The spectrum of a bounded differential equation

greentea28a
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
is it possible to work backwards from a spectrum to which operator?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Think about finite dimensions. If I give you all the eigenvalues, you still need to know what the eigenvectors are before you know the linear transformation.
 
homeomorphic said:
Think about finite dimensions. If I give you all the eigenvalues, you still need to know what the eigenvectors are before you know the linear transformation.

But in that case you do know the transformation up to unitary equivalence (well, if you also know the multiplicities of the eigenvalues)! So the spectrum forms a very nice invariant in finite dimensions (called a unitary invariant).

Sadly enough, the same is not true for infinite dimensions, not even for bounded operators. For example, multiplication by ##x## on ##L^2([0,1])## and an operator with a complete set of eigenfunctions whose eigenvalues are dense in ##[0,1]##. These two operators can't be much different, but they do share the same spectrum.
Finding a stronger unitary invariant can be done and yields the commutative multiplicity theorem. I refer to the beautiful book by Reed and Simon for a discussion.
 
But in that case you do know the transformation up to unitary equivalence (well, if you also know the multiplicities of the eigenvalues)! So the spectrum forms a very nice invariant in finite dimensions (called a unitary invariant).

Well, if you assume it's Hermitian, right? Then all your eigenvectors are orthogonal.

The context was that of differential equations. That means the operator will be self-adjoint if your boundary conditions make it so, but not always.

I assume with enough extra information, you can eventually get back the operator. For example, if you knew how the operator acted on dense subset of the solution space, you should be good to go.
 
homeomorphic said:
Well, if you assume it's Hermitian, right? Then all your eigenvectors are orthogonal.

Yes, I thought that was given, but apparently I was mistaken.
 
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...
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
410
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
46
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top