Hyponormality and Subnormality of Block Toeplitz Operators: Ra Ul E. Curto, in Sung Hwang and Woo Young Lee

Hyponormality and Subnormality of Block Toeplitz Operators
Raúl E. Curto, In Sung Hwang and Woo Young Lee

arXiv:1201.5976v2 [math.FA] 13 Jul 2012
Abstract. In this paper we are concerned with hyponormality and subnormality of block Toeplitz
operators acting on the vector-valued Hardy space HC2n of the unit circle.
Firstly, we establish a tractable and explicit criterion on the hyponormality of block
Toeplitz operators having bounded type symbols via the triangularization theorem for com-
pressions of the shift operator.
Secondly, we consider the gap between hyponormality and subnormality for block Toeplitz
operators. This is closely related to Halmos’s Problem 5: Is every subnormal Toeplitz operator
either normal or analytic ? We show that if Φ is a matrix-valued rational function whose co-
analytic part has a coprime factorization then every hyponormal Toeplitz operator TΦ whose
square is also hyponormal must be either normal or analytic.
Thirdly, using the subnormal theory of block Toeplitz operators, we give an answer to the
following “Toeplitz completion” problem: Find the unspecified Toeplitz entries of the partial
block Toeplitz matrix ∗
U ?
A :=
? U∗
so that A becomes subnormal, where U is the unilateral shift on H 2 .
Keywords. Block Toeplitz operators, hyponormal, square-hyponormal, subnormal, bounded
type functions, rational functions, trigonometric polynomials, subnormal completion problem.
1. Introduction
Toeplitz operators, block Toeplitz operators and (block) Toeplitz determinants (i.e., determinants
of sections of (block) Toeplitz operators) arise naturally in several fields of mathematics and in
a variety of problems in physics, especially, in quantum mechanics. For example, the spectral
theory of Toeplitz operators plays an important role in the study of solvable models in quantum
mechanics ([Pr]) and in the study the one-dimensional Heisenberg Hamiltonian of ferromagnetism
([DMA]); the theory of block Toeplitz determinants is used in the study of the classical dimer
model ([BE]) and in the study of the vicious walker model ([HI]); the theory of block Toeplitz
operators is also used in the study of Gelfand-Dickey Hierarchies (cf. [Ca]). On the other hand,
the theory of hyponormal and subnormal operators is an extensive and highly developed area,
which has made important contributions to a number of problems in functional analysis, operator
theory, and mathematical physics (see, for example, [If], [HS], and [Sz] for applications to related
mathematical physics problems). Thus, it becomes of central significance to describe in detail
hypormality and subnormality for Toeplitz operators. This paper focuses primarily on hyponor-
mality and subnormality of block Toeplitz operators with rational symbols. For the general theory
of subnormal and hyponormal operators, we refer to [Con] and [MP].
To describe our results, we first need to review a few essential facts about (block) Toeplitz
operators, and for that we will use [BS], [Do1], [Do2], [GGK], [MAR], [Ni], and [Pe]. Let H and K
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 47B20, 47B35, 47A13; Secondary 30H10, 47A20, 47A57
The work of the first named author was partially supported by NSF Grant DMS-0801168. The work of the second
author was supported by NRF grant funded by the Korea government(MEST)(2011-0003273). The work of the
third author was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the NRF grant funded by the Korea
government(MEST)(2011-0001250).
2 Raúl E. Curto, In Sung Hwang and Woo Young Lee
be complex Hilbert spaces, let B(H, K) be the set of bounded linear operators from H to K, and
write B(H) := B(H, H). For A, B ∈ B(H), we let [A, B] := AB − BA. An operator T ∈ B(H)
is said to be normal if [T ∗ , T ] = 0, hyponormal if [T ∗ , T ] ≥ 0, and subnormal if T has a normal
extension, i.e., T = N |H , where N is a normal operator on some Hilbert space K ⊇ H such that H is
invariant for N . For an operator T ∈ B(H), we write ker T and ran T for the kernel and the range of
T , respectively. For a set M, cl M and M⊥ denote the closure and the orthogonal complement of
M, respectively. Also, let T = R/2πZ be the unit circle. Recall that the Hilbert space L2 ≡ L2 (T)
has a canonical orthonormal basis given by the trigonometric functions en (z) = z n , for all n ∈ Z,
and that the Hardy space H 2 ≡ H 2 (T) is the closed linear span of {en : n = 0, 1, . . .}. An element
f ∈ L2 is said to be analytic if f ∈ H 2 . Let H ∞ ≡ H ∞ (T) := L∞ ∩ H 2 , i.e., H ∞ is the set of
bounded analytic functions on the open unit disk D.
Given a bounded measurable function ϕ ∈ L∞ , the Toeplitz operator Tϕ and the Hankel
operator Hϕ with symbol ϕ on H 2 are defined by
Tϕ g := P (ϕg) and Hϕ g := JP ⊥ (ϕg) (g ∈ H 2 ), (1.1)
where P and P ⊥ denote the orthogonal projections that map from L2 onto H 2 and (H 2 )⊥ , re-
spectively, and J denotes the unitary operator from L2 onto L2 defined by J(f )(z) = zf (z) for
f ∈ L2 .
To study hyponormality (resp. normality and subnormality) of the Toeplitz operator Tϕ with
symbol ϕ we may, without loss of generality, assume that ϕ(0) = 0; this is because hyponormality
(resp. normality and subnormality) is invariant under translations by scalars. Normal Toeplitz
operators were characterized by a property of their symbols in the early 1960’s by A. Brown and
P.R. Halmos [BH] and the exact nature of the relationship between the symbol ϕ ∈ L∞ and the
hyponormality of Tϕ was understood via Cowen’s Theorem [Co4] in 1988.
Cowen’s Theorem. ([Co4], [NT]) For each ϕ ∈ L∞ , let
E(ϕ) ≡ {k ∈ H ∞ : ||k||∞ ≤ 1 and ϕ − kϕ ∈ H ∞ }.
Then a Toeplitz operator Tϕ is hyponormal if and only if E(ϕ) is nonempty.
This elegant and useful theorem has been used in the works [CuL1], [CuL2], [FL], [Gu1],
[Gu2], [GS], [HKL1], [HKL2], [HL1], [HL2], [HL3], [Le], [NT] and [Zhu], which have been devoted
to the study of hyponormality for Toeplitz operators on H 2 . Particular attention has been paid to
Toeplitz operators with polynomial symbols or rational symbols [HL2], [HL3]. However, the case of
arbitrary symbol ϕ, though solved in principle by Cowen’s theorem, is in practice very complicated.
Indeed, it may not even be possible to find tractable necessary and sufficient condition for the
hyponormality of Tϕ in terms of the Fourier coefficients of the symbol ϕ unless certain assumptions
are made about ϕ. To date, tractable criteria for the cases of trigonometric polynomial symbols
and rational symbols were derived from a Carathéodory-Schur interpolation problem ([Zhu]) and a
tangential Hermite-Fejér interpolation problem ([Gu1]) or the classical Hermite-Fejér interpolation
problem ([HL3]), respectively.
Recall that a function ϕ ∈ L∞ is said to be of bounded type (or in the Nevanlinna class) if
there are analytic functions ψ1 , ψ2 ∈ H ∞ (D) such that ϕ = ψ1 /ψ2 almost everywhere on T. To
date, no tractable criterion to determine the hyponormality of Tϕ when the symbol ϕ is of bounded
type has been found.
We now introduce the notion of block Toeplitz operators. Let Mn×r denote the set of all
n × r complex matrices and write Mn := Mn×n . For X a Hilbert space, let L2X ≡ L2X (T) be the
Hilbert space of X -valued norm square-integrable measurable functions on T and let HX2 ≡ HX2 (T)
be the corresponding Hardy space. We observe that L2Cn = L2 ⊗ Cn and HC2n = H 2 ⊗ Cn . If Φ
is a matrix-valued function in L∞ ∞
Mn ≡ LMn (T) (= L
∞
⊗ Mn ) then TΦ : HC2n → HC2n denotes the
block Toeplitz operator with symbol Φ defined by
TΦ f := Pn (Φf ) for f ∈ HC2n ,
Block Toeplitz Operators 3
where Pn is the orthogonal projection of L2Cn onto HC2n . A block Hankel operator with symbol
Φ ∈ L∞ 2 2
Mn is the operator HΦ : HCn → HCn defined by
HΦ f := Jn Pn⊥ (Φf ) for f ∈ HC2n ,

where Jn denotes the unitary operator from L2Cn onto L2Cn given by Jn (f )(z) := zIn f (z) for
f ∈ L2Cn , with In the n × n identity matrix. If we set HC2n = H 2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ H 2 then we see that
   
Tϕ11 . . . Tϕ1n Hϕ11 . . . Hϕ1n
 ..   .. 
TΦ =  .  and HΦ =  . ,
Tϕn1 . . . Tϕnn Hϕn1 . . . Hϕnn
where  
ϕ11 ... ϕ1n
 ..  ∞
Φ= .  ∈ LMn .
ϕn1 . . . ϕnn
For Φ ∈ L∞
Mn×m , write
e
Φ(z) := Φ∗ (z).
∞
A matrix-valued function Θ ∈ HM n×m
(= H ∞ ⊗ Mn×m ) is called inner if Θ∗ Θ = Im almost
everywhere on T. The following basic relations can be easily derived:
TΦ∗ = TΦ∗ , HΦ∗ = HΦ
e (Φ ∈ L∞
Mn ); (1.2)
TΦΨ − TΦ TΨ = HΦ∗ ∗ HΨ (Φ, Ψ ∈ L∞
Mn ); (1.3)
∗
HΦ TΨ = HΦΨ , HΨΦ = TΨe HΦ (Φ ∈ L∞
Mn , Ψ
∞
∈ HMn
); (1.4)
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∞
HΦ HΦ − HΘΦ HΘΦ = HΦ HΘ∗ HΘ∗ HΦ (Θ ∈ HMn inner, Φ∈ L∞
Mn ). (1.5)
For a matrix-valued function Φ ≡ [ϕij ] ∈ L∞

Mn , we say that Φ is of bounded type if each entry
ϕij is of bounded type, and we say that Φ is rational if each entry ϕij is a rational function. A
matrix-valued trigonometric polynomial Φ ∈ L∞ Mn is of the form
N
X
Φ(z) = Aj z j (Aj ∈ Mn ),
j=−m
where AN and A−m are called the outer coefficientsP of Φ. P∞
We recall that for matrix-valued functions A := ∞ j 2
j=−∞ Aj z ∈ LMn and B :=
j
j=−∞ Bj z ∈
2
LMn , we define the inner product of A and B by
Z X∞
(A, B) := tr (B ∗ A) dµ = tr (Bj∗ Aj ) ,
T j=−∞
1
where tr (·) denotes the trace of a matrix and define ||A||2 := (A, A) 2 . We also define, for A ∈ L∞
Mn ,
||A||∞ := ess supt∈T ||A(t)|| (|| · || denotes the spectral norm of a matrix).
Finally, the shift operator S on HC2n is defined by
S := TzIn .
The following fundamental result will be useful in the sequel.
The Beurling-Lax-Halmos Theorem. A nonzero subspace M of HC2n is invariant for the shift opera-
tor S on HC2n if and only if M = ΘHC2m , where Θ is an inner matrix function in HM
∞
n×m
(m ≤ n).
Furthermore, Θ is unique up to a unitary constant right factor; that is, if M = ∆HC2r (for ∆ an
∞
inner function in HM n×r
), then m = r and Θ = ∆W , where W is a (constant in z) unitary matrix
mapping Cm onto Cm .
As customarily done, we say that two matrix-valued functions A and B are equal if they
are equal up to a unitary constant right factor. Observe by (1.4) that for Φ ∈ L∞ Mn , HΦ S =
∗
HΦ TzIn = HΦ·zIn = HzIn ·Φ = TzI n
H Φ , which implies that the kernel of a block Hankel operator
HΦ is an invariant subspace of the shift operator on HC2n . Thus, if ker HΦ 6= {0}, then by the
Beurling-Lax-Halmos Theorem,
ker HΦ = ΘHC2m
for some inner matrix function Θ. We note that Θ need not be a square matrix.
On the other hand, recently C. Gu, J. Hendricks and D. Rutherford [GHR] considered the
hyponormality of block Toeplitz operators and characterized it in terms of their symbols. In
particular they showed that if TΦ is a hyponormal block Toeplitz operator on HC2n , then its symbol
Φ is normal, i.e., Φ∗ Φ = ΦΦ∗ . Their characterization for hyponormality of block Toeplitz operators
resembles Cowen’s Theorem except for an additional condition – the normality condition of the
symbol.
Hyponormality of Block Toeplitz Operators ([GHR]) For each Φ ∈ L∞

Mn , let
n o
∞ ∗ ∞
E(Φ) := K ∈ HM n
: ||K|| ∞ ≤ 1 and Φ − KΦ ∈ H Mn .
Then TΦ is hyponormal if and only if Φ is normal and E(Φ) is nonempty.
The hyponormality of the Toeplitz operator TΦ with arbitrary matrix-valued symbol Φ,

though solved in principle by Cowen’s Theorem [Co4] and the criterion due to Gu, Hendricks and
Rutherford [GHR], is in practice very complicated. Until now, explicit criteria for the hyponor-
mality of block Toeplitz operators TΦ with matrix-valued trigonometric polynomials or rational
functions Φ were established via interpolation problems ([GHR], [HL4], [HL5]).
In Section 3, we obtain a tractable criterion for the hyponormality of block Toeplitz operators
with bounded type symbols. To do this we employ a continuous analogue of the elementary theorem
of Schur on triangularization of finite matrices: If T is a finite matrix then it can be represented
as T = D + N , where D is a diagonal matrix and N is a nilpotent matrix. The continuous
analogue is the so-called triangularization theorem for compressions of the shift operator: in this
case, D and N are replaced by a certain (normal) multiplication operator and a Volterra operator
of Hilbert-Schmidt class, respectively.
Section 4 deals with the gap between hyponormality and subnormality of block Toeplitz
operators. The Bram-Halmos criterion P for subnormality ([Br], [Con]) states that an operator T ∈
B(H) is subnormal if and only if i,j (T i xj , T j xi ) ≥ 0 for all finite collections x0 , x1 , · · · , xk ∈ H.
It is easy to see that this is equivalent to the following positivity test:
 ∗ 
[T , T ] [T ∗2 , T ] . . . [T ∗k , T ]
[T ∗ , T 2 ] [T ∗2 , T 2 ] . . . [T ∗k , T 2 ]
 
 .. .. .. .. ≥0 (all k ≥ 1). (1.6)
 . . . . 
[T ∗ , T k ] [T ∗2 , T k ] . . . [T ∗k , T k ]
The positivity condition (1.6) for k = 1 is equivalent to the hyponormality of T , while subnormality
requires the validity of (1.6) for all k ∈ Z+ . The Bram-Halmos criterion indicates that hyponor-
mality is generally far from subnormality. But there are special classes of operators for which
the positivity of (1.6) for some k and subnormaity are equivalent. For example, it was shown in
([CuL1]) that if W√x,(√a,√b,√c)∧ is the weighted shift whose weight sequence consists of the initial
weight x followed by the weight sequence of the recursively √ generated subnormal weighted shift
√ √
W(√a,√b,√c)∧ with an initial segment of positive weights a, b, c (cf. [CuF1], [CuF2], [CuF3]),
then Wα is subnormal if and only if the positivity condition (1.6) is satisfied with k = 2. On the
other hand, in [Hal3, Problem 209], it was shown that there exists a hyponormal operator whose
square is not hyponormal, e.g., U ∗ + 2U (U is the unilateral shift on ℓ2 ), which is a trigonometric
Toeplitz operator, i.e., U ∗ + 2U ≡ Tz̄+2z . This example addresses the gap between hyponormality
and subnormality for Toeplitz operators. This matter is closely related to Halmos’s Problem 5
[Hal1], [Hal2]: Is every subnormal Toeplitz operator either normal or analytic ?
In [CuL1], as a partial answer, it was shown that every hyponormal Toeplitz operator Tϕ
with trigonometric polynomial symbol ϕ whose square is hyponormal must be either normal or
analytic. In [Gu3], C. Gu showed that this result still holds for Toeplitz operators Tϕ with rational
symbol ϕ (more generally, in the cases where ϕ is of bounded type). In Section 4 we prove the
following theorem: If Φ is a matrix-valued rational function whose co-analytic part has a coprime
factorization then every hyponormal Toeplitz operator TΦ whose square is hyponormal must be
either normal or analytic. This result generalizes the results in [CuL1] and [Gu3].
In Section 5, we consider a completion problem involving Toeplitz operators. Given a partially
specified operator matrix, the problem of finding suitable operators to complete the given partial
operator matrix so that the resulting matrix satisfies certain given properties is called a completion
problem. The dilation problem is a special case of the completion
problem: in other words, a dilation
of T is a completion of the partial operator matrix T? ?? . In recent years, operator theorists have
been interested in the subnormal completion problem for
∗
U ?
,
? U∗
where U is the unilateral shift on H 2 . If the unspecified entries ? are Toeplitz operators this is called
the Toeplitz subnormal completion problem. Thus this problem is related to the subnormality of
block Toeplitz operators. In Section 5, we solve this Toeplitz subnormal completion problem.
Finally, in Section 6 we list some open problems.
Acknowledgment. The authors are indebted to the referee for suggestions that improved the
presentation.
2. Basic Theory and Preliminaries
We first recall [Ab, Lemma 3] that if ϕ ∈ L∞ then

ϕ is of bounded type ⇐⇒ ker Hϕ 6= {0} . (2.1)
∞
If ϕ ∈ L , we write
ϕ+ ≡ P ϕ ∈ H 2 and ϕ− ≡ P ⊥ ϕ ∈ zH 2 .
Assume now that both ϕ and ϕ are of bounded type. Then from Beurling’s Theorem, ker Hϕ− =
θ0 H 2 and ker Hϕ+ = θ+ H 2 for some inner functions θ0 , θ+ . We thus have b := ϕ− θ0 ∈ H 2 , and
hence we can write
ϕ− = θ0 b and similarly ϕ+ = θ+ a for some a ∈ H 2 . (2.2)
In particular, if Tϕ is hyponormal then since
[Tϕ∗ , Tϕ ] = Hϕ∗ Hϕ − Hϕ∗ Hϕ = Hϕ∗ + Hϕ+ − Hϕ∗ − Hϕ− , (2.3)
2
it follows that ||Hϕ+ f || ≥ ||Hϕ− f || for all f ∈ H , and hence
θ+ H 2 = ker Hϕ+ ⊆ ker Hϕ− = θ0 H 2 ,
which implies that θ0 divides θ+ , i.e., θ+ = θ0 θ1 for some inner function θ1 . We write, for an inner
function θ,
H(θ) := H 2 ⊖ θ H 2 .
Note that if f = θa ∈ L , then f ∈ H 2 if and only if a ∈ H(zθ); in particular, if f (0) = 0 then
2
a ∈ H(θ). Thus, if ϕ = ϕ− + ϕ+ ∈ L∞ is such that ϕ and ϕ are of bounded type such that
ϕ+ (0) = 0 and Tϕ is hyponormal, then we can write
ϕ+ = θ0 θ1 ā and ϕ− = θ0 b̄, where a ∈ H(θ0 θ1 ) and b ∈ H(θ0 ).
By Kronecker’s Lemma [Ni, p. 183], if f ∈ H ∞ then f is a rational function if and only if rank Hf <
∞, which implies that
f is rational ⇐⇒ f = θb with a finite Blaschke product θ. (2.4)
Also, from the scalar-valued case of (1.4), we can see that if k ∈ E(ϕ) then
[Tϕ∗ , Tϕ ] = Hϕ∗ Hϕ − Hϕ∗ Hϕ = Hϕ∗ Hϕ − Hk∗ ϕ Hk ϕ = Hϕ∗ (1 − Tek Tek∗ )Hϕ . (2.5)
On the other hand, M. Abrahamse [Ab, Lemma 6] showed that if Tϕ is hyponormal, if ϕ ∈ / H ∞,

and if ϕ or ϕ is of bounded type then both ϕ and ϕ are of bounded type. However, by contrast to
the scalar case, Φ∗ may not be of bounded type even though TΦ is hyponormal, Φ ∈ / HM∞
n
and Φ is
∗
of bounded type. But we have a one-way implication: if TΦ is hyponormal and Φ is of bounded
type then Φ is also of bounded type (see [GHR, Corollary 3.5 and Remark 3.6]). Thus whenever
we deal with hyponormal Toeplitz operators TΦ with symbols Φ satisfying that both Φ and Φ∗ are
of bounded type (e.g., Φ is a matrix-valued rational function), it suffices to assume that only Φ∗ is
of bounded type. In spite of this, for convenience, we will assume that Φ and Φ∗ are of bounded
type whenever we deal with bounded type symbols.
2 2
For a matrix-valued function Φ ∈ HM n×r
, we say that ∆ ∈ HM n×m
is a left inner divisor of
2
Φ if ∆ is an inner matrix function such that Φ = ∆A for some A ∈ HM m×r
(m ≤ n). We also say
2 2
that two matrix functions Φ ∈ HM n×r
and Ψ ∈ H Mn×m are left coprime if the only common left
2 2
inner divisor of both Φ and Ψ is a unitary constant and that Φ ∈ HMn×r and Ψ ∈ HM m×r
are
e e
right coprime if Φ and Ψ are left coprime. Two matrix functions Φ and Ψ in H 2
are said to be
Mn
2
coprime if they are both left and right coprime. We note that if Φ ∈ HM n
is such that det Φ is
2
not identically zero then any left inner divisor ∆ of Φ is square, i.e., ∆ ∈ HM n
: indeed, if Φ = ∆A
2
with ∆ ∈ HM n×r
(r < n) then for almost all z ∈ T, rank Φ(z) ≤ rank ∆(z) ≤ r < n, so that
2
det Φ(z) = 0 for almost all z ∈ T. If Φ ∈ HMn is such that det Φ is not identically zero then we say
that ∆ ∈ HM 2
is a right inner divisor of Φ if ∆ e is a left inner divisor of Φ.
e
n
On the other hand, we have (in the Introduction) remarked that Θ need not be square in
the equality ker HΦ = ΘHC2n , which comes from the Beurling-Lax-Halmos Theorem. But it was
known [GHR, Theorem 2.2] that for Φ ∈ L∞ Mn , Φ is of bounded type if and only if ker HΦ = ΘHCn
2
for some square inner matrix function Θ.

