What Is the Shift Operator in the Context of Translation Operator Expansion?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the shift operator in the context of translation operator expansion, particularly in relation to Taylor series and differentiation. Participants explore the mathematical justification of the shift operator, its implications in quantum physics, and the nuances of variable differentiation in series expansions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express curiosity about the shift operator and its mathematical justification, particularly in relation to the series expansion of functions.
  • One participant questions the nature of the expansion, noting it lacks the term \(x^n\) typically found in Taylor expansions.
  • Another participant states that the Taylor expansion can be viewed with \(x\) fixed and \(a\) variable, leading to terms in \(a^n\) rather than \(x^n\).
  • Concerns are raised about the ambiguity in differentiating with respect to \(x\) or \(a\), with some arguing that the notation can lead to confusion regarding the variables involved.
  • Participants discuss the implications of the chain rule and the necessity of clarity in specifying the variable of differentiation to avoid ambiguity.
  • One participant suggests that the mathematical expressions can sometimes appear nonsensical, particularly when the roles of \(x\) and \(a\) are not clearly defined.
  • There is mention of alternative notations for partial derivatives and the potential for confusion when using different variable names in function arguments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the clarity and appropriateness of the shift operator and its representation in Taylor expansions. There is no consensus on the best way to handle the differentiation variables, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of variable ambiguity.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of notation and the potential for misunderstanding when variables are not clearly specified. The discussion also reflects on the mathematical conventions used in expressing derivatives and expansions.

valjok
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Excuse me my lack of expertise, but it is very curious. Recently, I have https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=54055", which I qualify 'absolutely amaizing' when I read it. It almost satisfies my curiosity on Laplace because I can almost understand it, except the shift operator. The author brings it from quantum physics remarking that its justification is purely mathematical (so, asking here, in 'mathematics of change and motion', I must be appropriate) and can be understood from the "series expansion of the function f(x+a) around x":
f(x + a) = \sum{ a^n f^{(n)}_x \over n!}

What kind of expansion is it? It lacks the member xn to complement d/dx for the Taylor expansion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
valjok said:
Excuse me my lack of expertise, but it is very curious. Recently, I have https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=54055", which I qualify 'absolutely amaizing' when I read it. It almost satisfies my curiosity on Laplace because I can almost understand it, except the shift operator. The author brings it from quantum physics remarking that its justification is purely mathematical (so, asking here, in 'mathematics of change and motion', I must be appropriate) and can be understood from the "series expansion of the function f(x+a) around x":
f(x + a) = \sum{ a^n f^{(n)}_x \over n!}

What kind of expansion is it? It lacks the member xn to complement d/dx for the Taylor expansion.
You have a Taylor expansion where x is fixed and a is variable, so you get terms in an not xn.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
d(x+a)/dx = 1 = d(x+a)/da and, therefore, df/dx = df/da = df/d(x+a)?
 
valjok said:
d(x+a)/dx = 1 = d(x+a)/da and, therefore, df/dx = df/da = df/d(x+a)?

That seems nonsense to me.

valjok said:
"series expansion of the function f(x+a) around x":
f(x + a) = \sum{ a^n f^{(n)}_x \over n!}

Write it as
f(x + a) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty {f^{(n)}(x) \over n!}a^n
 
mathman said:
You have a Taylor expansion where x is fixed and a is variable, so you get terms in an not xn.

Thanks. It became trivial since I have realized that df/dx = df/d(a+x) * d(a+x)/dx = df/d(a+x) * 1 = df/da. If this is what they do, the topic does not make any interest. Can we remove it?
 
g_edgar said:
That seems nonsense to me.

This is a Chain rule for a composite function. I need to prove that df/dx = df/da. Otherwise, I cannot write df/dx * a^n in Taylor's numerator.
g_edgar said:
Write it as
f(x + a) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty {f^{(n)}(x) \over n!}a^n

This makes nonsense to me. That is, it is an ambigous sentence because (x) has two meanings. What you do is hiding the diverative variable. It might advantageous when we agree on the variable and omit to save the writing. But in this case, the derivative variable in the focus of question, if it is df/dx or df/da. Hiding does not solve a problem.
 
Last edited:
g_edgar said:
That seems nonsense to me.



Write it as
f(x + a) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty {f^{(n)}(x) \over n!}a^n

Mathematics does seem like nonsense at times.
There is no one way to write a taylor expansion.

Here is a nice one.
f(x+a)=exp\left (a \frac{d}{dx}\right) f(x)
 
valjok said:
This is a Chain rule for a composite function. I need to prove that df/dx = df/da. Otherwise, I cannot write df/dx * a^n in Taylor's numerator.




This makes nonsense to me. That is, it is an ambigous sentence because (x) has two meanings. What you do is hiding the diverative variable. It might advantageous when we agree on the variable and omit to save the writing. But in this case, the derivative variable in the focus of question, if it is df/dx or df/da. Hiding does not solve a problem.

\frac{d}{dx}f(x+a)=\frac{d}{da}f(x+a)
If that is what you mean.
The expression df/dx = df/da was ambiguous.
The expansion was not ambiguous as differentiation was clearly with respect to x.
What two meanings do you think x has?
 
Last edited:
lurflurf said:
The expansion was not ambiguous as differentiation was clearly with respect to x. What two meanings do you think x has?
Why not with respect to a? Does f'(a) imply the differentiation over a? How do I know if f'(x) is fa'(x) or fx'(x) or fx'(a)? The (x) meanings are: 1) the point of taking value of a function and 2) specification of variable in partial derivative.

lurflurf said:
\frac{d}{dx}f(x+a)=\frac{d}{da}f(x+a)
If that is what you mean. The expression df/dx = df/da was ambiguous.
There is only one function, which has arguments x and a. A variable must be specified when taking a partial derivative. Especially, when somebody creates a topic to resolve the controversy with the differentiation variable. Now, how variable hiding resolves the ambiguity and what are other meanings of df/da and df/dx? Thanks.
 
  • #10
valjok said:
Why not with respect to a? Does f'(a) imply the differentiation over a? How do I know if f'(x) is fa'(x) or fx'(x) or fx'(a)? The (x) meanings are: 1) the point of taking value of a function and 2) specification of variable in partial derivative.


There is only one function, which has arguments x and a. A variable must be specified when taking a partial derivative. Especially, when somebody creates a topic to resolve the controversy with the differentiation variable. Now, how variable hiding resolves the ambiguity and what are other meanings of df/da and df/dx? Thanks.

Okay.
So f here only has one variable as it is written f(x).
The function g(x,a)=f(x+a) has two variables, but partials with respect to each variable are equal.
You are correct that all of these notations have a slight amount of ambiguity, but they are not being used in an ambiguous manner. The letter used in the argument of a function is the value of the argument not the variable of integration.
f'(x) would be read the first derivative of f evaluated at x
f''(a) would be read the first derivative of f evaluated at a
The ambiguous thing about that is not what derivative is being taken as there is only one, but if x or a are known, unknown, or variable.
fa'(x) or fx'(x) or fx'(a)
These are all confusing.

Now let us consider a function of several variables.
h(x,y,z)
f(1,0,0)(x,y,z)
f(0,1,0)(x,y,z)
f(0,0,1)(x,y,z)
would be nice ways to denote differentiation with respect to each variable.
fx(x,y,z)
fy(x,y,z)
fz(x,y,z)
are also used especially when the variable have meaning
confusion can result though
f(0,1,0)(z,x,x)
is more clear than
fy(z,x,x)

The original
f(n)x
should be taken to read the nth derivative of the single variable function f evaluated at x.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K