1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Matrix inverse

  1. Apr 30, 2008 #1
    Hi.....

    I hope somebody can help me...

    Studying mean field theory in a passage it was necessary to calcolate the inverse of this operator defined on Z^2:

    $A(I,K)=-J\sum_e \delta(I,K-e)+1/(\beta)*\delta(I,K)$

    where I,K pass all ZxZ and the sum on $e$ is a sum on the for basis vectors e_1,e_2,...,e_4. $\delta(A,B)$ is the usual delta function. $J$ and $\beta$ are constants.

    well my book tries to compute $A'(q,p)$ as the discrete time fourier transform of $A(I,K)$... then finds a certain function $g$ which respects this equation $A'(q,p)*g(q,p)=\delta(q-p)$ and anti-transforms it, pretending thus to find an integral representation of the inverse matrix....

    unluckily I don't see why this passage is true... does anybody can help me?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 30, 2008 #2
    I apologize... but I don't know how to write better the formulas....

    anyway, pheraps this topic had to be written on the section about field theory... sorry.... I'm a newbye!
     
  4. Apr 30, 2008 #3

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Replace the $ signs with tex tags (or itex for inline typesetting).

    Example (click to see code): [tex]A(I,K)=-J\sum_e \delta(I,K-e)+1/(\beta)*\delta(I,K)[/tex]

    PS: Also, when asking questions about a specific text, it may be useful to cite the text and the page/chapter where the passage is found.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2008
  5. May 1, 2008 #4
    thank you Gokul...

    I found this passage in the pdf file of a teacher of an other university, but unluckily it is not written in english...

    Anyway similar questions (more or less) arise here:

    -Itzykson Drouffe... "Statysitical field theory", pag. 128. How can I pass from formula 59 to formula 60?

    - G.Parisi... "Statystical field theory", chap.3 (mean field)... at the beginning of the chapter (haven't got the book with me right now!) there is written exactly the same operator I wrote in the first message;
     
  6. May 2, 2008 #5
    Ok.... I guess I solved.... thank u for the attention... if anyone is interested, I'll post what I've understood...
     
  7. May 2, 2008 #6
    The general story is as follows. You can think of your operator as a matrix where the real space coordinates are it's indices. To find the inverse of that matrix is in general difficult. But the inverse of a diagonal matrix is of course easy (simply 1/every component along the diagonal).

    To take a general matrix and render it as a diagonal matrix is the process of diagonalization. But diagonalization is simply "picking a basis" in which the matrix is diagonal, i.e., finding it's eigenvectors and eigenvalues.

    Fourier transforming is simply "picking a basis" and writing the object as a linear combination in that basis, and usually operators that are translation invariant in position space become diagonal in Fourier space.

    I hope this has clarified things. I don't know the exact problem you are looking at, but this is a fairly general concept.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Matrix inverse
  1. Transfer matrix (Replies: 1)

  2. Inversion symmetry? (Replies: 4)

  3. Transfer matrix (Replies: 1)

Loading...