Reduced Exponential: Work & Formulae

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ianbell
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponential
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the "reduced exponential," defined as the series Sum_i=1 to infinity x^(i-1) / i!, where x is an element in a general algebra. Participants explore the conditions under which this construct is equivalent to (exp(x)-1)/x, particularly focusing on the implications of x being invertible or not, and seek references to related work or formulae.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines the "reduced exponential" and notes its equivalence to (exp(x)-1)/x only when x is invertible.
  • Another participant questions the meaning of "invertible," suggesting that for real or complex numbers, the series is always equal to (exp(x)-1)/x, except when x=0.
  • A participant clarifies that x refers to elements of a general algebra, such as multivectors or matrices, which can be exponentiated.
  • There is a suggestion to use notation involving x^{-1} instead of division by x, though this is contested regarding its clarity.
  • A participant provides an example of a non-invertible matrix and demonstrates that it still has a defined "reduced exponential," challenging the earlier claim about the equivalence.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the original statement about equivalence still holds, but admits to not recalling any prior work or formulae related to the reduced exponential.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of x being invertible, with some asserting that the equivalence does not hold for non-invertible cases, while others maintain that the reduced exponential can still be defined in those scenarios. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the existence of related work or formulae.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in notation and the implications of defining the reduced exponential in the context of various algebraic structures, but do not resolve these issues.

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
[tex](\exp(x) - 1) x^{-1}[/tex] (or [tex]x^{-1} (\exp(x) - 1)[/tex], though I think there is no difference here) instead of the division.
 
Writing [tex]x^{-1}[/tex] instead of dividing by [tex]x[/tex] doesn't help. What if x is not invertible? For example, the matrix
[tex]x = \bmatrix 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \endbmatrix[/tex]
has no inverse but certainly has a "reduced exponential" as defined in the OP: [tex]\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \frac {x^{i-1}}{i!} = \bmatrix 1 & 1/2 \\ 0 & 1 \endbmatrix[/tex]
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
11K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K