Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 10th 2017

    spelled out the definition at formal adjoint differential operator

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2017
    • (edited Nov 11th 2017)

    added the example of the Klein-Gordon operator: here

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2017

    added also the example of the ant-self adjointness of the Dirac operator: here

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2021

    prompted by an email alert I received, I have fixed the wording (here) of the example of the formal (anti-)self-adjointness of the Dirac operator:

    Previously the wording was self-inconsistent, in that the headline of the example claimed self-adjointness, while the actual statement claimed anti-self-adjointness.

    I have changed it to have anti-self-adjointness throughout.

    So the second question was if that is correct. Of course that depends on the adjointness convention for the Clifford generators. Now, it’s been a while since I wrote all this, but chasing the pointers given, it is meant to refer to the Dirac adjoint operation for which all Clifford generators are self-adjoint. I have made that more explicit in the text.

    diff, v8, current