Adjoint transformation (inverse)

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

\overline{f}( \textbf{a}) \ast \textbf{b} = \textbf{a} \ast f(\textbf{b})

then it is said that \overline{f^{-1}} = (\overline{f})^{-1}. 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

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

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?

\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})<br />
 
actually i meant this:

<br /> (\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 /> <br />

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

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

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):

\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)

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 (y*x = z*x \\ \Rightarrow \\ y=z)
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top