Is f(x) of exponential order for the Laplace Transform?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the applicability of the Laplace transform to the function f(1/x). It clarifies that the Laplace transform of f(1/x) cannot be directly equated to the standard form without considering the properties of the function. A function is defined as being of exponential order if it does not grow faster than an exponential function, ensuring the existence of its Laplace transform. The key criterion for exponential order is that the limit of |f(t)e^{-at}| approaches zero as t approaches infinity. Understanding these definitions is crucial for correctly applying the Laplace transform.
EngWiPy
Messages
1,361
Reaction score
61
Hello,

By definition, the forward Laplace transform of a function f(x) is:

\mathcal{L}\left\{f(x)\right\}=\int_0^{\infty}\text{e}^{-sx}f(x)\,dx.

Can we say the same for the function f\left(\frac{1}{x}\right), i.e.:

\mathcal{L}\left\{f\left(\frac{1}{x}\right)\right\}=\int_0^{\infty}\text{e}^{-\frac{s}{x}}f\left(\frac{1}{x}\right)\,dx.??

Thanks in advance
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
No, at least not as you have written it. If g(x) = f(1/x) then

\mathcal{L}(g) = \int_0^\infty e^{-sx}g(x)\, dx = \int_0^\infty e^{-sx}f(1/x)\, dx

assuming g(x) is of exponential order.
 
LCKurtz said:
No, at least not as you have written it. If g(x) = f(1/x) then

\mathcal{L}(g) = \int_0^\infty e^{-sx}g(x)\, dx = \int_0^\infty e^{-sx}f(1/x)\, dx

assuming g(x) is of exponential order.

Ok, I see. But what do you mean by "exponential order"?
 
S_David said:
Ok, I see. But what do you mean by "exponential order"?

A function f is of exponential order if, informally, it grows no faster than an exponential. The definition is there exists a > 0 such that:

\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} |f(t)e^{-at}| = 0

This is the usual condition given to ensure the Laplace transform of f exists.
 
LCKurtz said:
A function f is of exponential order if, informally, it grows no faster than an exponential. The definition is there exists a > 0 such that:

\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} |f(t)e^{-at}| = 0

This is the usual condition given to ensure the Laplace transform of f exists.

Ok, thanks.

Regards
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top