The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the integration process in a convolution proof related to time scaling properties. Participants highlight the lack of a clear definition for the function "c(at)" and note that the integral presented does not demonstrate any actual integration but rather defines "c" through the convolution equation. The change of variable and the scaling factor's role are emphasized as critical points in understanding the proof. There is consensus that the integral's value is dependent solely on the variable "at," reinforcing the standard convolution integral's form. Clarification on these mathematical concepts is necessary for a better understanding of the proof.
#1
woohs1216
2
0
Hello
I don't quiet understand how the integration in the picture works...
I must have forgotten something...
I see no place, in what you have posted, where "c(at)" is defined! In any case, the part you have enclosed in red, on the left, is identical to the calculation on the right. Do you not have a problem with that? In any case, it is impossible to say why that integral is equal to c(at) without knowing how the fuction, c, is defined.
#4
Lord Crc
341
47
The interesting part happens between the very first integral and the one you've outlined in red. That's when the change in variable happens and when the scaling factor comes into the mix.
I'm pretty sure c(t) has the form of the outlined integral, as that is the standard convolution integral, and as such is just a convenience.
Of course I might be wrong :-)
#5
slider142
1,016
72
I agree with Lord Crc. They have not actually integrated anything. They have just defined a function c by the equation
c(at) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} x(m)g(at - m)\, dm
Since the variable m is integrated over, the value of the integral is indeed only a function of at. They probably chose the letter c to mean "convolution integral".