An error related with matrix exponential

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of matrix exponentials, specifically the application of the Zassenhaus formula and the conditions under which certain equalities hold. Participants explore the implications of non-commuting matrices on the calculations involving matrix exponentials.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a calculation involving matrix exponentials and the Zassenhaus formula, questioning where an error may have occurred in their reasoning.
  • Another participant notes that the equality \(\left(e^A*e^B\right)^n=e^{(nA)}*e^{(nB)}\) only holds if matrices A and B commute, i.e., \(AB-BA=0\).
  • A later reply discusses the implications of assuming \(AB-BA=\phi\) and provides an example to illustrate that \((AB)^n \neq A^nB^n\) when A and B do not commute.
  • Additional comments suggest moving the thread to a more appropriate section of the forum for quicker responses.
  • One participant introduces a sidebar about the diagonalization of matrices and how it relates to raising matrices to powers, emphasizing the role of eigenvalues and eigenvectors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the importance of the commutation relation between matrices A and B for the validity of certain equalities, but there is no consensus on the specific error in the original calculation presented.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the commutation of matrices A and B, as well as the unresolved nature of the initial calculation error. The discussion also touches on the complexity of matrix exponentiation and the implications of non-commuting matrices.

umut_caglar
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi guys I have a problem in finding my error in a calculation, I will be glad if you help me to find the error that I am doing

ok the problem is basically about matrix exponentials, here we go:

A, B, U, P are matrices
n is a natural number
t and T are rational numbers and T=n*t

now in general ## e^{t(A+B)}≠e^{tA}*e^{tB} ##
but can be represented by using The Zassenhaus formula

## e^{t(A+B)}=e^{tA}*e^{tB}*e^{(t^2/2)*(AB-BA)}*\ldots ##

one can find the details of the formula from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff_formula

now I begin by writing the formula

## e^{t(A+B)}=e^{tA}*e^{tB}*e^{(t^2/2)*(AB-BA)}*\ldots ##

and then I take the 'n'th power of both sides

## \left(e^{t(A+B)}\right)^n=\left(e^{tA}*e^{tB}*e^{(t^2/2)*(AB-BA)}*\ldots\right)^n ##if I define U=A+B I will get

## \left(e^{t U}\right)^n=\left(e^{tA}*e^{tB}*e^{(t^2/2)*(AB-BA)}*\ldots\right)^n ##

by using the equality of (e^A)^n=e^[aN] i will obtain

## e^{t*n*U}=\left(e^{tA}*e^{tB}*e^{(t^2/2)*(AB-BA)}*\ldots\right)^n ##

by using the definitions T=nt and U=A+B i will get

## e^{T*(A+B)}=\left(e^{tA}*e^{tB}*e^{(t^2/2)*(AB-BA)}*\ldots\right)^n ##

for the right side I define the P matrix as P=AB-BA

## e^{T*(A+B)}=\left(e^{tA}*e^{tB}*e^{(t^2/2)*P}*\ldots\right)^n ##

and by using the equality ## \left(e^A*e^B\right)^n=e^{(nA)}*e^{(nB)} ## recursively, I obtain

## e^{T*(A+B)}=e^{t*n*A}*e^{t*n*B}*e^{(t^2/2)*n*P}*\ldots ##

Again by using the definitions of T=tn and P=AB-BA I obtain

## e^{T*(A+B)}=e^{T*A}*e^{T*B}*e^{T*(t/2)*(AB-BA)}*\ldots ##

but, if expand the left side of the equation by using Zassenhaus formula, I end up with

## e^{TA}*e^{TB}*e^{(T^2/2)(AB-BA)}*...≠e^{TA}*e^{TB}*e^{(T*t/2)(AB-BA)}*\ldots ##which is not clearly equal to the right side; so where is my mistake.*****************************

As a side note; If you also show the correct version of the calculation I will be glad;

For example; I expect my error is asuuming the equality of ## \left(e^A*e^B\right)^n=e^{(nA)}*e^{(nB)} ##
if this is the mistake, could you show the correct relation?

Thanks for the help
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Edit: You got the LaTex working, so I'll delete my version of it.

Another suggestion: You might get an answer quicker if you request this thread be moved to the Linear and Abstract Algebra section of the forum. I don't really know the proper way to make such a request. I suppose you could PM a moderator. The "report" feature might also be used, but the directions for using it make it sound like it's only to report offensive material.
 
Last edited:
Hi everybody I finally understand the problem, I will put a note to here in case someone else might need it

A and B are matrices n is a natural number

say ##AB-BA=\phi## then we will have ##(AB)^2=ABAB## which is equal to

##A(AB-\phi)B##

then we get

##=AABB-A\phi B##

finally get

##(AB)^2=A^2B^2-A\phi B##

so my initial guess was correct and ##(AB)^n≠A^nB^n##

thanks to everybody who tries to solve it
 
[itex]\left(e^A*e^B\right)^n=e^{(nA)}*e^{(nB)}[/itex]

Yep, this is only true if A and B commute, that is AB-BA=0
 
Stephen Tashi said:
Another suggestion: You might get an answer quicker if you request this thread be moved to the Linear and Abstract Algebra section of the forum.
Done.
Stephen Tashi said:
I don't really know the proper way to make such a request. I suppose you could PM a moderator. The "report" feature might also be used, but the directions for using it make it sound like it's only to report offensive material.
No, it's fine to use the Report button for things like this, despite the misleading directions.
 
As a sidebar, it is important to know (at least when finding the root of a transition matrix) that if A= P'EP and B =R'SR where E and S are a diagonal matrix of eigenvalues. The P and R matrices are composed of the respective eigenvectors, and PP' = RR' = I. Then:

A^n = P'(E^n)P and B^n = R'(S^n)R

Note, A*A = P'(E)PP'(E)P = P'(E)I(E)P = P'(E^2)P

so one only needs to raise the diagonal elements (the eigenvalues) to the power of n (where n can also be a fraction, that is, taking a root).

As such, (A^n)*(B^n) = P'(E^n)P*R'(S^n)R
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K