Problem understanding operator algebra

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luna=Luna
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra Operator
Luna=Luna
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
"It is left as a problem for the reader to show that if [S,T] commutes with S and T, then [e^{tT}, S] = -t[S,T]e^{tT}

I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but i don't even see how it is possible to arrive at this answer.

I get:
[e^{tT}, S] = e^{tT}S - Se^{tT}

Then using the fact that [S,T] commutes with S and T this gives:

SST-STS = STS-TSS
and
TST-TTS = STT-TST

and see no way to go further.
One major thing is I don't even see how the factor of -t just appears in the identity?
[e^{tT}, S] = -t[S,T]e^{tT}
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The typical way to do something like this would be to use a Taylor expansion of the function of the operator, in this case e^{tT}. What you were trying to show is an example of a more general result.
 
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
It is well known that a vector space always admits an algebraic (Hamel) basis. This is a theorem that follows from Zorn's lemma based on the Axiom of Choice (AC). Now consider any specific instance of vector space. Since the AC axiom may or may not be included in the underlying set theory, might there be examples of vector spaces in which an Hamel basis actually doesn't exist ?
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top