∞
Let {Θi ∈ HM n
: i ∈ J} be a family of inner matrix functions. Then the greatest common left
∞
inner divisor Θd and the least common left inner multiple Θm of the family {Θi ∈ HM n
: i ∈ J}
are the inner functions defined by
_ \
Θd HC2p = Θi HC2n and Θm HC2q = Θi HC2n .
i∈J i∈J
The greatest common right inner divisor and the least common right inner multiple Θ′m of the
Θ′d
∞
family {Θi ∈ HMn : i ∈ J} are the inner functions defined by
_ \
e ′d HC2r =
Θ e i HC2n and Θ
Θ e ′m HC2s = e i HC2n .
Θ
i∈J i∈J
The Beurling-Lax-Halmos Theorem guarantees that Θd and Θm are unique up to a unitary constant
right factor, and Θ′d and Θ′m are unique up to a unitary constant left factor. We write
Θd = GCDℓ {Θi : i ∈ J}, Θm = LCMℓ {Θi : i ∈ J},
Θ′d = GCDr {Θi : i ∈ J}, Θ′m = LCMr {Θi : i ∈ J}.
If n = 1, then GCDℓ {·} = GCDr {·} (simply denoted GCD {·}) and LCMℓ {·} = LCMr {·} (simply
denoted LCM {·}). In general, it is not true that GCDℓ {·} = GCDr {·} and LCMℓ {·} = LCMr {·}.
However, we have:
Lemma 2.1. Let Θi := θi In for an inner function θi (i ∈ J).
(a) GCDℓ {Θi : i ∈ J} = GCDr {Θi : i ∈ J} = θd In , where θd = GCD {θi : i ∈ J}.

(b) LCMℓ {Θi : i ∈ J} = LCMr {Θi : i ∈ J} = θm In , where θm = LCM {θi : i ∈ J}.
Proof. (a) If Θd = GCDℓ {Θi : i ∈ J}, then
_ n _
M n
M
2 2 2
Θ d HC n = Θ i HC n = θi H = θd H 2 ,
i∈J j=1 i∈J j=1
which implies that Θd = θd In with θd = GCD {θi : i ∈ J}. If instead Θd = GCDr {Θi : i ∈ J}
e d = GCDℓ {Θ
then Θ e i : i ∈ J}. Thus we have Θe d = θed In and hence, Θd = θd In .
(b) If Θm = LCMℓ {Θi : i ∈ J}, then
\ Mn \ n
M
Θm HC2n = Θi HC2n = θi H 2 = θm H 2 ,
i∈J j=1 i∈J j=1
which implies that Θm = θm In with θm = LCM {θi : i ∈ J}. If instead Θm = LCMr {Θi : i ∈ J},
then the same argument as in (a) gives the result.
In view of Lemma 2.1, if Θi = θi In for an inner function θi (i ∈ J), we can define the greatest
common inner divisor Θd and the least common inner multiple Θm of the Θi by
Θd ≡ GCD {Θi : i ∈ J} := GCDℓ {Θi : i ∈ J} = GCDr {Θi : i ∈ J};
Θm ≡ LCM {Θi : i ∈ J} := LCMℓ {Θi : i ∈ J} = LCMr {Θi : i ∈ J} :
they are both diagonal matrices.
For Φ ∈ L∞
Mn we write
2
∗
Φ+ := Pn (Φ) ∈ HM n
and Φ− := Pn⊥ (Φ) ∈ HM
2
n
.
Thus we can write Φ = Φ∗− + Φ+ . Suppose Φ = [ϕij ] ∈ L∞ ∗
Mn is such that Φ is of bounded type.
Then we may write ϕij = θij bij , where θij is an inner function and θij and bij are coprime. Thus
if θ is the least common inner multiple of θij ’s then we can write
Φ = [ϕij ] = [θij bij ] = [θaij ] = ΘA∗ 2
(Θ ≡ θIn , A ≡ [aij ] ∈ HM n
). (2.6)
We note that in the factorization (2.6), A(α) is nonzero whenever θ(α) = 0. Let Φ = Φ∗− + Φ+ ∈
L∞ ∗
Mn be such that Φ and Φ are of bounded type. Then in view of (2.6) we can write
Φ+ = Θ1 A∗ and Φ− = Θ2 B ∗ ,
2
where Θi = θi In with an inner function θi for i = 1, 2 and A, B ∈ HM n
. In particular, if Φ ∈ L∞Mn
is rational then the θi can be chosen as finite Blaschke products, as we observed in (2.4).
By contrast with scalar-valued functions, in (2.6) Θ and A need not be (right) coprime: for
instance, if Φ := [ zz zz ] then we can write

∗ z 0 1 1
Φ = ΘA = ,
0 z 1 1

but Θ := [ z0 z0 ] and A := [ 11 11 ] are not right coprime because √12 z1 −z
1 is a common right inner
divisor, i.e.,

1 1 z 1 z −z √ 0 1 1 z −z
Θ= √ · √ and A = 2 · √ . (2.7)
2 −1 z 2 1 1 0 1 2 1 1
If Ω = GCDℓ {A, Θ} in the representation (2.6):
Φ = ΘA∗ = A∗ Θ (Θ ≡ θIn for an inner function θ),
2
then Θ = ΩΩℓ and A = ΩAℓ for some inner matrix Ωℓ (where Ωℓ ∈ HM n
because det Θ is not
2 ∗ ∞
identically zero) and some Al ∈ HM n
. Therefore if Φ ∈ L Mn is of bounded type then we can
write
Φ = Aℓ ∗ Ωℓ , where Aℓ and Ωℓ are left coprime. (2.8)
A∗ℓ Ωℓ is called the left coprime factorization of Φ; similarly, we can write

Φ = Ωr A∗r , where Ar and Ωr are right coprime. (2.9)
In this case, Ωr A∗r is called the right coprime factorization of Φ.
Remark 2.2. ([GHR, Corollary 2.5]) As a consequence of the Beurling-Lax-Halmos Theorem, we
can see that
Φ = Ωr A∗r (right coprime factorization) ⇐⇒ ker HΦ∗ = Ωr HC2n . (2.10)
In fact, if Φ = Ωr A∗r (right coprime factorization) then it is evident that
ker HΦ∗ ⊇ Ωr HC2n .
From the Beurling-Lax-Halmos Theorem,
ker HΦ∗ = ΘHC2n ,
for some inner function Θ, and hence (I − P )(Φ∗ Θ) = 0, i.e., Φ∗ = DΘ∗ , for some D ∈ HC2n . We
want to show that Ωr = Θ up to a unitary constant right factor. Since ΘHC2n ⊇ Ωr HC2n , we have
(cf. [FF, p.240]) that Ωr = Θ∆ for some square inner function ∆. Thus,
DΘ∗ = Φ∗ = Ar Ω∗r = Ar ∆∗ Θ∗ ,
which implies Ar = D∆, so that ∆ is a common right inner divisor of both Ar and Ωr . But since
Ar and Ωr are right coprime, ∆ must be a unitary constant. The proof of the converse implication
is entirely similar.
From now on, for notational convenience we write

Iω := ω In (ω ∈ H 2 ) and H02 := Iz HM
2
n
.
It is not easy to check the condition “B and Θ are coprime” in the decomposition F = B ∗ Θ
2
(Θ ≡ Iθ is inner and B ∈ HM n
). But if F is rational (and hence Θ is given in a form Θ ≡ Iθ with
a finite Blaschke product θ) then we can obtain a more tractable criterion. To see this, we need
to recall the notion of finite Blaschke-Potapov product.
Let λ ∈ D and write
z−λ
bλ (z) := ,
1 − λz
which is called a Blaschke factor. If M is a closed subspace of Cn then the matrix function of the
form
bλ PM + (I − PM ) (PM :=the orthogonal projection of Cn onto M )
is called a Blaschke-Potapov factor ; an n × n matrix function D is called a finite Blaschke-Potapov
product if D is of the form
M
Y
D=ν bm Pm + (I − Pm ) ,
m=1
where ν is an n × n unitary constant matrix, bm is a Blaschke factor, and Pm is an orthogonal
projection in Cn for each m = 1, · · · , M . In particular, a scalar-valued function D reduces to
Q
a finite Blaschke product D = ν M iω
m=1 bm , where ν = e . It is also known (cf. [Po]) that an
n × n matrix function D is rational and inner if and only if it can be represented as a finite
Blaschke-Potapov product.
Write Z(θ) for the set of zeros of an inner function θ. We then have:
∞
Lemma 2.3. Let B ∈ HM n
be rational and Θ = Iθ with a finite Blaschke product θ. Then the
following statements are equivalent:
(a) B(α) is invertible for each α ∈ Z(θ);
(b) B and Θ are right coprime;
(c) B and Θ are left coprime.
Proof. See [CHL, Lemma 3.10].
∞
If Θ ∈ HMn
is an inner matrix function, we write
H(Θ) := (ΘHC2n )⊥ ;
2
HΘ := (ΘHM n
)⊥ ;
2
KΘ := (HM n
Θ)⊥ .
If Θ = Iθ for an inner function θ then HΘ = KΘ and if n = 1, then H(Θ) = HΘ = KΘ .
The following lemma is useful in the sequel.

2
Lemma 2.4. If Θ ∈ HM n
is an inner matrix function then
dim H(Θ) < ∞ ⇐⇒ Θ is a finite Blaschke-Potapov product.
Proof. Let
δ := GCD {ω : ω is inner, Θ is a left inner divisor of Ω = Iω } and ∆ := Iδ ,
in other words, δ is a ‘minimal’ inner function such that ∆ ≡ Iδ = ΘΘ1 for some inner matrix
function Θ1 . Note that
Θ is a finite Blaschke-Potapov product =⇒ δ is a finite Blaschke product
=⇒ dim H(∆) < ∞.
Observe that M
H(∆) = H(ΘΘ1 ) = H(Θ) ΘH(Θ1 ) .
Thus if Θ is a finite Blaschke-Potapov product, then dim H(Θ) < ∞. Conversely, we suppose
dim H(Θ) < ∞. Write Θ := [θij ]nij=1 . Since
∗
rank Hθ∗ij ≤ rank HΘ ∗ = dim H(Θ) < ∞ ,
it follows that θij ’s are rational functions. Thus Θ is a rational inner matrix function and hence
a finite Blaschke-Potapov product.
Lemma 2.4 implies that every inner divisor of a rational inner function (i.e., a finite Blaschke-
Potapov product) is also a finite Blaschke-Potapov product: indeed, if Θ is a finite Blaschke-
Potapov product and Θ1 is an inner divisor of Θ, then dim H(Θ1 ) ≤ dim H(Θ) < ∞, and hence
by Lemma 2.4, Θ1 is a finite Blaschke-Potapov product.
∞
From Lemma 2.4, we know that every inner divisor of Bλ := Ibλ ∈ HMn
is a finite Blaschke-
Potapov product. However we can say more:
∞
Lemma 2.5. Every inner divisor of Bλ := Ibλ ∈ HMn
is a Blaschke-Potapov factor.
Proof. Suppose D is an inner divisor of Bλ . By Lemma 2.4, D is a Blaschke-Potapov product of
the form
m
Y
D=ν Di with Di := bλi Pi + (I − Pi ) (m ≤ n).
i=1
2
We write Bλ = ED for some E ∈ HM n
. Observe that Bλ (λi ) is not invertible, so that λi = λ for
all i = 1, 2 . . . , m. We thus have
m−1
Y
∗
Pm + bλ (I − Pm ) = Bλ Dm =E ·ν Di .
i=1
Then we have
∗
ker Pm = ker (Bλ Dm )(λ) ⊇ ker Dm−1 (λ) = ran Pm−1 ,
which implies that Pm Pm−1 = 0, and hence Pm and Pm−1 are orthogonal. Thus Dm−1 Dm is a
Blaschke-Potapov factor. Now an induction shows that D is a Blaschke-Potapov factor.
By the aid of Lemma 2.5, we can show that the equivalence (b)⇔(c) in Lemma 2.3 fails if Θ
is not a constant diagonal matrix. To see this, let

bα 0 1 z −z
Θ1 := and Θ2 := √ .
0 1 2 1 1
Then Θ := Θ1 Θ2 and Θ1 are not left coprime. Observe that

e 1 := bα 0 , Θ
Θ e = √1 zbα 1
.
0 1 2 −zbα 1
Since every right inner divisor ∆ of Θ e 1 is an inner divisor of Bα := Ib , it follows from Lemma
α
e
2.5 that ∆ = Θ1 (up to a unitary constant right factor). Suppose that Θ and Θ1 are not right
coprime. Then Θ e and Θ
e 1 are not left coprime and hence Θ e 1 is a left inner divisor of Θ.
e Write

1 zbα 1 b 0 f11 f12
√ = α (fij ∈ H 2 ).
2 −zbα 1 0 1 f21 f21
Then we have √1 = bα f12 , so that f12 = √1 bα / H 2 , giving a contradiction.
∈
2 2
2 2
For X a subspace of HM n
, we write PX for the orthogonal projection from HM n
onto X .
∞ 2
Lemma 2.6. Let Θ ∈ HMn
be an inner matrix function and A ∈ HM n
. Then the following hold:
(a) A ∈ KΘ ⇐⇒ ΘA∗ ∈ H02 ;
(b) A ∈ HΘ ⇐⇒ A∗Θ ∈ H
2
0;
∗
(c) PH02 (ΘA∗ ) = Θ PKΘ A .
2
Proof. Let C ∈ HM n
be arbitrary. We then have
A ∈ KΘ ⇐⇒ hA, CΘi = 0
Z
⇐⇒ tr (CΘ)∗ A dµ = 0
ZT
⇐⇒ tr (C ∗ AΘ∗ ) dµ = 0 (since tr(AB) = tr(BA))
T
⇐⇒ hAΘ∗ , Ci = 0
⇐⇒ ΘA∗ ∈ H02 ,
giving (a) and similarly, (b). For (c), we write A = A1 + A2 , where A1 := PKΘ A and A2 := A3 Θ
2
for some A3 ∈ HM n
. We then have

PH02 (ΘA∗ ) = PH02 (ΘA∗1 + ΘA∗2 ) = PH02 Θ(PKΘ A)∗ + ΘΘ∗ A∗3 = Θ(PKΘ A)∗ ,
giving (c).
We next review the classical Hermite-Fejér interpolation problem, following [FF]; this ap-
proach will be useful in the sequel. Let θ be a finite Blaschke product of degree d:
YN
iξ e mi e z − αi
θ=e (bi ) bi := , where αi ∈ D ,
i=1
1 − αi z
PN
where d = i=1 mi . For our purposes rewrite θ in the form
d
Y
θ = eiξ bj ,
j=1
where
k−1
X k
X
bj := ebk if ml < j ≤ ml
l=0 l=0
and, for notational convenience, m0 := 0. Let

qj
ϕj := bj−1 bj−2 · · · b1 (1 ≤ j ≤ d), (2.11)
1 − αj z
1
where ϕ1 := q1 (1 − α1 z)−1 and qj := (1 − |αj |2 ) 2 (1 ≤ j ≤ d). It is well known (cf. [Ta]) that
{ϕj }dj=1 is an orthonormal basis for H(θ).
For our purposes we concentrate on the data given by sequences of n × n complex matrices.
Given the sequence {Kij : 1 ≤ i ≤ N, 0 ≤ j < mi } of n × n complex matrices and a set of distinct
complex numbers α1 , . . . , αN in D, the classical Hermite-Fejér interpolation problem entails finding
necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a contractive analytic matrix function K in
∞
HM n
satisfying
K (j) (αi )
= Ki,j (1 ≤ i ≤ N, 0 ≤ j < mi ). (2.12)
j!
To construct a matrix polynomial K(z) ≡ P (z) satisfying (2.12), let pi (z) be the polynomial of
order d − mi defined by
N
Y z − α mk
k
pi (z) := .
αi − αk
k=1,k6=i
Consider the matrix polynomial P (z) of degree d − 1 defined by

N
!
X
′ ′ ′ 2 ′ mi −1
P (z) := Ki,0 + Ki,1 (z − αi ) + Ki,2 (z − αi ) + · · · + Ki,m i −1
(z − αi ) pi (z), (2.13)
i=1
′
where the Ki,j are obtained by the following equations:
j−1 ′ (j−k)
X Ki,k pi (αi )
′
Ki,j = Ki,j − (1 ≤ i ≤ N ; 0 ≤ j < mi )
(j − k)!
k=0
′
and Ki,0 = Ki,0 (1 ≤ i ≤ N ). Then P (z) satisfies (2.12).
On the other hand, for an inner function θ, let Uθ be defined by the compression of the shift
operator U : i.e.,
Uθ = PH(θ) U |H(θ) .
Ld
Let Θ = Iθ and W be the unitary operator from 1 Cn onto H(Θ) defined by
W := (Iϕ1 , Iϕ2 , · · · , Iϕd ), (2.14)
where the ϕj are the functions in (2.11). It is known [FF, Theorem X.1.5] that if θ is the finite
Blaschke product of order d, then Uθ is unitarily equivalent to the lower triangular matrix M on
Cd defined by
 
α1 0 0 0 ··· ···
 q1 q2 α2 0 0 ··· · · ·
 −q1 α1 q3 q2 q3 α3 0 · · ·
 ··· 
 q1 α2 α3 q4 −q2 α3 q4 q3 q4 α4 · · ·
M :=  ··· . (2.15)
 .. 
−q1 α2 α3 α4 q5 q2 α3 α4 q5 −q3 α4 q5 q4 q5 α5 .
 
.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . .
If L ∈ Mn and M = [mi,j ]d×d , then the matrix L ⊗ M is the matrix on Cn×d defined by the block
matrix  
Lm1,1 Lm1,2 · · · Lm1,d
Lm2,1 Lm2,2 · · · Lm2,d 
 
L ⊗ M :=  . .. .. ..  .
 .. . . . 
Lmd,1 Lmd,2 · · · Lmd,d
∞
Now let P (z) ∈ HMn
be a matrix polynomial of degree k. Then the matrix P (M ) on Cn×d is
defined by
k
X k
X
P (M ) := Pi ⊗ M i , where P (z) = Pi z i . (2.16)
i=0 i=0
∞
For Φ ∈ HMn
and Θ := Iθ with an inner function θ, we write, for brevity,
(TΦ )Θ := PH(Θ) TΦ |H(Θ) , (2.17)
which is called the compression of TΦ to H(Θ). If M is given by (2.15) and P is the matrix
polynomial defined by (2.13) then the matrix P (M ) is called the Hermite-Fejér matrix determined
by (2.16). In particular, it is known [FF, Theorem X.5.6] that
W ∗ (TP )Θ W = P (M ), (2.18)
which says that P (M ) is a matrix representation for (TP )Θ .
∞
Lemma 2.7. Let A ∈ HM n
and Θ = Iθ for a finite Blaschke product θ. If A(α) is invertible for all
α ∈ Z(θ) then (TA )Θ is invertible.
Proof. Suppose (TA )Θ f = 0 for some f ∈ H(Θ), so that PH(Θ) (Af ) = 0 and hence, Af ∈ ΘHC2n .
Since A(α) is invertible for all α ∈ Z(θ), it follows that f ∈ ΘHC2n and hence, f ∈ ΘHC2n ∩ H(Θ) =
{0}. Thus (TA )Θ is one-one. But since (TA )Θ is a finite dimensional operator (because θ is a finite
Blaschke product), it follows that (TA )Θ is invertible.
3. Hyponormality of Block Toeplitz Operators
To get a tractable criterion for the hyponormality of block Toeplitz operators with bounded type
symbols, we need a triangular representation for compressions of the unilateral shift operator
U ≡ Tz . We refer to [AC] and [Ni] for details on this representation. For an explicit criterion,
we need to introduce the triangularization theorem concretely. To do so, recall that for an inner
function θ, Uθ is defined by
Uθ = PH(θ) U |H(θ) . (3.1)
There are three cases to consider.
Case 1 : Let B be a Blaschke product and let Λ := {λn : n ≥ 1} be the sequence of zeros of B
counted with their multiplicities. Write
k−1
Y λn − z |λn |
β1 := 1, βk := · (k ≥ 2),
n=1
1 − λn z λn
and let
dj
δj := βj (j ≥ 1),
1 − λj z
1
where dj := (1 − |λj |2 ) . Let µB be a measure on N given by µB ({n}) := 21 d2n , (n ∈ N). Then the
2
map VB : L2 (µB ) → H(B) defined by

1 X
VB (c) := √ c(n)dn δn , c ≡ {c(n)}n≥1 , (3.2)
2 n≥1
is unitary and UB is mapped onto the operator
VB∗ UB VB = (I − JB )MB , (3.3)
where (MB c)(n) := λn c(n) (n ∈ N) is a multiplication operator and
n−1
X βn (0)
(JB c)(n) := c(k)|λk |−2 · dk dn (n ∈ N)
βk (0)
k=1
is a lower-triangular Hilbert-Schmidt operator.

Case 2 : Let s be a singular inner function with continuous representing measure µ ≡ µs . Let µλ
be the projection of µ onto the arc {ζ : ζ ∈ T, 0 < argζ ≤ argλ} and let
Z t+ζ
sλ (ζ) := exp − dµλ (t) (ζ ∈ D).
T t−ζ
Then the map Vs : L2 (µ) → H(s) defined by

√ Z λdµ(λ)
(Vs c)(ζ) = 2 c(λ)sλ (ζ) (ζ ∈ D) (3.4)
T λ−ζ
is unitary and Us is mapped onto the operator
Vs∗ Us Vs = (I − Js )Ms , (3.5)
where (Ms c)(λ) := λc(λ) (λ ∈ T) is a multiplication operator and
Z
(Js c)(λ) = 2 eµ(t)−µ(λ) c(t)dµλ (t) (λ ∈ T)
T
Case 3 : Let ∆ be a singular inner function with pure point representing measure µ ≡ µ∆ . We
enumerate the set {t ∈ T : µ({t}) > 0} as a sequence {tk }k∈N . Write µk := µ({tk }), k ≥ 1.
Further, let µ∆ be a measure on R+ = [0, ∞) such that dµ∆ (λ) = µ[λ]+1 dλ and define a function
∆λ on the unit disk D by the formula
( [λ] )
X tk + ζ t[λ]+1 + ζ
∆λ (ζ) := exp − µk − (λ − [λ])µ[λ]+1 ,
tk − ζ t[λ]+1 − ζ
k=1
where [λ] is the integer part of λ (λ ∈ R+ ) and by definition ∆0 := 1. Then the map V∆ :
L2 (µ∆ ) → H(∆) defined by
√ Z
(V∆ c)(ζ) := 2 c(λ)∆λ (ζ)(1 − t[λ]+1 ζ)−1 dµ∆ (λ) (ζ ∈ D) (3.6)
R+
is unitary and U∆ is mapped onto the operator

V∆∗ U∆ V∆ = (I − J∆ )M∆ , (3.7)
where (M∆ c)(λ) := t[λ]+1 c(λ), (λ ∈ R+ ) is a multiplication operator and
Z λ
∆λ (0)
(J∆ c)(λ) := 2 c(t) dµ∆ (t) (λ ∈ R+ )
0 ∆t (0)
Collecting the above three cases we get:
Triangularization theorem. ([Ni, p.123]) Let θ be an inner function with the canonical factorization
θ = B · s · ∆, where B is a Blaschke product, and s and ∆ are singular functions with representing
measures µs and µ∆ respectively, with µs continuous and µ∆ a pure point measure. Then the map
V : L2 (µB ) × L2 (µs ) × L2 (µ∆ ) → H(θ) defined by
 
VB 0 0
V :=  0 BVs 0  (3.8)
0 0 BsV∆
is unitary, where VB , µB , VS , µS , V∆ , µ∆ are defined in (3.2) - (3.7) and Uθ is mapped onto the
operator  
MB 0 0
M := V ∗ Uθ V =  0 Ms 0  + J,
0 0 M∆
where MB , MS , M∆ are defined in (3.3), (3.5) and (3.7) and
 
JB M B 0 0
J := −  0 Js M s 0 +A
0 0 J∆ M ∆
is a lower-triangular Hilbert-Schmidt operator, with A3 = 0, rankA ≤ 3.
If Φ ∈ L∞
Mn , then by (1.3),
[TΦ∗ , TΦ ] = HΦ∗ ∗ HΦ∗ − HΦ∗ HΦ + TΦ∗ Φ−ΦΦ∗ .

Since the normality of Φ is a necessary condition for the hyponormality of TΦ , the positivity of
HΦ∗ ∗ HΦ∗ − HΦ∗ HΦ is an essential condition for the hyponormality of TΦ . Thus, we isolate this
property as a new notion, weaker than hyponormality. The reader will notice at once that this
notion is meaningful for non-scalar symbols.
Definition 3.1. Let Φ ∈ L∞

Mn . The pseudo-selfcommutator of TΦ is defined by
[TΦ∗ , TΦ ]p := HΦ∗ ∗ HΦ∗ − HΦ∗ HΦ .

TΦ is said to be pseudo-hyponormal if [TΦ∗ , TΦ ]p is positive semidefinite.
As in the case of hyponormality of scalar Toeplitz operators, we can see that the pseudo-
hyponormality of TΦ is independent of the constant matrix term Φ(0). Thus whenever we consider
the pseudo-hyponormality of TΦ we may assume that Φ(0) = 0. Observe that if Φ ∈ L∞ Mn then
[TΦ∗ , TΦ ] = [TΦ∗ , TΦ ]p + TΦ∗ Φ−ΦΦ∗ .

We thus have
TΦ is hyponormal ⇐⇒ TΦ is pseudo-hyponormal and Φ is normal;
and (via [GHR, Theorem 3.3]) TΦ is pseudo-hyponormal if and only if E(Φ) 6= ∅.
For Φ ≡ Φ∗− + Φ+ ∈ L∞
Mn , we write
n o
∞
C(Φ) := K ∈ HM n
: Φ − KΦ∗ ∈ HM
∞
n
.
Thus if Φ ∈ L∞
Mn then
K ∈ E(Φ) ⇐⇒ K ∈ C(Φ) and ||K||∞ ≤ 1.
∗
Also if K ∈ C(Φ) then HΦ∗− = HKΦ∗+ = TK e HΦ+ , which gives a necessary condition for the
∗
nonempty-ness of C(Φ) (and hence the hyponormality of TΦ ): in other words,

K ∈ C(Φ) =⇒ ker HΦ∗+ ⊆ ker HΦ∗− . (3.9)
We begin with:
Proposition 3.2. Let Φ ≡ Φ∗− + Φ+ ∈ L∞ ∗

Mn be such that Φ and Φ are of bounded type. Thus we
may write
Φ+ = Θ1 A∗ and Φ− = Θ2 B ∗ ,
2
where Θi = Iθi for an inner function θi (i = 1, 2) and A, B ∈ HM n
. If C(Φ) 6= ∅, then Θ2 is an
inner divisor of Θ1 , i.e., Θ1 = Θ0 Θ2 for some inner function Θ0 .
Proof. In view of (2.6) we may write

Φ+ ≡ [θ1 aij ]n×n and Φ− = θ2 bij n×n = [θij cij ]n×n ,
where each θij is an inner function, cij ∈ H 2 , θij and cij are coprime, and θ2 is the least common
∞
multiple of θij ’s. Suppose C(Φ) 6= ∅. Then there exists a matrix function K ∈ HM n
such that
∗ ∗ 2 ∗ ∗ 2
Φ− − KΦ+ ∈ HMn . Thus BΘ2 − KAΘ1 ∈ HMn , which implies that

BΘ∗2 Θ1 = bji θ2 θ1 ∈ HM 2
n
.
But since θ2 bij = θij cij , and hence bij = θ2 θij cij , it follows that

bji θ2 θ1 = θ2 θ ji cji θ 2 θ1 = θji cji θ1 ∈ H ∞ .
Since θji and cji are coprime, we have that
θ ji θ1 ∈ H ∞ , and hence θ2 θ1 ∈ H ∞ ,
which implies that Θ2 divides Θ1 .
Proposition 3.2 shows that the hyponormality of Tϕ with scalar-valued rational symbol ϕ
implies
deg (ϕ− ) ≤ deg (ϕ+ ),
which is a generalization of the well-known result for the cases of the trigonometric Toeplitz
PN
operators, i.e., if ϕ = n=−m an z n is such that Tϕ is hyponormal then m ≤ N (cf. [FL]).
In view of Proposition 3.2, when we study the hyponormality of block Toeplitz operators
with bounded type symbols Φ (i.e., Φ and Φ∗ are of bounded type) we may assume that the symbol
Φ ≡ Φ∗− + Φ+ ∈ L∞ Mn is of the form
Φ+ = Θ1 Θ0 A∗ and Φ− = Θ1 B ∗ ,
2
where Θi := Iθi for an inner function θi (i = 0, 1) and A, B ∈ HM n
.
Our criterion is as follows:
Theorem 3.3. Let Φ ≡ Φ∗− + Φ+ ∈ L∞ ∗
Mn be normal such that Φ and Φ are of bounded type of the
form
Φ+ = Θ1 Θ0 A∗ and Φ− = Θ1 B ∗ ,
2
where Θi = Iθi for an inner function θi (i = 0, 1) and A, B ∈ HM n
. Write
 2 2 2
V : L ≡ L (µB ) × L (µs ) × L (µ∆ ) → H(θ1 θ0 ) is unitary as in (3.8);


M := V ∗ U
θ1 θ0 V ;
(3.10)


 L := L ⊗ Cn

V := V ⊗ In .
If K ∈ C(Φ) then
M
[TΦ∗ , TΦ ] = (TA )∗Θ1 Θ0 V I|L − K(M )∗ K(M ) V ∗ (TA )Θ1 Θ0 0|Θ1 Θ0 HC2n ,
where K(M ) is understood as an H ∞ -functional calculus. Hence, in particular,

K(M ) is contractive =⇒ TΦ is hyponormal;
the converse is also true if (TA )Θ1 Θ0 has dense range, and in this case,

rank [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] = rank I|L − K(M )∗ K(M ) .
Proof. Let E, F ∈ H(Θ1 Θ0 ) and K ∈ C(Φ). Since ker HΘ∗1 Θ∗0 = Θ1 Θ0 HC2n , we have
HΘ∗1 Θ∗0 K E = HΘ∗1 Θ∗0 (PH(Θ1 Θ0 ) (KE)).
∗
Since HΘ ∗ Θ∗ HΘ∗ Θ∗ is the projection onto H(Θ1 Θ0 ), it follows that
1 0 1 0
D E D E
∗
HΘ ∗ Θ∗ K HΘ∗ Θ∗ K E, F
1 0 1 0
= PH(Θ 1 Θ 0 ) KE, PH(Θ 1 Θ 0 ) KF
D E
= (TK )Θ1 Θ0 E, (TK )Θ1 Θ0 F ,
which gives
∗ ∗
HΘ ∗ Θ∗ K HΘ∗ Θ∗ K |H(Θ Θ ) = (TK )Θ Θ (TK )Θ1 Θ0 .
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Observe that [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] = HAΘ

∗
0 1 0 1
∗
∗ Θ∗ HAΘ∗ Θ∗ − HBΘ∗ HBΘ∗ because Φ is normal. But since
1 1
∗
⊥
cl ran (HAΘ ∗ Θ∗ HAΘ∗ Θ∗ ) = ker HAΘ∗ Θ∗
0 1 0 1 0 1
⊆ (Θ1 Θ0 HC2n )⊥ = H(Θ1 Θ0 )
and
∗
⊥
cl ran (HBΘ ∗ HBΘ∗ ) = ker HBΘ∗
1 1 1
⊆ (Θ1 HC2n )⊥ = H(Θ1 ),
we have ran [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] ⊆ H(Θ1 Θ0 ). But since Φ − KΦ∗ ∈ HM

∞
n
, it follows that on H(Θ1 Θ0 ),

[TΦ∗ , TΦ ] = HΦ∗ ∗ HΦ∗ − HΦ∗ HΦ
H(Θ1 Θ0 )

∗ ∗
= HΦ∗ HΦ∗ − HKΦ∗ HKΦ∗
H(Θ1 Θ0 )

∗ ∗
= HΘ∗1 Θ∗0 A+Φ− HΘ∗1 Θ∗0 A+Φ− − HK(Θ ∗ Θ∗ A+Φ ) HK(Θ∗ Θ∗ A+Φ− )
1 0 − 1 0
H(Θ1 Θ0 )

∗ ∗ ∗
= T(A+Θ1 Θ0 Φ− ) HΘ∗1 Θ∗0 HΘ∗1 Θ∗0 − HKΘ∗1 Θ∗0 HKΘ∗1 Θ∗0 T(A+Θ1 Θ0 Φ− )
H(Θ1 Θ0 )

∗ ∗
= (TA )Θ1 Θ0 I|H(Θ1 Θ0 ) − (TK )Θ1 Θ0 (TK )Θ1 Θ0 (TA )Θ1 Θ0 ,
where (TA )Θ1 Θ0 is understood in the sense that the compression (TA )Θ1 Θ0 is bounded even though
TA is possibly unbounded; in fact,
PH(Θ1 Θ0 ) T(A+Θ1 Θ0 Φ− ) |H(Θ1 Θ0 ) = PH(Θ1 Θ0 ) TA |H(Θ1 Θ0 ) .

∞
On the other hand, since K(z) ≡ krs (z) 1≤r,s≤n ∈ HMn
, we may write
∞
X
K(z) = Ki z i (Ki ∈ Mn ).
i=0
P∞ h i
(rs) i
We also write krs (z) := 0 ci z and then Ki = c(rs)
i
. We thus have
1≤r,s≤n
(TK )Θ1 Θ0 = PH(Θ1 Θ0 ) TK |H(Θ1 Θ0 )

= PH(θ1 θ0 ) Tkrs |H(θ1 θ0 ) 1≤r,s≤n
"∞ #
X (rs)
= ci PH(θ1 θ0 ) Tzi |H(θ1 θ0 )
i=0 1≤r,s≤n
"∞ #
X i
(rs)
= ci PH(θ1 θ0 ) Tz |H(θ1 θ0 ) (because θ1 θ0 H 2 ⊆ Lat Tz )
i=0 1≤r,s≤n
∞
X h i
= Uθi1 θ0 ⊗ c(rs)
i 1≤r,s≤n
i=0
X∞

= Uθi1 θ0 ⊗ Ki ,
i=0
Let {φj } be an orthonormal basis for H(θ1 θ0 ) and put ej := V ∗ φj . Then {ej } forms an orthonormal
basis for L2 (µB ) × L2 (µs ) × L2 (µ∆ ). Thus for each f ∈ Cn , we have V(ej ⊗ f ) = φj ⊗ f . It thus
follows that
D E X ∞ D E
(TK )Θ1 Θ0 (φj ⊗ f ) , φk ⊗ g = (Uθi1 θ0 ⊗ Ki )(φj ⊗ f ), φk ⊗ g
i=0
∞ D
X E
= (Uθi1 θ0 φj ) ⊗ (Ki f ), φk ⊗ g
i=0
∞ D
X ED E
= Uθi1 θ0 V ej , V ek Ki f, g
i=0
∞ D
X E
= (M i ⊗ Ki )(ej ⊗ f ), ek ⊗ g
i=0
D E
= K(M )(ej ⊗ f ) , ek ⊗ g ,
which implies that
V ∗ (TK )Θ1 Θ0 V = K(M ). (3.11)
∞
Here K(M ) is understood as a H -functional calculus (so called the Sz.-Nagy-Foiaş functional
calculus) because M is an absolutely continuous contraction: in fact, we claim that
every compression of the shift operator is completely non-unitary.
To see this, write PX U PX for the compression of U to X ≡ PX H 2 with some projection PX .
We assume to the contrary that PX U PX has a unitary summand W acting on a closed subspace
Y ⊆ X . But since ||U || = 1, we must have that PY ⊥ U |Y = 0. Thus we can see that Y is an
invariant subspace of U . Thus, by Beurling’s Theorem, Y = θH 2 for some inner function θ. But
then W (θH 2 ) = zθH 2 , and hence W is not surjective, a contradiction. Hence every compression
of the shift operator is completely non-unitary. We can therefore conclude that
M
[TΦ∗ , TΦ ] = (TA )∗Θ1 Θ0 V I|L − K(M )∗ K(M ) V ∗ (TA )Θ1 Θ0 0|Θ1 Θ0 HC2n .
The remaining assertions follow trivially from the first assertion.
If Φ is a scalar-valued function then Theorem 3.3 reduces to the following corollary.

Corollary 3.4. Let ϕ ≡ ϕ∗− + ϕ+ ∈ L∞ be such that ϕ and ϕ are of bounded type of the form
ϕ+ = θ1 θ0 a and ϕ− = θ1 b,
where θ1 and θ0 are inner functions and a, b ∈ H 2 . If k ∈ C(ϕ) then

Tϕ is hyponormal ⇐⇒ k(M ) is contractive,
where M is defined as in (3.10).
Proof. By Theorem 3.3, it suffices to show that (Ta )θ1 θ0 has dense range. To prove this suppose
(Ta )∗θ1 θ0 f = 0 for some f ∈ H(θ1 θ0 ). Then PH(θ1 θ0 ) (af ) = 0, i.e., af = θ1 θ0 h for some h ∈ H 2 .
⊥
Thus we have aθ1 θ 0 f ∈ H 2 ∩ H 2 = {0}, which implies that f = 0. Therefore (Ta )∗θ1 θ0 is 1-1,
which gives the result.
Remark 3.5. We note that in Corollary 3.4, if ϕ is a rational function then M is a finite matrix.
Indeed, if ϕ is a rational function, and hence θ1 θ0 is a finite Blaschke product of the form
Yd
z − αj
θ1 θ0 = ,
j=1
1 − αj z
then M is obtained by (2.15).
Remark 3.6. We mention that K ∈ C(Φ) may not be contractive, i.e., there might exist a function
K ∈ C(Φ) \ E(Φ). In spite of this, Theorem 3.3 guarantees that
I − K(M )∗ K(M )
is unchanged regardless of the particular choice of K in C(Φ). We will illustrate this phenomenon
with a scalar-valued Toeplitz operator with a trigonometric polynomial symbol. For example, let
Φ(z) = z −2 + 2z −1 + z + 2z 2 .
If K(z) = 21 + 34 z, then Φ∗− − KΦ∗+ = (z −2 + 2z −1 ) − ( 12 + 43 z)(z −1 + 2z −2 ) = − 34 ∈ H ∞ , so that
K ∈ C(Φ), but ||K||∞ = 54 > 1. However by (2.15) we have
1
0 0 2 0
M= and hence, K(M ) = 3 1 ,
1 0 4 2
so that 13 3 3
1 0 − 83
I − K(M )∗ K(M ) = − 16 3
8 =
1
16 ≥ 0,
0 1 8 4 − 38 3
4
which implies that TΦ is hyponormal even though ||K||∞ > 1. Of course, in view of Cowen’s
z+ 1
Theorem, there exists a function b ∈ E(Φ): indeed, b(z) = 1+ 12z ∈ E(Φ).
2
We now provide some revealing examples that illustrate Theorem 3.3.

