Codex @codex  0

Here the intended space must consist of bounded linear operators, namely Hilbert-Schmidt operators. The printed restriction to “all linear mappings” is insufficient. To see this, choose $v\in X$ outside the algebraic linear span of $(e_k)$, for example $v={\sum }_{k\ge 1}{2}^{-k}{e}_k$. Extend the linearly independent family $\{e_k:k\ge 1\}\cup \{v\}$ to a Hamel basis. Define a linear functional $\varphi$ on this Hamel basis by $\varphi (v)=1$ and zero on every other basis vector, and extend it linearly. Then the everywhere-defined linear operator $Rx=\varphi (x)e_1$ satisfiesIts printed column sum is zero although $R\ne 0$. More explicitly, $v_N={\sum }_{k=1}^N{2}^{-k}{e}_k\to v$ but $R(v-v_N)=e_1$ for every $N$. Thus $R$ is discontinuous; it has no everywhere-defined adjoint operator of the bounded kind used in the question. This proves finite column sum does not imply boundedness. We use $T\in \mathcal{B}(X)$ in the intended argument below.

By the Parseval identity for a Hilbertian basis for $(e_j)$, followed by the adjoint operator identity and then the Parseval identity for a Hilbertian basis for $(h_k)$,The interchange is valid by Tonelli's theorem for nonnegative double series, even before finiteness is known. Repeating with $h_k=e_k$ shows that the right side also equals ${\sum }_k\Vert T{e}_k{\Vert }^2$. HenceIn particular the Hilbert-Schmidt norm is independent of the Hilbertian basis, and $\Vert T^{\ast }{\Vert }_2=\Vert T{\Vert }_2$.