Can You Prove the Series Is Periodic?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter physics1000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Periodic Series
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the periodicity of the series ##\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }\:\frac{sin\left(2^nx\right)}{2^n}##. Participants explore how to demonstrate that this series is periodic, particularly considering its relation to Fourier analysis and the properties of sine functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about how to show that a series is periodic, noting the need to demonstrate ##f(x) = f(x + T)##.
  • Another participant suggests that if every term in the series has a period of ##2\pi##, then the series' limit should also be periodic.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of assuming ##T = 2\pi## and question whether this assumption is valid.
  • Hints are provided regarding the behavior of sine functions under translation by ##2\pi##, suggesting that this could lead to insights about periodicity.
  • There is mention of the need for a formal proof, with participants expressing frustration over the lack of clarity on how to construct one.
  • One participant reflects on the informal nature of their reasoning and seeks a more rigorous approach to proving periodicity.
  • Another participant points out that a formal proof can be built upon informal reasoning, emphasizing that the series can be expressed in terms of sine functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the series is related to periodic functions, particularly sine functions, but there is no consensus on how to formally prove its periodicity. Multiple viewpoints and methods are presented, indicating ongoing debate and exploration.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the assumptions needed for proving periodicity and the definitions involved. There is also a recognition that the proof must be formal, but the exact steps to achieve this remain unresolved.

  • #31
DaveE said:
Anyway, now I'm confused. Can you explain, regardless of how many values T can take (because it's value wasn't specified), why it isn't iff in either interpretation? Is it the "if" part you don't like, or the "only if" part?
If you define T as the smallest value, then if T is "the" period, we know f(x)=f(x+T) for all x, but if some value T satisfies f(x)=f(x+T) for all x, that doesn't imply T is "the" period but rather just "a" period. So it comes down to how one defines T. I've always seen it defined as the smallest value that satisfies f(x)=f(x+T) for all x, but apparently, not everyone defines it that way.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaveE and topsquark
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
vela said:
If you define T as the smallest value, then if T is "the" period, we know f(x)=f(x+T) for all x, but if some value T satisfies f(x)=f(x+T) for all x, that doesn't imply T is "the" period but rather just "a" period. So it comes down to how one defines T. I've always seen it defined as the smallest value that satisfies f(x)=f(x+T) for all x, but apparently, not everyone defines it that way.
In this case, can you prove that ##2\pi## is the fundamental period of the function in question? It's easy to see that it does not have period ##\pi##. But, it might be tricky to show that it can't be anything else less than ##2\pi##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark
  • #33
PeroK said:
In this case, can you prove that ##2\pi## is the fundamental period of the function in question? It's easy to see that it does not have period ##\pi##. But, it might be tricky to show that it can't be anything else less than ##2\pi##.
I'd offer the physicist's proof: Look at the graph. ;)
 
  • Love
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: topsquark and PeroK
  • #34
PeroK said:
In this case, can you prove that ##2\pi## is the fundamental period of the function in question? It's easy to see that it does not have period ##\pi##. But, it might be tricky to show that it can't be anything else less than ##2\pi##.
I believe it's a theorem that either the fundamental period is ##2\pi/n## for some ##n##, or the function has arbitrarily small periods. The second one can't be true because the function is continuous and not constant (probably? Maybe this is a trick question haha). The first one doesn't feel impossible to manage but I agree isn't easy.

Edit to add: it is not constant, since ##f(0)=0## and ##f(\pi/2)=1##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and topsquark

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K