =D( E E m )+( D D n ) E m .

Using the operator norm inequality

AB A B ,

we obtain

DE D n E m D( E E m ) + ( D D n ) E m .

Hence,

DE D n E m D E E m + D D n E m .

Next, select m big enough to make E E m arbitrarily small, and then select n big enough to make D D n arbitrarily small. It follows that

D n E m DE

in the operator norm.

By Proposition 3.3, each operator E m is finite-rank, and hence compact. The norm limit of compact operator is compact since the set K( HK ) of compact operators is closed in the operator norm, it follows that the norm limit of compact operators is compact.

Therefore,

DEK( HK ).

Corollary 3.5

Let KK( H ) be a compact operator and DB( n ) be a diagonal operator on the finite-dimensional space n . Then the tensor product operator KDB( H n ) is compact.

Proof

Since n is finite-dimensional, every bounded linear operator on n is compact. Hence,

DK( n ).

Given that KK( H ) , by Lemma 3.4 it implies that

KDK( H n ).

Therefore, KD is compact.

Remark 3.6.

Corollary 3.5 should not be interpreted as a necessary and sufficient compactness condition for diagonal operators on 2 . It only states that if one operator is compact and the other acts on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, then their tensor product is compact.

A full necessary and sufficient condition for compactness of diagonal operators on 2 requires a separate result, namely that a diagonal operator D=diag( λ n ) on 2 is compact if and only if λ n 0 .

Proposition 3.7.

Suppose UB( H ) and let DB( K ) be a diagonal operator with respect to an orthonormal basis { e α } αI of K , that is,

D e α = μ α e α ,αI.

Then

HK= αI ( Hspan{ e α } ),

and, under the natural identification

Hspan{ e α }H,x e α x,

the restriction of UD to Hspan{ e α } corresponds to μ α U . Consequently,

UD αI μ α U.

Proof

For each αI , define the subspace

M α =Hspan{ e α }.

Given that { e α } αI has an orthonormal basis of K , it follows that the subspaces { M α } αI are mutually orthogonal in HK . Moreover, finite linear combinations of elementary tensors of the form x e α , with xH , are dense in HK . Therefore,

HK= αI M α .

Now consider an elementary tensor x e α M α . According to tensor product of operators definition,

( UD )( x e α )=( Ux )( D e α ).

Using the diagonal structure of D ,

=( Ux )( μ α e α )= μ α ( Ux e α ).

Thus, each subspace M α is invariant under UD , and the restriction satisfies

( UD )| M α ( x e α )= μ α ( Ux e α ).

Under the natural isometric identification

Hspan{ e α }H,x e α x,

the restriction ( UD )| M α corresponds to the operator μ α U on H .

Since the subspaces M α are mutually orthogonal and their direct sum equals HK , it follows that

UD= αI μ α U.

Proposition 3.8

Let P=λ I H B( H ) be a scalar multiple of the identity operator, where λ . Let DB( K ) . Then:

i) PD=λ( I H D ) ,

ii) PD =| λ |  D .

Proof

Scalar Factorization

For any hH and kK , we compute on elementary tensors:

( PD )( hk )=P( h )D( k ).

Since P=λ I H , we have P( h )=λh , and hence

( PD )( hk )=( λh )D( k ).

By bi-linearity of the tensor product,

( λh )D( k )=λ( hD( k ) )=λ( I H D )( hk ).

Thus,

PD=λ( I H D )

on elementary tensors. Since elementary tensors are dense in HK , and both sides define bounded operators, the identity extends to all of HK .

Norm Equality

From part (i), we have

PD=λ( I H D ).

Taking norms and using homogeneity of the operator norm,

PD =| λ |  I H D .

We now compute I H D . By the general inequality for tensor products,

I H D I H D = D .

To obtain the reverse inequality, let ε>0 . Choose yK with y =1 such that

Dy > D ε.

Let xH , x =1 . Then

( I H D )( xy ) = xDy = x Dy = Dy > D ε.

Since xy =1 , it implies that

I H D D ε.

