Compare commits

..
2 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
Bokuan Li f41c62ed3a Various fixes.
Compile Project / Compile (push) Successful in 52s
2026-10-19 23:15:16 -04:00
Bokuan Li 8c08308544 LET ME COOK 2026-10-19 22:38:39 -04:00
4 changed files with 53 additions and 26 deletions
+8 -8
View File
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ The following is a slight generalisation of one form of the above example, but s
\begin{proposition} \begin{proposition}
\label{proposition:multiply-completely-bounded} \label{proposition:multiply-completely-bounded}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra, $S, T \subset A$ be operator systems, and $\phi: S \to T$. If there exists $x \in A$ such that $\phi(s) = x\phi(s)x^*$ for all $s \in S$, then $\phi$ is completely positive. Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra, $S, T \subset A$ be operator systems, and $\phi: S \to T$. If there exists $x \in A$ such that $\phi(s) = xsx^*$ for all $s \in S$, then $\phi$ is completely positive.
\end{proposition} \end{proposition}
\begin{proposition} \begin{proposition}
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ The following is a slight generalisation of one form of the above example, but s
&= \sum_{i, j, k, l = 1}^n (E_{ij} \otimes a_{i, j})^*(E_{kl} \otimes a_{k, l}) = \sum_{i, j, k, l = 1}^n (E_{ji}E_{kl}) \otimes (a_{i, j}^* a_{k, l}) &= \sum_{i, j, k, l = 1}^n (E_{ij} \otimes a_{i, j})^*(E_{kl} \otimes a_{k, l}) = \sum_{i, j, k, l = 1}^n (E_{ji}E_{kl}) \otimes (a_{i, j}^* a_{k, l})
\end{align*} \end{align*}
For each $1 \le i, j, k, l \le n$, $E_{ji}E_{kl} = E_{il}$ if $i = k$, and $E_{ji}E_{kl} = 0$ otherwise. Thus after relabeling, For each $1 \le i, j, k, l \le n$, $E_{ji}E_{kl} = E_{jl}$ if $i = k$, and $E_{ji}E_{kl} = 0$ otherwise. Thus after relabeling,
\[ \[
P = \sum_{j, k, l = 1}^nE_{jl} \otimes (a_{k, j}^*a_{k, l}) = \sum_{k = 1}^n \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes (a_{k, i}^*a_{k, j}) P = \sum_{j, k, l = 1}^nE_{jl} \otimes (a_{k, j}^*a_{k, l}) = \sum_{k = 1}^n \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes (a_{k, i}^*a_{k, j})
\] \]
@@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ The following is a slight generalisation of one form of the above example, but s
\sum_{k = 1}^n E_{kk} \otimes \phi(T) = \sum_{k = 1}^n S_k(T \otimes 1_B)S_k^* \sum_{k = 1}^n E_{kk} \otimes \phi(T) = \sum_{k = 1}^n S_k(T \otimes 1_B)S_k^*
\] \]
What the above shows, is that, under the identification that What the above shows is that, under the identification that
\[ \[
M_n(\complex) \iso M_n(\complex) \otimes 1_B \subset M_n(B) M_n(\complex) \iso M_n(\complex) \otimes 1_B \subset M_n(B)
\] \]
@@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ The following is a slight generalisation of one form of the above example, but s
(Not Completely Positive): For each $1 \le i, j \le n$, $\text{Tr}(E_{ij}) = 1$ if and only if $i = j$. So the Choi matrix is given by (Not Completely Positive): For each $1 \le i, j \le n$, $\text{Tr}(E_{ij}) = 1$ if and only if $i = j$. So the Choi matrix is given by
\begin{align*} \begin{align*}
C_{ij} &= \phi_n\paren{\sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes E_{ij}} = \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes \phi(E_{ij}) \\ C_{\phi} &= \phi_n\paren{\sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes E_{ij}} = \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes \phi(E_{ij}) \\
&= \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes (\one_{\bracsn{i = j}} \otimes 1_{M_n(\complex)} - E_{ij}) \\ &= \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes (\one_{\bracsn{i = j}} \otimes 1_{M_n(\complex)} - E_{ij}) \\
&= \sum_{i = 1}^n E_{ii} \otimes 1_{M_n(\complex)} - \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes E_{ij} \\ &= \sum_{i = 1}^n E_{ii} \otimes 1_{M_n(\complex)} - \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes E_{ij} \\
