Eigenvalues for a non self adjoint operator

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around obtaining eigenvalues for a non self-adjoint second order linear differential operator acting on polynomial functions. Participants explore methods for deriving coefficients and eigenvalues, and the implications of orthogonality in the context of non self-adjoint operators.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes writing the function y(n) as a polynomial and applying the operator L to compare terms for eigenvalue determination.
  • Another participant suggests that no weight functions or self-adjoint forms are necessary for the eigenvalue equation Ly = λy, asserting it holds for any linear operator.
  • A participant expresses concern that without a weight function, the polynomial terms derived may not be orthogonal due to the non self-adjoint nature of the operator, questioning how to achieve an orthogonal polynomial basis.
  • Another participant mentions that any basis can be made orthogonal using the Gram-Schmidt algorithm.
  • A later reply indicates that orthogonalization may not be necessary for the method of deriving coefficients discussed, suggesting a resolution to earlier doubts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of weight functions and orthogonality in the context of non self-adjoint operators. While some agree on the approach to deriving eigenvalues, the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of orthogonality and the role of weight functions.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not fully resolved the implications of non self-adjoint operators on the orthogonality of polynomial expansions, and there are assumptions regarding the applicability of the Gram-Schmidt algorithm without further clarification.

qtm912
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Trying to obtain eigenvalues for a non self adjoint linear second order differential operator , but unsure about how (if) to use the weight function
Hi all- I am trying to obtain eigenvalues for an equation that has a very simple second order linear differential operator L acting on function y - so it looks like :
L[y(n)] = Lambda (n) * y(n)

Where y(n) can be written as a sum of terms in powers of x up to x^n

but I find L is non self adjoint. As indicated the question involves assuming that the form of y is a polynomial say in x and use "the equating of coefficients of equal powers method" to work out the coefficients of the x powers and the nth eigenvalue for the expansion. That should be manageable but unsure if it is necessary first to use a weight function w (to convert L to self adjoint form) and if so at what stage. Initial thought was that the eigenvalues are as given by this calculation but that the eigenfunction expansion would have to be calculated as above and then dividing it by the weight function - not sure really if any of this is on the right track.

Guidance appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do what you said: write ##y(n)## as polynomial, apply ##L## and compare the terms. No weight functions or self adjoint needed. The equation ##Ly=\lambda y## is the same for any linear function ##L##.
 
Thanks fresh_42 - thinking about it some more it lines up with what I had in mind - for the eigenvalues anyway. But we have not applied any weight function; now the operator by assumption was not self adjoint so does this not mean that the polynomial terms I later derive in the y expansion that is expressed as a sum of polynomial eigenfunctions in x, will no longer be orthogonal. To make them orthogonal the weight function would play a role would it? If not how would one proceed to obtain an expansion of polynomials in terms of an orthogonal basis.
 
Noted - and after thinking about it further I realized that orthogonalisation in this case was not necessary using this method of deriving the coefficients. Your comments were very helpful in clearing some doubts thanks - the topic has been fully addressed and can be closed..
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K