Deduce the solution from weight function

  • Thread starter Thread starter jwxie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Weight
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the convolution-summation of a first-order system with constant coefficients, focusing on understanding specific terms in the solution derived from lecture materials. Participants are examining the derivation of coefficients and signs in the context of a weight function.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to understand how specific values, such as 4/3 and the minus sign, are derived in the solution. Questions are raised about the contributions of different summations and the role of initial conditions in the overall solution.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the summation of the weight function and the geometric series involved. There appears to be a collaborative effort to clarify misunderstandings regarding the distribution of terms and the simplification process, although no consensus has been reached on all points.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working within the constraints of homework rules, which may limit the amount of direct assistance they can provide to one another. There is an emphasis on exploring assumptions and definitions related to the problem setup.

jwxie
Messages
278
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Convolution-Summation of a First Order System with Constant Coefficients

[PLAIN]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14655573/1.PNG

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



The solution from the lecture
[PLAIN]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14655573/2.PNG

[PLAIN]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14655573/3.PNG

What I don't understand is how do we get 4/3 and the minus sign in the solution.

I know I can separate the summation into i = 0 to 0, and i = 1 to k. Thus, the first summation would be 1/3.
Then how did we get that 4/3? Did we just add the 1? Where did that 1 come from? From b_0 ?

How did we get the minus sign in front of the second term in the solution? Was it because we have -1/3 u(k-1) in the original equation?

Can anyone please help me with this? Thank you very much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
You have given

[tex]w_0 = 1,\ w_i = \left(\frac 1 6\right)\left(\frac 1 2\right)^{i-1}[/tex]

So

[tex]\sum_{i=0}^{k}w_i = 1 + \sum_{i=1}^{k}w_i = 1 + \left(\frac 1 6\right)<br /> \sum_{i=1}^{k}\left(\frac 1 2\right)^{i-1}[/tex]

But

[tex]\sum_{i=1}^{k}\left(\frac 1 2\right)^{i-1} = 2 - \left(\frac 1 2\right)^{k-1}[/tex]

Put that in for the last sum and simplify it.
 
hi. i see that since w(0) is 1, then the summation of w(i) when i = 0, we would have 1
that's clear
the 2,... it's the summation of gemoetric series given by (1 - a^(k+1))/ 1-a, am i correct?
i get
(1 - (1/2)^k) / 1-(1/2)
which gives 2* (1- (1/2)^k)
did i do something wrong? when i distribute it the k-power term also gets the 2...
 
jwxie said:
hi. i see that since w(0) is 1, then the summation of w(i) when i = 0, we would have 1
that's clear
the 2,... it's the summation of gemoetric series given by (1 - a^(k+1))/ 1-a, am i correct?
i get
(1 - (1/2)^k) / 1-(1/2)
which gives 2* (1- (1/2)^k)
did i do something wrong? when i distribute it the k-power term also gets the 2...

So you distribute the 2 and you get 2 - (1/2)(k-1) just like I said.
 
I thought the (1/2)^(k-1) also gets the 2 after the distribution since the top is being divided by the the 1-(1/2)

[itex](1-\frac{1}{2}^{k-1})*2[/itex]

-- edited
okay. i think we are both right.
i think u missed the 2 in the previous post
and doing the simplification
1+ (1/6) * (2) * [1 - (1/2)^(k-1) ] would give the result

thanks.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K