Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have the following sequence of differential operators:

$$D_n = \underbrace{t \partial_t t \partial_t \dots t \partial_t}_{\text{$n$ times}}.$$

Is there any expression involving a sum of "normal" differential operator? That is a sum of different powers (up to $n$)? I have tried setting up a recurrence relation, but I really have no clue how we would solve that for (unbounded) operators.

The recursion is not that hard, $D_n = t \partial_t D_{n - 1}$, but if that is of any help...

In particular I would like to apply this to the function $e^{2 x t - t^2}$.

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

up vote 7 down vote accepted

Stirling numbers $\newcommand\s[2]{\left\{#1\atop #2\right\}} \def\d{\partial_t}$

As @HenningMakholm notes, it is not hard to see that $$D_n = \sum_{k=1}^n a_k^n t^k \d^k,$$ where $a_k^n \in \mathbb{N}$. Consider $D_{n+1} = D_1 D_n$. We find $$D_{n+1} = \sum_{k=1}^{n+1} a_k^{n+1} t^k \d^k$$ where $$\begin{equation*} a_k^{n+1} = a_{k-1}^n + k a_k^n \tag{1} \end{equation*}$$ with the condition $a_0^n = a_{n+1}^n = 0$ for $n\ge 1$. We also have $a_1^1 = 1$, since $D_1 = t \d$.

Using (1) it is possible to show that an equivalent set of boundary conditions is $a_0^0 = 1$ and $a_0^n = a_n^0 = 0$. This implies, as @RahulNarain notes in the comments, that the $a_k^n$ are the Stirling numbers of the second kind, $$\begin{eqnarray*} D_n &=& \sum_{k=1}^n \s{n}{k} t^k \d^k \\ &=& t \d + (2^{n-1}-1)t^2\d^2 + \ldots + \frac{1}{2}n(n-1) t^{n-1}\d^{n-1} + t^n\d^n. \end{eqnarray*}$$

It is not clear what is the ultimate goal of applying this operator to the generating function for the Hermite polynomials. One can show, for example, that $$D_n e^{2xt-t^2} = \sum_{k=1}^n \s{n}{k} \sum_{m=0}^\infty H_{m+k}(x) \frac{t^{m+k}}{m!}.$$

Change of variables

Another way to go is to let $t = e^s$. Then, $D_n = \partial_s^n$. Thus, we must calculate $$\partial_s^n \exp(2x e^s - e^{2s}) = \partial_s^n \sum_{k=0}^\infty H_k(x) \frac{e^{k s}}{k!}.$$ We find $$D_n e^{2xt-t^2} = \sum_{k=1}^\infty H_k(x) \frac{k^n t^k}{k!}.$$

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks. My goal is to compute the kernel operator where the base are some slightly "modified" Hermite polynomials. –  Jonas Teuwen Jun 7 '12 at 8:21
    
@JonasTeuwen: Glad to help. Thanks for the interesting question. –  user26872 Jun 7 '12 at 17:35

The Weyl "algebra" $\mathbb{Z}[t, \partial_t]$ acts faithfully on the polynomial ring $\mathbb{Z}[t]$ in the obvious way. The latter is graded by degree, $t$ raises degree by $1$, $\partial_t$ lowers degree by $1$, and $t \partial_t$ preserves degree: in fact $$(t \partial_t) t^m = m t^m.$$

Thus $$(t \partial_t)^n t^m = m^n t^m.$$

A basis for the space of degree-preserving elements of the Weyl algebra is given by $t^k \partial_t^k, k \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$, and $$(t^k \partial_t^k) t^m = m(m-1)...(m-k+1) t^m = (m)_k t^m$$

where $(m)_k$ denotes the falling factorial. Thus in order to find coefficients $a_{n,k}$ such that $$(t \partial_t)^n = \sum_k a_{n,k} t^k \partial_t^k$$

it is necessary and sufficient to find coefficients $a_{n,k}$ such that $$m^n = \sum_k a_{n,k} (m)_k$$

for all $m$. Since the polynomials $(m)_k$ form a basis of the space of polynomials, the coefficients $a_{n,k}$ exist uniquely, and in fact this is one way to define the Stirling numbers of the second kind.

The combinatorial interpretation is as follows: $m^n$ counts the number of functions $[n] \to [m]$, where $[n] = \{ 1, 2, ... n \}$. The above identity groups these functions together according to the size of their range: there are $(m)_k$ possible ranges of size $k$ and $a_{n,k}$ functions $[n] \to [m]$ having range a fixed subset of $[m]$ of size $k$. (This is the same thing as an equivalence relation on $[n]$ with $k$ equivalence classes by taking preimages.)

share|improve this answer
1  
The differential operators have direct combinatorial meaning too: roughly speaking if one thinks of $t^n$ as representing an ordered set of size $n$ (we are thinking of ordinary generating functions here) then $\partial_t$ takes an ordered set and removes one element from it (which you can do in $n$ ways) and $t$ takes an ordered set and adds an element to the end of it. So $t \partial_t$ removes an element from an ordered set and appends it to the end, $(t \partial_t)^n$ does this $n$ times, and $t^k \partial_t^k$ removes $k$ elements from an ordered set then appends $k$ elements to the end. –  Qiaochu Yuan Jun 7 '12 at 19:27
    
Haha, cool. I didn't expect such an answer. Thanks! –  Jonas Teuwen Jun 7 '12 at 20:12
    
Getting the $a_{n,k}$s through the generating function---very nice. (+1) –  user26872 Jun 8 '12 at 0:01

Using the Leibniz rule $\partial_t t=1+t\partial_t$ I get $$t\partial_t t^n\partial_t^n = n t^n\partial_t^n + t^{n+1}\partial_t^{n+1}$$ so your $D_n$ is $\sum_{i=1}^n a_i t^i \partial_t ^i$ for some combinatorial coefficients $a_i \in \mathbb N$.

Is that the direction you're looking for?

Here are some coefficients:

n=1   1
n=2   1   1
n=3   1   3   1
n=4   1   7   6    1
n=5   1  15  25   10    1
n=6   1  31  90   65   15   1
n=7   1  63 301  350  140  21   1
n=8   1 127 966 1701 1050 266  28   1

We see that $a_1=1$, $a_2=2^n-1$, and $a_{n-1}$ are the triangular numbers. In between it doesn't look very familiar. (But see Rahul's comment below!)

share|improve this answer
    
Yes, this is what I am looking for, but I am very interested in the $a_i$, or at least in some upper bound. (I've got this far, but I could not determine the $a_i$). –  Jonas Teuwen Jun 6 '12 at 23:54
    
The best upper bound I can see right away is the fairly crude $a_i \le \binom {n-1}{i-1} i^{n-i}$. –  Henning Makholm Jun 7 '12 at 0:02
    
Well, actually I only need this for my particular function, so it might be easier there. –  Jonas Teuwen Jun 7 '12 at 0:04
4  
I computed the coefficients in Mathematica up to $n=10$ (heh, I was typing the expression in by hand), and they appear to be Stirling numbers of the second kind. –  Rahul Jun 7 '12 at 0:10

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.