I Periodic potential V(x) -- how can I show that the period is d?

GAB1
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
upload_2018-11-1_21-38-5.png
periodic potential

upload_2018-11-1_21-38-52.png

how can i show that period is d
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-11-1_21-38-5.png
    upload_2018-11-1_21-38-5.png
    2.5 KB · Views: 919
  • upload_2018-11-1_21-38-52.png
    upload_2018-11-1_21-38-52.png
    922 bytes · Views: 932
Mathematics news on Phys.org
GAB1 said:
View attachment 233240periodic potential

View attachment 233241
how can i show that period is d

for cos (2πx/d), change the values of x in terms of d, i.e. 0.1d, 0.2d ... etc... When do you get the full cycle?

BTW, this is math, not physics.

Zz.
 
If ##f(x)## has a period of ##d## then ##f(x) = f(x + d)## for all ##x##.

Change ##x## to ##x + d##. See what happens.

I should note that this only establishes the ##d## is a period. If you shift a sine wave of period ##T## by 10 periods, you get the same sine wave, so ##10T## is a period but not the smallest period. You have to do a little more reasoning to establish that ##d## is the smallest period.
 
Thread closed as the OP has been banned.
 
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top