MHB Forward Unit Push Operator Equation

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
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top