What is the Inner Product Space for Square-Integrable Functions?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the inner product space for square-integrable functions, particularly the role of the complex conjugate in defining the inner product. The integral of the squared magnitude of a function must converge, leading to the definition of the norm and inner product as <f, g> = ∫ f(x) g*(x) dx. This formulation ensures that the norm satisfies |f|^2 = <f, f>. A practical example is suggested to aid visualization, emphasizing the importance of the complex conjugate in the context of complex-valued functions. Overall, the inner product space is crucial for analyzing square-integrable functions in mathematical contexts.
mekarim
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-integrable_function


According to the tutorial: it says
g*(x) is the complex conjugate of g

but I can't get the idea from where this g(x) function comes, than why is it the complex conjugate?

And it seems i can't visualize the inner product space? Some practical example would help me a lot.

Thanks!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The idea of square integrable functions is that the integral of the squared magnitude converges. For complex valued functions, |f(x)|^2 = ∫ f(x) f*(x) dx, which suggests a natural way to define both the "norm" and the "product" in the space of square integrable functions. You just say that the inner product <f, g> has to satisfy the property that |f|^2 = <f, f> and therefore <f, g> = ∫ f(x) g*(x) dx.
 
Last edited:
In particular, you want |f|= &lt;f , f&gt;. Since the "norm" is defined as \int f(x)f^*(x)dx= &lt;f,f&gt; the natural way to define the "inner product" of two such functions, f and g, is &lt;f, g&gt;= \int f(x)g^*(x)dx.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top