Example 3.7. Let ∆ be a singular inner function of the form
z + 1
∆ := exp
z−1
and consider the matrix-valued function

∆ z∆ + z∆
Φ := .
z∆ + z∆ ∆
We now use Theorem 3.3 to determine the hyponormality of TΦ . Under the notation of Theorem
3.3 we have
0 1 z 1
Θ1 = Iz∆ , Θ0 = I2 , A = , B= .
1 0 1 z
If we put
1 z
K(z) := ,
z 1
then a straightforward calculation shows that K ∈ C(Φ). Under the notation of Theorem 3.3 we
can see that
0 I|L
(TA )Iz∆ = : L → L is invertible.
I|L 0
But since
I|L M
K(M ) = ,
M I|L
it follows that
M ∗M M + M∗
I|L − K(M )∗ K(M ) = − ,
M + M∗ M ∗M
which is not positive (simply by looking at the upper-left entry). It therefore follows from Theorem
3.3 that TΦ is not hyponormal.
Example 3.8. Let ∆ be a singular inner function of the form

z+1
∆ := exp
z−1
and let
1 1 z+1
Ω := ∆ 2 = exp · .
2 z−1
Consider the function
4 8 37 2 1 1 29
ϕ := z+ ∆+ z Ω − √ z 2 + √ z + (z + 2∆).
5 5 50 e e 25
Observe that
4 8 37
ϕ− = z + ∆ + (I − P )(z 2 Ω) + c (c ∈ C).
5 5 50
We thus have
25 4 37 2
k := + z Ω ∈ C(ϕ),
29 5 100
but
117
||k||∞ => 1.
116
Thus by the aid of such a function k, we cannot determine the hyponormality of Tϕ . Using the
notation in the triangularization theorem we can show that
(i) L2 (µ∆ ) = L2 (0, 1) and L2 (µB ) = C;
(ii) M∆ = I and MB = 0;
Rλ
(iii) (J∆ c)(λ) = 2 0 et−λ c(t)dt for λ ∈ (0, 1) and c ∈ L2 (0, 1);
√ R1 1+ζ

(iv) Vz = √12 and (V∆ c)(ζ) = 2 0 c(λ)exp −λ 1−ζ (1 − ζ)−1 dλ, ζ ∈ D, c ∈ L2 (0, 1);
(v) M ≡ MB × M∆ + J : L → L, where L ≡ C ⊕ L2 (0, 1) ∼ = H(Iz∆ ).
Note that H(z∆) = H(z) ⊕ zH(∆), so that PH(z∆) = PH(z) + zPH(∆) z. We then have

Uz 0 H(z) H(z)
Uz∆ = : → .
a zU∆ z zH(∆) zH(∆)
Since Uz = 0, it follows that
∗
Vz 0 0 0 Vz 0 0 0
M= = .
0 zV∆ a zU∆ z 0 zV∆ (zV∆ )∗ aVz I − J∆
By using the fact that PH(θ) = I − θP θ, we can compute:

∆
a = PzH(∆) (z · 1) = zPH(∆) z(z · 1) = zPH(∆) (1) = z(I − ∆P ∆)(1) = z 1 − .
e
Thus we have
0 0
M= ∆ .
V∆∗ 1− e Vz I − J∆
Write ∆
A := V∆∗ 1 − Vz .
e
Then we have
∆ 2 ∆(0) 1 2
||A||2 = 1 − = 1− − ∆ − ∆(0)
e e e
∆(0) 2 1
= 1− + 2 ||∆||2 − |∆(0)|2
e e
1 2 1 1 1
= 1 − 2 + 2 1 − 2 = 1 − 2.
e e e e
A straightforward calculation shows that
"4 #
25 5 0
k(M ) = 4 37 2 ,
29 S 5 + 100 z Ω (I − J∆ )
where !
37
S := zΩ (I − J∆ ) A.
100
On the other hand, consider the function
ϕ1 (z) := (I − P )(zΩ) + ∆.
Then q := zΩ ∈ E(ϕ1 ). Since M∆ = 1, it follows from Corollary 3.4 that q(M ) = (zΩ)(I − J∆ ) is
a contraction. Thus we have
r
37 37 1
||S|| = ||(zΩ)(I − J∆ )A|| ≤ 1− 2
100 100 e
Also we consider the function
4 9
ϕ2 (z) := ∆ + (I − P )(z 2 Ω) + ∆.
5 25
Put
z 2 Ω + 54
B(z) := .
1 + 45 z 2 Ω
4 9 2
Since B(z) = 5 + 25 z Ω + ∆g for some g ∈ H 2 , we have

4 9 4 9
(ϕ2 )− − B (ϕ2 )+ = ∆ + (I − P )(z 2 Ω) − + z 2 Ω + ∆g ∆
5 25 5 25
9
= − P (z 2 Ω) − g ∈ H 2 ,
25
Since ||B||∞ = 1, it follows that Tϕ2 is hyponormal. In particular, since
4 9
+ z 2 Ω ∈ C(ϕ2 ),
r :=
5 25
it follows from Corollary 3.4 that r(M ) = ( 45 + 25
9 2
z Ω)(I − J∆ ) is a contraction. Thus we have
that
4 37 2 4 9 1 101
+ z Ω (I − J∆ ) ≤ + z 2 Ω (I − J∆ ) + ||(z 2 Ω)(I − J∆ )|| ≤ .
5 100 5 25 100 100
Using the observation that if A, B, C and D are operators then

A B ||A|| ||B||
≤ ,
C D ||C|| ||D||
we can see that " #

4
25 5 0
||k(M )|| ≤ 4 9 2
29 ||S|| 5 + 25 z Ω (I − J∆ )
" 4
#
25 q 5 0
≤ 37 ≈ 0.968 < 1,
29 100 1 − e12 101
100
which, by Corollary 3.4, implies that Tϕ is hyponormal.
∞
We now consider the condition “C(Φ) 6= ∅”, i.e., the existence of a function K ∈ HMn
such
∗ ∞
that Φ − KΦ ∈ HMn . In view of (3.9), we may assume that
ker HΦ∗+ ⊆ ker HΦ∗− (3.12)
whenever we study the hyponormality of TΦ . Recall ([Gu1, Corollary 2]) that
HΦ∗ ∗ HΦ∗ − HΦ∗ HΦ ≥ 0 ⇐⇒ ∃ K ∈ HM
∞
n
∗
with ||K||∞ ≤ 1 such that HΦ∗− = TK
e HΦ∗
+
. (3.13)
We thus have
∞
C(Φ) 6= ∅ ⇐⇒ ∃ K ∈ HMn
such that Φ∗− − KΦ∗+ ∈ HM
2
n
∗ ∞
⇐⇒ HΦ∗− = TK
e HΦ∗
+
for some K ∈ HMn
∗ ∗
⇐⇒ HαΦ∗ HαΦ∗ − HΦ∗ HΦ∗ ≥ 0 for some α > 0 (by (3.13))
+ + − −
(3.14)
⇐⇒ ker HΦ∗+ ⊆ ker HΦ∗− and
( )
||HΦ∗− F || ⊥
sup : F ∈ ker (HΦ∗+ ) , ||F || = 1 ≤ α.
||HΦ∗+ F ||
If Φ ∈ L∞
Mn is a rational function then by Kronecker’s lemma (cf. [Ni, p.183]), ran HΦ+ is finite
∗
dimensional. Thus by (3.14) we can see that

C(Φ) 6= ∅ ⇐⇒ ker HΦ∗+ ⊆ ker HΦ∗− .
Consequently, if Φ ∈ L∞
Mn is a rational function then there always exists a function K ∈ C(Φ)
under the kernel assumption (3.12). We record this in
Proposition 3.9. If Φ ∈ L∞
Mn is a rational function satisfying ker HΦ+ ⊆ ker HΦ− , then C(Φ) 6= ∅.
∗ ∗
We remark that there is an explicit way to find a function (in fact, a matrix-valued polynomial)
K in C(Φ) for the rational symbol case. To see this, in view of Proposition 3.2, suppose Φ ∈ L∞ Mn
is of the form
Φ+ = Θ1 Θ0 A∗ and Φ− = Θ1 B ∗ ,
where Θi = Iθi for a finite Blaschke product θi (i = 0, 1). We observe first that
K ∈ C(Φ) ⇐⇒ Φ − KΦ∗ ∈ HM
∞
n
∞
⇐⇒ Θ0 B − KA ∈ Θ1 Θ0 HMn
. (3.15)
Suppose θ1 θ0 is a finite Blaschke product of degree d of the form
YN mi XN
z − αi
θ1 θ0 = (d := mi ).
i=1
1 − αi z i=1
Then the last assertion in (3.15) holds if and only if the following equations hold: for each i =
1, . . . , N ,     
Bi,0 Ki,0 0 0 ··· 0 Ai,0
 Bi,1   Ki,1 Ki,0 0 ··· 0  Ai,1 
    
 Bi,2   Ki,2 Ki,1 Ki,0 ··· 0  Ai,2 
 =  , (3.16)
 ..   .. .. .. .. ..  .. 
 .   . . . . .  . 
Bi,mi −1 Ki,mi −1 Ki,mi −2 ... Ki,1 Ki,0 Ai,mi −1
where
K (j) (αi ) A(j) (αi ) (θ0 B)(j) (αi )
Ki,j := , Ai,j := and Bi,j := .
j! j! j!
∞
Thus K is a function in HM n
for which
K (j) (αi )
= Ki,j (1 ≤ i ≤ N, 0 ≤ j < mi ), (3.17)
j!
where the Ki,j are determined by the equation (3.16). This is exactly the classical Hermite-Fejér
interpolation problem which we have introduced in Section 2. Thus the solution (2.13) for the
classical Hermite-Fejér interpolation problem provides a polynomial K ∈ C(Φ).
Therefore we get:
Proposition 3.10. If Φ ∈ L∞
Mn is a rational function such that C(Φ) 6= ∅, then C(Φ) contains a
polynomial.
However, by comparison with the rational symbol case, there may not exist a function K ∈
C(Φ) if Φ is of bounded type. But we guarantee the existence of a function K ∈ C(Φ) if the
bounded type symbol Φ satisfies a certain determinant property. To see this, we recall the notion
of the reduced minimum modulus. If T ∈ B(H) then the reduced minimum modulus of T is defined
by ( ⊥
inf ||T x|| : x ∈ ker T , ||x|| = 1 if T 6= 0
γ(T ) =
0 if T = 0.
It is well known ([Ap]) that if T 6= 0 then γ(T ) > 0 if and only if T has closed range. We can
easily show that if S, T ∈ B(H) and S is one-one then
γ(ST ) ≥ γ(S)γ(T ). (3.18)
We then have:
Proposition 3.11. Let Φ ∈ L∞ ∗
Mn be such that Φ and Φ are of bounded type satisfying
ker HΦ∗+ ⊆ ker HΦ∗− .
n o
If there exists δ > 0 such that M := t : |det Φ+ (eit )| < δ has measure zero then C(Φ) 6= ∅.
Proof. Suppose M has measure zero for some δ > 0. Write

Φ+ = ΘA∗ (right coprime factorization).
Since det Θ is inner, we have |det Φ+ | = |det A| a.e. on T. Then by the well-known result [GGK,
Theorem XXIII.2.4], our determinant condition shows that the multiplication operator MA is
invertible and γ(MA ) > 0, where MA f := Af for f ∈ L2Cn . Since A ∈ HM ∞
n
, the Toeplitz operator
TA is a restriction of MA . Thus it follows that γ(TA ) ≥ γ(MA ) > 0. Since ran HΘ∗ = H(Θ), e it
follows that
HΦ∗+ = HAΘ∗ = TA∗eHΘ∗ = TA∗e|H(Θ)e HΘ ∗ .
Observe that n o
γ(HΘ∗ ) = inf ||HΘ∗ F || : F ∈ H(Θ), ||F || = 1
n o
= inf ||Θ∗ F || : F ∈ H(Θ), ||F || = 1
= 1.
We now claim that
TA∗e|H(Θ)
e is one-one. (3.19)
Indeed, since
ΘHC2n = ker HAΘ∗ = ker TA∗eHΘ∗ and ker HΘ∗ = ΘHC2n ,
it follows that TA∗e|ran HΘ∗ = TA∗e|H(Θ)

e is one-one, which gives (3.19). Now since γ(TA ) > 0 it follows
from (3.18) and (3.19) that
γ(HΦ∗ ) = γ(HΦ∗+ ) = γ(TA∗e|H(Θ) ∗
e HΘ∗ ) ≥ γ(TA
e|H(Θ)
∗
e ) ≥ γ(TA
e) = γ(TA
e) = γ(TA ) > 0.
We thus have
( )
||HΦ∗− F || ⊥ ||HΦ ||
sup : F ∈ ker HΦ∗+ , ||F || = 1 ≤ <α for some α > 0. (3.20)
||HΦ∗+ F || γ(HΦ∗ )
Therefore, by (3.14) we can conclude that C(Φ) 6= ∅.
4. Subnormality of Block Toeplitz Operators

As we saw in Introduction, the Bram-Halmos criterion on subnormality ([Br], [Con]) says that
T ∈ B(H) is subnormal if and only if the positive test (1.6) holds. It is easy to see that (1.6) is
equivalent to the following positivity test:
 
I T∗ ... T ∗k
T T ∗ T . . . T ∗k T 
 
 .. .. .. ..  ≥ 0 (all k ≥ 1). (4.1)
 . . . . 
Tk T ∗T k . . . T ∗k T k
Condition (4.1) provides a measure of the gap between hyponormality and subnormality. In fact
the positivity condition (4.1) for k = 1 is equivalent to the hyponormality of T , while subnormality
requires the validity of (4.1) for all k. For k ≥ 1, an operator T is said to be k-hyponormal if
T satisfies the positivity condition (4.1) for a fixed k. Thus the Bram-Halmos criterion can be
stated as: T is subnormal if and only if T is k-hyponormal for all k ≥ 1. The k-hyponormality has
been considered by many authors with an aim at understanding the gap between hyponormality
and subnormality. For instance, the Bram-Halmos criterion on subnormality indicates that 2-
hyponormality is generally far from subnormality. There are special classes of operators, however,
for which these two notions are equivalent. A trivial example is given by the class of operators
whose square is compact (e.g., compact perturbations of nilpotent operators of nilpotency 2).
Also in [CuL1, Example 3.1], it was shown that there is no gap between 2-hyponormality and
subnormality for back-step extensions of recursively generated subnormal weighted shifts.
On the other hand, in 1970, P.R. Halmos posed the following problem, listed as Problem 5 in
his lectures “Ten problems in Hilbert space” [Hal1], [Hal2]:
Is every subnormal Toeplitz operator either normal or analytic ?
A Toeplitz operator Tϕ is called analytic if ϕ ∈ H ∞ . Any analytic Toeplitz operator is easily
seen to be subnormal: indeed, Tϕ h = P (ϕh) = ϕh = Mϕ h for h ∈ H 2 , where Mϕ is the normal
operator of multiplication by ϕ on L2 . The question is natural because the two classes, the normal
and analytic Toeplitz operators, are fairly well understood and are subnormal. Halmos’s Problem
5 has been partially answered in the affirmative by many authors (cf. [Ab], [AIW], [Co2], [Co3],
[CuL1], [CuL2], [NT], and etc). In 1984, Halmos’s Problem 5 was answered in the negative by
C. Cowen and J. Long [CoL]: they found an analytic function ψ for which Tψ+αψ (0 < α < 1) is
subnormal - in fact, this Toeplitz operator is unitarily equivalent to a subnormal weighted shift Wβ
1
with weight sequence β ≡ {βn }, where βn = (1−α2n+2 ) 2 for n = 0, 1, 2, . . .. Unfortunately, Cowen
and Long’s construction does not provide an intrinsic connection between subnormality and the
theory of Toeplitz operators. Until now researchers have been unable to characterize subnormal
Toeplitz operators in terms of their symbols. Thus the following question is very interesting and
challenging:
Which Toeplitz operators are subnormal ? (4.2)
The most interesting partial answer to Halmos’s Problem 5 was given by M. Abrahamse [Ab].
M. Abrahamse gave a general sufficient condition for the answer to Halmos’s Problem 5 to be
affirmative. Abrahamse’s Theorem can be then stated as follows: Let ϕ = g + f ∈ L∞ (f, g ∈ H 2 )
be such that ϕ or ϕ is of bounded type. If Tϕ is subnormal then Tϕ is normal or analytic. In fact,
it was also shown (cf. [CuL2], [CuL3]) that every 2-hyponormal Toeplitz operator with a bounded
type symbol is normal or analytic, and hence subnormal. On the other hand, very recently, the
authors of [CHL] have extended Abrahamse’s Theorem to block Toeplitz operators.
Theorem 4.1. (Extension of Abrahamse’s Theorem) (Curto-Hwang-Lee [CHL]) Suppose Φ = Φ∗− +
Φ+ ∈ L ∞ ∗
Mn is such that Φ and Φ are of bounded type of the form
Φ− = B ∗ Θ 2
(B ∈ HM n
; Θ = Iθ with an inner function θ) ,
where B and Θ are coprime. If TΦ is hyponormal and ker [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] is invariant under TΦ then TΦ
is normal or analytic. Hence, in particular, if TΦ is subnormal then TΦ is normal or analytic.
We note that if n = 1 (i.e., TΦ is a scalar-valued Toeplitz operator), then Φ− = bθ with

b ∈ H 2 . Thus, it automatically holds that b and θ are coprime. Consequently, if n = 1 then
Theorem 4.1 reduces to Abrahamse’s Theorem.
On the other hand, the study of square-hyponormality originated in [Hal3, Problem 209]. It
is easy to see that every power of a normal operator is normal and the same statement is true for
every subnormal operator. How about hyponormal operators? [Hal3, Problem 209] shows that
there exists a hyponormal operator whose square is not hyponormal (e.g., U ∗ +2U for the unilateral
shift U ). However, as we remarked in the preceding, there exist special classes of operators for
which square-hyponormality and subnormality coincide. For those classes of operators, it suffices
to check the square-hyponormality to show subnormality. This certainly gives a nice answer to
question (4.2). Indeed, in [CuL1], it was shown that every hyponormal trigonometric Toeplitz
operator whose square is hyponormal must be either normal or analytic, and hence subnormal. In
[Gu3], C. Gu showed that this result still holds for Toeplitz operators Tϕ with rational symbols ϕ
(more generally, the cases where both ϕ and ϕ are of bounded type).
The aim of this section is to prove that this result can be extended to the block Toeplitz
operators whose symbols are matrix-valued rational functions.
We begin with:
Lemma 4.2. Suppose Φ = Φ∗− + Φ+ ∈ L∞
Mn is a matrix-valued rational function of the form
Φ− = B ∗ Θ (coprime factorization) and Φ+ = ΘΘ0 A∗ ,

2
where Θ = Iθ and Θ0 = Iθ0 with finite Blaschke products θ, θ0 and A, B ∈ HM n
. If TΦ is
hyponormal then A(α) is invertible for each α ∈ Z(θ) \ Z(θ0 ).
Proof. Assume to the contrary that A(α) is not invertible for some α ∈ Z(θ) \ Z(θ0 ). Then by
Lemma 2.3, A and Bα := Ibα are not right coprime. Thus there exists a nonconstant inner matrix
function ∆ such that
Bα = ∆1 ∆ = ∆∆1 and A = A1 ∆.
Write Θ := Bα Θ′ = Θ′ Bα . Then we may write Φ+ = Θ0 Θ′ ∆1 A∗1 . Since TΦ is hyponormal, it
follows that
Θ0 Θ′ ∆1 HC2n ⊆ ker HΦ∗+ ⊆ ker HΦ∗− = ΘHC2n ,
which implies that Θ is a (left) inner divisor of Θ0 Θ′ ∆1 (cf. [FF, Corollary IX.2.2]). Observe that
Θ is a (left) inner divisor of Θ0 Θ′ ∆1 =⇒ Θ∗ Θ0 Θ′ ∆1 ∈ HM
2
n
=⇒ Θ0 ∆1 Θ′ Θ∗ ∈ HM
2
n
=⇒ Θ0 ∆∗ ∈ HM
2
n
,
which implies that ∆ is a (right) inner divisor of Θ0 . But since Bα and Θ0 are coprime, it follows
that ∆ and Θ0 are coprime. Thus ∆ is a constant unitary, a contradiction. This completes the
proof.
∞
Lemma 4.3. Suppose F, Bλ ∈ HM n
(Bλ := Ibλ ). If G = GCDℓ {F, Bλ }, then G is a Blaschke-
Potapov factor of the form G = bλ PN + (I − PN ) with
⊥
N := ran F (λ) .
e = GCDr {Fe, B
Proof. By assumption, G eλ }. Then by Lemma 2.5,
e = b PN + (I − PN ) for a closed subspace N .

