Difference between transforms and integrals/derivatives?

  • Thread starter Thread starter onethatyawns
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difference
AI Thread Summary
Transforms, such as Fourier and Laplace transforms, are specialized types of integrals that involve kernels and specific conditions. While integrals and derivatives can be seen as measurements of transforms, not all integrals and derivatives qualify as transforms themselves. Certain integrals and derivatives yield numerical results rather than functions, indicating they do not fit the definition of a transform. The discussion highlights the nuanced relationship between transforms, integrals, and derivatives, emphasizing that while some integrals and derivatives can be regarded as transforms, others cannot. Overall, the relationship between these mathematical concepts is complex and context-dependent.
onethatyawns
Messages
32
Reaction score
3
I've looked around and am having a hard time finding common terms in definitions to know how they relate. Are all transforms based upon integrals/derivatives? Are integrals/derivatives a type of transform?

Are integrals/derivatives measurements of transforms? I believe that is correct, but I just want to make sure.

It also appears that there are multiple types of transforms, and some of them are called integral transforms. These are the Fourier, Laplace, Hilbert, etc transforms.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
onethatyawns said:
Are all transforms based upon integrals/derivatives?
No.
onethatyawns said:
Are integrals/derivatives measurements of transforms?
I am not sure what you are asking about here. But - certain types of integrals and certain types of derivatives can be regarded as transforms.
onethatyawns said:
It also appears that there are multiple types of transforms, and some of them are called integral transforms. These are the Fourier, Laplace, Hilbert, etc transforms.
Yes, but observe that these transforms are very special types of integrals. These integrals are of the type G(s)=\int K(x, s)f(x)dx, where K(x, s) is called a kernel and must observe certain conditions.
 
Svein said:
I am not sure what you are asking about here. But - certain types of integrals and certain types of derivatives can be regarded as transforms.
Are there integrals or derivatives that would not be transforms? Or are all integrals and derivatives a type of transforms?

Because, on a basic level, transforms are things like shrinking/expanding an area, displacing a set of points, and rotating a set of points. It would then make sense to call a derivative a form of transform or measurement of a transform because it measures how fast these transforms are taking place between two variables. It would make sense to call an integral a transform because, as defined by a Riemann sum with infinitesimal intervals, we're talking about shrinking sections of areas and adding them up. Or, maybe shrinking is not the correct term. Maybe slicing is better.

Does that make any sense?

Svein said:
Yes, but observe that these transforms are very special types of integrals. These integrals are of the type G(s)=\int K(x, s)f(x)dx, where K(x, s) is called a kernel and must observe certain conditions.
Yes, I found that very interesting.
 
onethatyawns said:
Are there integrals or derivatives that would not be transforms?
For example \int_{-1}^{1}xdx and \frac{d}{dx}2x. Both of these end up in a number, not another function.
 
Svein said:
Both of these end up in a number, not another function.

But the result of \frac{d}{dx} (2x) can be viewed as the constant function c(x) = 2.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top