Okay, so this is the first time I'm encountering this theorem and I'm not very strong in calculus. But I tried to understand it myself but couldn't.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Convolution theorem is the one in the attachment as give in the book ( couldn't find a way to type that out easily). My doubt is if laplace(f) = F(s) and laplace(g) = G(s) and laplace( f*g )= F(s)*G(s), why not

laplace-inverse[ F(s)*G(s) ]=f*g, which is given but why do the integration at all after that? ( but my answers don;t match if I do it this way; that is without that final integration so I'm obviously misunderstanding it)

Thank you very much for any help.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Convolution theorem and laplace transforms

Loading...

Similar Threads - Convolution theorem laplace | Date |
---|---|

I Independence of variables in Convolution | May 27, 2017 |

Convolution theorem for Laplace Transform proof | May 5, 2015 |

Can someone explain this step in the proof of the convolution theorem? | Jun 17, 2011 |

Laplace & Convolution theorem | Dec 14, 2010 |

Proof of the convolution theorem for laplace transform | Dec 28, 2007 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**