Proving Feynman Identity with Induction

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the Feynman Identity using induction and integral representations involving the relationship \( A^{-1}=\int_0^\infty d \alpha e^{-\alpha A} \). The original poster attempts to establish a formula for the inverse of a product of operators through induction, having successfully proven the base case for \( n=2 \) and formulating an inductive hypothesis for \( n=k-1 \).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants suggest alternative methods to induction, proposing to express the inverse product as integrals over exponential functions and projective coordinates. Others question the constraints on the variables and the implications of the delta function in the measure.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different approaches and questioning the assumptions related to variable ranges and the measures involved. Some guidance has been provided regarding the use of projective coordinates and the Jacobian matrix, but no consensus has been reached on a definitive method.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the constraints of the variables, particularly the requirement that \( x_i \) must sum to 1 while remaining within the range of 0 to 1. There is also confusion regarding the derivation of the measure and the role of the delta function in the context of the problem.

latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
I'm supposed to use the relationship [itex]A^{-1}=\int_0^\infty d \alpha e^{-\alpha A}[/itex] to show that

[itex]\frac{1}{A_1 A_2 \dots A_n}=(n-1)! \int_0^1 dx_1 \dots \int_0^1 dx_n \frac{\delta(1-x_1- \dots - x_n)}{(x_1A_1 + \dots + x_nA_n)^n}[/itex]

I decided that I should try and do this inductively.

So far I have managed to prove the base case n=2 successfully.

Then I made the inductive hypothesis that it will hold for [itex]n=k-1[/itex]

And then I considered [itex]n=k[/itex] and got

[itex]\frac{1}{A_1 \dots A_{k-1}A_k}=\frac{1}{A_1 \dots A_{k-1}} \frac{1}{A_k} = (k-2)! \int_0^1 dx_1 \dots \int_0^1 dx_{k-1} \frac{\delta(1-x_1 - \dots - x_{k-1})}{(x_1A_1 + \dots + x_{k-1}A_{k-1})^{k-1}} \times \int_0^\infty d \alpha e^{-\alpha A_k}[/itex]

However, I don't seem to have any way of going anywhere from here?

Thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't want to use induction. Write

[tex] \frac{1}{A_1\cdots A_n} = \int_0^\infty d\alpha_1 \cdots \int_0^\infty d\alpha_n e^{-\sum_i \alpha_i A_i}[/tex]

and change to projective coordinates

[tex]\alpha_i = \alpha x_i, ~~\sum_i x_i=1.[/tex]
 
fzero said:
You don't want to use induction. Write

[tex] \frac{1}{A_1\cdots A_n} = \int_0^\infty d\alpha_1 \cdots \int_0^\infty d\alpha_n e^{-\sum_i \alpha_i A_i}[/tex]

and change to projective coordinates

[tex]\alpha_i = \alpha x_i, ~~\sum_i x_i=1.[/tex]

So that gives [itex]\frac{1}{A_1 \dots A_n} = \int_0^\infty d \alpha_1 \dots \int_0^\infty e^{-\alpha \sum_i x_i A_i}[/itex]

So I reckon that the sum to 1 gives the 1 in the delta function but I don't know what the connection is.

Also, I tried changing the variable of integration using [itex]\alpha_i = \alpha x_i[/itex] and [itex]d \alpha_i = dx_i[/itex] - whilst this keeps the lower limit of integration at 0, the upper one becomes [itex]\frac{\infty}{\alpha}=\infty \neq 1[/itex] as required - what am i doing wrong here?
 
The [tex]x_i[/tex] range from 0 to 1 from the constraint. Also with the contraint, the measure is

[tex]d\alpha_1 \cdots d\alpha_n = d\alpha dx_1\cdots dx_n \delta\left( \sum_i x_i -1 \right).[/tex]
 
fzero said:
The [tex]x_i[/tex] range from 0 to 1 from the constraint. Also with the contraint, the measure is

[tex]d\alpha_1 \cdots d\alpha_n = d\alpha dx_1\cdots dx_n \delta\left( \sum_i x_i -1 \right).[/tex]

I don't really follow.

Surely the [itex]x_i[/itex] just have to sum to 1. So couldn't we have them being say 4 and -3 (of a n=2 example)? These sum to 1 and are both outside the range 0 to 1. Or are they constrained to being positive since [itex]\alpha_i[/itex] has a positive range?

Secondly, where did that measure come from?
 
latentcorpse said:
I don't really follow.

Surely the [itex]x_i[/itex] just have to sum to 1. So couldn't we have them being say 4 and -3 (of a n=2 example)? These sum to 1 and are both outside the range 0 to 1. Or are they constrained to being positive since [itex]\alpha_i[/itex] has a positive range?

Yes, you have to look at the ranges of the original variables and that [tex]0<\alpha<\infty[/tex].

Secondly, where did that measure come from?

If you compute

[tex]d\alpha_i = x_i d\alpha + \alpha d x_i[/tex]

you can compute the new volume form and obtain the new measure. However, you can reproduce this by integrating over the [tex](n+1)^\text{th}[/tex] variable with a delta function constraint. As a simple example, you could try to show that

[tex]\int_0^\infty dx \int_0^\infty dy \delta(x^2+y^2 -1)[/tex]

gives the correct measure on the unit circle.
 
fzero said:
Yes, you have to look at the ranges of the original variables and that [tex]0<\alpha<\infty[/tex].



If you compute

[tex]d\alpha_i = x_i d\alpha + \alpha d x_i[/tex]

you can compute the new volume form and obtain the new measure. However, you can reproduce this by integrating over the [tex](n+1)^\text{th}[/tex] variable with a delta function constraint. As a simple example, you could try to show that

[tex]\int_0^\infty dx \int_0^\infty dy \delta(x^2+y^2 -1)[/tex]

gives the correct measure on the unit circle.

Why is [itex]0 < \alpha < \infty[/itex]?

And I'm still a bit lost with this delta business. You say I can reproduce the measure using
[tex]d\alpha_i = x_i d\alpha + \alpha d x_i[/tex] - I don't really know how to go about this?

And in your example, why isn't your delta function [itex]\delta(1-x-y)[/itex] like we're trying to get in the final result?

Thanks.
 
latentcorpse said:
Why is [itex]0 < \alpha < \infty[/itex]?

[tex]\alpha[/tex] is like a radial variable. The [tex]x_i[/tex] are affine coordinates.

And I'm still a bit lost with this delta business. You say I can reproduce the measure using
[tex]d\alpha_i = x_i d\alpha + \alpha d x_i[/tex] - I don't really know how to go about this?

You should probably look up what's called the Jacobian matrix, unless you know how to compute the volume form, which encodes the same information.

And in your example, why isn't your delta function [itex]\delta(1-x-y)[/itex] like we're trying to get in the final result?

Thanks.

Because I want to get the standard measure on the circle. It turns out that demanding [tex]x^2+y^2=1[/tex] or [tex]x+y=1[/tex] lead to the same space topologically, but that wasn't what I wanted to demonstrate.
 
you forgot an [tex]\alpha^{n-1}[/tex] in the measure otherwise there is no [tex](\sum x_i A_i)^{-n}[/tex]
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Matias

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
13K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K