Letting ε0 , we obtain

I H D = D .

Therefore,

PD =| λ |  D .

Proposition 3.9

Let P 1 B( H 1 ) and P 2 B( H 2 ) be injective operators on Hilbert spaces H 1 and H 2 . Then their tensor product P 1 P 2 B( H 1 H 2 ) is also injective.

Proof

We first work on the algebraic tensor product H 1 H 2 . By bi-linearity of tensor products (Proposition 3.1), we may factor

P 1 P 2 =( P 1 I H 2 )( I H 1 P 2 )

on H 1 H 2 .

Kernel of I H 1 P 2

We claim that

ker( I H 1 P 2 )= H 1 ker( P 2 ).

Let

z= i=1 n x i y i H 1 H 2 ,

and suppose

( I H 1 P 2 )( z )= i=1 n x i P 2 y i =0.

Using standard linear algebra arguments, choose bounded linear functional { φ j } H 1 * that separate a linearly independent subset of { x i } . Applying φ j I H 2 , we obtain

i=1 n φ j ( x i ) P 2 y i =0forallj.

As a result of linear independence,

y i ker( P 2 ).

Hence z H 1 ker( P 2 ) , proving the claim.

If P 2 is injective, then ker( P 2 )={ 0 } , and therefore

ker( I H 1 P 2 )={ 0 }.

Thus I H 1 P 2 is injective on H 1 H 2 .

Kernel of P 1 I H 2

Similarly, one shows that

ker( P 1 I H 2 )=ker( P 1 ) H 2 .

Since P 1 is injective, ker( P 1 )={ 0 } , hence

ker( P 1 I H 2 )={ 0 }.

Thus P 1 I H 2 is injective on H 1 H 2 .

Extension to H 1 H 2

The preceding argument shows injectivity on the algebraic tensor product H 1 H 2 . However, injectivity on a dense subspace does not, by itself, guarantee injectivity of the continuous extension to the completed Hilbert tensor product.

To justify the extension, we use the standard Hilbert-space tensor product result that if AB( H 1 ) and BB( H 2 ) are injective bounded operators, then the induced operator

ABB( H 1 H 2 )

is also injective (Ryan [13]; Kubrusly & Vieira [4]).

Since P 1 B( H 1 ) and P 2 B( H 2 ) are injective, this result applies. Hence,

ker( P 1 P 2 )={ 0 }.

Therefore,

P 1 P 2

is injective on the completed Hilbert tensor product H 1 H 2 .

Lemma 3.10

Given normed spaces X and Y . Fix a bounded linear functional ϕ X * and a vector yY . Let rank-one operator be defined by P:XY , P( x )=ϕ( x )y . Then P is bounded and satisfies P = ϕ y .

Proof

For all xX , we estimate

P( x ) = ϕ( x )y =| ϕ( x ) | y .

Since ϕ is bounded, we get

| ϕ( x ) | ϕ x ,

and therefore

P( x ) ϕ x y .

Taking the supremum over xX with x =1 , gives

P ϕ y .

When we take the supremum over xX , x =1 , we obtain

P ϕ y

To establish the reverse inequality, first note that if ϕ=0 or y=0 , then P=0 , and the result is immediate. Assume therefore that ϕ0 and y0 .

By the definition of the dual norm, for each ε>0 , there exists x ε X with x ε =1 such that

| ϕ( x ε ) |> ϕ ε.

Next

P( x ε ) =| ϕ( x ε ) | y >( ϕ ε ) y .

Thus,

P ( ϕ ε ) y .

Letting ε0 , we obtain

Combining both inequalities yields

P = ϕ y .

Example 3.11

Let a,y n , and define the operator P: n n , P( x )=( a x )y , for each x n . Then P = a 2 y 2 .

Indeed, Let x n with x 2 =1 . Then P( x ) 2 = ( a x )y 2 =| a x | y 2 .

Using Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, | a x | a 2 x 2 = a 2 .

Hence, P( x ) 2 a 2 y 2

Taking the supremum over x , x 2 =1 , we obtain P a 2 y 2 .