&= 1_{M_n(\complex)} \otimes 1_{M_n(\complex)}- \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes E_{ij} &= 1_{M_n(\complex)} \otimes 1_{M_n(\complex)}- \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes E_{ij}
@@ -246,20 +246,20 @@ The following is a slight generalisation of one form of the above example, but s
\label{proposition:choi-kraus} \label{proposition:choi-kraus}
Let $\phi: M_n(\complex) \to M_m(\complex)$ be a completely positive map, then there exists $\bracsn{V_j}_1^{mn} \subset L(\complex^m; \complex^n)$ such that Let $\phi: M_n(\complex) \to M_m(\complex)$ be a completely positive map, then there exists $\bracsn{V_j}_1^{mn} \subset L(\complex^m; \complex^n)$ such that
\[ \[
\phi(a) = \sum_{j = 1}^{nk}V_j^* a V_j \phi(a) = \sum_{j = 1}^{mn}V_j^* a V_j
\] \]
for all $a \in M_n(\complex)$. for all $a \in M_n(\complex)$.
\end{proposition} \end{proposition}
\begin{proof} \begin{proof}
Let $(\pi, V, K)$ be a minimal Stinespring representation for $\phi$. Since $\phi(M_n(\complex))V\complex^m$ is dense in $K$, $K = \phi(M_n(\complex))V\complex^m$, and $\dim(K) \le n^2m$. Let $(\pi, V, K)$ be a minimal Stinespring representation for $\phi$. Since $\pi(M_n(\complex))V\complex^m$ is dense in $K$, $K = \pi(M_n(\complex))V\complex^m$, and $\dim(K) \le n^2m$.
As $M_n(\complex)$ is simple, the only (non-zero) irreducible representation of $M_n(\complex)$ is the identity. Since $(K, \pi)$ is a direct sum of irreducible representations, after appending additional factors, assume without loss of generality that $K = \bigoplus_{k = 1}^{nm}\complex^n$ and that $\pi(a) = I_{M_{mn}(\complex)} \otimes a$ for all $a \in M_n(\complex)$. As $M_n(\complex)$ is simple, the only (non-zero) irreducible representation of $M_n(\complex)$ is the identity. Since $(K, \pi)$ is a direct sum of irreducible representations, after appending additional factors, assume without loss of generality that $K = \bigoplus_{k = 1}^{nm}\complex^n$ and that $\pi(a) = I_{M_{mn}(\complex)} \otimes a$ for all $a \in M_n(\complex)$.
For each $1 \le k \le mn$, let $P_k \in B(K)$ be the orthogonal projection onto the subspace corresponding to the $k$-th summand, and $Q_k \in L(K; \complex^n)$ be the orthogonal projection onto the $k$-th summand itself, then For each $1 \le k \le mn$, let $P_k \in B(K)$ be the orthogonal projection onto the subspace corresponding to the $k$-th summand, and $Q_k \in L(K; \complex^n)$ be the orthogonal projection onto the $k$-th summand itself, then
\begin{align*} \begin{align*}
\phi(a) &= V^*\pi(a)V = \sum_{k = 1}^{mn}V^* (P_j\pi(a)P_j)V = \sum_{k = 1}^{mn}V^*Q_j^*aQ_jV \\ \phi(a) &= V^*\pi(a)V = \sum_{k = 1}^{mn}V^* (P_k\pi(a)P_k)V = \sum_{k = 1}^{mn}V^*Q_k^*aQ_kV \\
&= \sum_{k = 1}^{mn} (Q_jV)^* a (Q_jV) &= \sum_{k = 1}^{mn} (Q_kV)^* a (Q_kV)
\end{align*} \end{align*}
\end{proof} \end{proof}
+9 -1
View File
@@ -84,7 +84,15 @@
\braks{\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \norm{a_{ij}}_{A}^2}^{1/2} \le n\norm{a}_{M_n(A)} \braks{\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \norm{a_{ij}}_{A}^2}^{1/2} \le n\norm{a}_{M_n(A)}
\] \]
The sharp case is given by operators of the form $\sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes b$ for $b \in A$. The sharp case is given by operators of the form $E = \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes E_{ji}$\footnote{A minimum "complexity" of $M_n$ is required on $A$ for the sharp case to hold.}. As
\begin{align*}
\braks{\sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes E_{ji}}^*\braks{\sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes E_{ji}} &= \sum_{i, j, k, l = 1}^n E_{ij}E_{kl} \otimes E_{ji}E_{lk} \\
&= \sum_{i, j, l = 1}^n E_{il} \otimes E_{ji}E_{lj} = \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ii} \otimes E_{jj} \\
&= I_{M_n(\complex)} \otimes I_{M_n(\complex)} = I_{M_{n \times n}(\complex)}
\end{align*}
the operator $E$ is of norm $1$, but $\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \norm{E_{ji}}_{M_n(\complex)}^2 = n^2$.
