I Find t to Satisfy e^iat=e^ia_0, e^ibt=e^ib_0, e^ibct=e^ic_0

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter maka89
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinity
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on finding a value of t that satisfies the equations e^{iat} = e^{ia_0}, e^{ibt} = e^{ib_0}, and e^{ibct} = e^{ic_0} simultaneously, given that a, b, and c are distinct non-zero values. It is suggested that while exact solutions may not exist, approximations can be achieved under certain conditions, particularly when a, b, and c do not share common multiples. An example using specific values illustrates that while one equation can be satisfied, others may not be, reinforcing the idea of approximation. The conversation emphasizes the need for careful consideration of the relationships between a, b, and c to determine the feasibility of solutions. Ultimately, exact solutions are unlikely, but approximations can be pursued.
maka89
Messages
66
Reaction score
4
If there is no upper limit on t, can you find a t such that: e^{iat} = e^{ia_0}, e^{ibt} = e^{ib_0} and e^{ibct} = e^{ic_0} at the same time?

No matter what a,b and c is, though given a != b , a!=c, b!=c and a!= 0, b!= 0, c!=0

Or maybe rather:
at=a_0 +k_12\pi, bt=b_0 +k_22\pi and ct=c_0 +k_32\pi, where the k's are integers

I think it seems reasonable that you can, or at least come arbitrarily close to the equations being satisfied... But don't know how to prove it, or if I am right... Any pointers?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Are you really talking factorials up there, or were you trying to type "not equals" (≠)?
 
Not in general.

Consider a=2, b=1, a0=0 and b0 = 0.1. Clearly t=kπ solves the first equation, but does not solve or even approximate the second one.

If you require that a,b,c do not have a pair which have a common multiple, there should be approximations to arbitrary precision. In general there won't be an exact solution here either.
 
Not equals, mjc123 ;)

Thanks mfb! Forgot to mention, I assumed a is not a multiple of b etc.
 
maka89 said:
I assumed a is not a multiple of b etc.
That is not general enough.
a=2 and b=3 still lead to a common multiple of 6, and the same result.

If we don't have that case, in general all you get is an approximation.
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Back
Top