To establish the reverse inequality, assume that a0 and y0 . Define

x= a a 2 , so that x 2 =1 . Then a x= a a a 2 = a 2 2 a 2 = a 2 .

Thus, P( x ) 2 =| a x | y 2 = a 2 y 2 .

Hence, P a 2 y 2 .

Combining both inequalities, we conclude that

P = a 2 y 2 .

Lemma 3.12

Let X 1 , X 2 , Y 1 , Y 2 be normed spaces. Let P 1 = ϕ 1 y 1 : X 1 Y 1 , P 2 = ϕ 2 y 2 : X 2 Y 2 be rank-one operators, where P 1 ( x )= ϕ 1 ( x ) y 1 . P 2 ( z )= ϕ 2 ( z ) y 2 with ϕ 1 X 1 * , ϕ 2 X 2 * , y 1 Y 1 , y 2 Y 2 . Then on the algebraic tensor product X 1 X 2 , P 1 P 2 =( ϕ 1 ϕ 2 )( y 1 y 2 ) , that is, ( P 1 P 2 )( u )=( ϕ 1 ϕ 2 )( u )( y 1 y 2 ) , u X 1 X 2 . Consequently, P 1 P 2 is a rank-one operator with Ran( P 1 P 2 )span{ y 1 y 2 } Y 1 Y 2 .

Proof

Let x X 1 and z X 2 . Then by definition of the tensor product of operators, ( P 1 P 2 )( xz )= P 1 ( x ) P 2 ( z ) .

Substituting the definitions of P 1 and P 2 , ( P 1 P 2 )( xz )=( ϕ 1 ( x )  y 1 )( ϕ 2 ( z )  y 2 ) .

By bilinearity of the tensor product, ( ϕ 1 ( x )  y 1 )( ϕ 2 ( z ) y 2 )= ϕ 1 ( x ) ϕ 2 ( z )( y 1 y 2 ) .

On the other hand, the tensor product functional satisfies ( ϕ 1 ϕ 2 )( xz )= ϕ 1 ( x ) ϕ 2 ( z ) .

Therefore, ( P 1 P 2 )( xz )=( ϕ 1 ϕ 2 )( xz )( y 1 y 2 ) .

By linearity, this identity extends to all u X 1 X 2 , so that ( P 1 P 2 )( u )=( ϕ 1 ϕ 2 )( u )( y 1 y 2 ) .

Thus, the image of every vector is a scalar multiple of y 1 y 2 , and hence Ran( P 1 P 2 )span{ y 1 y 2 } .

It follows that P 1 P 2 is a rank-one operator.

Finally, since P 1 P 2 P 1 P 2 = ϕ 1 y 1 ϕ 2 y 2 , the operator extends uniquely by continuity to the completed tensor product X 1 X 2 .

4. Extension to Banach Spaces

The results established in the preceding sections for Hilbert spaces extend naturally, in part, to the setting of Banach spaces. We briefly indicate how tensor product operators behave under the projective tensor norm.

Let X and Y be Banach spaces. Denote by XY the algebraic tensor product and by X ^ π Y its completion with respect to the projective tensor norm (Ryan [13]).

Proposition 4.1.

Let DB( X ) and EB( Y ) . Then the operator DE , defined on XY by

( DE )( xy )=DxEy,xX,yY,

extends uniquely to a bounded linear operator on the projective tensor product X ^ π Y , and satisfies

DE D E .

Proof.

By linearity, the operator DE extends to XY . Let u= i=1 n x i y i XY . Then

( DE )( u )= i=1 n D x i E y i .

By definition of the projective tensor norm,

u π =inf{ i=1 n x i y i :u= i=1 n x i y i }.

Hence,

( DE )( u ) π i=1 n D x i E y i D E i=1 n x i y i .

Taking the infimum over all such representations of u , we obtain

( DE )( u ) π D E u π .

Thus, DE is bounded on XY and extends uniquely by continuity to X ^ π Y (Ryan [13]).

Remark 4.2.

