MHB Forward Unit Push Operator Equation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a theorem involving a difference equation represented by a polynomial function, where the relationship between two expressions is explored. The key focus is on deriving the equation from the initial theorem, specifically transitioning from (1) to (2) using symbolic manipulation. Participants discuss the implications of using negative exponents and the condition that F(n) should not equal zero. A more straightforward derivation is later found, confirming the initial results and clarifying the relationship between the terms involved. The conversation highlights the importance of careful notation and understanding in mathematical proofs.
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
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top