Discrete-time Signal & Periodicity condition

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The periodicity condition for discrete-time (DT) signals, as outlined in Oppenheim’s "Signals & Systems," states that for a DT signal to be periodic, the relationship ej*w(n+N) = ej*w*n must hold, with w/2π = m/N, where m/N is a rational number. The discussion highlights a specific case where m=9 and N=3, leading to m/N = 3, which is indeed a rational number. The confusion arises from the interpretation of periodicity, as the condition ej*w*N = 1 is satisfied, confirming that the signal is periodic despite initial misconceptions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of discrete-time signals
  • Familiarity with complex exponentials
  • Knowledge of periodicity conditions in signal processing
  • Basic concepts from Oppenheim’s "Signals & Systems"
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the periodicity conditions for continuous-time signals
  • Explore the implications of rational and irrational numbers in signal processing
  • Learn about the properties of complex exponentials in DT signals
  • Review examples of periodic and non-periodic discrete-time signals
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in signal processing, electrical engineering, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of discrete-time signal periodicity and its mathematical foundations.

wirefree
Messages
110
Reaction score
21
TL;DR
I seek a clarification on the periodicity of discrete-time (DT) signals.
Namaste

I seek a clarification on the periodicity condition of discrete-time (DT) signals.

As stated in Oppenheim’s Signals & Systems, for a DT signal, for example the complex exponential, to be periodic, i.e.

ej*w(n+N) = ej*w*n,

w/2*pi = m/N, where m/N must be a rational number.

Above is simply to satisfy the condition that ej*w*N = 1.

Please help me see why m=9, N=3, and, thereby, m/N = 3, which is not a rational number, yet still yielding 1 for ej*2*pi*9, not be considered a valid instance of a periodic discrete-time signal.

Would greatly appreciate a refutation and a chance to stand corrected.

Thank you.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
3 *is* a rational number (3/1).

Your first equation above is satisfied for m = integer, which is a different way of expressing your rational condition that might be clearer.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: wirefree

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K