Adjoint transformation (inverse)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mnb96
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Transformation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of adjoint transformations and their relationship to inverses in the context of mathematical operations. Participants explore the implications of an implicit definition of adjoint transformations and seek to prove a specific property involving inverses and adjoints, particularly in cases where the operation is cancellative.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Mathematical reasoning, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an implicit definition of an adjoint transformation and seeks to prove that the inverse and adjoint are interchangeable.
  • Another participant suggests a method involving multiplying both sides of an equation by inverses but expresses uncertainty about the correctness of their approach.
  • A further clarification is made regarding the steps involved in manipulating the equation, with acknowledgment of potential errors in earlier posts.
  • One participant claims to have found a solution under the assumption that the operation is cancellative, but questions how to prove the property without this assumption.
  • Reference is made to external sources, such as Wikipedia, to highlight that the property may pertain specifically to linear operators.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty about the correctness of their proposed methods and solutions. There is no consensus on the proof of the property without assuming cancellativity, and multiple viewpoints on the approach to the problem are presented.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes limitations related to the assumptions made about the operation being cancellative, which may affect the validity of the conclusions drawn. There are also unresolved mathematical steps in the proposed proofs.

mnb96
Messages
711
Reaction score
5
Hi,
in the text I am reading I found the following implicit definition of an adjoint transformation:

[tex]\overline{f}( \textbf{a}) \ast \textbf{b} = \textbf{a} \ast f(\textbf{b})[/tex]

then it is said that [tex]\overline{f^{-1}} = (\overline{f})^{-1}[/tex]. Basically the inverse and ajoint are interchangeable, and this property is (supposed to be) easily shown from the definition above.
Unfortunately I have problems figuring out how to prove it. Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
it's been a really long time since i did anything math related, but i think if you * the inverse of everything to both sides (i.e. step 1, * (f^bar(a))^-1 to both sides, step 2 * b^1 to both sides, step 3 * a^1 to both sides, step 4 * (f(b))^-1 to both sides) you should end up with

[tex] \textbf{a}^{-1} \ast f(\textbf{b})^{-1} = \textbf{b}^{-1} \ast \overline{f}( \textbf{a})^{-1}[/tex]

does that give you what you want? sorry, it's been a long time since I've done this type of stuff. i think this is probably wrong, but it may give you a step in the right direction.
 
When you say, step1 * f^bar(a))^-1 to both sides do you mean the following?

[tex]\overline{f}\\^{-1}(\textbf{a}) \ast \overline{f}( \textbf{a}) \ast \textbf{b} = \overline{f}\\^{-1}(\textbf{a}) \ast \textbf{a} \ast f(\textbf{b})[/tex]
 
actually i meant this:

[tex] (\overline{f}\\(\textbf{a}))^{-1} \ast \overline{f}( \textbf{a}) \ast \textbf{b} = (\overline{f}\\(\textbf{a}))^{-1} \ast \textbf{a} \ast f(\textbf{b})<br /> [/tex]

i'm not that great with latex, or i would have tried to explain it better; my apologies. i think the equation in my post is actually incorrect now that i look at it, but if you follow the method i described i think it gets you somewhere.

after you simplify you get

[tex] \textbf{b} = (\overline{f}\\(\textbf{a}))^{-1} \ast \textbf{a} \ast f(\textbf{b})<br /> [/tex]

and then you continue to * inverses on both sides (i don't want to say multiply because * is an operator not always multiplication... is there a better word for that?)
 
I found a solution when the operation * is cancellative (which I can assume to be my case):

[tex]\overline{f^{-1}}(a) * f(b) = a * f^{-1}(f(b)) = a * b = \overline{f}(\overline{f}^{-1}(a)) * b = \overline{f}^{-1}(a) * f(b)[/tex]

However if you check from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermitian_adjoint#Properties this seems to be a property of linear operators, but I wonder how you can prove it without assuming cancellativity ([tex]y*x = z*x \\ \Rightarrow \\ y=z[/tex])
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
701