What Is the Correct Sign for the Quadratic Form in Margenau's Proof?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fsonnichsen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form Quadratic
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the sign of the quadratic form in Margenau and Murphy's proof of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for complex numbers. The participant, Fritz, identifies a potential error regarding the expression "-(B+B*)" and asserts that B+B* equals 2Re(B), which should be positive based on the integrals provided. Another participant confirms that the sign of the expression under the square root is the only critical factor, suggesting that Fritz's observation points to a minor error in the text.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in complex vector spaces.
  • Familiarity with quadratic forms and their properties.
  • Knowledge of scalar products in Hilbert spaces, particularly in L² spaces.
  • Basic proficiency in complex analysis and linear algebra concepts.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in complex vector spaces.
  • Examine the properties of quadratic forms in mathematical proofs.
  • Learn about the positive definiteness of scalar products in L² spaces.
  • Investigate common errors in mathematical texts regarding inequalities and proofs.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying advanced linear algebra or functional analysis, particularly those interested in inequalities and their proofs in complex spaces.

fsonnichsen
Messages
61
Reaction score
5
TL;DR
From Margenau and Murphy--quadratic form use not clear
Looking at the proof of the Schwarz inequality in Margenau and Murphy, you will see what I attached. Gamma is asserted to be positive (OK). Given that the usual "quadratic form" solution would read "-(B+B*) .....". The sign does not seem correct to me as shown. In a fact B+B* = 2Re(B) and would be positive in this case given the integrals shown.
What am I missing here?

Thanks
Fritz
 

Attachments

  • Margenau .jpg
    Margenau .jpg
    33.2 KB · Views: 140
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you found an error in the book. However, the values of ##\lambda## don't play a role in the argument (only the sign of the expression under the square root does), so I would call it a small error.

##\ ##
 
OK and thanks! The authors assumptions make sense but they must be evaluated carefully so I thought I may have missed something 49 years ago when I read the book the 1st time-it was quite a famous book back then.

I find the Cauchy-Schwarz ineq. for complex numbers in N dimensions somewhat tricky-the proof is not intuitively obvious to me upon brief examination.

Take care
Fritz
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD and BvU
Writing
$$\langle f|g \rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} x f^*(x) g(x),$$
you have from positive definiteness of the scalar product in ##L^2##
$$\langle f+\lambda g|f+\lambda g \rangle \geq 0,$$
and thus for all ##\lambda \in \mathbb{C}##
$$\langle f|f \rangle + \lambda^* \langle g|f \rangle+\lambda \langle f|g \rangle + |\lambda|^2 \langle g|g \rangle \geq 0.$$
Now set ##\lambda=-\langle g|f \rangle/\langle g|g \rangle,##
where we assume that ##g \neq 0## (otherwise the Schwarz inequality holds with the equality sign anyway). With this ##\lambda## the inequality reads
$$\langle f|f \rangle-\frac{|\langle f|g \rangle|^2}{\langle{g} | g\rangle} \geq 0.$$
This obviously is equivalent to
$$|\langle f|g \rangle| \leq \|f \| \|g \|, \quad \text{where} \quad \|f \|=\sqrt{\langle f|f \rangle}.$$
Further, due to the positive definiteness the equality sign holds if and only if there's a ##\lambda## such that ##|f \rangle+\lambda g \rangle=0##, i.e., if ##f \rangle## and ##|g \rangle## are linearly dependent.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K