G λ
Thus Fe = LeGe for some Le ∈ H 2 , where L

Mn
e and B e∗ = PN + b (I − PN ) are right coprime. We
eλ G
λ
e
argue that ker L(λ) e
∩ ran (I − PN ) = {0}. Indeed, if ker L(λ) ∩ ran (I − PN ) =: N0 6= {0} then
e and PN + b (I − PN ) as follows:
PN0⊥ + bλ (I − PN0⊥ ) would be a right inner divisor of L λ
⊥ ⊥
e ∗ 0 N0 ∗ 0 1 0 N0
L(λ) = = ,
∗ 0 N0 ∗ 0 0 bλ N0
and hence,

e e 1 0 N0⊥ 2
L = L(λ) + CBλ = D (some C, D ∈ HM )
0 bλ N0 n
and
    
1 0 0 N 1 0 0 1 0 0 N
PN + bλ (I − PN ) = 0 bλ 0  N ′ = 0 bλ 0 0 1 0  N ′ ,
0 0 bλ N0 0 0 1 0 0 bλ N0

e
where N ′ := N ⊥ ⊖ N0 . But since Fe (λ) = L(λ) e
bλ PN + (I − PN ) (λ) = L(λ)(I − PN ), it follows
that
⊥
N = ker (I − PN ) = ker Fe (λ) = ker F ∗ (λ) = ran F (λ) .
⊥
Therefore G = bλ PN + (I − PN ) with N := ran F (λ) .
∞
Lemma 4.4. Let Φ ≡ Φ+ ∈ HMn
be a matrix-valued rational function of the form
Φ = Θ∆r A∗r , (right coprime factorization),

= A∗ℓ Ω, (left coprime factorization),
where Θ = Iθ with a finite Blaschke product θ and ∆r , Ω are inner matrix functions. Then Θ is
an inner divisor of Ω.
Proof. Since ∆r is a finite Blaschke-Potapov product, we may write

M
Y z − αm
∆r = ν bm Pm + (I − Pm ) (bm := ).
m=1
1 − αm z
Without loss of generality we may assume that ν = In . Define

n o
θ0 := GCD ω : ω is inner, ∆r is an inner divisor of Ω = ωIn .
QM
Then θ0 = m=1 bm . Observe that
Φ = Θ∆r A∗r
M
Y
=Θ bm Pm + (I − Pm ) A∗r
m=1
Y
M−1 ∗
= bm Pm + (I − Pm ) BM PM + bM (I − PM ) A∗r Θ (Bm := Ibm )
m=1
Y
M−1 h i∗
= bm Pm + (I − Pm ) Ar PM + bM (I − PM ) BM Θ
m=1
If PM = I, then
Y
M−1
Φ= bm Pm + (I − Pm ) A∗r BM Θ,
m=1
where Θ and Ar are coprime. If instead PM 6= I, then there are two cases to consider.
Case 1: Let αM ∈
/ Z(θ). Then
Y
M−1
Φ= bm Pm + (I − Pm ) A∗1 BM Θ (with A1 := Ar (PM + bM (I − PM ))),
m=1
where Θ and A1 are coprime (by passing to Lemma 2.3).

Case 2: Let αM ∈ Z(θ). Write ΩM := GCDℓ {BM , Ar PM + bM (I − PM ) }. Then we can
write
BM = ΩM Ω′M and Ar PM + bM (I − PM ) = ΩM ΓM (4.3)
⊥
for some Ω′M , ΓM ∈ HM
∞
n
. By Lemma 4.3, ΩM = bM PN +(I −PN ) with N := ran (Ar (αM )PM ) .
We now claim that
ΓM (αM ) is invertible. (4.4)
Since h i
rank(I−PM )
det Ar PM + bM (I − PM ) = bM · det Ar
and
det ΩM ΓM = (bM )dim N · det ΓM ,
it follows from (4.3) that
det Ar · (bM )rank(I−PM ) = (bM )dim N · det ΓM . (4.5)

But since Ar and Θ are right coprime, and hence Ar (αM ) is invertible, it follows that
⊥
dim N = dim ran (Ar (αM )PM ) = dim(ran PM )⊥ = rank(I − PM ),
which together with (4.5) implies that det ΓM = det Ar . This proves (4.4). Therefore we have
Y
M−1
Φ= bm Pm + (I − Pm ) Γ∗M Ω′M Θ,
m=1
where ΓM (αM ) is invertible. Thus ΓM (α) is invertible for all α ∈ Z(θ), and hence by Lemma 2.3,
Θ and ΓM are coprime.
If we repeat this argument then after M steps we get the left coprime factorization of Φ = A∗l Ω,
where Ω still has Θ as an inner divisor.
Our main theorem of this section now follows:

Theorem 4.5. Let Φ ∈ L∞

Mn be a matrix-valued rational function. Then we may write
Φ− = B ∗ Θ ,
2
where B ∈ HM n
and Θ := Iθ with a finite Blaschke product θ. Suppose B and Θ are coprime. If
both TΦ and TΦ2 are hyponormal then TΦ is either normal or analytic.
Proof. Suppose Φ is not analytic. Then Θ is not constant unitary. Since TΦ is hyponormal, it
follows that kerHΦ∗+ ⊆ ker HΦ∗− = ΘHC2n . Thus we can write
Φ+ = Θ∆r A∗r (right coprime factorization),
where ∆r is an inner matrix function. Let θ0 be a minimal inner function such that Θ0 ≡ Iθ0 =
∆r Θ1 for some inner matrix function Θ1 . We also write A := Ar Θ1 , and hence
Φ+ = ΘΘ0 A∗ .
On the other hand, we need to keep in mind that Θ = Iθ and Θ0 = Iθ0 are inner functions,
constant along the diagonal, so that these factors commute with all other matrix functions in the
computations below. Note that Φ2 Θ2 Θ20 ∈ HM ∞
n
and Φ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 ∈ HM
∞
n
. We thus have
TΘ∗ 2 Θ2 [TΦ2∗ , TΦ2 ]TΘ2 Θ20 = TΘ∗ 2 Θ2 TΦ2∗ TΦ2 TΘ2 Θ20 − TΘ∗ 2 Θ2 TΦ2 TΦ2∗ TΘ2 Θ20
0 0 0
= TΦ∗2 Θ∗2 Θ∗2

0
TΦ2 Θ2 Θ20 − TΦ2 Θ∗2 Θ∗2
0
TΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20
= TΦ∗2 Θ∗2 Θ∗2 2 2 2 − TΦ2 Θ∗2 Θ∗2 Φ∗2 Θ2 Θ2
0 Φ Θ Θ0 0 0
= TΦ∗2 Φ2 − TΦ2 Φ∗2 = 0 (since Φ is normal).

The positivity of [TΦ2∗ , TΦ2 ] implies that [TΦ2∗ , TΦ2 ]TΘ2 Θ20 = 0. We thus have
0 = [TΦ2∗ , TΦ2 ]TΘ2 Θ20
= TΦ2∗ TΦ2 Θ2 Θ20 − TΦ2 TΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20
= TΦ∗ TΦ∗ Φ2 Θ2 Θ20 − TΦ TΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20
(4.6)
= TΦ∗2 Φ2 Θ2 Θ20 − HΦ∗ HΦ∗ Φ2 Θ2 Θ20 − TΦ2 Φ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 − HΦ∗ ∗ HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 (by (1.3))
= HΦ∗ ∗ HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 − HΦ∗ HΦ∗ Φ2 Θ2 Θ20
= HΦ∗ ∗+ HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 − HΦ∗ ∗− HΦ∗ Φ2 Θ2 Θ20 .
Let Ω := GCD (Θ0 , Θ). Then by Lemma 2.1, Ω = Iω for an inner function ω. Thus we can write
Θ = Θ′ Ω and Θ0 = Θ′0 Ω,
where Θ′ = Iθ′ and Θ′0 = Iθ0′ for some inner functions θ′ and θ0′ . Observe that
HΦ∗ Φ2 Θ2 Θ20 = H(ΘB ∗ +Θ∗ Θ∗0 A)(Θ∗ B+ΘΘ0 A∗ )2 Θ2 Θ20
= H(ΘB ∗ +Θ∗ Θ∗0 A)(B+Θ2 Θ0 A)2 Θ20
= HΘ∗ Θ∗0 A(B+Θ2 Θ0 A)2 Θ20 (4.7)
= HA(B+Θ2 Θ0 A)2 Θ0 Θ∗
= HA(B+Θ2 Θ0 A)2 Θ′0 Θ′∗ .
Since Φ is normal we also have
HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 = H(ΘB ∗ +Θ∗ Θ∗0 A)2 (Θ∗ B+ΘΘ0 A∗ )Θ2 Θ20
= H(Θ2 Θ0 B ∗ +A)(Θ∗ B+ΘΘ0 A∗ )
(4.8)
= H(Θ2 Θ0 B ∗ +A)BΘ∗
= HABΘ∗ .
We now claim that
θ′ is not constant. (4.9)
Toward (4.9) we assume to the contrary that θ′ is a constant. Then by (4.7) we have
HΦ∗ Φ2 Θ2 Θ20 = HA(B+Θ2 Θ0 A)2 Θ′0 Θ′∗ = 0 ,
so that HΦ∗ ∗ HΦ∗ Φ2 Θ2 Θ20 = 0, and by (4.6) we have
−
HΦ∗ ∗+ HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 = 0. (4.10)

Observe that
HABΘ∗ = 0 ⇐⇒ ABΘ∗ ∈ HM
2
n
2
⇐⇒ AB ∈ ΘHM n
⇐⇒ A = ΘA′ (since B and Θ are coprime) ,

which implies that A(α) = 0 for each α ∈ Z(θ), a contradiction. Therefore
HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 = HABΘ∗ 6= 0 e
and cl ran HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 = H(∆)
for some nonconstant (left) inner divisor ∆ of Θ. Thus it follows from Lemma 4.4 and (4.10) that
e = cl ran HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ2 ⊆ ker H ∗ ∗ ⊆ ΘH
H(∆) e 2n ,
0 Φ+ C
giving a contradiction. This proves (4.9). Observe

e ′ ) ⊥ ΘH
cl ran HΦ∗ Φ2 Θ2 Θ20 = cl ran HA(B+Θ2 Θ0 A)2 Θ′0 Θ′∗ ⊆ H(Θ e 2n = ker H ∗ ∗ ,
C Φ−
and
e ⊥ ΘH
cl ran HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 = cl ran HABΘ∗ ⊆ H(Θ) e 2n ⊇ ker H ∗ ∗ .
C Φ+
Thus by (4.6) we have

ker HΦ∗ Φ2 Θ2 Θ20 = ker HΦ∗ ∗− HΦ∗ Φ2 Θ2 Θ20
= ker HΦ∗ ∗+ HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 (4.11)
= ker HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 .
Observe that for all α ∈ Z(θ),

A(B + Θ2 Θ0 A)2 Θ′0 (α) = A(α)B(α)2 Θ′0 (α) .
Since B(α) and Θ′0 (α) are invertible, we have

dim ker A(B + Θ2 Θ0 A)2 Θ′0 (α) = dim ker A(α) = dim ker (AB)(α).
By (4.7), (4.8) and (4.11), we have that A(α) = 0 for all α ∈ Z(ω) and hence ω is a constant.
Thus Ω is a constant unitary, and hence Θ = Θ′ and Θ0 = Θ′0 . Therefore Z(θ) = Z(θ) \ Z(θ0 )
and hence, by Lemma 4.2, A(α) is invertible for each α ∈ Z(θ). Since for each α ∈ Z(θ),

A(B + Θ2 Θ0 A)2 Θ0 (α) = A(α)B(α)2 Θ0 (α) and (AB)(α) are invertible,
it follows that A(B + Θ2 Θ0 A)2 Θ0 and Θ are coprime, and AB and Θ are coprime. Thus by (4.7),
(4.8), and (4.11) we have
e
cl ran HΦ∗ Φ2 Θ2 Θ20 = cl ran HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 = H(Θ). (4.12)
∞
By the well-known result of C. Cowen [Co1, Theorem 1] - if ϕ ∈ L and b is a finite Blaschke
product of degree n then Tϕ◦b ∼
= ⊕n Tϕ , we may, without loss of generality, assume that 0 ∈ Z(θ).
∞
Since TΦ is hyponormal, by [GHR] (cf. p.4) there exists K ∈ HM n
with ||K||∞ ≤ 1 such that
∗
e HΦ∗
HΦ∗− = HKΦ∗+ = TK +
.
Since ΦΦ∗ Θ2 Θ20 ∈ HM
∞
n
, we have
e HΦ2 Φ∗ Θ2 Θ20 = TK
TK e HΦ TΦΦ∗ Θ2 Θ20 = TK
e HΦ∗ T ∗ 2 2
− ΦΦ Θ Θ0
∗ ∗
e (TK
= TK e HΦ∗
+
)TΦΦ∗ Θ2 Θ20 = TK
e TK
e HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 .
Thus by (4.6) we have

0 = HΦ∗ ∗+ HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 − HΦ∗ ∗− HΦ∗ Φ2 Θ2 Θ20

= HΦ∗ ∗+ HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 − TK e HΦ∗ Φ2 Θ2 Θ20 (4.13)
= HΦ∗ ∗+ (I − TK ∗
e TK
e )HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 .
It thus follows from (4.12), (4.13) and Lemma 4.4 that

(I − TK ∗ e ∗ ∗ e 2n .
e ) H(Θ) = cl ran (I − TK
e TK e )HΦ∗2 ΦΘ2 Θ20 ⊆ ker HΦ∗
e TK +
⊆ ΘH C (4.14)
e ∞ = ||K
Since ||K||∞ = ||K|| e ∗ ||∞ , it follows that ||T e || = ||T e ∗ || ≤ 1. For each i = 1, 2, · · · , n,
K K
put
Ei := (0, 0, · · · , 1, 0, · · · , 0, 0)t .
e we have Ei ∈ H(Θ) ∩ H(Θ)
Since 0 ∈ Z(θ) ∩ Z(θ), e and by (4.14),
∗
Ei − TKe TK e (some Fi ∈ HC2n ).
e Ei = ΘFi
Observe that
Ei − TK ∗ e ∗ e
e TK
e Ei = ΘFi =⇒ TK e Ei = Ei − ΘFi
e TK
=⇒ ||TK ∗ 2 e 2
e Ei ||2 = ||Ei − ΘFi ||2
e TK
=⇒ ||TK ∗ 2 2 e 2
e Ei ||2 = ||Ei ||2 + ||ΘFi ||2
e TK
e
(since Ei ∈ H(Θ))
=⇒ ||TK ∗ 2 e 2
e Ei ||2 = 1 + ||ΘFi ||2 .
e TK
∗ ∗
But since ||TKe TKe || ≤ 1, it follows that ||TK e Ei ||2 = 1 and Fi = 0 for all i = 1, 2, · · · , n. We
e TK
∗
thus have ||TK E
e i 2|| = 1 for all i = 1, 2, · · · , n. Write
∞
X
(m)
K(z) := kij (z) and kij (z) = kij z m .
m=0

e ∗ (z) = K(z) = kij (z) , and hence
Then K
∗ t (0) (0) (0) t
e Ei = [P (k1i (z)), P (k2i (z)), · · · , P (kni (z))] = [k1i , k2i , · · · , kni ] .
TK
∗
But since ||TK
e Ei ||2 = 1 for all i = 1, 2, · · · , n, it follows that
(0) (0) (0)
||[k1i , k2i , · · · , kni ]t ||2 = 1 for all i = 1, 2, · · · n.
Therefore
∞
1 (0) 2 1 X (m) 2 1
1= kij ≤ kij = ||K||22 ≤ ||K||2∞ ≤ 1,
n 2 n m=0 2 n
(m) (0)
which implies that kij = 0 for all m ≥ 1. Hence K = kij , so that K e = K ∗ . Observe that
(I − TK ∗ e e
e )H(Θ) = 0 =⇒ (I − TK ∗ K )H(Θ) = 0
e TK
=⇒ K ∗ K = In e
(since 0 ∈ Z(θ)).
e = K ∗ is a constant unitary and hence we have
Therefore K
[TΦ∗ , TΦ ] = HΦ∗ ∗ HΦ∗ − HΦ∗ HΦ = HΦ∗ ∗ HΦ∗ − HΦ∗ ∗ TKe K
e ∗ HΦ∗ = 0,
which implies that TΦ is normal.
Corollary 4.6. Let Φ ∈ L∞ Mn be a matrix-valued trigonometric polynomial whose co-analytic outer

coefficient is invertible. If TΦ and TΦ2 are hyponormal then TΦ is normal.
Proof. Immediate from Theorem 4.5 together with the observation that Φ− = B ∗ Θ with Θ = Izm
is a coprime factorization if and only if B(0) is a co-analytic outer coefficient and is invertible.
Remark 4.7. In Theorem 4.5, the “coprime” condition is essential. To see this, let

Tb + Tb∗ 0
TΦ := (b is a finite Blaschke product).
0 Tb
Since Tb + Tb∗ is normal and Tb is analytic, it follows that TΦ and TΦ2 are both hyponormal.
∗
Obviously, TΦ is neither normal nor analytic. Note that Φ− ≡ [ 0b 00 ] = [ 10 00 ] · Ib , where [ 10 00 ] and
Ib are not coprime.
On the other hand, we have not been able to determine whether this phenomenon is quite
accidental. In fact we would guess that if Φ ∈ L∞
Mn is a matrix-valued rational function such that
TΦ is subnormal then TΦ = TA ⊕ TB , where TA is normal and TB is analytic.
5. Subnormal Toeplitz Completions
Given a partially specified operator matrix with some known entries, the problem of finding suitable
operators to complete the given partial operator matrix so that the resulting matrix satisfies certain
given properties is called a completion problem. Dilation problems are special cases of completion

problems: in other words, the dilation of T is a completion of the partial operator matrix T? ?? .
In
U ∗recent
years, operator theorists have been interested in the subnormal completion problem for
? , where U is the shift on H 2 . In this section, we solve this completion problem.
∗
? U
A partial block Toeplitz matrix is simply an n × n matrix some of whose entries are specified
Toeplitz operators and whose remaining entries are unspecified. A subnormal completion of a par-
tial operator matrix is a particular specification of the unspecified entries resulting in a subnormal
operator. For example
Tz 1 − Tz Tz
(5.1)
0 Tz
is a subnormal (even unitary) completion of the 2 × 2 partial operator matrix

Tz ?
.
? Tz
A subnormal Toeplitz completion of a partial block Toeplitz matrix is a subnormal completion
whose unspecified entries are Toeplitz operators. Thenthe following
question comes up at once:
Does there exist a subnormal Toeplitz completion of T?z T?z ? Evidently, (5.1) is not such a
completion. To answer this question, let

z ϕ
Φ≡ (ϕ, ψ ∈ L∞ ).
ψ z
If TΦ is hyponormal then by [GHR] (cf. p.4), Φ should be normal. Thus a straightforward calcu-
lation shows that
|ϕ| = |ψ| and z(ϕ + ψ) = z(ϕ + ψ),
which implies that ϕ = −ψ. Thus a direct calculation shows that

∗ ∗
[TΦ∗ , TΦ ] = ,
∗ Tz Tz − 1
which is not positive semi-definite
because Tz Tz − 1 is not. Therefore, there are no hyponormal
Toeplitz completions of T?z T?z . However the following problem has remained unsolved until now:
2
Problem A. Let U be the shift
U ∗ on H . Complete the unspecified Toeplitz entries of the partial
?
block Toeplitz matrix A := ? U ∗ to make A subnormal.
In this section we give a complete answer to Problem A.

Theorem 5.1. Let ϕ, ψ ∈ L∞ and consider

T Tϕ
A := z .
Tψ Tz
The following statements are equivalent.
(i) A is normal.
(ii) A is subnormal.
(iii) A is 2-hyponormal.
(iv) One of the following conditions holds:
1. ϕ = eiθ z + β pand ψ = eiω ϕ (β ∈ C; θ, ω ∈ [0, 2π));

2. ϕ = α z + eiθ 1 + |α|2 z + β and ψ = ei (π−2 arg α) ϕ
(α, β ∈ C, α 6= 0; θ ∈ [0, 2π)).

Theorem 5.1 says that the unspecified entries of the matrix T?z T?z are Toeplitz operators
with symbols which are both analytic or trigonometric polynomials of degree 1. In fact, as we will
see in the proof of Theorem 5.1, our solution is just the normal completion. However the solution
is somewhat more intricate than one would expect.
To prove Theorem 5.1 we need several technical lemmas.

