Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
A strange definition for Hermitian operator
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="struggling_student, post: 6505560, member: 691540"] In lecture notes at a university (I'd rather not say which university) the following definition for Hermitian is given: [I] An operator is Hermitian if and only if it has real eigenvalues.[/I] I find it questionable because I thought that non-Hermitian operators can sometimes have real eigenvalues. We can correctly say that Hermitian operators can only have real eigenvalues but that does not define the operator, right? Is it some kind of convention or is it just plain wrong? Alas the physicists often don't understand the difference between an implication and equivalence. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
A strange definition for Hermitian operator
Back
Top