Week of 1/21/08

(Difference between revisions)

Jump to: navigation, search

Revision as of 16:34, 25 January 2008

It's a matter of convention that the anti-linear term is the second one in the inner product:

$\langle u+v,w \rangle \equiv \langle u,w \rangle + \langle v,w \rangle$

$\langle u,v+w \rangle \equiv \langle u,v \rangle + \langle u,w \rangle$

$\langle \alpha u,v \rangle \equiv \alpha \langle u,v \rangle$

$\langle u,\alpha v \rangle \equiv \alpha^* \langle u,v \rangle$

$\langle u,v \rangle \equiv \langle v,u \rangle ^*$

$\langle u,u \rangle = 0,$ with equality only if $u \equiv 0$

The basic example is the form

$h(z,w) \equiv \sum z_i w^* _i$

However, Griffiths uses a different convention with the complex conjugate on the first term: cf page 94. So, I will change mine to conform to his.

NB if $z = x + I y$ , then $z * z = (x - I y)(x + I y) = x 2 + y 2 = z z *$

Revision as of 16:34, 25 January 2008 (view source) Jscales (Talk \| contribs) ← Older edit		Revision as of 16:34, 25 January 2008 (view source) Jscales (Talk \| contribs) Newer edit →
Line 40:		Line 40:


−	{{Mathematica\|filename=Griffiths_example2.2.nb\|Mathematica version of Griffiths analytic example 2.2}}	+	{{Mathematica\|filename=Griffiths_example2.2.nb\|title=Mathematica version of Griffiths analytic example 2.2}}