Understanding a boundary condition on the density of probability

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the interpretation of boundary conditions in probability density functions related to potential values over time. The first condition indicates that no change occurs in a zero time interval, represented by the Dirac delta function. The second condition, which states that the probability of the potential being at the absorbing value B at time t is zero, is clarified to mean that once the potential reaches B, it cannot take on any other value. The confusion arises from the notation and the understanding of absorbing potentials, leading to a debate on whether the book's representation is accurate. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the book's notation may be misleading regarding the implications of the absorbing potential.
fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,931
Reaction score
281
The book states that ##P(x|y,t)## represents the probability density that the potential has a value x at time t, knowing that it had the value y at t=0.
I understand this, the words are very clear. However I'd find much more intuitive the notation ##P(x,t|y,0)##, but I guess that's just me?

Now comes the problem:
Then the book states that for a particular system where B is an absorbing potential and -infinity is a reflective potential, it states that the boundary conditions are:
(1)##P(x|y,0)=\delta (y-x)##
(2)##P(B|y,t)=0##
(3)##P(-\infty |y,t)=0##
Here is my understanding of (2): Using my own notation I rewrite it as ##P(B,t|y,0)=0## which means that the density of probability that the potential has a value of B at time t, knowing that it had a value of y at time t=0 is 0.
However the book states that (2) says: The second condition reflects the existence of a threshold potential B such that when x(t) takes the value B, the process is absorbed.
For the (1), my understanding is : The probability density that the potential has a value of x at time t=0 knowing that it had the value y at time t=0 is worth ##\delta (y-x)##. Which makes perfect sense to me if this is the Dirac delta. However the book states that (1) : no change can occur in a zero time interval. A weird statement to me, but after all it's true.
So I understand this part and also the 3rd condition.
So I'm stuck at understanding the second condition.
Does this mean that the probability of finding the potential to be very close to B is approximately null, because it is "an absorbing potential"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fluidistic said:
The book states that ##P(x|y,t)## represents the probability density that the potential has a value x at time t, knowing that it had the value y at t=0.
I understand this, the words are very clear. However I'd find much more intuitive the notation ##P(x,t|y,0)##, but I guess that's just me?

Now comes the problem:
Then the book states that for a particular system where B is an absorbing potential and -infinity is a reflective potential, it states that the boundary conditions are:
(1)##P(x|y,0)=\delta (y-x)##
(2)##P(B|y,t)=0##
(3)##P(-\infty |y,t)=0##
Here is my understanding of (2): Using my own notation I rewrite it as ##P(B,t|y,0)=0## which means that the density of probability that the potential has a value of B at time t, knowing that it had a value of y at time t=0 is 0.
This is exactly backwards. Saying that B is "absorbing" means the probability the potential has value y at time t, knowing it had value B at time t= 0, is 0. The "object" has been "absorbed" and can never have any other value in the future.

However the book states that (2) says: The second condition reflects the existence of a threshold potential B such that when x(t) takes the value B, the process is absorbed.
For the (1), my understanding is : The probability density that the potential has a value of x at time t=0 knowing that it had the value y at time t=0 is worth ##\delta (y-x)##. Which makes perfect sense to me if this is the Dirac delta. However the book states that (1) : no change can occur in a zero time interval. A weird statement to me, but after all it's true.
So I understand this part and also the 3rd condition.
So I'm stuck at understanding the second condition.
Does this mean that the probability of finding the potential to be very close to B is approximately null, because it is "an absorbing potential"?
 
HallsofIvy said:
This is exactly backwards. Saying that B is "absorbing" means the probability the potential has value y at time t, knowing it had value B at time t= 0, is 0. The "object" has been "absorbed" and can never have any other value in the future.

So if I understand you well, mathematically this would translate as ##P(y,t|B,0)=0## using my own notation or ##P(y|B,t)=0## using the book notation.
So in both cases the book is wrong by writting ##P(B|y,t)=0##?
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K