First Weyl Algebras .... A_1 ....

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Weyl
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 · 2K views
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: 864
  • Bresar - 2 - Weyl Algebra A_1 - Part 2 ... ....png
    Bresar - 2 - Weyl Algebra A_1 - Part 2 ... ....png
    59.8 KB · Views: 813
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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: Math Amateur