Is the conjugate of an integral the integral of the conjugate in L2 space?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gonzo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conjugate Integral
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between the complex conjugate of an integral and the integral of the complex conjugate within the context of L2 space. It is established that, in general, the statement is false, as demonstrated through the application of Morera's Theorem regarding analytic functions. However, the inner product in L2 space is defined as = ∫ f̅g, leading to the conclusion that while the conjugate of the integral may equal the integral of the conjugate in specific cases, this does not hold universally.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of complex analysis, particularly analytic functions
  • Familiarity with Morera's Theorem
  • Knowledge of L2 space and inner product definitions
  • Basic concepts of complex conjugates in integrals
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Morera's Theorem in detail to understand its implications in complex analysis
  • Explore the properties of inner products in L2 space
  • Investigate the behavior of analytic functions under integration
  • Learn about the implications of complex conjugation in various mathematical contexts
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of complex analysis, and anyone studying functional analysis, particularly those interested in the properties of L2 spaces and integrals.

gonzo
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
In the complex conjugate of an integral equal to the integral of the complex conjugate?

If so, is there an easy way to show this?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In general, the answer is no. Just consider analytic functions integrated round loops and apply Morera's Theorem (if the integral of a function round all closed paths is zero then the function is analytic).
 
Well, what about when you look at the inner product defined for L2 space. Here the claim is made that:

<br /> &lt;f,g&gt; = \int f\overline{g}<br /><br /> &lt;f,g&gt; = \overline{&lt;g,f&gt;}<br /><br /> \int f\overline{g}=\overline{\int g\overline{f}}<br />

But this is the same as saying in this case that the conjugate of the integral is the integral of the conjugate. How is this supported if this isn't true in general?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K