Reduced Exponential: Work & Formulae

  • Thread starter Thread starter ianbell
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponential
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of the "reduced exponential," defined as the series sum from i=1 to infinity of x^(i-1) / i!, where x is an element from a general algebra. It is noted that this reduced exponential is equivalent to (exp(x) - 1) / x only when x is invertible. Participants clarify that if x is not invertible, such as in the case of certain matrices, the reduced exponential can still be computed, although it does not yield the same results as the standard exponential function. There is a request for any existing work or formulas related to this construct, but participants admit they are unfamiliar with any such references. The conversation highlights the complexities of defining exponentials in broader algebraic contexts.
ianbell
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
"Reduced Exponential"

I am interested in what I call the "reduced exponential"
Sum_i=1 to infinity x^(i-1) / i!
where x is a general element in an algebra of interest.

Only when x is invertible is the reduced exponential equivalent to (exp(x)-1) /x .

Obviously we have a "reduced log", the inverse of the reduced exponential.

Does anybody of any work or formulae involving this construct? TIA.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
How do you mean: "if x is invertible"?
If x is a number the series is always equal to (exp(x) - 1)/x, unless x= 0 in which case it converges to zero. If not, the notation with the division doesn't make sense.

Where did you encounter this function?
 
"How do you mean: "if x is invertible"?"

x is an element of a general algebra, not merely a real or complex number but a multivector or matrix or similar such object that can be raised to integer powers and summed and so exponentiated. I've encountered this in quantum mechanics ..
 
OK, it is possible to define the exponential in such cases, but then I would write
(\exp(x) - 1) x^{-1} (or x^{-1} (\exp(x) - 1), though I think there is no difference here) instead of the division.
 
Writing x^{-1} instead of dividing by x doesn't help. What if x is not invertible? For example, the matrix
x = \bmatrix 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \endbmatrix
has no inverse but certainly has a "reduced exponential" as defined in the OP: \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \frac {x^{i-1}}{i!} = \bmatrix 1 & 1/2 \\ 0 & 1 \endbmatrix
 
Last edited:
Doesn't help for what? I was just pointing out a notational inconvenience in
Only when x is invertible is the reduced exponential equivalent to (exp(x)-1) /x .
which still holds, as in the example you gave the sum evaluates to the identity which is not even close to exp(x) - 1 = x.

The question was
Does anybody of any work or formulae involving this construct? TIA.
which I must admit, I can't recall having seen or used anywhere.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top