How to define an 'infinite dimensional integral'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kevin_spencer2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
AI Thread Summary
Defining integration in infinite-dimensional spaces involves using multiple integrals and trial functions, such as step functions, to create an axiomatic framework. The discussion highlights the necessity of specifying the topology before establishing integrals or derivatives, as different metrics can yield varying topologies in infinite dimensions. There is a query about the existence of an analogue to the Euler-Maclaurin formula for these spaces. The functional derivative can be defined in two ways, leading to the Euler-Lagrange equation, prompting a question about integrating through a summation approach. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the complexities and foundational requirements for infinite-dimensional integrals.
Kevin_spencer2
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Hello, my question is how could we define integration on infinite dimensional spaces?, my idea is, let be the multiple integral.

\int_{V}dVf(X) where X=(x_1 ,x_2 , x_3 ,...,x_n )

then i define a family of trial functions, in my case they are just 'step functions' so H(X)=H(x_1) H(x_2 ) H(x_3 )...H(x_n) and define a some kind of axiomatic integral for htem (i don't know how unfortunately) then i try to apply integration by parts so integral hold to and make n -> infinite so we define an infinite dimensional integral.

By the way, is there an analogue to Euler-Mc Laurin sum formula for infinite dimensional spaces?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
One problem you will have is that the various plausible "metrics", which give exactly the same topology in finite dimensions and so are equivalent, give different topologies in infinite dimensional space. That is, before you can define integrals or derivatives in infinite dimensions, you will need to specify the topology.

You might want to look at this
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=528446
or this
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979PhLA...73..287B
 
Unfortunately the second article is not free, unless you have a paid subscription to Elsevier.

Daniel.
 
But the infinite dimensional derivative (functional derivative) can be defined for a functional in 2 ways:

\frac{F[\phi +\epsilon \delta (x-y)]-F[\phi]}{\epsilon} or

\frac{dF[\phi +\epsilon (x-y)]}{d\epsilon}

for epsilon tending to 0, and it yields to Euler-Lagrange equation, the question is why can't we define the integral by means perhaps of the sum, with epsilon tending to 0 in the form?

\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\epsilon F[\phi +n\epsilon \delta (x-y)] or if we denote the functional derivative operator \delta then its inverse is just the functional integral operator .
 
Last edited:
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top