Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Fri, 8 Oct 1999 00:55:16 +0900
Dear Matti,
Thanks for posting your paper. I read it but before going to physical
justification part I again stumbled on mathematical part: the proof that (19)
vanishes. As I reread your [time 894], I found it is interesting idea but does
not seem to work. I calculated like a blind mathematician:
m_1=Ym_0, Y=\sum_{k>0}(-X)^k =X(1+Y),
(BTW note (1+r)^{-1}=\sum_{k=or>0} (-r)^k not r^k !)
= Xm_0 + Xm_1 (1)
= Xm_0 + XPm_1 + X(1-P)m_1
XPm_1 = 0 yields
m_1 = Xm_0 + X(1-P)m_1
= Xm_0 + Zm_1, Z=X(1-P),
= Xm_0 + ZXm_0 + ZXm_1 (by (1))
= (1+Z)Xm_0 + ZXPm_1 + ZX(1-P)m_1
=(1+Z)Xm_0 + ZX(1-P)m_1 (by XPm_1=0)
= ....
= (1+Z+Z^2+Z^3+...)Xm_0 +lim_{k->infty}Z^kXm_1
=(1-Z)^{-1}Xm_0 + lim_{k->infty}Z^kXm_1.
This does not seem to vanish in general.
If this does vanish, your T is 0, not only that sum T+T^dagger=0: One would
need to use cancellation.
Maybe you want to find another proof by yourself, but [time 892} will be a
hint.
Best wishes,
Hitoshi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:40:47 JST