Talk:Liouville–Neumann series

Should the third equation start with \phi_n rather than \phi? Otherwise there's a subscript n on the right side of the equation but not the left.

Good catch! I went back to my source to double check, and I did indeed omit a subscript n there. Thanks for spotting the error. Bryan

In the last equation but one, should K_{n+1} be K_n? Also there should be definition K_0(x,z)=\delta(x-z)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:DE00:1:2218:9DA2:3D3:7FB1:CD86 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Fixed. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolvent of what?

The term resolvent refers to some operator. Yet, in the phrase "The resolvent (or solving kernel) is then given by ...." it is completely unclear which operator's resolvent is meant, at least to the common reader. Would be great if anyone could insert the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.197.27 (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Integral notation and operator notation

I think the page would benefit from a parallel description in operator notation with ${\hat {K}}$ for $\int dzK(x,z)$ , ${\hat {K}}^{n}\phi =\int dzK(x,z)(({\hat {K}}^{n-1}\phi )(z))$ , ${\hat {K}}^{0}\phi ={\hat {I}}\phi =\int dz\delta (x-z)\phi (z)=\phi .$ This notation is common in contemporary physics and makes some of the equations' interpretations clearer. I'll do this eventually if no one beats me to it. RowanElder (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]