Does the Laplace Teansform of the function exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rudra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Laplace
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of the Laplace transform for the function f(t) = 1/√t, particularly addressing concerns about the function's behavior at t=0 and its implications for the evaluation of the definite integral over the interval [0,∞].

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the existence of the Laplace transform for f(t) = 1/√t, citing that the function is not defined at t=0 and tends to infinity.
  • Another participant argues that a function going to infinity at the boundary does not necessarily imply that the definite integral over that region is infinite, providing an example with the integral of 1/√x from 0 to 4.
  • A subsequent reply reiterates the previous point, emphasizing that the anti-derivative can still yield a finite value despite the function's behavior at the boundary.
  • Another participant clarifies that the concept of an integral relates to the area under the curve, suggesting that a function can be infinitely high yet have a finite area if it is also infinitely narrow.
  • Further elaboration includes the use of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC) to support the argument that the area under the curve can be finite if the antiderivative is finite and continuous.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of a function tending to infinity at a boundary for the evaluation of integrals. While some argue that this leads to an infinite area, others contend that it can still result in a finite value under certain conditions. No consensus is reached on the existence of the Laplace transform for the given function.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the need for a deeper understanding of real analysis to rigorously prove their points, indicating that the discussion may involve assumptions about the behavior of functions and integrals that are not fully explored.

rudra
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
While reading Laplace transform in my book, I came across a problem. where it evaluates the laplace transform of
f(t)=1/√t => √(π/s) .

But is the laplace transform of f(t) really exists? because I thought the function f(t) is not defined at t=0 and it tends to infinite. So How is it possible that the definite intgeration over [0,∞] can be evaluated for such function?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Just because a function goes to infinity at the boundary of a region does not mean the definite integral over that region does not have a finite value. Consider

\int_0^4 \frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}dx = 2\sqrt{x}|_0^4 =2\sqrt{4} = 4

So for the example above, even though the function goes to infinity as x goes to zero, the anti-derivative does not.
 
MisterX said:
Just because a function goes to infinity at the boundary of a region does not mean the definite integral over that region does not have a finite value. Consider

\int_0^4 \frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}dx = 2\sqrt{x}|_0^4 =2\sqrt{4} = 4

So for the example above, even though the function goes to infinity as x goes to zero, the anti-derivative does not.

To my understanding, integral means the area under the curve. If fn. tends to infinite at some region, the area should also be infinite under this curve. Please clarify your point.
 
rudra said:
To my understanding, integral means the area under the curve.
That is correct...
If fn. tends to infinite at some region, the area should also be infinite under this curve.
... but that is not necessarily true. Intuitively, if a function goes to infinity "fast enough", the area under the curve can still be finite.

For a mathematical proof of this, you need a course on real analysis (not a beginning "calculus" course that teaches you some "rules" for doing integration and differentiation, but without any proofs).
 
A good way to think about it (unrigorously) is that the function, where it tends to infinity, is very narrow. Again being loose with terminology, if the function is infinitely high but infinitely narrow, the area might be finite.

Thats just an intuitive way to think. By the FTC
\int_0^x f(t)dt=F(x)-F(0) we can also use limits, but for your example that isn't necessary. As long as the antiderivative is finite (and continuous on the domain) the area under the curve must be finite even though the curve tends to infinity
 
DrewD said:
A good way to think about it (unrigorously) is that the function, where it tends to infinity, is very narrow. Again being loose with terminology, if the function is infinitely high but infinitely narrow, the area might be finite.

Thats just an intuitive way to think. By the FTC
\int_0^x f(t)dt=F(x)-F(0) we can also use limits, but for your example that isn't necessary. As long as the antiderivative is finite (and continuous on the domain) the area under the curve must be finite even though the curve tends to infinity

Thank you guys for the clarification. It helped a lot.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K