(2): For any $a = \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes a_{ij} \in M_n(S)$, (2): For any $a = \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes a_{ij} \in M_n(S)$,
\begin{align*} \begin{align*}
+12 -12
View File
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@
&\le \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \norm{a^*a}_A \dpn{\phi(b_i^*b_j)\xi_j, \xi_i}{H} = \norm{a}_A^2 \cdot \norm{u + N}_{K_0}^2 &\le \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \norm{a^*a}_A \dpn{\phi(b_i^*b_j)\xi_j, \xi_i}{H} = \norm{a}_A^2 \cdot \norm{u + N}_{K_0}^2
\end{align*} \end{align*}
so $\norm{\pi(a)}_{B(K_0)} \le \norm{a}_A$. By the \hyperref[Linear Extension Theorem]{theorem:linear-extension-theorem-normed}, $\pi(a)$ extends uniquely to an operator in $B(H)$, and $\pi: A \to B(H)$ is a bounded linear map. so $\norm{\pi(a)}_{B(K_0)} \le \norm{a}_A$. By the \hyperref[Linear Extension Theorem]{theorem:linear-extension-theorem-normed}, $\pi(a)$ extends uniquely to an operator in $B(K)$, and $\pi: A \to B(K)$ is a bounded linear map.
By definition, $\pi$ is a unital homomorphism of Banach algebras. Finally, for any $a \in A$ and $b \otimes \xi, c \otimes \eta \in A \otimes H$, By definition, $\pi$ is a unital homomorphism of Banach algebras. Finally, for any $a \in A$ and $b \otimes \xi, c \otimes \eta \in A \otimes H$,
\begin{align*} \begin{align*}
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@
(3): If $\phi$ is unital, then for each $\xi \in H$, (3): If $\phi$ is unital, then for each $\xi \in H$,
\[ \[
\dpn{V\xi, V\xi}{H} = \dpn{1_A \otimes \xi, 1_A \otimes \xi}{\phi} = \dpn{\phi(1_A)\xi, \xi}{H} = \dpn{\xi, \xi}{H} \dpn{V\xi, V\xi}{K} = \dpn{1_A \otimes \xi, 1_A \otimes \xi}{\phi} = \dpn{\phi(1_A)\xi, \xi}{H} = \dpn{\xi, \xi}{H}
\] \]
so $V$ is an isometry. so $V$ is an isometry.
