- 4,796
- 32
In the "proof" of the theorem, my course notes defines P_r(t) as the probability to find the system is state r at time t, and it defined H as the mean value of \ln P_r over all acesible states:
H \equiv \sum_r P_r\ln P_r
Is is right to call the above sum the "mean value of ln P_r" ?! Cause given a quantity u, the mean value of f(u) is defined as
\sum_i P(u_i)f(u_i)
So the mean value of \ln P_r should be
\sum_r P(P_r)\ln P_r
But P(P_r) does not make sense.I confessed my confusion to the professor in more vague terms (at the time, I only tought the equation looked suspicious), but he said there was nothing wrong with it. I say, H could be called at best "some kind" of mean value of ln(Pr).
H \equiv \sum_r P_r\ln P_r
Is is right to call the above sum the "mean value of ln P_r" ?! Cause given a quantity u, the mean value of f(u) is defined as
\sum_i P(u_i)f(u_i)
So the mean value of \ln P_r should be
\sum_r P(P_r)\ln P_r
But P(P_r) does not make sense.I confessed my confusion to the professor in more vague terms (at the time, I only tought the equation looked suspicious), but he said there was nothing wrong with it. I say, H could be called at best "some kind" of mean value of ln(Pr).
Last edited: