Might summon @Polymath257 to tell me definitively (if I don’t hear back from classmates on Slack) if a notation for quantum operators and eigenbases (eigenbasises?) from my book is the same thing as from a problem I’m working on, because of all the things to trip me up, a stupid notation difference between authors is the most annoying
Edit: I need to just write exp[i f(A)] in Dirac notation, A is a Hermitian operator whose values are known
Edit 2: derp is it legal to expand the exp as a series in Dirac notation? Did I mention I hate Dirac notation and it’s been years since undergrad QM, or linear algebra for that matter? I need to sleep.
These are my dumb notes, which don’t render well on a phone.
Yes. Also, the eigenvalues of exp(iA) will be of the form exp(ia) where a is an eigenvalue for A.
Technically, you need to worry about things like convergence, but physicists tend not to do so. As long as there is a good spectral decomposition of A, it will work (even if A is not a bounded operator).
Yes, bra-ket notation is just one of those cultural things mathematicians have to deal with when talking to physicists.
Here's a joke (from the math side):
How does a physicist tell when a series converges? Ans: the terms go to 0.
How does a quantum physicist tell a series converges? Ans: the second term is smaller than the first.