@@ -174,10 +174,10 @@
By minimality, $\pi_1(A)V_1H$ is dense in $K_1$, and $\pi_2(A)V_2H$ is dense in $K_2$. As such, it is sufficient to show that the mapping $\sum_{j = 1}^n \pi_1(a_j)V_1\xi_j \mapsto \sum_{j = 1}^n \pi_2(a_j)V_2\xi_j$ is a well-defined isometry. To this end, note that By minimality, $\pi_1(A)V_1H$ is dense in $K_1$, and $\pi_2(A)V_2H$ is dense in $K_2$. As such, it is sufficient to show that the mapping $\sum_{j = 1}^n \pi_1(a_j)V_1\xi_j \mapsto \sum_{j = 1}^n \pi_2(a_j)V_2\xi_j$ is a well-defined isometry. To this end, note that
\begin{align*} \begin{align*}
\norm{\sum_{j = 1}^n \pi_1(a_j)V_1\xi_j}_{K_1}^2 &= \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \dpn{\pi_1(a_j)V_1\xi_j, \pi_1(a_i)V_1\xi_j}{K_1} \\ \norm{\sum_{j = 1}^n \pi_1(a_j)V_1\xi_j}_{K_1}^2 &= \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \dpn{\pi_1(a_j)V_1\xi_j, \pi_1(a_i)V_1\xi_i}{K_1} \\
&= \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \dpn{V_1^*\pi_1(a_i^*a_j)V_1\xi_j, \xi_j}{H} = \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \dpn{\phi(a_i^*a_j)\xi_j, \xi_j}{H} \\ &= \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \dpn{V_1^*\pi_1(a_i^*a_j)V_1\xi_j, \xi_i}{H} = \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \dpn{\phi(a_i^*a_j)\xi_j, \xi_i}{H} \\
&= \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \dpn{V_2^*\pi_2(a_i^*a_j)V_2\xi_j, \xi_j}{H} \\ &= \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \dpn{V_2^*\pi_2(a_i^*a_j)V_2\xi_j, \xi_i}{H} \\
&= \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \dpn{\pi_2(a_j)V_2\xi_j, \pi_2(a_i)V_2\xi_j}{K_2} = \norm{\sum_{j = 1}^n \pi_2(a_j)V_2\xi_j}_{K_2}^2 &= \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \dpn{\pi_2(a_j)V_2\xi_j, \pi_2(a_i)V_2\xi_i}{K_2} = \norm{\sum_{j = 1}^n \pi_2(a_j)V_2\xi_j}_{K_2}^2
\end{align*} \end{align*}
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@
\item[(U)] For any unitary power dilation $(K', U')$ satisfying (1), there exists a unitary $V: K \to K'$ such that $V|_{H} = I_H$ and $VUV^* = U'$. \item[(U)] For any unitary power dilation $(K', U')$ satisfying (1), there exists a unitary $V: K \to K'$ such that $V|_{H} = I_H$ and $VUV^* = U'$.
\end{enumerate} \end{enumerate}
\end{theorem} \end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Constuctive proof without uniqueness, {{\cite[Theorem 1.1]{Paulsen}}}. ] \begin{proof}[Constructive proof without uniqueness, {{\cite[Theorem 1.1]{Paulsen}}}. ]
Using \autoref{lemma:bh-dilation-transitive}, it is sufficient to show the following statements: Using \autoref{lemma:bh-dilation-transitive}, it is sufficient to show the following statements:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)] \begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item For any $T \in B(H)$ with $\norm{T}_{B(H)} \le 1$, there exists an isometric power dilation of $T$. \item For any $T \in B(H)$ with $\norm{T}_{B(H)} \le 1$, there exists an isometric power dilation of $T$.
@@ -299,9 +299,9 @@
\phi: \complex[z, \ol z] \to B(H) \quad \phi(p + \ol q) = p(T) + q(T)^* \phi: \complex[z, \ol z] \to B(H) \quad \phi(p + \ol q) = p(T) + q(T)^*
\] \]
extends into a unital positive map $C(\mathbb{T}; \complex) \to B(H)$, which is completely positive by \hyperref[Stinespring's Theorem]{theorem:stinespring-commutative-completely-positive}. extends to a unital positive map $C(\mathbb{T}; \complex) \to B(H)$, which is completely positive by \hyperref[Stinespring's Theorem]{theorem:stinespring-commutative-completely-positive}.