Lemma 5.2. For j = 1, 2, 3, let θj be an inner function. If θ1 H(θ2 ) ⊆ H(θ3 ) then either θ2 is
constant or θ1 θ2 is a divisor of θ3 . In particular, if θ1 H(θ2 ) ⊆ H(θ1 ) then θ1 or θ2 is constant.
Proof. Suppose θ2 is not constant. If θ1 H(θ2 ) ⊆ H(θ3 ) then by Lemma 2.6, for all f ∈ H(θ2 ),
θ1 f θ3 ∈ zH 2 , and hence f θ3 ∈ zH 2 , so that f ∈ H(θ3 ), which implies that H(θ2 ) ⊆ H(θ3 ), and
therefore θ3 H 2 ⊆ θ2 H 2 . Thus θ2 is a divisor of θ3 . We can then write θ3 = θ0 θ2 for some inner
function θ0 . It suffices to show that θ1 is a divisor of θ0 . Observe that
θ1 H(θ2 ) ⊆ H(θ0 θ2 ) =⇒ ran (Tθ1 Hθ∗2 ) ⊆ H(θ0 θ2 )
=⇒ θ0 θ2 H 2 ⊆ kerHθ2 Tθ1
=⇒ Hθ2 Tθ1 θ0 θ2 = 0
=⇒ Hθ1 θ0 − Tθe2 Hθ1 θ0 θ2 = 0
=⇒ Hθ1 θ0 − Tθe2 T e Hθ1 θ0 = 0
θ2
=⇒ H e Hθ0 θ1 = 0 ,
θ2
where the fourth implication follows from the fact that Hϕψ = Tϕe∗ Hψ + Hϕ Tψ for any ϕ, ψ ∈ L∞ .
But since θ2 is not constant it follows that θ1 is a divisor of θ0 . The second assertion follows at
once from the first.
Suppose Φ ≡ Φ∗− + Φ+ ∈ L∞ ∗
Mn is such that Φ and Φ are of bounded type, with
Φ+ = A∗ Θ and Φ− = Bℓ∗ Ω2 (left coprime factorization),

where Θ = Iθ for an inner function θ. If TΦ is hyponormal, then in view of Proposition 3.2, Φ can
be written as:
Φ+ = A∗ Ω1 Ω2 and Φ− = Bℓ∗ Ω2 , (5.2)
where Ω1 Ω2 = Θ = Iθ . We also note that Ω1 Ω2 = Θ = Ω2 Ω1 .
The following lemma will be extensively used in the proof of Theorem 5.1.
Lemma 5.3. Let Φ ≡ Φ∗− + Φ+ ∈ L∞ ∗

Mn be such that Φ and Φ are of bounded type of the form (5.2):
Φ+ = A∗ Ω1 Ω2 = A∗ Θ and Φ− = Bℓ∗ Ω2 (left coprime factorization),

where Θ = Iθ for an inner function θ. If ker [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] is invariant under TΦ , then
Ω1 HC2n ⊆ ker [TΦ∗ , TΦ ],
and therefore
cl ran [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] ⊆ H(Ω1 ).
Assume instead that we decompose Φ ∈ L∞Mn as:
Φ+ = ∆2 ∆0 A∗r (right coprime factorization)

and
Φ− = ∆2 Br∗ (right coprime factorization) .
If TΦ is hyponormal then
∆2 H(∆0 ) ⊆ cl ran [TΦ∗ , TΦ ].
Hence, in particular, if TΦ is hyponormal and ker [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] is invariant under TΦ , then
∆2 H(∆0 ) ⊆ cl ran [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] ⊆ H(Ω1 ). (5.3)
Proof. See [CHL, Lemma 3.2 and Theorem 3.7].
Lemma 5.4. Let

z θ1 b
Φ− = (a ∈ H(θ0 ), b ∈ H(θ1 ) and θj inner (j = 0, 1)).
θ0 a z
If θ0 = z n θ0′ (n ≥ 1; θ0′ (0) 6= 0) and θ1 (0) 6= 0, then ker HΦ∗− = ∆HC22 , where
 " #

 zθ 1 0

 (n = 1);
 0 θ0
∆= " #
 zθ1 αθ1

√ 1 a(0)

 |α|2 +1 −αθ z n−1 θ′ (n ≥ 2) α := − θ1 (0) .
0 0
Proof. Observe that for f, g ∈ H 2 ,

f z z n θ0′ a f zf + z n θ0′ ag
Φ∗− = ∈ HC22 ⇐⇒ ∈ HC22 .
g θ1 b z g θ1 bf + zg

Thus if Φ∗− fg ∈ HC22 , then θ1 bf + zg ∈ H 2 . Since θ1 (0) 6= 0, we have θ1 bf z ∈ H 2 , and hence
f = θ1 f1 for some f1 ∈ H 2 . In turn, bf1 + zg ∈ H 2 , so that g = zg1 for some g1 ∈ H 2 . We
therefore have
zθ1 f1 + z n−1 θ0′ ag1 ∈ H 2 . (5.4)
′ 2
If n = 1, then (5.4) implies g1 = θ0 g2 and f1 = zf2 for some g2 , f2 ∈ H . Thus f = zθ1 f2 and
g = θ0 g2 , which implies
zθ1 0
ker HΦ∗− = HC22 .
0 θ0
If instead n ≥ 2, then (5.4) implies that z n−2 θ0′ ag1 ∈ H 2 , so that g1 = z n−2 θ0′ g2 for some g2 ∈ H 2 .
We thus have
zθ1 f1 + z n−1 θ0′ ag1 ∈ H 2 ⇐⇒ zθ1 f1 + zag2 ∈ H 2
⇐⇒ θ1 (0)f1 (0) + a(0)g2 (0) = 0
1 a(0)
⇐⇒ g2 (0) = f1 (0) (recall that α = − ).
α θ1 (0)
Therefore we have

f 1
∈ kerHΦ∗− ⇐⇒ f = θ1 f1 , g = z n−1 θ0′ g2 , and g2 (0) = f1 (0). (5.5)
g α
Put
1 zθ1 αθ1
∆ := p n−1 ′ .
|α|2 + 1 −αθ0 z θ0
Then ∆ is inner, and for h1 , h2 ∈ H 2 ,

h1 1 zθ1 h1 + αθ1 h2 1 θ1 zh1 + αh2
∆ = p n ′ n−1 ′ =p n−1 ′ .
h2 |α|2 + 1 −αz θ0 h1 + z θ0 h 2 |α|2 + 1 z θ0 −αzh1 + h2

But since α1 zh1 + αh2 (0) = −αzh1 + h2 (0), it follows from (5.5) that ker HΦ∗− = ∆HC22 .
Lemma 5.5. Let

z θ1 b
θ0 a z
If θ1 = z n θ1′ (n ≥ 1; θ1′ (0) 6= 0) and θ0 (0) 6= 0, then ker HΦ∗− = ∆HC22 , where
 " #

 θ1 0

 (n = 1);
 0 zθ0
∆= " #
 z n−1 θ1′ −αθ1


 1
 √|α|2 +1 (n ≥ 2) α := − θb(0)
(0) .
αθ0 zθ0 0
Proof. Same as the proof of Lemma 5.4.
Lemma 5.6. Let

z θ1 b
θ0 a z
If θ0 = zθ0′ and θ1 = zθ1′ then ker HΦ∗− = ∆HC22 , where
 " #
 θ1 0

 (ab)(0) 6
= (θ ′ ′
θ )(0) ;
 0 1
0 θ0
∆=

 θ1 αθ1′
√ 1 (ab)(0) = (θ ′ ′
θ )(0) α := − a(0)
 2
|α| +1 −αθ0′
θ0 0 1 θ (0) .
′
1
Remark 5.7. Since a(0), b(0) 6= 0, the second part of the above assertion makes sense because by
assumption, θ0′ (0), θ1′ (0) 6= 0.
Proof of Lemma 5.6. Observe that for f, g ∈ H 2 ,

∗ f z zθ0′ a f 2 z(f + θ0′ ag)
Φ− = ∈ HC2 ⇐⇒ ∈ HC22
g zθ1′ b z g z(g + θ1′ bf )

f + θ0′ ag
=⇒ ∈ zHC22
g + θ1′ bf
′
θ ag
=⇒ 0′ ∈ HC22
θ1 bf
=⇒ g = θ0′ g1 and f = θ1′ f1 for some g1 , f1 ∈ H 2 .
f
Thus if Φ∗− g ∈ HC22 then z(θ1′ f1 + ag1 ) ∈ H 2 and z(θ0′ g1 + bf1 ) ∈ H 2 , so that
θ1′ (0)f1 (0) = −a(0)g1 (0) and θ0′ (0)g1 (0) = −b(0)f1 (0).
If (ab)(0) = (θ0′ θ1′ )(0), then
θ1′ (0)f1 (0) = −a(0)g1 (0) ⇐⇒ θ0′ (0)g1 (0) = −b(0)f1 (0).
Put
1 θ1 αθ1′
∆ := p .
2
|α| + 1 −αθ 0 θ0′
Then we can see that ∆ is inner and ker HΦ∗− = ∆HC22 .

If (ab)(0) 6= (θ0′ θ1′ )(0), put θ0 = z m θ0′′ and θ1 = z n θ1′′ (θ0′′ (0), θ1′′ (0) 6= 0). If n = m then
n−1 ′′ ′′
z z n θ1′′ b z θ0 θ1 θ0′′ b
Φ− = m ′′ = Izn θ0′′ θ1′′ ≡ Izn θ0′′ θ1′′ B ∗ .
z θ0 a z θ1′′ a z n−1 θ0′′ θ1′′
Since B(0) is invertible, it follows from Lemma 2.3 that Izn and B are coprime. Observe that
n n−1
z f z z n θ0′′ a z n f z f + θ0′′ ag
Φ∗− n = n ′′ ∈ H 2
2 ⇐⇒ ∈ HC22 ,
z g z θ1 b z zng C
θ1′′ bf + z n−1 g
which implies
f = θ1′′ f1 and g = θ0′′ g1 for some f1 , g1 ∈ H 2 .
We thus have
θ1 0
ker HΦ∗− = HC22
0 θ0
If instead n 6= m, then

f z z m θ0′′ a f z(f + z m−1 θ0′′ ag)
Φ∗− = n ′′ = ∈ HC22
g z θ1 b z g z(g + z n−1 θ1′′ bf )
(
f + z m−1 θ0′′ ag ∈ zH 2
⇐⇒
g + z n−1 θ1′′ bf ∈ zH 2 ,
which implies
f = z n−1 θ1′′ f1 and g = z m−1 θ0′′ g1 .
Suppose n > m, and hence n ≥ 2. We thus have
z n−2 θ1′′ f1 + zag1 ∈ H 2 =⇒ zag1 ∈ H 2 =⇒ g1 = zg2 =⇒ g = θ0 g2 .
In turn,
g + z n−1 θ1′′ bf ∈ zH 2 =⇒ z m θ0′′ g2 + bf1 ∈ zH 2 =⇒ f1 = zf2 ,
which implies
θ1 0
ker HΦ∗− = HC22 .
0 θ0
If m > n, a similar argument gives the result.
We are ready for:
Proof of Theorem 5.1. Clearly (i) ⇒ (ii) and (ii) ⇒ (iii). Moreover, a simple calculation shows
that (iv) ⇒ (i).
(iii) ⇒ (iv): Write
∗
z ϕ z ψ− 0 ϕ+
Φ≡ ≡ Φ∗− + Φ+ = +
ψ z ϕ− z ψ+ 0
and assume that TΦ is 2-hyponormal. Since ker [T ∗ , T ] is invariant under T for every 2-hyponormal
operator T ∈ B(H), we note that Theorem 4.1 and Lemma 5.3 hold for 2-hyponormal operators
TΦ . We claim that
|ϕ| = |ψ|, and (5.6)

∗
Φ and Φ are of bounded type. (5.7)
Indeed, if TΦ is hyponormal then Φ is normal, so that a straightforward calculation gives (5.6).
Also there exists a matrix function K ≡ kk13 kk24 ∈ HM ∞
2
with ||K||∞ ≤ 1 such that Φ−KΦ∗ ∈ HM ∞
2
,
i.e.,
z ϕ− k1 k2 0 ψ+ 2
− ∈ HM ,
ψ− z k3 k4 ϕ+ 0 2
which implies that 


 Hz = Hk2 ϕ+ = Hϕ+ Tk2 ;


H = H
ϕ− k1 ψ+ = Hψ+ Tk1 ;

 Hψ− = Hk4 ϕ+ = Hϕ+ Tk4 ;


H = H =H T .
z k3 ψ+ ψ+ k3
If ϕ+ is not of bounded type then ker Hϕ+ = 0, so that k2 = 0, a contradiction; and if ψ+ is not
of bounded type then ker Hψ+ = 0, so that k3 = 0, a contradiction. Therefore we should have Φ∗
of bounded type. Since TΦ is hyponormal, Φ is also of bounded type, giving (5.7). Thus we can
write
ϕ− := θ0 a and ψ− := θ1 b (a ∈ H(θ0 ), b ∈ H(θ1 )).
Put
θ0 = z m θ0′ and θ1 = z n θ1′ (m, n ≥ 0; θ0′ (0) 6= 0 6= θ1′ (0)).
We now claim that
m = n = 0 or m = n = 1. (5.8)
We split the proof of (5.8) into three cases.
Case 1 (m 6= 0 and n = 0) In this case, we have a(0) 6= 0 because θ0 (0) = 0 and θ0 and a
are coprime. We first claim that m = 1. To show this we assume to the contrary that m ≥ 2.
Write
a(0) 1
α := − and ν := p .
θ1 (0) |α|2 + 1
By Lemma 5.4, we can write:

z θ1 b
Φ− = = ∆2 Br∗ (right coprime factorization) ,
θ0 a z
where
zθ1 αθ1 θ1 − αa αθ1 z + az
∆2 := ν and Br := ν .
−αθ0 z m−1 θ0′ zb − αz m−1 θ0′ αb + z m−2 θ0′
To get the left coprime factorization of Φ− , applying Lemma 5.4 for Φf− gives
" #
z e0 e
θ a
Φf− = e 2B
=Ω eℓ∗ (right coprime factorization) ,
θe1 e
a z
where
z m−1 θ0′ αθ1 z m−2 θ0′ + αb az + αθ1 z
Ω2 := ν and Bℓ := ν ,
−αθ0 zθ1 −αz m−1 θ0′ + zb −αa + θ1
which gives
z θ1 b
Φ− = = Bℓ∗ Ω2 (left coprime factorization) .
θ0 a z
On the other hand, since Φ∗− − KΦ∗+ ∈ HM

2
n
, and hence

z θ0 a k ϕ k1 ψ+
− 2 + 2
∈ HM ,
θ1b z k4 ϕ+ k3 ψ+ 2
we have (
z − k2 ϕ+ ∈ H 2 , θ 1 b − k4 ϕ+ ∈ H 2
z − k3 ψ+ ∈ H 2 , θ0 a − k1 ψ+ ∈ H 2 ,
which via Cowen’s Theorem gives that the following Toeplitz operators are all hyponormal:
Tz+ϕ+ , Tθ1 b+ϕ+ , Tz+ψ+ , Tθ0 a+ψ+ .
Thus by Proposition 3.2 we can see that
ϕ+ = zθ1 θ3 d and ψ+ = θ0 θ2 c for some inner functions θ2 , θ3 .
We thus have
∗
zθ1 θ3 0 0 c
Φ+ = ≡ ∆2 ∆0 A∗r (right coprime factorization),
0 θ0 θ2 d 0
where

0 c
Ar := ;
d 0

1 −α θ3 0
∆0 := ν ;
αz z 0 θ2

zθ1 αθ1 θ 0 z α
∆2 := ν = 1 ·ν .
−αθ0 z m−1 θ0′ 0 z m−1 θ0′ −αz 1
Write
θ2 = z p θ2′ and θ3 = z q θ3′ (p, q ≥ 0; θ2′ (0), θ3′ (0) 6= 0).
If q + 1 ≥ m + p, then LCM (zθ1 θ3 , θ0 θ2 ) is an inner divisor of z q+1 θ0′ θ1 θ2′ θ3′ . Thus we can write
∗
0 x
Φ+ = Izq+1 θ0′ θ1 θ2′ θ3′ ≡ A∗ Ω1 Ω2 ,
y 0
where
x 0
A := (some x, y ∈ H 2 );
0 y
q+1−m ′ ′
z θ1 θ2 θ3 0 z −α
Ω1 := ·ν .
0 z q θ0′ θ2′ θ3′ αz 1
It thus follows from Lemma 5.3 that
∆2 H(∆0 ) ⊆ cl ran [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] ⊆ H(Ω1 ). (5.9)
But since in general, Θ2 H(Θ1 ) ⊆ H(Θ1 Θ2 ) for inner matrix functions Θ1 , Θ2 , we have

1 −α θ3 0
ν H ⊆ H(∆0 ).
αz z 0 θ2
Thus by (5.9), we have
1 −α θ3 0
∆2 · ν H ⊆ H(Ω1 ),
αz z 0 θ2
or equivalently,
zθ1 0 θ3 0
H ⊆ H(Ω1 ). (5.10)
0 z m θ0′ 0 θ2
Since in general, F ∈ H(Θ) if and only if Θ∗ F ∈ (HC2n )⊥ , (5.10) implies
z q+1−m θ′ θ′
1 α θ3 0 2 3 0
ν H ⊆H . (5.11)
−αz z 0 θ2 0 z q+1−m θ2′ θ3′
Also since for inner matrix functions Θ1 , Θ2 and any closed subspace F of HC2n ,
Θ1 F ⊆ H(Θ1 Θ2 ) and Θ1 Θ2 = Θ2 Θ1 =⇒ F ⊆ H(Θ1 Θ2 ) ,
it follows from (5.11) that
H(θ3 ) H(z q+1−m θ2′ θ3′ )
⊆ .
H(θ2 ) H(z q+1−m θ2′ θ3′ )
But since θ3 = z q θ3′ , it follows that q + 1 − m ≥ q, giving a contradiction.
If instead q + 1 < m + p, then LCM (zθ1 θ3 , θ0 θ2 ) is an inner divisor of z m+p θ0′ θ1 θ2′ θ3′ . Thus
we can write ∗
0 x
Φ+ = Izm+p θ0′ θ1 θ2′ θ3′ ≡ A∗1 Ω′1 Ω2 ,
y 0
where
0 x
A1 := (some x, y ∈ H 2 );
y 0
p ′ ′
′ z θ1 θ2 θ3 0 z −α
Ω1 := ·ν .
0 z m+p−1 θ0′ θ2′ θ3′ αz 1
It thus follows from Lemma 5.3 with Ω′1 in place of Ω1 that
∆2 H(∆0 ) ⊆ cl ran [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] ⊆ H(Ω′1 ).
Since

