A question on the operator e^D

  • Thread starter mhill
  • Start date
  • #1
188
1

Main Question or Discussion Point

if D means the derivative respect to x , is always licit to use this operator ??

for example Ramanujan obtained his Master theorem from the integral equality

[tex] \int_{0}^{\infty} dx e^{-ax} x^{m-1} = \Gamma (m) a^{-m] [/tex]

by just replacing the 'a' number by the operator exp(D) and expanding exp(-exp(x) but is this valid ?? , can we always replace real numbers by operators ??
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
if D means the derivative respect to x , is always licit to use this operator ??

for example Ramanujan obtained his Master theorem from the integral equality

[tex] \int_{0}^{\infty} dx e^{-ax} x^{m-1} = \Gamma (m) a^{-m] [/tex]

by just replacing the 'a' number by the operator exp(D) and expanding exp(-exp(x) but is this valid ?? , can we always replace real numbers by operators ??
For your first questions If you want to use the operator e^D the functions it acts on must certainly be C^\infty or in some other weak sense differentiable an infinite number of times.

To your second question: in this special case it seems to have been correct (maybe not properly justified, though).

Your last question: In principle: yes, but a true statement may become false if you replace numbers by operators. Consider ab=ba which is true for real numbers a und b but not true for non-commuting operators.

Pere
 

Related Threads for: A question on the operator e^D

Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
479
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
950
Top