Question on commutativity of operators

  • Thread starter Thread starter mnb96
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operators
mnb96
Messages
711
Reaction score
5
Hello,

I have an unitary operator f, and another binary linear operator g.
I would like to find out a necessary and/or sufficient condition on f for the following to hold:

f(g(a,b)) = g(f(a),f(b))

Is this always valid when f is linear?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mnb96 said:
Hello,

I have an unitary operator f, and another binary linear operator g.
I would like to find out a necessary and/or sufficient condition on f for the following to hold:

f(g(a,b)) = g(f(a),f(b))

Is this always valid when f is linear?

Hey mnb96.

As a start can you show what the definition of linearity is in your context?

If they are linear operators, they are going to something like matrices, and from this you can probably figure out the exact constraints for your relationship to hold.

So given this, what can you do with this information?
 
Hi Chiro,

when I said that g is linear I meant that the following holds:

1) g(\lambda a + \mu c, b)=\lambda g(a,b) + \mu g(c,b)

2) g(a, \lambda b + \mu c)=\lambda g(a,b) + \mu g(a,c)

In my case, λ and μ are scalars, a,b,c are functions, and to be even more specific g is the convolution operator. So I essentially want to find the necessary and/or sufficient condition(s) on f to have:

f(a * b) = f(a) * f(b)

Now I am actually thinking that perhaps the original question could not be answered if we don't know the exact nature of the operator g (=in our case convolution). Just saying that "g is linear" is probably not sufficient to deduce conditions for which f(a*b)=f(a)*f(b) holds, but I might be wrong.
 
Last edited:
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##...
##\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...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
593
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
457
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top