Commutator [A^n,B] = ? | Prove [AnB] = nAn-1[A,B] for n | Integrer | [A,B]=AB-BA

  • Thread starter Thread starter helpcometk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Commutator
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving the commutator identity [A^n, B] = nA^(n-1)[A, B] for integer n, under the assumption that [A, [A, B]] = 0 and [B, [A, B]] = 0. Participants suggest using mathematical induction to establish the proof, emphasizing the importance of manipulating the exponent n correctly. One contributor highlights the need to demonstrate that [A^n, [A, B]] = 0 for all n in natural numbers as an intermediate step. There is also a caution against differentiating operators without proper definitions, as this may not yield valid results. The consensus is to focus on induction rather than differentiation to solve the problem effectively.
helpcometk
Messages
71
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove that [AnB] =nAn-1[A,B] for integrer n , assume [A,[A,B]]=0=[B,[A,B]]

Homework Equations


[A,B]=AB-BA


The Attempt at a Solution


Does anyone know how i should go to manipulate the exponent n ? I have tried to search but found nothing about a commutator like this properties.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Use the Principle of Mathematic induction and the commutator rule:
<br /> \left[ A \, C, B \right] = A \, \left[ C, B \right] + \left[A, B \right] \, C<br />
 
you can play as long as you ant with this formula ,but you will never be able to get what is asked except if you differentiate somehow ,becsuse you need have one n ,that is not exponent of A or B
 
You will also need to prove as an intermediate step that:
<br /> \left(\forall n \in \mathbb{N} \right) \left[ A^{n}, \left[ A, B \right] \right] = 0<br />
For this, use the principle of mathematical induction again and what you are given in the problem.
 
helpcometk said:
you can play as long as you ant with this formula ,but you will never be able to get what is asked except if you differentiate somehow ,becsuse you need have one n ,that is not exponent of A or B

By this logic, the only way to get 3x^2 from x^3 is to differentiate. Does that really seem like a reasonable thing to claim? (What happens if you multiply x^3 by \frac{3}{x}, for example?

Instead of differentiating your commutator somehow (Have you even defined how to differentiate an operator? Are your operators differentiable?), I suggest you follow DickFore's advice and use a proof by induction. I'd start by looking at a fairly simple case like n=2.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top