I think the following result would be the generalization of that presented in the

lecture above; but I would like to hear your thoughts about it.

Consider an **arbitrary scalar product ($<, >_S$)**, and express it through the
**usual scalar product** with the **scalar product matrix (S)**; that's to say:

$<u, v>_S = u^H S v$

Therefore, for any **linear operator (T)**:

$< T^\dagger u, v>_S = (T^\dagger u)^H S v = u^H (T^\dagger)^H S v = u^H S T v = <

u, T v>_S$

Thus:

$(T^\dagger)^H S = S T \Longleftrightarrow (T^\dagger)^H S - S T= 0$

***Theorem:*** Given an *scalar product (S)* and a *linear operator (T)*; then:

$T^\dagger = T^H \Longleftrightarrow [T, S] = 0$

***Proof:***

$(\Rightarrow)$ Remember that: $(T^\dagger)^H S - S T= 0$; thefore:

$0 = (T^H)^H S - S T = T S - S T = [T, S]$

$(\Leftarrow)$ Remember that: $(T^\dagger)^H S = S T$; therefore:

$(T^\dagger)^H S = S T = T S$

However, since **S** is an **Hermitian positive definite** matrix, it is

invertible; ergo:

$(T^\dagger)^H = T \Longleftrightarrow T^\dagger = T^H$

----------

***Edit (1):***

Just to clarify: $T^\dagger$ stands for the *matrix representation* of the

**adjoint** of the **operator** $T$; while $T^H$ stands for the **Hermitian
conjugate** of the *matrix representation* of $T$.

***Edit(2):***

***Corollary***: Let $V$ be a *complex inner product space*, with *inner product
matrix representation* $S$, and $L(V)$ the *space* of its *linear operators*; then:

$(\forall \> T \in L(V)) \> \> T^\dagger = T^H \Longleftrightarrow S = Id$