I First Weyl Algebras .... A_1 ....

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Weyl
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Matej Bresar's book, "Introduction to Noncommutative Algebra" and am currently focussed on Chapter 1: Finite Dimensional Division Algebras ... ...

I need help with some remarks of Bresar on first Weyl Algebras ...

Bresar's remarks on Weyl Algebras are as follows:
?temp_hash=509e38ac20c62b45d30f637569fa41c6.png

?temp_hash=509e38ac20c62b45d30f637569fa41c6.png
In the above text from Bresar we read the following: (see (1.4) above)

" ... ... It is straightforward to check that

##[D, L] = I##

the identity operator ..."Can someone please explain exactly why/how ##[D, L] = I## ... ... ?

(It looks more like ##[D, L] = 0## to me?)Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Bresar - 1 - Weyl Algebra A_1 - Part 1 ... ....png
    Bresar - 1 - Weyl Algebra A_1 - Part 1 ... ....png
    37.2 KB · Views: 803
  • Bresar - 2 - Weyl Algebra A_1 - Part 2 ... ....png
    Bresar - 2 - Weyl Algebra A_1 - Part 2 ... ....png
    59.8 KB · Views: 767
Physics news on Phys.org
Apply the commutator ##[D,L]=DL-LD## to a test function ##f(\omega)##. What do you get for ##(DL)f(\omega)## and ##(LD)f(\omega)##?
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur
You have to take the product rule of differentiation into account for ##D(L(f))##.
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur
Thanks for the help eys_physics and fresh_42 ... got the idea now ...

Just needed the interpretation of DL as not a product but a composition of functions/operators ...which you provided ...

By the way ... found it difficult to get a clear and consistent definition of "operator" from my various texts ...

Thanks again,

Peter
 
Math Amateur said:
... the interpretation of DL as not a product but a composition of functions/operators ...
... which is the product here. In case we deal with operators, the usual product is the matrix multiplication, resp. applying one operator after the other: ##(A\circ B)(v)=A(B(v))##. The successive application ##"\circ"## is usually written as a dot or left out. But it's right that one has to be careful, because for usual functions, say ##f,g : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}##, we have two (or three if you like) different multiplications:
  1. ##(f \cdot g) (x) = f(x) \cdot g(x)##
  2. ##(f \circ g) (x) = f(g(x))##
  3. and of course scalar multiplications ##(c\cdot f)(x)=c \cdot f(x)\, , \, c \in \mathbb{F}##
The first one is differentiated with the product rule, the second with the chain rule (and the third by linearity of differentiation).

Btw., the letters ##D## and ##L## for the operators above aren't chosen arbitrarily. ##D## stands for derivation (the result of a differentiation), and ##L## for left-multiplication (here with the function ##1(\omega)=\omega## the variable.)

Not to confuse you, it's ##L(f)=1\cdot f## (multiplication #1 where the product rule for differentiation applies) and ##L(f)(\omega)=(1 \cdot f)(\omega)= 1(\omega)\cdot f(\omega)=\omega \cdot f(\omega)##. For the operators ##D## and ##L##, the product is #2, the successive application ##(D\circ L)(f) = D(L(f))## as linear operators on ##\mathbb{F}[\omega]## (and of course also #3 the scalar multiplication with elements of ##\mathbb{F}##).
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top