Prove that exp[A].exp = exp[A+B] only if A and B commute.

  • Thread starter Thread starter humanist rho
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Commute
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the equation e^A * e^B = e^(A+B) under the condition that matrices A and B commute. The subject area is primarily focused on matrix exponentiation and its properties in the context of linear algebra and quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the series expansion of the exponential function and attempt to equate the two sides of the equation. There are discussions on how to manipulate the series to show the equivalence, particularly focusing on the arrangement of terms when A and B do not commute.

Discussion Status

Some participants have made progress in their reasoning and are seeking further clarification on specific steps in the proof. There is an acknowledgment of the challenge posed by non-commuting matrices, and guidance has been offered regarding index substitutions to facilitate the proof.

Contextual Notes

One participant notes the relevance of the commutation relation in quantum mechanics, indicating a broader context for the problem. The discussion also highlights the potential complexity introduced when A and B do not commute, which is central to the inquiry.

humanist rho
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Prove that exp[A].exp = exp[A+B] only if A and B commute.

Homework Statement



Prove that eA.eB = e(A+B) only if A and B commute.


The attempt at a solution

I expanded both sides of the equation.

(1+A+A2/2!...)(1+B+B2/2!+..) = (1+(A+B)+(A+B)2/2!+..)

Now how to proceed ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


When you work out the brackets on the left hand side, you will get products like An Bm, where all the A's are to the left of the B's.

Now try to work out (A + B)n (e.g., start with (A + B)2). What do you need to get this in the same form?
 


Yeah,Now I got it.
Thank you.
 


Hi guys.
I was reading some QM and they mentioned exp(a+b)=exp(a)*exp(b) only if [a,b]=0; so I thought to go to the series definition of exp(x) and work it out by myself.

I do understand where the problem arises if suddenly a and b don't commute anymore, but that's not my problem. I want to write down the proof for exp(a+b)=exp(a)*exp(b) for "typical" a and b. iykwim

So, I came across your post and I would like some further details of how to preoceed in the proof.
this is what I have so far:

If:
<br /> exp(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{\frac{x^n}{n!}} <br />

Then, for exp(a)*exp(b), we have:<br /> exp(a)*exp(b)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \sum_{m=0}^{\infty}{\frac{a^n}{n!}}{\frac{b^m}{m!}} <br />

However, if I start with exp(a+b), I go like this:<br /> exp(a+b)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{\frac{(a+b)^n}{n!}} = <br /> \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{n}\frac{1}{n!}\binom{n}{k}a^k\cdot b^{n-k} =<br /> \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{n}\frac{a^k}{k!}\frac{b^{n-k}}{(n-k)!}<br />

-------------------------------------------------------------
Summarizing, I get on one hand:
<br /> \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \sum_{m=0}^{\infty}{\frac{a^n}{n!}}{\frac{b^m}{m!}} <br />
While on the other hand I get:
<br /> \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{n}\frac{a^k}{k!}\frac{b^{n-k}}{(n-k)!}<br />

The two expressions look alike, but I can't put them in the very exact form. Could you help me here?

How should I proceed? I have a feeling that some index substitution is the answer, but I haven't figured out which one...
 
You are quite there. If you define n-k=l, then you obtain only the sum over n of expressions of k and l with the condition that k+l=n for k,l>=0. This sum can then be written as two sums for k and l from 0 to infinity in both cases.
 
jjalonsoc said:
You are quite there. If you define n-k=l, then you obtain only the sum over n of expressions of k and l with the condition that k+l=n for k,l>=0. This sum can then be written as two sums for k and l from 0 to infinity in both cases.

This homework thread is 2 years old, so the OP is probably not working on the problem any more... :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K