Skip to main content
added 32 characters in body; edited tags
Source Link
Qmechanic
  • 213.1k
  • 48
  • 590
  • 2.3k

I've seen this statement in many papers. However the function $e^{-iHt}$ satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann condition for all t. So why do we say $e^{-iHt}$ is holomorphic in the lower half plane specifically?

Does this have something to do with infinity or does "holomorphic" imply "bounded"?

For the statement, see for example:

arXiv:1803.04993https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04993 below eq.(2.7)

arXiv:0710.5373https://arxiv.org/abs/0710.5373 below eq.(2.62)

I've seen this statement in many papers. However the function $e^{-iHt}$ satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann condition for all t. So why do we say $e^{-iHt}$ is holomorphic in the lower half plane specifically?

Does this have something to do with infinity or does "holomorphic" imply "bounded"?

For the statement, see for example:

arXiv:1803.04993 below eq.(2.7)

arXiv:0710.5373 below eq.(2.62)

I've seen this statement in many papers. However the function $e^{-iHt}$ satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann condition for all t. So why do we say $e^{-iHt}$ is holomorphic in the lower half plane specifically?

Does this have something to do with infinity or does "holomorphic" imply "bounded"?

For the statement, see for example:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04993 below eq.(2.7)

https://arxiv.org/abs/0710.5373 below eq.(2.62)

deleted 2 characters in body
Source Link
DEDS
  • 81
  • 3

I've seen this statement in many papers. However the function $e^{-iHt}$ satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann condition for all t. So why do we say $e^{-iHt}$ is holomorphic in the lower half plane specifically?

Does this have something to do with infinity or does "holomorphic" imply "bounded"?

For the statement, see for example: arXiv

arXiv:1803.04993 below eq.(2.7)

arXiv:0710.5373 below eq.(2.62)

I've seen this statement in many papers. However the function $e^{-iHt}$ satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann condition for all t. So why do we say $e^{-iHt}$ is holomorphic in the lower half plane specifically?

Does this have something to do with infinity or does "holomorphic" imply "bounded"?

For the statement, see for example: arXiv:1803.04993 below eq.(2.7)

arXiv:0710.5373 below eq.(2.62)

I've seen this statement in many papers. However the function $e^{-iHt}$ satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann condition for all t. So why do we say $e^{-iHt}$ is holomorphic in the lower half plane specifically?

Does this have something to do with infinity or does "holomorphic" imply "bounded"?

For the statement, see for example:

arXiv:1803.04993 below eq.(2.7)

arXiv:0710.5373 below eq.(2.62)

deleted 2 characters in body
Source Link
DEDS
  • 81
  • 3

I've seen this statement in many papers. However the function $e^{-iHt}$ satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann condition for all t. So why do we say $e^{-iHt}$ is holomorphic in the lower half plane specifically?

Does this have something to do with infinity or does "holomorphic" impliesimply "bounded"?

For the statement, see for example: arXiv:1803.04993 below eq.(2.7)

arXiv:0710.5373 below eq.(2.62)

I've seen this statement in many papers. However the function $e^{-iHt}$ satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann condition for all t. So why do we say $e^{-iHt}$ is holomorphic in the lower half plane specifically?

Does this have something to do with infinity or does "holomorphic" implies "bounded"?

I've seen this statement in many papers. However the function $e^{-iHt}$ satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann condition for all t. So why do we say $e^{-iHt}$ is holomorphic in the lower half plane specifically?

Does this have something to do with infinity or does "holomorphic" imply "bounded"?

For the statement, see for example: arXiv:1803.04993 below eq.(2.7)

arXiv:0710.5373 below eq.(2.62)

deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title
Source Link
Qmechanic
  • 213.1k
  • 48
  • 590
  • 2.3k
Loading
Source Link
DEDS
  • 81
  • 3
Loading