What is the orthonormal basis for P2(R) using Gram-Schmidt and T*?

  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar_4
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding an orthonormal basis for the space of polynomials P2(R) using the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization process, with a specific inner product defined by the integral from 0 to 1. Additionally, there is a query regarding the adjoint operator T* associated with a linear transformation T defined in terms of polynomial derivatives and evaluations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the Gram-Schmidt process to the standard basis of polynomials and express confusion regarding the complexity of the resulting orthonormal basis compared to simpler cases. There are questions about the correctness of the derived basis and the method of calculating the adjoint operator T*.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered guidance on the Gram-Schmidt process and noted discrepancies in the original poster's approach. There is acknowledgment of a mistake in the calculation of norms, which has since been corrected. The discussion is ongoing, with various interpretations and methods being explored.

Contextual Notes

The original poster expresses uncertainty about the results of their calculations and the differences in complexity when compared to similar problems. There is also mention of the standard basis and its properties, which may influence the approach to finding the adjoint operator.

quasar_4
Messages
273
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Find an orthonormal basis for P2(R) using the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization process, with the inner product defined by <f,g> = integral f(t)g(t) dt from 0 to 1. Then, if T(f) = f '' (1) + x*f (0), find T*(f).

Homework Equations



Given a basis a = {w1, w2, ... , wn}, we compute the orthonormal basis B = {v1, v2,...,vn} by Gram-Schmidt:

v1=w1

v2= w2 - (<w2, v1>/(<v1,v1>^2))*v1

v3 = w3 - (<w3, v1>/(<v1,v1>^2))*v1 - <w3, v2>/(<v2,v2>^2))*v2

The Attempt at a Solution



I just need someone to verify this and tell me if I'm right. I'm a bit confused at how this is so much more complex then the case when the integral is from -1 to 1 (that will just give you the Legendre polynomials and I'm able to compute them just fine). When I used the standard ordered basis {1,x,x^2} with Gram Schmidt, I got this:

B = {1, (3^1/2)*2*(x - 1/2), (12/1009)(x^2 - (9/4)x - 1/3)*(5045)^1/2}

which is REALLY ugly. :eek: I don't think this works, as I keep trying to take the inner product of v1 and v2, but I don't get zero... but I also don't see any mistakes in my work, so I don't know.

If I could just get this orthonormal basis, then I know I just need to get the matrix representation of T which would be really easy, and then take its transpose. From that point, I'm not sure how to get from the matrix [T*]B back into an expression T*(f).

Please help! Even if someone just knows what the correct orthonormal basis for this inner product is.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your version of Gram-Schmidt doesn't look quite like I know it. Don't you subtract all of the projections of the previous vectors and then normalize the result (as in the wikipedia exposition)? The first and second vectors in your results look fine, but the third one is way off.
 
Last edited:
aha, I see now, I was squaring a norm when I shouldn't have been... it seems to work fine now! Finally... thanks!
 
As for finding T in matrix form instead of finding an orthonormal basis you could always just see how T acts on ax^2 +bx + c and then correlate that with a 3-tuple.

Then you just easily extrapolate a 3x3 matrix wrt the standard basis on R_3 (Which is orthonormal anyways).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K