Schur product for complex numbers.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the definition and properties of a proposed multiplication operation for complex numbers, referred to as the Schur product or Hadamard product. The user seeks to establish a multiplication defined as (a + ib) o (c + id) = (ac + ibd) for complex numbers, which could simplify expressions in physics involving real matrices A and B. The conversation emphasizes the need for rigorous proof of the properties of this new multiplication, distinguishing it from standard complex multiplication.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of complex numbers and their operations
  • Familiarity with matrix operations, specifically Schur product
  • Knowledge of mathematical proof techniques
  • Basic concepts in physics involving complex expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of the Schur product in matrix theory
  • Explore complex number multiplication and its applications in physics
  • Study mathematical proof techniques for establishing new operations
  • Investigate existing literature on alternative complex number multiplications
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students interested in advanced algebraic structures and their applications in theoretical physics.

rkrsnan
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
For matrices, Schur product or Hadamard product is defined as the entry wise product.
I want to know if they have a similar type of multiplication for complex numbers.
That is (a+ i b) o (c + i d) = (a c + i b d)
I encounter a situation where such a definition is useful.

In physics I get an expression that looks like the following

(Cos[x1] , Cos[x2] ).A.Transpose[(Cos[y1] , Cos[y2] )] +
i (Sin[x1] , Sin[x2] ).B.Transpose[(Sin[y1] , Sin[y2] )]
where A and B are 2x2 real matrices.

I can express the above expression in the following simpler form, if the complex product "o" as I defined earlier already exists in literature.

(exp[i x1], exp[i x2]) o (A+iB) o Transpose[(exp[i y1], exp[i y2])]

Thanks very much for the help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can define whatever you want, as long as it is well defined, but this isn't an issue here. The question is which properties your multiplication should have. E.g. you get something here which has little in common with complex multiplication, so the two will have to be strictly separated. All rules will have to be proven in advance though.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K