I was wondering if there is a way to write the derivative as an exponential? This might sound crazy at first, but I recently came across this formula for the Taylor expansion in three dimensions:


where, the hat arrows denote vectors. Found in: [http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~rhorsley/SI09-10_t+f/lec09.pdf||http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~rhorsley/SI09-10_t+f/lec09.pdf] I'd never seen a Taylor expansion written as an exponential.

From a physics perspective, I think of it as propagating $\phi$ from $x$ to $x+a$ .

Anyway, I was wondering if you can write the derivative (or directional derivative) in a manner such as (for a one dimensional case):

$$\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial x}=Lim_{\triangle x\rightarrow0},\frac{\Phi(x+\triangle x)-\Phi(x)}{\triangle x}=Lim_{\triangle x\rightarrow0}\frac{(e^{\triangle x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}}-1)}{\triangle x}\Phi(x)$$

$$=\frac{(e^{\partial x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}}-1)}{\partial x}\Phi(x)$$???

If correct, that implies:

$$\Longrightarrow\partial\Phi=(e^{\partial x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}}-1)\Phi(x)$$

And that made me wonder:

$$\Phi(\frac{\partial}{\partial x})=\int\partial\Phi=\int(e^{\partial x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}}-1)\Phi(x)$$

Of course this isn't correct as there's no differential under the latter integral, but it got me thinking. Since there are a ton (ok infinite) number of ways to write the derivative as a limit, I was playing with some and writing them as an integral as above, and all I can think is how much they remind me of laplace and fourier transforms (especially the latter if we move to general minkowski space). like in a fourier transform we have $\phi(x)\longrightarrow\tilde{\phi}(k)$ where k is a wavenumber, whereas in this treatment we have (when actually done correctly) $\phi(x)\rightarrow\tilde{\phi}(\frac{\partial}{\partial x})$ but $\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ can be related to a wavenumber.

Anyway, can anyone point me in the right direction (a book perhaps) to learn more about this type of thing??? It would be immensely useful in solving a problem I'm working on.

thank you

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In the theory of distributions, the derivative is commonly expressed as a convolution of the function with the derivative of the Dirac delta, i.e. the original of $s$. $\endgroup$ – Yves Daoust May 10 '16 at 7:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @YvesDaoust Thank you for your comment, after looking into it, I was essentially trying to derive the distributional derivative haha! Looks like I need to learn this(: $\endgroup$ – R. Rankin May 10 '16 at 23:17

While this isn't a Full answer, it's gotten me started so I thought I'd share it:

(Note that for a general space or spacetime, $\nabla$ will be the covariant derivative) If we're now considering a closed space of constant curvature R, things get more interesting and we have a periodicity requirement (this pertains to my personal problem, for the forum, let's just consider a periodic function)

Consider now a function with with period R such that:


Which we may rewrite as:


since $\nabla$ is a vector field of the tangent space, one can write it in terms of it's dual vector, which follow the relations (with $\overrightarrow{A}$ tangent vector, and $\overrightarrow{a}$ dual vector):

$$\overrightarrow{a}=\star\overrightarrow{A}\quad and\quad\overrightarrow{A}=\star a$$

where \star is the Hodge star operator (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodge_dual), which in three dimensions yields

$$\overrightarrow{A}=i\overrightarrow{a}\qquad and\qquad\overrightarrow{a}=-i\overrightarrow{A}$$

Then we obtain, denoting the dual vector k:

$$e^{\overrightarrow{R}\cdot\nabla}f(\overrightarrow{R})\Rightarrow\sum_{n}^{\infty}e^{\overrightarrow{R}\cdot i\overrightarrow{k_{n}}}f(\overrightarrow{x})=f(\overrightarrow{x})$$

Such that:$$k_{n}=\frac{2\pi n}{R}$$

we can write (in one dimension for simplicity):

$$f(\overrightarrow{x})=\sum_{n}^{\infty}e^{\overrightarrow{x}\cdot i\overrightarrow{k_{n}}}f(\overrightarrow{R})=\sum_{n}^{\infty}(cos(k_{n}x)+isin(k_{n}x))f(R)$$

One can write f(x) as a series expansion from this point, solving for the coefficients via orthogonality relations and then probably do something like take the limit as $R\rightarrow\infty$ making k a continuous variable while simultaneously getting an integral via the consequent Riemann sum. This should be the Fourier transform. Note also that the inverse would necessarily have a negative sign from the hodge dual relations (it's worth learning about the Hodge duals if you haven't, I'm new to it myself) Sorry I'm tired.::

  • $\begingroup$ Apologies sums should be large pi (multiplications) which will turn into a sum, will fix in the morning (: $\endgroup$ – R. Rankin May 10 '16 at 7:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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