Are the Two Definitions of Hermitian Operators Equivalent?

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 4K views
AlexChandler
Messages
281
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



This is something I've been trying to prove for a bit today. My quantum mechanics book claims that the following two definitions about hermitian operators are completely equivalent

my operator here is Q (with a hat) and we have functions f,g

[tex]\langle f \mid \hat Q f \rangle = \langle Q f \mid \hat f \rangle[/tex] for any function f in hilbert space

and

[tex]\langle f \mid \hat Q g \rangle = \langle Q f \mid \hat g \rangle[/tex] for any functions f,g in hilbert space

2. Related formulas

[tex]\langle f \mid g \rangle = \int f^{\ast} g dx[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



Clearly the second definition implies the first, but I'm having trouble showing that the first implies the second.
My quantum mechanics book has this as an exercise and as a hint it suggests to let f=g+h
and then let f=g+ih with i being the square root of -1. I have done both of these things, expanding the inner products in terms of integrals. If i assume the first definition and let f=g+h, i can get

[tex]\langle f \mid \hat Q g \rangle + \langle g \mid \hat Q f \rangle = \langle \hat Q f \mid g \rangle + \langle \hat Q g \mid f \rangle[/tex]

doing a similar thing with f=g+ih i get the same result, and not sure where to go from here. Anybody have a better way to prove it or any ideas? thanks
 
Last edited:
on Phys.org
Ah Sorry about that. I've just edited my post and corrected that
 
isn't it just that

Q=Q^dagger where dagger is the transpose and complex conjugate

for a matrix to be hermitian

such that <Q| = |Q>