I Convergence of this Laplace transformation

lukka98
Messages
30
Reaction score
1
I have a f(t) that is, e^(-t) *sin(t), now I calculate the Laplace transformation, that is:
X(s) = 1 / ( 1 + ( 1 + s)^2 ) (excuse me but Latex seems not run ).
Now I imagine the plane with Re(s), Im(s) and the magnitude of X(s).

If i take Re(s) = -1 and Im(s) = 0, I believe I have X(s) = 1 ( s = -1, so from the formula X(s) = 1) and this seem correctly according to a graph that I see online.

But if I put Re(s) = -1 and Im(s) = 0 in the integral, and I calculate it directly, I should get the same result...(?) but In that case is only the integral of sin(t) from 0 to infty that is not 1 absolutely.

What is wrong?

thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The integral \int_0^\infty \sin t\,e^{-(1+s)t}\,dt converges only when \operatorname{Re}(1 + s) > 0. s = -1 is not in this region.

You can, of course, analytically continue the result you get in \operatorname{Re}(1 + s) > 0 into the rest of the s-plane (except the poles at s = -1 \pm i).

LaTeX is enabled; but it often doesn't render when you make your first post in a forum.
 
pasmith said:
The integral \int_0^\infty \sin t\,e^{-(1+s)t}\,dt converges only when \operatorname{Re}(1 + s) > 0. s = -1 is not in this region.

You can, of course, analytically continue the result you get in \operatorname{Re}(1 + s) > 0 into the rest of the s-plane (except the poles at s = -1 \pm i).

LaTeX is enabled; but it often doesn't render when you make your first post in a forum.
Ok, maybe my question was misunderstood, but ##X(s) = \frac{1}{1 + (1+s)^2}##, so for s = -1, I have X(s) = 1;
but ##\int_{0}^{\infty} sin(t) dt## ,that is for s = -1, is indefinite.
And also the graphics solution, looks like X(s) = 1 for s = -1.
 
lukka98 said:
Ok, maybe my question was misunderstood, but ##X(s) = \frac{1}{1 + (1+s)^2}##, so for s = -1, I have X(s) = 1;
but ##\int_{0}^{\infty} sin(t) dt## ,that is for s = -1, is indefinite.
And also the graphics solution, looks like X(s) = 1 for s = -1.

Yes.

There are many functions, such as the Gamma function, which are initially defined by an integral representation valid only in a subset of \mathbb{C} but are then extended to a larger subset of \mathbb{C} by analytic continuation. Laplace transforms often also fall into this category.

One can define a function F : D \to \mathbb{C}: s \mapsto \int_0^\infty f(t)e^{-st}\,dt where D \subset \mathbb{C} is the region where the integral converges. If D satisfies certain conditions then there exists a unique G, defined on as much of \mathbb{C} as possible, such that G(s) = F(s) for every s \in D.

Now F and G are distinct functions because they have different domains, and we commonly define the Laplace transform of f as F when really we mean G: Inverting the transform requires integration over a contour which is almost certainly not contained in D, and if we have a formula for F(s) then it almost certainly makes sense for values of s \notin D. But we must remember that if s \notin D then <br /> G(s) \neq \int_0^\infty f(t)e^{-st}\,dt.
 
  • Informative
Likes ergospherical
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
10K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Back
Top