Can a Function Be Its Own Laplace Transform?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobbyk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Laplace
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding a non-zero function of time f(t) whose Laplace transform equals the function itself, f(s). Participants explore the implications of this question within the context of integral equations and self-transforms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants express difficulty in identifying such a function and discuss related concepts, including the Fredholm Integral Equation and eigenfunctions. There is a consideration of known self-transforms, such as Fourier transforms, and a questioning of whether similar functions exist for the Laplace transform.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with various participants sharing insights and references. Some express skepticism about the existence of a Laplace self-transform, while others remain open to the possibility and suggest further investigation. No consensus has been reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the challenge of proving the existence or non-existence of such functions and mention constraints related to homework rules and the nature of the problem itself.

bobbyk
Messages
39
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Find a function of time f(t) whose Laplace transform is f(s). Other than zero!


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I've searched the internet and haven't fouind any.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Neither have I.
I asked this myself. And read searched other forums. No one knows the answer.

I believe this is a consequence of the Fredholm Integral Equation, in which, the solutions take trivial form, i.e. only zero.


Have you ever though about a similar question? Which functions (non-trivial) are its own Fourier Transforms?
 
Last edited:
Oh, yeah! There are many Fourier self-transforms. Gaussian, for example.
 
bobbyk said:
Oh, yeah! There are many Fourier self-transforms. Gaussian, for example.

The Hankel functions are the eigenfunctions of this Integral equation if you are interested.
 
Thanks for your response, Kummer.

Yes, I'm aware of the Hankel functions.
But let's look for the Laplace self-transforms. Do you claim there aren't any?

Way to go, Tiger!

Bob.
 
bobbyk said:
But let's look for the Laplace self-transforms. Do you claim there aren't any?
I really do not know, I wish to know myself. I do not think there are, but I cannot prove it, nor have I tried to prove it. I asked some of the professors in the University and I do not have an answer. Next time I go, which is in two weeks, I try again for you.

Here is your problem stated formally.

Problem: Does there exist a function f:[0,\infty)\to \mathbb{R} such that F(s)=\int_0^{\infty} e^{-st}f(t) dt is integrable and converges for each s\geq 0 with the property that f(t) = F(s).
 
No, f(t) is never equal to F(s).
You want a function f(t) such that
f(s)=\int_0^{\infty} e^{-st}f(t) dt
or, using your F, f(s)= F(s).
 
Yes, I want that function. Other than f(t) identically equal to zero, of course.
Do you know of such a function? Or how to go about finding one?
Or how to prove there isn't one?

Thanks for your interest.
Bob
 
How about 1/sqrt(t)? The laplace transform is sqrt(pi)/sqrt(s). It's an eigenfunction, though not with unit eigenvalue...
 
  • #10
Yes, 1/sqrt(t) is close, and suggests that multiplying it by some other function might do the trick.
Bob
 
  • #11
Kummer, did you ever get an answer to my question about a Laplace Self-Transform?
You said you were going to ask the profs.

How about you, Dick, do you know of any?

Bob
 
  • #12
No. But then I didn't drive myself all that crazy thinking about the eigenvalue spectrum of the laplace transform either. Is this important?
 
  • #13
Dick, wouldn't it be important to find a Laplace Self-Transform - something that most
people say doesn't exist? I think it's very exciting!

Bob
 
  • #14
I think the world's gotten along pretty well since August without a Laplace Self-Transform. Can't say I'm all that fired up about it. Why do you say 'most people say doesn't exist'? Has anyone given you a reason?
 
  • #15
No, they don't give a reason - they just think it doesn't exist - just like you apparently
do. Look, Dick, as you know, it's not a matter of opinion - either there is such a function or there isn't. I believe there is.

Thanks for responding in a friendly manner!

Bob
 
  • #16
I'm just guessing it doesn't. It's a pure hunch. Now I have to ask, why do you believe it does? I'll look into it again.
 
  • #17
Ok, I've got you something. http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=13&threadID=1535681&messageID=5522747 It's a reference to a thread on the sci.math mailing list. It doesn't answer your question but it gives you a lot more eigenfunctions. But none with eigenvalue 1 (near as I can tell). I would suggest you post your question on the sci.math forum. Those people are about as smart as they come, aside from the cranks, and Robert Israel is REALLY SMART. He'll probably pick up on the question and if there is a reason why the laplace transform doesn't have an eigenvalue of 1, he'll know. Try it.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Thanks, Dick, I will!
 
  • #19
hmm...two clues here:

1. Hankel functions are eigenfunctions of the Fourier transform.

2. 1/\sqrt(t) is an eigenfunction of the Laplace transform, but with non-unit eigenvalue.

This makes me wonder, could the Bessel functions be Laplace self-transforms?
 
  • #20
In the book "Laplace transforms" by Murray R. Spiegel, is in chapter 1 an exercise on this subject. There are 135 exercises of which I was unable to find 6 of them. One of these 6 is off course the one were it is asked wheter a given function could be it's own transform. :frown:

Anyway, the exercise asked to prove that

L\left[ F(t) \right] = L\left[ at^{-\alpha}+bt^{-\beta \right] =\Lambda \cdot \left(as^{-\alpha}+bs^{-\beta}\right)

In which:

\alpha+\beta =1

and

\Lambda = \pm\sqrt{\pi csc(\alpha \pi)}

And as a second part it was necessary to answer the question if F(t) was it's own transform and to explain why.

Maybe this will shed some light on the post.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Euler Laplace

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K