Parity of function of multiple variables

wuhtzu
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone

I was wondering how to determine the parity of a function of multiple variables.

Say the function is:

f(x,z) = xz

How would I determine its parity?

For the above function it is true that #1 f(x,z) = f(-x,-z) but its also true that #2 \int_{-a}^{a}\int_{-a}^{a}xz \dx \dz = 0.

In one variable functions #1 would indicate an even function and #2 would indicate an odd function. So I guess you cannot directly extend the concept of odd and even function from one variable to multiple variables?

The ultimate need to answer such question is to determine the parity of potentials in quantum mechanics :)

Best regards
Wuhtzu
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Parity is usually defined for functions of one variable.
 
That is correct, but it doesn't remove the need to determine the parity of potentials suchs as

V(x) = E*x
V(x,z) = c*x*z
V(z) = B*L

in quantum mechanics :( Most of them is easy because they are only dependent on one direction ie. one variable, but some, like v(x,z) = c*x*z, is dependent on more...
 
Parity (math term) is well defined for functions of one variable. I have never seen a definition for functions of more than one variable, other than for each variable separately.
 
I will post what ever answer we get when our quantum mechanics professor gets back from vacation.

Thank you for looking
 
So for this problem it turned out to be sufficient to just change sign of all variables, making it an even function.


The original problem if anyone is interested: Determine which matrix elements of the form

<n m l | V | n' m' l'> , n = n' = 2, m-m' = ? and l-l' = ?

was zero for a spherically symmetric quantum mechanical system by using selection rules.

The potential V was of the from V = x*z. The eigenstates of the spherically symmetric system has alternating even and odd parity with increasing l quantum number and the potential V = x*z is a rank k = 2 tensor.

This imposes the restriction l-l&#039; = \Delta \le 2 \le 2.

Getting restrictions on m-m' is another story.

Thanks again.

Furthermore for &lt;n m l | V | n&#039; m&#039; l&#039;&gt; \ne 0 the product of the wavefunctions <n m l | and |n' l' m'>, and the potential V has to be an even function - if it is odd it integrates to zero. Since we know that V is even both of the two wavefunctions (<n m l | or |n' m' l'>) have to have the same parity. Imposes futher restrictions on l-l' : \Delat l=0 , 2 since placing the l states 1 apart will cause one of them to be even and one of them to be odd (remember the alternating parity). But choosing l-'l = 0 or l-l'=2 causes both to be of the same parity which makes the total product even and hence the intergral non-zero.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top