This upper limit is wrong I need a help

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter norbert
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mathematical concept of upper limits in the context of vector spaces, specifically regarding the integrability of complex functions. The participants analyze the expression for |ψ(r)|², demonstrating that it is bounded by a combination of square-integrable functions. The relationship between the upper limit and the inequality 2ab ≤ a² + b² is clarified, with emphasis on the lack of connection to the triangle inequality. The reference to "Churchill complex variables and applications" is noted as a resource for further understanding.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector spaces and their criteria
  • Familiarity with complex functions and integrability
  • Knowledge of inequalities, specifically 2ab ≤ a² + b²
  • Basic concepts from complex analysis, particularly from "Churchill complex variables and applications"
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of vector spaces in detail
  • Learn about the integrability of complex functions
  • Explore the implications of the inequality 2ab ≤ a² + b² in various contexts
  • Read "Churchill complex variables and applications" for deeper insights into complex analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physics students, and anyone studying complex analysis or vector spaces will benefit from this discussion.

norbert
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
this upper limit is wrong...! I need a help

I have some concerns about this text:


it can easily be shown that F satisfies all the criteria of a vector space. As an example, we demostrate that if


[tex]\psi_{1}(r)[/tex] and [tex]\psi_{2}(r)[/tex] [tex]\in[/tex] F

both can be cosidered to be complex functions
then:

[tex]\psi(r)[/tex] [tex]= \lambda_{1}\psi_{1}(r) + \lambda_{2}\psi_{2}(r)[/tex] [tex]\in[/tex] F (A-1)


where [tex]\lambda_{1}[/tex] and [tex]\lambda_{2}[/tex] are two arbitrary complex numbers

In order to show that [tex]\psi(r)^{2}[/tex] is square integrable

expand [tex]\psi(r)^{2}[/tex] :

[tex]\psi(r)^{2}[/tex] [tex]= |\lambda_{1}|^{2}|\psi_{1}(r)|^{2} + |\lambda_{2}|^{2} |\psi_{2}(r)|^{2} + \lambda_{1}^\ast\lambda_2\psi_1^\ast(r)\psi_2(r) + \lambda_1\lambda_2^\ast\psi_1(r)\psi_2^\ast(r)[/tex] (A-2)

(*) simbol means complex-conjugate

The last two terms of (A-2) have the same modulus, which has as an upper limit:

----- [tex]|\lambda_{1}||\lambda_{2}| . [ |\psi_{1}(r)|^{2} + |\psi_{2}(r)|^{2}][/tex] -----


[tex]|\psi(r)|^{2}[/tex] is therefore smaller than a function whose integral converges, since [tex]\psi_{1}(r)[/tex] and [tex]\psi_{2}(r)[/tex] are square-integrable

The questions are:

Why has the author used the above expression as "upper limit" term?

How did he obtain this expression?

What is the relation of this question with "triangular inequality" referred to complex-variable?

see --- Churchill complex variables and applications ----
can anybody explain me it a little better?

all suggestions will be welcome



thank you all
 
Physics news on Phys.org


As for why: He used that to show that each term is integrable, by showing that |ψ(r)|2 is smaller than a combination of integrable functions, so that |ψ(r)|2 is integrable.

As for how: That follows from the fact that 2ab ≤ a2 + b2. (This can be proven by noting that 0 ≤ (a - b)2 = a2 + b2 -2ab.) In this case, a = |ψ1(r)| and b = |ψ2(r)|. I don't see any immediate connection with the triangle inequality.
 


Hi adriank
I am grateful for your help
really there is no connection with the triangle inequality
I can set the last two terms of (A-3) equation to constant a and b respectively
hence using the 2ab < a^2 + b^2 relation I can obtain the upper limit:

[tex]|\lambda_{1}||\lambda_{2}| . [ |\psi_{1}(r)|^{2} + |\psi_{2}(r)|^{2}][/tex]

since these terms have the same modulus

thank you
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K