1 −α θ3 0
H(∆0 ) = H ν
αz z 0 θ2
1 −α
M
1 −α

θ3 0

=H ν ν H ,
αz z αz z 0 θ2
we have

1 −α M zθ1 0 θ3 0
∆2 H ν H ⊆ H(Ω′1 ). (5.12)
αz z 0 z m θ0′ 0 θ2
Then by the same argument as (5.10) and (5.11), we can see that
z p θ′ θ′
1 α θ3 0 2 3 0
ν H ⊆H , (5.13)
−αz z 0 θ2 0 z p θ2′ θ3′
which gives
zH(θ2 ) ⊆ H(z p θ2′ θ3′ ),
which by Lemma 5.2 implies that θ2 should be a constant. Thus (5.13) can be written as
θ ′ 0
1 α θ3 0 3
ν H ⊆H ,
−αz z 0 1 0 θ3′
which gives zH(θ3 ) ⊆ H(θ3′ ). It follows from again Lemma 5.2 that θ3 is a constant. Thus by
(5.12), we have
θ
θ1 0 z α 1 −α 1 0 z −α
ν H ν ⊆ H ν ,
0 z m−1 θ0′ −αz 1 αz z 0 z m−1 θ0′ αz 1
so that
z α 1 −α z −α
ν H ν ⊆H ν ,
−αz 1 αz z αz 1
giving a contradiction by Lemma 5.3. Therefore we should have
m = 1, i.e., θ0 = zθ0′ .
Thus by Lemmas 5.5 and 5.6, we have
∗
z θ1 b zθ1 0 θ1 a
Φ− = = (right coprime factorization)
zθ0′ a z 0 θ0 zb θ0′
and ′ ∗
z θ1 b θ a θ0 0
Φ− = = 0 (left coprime factorization).
zθ0′ a z zb θ1 0 zθ1
Recall that
ψ+ = θ0 θ2 c and ϕ+ = zθ1 θ3 d for some inner functions θ2 and θ3 .
We can thus write
∗
0 zθ1 θ3 d zθ1 θ3 0 0 c
Φ+ = = (right coprime factorization).
θ0 θ2 c 0 0 θ0 θ2 d 0
Note that LCM (zθ1 θ3 , θ0 θ2 ) is an inner divisor of θ0 θ1 θ2 θ3 . Thus we can write
∗
0 x
Φ+ = Iθ0 θ1 θ2 θ3 (x, y ∈ H 2 ).
y 0
It follows from Lemma 5.3 that

zθ1 H(θ3 ) ∗ H(θ1 θ2 θ3 )
⊆ cl ran [TΦ , TΦ ] ⊆ ,
θ0 H(θ2 ) H(θ0′ θ2 θ3 )
which implies
zH(θ3 ) ⊆ H(θ2 θ3 ) and zH(θ2 ) ⊆ H(θ2 θ3 ).
By Lemma 5.2, (
either θ3 is constant or zθ3 is a divisor of θ2 θ3 ;
(5.14)
either θ2 is constant or zθ2 is a divisor of θ2 θ3 ,
If θ2 or θ3 is not constant then it follows from (5.14) that z is a divisor of θ2 and θ3 . Thus we have
p, q ≥ 1. Let N := max(p, q). Then LCM (zθ1 θ3 , θ0 θ2 ) is an inner divisor of z N θ0 θ1 θ2′ θ3′ . Thus
we can write ∗
0 x
Φ+ = IzN θ0 θ1 θ2′ θ3′ (x, y ∈ H 2 ).
y 0

zθ1 H(z q θ3′ ) ∗ H(z N θ1 θ2′ θ3′ )
⊆ cl ran [TΦ , TΦ ] ⊆
θ0 H(z p θ2′ ) H(z N θ0′ θ2′ θ3′ )
(
z q is a divisor of z N −1 θ2′
=⇒
z p is a divisor of z N −1 θ3′ ,
giving a contradiction. Therefore
θ2 and θ3 are constant.
We observe that LCM(zθ1 , θ0 ) is an inner divisor of zθ0′ θ1 . It follows from Lemma 5.3 that

θ1 H 2
⊆ ker [TΦ∗ , TΦ ].
θ0′ H 2
h i
In particular, θ00′ ∈ ker [TΦ∗ , TΦ ]. Observe that

∗ 0 z θ0 a 0 za
Φ− ′ = = ,
θ0 θ1b z θ0′ zθ0′
so that
0 a(0)
HΦ∗− = .
θ0′ θ0′ (0)
We thus have
" #
0 θ ′
(0)J(I − P )(θe1eb) + a(0)
HΦ∗ ∗− HΦ∗− = 0 .
θ0′ ∗
A similar calculation shows that

0 0
HΦ∗ ∗+ HΦ∗+ = .
θ0′ ∗
Since [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] = HΦ∗ ∗ HΦ∗+ − HΦ∗ ∗ HΦ∗− , it follows that
+ −
θ0′ (0)J(I − P )(θe1eb) = −a(0).
But since a(0) 6= 0, we must have that θe1eb ∈ zH 2 ∩ (H 2 )⊥ , which implies that θ1 = c z for a
nonzero constant c, giving a contradiction because θ1 (0) 6= 0. Therefore this case cannot occur.
Case 2 (m = 0 and n 6= 0) This case is symmetrical to Case 1. Thus the proof is identical
to that of Case 1. Therefore this case cannot occur either.
Case 3 (m 6= 0, n 6= 0 and m ≥ 2 or n ≥ 2) In this case we have a(0) 6= 0 and b(0) 6= 0

because θ0 (0) = θ1 (0) = 0, θ0 and a are coprime, and θ1 and b are coprime. By Lemma 5.6 we
have ∗
θ 0 z n−1 θ1′ a
Φ− = 1 (right coprime factorization).
0 θ0 b z m−1 θ0′
Similarly, we have
m−1 ′ ∗
z θ0 a θ0 0
Φ− = (left coprime factorization)
b z n−1 θ1′ 0 θ1
and ∗
θ θ 0 0 c
Φ+ = 1 3 (right coprime factorization).
0 θ0 θ2 d 0
We then claim that
θ2 and θ3 are constant. (5.15)
Assume θ2 is not constant. Put θ2 = z p θ2′
and θ3 = z q θ3′ (θ2′6= 0 6= θ3′ (0) and p, q ≥ 0) and let
N := max (m + p, n + q). Then LCM(θ0 θ2 , θ1 θ3 ) is a divisor of z N θ0′ θ1′ θ2′ θ3′ . Thus we can write
∗
0 x
Φ+ = IzN θ0′ θ1′ θ2′ θ3′ (x, y ∈ H 2 ).
y 0
By Lemma 5.3 we have

θ1 H(θ3 ) H(z N −m θ1′ θ2′ θ3′ )
⊆ .
θ0 H(θ2 ) H(z N −n θ0′ θ2′ θ3′ )
If θ3 is a constant, then q = 0 and m + p ≤ N − n, giving a contradiction because m, n ≥ 2. If θ3
is not constant, then n + q ≤ N − m and m + p ≤ N − n, giving a contradiction because m, n ≥ 2.
Therefore we should have that θ2 is constant. Similarly, we can show that θ3 is also constant.
This proves (5.15).
We now suppose n ≤ m. By Lemma 5.3 we have

θ1′ H 2
⊆ ker [TΦ∗ , TΦ ].
z m−n θ0′ H 2
h ′i
In particular, θ01 ∈ ker [TΦ∗ , TΦ ]. Observe that
′ ′
θ z θ 0 a θ1′ zθ
Φ∗− 1 = = n1 ,
0 θ1 b z 0 z b
so that
′ " ′ #
θ1 θ1 (0)
HΦ∗− = n−1e (b1 := PH(zn ) (b)).
0 z b1
Put b3 := z n−1eb1 . We also have

′ " # " #
f∗ θ1 (0) z θe1eb θ1′ (0) ∗
Φ− = = ′ ,
b3 θe0 e
a z b3 θ1 (0)θe0 e
a + b3 z
so that
′ " #
θ1 ∗
HΦ∗ ∗− HΦ∗− = ′ .
0 θ1 (0)J(I − P )(θe0 e
a) + b3 (0)
A similar calculation shows that ′
θ1 ∗
HΦ∗ ∗+ HΦ∗+ = .
0 0
It thus follows that
⊥
θ1′ (0)J(I − P )(θe0 e
a) = −b3 (0) =⇒ θe0 e
a ∈ zH 2 =⇒ θ0 a ∈ zH 2 =⇒ θ0 a ∈ zH 2 ∩ H 2 .
Since n ≤ m and (m ≥ 2 or n ≥ 2), it follows that m ≥ 2. Thus θ0 a ∈ zH 2 ∩ (H 2 )⊥ implies
z m−1 θ0′ a = c (a constant), which forces a = 0, giving a contradiction. If instead n > m then the
same argument leads a contradiction. Therefore this case cannot occur. This completes the proof
of (5.8).
Now in view of (5.8) it suffices to consider the case m = n = 0 and the case m = n = 1.
Case A (m = n = 0). In this case, we first claim that

ϕ− = ψ− = 0, i.e., ϕ and ψ are analytic. (5.16)
Put θ := GCD(θ0 , θ1 ). Then θ0 = θ0′ θ and θ1 = θ1′ θ for some inner functions θ0′ , θ1′ , and hence
LCM(θ0 , θ1 ) = θθ0′ θ1′ . We thus have
∗
θθ0′ θ1′ zθ1′ a
Φ− = Izθθ0′ θ1′ ≡ Izθθ0′ θ1′ B ∗ .
zθ0′ b θθ0′ θ1′
Since B(0) is invertible it follows from Lemma 2.3 that Iz and B are coprime. Observe that

∗ zf z θ0 a zf 2 θ0 azg
Φ− = ∈ HC2 ⇐⇒ ∈ HC22
zg θ1 b z zg θ 1 bzf
⇐⇒ g ∈ θ0 H 2 , f ∈ θ1 H 2 ,
which implies
zθ1 0
ker H Φ∗ = HC22 .
− 0 zθ0
We thus have ∗
zθ1 0 θ1 za
Φ− = (right coprime factorization).
0 zθ0 zb θ0
To get the left coprime factorization of Φ− , we take
" #" #∗
f z θe0 0 θe0 zeb
Φ− = (right coprime factorization),
0 z θe1 ze a θe1
which implies
∗
θ0 za zθ0 0
Φ− = (left coprime factorization).
zb θ1 0 zθ1
Since TΦ is hyponormal and hence,

zθ1 H 2
ker HΦ∗+ ⊆ ker HΦ∗− = ,
zθ0 H 2
it follows that
ψ+ = zθ0 θ2 c and ϕ+ = zθ1 θ3 d for some inner functions θ2 , θ3 .
We can thus write
∗
0 zθ1 θ3 d zθ1 θ3 0 0 c
Φ+ = = (right coprime factorization).
zθ0 θ2 c 0 0 zθ0 θ2 d 0
Observe that LCM (zθ1 θ3 , zθ0 θ2 ) is an inner divisor of zθ0 θ1 θ2 θ3 . Thus we can write
∗
0 x
Φ+ = Izθ0 θ1 θ2 θ3 (x, y ∈ H 2 ).
y 0

zθ1 H(θ3 ) H(θ1 θ2 θ3 )
⊆ cl ran [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] ⊆ ,
zθ0 H(θ2 ) H(θ0 θ2 θ3 )
which implies that
zH(θ3 ) ⊆ H(θ2 θ3 ) and zH(θ2 ) ⊆ H(θ2 θ3 ).
Thus the same argument as in (5.14) shows that
θ2 and θ3 are constant.
We now observe that LCM(zθ1 , zθ0 ) is an inner divisor of zθ0 θ1 . Thus we can write
∗
0 x
Φ+ = Izθ0 θ1 (x, y ∈ H 2 ).
y 0
h 2
i
It follows from Lemma 5.3 that θθ1 H H 2 ⊆ ker [TΦ∗ , TΦ ]. In particular, θ01 ∈ ker [TΦ∗ , TΦ ]. Observe
0
that
θ z θ 0 a θ1 zθ1
Φ∗− 1 = = ,
0 θ1b z 0 b
so that
θ θ (0)
HΦ∗− 1 = 1 .
0 0
We thus have " #
θ θ 1 (0)
HΦ∗ ∗− HΦ∗− 1 = .
0 θ1 (0)J(I − P )(θe0 e a)
A similar calculation shows that
θ1 ∗
HΦ∗ ∗+ HΦ∗+ = .
0 0
⊥
θ1 (0)J(I − P )(θe0 e
a) = 0 =⇒ θe0 e
a ∈ H 2 =⇒ θ0 a ∈ H 2 =⇒ θ0 a ∈ H 2 ∩ H 2 ,
which implies that a = 0 and hence φ is analytic. Similarly, we can show that ψ is also analytic.
This gives (5.16).
Now since by (5.16), ϕ, ψ ∈ H ∞ and |ϕ| = |ψ|, we can write ϕ = θ1 a and ψ = θ2 a, where the
θi are inner functions and a is an outer function. Observe that
Φ− ≡ B ∗ Θ 2 ,
where B ≡ [ 10 01 ] and Θ2 ≡ [ z0 0z ] are coprime. Thus our symbol satisfies all the assumptions of
Theorem 4.1. Thus by Theorem 4.1, since TΦ is 2-hyponormal then TΦ must be normal. We thus
have
HΦ∗ ∗+ HΦ∗+ = HΦ∗ ∗− HΦ∗− . (5.17)
Now observe that
0 ϕ z 0
Φ+ = and Φ− = .
ψ 0 0 z
Since TΦ is normal we have " #

Hϕ∗ Hϕ 0 Hz 0
= ,
0 Hψ∗ Hψ 0 Hz
which implies
Hϕ∗ Hϕ = Hz = Hψ∗ Hψ , (5.18)
which says that Hϕ and Hψ are both rank-one operators. Now remember that if T is a rank-
one Hankel operator then there exist ω ∈ D and a constant c such that T = c (kω ⊗ kω ), where
1
kω := 1−ωz is the reproducing kernel for ω. Note that kω ⊗ kω is represented by the matrix
 
1 ω ω2 ω3 . . .
 ω ω2 ω3 . . . 
 2 
ω ω 3 . . . 
 3 .
ω 
 
..
.
By (5.18) we have that ω = 0. We thus have
ϕ = eiθ1 z + β1 and ψ = eiθ2 z + β2 (β1 , β2 ∈ C, θ1 , θ2 ∈ [0, 2π)). (5.19)
But since |ϕ| = |ψ|, we have
ϕ = eiθ z + β and ψ = eiω ϕ (β ∈ C, θ, ω ∈ [0, 2π)). (5.20)
Case B (m = n = 1) In this case, θ0 = zθ0′ and θ1 = zθ1′ (θ0′ (0), θ1′ (0) 6= 0). We thus have
ϕ− = zθ0′ a and ψ− = zθ1′ b,
so that
z zθ1′ b
Φ− = .
zθ0′ a z
There are two subcases to consider.
Case B-1 ((ab)(0) 6= (θ0′ θ1′ )(0)). In this case, we have, by Lemma 5.6,
′ ′ ∗
z zθ1′ b zθ1 0 θ1 a
Φ− = = (right coprime decompositon)
zθ0′ a z 0 zθ0′ b θ0′
′ ∗ ′
θ a zθ0 0
= 0 (left coprime factorization)
b θ1′ 0 zθ1′
and ′ ∗
zθ1 θ3 0 0 c
Φ+ = (right coprime factorization).
0 zθ0′ θ2 d 0
Suppose θ2 is not constant. Put θ2 = z p θ2′ and θ3 = z q θ3′ (p, q ∈ N ∪ {0}). Let N := max(p, q).
Then LCM(θ1 θ3 , θ0 θ2 ) is a divisor of z N +1 θ0′ θ1′ θ2′ θ3′ . Thus we can write
∗
0 x
Φ+ = IzN +1 θ0′ θ1′ θ2′ θ3′ (x, y ∈ H 2 ).
y 0
By Lemma 5.3 we have ′
zθ1 H(θ3 ) H(z N θ1′ θ2′ θ3′ )
⊆ .
zθ0′ H(θ2 ) H(z N θ0′ θ2′ θ3′ )
If θ3 is a constant then p + 1 ≤ N = p, giving a contradiction. If instead θ3 is not constant then
q + 1 ≤ N and p + 1 ≤ N , giving a contradiction. The same argument gives θ3 is a constant.
Therefore θ2 and θ3 should be constant. Note that LCM(zθ1′ , zθ0′ ) is an inner divisor of zθ0′ θ1′ .
Thus we can write ∗
0 x
Φ+ = Izθ0′ θ1′ (x, y ∈ H 2 ).
y 0

θ1′ H 2
⊆ ker [TΦ∗ , TΦ ]. (5.21)
θ0′ H 2
h i
θ1′
In particular, 0
∈ ker [TΦ∗ , TΦ ]. Observe that
′ ′
θ z θ0 a θ1′ zθ1
Φ∗− 1 = = ,
0 θ1b z 0 zb
so that ′ ′
θ1 θ (0)
HΦ∗− = 1 .
0 b(0)
We thus have
" # " #
θ ′
(0) z e1eb θ′ (0)
θ ∗
f∗ 1
Φ 1
− b(0) = = ′ ,
θe0 e
a z b(0) θ1 (0)θe0 e
a + b(0)z
so that
′ " #
θ1 ∗
HΦ∗ ∗− HΦ∗− = ′ .
0 θ1 (0)J(I − P )(θe0 e
a) + b(0)
A similar calculation shows that ′
θ1 ∗
HΦ∗ ∗+ HΦ∗+ = .
0 0
θ1′ (0)J(I − P )(θe0 e
a) = −b(0).
Since b(0) 6= 0, we have that θe0 e
a ∈ zH 2 , which implies that θ0 a = αz for a nonzero constant α.
′
Therefore we must have that θ0 is a constant. Similarly, we can show that θ1 b = βz for a nonzero
constant β, and hence θ1′ is also a constant. Therefore by (5.21), TΦ is normal. Now observe that

0 ϕ+ z αz
Φ+ = and Φ∗− = (α 6= 0 6= β).
ψ+ 0 βz z
Since TΦ is normal we have
" #
Hϕ∗ + Hϕ+ 0 (1 + |β|2 )Hz (α + β)Hz
∗ = ,
0 Hψ Hψ +
+
(α + β)Hz (1 + |α|2 )Hz
which implies that

β = −α

Hϕ∗ + Hϕ+ = (1 + |β|2 )Hz (5.22)

H ∗ H = (1 + |α|2 )H .
ψ ψ+ z
+
By the case assumption, 1 6= |ab| = |αβ| = |α|2 , i.e., |α| 6= 1. By the same argument as in (5.18)
we have p p
ϕ+ = eiθ1 1 + |α|2 z + β1 and ψ+ = eiθ2 1 + |α|2 z + β2 ,
(β1 , β2 ∈ C; θ1 , θ2 ∈ [0, 2π)) which implies that
p p
ϕ = α z + eiθ1 1 + |α|2 z + β1 and ψ = −α z + eiθ2 1 + |α|2 z + β2 .
Since |ϕ| = |ψ|, it follows that
p p
eiθ1 1 + |α|2 z 2 + β1 z + α = eiθ2 1 + |α|2 z 2 + β2 z − α for all z on T.
We argue that if p and q are polynomials having the same degree and the outer coefficients of the
same modulus then
|p(z)| = |q(z)| on |z| = 1 =⇒ p(z) = eiω q(z) for some ω ∈ [0, 2π).
Indeed, if |p(z)| = |q(z)| on |z| = 1, then p = θq for a finite Blaschke product θ, i.e., p =
Qn z−αj
q (|αj | ≤ 1). But since the modulus of the outer coefficients are same, it follows that
Qnj=1 1−αj z iω iω
j=1 |αj | = 1 and therefore, p = e q for some ω. Using this fact we can see that ψ = e ϕ for
some ω ∈ [0, 2π). But then a straightforward calculation shows that ω = π − 2 arg α, and hence
p
ϕ = α z + eiθ 1 + |α|2 z + β and ψ = ei (π−2 arg α) ϕ,
where α 6= 0, |α| 6= 1, β ∈ C, and θ ∈ [0, 2π).
Case B-2 ((ab)(0) = (θ0′ θ1′ )(0)). A similar argument as in Case 1 shows that θ2 and θ3 are
constant and the same argument as in Case B-1 gives that
p
ϕ = α z + eiθ 1 + |α|2 z + β and ψ = ei (π−2 arg α) ϕ,
where α 6= 0, |α| = 1, β ∈ C, and θ ∈ [0, 2π). We here note that the condition |α| = 1 comes from
the case assumption 1 = |θ0′ θ1′ | = |ab| = |α|2 .
Therefore if we combine the two subcases of Case B-1 and B-2 then we can conclude that
p
ϕ = α z + eiθ 1 + |α|2 z + β and ψ = ei (π−2 arg α) ϕ, (5.23)
where α 6= 0, β ∈ C, and θ ∈ [0, 2π). This completes the proof.

Remark 5.8. We would also ask whether there is a subnormal non-Toeplitz completion of T?z T?z .
Tz ?
Unexpectedly, there is a normal non-Toeplitz completion of ? Tz . To see this, let B be a
selfadjoint operator and put

Tz Tz + B
T = .
Tz + B Tz
Then
∗ Tz B + BTz − (Tz B + BTz ) Tz B + BTz − (Tz B + BTz )
[T , T ] = ,
BTz + Tz B − (BTz + Tz B) Tz B + BTz − (Tz B + BTz )
so that T is normal if and only if
Tz B + BTz = Tz B + BTz , i.e., [Tz , B] = [Tz , B]. (5.24)
We define
n
2 1
α1 := 0 and αn := − 1− − for n ≥ 2.
3 2
Let D ≡ diag (αn ), i.e., a diagonal operator whose diagonal entries are αn (n = 1, 2, . . .) and for
each n = 1, 2 . . ., let Bn be defined by
1
Bn = − diag(αn−1 )Tz∗2n .
2n−1
Then
1 1
||Bn || ≤ sup{αn−1 } < n−1 ,
2n−1 2
which implies that
∞
X
Bn ≤ 2.
n=1
We define C by
∞
X
C := Bn .
n=1
Then C looks like:  

1 1
0 0 1 0 2 0 22 0 ···
0 0 0 1
0 1
0 1
· · ·
 2 22 23 
0 0 0 0 3
0 3
0 · · ·
 22 23 
0 0 0 0 0 5
0 5
· · ·
 23 24 
0 0 0 0 0 0 11
0 · · ·
 24 
C = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
· · · .
 25 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · · ·
 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · · ·
 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · · ·
 
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . . . .
Note that C is bounded. If we define B by
B := D + C + C ∗ ,
then a straightforward calculation shows that B satisfies equation (5.24). Therefore the operator

Tz Tz + B
T =
Tz + B Tz
is normal. We note that Tz + B is not a Toeplitz operator.

