**Matti Pitkanen** (*matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi*)

*Sat, 9 Oct 1999 08:25:43 +0300 (EET DST)*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 920] Re: [time 919] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 918] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**In reply to:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 920] Re: [time 919] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"

On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Hitoshi Kitada wrote:

*> Dear Matti,
*

*>
*

*> I understand that you are talking in p-adic context, and as such the present
*

*> proof does not harm your result.
*

*>
*

*> I do not want to disturb your satisfaction with your proof. Just I would like
*

*> to conclude with a comment that the existence of the limit lim
*

*> (1+R_0(z)V)^{-1} = lim R(z)(H_0-z) = lm (1-R(z)V): \HH_- -->\HH_- when Im z->0
*

*> is the main issue, and if this is solved, the unitarity holds also in real
*

*> case.
*

But if one has the condition VP|m_1>=0 S matrix is trivial in real

context since T^daggerT=0: this you certaily agree. The limits are

certainly delicate but as I said I must try to identify the architecture

of unitarity: the condition replacing the representability of S-matrix as

time development operator.

I hope that you understand that our starting points are different. You

have at your use refined scattering theory whereas I am desperately trying

to identify basic structural principles leading to "Feynmann rules".

Only after that functional analyst can come to my great building and

start decoration(-;). You certainly know that even quantum field theories

are still unkown territory for mathematicians (say functional integrals).

TGD generalize quantum field theories by replacing point like

particle with 3-surface: TGD is more interesting for mathematical dreamers

than "blind mathematicians" in its recent state.

Best,

MP

**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 920] Re: [time 919] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 918] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**In reply to:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 920] Re: [time 919] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:40:47 JST
*