Convolution proof where f=g=1/(1+x^2)

  • Thread starter Thread starter polpol
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convolution Proof
polpol
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
So I am looking for some insight one how I might go about solving this problem.

I have two equations f and g where f = g = \frac{1}{(1+x^2)}.

The convolution theorem states that L(f*g) = L(f)*L(g) where L can be either the Laplace transform or the Fourier transform.

So it will look like this \mathcal{L} \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(t)g(x-t) dt = \mathcal{L} f(x) \cdot \mathcal{L} g(x)

\mathcal{L} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{1}{(1+t^2)(t^2-2tx+x^2+1)} dt = 2 \cdot \mathcal{L} \frac{1}{1+x^2} dx

I have to show that the left hand side and the right hand side are the same. I have tried to use both Laplace and Fourier transforms and partial fractions and lots of algebra manipulation as well as looking at integral tables.

What would be your strategy or the key point you would look at to go about showing this is true?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
One thing I thought was promising was a polynomial integration with
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{1}{t^4 +c_1t^3+c_2t^2+c_3t+c_4} dt
where c1 = -2x, c2 = 2x^2, c3 = -x, c4 = x^2 + 1
but I couldn't find anything useful from there.

I'm interested in seeing this what would your strategies be? What toolbox would you reach for?
 
There shouldn't be a convolution on both sides of your equality. It should be L(f*g) = L(f)L(g) (or vice versa)
 
Office_Shredder said:
There shouldn't be a convolution on both sides of your equality. It should be L(f*g) = L(f)L(g) (or vice versa)

You are right; I meant to use the * as multiplication on the right side and that was unclear. I will edit it and fix it.
 
Is your main problem evaluating the integral on the left hand side?

Also the right hand side should be L(f)2 not 2L(f)
 
Office_Shredder said:
Is your main problem evaluating the integral on the left hand side?

Also the right hand side should be L(f)2 not 2L(f)

Yes that is true, I did a terrible job of writing that out.

My main effort has been evaluating the integral on the left hand side because I believe if I can solve for that or show it equal to the right in some way that is all I need.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top