M-<M> for M operator: why not a mismatch?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nomadreid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
243
In "Quantum Computation and Quantum Information" by Nielsen & Chuang, on pp. 88-89, applying basic statistical definitions to operators, one of the intermediary steps uses the expression
M-<M>
where M is a Hermitian operator, and <M> is the expected value = <ψ|M|ψ> for a given vector ψ (that is, when one is testing for |ψ>.)
What I do not understand is how one can subtract a vector from an operator. That is, <ψ|M|ψ> is a vector, and M is an operator. For example, if one took an example of M as a 2x2 matrix and ψ as a 1x2 vector, then <ψ|M|ψ> is a 1x2 vector, and then M-<M> has a mismatch in dimensions.
What am I wrongly interpreting? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Usually, if ##A## is an operator and ##\lambda## is a number, we write ##A-\lambda##. This is of course nonsense, like you indicated. But what we mean by this is actually ##A-\lambda I##, where ##I## is the identity operator. So numbers should often be seen as multiplied with some identity operator that we don't write.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thanks, micromass. That clears it up completely.
 
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
It is well known that a vector space always admits an algebraic (Hamel) basis. This is a theorem that follows from Zorn's lemma based on the Axiom of Choice (AC). Now consider any specific instance of vector space. Since the AC axiom may or may not be included in the underlying set theory, might there be examples of vector spaces in which an Hamel basis actually doesn't exist ?
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top