We have the formulas
∣p1∗∣=W(u)1/2(1)
b(u)=u∘W(u)1/2=u∘∣p1∗∣(2)
1E−b(u)∗b(u)=W(u)(3)
b(u)W(u)=W(u∗)b(u),b(u)W(u)1/2=W(u∗)1/2b(u)(4)
Let x∈E. Put y=W(u)(x)∈ dom(u∗u). We have y∈ dom(u) and u(y)∈ dom(u∗). For every element (y1,u(y1)) of Γu, where y1∈ dom(u), we compute
⟨(y,u(y))∣(y1,u(y1))⟩=⟨y∣y1⟩+⟨u(y)∣u(y1)⟩
=⟨y+u∗u(y)∣y1⟩=⟨x∣p1(y1,u(y1))⟩
This means that p1∗(x)=(y,u(y)), whence p1∘p1∗(x)=y=W(u)(x). Consequently, we have p1∘p1∗=W(u), hence ∣p1∗∣=W(u)1/2, that is, formula (1). In particular, since Im(p1) = Im(∣p1∗∣) by the Cor. to Prop. 11 of I, p. 140, it follows that dom(u) = Im(p1) = Im(W(u)1/2). The partial operator u∘W(u)1/2 therefore has the space E as domain. The relation p1∘j=(p1∗)∗∘j=∣p1∗∣=W(u)1/2 (Prop. 11, a) of I, p. 140) then implies that
b(u)=p2∘j=u∘p1∘j=u∘W(u)1/2
which is formula (2).
On has Ker(j) = Ker(∣p1∗∣) (prop. 10, b) of I, p. 139) and formula (1) therefore implies that the partial isometry j:E→Γu is injective, hence isometric, whence j∗∘j=1E. Writing j=(p1∘j,b(u)), we find
1E=j∗∘j=(p1∘j)∗(p1∘j)+b(u)∗b(u)=W(u)+b(u)∗b(u)
whence formula (3).
Let x∈ dom(u) and put y=W(u)(x). We have y∈ dom(u) and formula y+u∗u(y)=x implies that u∗u(y)∈ dom(u). We then have
W(u∗)−1(u(y))=(1E+uu∗)(u(y))
=u(y)+uu∗u(y)=u(y+u∗u(y))=u(x)
which means that the reduction of u∘W(u) to the domain of u is equal to W(u∗)∘u. Since the image of ∣p1∗∣ is equal to that of p1 (cor. of prop. 11 of I, p. 140) and hence to the domain of u, it follows that
u∘W(u)∘∣p1∗∣=W(u∗)∘u∘∣p1∗∣=W(u∗)∘b(u)
(formula (2)). Moreover, ∣p1∗∣=W(u)1/2 commutes with W(u), hence we obtain
b(u)∘W(u)=u∘∣p1∗∣∘W(u)=u∘W(u)∘∣p1∗∣=W(u∗)∘b(u)
This relation implies that b(u)∘f(W(u))=f(W(u∗))∘b(u) for every function f∈C(R+) (prop. 11 of I, p. 113), hence in particular that b(u)∘W(u)1/2=W(u∗)1/2∘b(u). This proves formula (4) and concludes the proof.
Bourbaki sets the proof directly after the statement, and the corpus does not separate them, so what is above is the statement and its proof together.
Nothing.
Nothing.