Faulted demonstration of orthonormality in my textbook?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the orthonormality condition in the textbook "Mathematics for Physical Chemistry - Opening doors" by McQuarrie, specifically regarding the case when n does not equal m. The integral approach to demonstrate orthogonality is questioned, as the user struggles to see how it equals zero. By applying Euler's identity and substituting the appropriate values, it is shown that the inner product leads to a result of zero due to the integer nature of n and m. The conclusion emphasizes that the orthogonality condition holds true under these circumstances. This clarification reinforces the understanding of orthonormality in the context of vector spaces.
LeFH18
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
Show that the functions:

ψ_m(θ)= (2π)^(-1/2) e(imθ), m = 0, +- 1, +-2, ...

form an orthonormal set over the interval (0,2π)
Relevant Equations
Function set:
ψ_m(θ)= (2π)^(-1/2) e(imθ), m = 0, +- 1, +-2, ...

Orthonormality condition:

int( ψ*_m ψ_n dx) = δ_nm

where δ is Kronecker's delta
The textbook, "Mathematics for Physical Chemistry - Opening doors" (McQuarrie), solves this example excercise as follows:
1738621436173.png

1738621466635.png


And is the case for n =/= m which I'm troubled with, because, if I solve the integral instead of using the cycles argument, I get that:
1738621585832.png


And I can't see how this is equal to zero. Any leads on why this must be zero for n unequal of m?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Euler's identity says ##e^{i \varphi}=\cos \varphi + i \sin \varphi.## Now substitute ##\varphi = 2\pi (n-m) .## Orthogonality of two vectors ##v_m, v_n## means ##\bigl\langle v_m,v_n \bigr\rangle =\delta_{mn}.## It's the definition, whether ##v## are vectors or functions, and whatever the inner product is defined as, in this case by an integral.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes LeFH18 and FactChecker
Thank you so much!
I did not realize that I could do that substitution. Doing that, I get the following:
## = \frac{i}{\varphi}(1-e^{\varphi i})##
Expanding it into cosine and sine, and noting that ##(n-m)## is always an integer because ##n## and ##m## also are integers, it leads to the inner product being zero.
 
First, I tried to show that ##f_n## converges uniformly on ##[0,2\pi]##, which is true since ##f_n \rightarrow 0## for ##n \rightarrow \infty## and ##\sigma_n=\mathrm{sup}\left| \frac{\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x\right)}{n^{x^2-3x+3}} \right| \leq \frac{1}{|n^{x^2-3x+3}|} \leq \frac{1}{n^{\frac 34}}\rightarrow 0##. I can't use neither Leibnitz's test nor Abel's test. For Dirichlet's test I would need to show, that ##\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x \right)## has partialy bounded sums...

Similar threads