Let $(\pi, W, K)$ be a minimal \hyperref[Stinespring representation]{theorem:stinespring-dilation} for $\phi$ and $U := \pi(z) \in U(B(K))$, then for each $n \in \natz$, Let $(\pi, V, K)$ be a minimal \hyperref[Stinespring representation]{theorem:stinespring-dilation} for $\phi$ and $U := \pi(z) \in U(B(K))$, then for each $n \in \natz$,
\[ \[
T^n = \phi(z^n) = P_H\pi(z^n)|_H = P_HU^n|_H T^n = \phi(z^n) = P_H\pi(z^n)|_H = P_HU^n|_H
\] \]
@@ -390,7 +390,7 @@
\begin{align*} \begin{align*}
\dpn{[p(T) + q(T)^*]\xi, \eta}{H} &= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} [p(e^{it}) + \ol{q(e^{it})}]\dpn{P(T; t)\xi, \eta}{H}dt \\ \dpn{[p(T) + q(T)^*]\xi, \eta}{H} &= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} [p(e^{it}) + \ol{q(e^{it})}]\dpn{P(T; t)\xi, \eta}{H}dt \\
&= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} [p(e^{it}) + \ol{q(e^{it})}]\dpn{\xi, \eta}{t}dt \\ &= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} [p(e^{it}) + \ol{q(e^{it})}]\dpn{\xi, \eta}{t}dt \\
|\dpn{[p(T) + q(T)^*]\xi, \eta}{H}| &\le \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} M\dpn{\xi, \xi}{t}^{1/2}\dpn{\eta, \eta}t^{1/2}dt\\ |\dpn{[p(T) + q(T)^*]\xi, \eta}{H}| &\le \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} M\dpn{\xi, \xi}{t}^{1/2}\dpn{\eta, \eta}{t}^{1/2}dt\\
&\le M\braks{\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\dpn{\xi, \xi}{t} dt}^{1/2}\braks{\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\dpn{\eta, \eta}{t} dt}^{1/2} &\le M\braks{\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\dpn{\xi, \xi}{t} dt}^{1/2}\braks{\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\dpn{\eta, \eta}{t} dt}^{1/2}
\end{align*} \end{align*}
@@ -425,8 +425,8 @@
f_{\xi, \eta}: B \to \complex \quad (z_1, \cdots, z_n) \mapsto \dpn{p(T(z_1, \cdots, z_n))\xi, \eta}{\complex^n} f_{\xi, \eta}: B \to \complex \quad (z_1, \cdots, z_n) \mapsto \dpn{p(T(z_1, \cdots, z_n))\xi, \eta}{\complex^n}
\] \]
then $f_{\xi, \eta}$ achieves its maximum modulus on a point $(z_1, \cdots, z_n) \in \complex^n$ such that $|z_j| = 1$ for all $1 \le j \le n$. then $f_{\xi, \eta}$ achieves its maximum modulus at a point $(z_1, \cdots, z_n) \in \complex^n$ such that $|z_j| = 1$ for all $1 \le j \le n$.
\item For any $(z_1, \cdots, z_n) \in \complex$, if \item For any $(z_1, \cdots, z_n) \in \complex^n$, if
\[ \[
\normn{p(T(z_1, \cdots, z_n))}_{M_n(\complex)} = \max_{w \in \overline{B}}\normn{p(T(w_1, \cdots, w_n))}_{M_n(\complex)} \normn{p(T(z_1, \cdots, z_n))}_{M_n(\complex)} = \max_{w \in \overline{B}}\normn{p(T(w_1, \cdots, w_n))}_{M_n(\complex)}
\] \]
+24 -5
View File
@@ -84,14 +84,14 @@
extends into a completely positive map on $C(\mathbb{T}; \complex)$. extends into a completely positive map on $C(\mathbb{T}; \complex)$.
