Treatment of Integral as an Operator?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the treatment of integrals as operators, specifically examining the equation ##\int f(x) = f(x) - 1##. The conclusion drawn is that this leads to a geometric series representation of the function, resulting in the solution ##f(x) = e^x##. The discussion also touches on the differential operator D, leading to a similar series solution. The validity of these approaches is confirmed through the lens of the resolvent method for Fredholm integral equations and the Liouville-Neumann series solution.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of integral equations, specifically Fredholm integral equations.
  • Familiarity with differential operators and their notation (e.g., D as the differential operator).
  • Knowledge of geometric series and their convergence properties.
  • Basic concepts of functional analysis and series solutions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the resolvent method for Fredholm integral equations.
  • Study the Liouville-Neumann series and its applications in solving integral equations.
  • Explore Whittaker and Watson's "Course of Modern Analysis" for foundational concepts in integral equations.
  • Look for lecture notes and online resources on integral equations and their solutions.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of advanced calculus, and anyone interested in the theoretical aspects of integral equations and differential operators.

FeDeX_LaTeX
Science Advisor
Messages
436
Reaction score
13
My tutor showed me something today, and I still can't completely wrap my head around why it makes sense. Consider the following integral equation:

##\int f(x) = f(x) - 1##

Then:

##\int (f(x)) - f(x) = -1 \implies f(x) \left( \int (\text{Id}) - 1\right) = -1##

so we get the geometric series

##f(x) = \frac{1}{1 - \int(Id)} = 1 + \int + \int\int + \int\int\int + ... = 1 + x + \frac{1}{2}x^2 + \frac{1}{6}x^3 + ... = e^x##

which satisfies our original equation if we choose the right constant of integration. Similarly, take the differential equation (using D as the differential operator):

##Df = f - 1 \implies f\left(D(\text{Id}) - 1\right) = -1##

##f = 1 + D + (D \circ D) + (D \circ D \circ D) + ... = 1##

which also satisfies our original equation.

Is this mathematically valid, or was he pulling my leg? And if so, could someone help me make sense of why this is valid?

Trying this on some other differential equations seems to show that this doesn't always work -- I was wondering if anyone could point me to an article that says more about the idea behind this.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
FeDeX_LaTeX said:
##\int (f(x)) - f(x) = -1 \implies f(x) \left( \int (\text{Id}) - 1\right) = -1##

I would have kept the ##f(x)## on the RHS so that the integral operator acts on it, but there is a way to make the formalism mathematically sound. The right terminology to use when searching on this is the resolvent method for (Fredholm) integral equations. In particular, this seems to be an example of a Liouville-Neumann series solution to the particular equation of interest.

I don't have any great recommendations for sources to learn more about this, but I have probably encountered integral equations years ago in Whittaker and Watson's Course of Modern Analysis. There are various lecture notes available via google that might be worthwhile as well.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K