Basic signal analysis (system invertible)

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on demonstrating the invertibility of the system defined by y(t) = x(t-4). The output y(t) is derived from the input x(t) through a time shift of 4 units to the right. To show invertibility, one can substitute t' = t - 4, leading to the relationship x(t') = y(t'+4). However, the inversion process is non-causal, as it requires future values of y to determine present values of x. The confusion arises from understanding how to express this mathematically while considering the implications of the time shift.
FrogPad
Messages
801
Reaction score
0
Ok I have this really simple question that is bugging me.

Lets say you have the signal:

y(t) = x(t-4)

where y(t) corresponds to the output, and x(t) the input.

I know this system is invertible, but I don't really know how to show that this is the case. I see that the output is x(t) with an independet variable transformation such that the input shifted by 4 units to the right. So if we shift the output four units to the left then we get the input without the independent variable transformation. I just don't know how to express what is going on here mathematically.


Maybe I don't understand invertibility well enough to apply it.
From what I gather it can be shown by,

x(t) --> [system] --> y(t) = T{x(t)}
y(t) --> [invert] --> T{y(t)} = x(t)

I'm getting confused since the problem has x(t-4) in this case. I'm guessing I can show it with some type of function composition, but I need some help.

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can make the substitution
t' = t - 4
so that
x(t') = y(t'+4)
The inverted function is non-causal, since you need to know future values of y to find the present value of x.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K