\end{theorem} \end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof, {{\cite[Theorem 2.6]{Paulsen}}}. ] \begin{proof}[Proof, using trigonometric moment sequences, {{\cite[Theorem 2.6]{Paulsen}}}. ]
Assume without loss of generality that $\norm{T}_{B(H)} < 1$. Using \autoref{proposition:trig-moment-sequence-operator}, it is sufficient to show that the Toeplitz matrix Assume without loss of generality that $\norm{T}_{B(H)} < 1$. Using \autoref{proposition:trig-moment-sequence-operator}, it is sufficient to show that the Toeplitz matrix
\[ \[
A = \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes A_{i - j} = \begin{bmatrix} A = \sum_{i, j = 1}^n E_{ij} \otimes A_{i - j} = \begin{bmatrix}
I & T^* &\cdots & (T^*)^n \\ I & T^* &\cdots & (T^*)^{n-1} \\
T &\ddots &\ddots &\vdots \\ T &\ddots &\ddots &\vdots \\
\vdots &\ddots &\ddots & T^* \\ \vdots &\ddots &\ddots & T^* \\
T^n &\cdots &T &I T^{n-1} &\cdots &T &I
\end{bmatrix} \end{bmatrix}
\] \]
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@
\end{bmatrix} = \sum_{j = 1}^{n - 1}E_{(j+1)j} \otimes T \end{bmatrix} = \sum_{j = 1}^{n - 1}E_{(j+1)j} \otimes T
\] \]
then for each $k \in \natz$, $R^k = \sum_{j = 1}^{n-k}E_{(j+k)j} \otimes T^n$. In particular, $R^{n+1} = 0$ and then for each $k \in \natz$, $R^k = \sum_{j = 1}^{n-k}E_{(j+k)j} \otimes T^k$. In particular, $R^{n+1} = 0$ and
\[ \[
A = I + \sum_{k = 1}^n R^k + \sum_{k = 1}^n (R^*)^k = \sum_{k = 0}^\infty R^k + \sum_{k = 0}^\infty (R^*)^k - I A = I + \sum_{k = 1}^n R^k + \sum_{k = 1}^n (R^*)^k = \sum_{k = 0}^\infty R^k + \sum_{k = 0}^\infty (R^*)^k - I
\] \]
@@ -115,9 +115,28 @@
As $\norm{R}_{M_n(B(H))} = \norm{T}_{B(H)} < 1$, by recognising the \hyperref[Neumann series]{lemma:neumann-series} and using the resolvent identity, As $\norm{R}_{M_n(B(H))} = \norm{T}_{B(H)} < 1$, by recognising the \hyperref[Neumann series]{lemma:neumann-series} and using the resolvent identity,
\begin{align*} \begin{align*}
A &= (I - R)^{-1} + (I - R^*)^{-1} - I \\ A &= (I - R)^{-1} + (I - R^*)^{-1} - I \\
&= (I - R)^{-1}(I - R^* + I - R + (I - R)(I - R)^*)(1 - R^*)^{-1} \\ &= (I - R)^{-1}(I - R^* + I - R - (I - R)(I - R)^*)(I - R^*)^{-1} \\
&= (I - R)^{-1}(I - RR^*)(1 - R^*)^{-1} \ge 0 &= (I - R)^{-1}(I - RR^*)(1 - R^*)^{-1} \ge 0
\end{align*} \end{align*}
\end{proof} \end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof, using von Neumann's inequality. ]
Let $p = \sum_{j = 0}^n \lambda_j z^j, q = \sum_{j = 0}^n \mu_j z^j \in \complex[z]$ such that $p + \ol q \ge 0$, then
\begin{align*}
p + \ol q = \text{Re}(p + \ol q) &= \frac{p + \ol p}{2} + \frac{q + \ol q}{2} \\
\sum_{j = 0}^n (\lambda_jz^j + \ol{\mu_j} z^{-j}) &= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j = 0}^n (\lambda_j + \mu_j)z^j + (\ol \lambda_j + \ol \mu_j)z^{-j}
\end{align*}
so $\lambda_j = (\lambda_j + \mu_j)/2 = \mu_j$ for all $1 \le j \le n$. After rebalancing $\lambda_0$ and $\mu_0$, assume without loss of generality that $q = p$.
Let $c = \normn{p + \ol p}_{C(\mathbb{T}; \complex)}/2$, then $\normn{p + \ol p - c}_{C(\mathbb{T}; \complex)} = \norm{p + \ol p}_{C(\mathbb{T}; \complex)}/2$. By \hyperref[von Neumann's inequality]{theorem:von-neumann-inequality-polynomial},
\[
\normn{p(T) + p(T)^* - c}_{B(H)} \le \normn{p + \ol p - c}_{C(\mathbb{T}; \complex)} = \norm{p + \ol p}_{C(\mathbb{T}; \complex)}/2 = c
\]
As $p(T) + p(T)^* - cI$ is self-adjoint,
\[
0 \le p(T) + p(T)^* - c + \norm{p(T) + p(T)^* - cI}_{B(H)} \le p(T) + p(T)^*
\]
\end{proof}