Reduced Exponential: Work & Formulae

  • Thread starter Thread starter ianbell
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponential
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of the "reduced exponential," defined as the series sum from i=1 to infinity of x^(i-1) / i!, where x is an element from a general algebra. It is noted that this reduced exponential is equivalent to (exp(x) - 1) / x only when x is invertible. Participants clarify that if x is not invertible, such as in the case of certain matrices, the reduced exponential can still be computed, although it does not yield the same results as the standard exponential function. There is a request for any existing work or formulas related to this construct, but participants admit they are unfamiliar with any such references. The conversation highlights the complexities of defining exponentials in broader algebraic contexts.
ianbell
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
"Reduced Exponential"

I am interested in what I call the "reduced exponential"
Sum_i=1 to infinity x^(i-1) / i!
where x is a general element in an algebra of interest.

Only when x is invertible is the reduced exponential equivalent to (exp(x)-1) /x .

Obviously we have a "reduced log", the inverse of the reduced exponential.

Does anybody of any work or formulae involving this construct? TIA.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
How do you mean: "if x is invertible"?
If x is a number the series is always equal to (exp(x) - 1)/x, unless x= 0 in which case it converges to zero. If not, the notation with the division doesn't make sense.

Where did you encounter this function?
 
"How do you mean: "if x is invertible"?"

x is an element of a general algebra, not merely a real or complex number but a multivector or matrix or similar such object that can be raised to integer powers and summed and so exponentiated. I've encountered this in quantum mechanics ..
 
OK, it is possible to define the exponential in such cases, but then I would write
(\exp(x) - 1) x^{-1} (or x^{-1} (\exp(x) - 1), though I think there is no difference here) instead of the division.
 
Writing x^{-1} instead of dividing by x doesn't help. What if x is not invertible? For example, the matrix
x = \bmatrix 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \endbmatrix
has no inverse but certainly has a "reduced exponential" as defined in the OP: \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \frac {x^{i-1}}{i!} = \bmatrix 1 & 1/2 \\ 0 & 1 \endbmatrix
 
Last edited:
Doesn't help for what? I was just pointing out a notational inconvenience in
Only when x is invertible is the reduced exponential equivalent to (exp(x)-1) /x .
which still holds, as in the example you gave the sum evaluates to the identity which is not even close to exp(x) - 1 = x.

The question was
Does anybody of any work or formulae involving this construct? TIA.
which I must admit, I can't recall having seen or used anywhere.
 
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...
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top