In contrast to the Hilbert space case, equality DE = D E does not necessarily hold for general Banach space tensor products, as it depends on the choice of tensor norm. This highlights a key distinction between Hilbert space tensor products and more general Banach space tensor constructions.

Proposition 4.3.

Let X and Y be Banach spaces, and let DK( X ) and EK( Y ) be compact operators. Then the tensor product operator

DE:X ^ π YX ^ π Y

is compact.

Proof.

Since D and E are compact operators, there exist sequences of finite-rank operators ( D n )B( X ) and ( E n )B( Y ) such that

D n D 0, E n E 0.

For each n , the operators D n and E n are finite-rank, hence D n E n is finite-rank on XY , and therefore extends to a finite-rank operator on X ^ π Y .

We now show that D n E n DE in operator norm. Observe that

DE D n E n =D( E E n )+( D D n ) E n .

Using the norm estimate from Proposition 5.1, we obtain

DE D n E n D E E n + D D n E n .

Since E n E , the sequence ( E n ) is bounded, and therefore the right-hand side tends to zero. Hence,

D n E n DE

in operator norm.

Since each D n E n is finite-rank (and hence compact), and the set of compact operators is closed in the operator norm, it follows that DE is compact.

5. Conclusion

This study develops a unified framework for tensor products of bounded linear operators, demonstrating the preservation of rank, compactness, and injectivity under tensorization. It provides specific insights into eigenvalue multiplicativity, compactness preservation under tensor products, and block decomposition of tensor products involving diagonal operators. These results enhance the structural understanding of tensor product operators. It is therefore recommended that further research be directed toward tensor product operators’ spectral characteristics.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Ichinose, T. (1975) Operational Calculus for Tensor Products of Linear Operators in Banach Spaces. Hokkaido Mathematical Journal, 4, 306-334.[CrossRef]
[2] Paulsen, V.I. and Smith, R.R. (1987) Multilinear Maps and Tensor Norms on Operator Systems. Journal of Functional Analysis, 73, 258-276.[CrossRef]
[3] Blecher, D.P. and Paulsen, V.I. (1991) Tensor Products of Operator Spaces. Journal of Functional Analysis, 99, 262-292.[CrossRef]
[4] Kubrusly, C.S. and Vieira, M.M. (2012) Tensor Products of Hilbert Space Operators. Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 437, 1307-1321.
[5] Gau, H., Wang, P.Y. and Wu, J. (2013) Numerical Radii of Tensor Products of Matrices. Linear and Multilinear Algebra, 63, 1916-1936.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237092110_Numerical_Radii_for_Tensor_Products_of_Matrices
[6] Saito, T. (1987) Numerical Ranges of Tensor Products of Operators. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 100, 255-260.
[7] Dash, A. (2013) Joint Numerical Ranges and Tensor Products of Operators. Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 438, 1047-1058.
[8] Shebrawi, K. and Albadawi, H. (2012) Numerical Radius and Operator Norm Inequalities. Journal of Inequalities and Applications, 2009, Article ID: 492154.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26620487_Numerical_Radius_and_Operator_Norm_Inequalities
[9] Bhunia, P. and Paul, K. (2018) On Numerical Radius Inequalities of Operators and Matrices. Operators and Matrices, 12, 739-753.
[10] Bhunia, P., Paul, K. and Sen, S. (2021) Numerical Radius Inequalities for Tensor Products of Operators. Linear and Multilinear Algebra, 69, 2305-2320.
[11] Hirzallah, O., Kittaneh, F. and Shebrawi, K. (2011) Numerical Radius Inequalities for Commutators of Operators. Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 435, 2249-2257.
[12] Ismailov, F. and Ipek, B. (2022) On the Gap between Spectral Radius, Norm, and Numerical Radius of Tensor Products. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 505, Article ID: 125558.
[13] Ryan, R.A. (2002) Tensor Products. In: Ryan, R.A., Ed., Introduction to Tensor Products of Banach Spaces, Springer, 1-13.[CrossRef]

Copyright © 2026 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.