Forward Unit Push Operator Equation

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter topsquark
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator Push Unit
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation and implications of a theorem related to a difference equation involving a polynomial operator. Participants explore the relationship between the operator and a function defined by the equation, examining how to transition from one form of the equation to another.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Dan presents a theorem involving a difference equation and a polynomial function, questioning how to derive a specific result from an earlier equation.
  • Dan proposes a "formal" solution using negative exponents and discusses the implications of requiring the function F(n) to be non-zero.
  • Another participant provides an alternative derivation that avoids using the inverse of F(n), leading to the same conclusion as Dan's original query.
  • Dan acknowledges the alternative approach and confirms that the non-zero condition for F(n) does not seem problematic based on his previous experiences.
  • Dan later finds a more direct derivation in an old text, which simplifies the argument and clarifies the separation of factors in the equation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants share similar approaches to deriving the result, but there is no consensus on the necessity of the non-zero condition for F(n) or the best method to transition between the equations. The discussion remains open to further exploration and refinement of the ideas presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty regarding the implications of the non-zero condition for F(n) and the completeness of the original notes referenced. There are also mentions of typos in the notes that could affect the understanding of the theorem.

topsquark
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
MHB
Messages
2,020
Reaction score
843
Hopefully the symbols I am using are standard. I will define them upon request.

I have a theorem that says, given a difference equation [math]\left ( \sum_{j = 0}^m a_j E^j \right ) y_n = \alpha ^n F(n)[/math], we can define a polynomial function [math]\phi (E) = \sum_{j = 0}^m a_j E^j [/math] such that [math]\phi (E) y_n = \alpha ^n F(n)[/math]. I can follow a proof to the following result:
(1) [math]\phi (E) \left ( \alpha ^n F(n) \right ) = \alpha ^n \phi ( \alpha E ) F(n)[/math]

The notes then go on to say, "therefore"
(2) [math]\dfrac{1}{ \phi (E) } \left ( \alpha ^n F(n) \right ) = \alpha ^n \dfrac{1}{ \phi ( \alpha E )} F(n)[/math]

Now, the particular solution to the difference equation is written as [math]y_p = \dfrac{1}{ \phi (E) } \left ( \alpha ^n F(n) \right )[/math] and I can use (2) to evaluate this and get the correct result. So I know that (2) is right, without any typos. But how do I get from (1) to (2)?

More details upon request.

-Dan
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I might have what I would call a "formal" solution.

[math]\dfrac{1}{ \phi (E) } \alpha ^n F(n) = \dfrac{1}{ \phi (E) } \dfrac{1}{ \dfrac{1}{ \alpha ^n F(n) } } = \dfrac{1}{ \phi (E) } \dfrac{1}{ \alpha ^{-n} F^{-1}(n)}[/math]

Now, I see no reason why we can't use a negative exponent in the equation (1) in the OP and [math]F^{-1}(n)[/math] is just a function of n. So we can apply (1):
[math]\dfrac{1}{ \phi (E) } \dfrac{1}{ \alpha ^{-n} F^{-1}(n)} = \dfrac{1}{ \alpha ^{-n} \phi ( \alpha E ) F^{-1}(n)} = \alpha ^n \dfrac{1}{ \phi ( \alpha E) } F(n)[/math]

So we get
[math]\dfrac{1}{ \phi (E) } \alpha ^n F(n) = \alpha ^n \dfrac{1}{ \phi ( \alpha E) } F(n)[/math]

as required.

Now, I call this formal because I haven't really "gotten into the gears" of the equation. I've used it but haven't fully explored it so there may be some surprises I'm not aware of. The other reason is that the derivation requires F(n) to never be 0, which wasn't in the notes that I downloaded. Granted, the notes weren't expected to be a complete introduction and they were shot through with typos. So F(n) not zero may well be a requirement on this equation. I'll have to mess with it.

Any thoughts?

-Dan
 
Hi Dan,

I like the symbolic argument above. Here is something I scratched out in an attempt to avoid the $F^{-1}(n)$ term:

By definition of the inverse,
$$\frac{1}{\phi(\alpha E)}\phi(\alpha E) F(n) = F(n)$$
From (1) we get
$$\left[\frac{1}{\phi(\alpha E)}\alpha^{-n}\phi(E)\alpha^{n}\right] F(n) = F(n)$$
This implies
$$\left[\alpha^{-n}\phi(E)\alpha^{n}\right]F(n) = \phi(\alpha E)F(n)$$
Since $F(n)$ is an arbitrary function of $n$, it follows that
$$\alpha^{-n}\phi(E)\alpha^{n} = \phi(\alpha E)$$
Thus,
$$1 = \alpha^{-n}\phi(E)\alpha^{n}\frac{1}{\phi(\alpha E)},$$
from which it follows
$$\frac{1}{\phi(E)}\alpha^{n} = \alpha^{n}\frac{1}{\phi(\alpha E)}$$
The above, when applied to $F(n)$, is the desired result in (2).
 
GJA said:
Hi Dan,

I like the symbolic argument above. Here is something I scratched out in an attempt to avoid the $F^{-1}(n)$ term:

By definition of the inverse,
$$\frac{1}{\phi(\alpha E)}\phi(\alpha E) F(n) = F(n)$$
From (1) we get
$$\left[\frac{1}{\phi(\alpha E)}\alpha^{-n}\phi(E)\alpha^{n}\right] F(n) = F(n)$$
This implies
$$\left[\alpha^{-n}\phi(E)\alpha^{n}\right]F(n) = \phi(\alpha E)F(n)$$
Since $F(n)$ is an arbitrary function of $n$, it follows that
$$\alpha^{-n}\phi(E)\alpha^{n} = \phi(\alpha E)$$
Thus,
$$1 = \alpha^{-n}\phi(E)\alpha^{n}\frac{1}{\phi(\alpha E)},$$
from which it follows
$$\frac{1}{\phi(E)}\alpha^{n} = \alpha^{n}\frac{1}{\phi(\alpha E)}$$
The above, when applied to $F(n)$, is the desired result in (2).
I like it! Yes, I have solved a couple of systems and the [math]F(n) \neq 0[/math] condition does not seem to be a problem.

Thanks!

-Dan
 
Well, I just found about half the derivation in an (old) online text that was missing some pages. It was far more direct.

[math]\dfrac{1}{ \phi (E)} \alpha ^n F(n) = \dfrac{1}{ \phi (E) \alpha ^{-n} } F(n) = \dfrac{1}{ \alpha ^{-n} \phi ( \alpha E)} F(n) = \alpha ^n \dfrac{1}{ \phi ( \alpha E)} F(n)[/math]

I hadn't thought about separating the factors but [math]E^j ( \alpha ^n F(n) ) = \alpha ^{n + j} E^j (F(n)) = \alpha ^{n + j} F(n + j)[/math] so it makes sense.

-Dan
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K