Remark 5.9. In Theorem 5.1 we have seen that a 2-hyponormal Toeplitz completion of T?z T?z is
automatically normal. Consequently, from the viewpoint of k-hyponormality as a bridge between
hyponormality
h and
i subnormality, there is no gap between the 2-hyponormality and the subnor-
Tz Tϕ
mality of Tψ Tz (ϕ, ψ ∈ H 2 ). Of course there does exist a gap between the hyponormality and
h i
T T
the 2-hyponormality of Tψz Tϕz . To see this, let

z z 2 + 2z 2
Φ := 2 .
z + 2z 2 z
h1 zi
Then Φ is normal and if we put K := z2 21 , then Φ − K Φ∗ ∈ HM 2
2
and ||K||∞ = 1, so that TΦ
2 2
is hyponormal. But by Theorem 5.1, TΦ is not
2-hyponormal.
However, we have not been able to
characterize all hyponormal completions of T?z T?z ; this completion problem appears to be quite
difficult.
6. Open Problems
1. Nakazi-Takahashi’s Theorem for matrix-valued symbols. T. Nakazi and K. Takahashi [NT]
have shown that if ϕ ∈ L∞ is such that Tϕ is a hyponormal operator whose self-commutator
[Tϕ∗ , Tϕ ] is of finite rank then there exists a finite Blaschke product b ∈ E(ϕ) such that
deg (b) = rank [Tϕ∗ , Tϕ ].
What is the matrix-valued version of Nakazi and Takahashi’s Theorem ? A candidate is as follows: If
Φ ∈ L∞ ∗
Mn is such that TΦ is a hyponormal operator whose self-commutator [TΦ , TΦ ] is of finite rank
then there exists a finite Blaschke-Potapov product B ∈ E(Φ) such that deg (B) = rank [TΦ∗ , TΦ ].
We note that the degree of the finite Blaschke-Potapov product B is defined by
deg (B) := dim H(B) = deg (det B) , (6.1)
where the second equality follows from the well-known Fredholm theory of block Toeplitz operators
[Do2] that
dim H(Θ) = dim ker TΘ∗ = −index TΘ
= −index Tdet Θ = dim ker T
det
Θ
= dim H(det Θ) = deg det Θ .

Thus we conjecture the following:
Conjecture 6.1. If Φ ∈ L∞ Mn is such that TΦ is a hyponormal operator whose self-commutator
[TΦ∗ , TΦ ] is of finite there exists a finite Blaschke-Potapov product B ∈ E(Φ) such that
rank then
rank [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] = deg det B .
On the other hand, in [NT], it was shown that if ϕ ∈ L∞ is such that Tϕ is subnormal and
ϕ = qϕ, where q is a finite Blaschke product then Tϕ is normal or analytic. We now we pose its
block version:
Problem 6.2. If Φ ∈ L∞ ∗
Mn is such that TΦ is subnormal and Φ = BΦ , where B is a a finite
Blaschke-Potapov product, does it follow that TΦ is normal or analytic ?
2. Subnormality of block Toeplitz operators. In Remark 4.7 we have shown that if the “coprime”
condition of Theorem 4.5 is dropped, then Theorem 4.5 may fail. However we note that the example
given in Remark 4.7 is a direct sum of a normal Toeplitz operator and an analytic Toeplitz operator.
Based on this observation, we have:
Problem 6.3. Let Φ ∈ L∞ 2
Mn be a matrix-valued rational function. If TΦ and TΦ are hyponormal,
but TΦ is neither normal nor analytic, does it follow that TΦ is of the form

T 0
TΦ = A (where TA is normal and TB is analytic) ?
0 TB
It is well-known that if T ∈ B(H) is subnormal then ker [T ∗ , T ] is invariant under T . Thus we

might be tempted to guess that if the condition “TΦ and TΦ2 are hyponormal”is replaced by “TΦ is
hyponormal and ker [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] is invariant under TΦ ,” then the answer to Problem 6.3 is affirmative.
But this is not the case. Indeed, consider

2U + U ∗ U∗
TΦ = .
U∗ 2U + U ∗
Then a straightforward calculation shows that TΦ is hyponormal and ker [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] is invariant under
TΦ , but TΦ is never normal (cf. [CHL, Remark 3.9]). However, if the condition “TΦ and TΦ2 are
hyponormal” is strengthened to “TΦ is subnormal”, what conclusion do you draw ?
3. Subnormal completion problem. Theorem 5.1 provides the subnormal Toeplitz completion of
∗
U ?
(U is the shift on H 2 ). (6.2)
? U∗
Moreover Remark 5.8 shows that there is a normal non-Toeplitz completion of (6.2). However we
were unable to find all subnormal completions of (6.2).
Problem
U6.4. Let
U be the shift on H 2 . Complete the unspecified entries of the partial block
∗
matrix ? U?∗ to make it subnormal.
On
∗
the
other hand, Theorem 5.1 shows that the solution of the subnormal Toeplitz completion
of U? U?∗ consists of Toeplitz operators with symbols which are both analytic or trigonometric
polynomials of degree 1. Hence we might expect that if the symbols of the specified Toeplitz
operators of (6.2) are co-analytic polynomials of degree two then the non-analytic solution of the
unspecified entries consists of trigonometric polynomials of degree ≤ 2.
More generally, we have:
Problem 6.5. If Φ and Ψ are co-analytic polynomials of degree n, does it follow that
the non-analytic

solution of the subnormal Toeplitz completion of the partial Toeplitz matrix T?Φ T?Ψ consists of
Toeplitz operators whose symbols are trigonometric polynomials of degree ≤ n ?
References
[Ab] M.B. Abrahamse, Subnormal Toeplitz operators and functions of bounded type, Duke Math. J. 43
(1976), 597–604.
[AC] P.R. Ahern and D.N. Clark, On functions orthogonal to invariant subspaces, Acta Math.
124(1970), 191–204.
[AIW] I. Amemiya, T. Ito, and T.K. Wong, On quasinormal Toeplitz operators, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
50 (1975), 254–258.
[Ap] C. Apostol, The reduced minimum modulus, Michigan Math. J. 32 (1985), 279–294.
[BE] E.L. Basor and T. Ehrhardt, Asymptotics of block Toeplitz determinants and the classical dimer
model, Commun. Math. Phys. 274 (2007), 427–455.
[BS] A. Böttcher and B. Silbermann, Analysis of Toeplitz Operators, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, 2006.
[Br] J. Bram, Sunormal operators, Duke Math. J. 22 (1955), 75–94.
[BH] A. Brown and P.R. Halmos, Algebraic properties of Toeplitz operators, J. Reine Angew. Math.
213(1963/1964), 89–102.
[Ca] M. Cafasso, Block Toeplitz determinants, constrained KP and Gelfand-Dickey hierarchies, Math.
Phys. Anal. Geom. 11 (2008) 11–51.
[Con] J.B. Conway, The Theory of Subnormal Operators, Math Surveys and Monographs, vol. 36, Amer.
Math. Soc., Providence, 1991.
[Co1] C. Cowen, On equivalnce of Toeplitz operators, J. Operator Theory 7 (1982), 167–172.
[Co2] C. Cowen, More subnormal Toeplitz operators, J. Reine Angew. Math. 367 (1986), 215–219.
[Co3] C. Cowen, Hyponormal and subnormal Toeplitz operators, Surveys of Some Recent Results in
Operator Theory, I (J.B. Conway and B.B. Morrel, eds.), Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics,
Volume 171, Longman, 1988, pp. (155–167).
[Co4] C. Cowen, Hyponormality of Toeplitz operators, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 103 (1988), 809–812.
[CoL] C. Cowen and J. Long, Some subnormal Toeplitz operators, J. Reine Angew. Math. 351 (1984),
216–220.
[Cu] R.E. Curto, Joint hyponormality: A bridge between hyponormality and subnormality, Operator
Theory: Operator Algebras and Applications (Durham, NH, 1988) (W.B. Arveson and R.G.
Douglas, eds.), Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 51, Part II, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1990,
69–91.
[CuF1] R.E. Curto and L.A. Fialkow, Recursiveness, positivity, and truncated moment problems, Houston
J. Math. 17 (1991), 603–635.
[CuF2] R.E. Curto and L.A. Fialkow, Recursively generated weighted shifts and the subnormal completion
problem, Integral Equations Operator Theory 17 (1993), 202–246.
[CuF3] R.E. Curto and L.A. Fialkow, Recursively generated weighted shifts and the subnormal completion
problem II, Integral Equations Operator Theory 18 (1994), 369–426.
[CHL] R.E. Curto, I.S. Hwang and W.Y. Lee, Which subnormal Toeplitz operators are either normal or
analytic ? (preprint, 2010).
[CuL1] R.E. Curto and W.Y. Lee, Joint hyponormality of Toeplitz pairs, Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. 712,
Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 2001.
[CuL2] R.E. Curto and W.Y. Lee, Towards a model theory for 2–hyponormal operators, Integral Equa-
tions Operator Theory 44 (2002), 290–315.
[CuL3] R.E. Curto and W.Y. Lee, Subnormality and k-hyponormality of Toeplitz operators: A brief
survey and open questions, Operator Theory and Banach Algebras (Rabat, 1999), 73–81, Theta,
Bucharest, 2003.
[DMA] M. Damak, M. Măntoiu, and R.T. de Aldecoa, Toeplitz algebras and spectral results for the one-
dimensional Heisenberg model, J. Math. Phys. 47 (2006), 082107, 10pp.
[Do1] R.G. Douglas, Banach Algebra Techniques in Operator Theory, Academic Press, New York, 1972.
[Do2] R.G. Douglas, Banach Algebra Techniques in the Theory of Toeplitz Operators, CBMS 15, Prov-
idence, Amer. Math. Soc. 1973.
[FL] D.R. Farenick and W.Y. Lee, Hyponormality and spectra of Toeplitz operators, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 348 (1996), 4153–4174.
[FF] C. Foiaş and A. Frazho, The commutant lifting approach to interpolation problems, Operator
Theory: Adv. Appl. vol 44, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1993.
[GGK] I. Gohberg, S. Goldberg, and M.A. Kaashoek, Classes of Linear Operators, Vol II, Basel,
Birkhäuser, 1993.
[Gu1] C. Gu, A generalization of Cowen’s characterization of hyponormal Toeplitz operators, J. Funct.
Anal. 124 (1994), 135–148.
[Gu2] C. Gu, On a class of jointly hyponormal Toeplitz operators, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 354 (2002),
3275–3298.
[Gu3] C. Gu, Non-subnormal k-hyponormal Toeplitz operators (preprint).
[GHR] C. Gu, J. Hendricks and D. Rutherford, Hyponormality of block Toeplitz operators, Pacific J.
Math. 223 (2006), 95–111.
[GS] C. Gu and J.E. Shapiro, Kernels of Hankel operators and hyponormality of Toeplitz operators,
Math. Ann. 319 (2001), 553–572.
[Hal1] P.R. Halmos, Ten problems in Hilbert space, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 76 (1970), 887–933.
[Hal2] P.R. Halmos, Ten years in Hilbert space, Integral Equations Operator Theory 2 (1979), 529–564.
[Hal3] P.R. Halmos, A Hilbert Space Problem Book, 2nd ed. Springer, New York, 1982.
[Har] R.E. Harte, Invertibility and Singularity for Bounded Linear Operators, Monographs and Text-
books in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 109, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1988.
[HS] M. Hayashi and F. Sakaguchi, Subnormal operators regarded as generalized observables and
compound-system-type normal extension related to su(1, 1), J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 33 (2000),
7793–7820.
[HI] K. Hikami and T. Imamura, Vicious walkers and hook Young tableaux, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.
36 (2003), 3033–3048.
[HKL1] I.S. Hwang, I.H. Kim and W.Y. Lee, Hyponormality of Toeplitz operators with polynomial symbols,
Math. Ann. 313(2) (1999), 247–261.
[HKL2] I.S. Hwang, I.H. Kim and W.Y. Lee, Hyponormality of Toeplitz operators with polynomial symbols:
An extremal case, Math. Nach. 231 (2001), 25–38.
[HL1] I.S. Hwang and W.Y. Lee, Hyponormality of trigonometric Toeplitz operators, Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 354 (2002), 2461–2474.
[HL2] I.S. Hwang and W.Y. Lee, Hyponormality of Toeplitz operators with rational symbols, Math. Ann.
335 (2006), 405–414.
[HL3] I.S. Hwang and W.Y. Lee, Hyponormal Toeplitz operators with rational symbols, J. Operator
Theory 56 (2006), 47–58.
[HL4] I.S. Hwang and W.Y. Lee, Block Toeplitz Operators with rational symbols, J. Phys. A: Math.
Theor. 41(18) (2008), 185207.
[HL5] I.S. Hwang and W.Y. Lee, Block Toeplitz Operators with rational symbols (II), J. Phys. A: Math.
Theor. 41(38) (2008), 385206.
[If] E.K. Ifantis, Minimal uncertainty states for bounded observables, J. Math. Phys. 12(12) (1971),
2512–2516.
[Le] W.Y. Lee, Cowen sets for Toeplitz operators with finite rank selfcommutators, J. Operator Theory
54(2) (2005), 301–307.
[MP] M. Martin and M. Putinar, Lectures on Hyponormal Operators, Operator Theory: Adv. Appl.
vol 39, Birkhäuser, Verlag, 1989.
[MAR] R.A. Martı́nez-Avendaño and P. Rosenthal, An Introduction to Operators on the Hardy-Hilbert
Space, Springer, New York, 2007.
[NT] T. Nakazi and K. Takahashi, Hyponormal Toeplitz operators and extremal problems of Hardy
spaces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 338 (1993), 753–769.
[Ni] N. K. Nikolskii, Treatise on the Shift Operator, Springer, New York, 1986.
[Pe] V.V. Peller, Hankel Operators and Their Applications, Springer, New York, 2003.
[Po] V.P. Potapov, On the multiplicative structure of J-nonexpansive matrix functions, Tr. Mosk.
Mat. Obs. (1955), 125-236 (in Russian); English trasl. in: Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. (2) 15(1966),
131–243.
[Pr] E. de Prunelé, Conditions for bound states in a periodic linear chain, and the spectra of a class
of Toeplitz operators in terms of polylogarithm functions, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36 (2003),
8797–8815.
[Sz] F.H. Szafraniec, Subnormality in the quantum harmonic oscillator, Commun. Math. Phys. 210
(2000), 323–334.
[Ta] S. Takenaka, On the orthogonal functions and a new formula of interpolation, Japan J. Math. 2
(1925), 129–145.
[Zhu] K. Zhu, Hyponormal Toeplitz operators with polynomial symbols, Integral Equations Operator
Theory 21 (1996), 376–381
Raúl E. Curto
Department of Mathematics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, U.S.A.
e-mail: [email protected]
In Sung Hwang
Department of Mathematics, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 440-746, Korea
Woo Young Lee
Department of Mathematics, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea

Hyponormality and Subnormality of Block Toeplitz Operators: Ra Ul E. Curto, in Sung Hwang and Woo Young Lee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hyponormality and Subnormality of Block Toeplitz Operators: Ra Ul E. Curto, in Sung Hwang and Woo Young Lee

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hyponormality and Subnormality of Block Toeplitz Operators: Ra Ul E. Curto, in Sung Hwang and Woo Young Lee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hyponormality and Subnormality of Block Toeplitz Operators

Raúl E. Curto, In Sung Hwang and Woo Young Lee

HΦ f := Jn Pn⊥ (Φf ) for f ∈ HC2n ,

For a matrix-valued function Φ ≡ [ϕij ] ∈ L∞

Hyponormality of Block Toeplitz Operators ([GHR]) For each Φ ∈ L∞

Then TΦ is hyponormal if and only if Φ is normal and E(Φ) is nonempty.

The hyponormality of the Toeplitz operator TΦ with arbitrary matrix-valued symbol Φ,

2. Basic Theory and Preliminaries

We first recall [Ab, Lemma 3] that if ϕ ∈ L∞ then

On the other hand, M. Abrahamse [Ab, Lemma 6] showed that if Tϕ is hyponormal, if ϕ ∈ / H ∞,

for some square inner matrix function Θ.

(a) GCDℓ {Θi : i ∈ J} = GCDr {Θi : i ∈ J} = θd In , where θd = GCD {θi : i ∈ J}.

A∗ℓ Ωℓ is called the left coprime factorization of Φ; similarly, we can write

From now on, for notational convenience we write

The following lemma is useful in the sequel.

and, for notational convenience, m0 := 0. Let

Consider the matrix polynomial P (z) of degree d − 1 defined by

3. Hyponormality of Block Toeplitz Operators

map VB : L2 (µB ) → H(B) defined by

is a lower-triangular Hilbert-Schmidt operator.

Then the map Vs : L2 (µ) → H(s) defined by

is unitary and U∆ is mapped onto the operator

[TΦ∗ , TΦ ] = HΦ∗ ∗ HΦ∗ − HΦ∗ HΦ + TΦ∗ Φ−ΦΦ∗ .

Definition 3.1. Let Φ ∈ L∞

[TΦ∗ , TΦ ]p := HΦ∗ ∗ HΦ∗ − HΦ∗ HΦ .

[TΦ∗ , TΦ ] = [TΦ∗ , TΦ ]p + TΦ∗ Φ−ΦΦ∗ .

nonempty-ness of C(Φ) (and hence the hyponormality of TΦ ): in other words,

Proposition 3.2. Let Φ ≡ Φ∗− + Φ+ ∈ L∞ ∗

where K(M ) is understood as an H ∞ -functional calculus. Hence, in particular,

HΘ∗1 Θ∗0 K E = HΘ∗1 Θ∗0 (PH(Θ1 Θ0 ) (KE)).

Observe that [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] = HAΘ

we have ran [TΦ∗ , TΦ ] ⊆ H(Θ1 Θ0 ). But since Φ − KΦ∗ ∈ HM

PH(Θ1 Θ0 ) T(A+Θ1 Θ0 Φ− ) |H(Θ1 Θ0 ) = PH(Θ1 Θ0 ) TA |H(Θ1 Θ0 ) .

(TK )Θ1 Θ0 = PH(Θ1 Θ0 ) TK |H(Θ1 Θ0 )

If Φ is a scalar-valued function then Theorem 3.3 reduces to the following corollary.

where θ1 and θ0 are inner functions and a, b ∈ H 2 . If k ∈ C(ϕ) then

then M is obtained by (2.15).

We now provide some revealing examples that illustrate Theorem 3.3.

Example 3.8. Let ∆ be a singular inner function of the form

we can see that " #

dimensional. Thus by (3.14) we can see that

Proof. Suppose M has measure zero for some δ > 0. Write

it follows that TA∗e|ran HΘ∗ = TA∗e|H(Θ)

4. Subnormality of Block Toeplitz Operators

We note that if n = 1 (i.e., TΦ is a scalar-valued Toeplitz operator), then Φ− = bθ with

Φ− = B ∗ Θ (coprime factorization) and Φ+ = ΘΘ0 A∗ ,

e = b PN + (I − PN ) for a closed subspace N .

Thus Fe = LeGe for some Le ∈ H 2 , where L

Φ = Θ∆r A∗r , (right coprime factorization),

Proof. Since ∆r is a finite Blaschke-Potapov product, we may write

Without loss of generality we may assume that ν = In . Define

where Θ and A1 are coprime (by passing to Lemma 2.3).

det Ar · (bM )rank(I−PM ) = (bM )dim N · det ΓM . (4.5)

Our main theorem of this section now follows:

Theorem 4.5. Let Φ ∈ L∞

= TΦ∗2 Θ∗2 Θ∗2

= TΦ∗2 Φ2 − TΦ2 Φ∗2 = 0 (since Φ is normal).

HΦ∗ ∗+ HΦΦ∗2 Θ2 Θ20 = 0. (4.10)

⇐⇒ A = ΘA′ (since B and Θ are coprime) ,

A similar calculation shows that

Since TΦ is normal we have " #

It follows from Lemma 5.3 that