Find a Fourier Series representation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around finding the Fourier series representation for the function f(x) = cos(αx) with a period of 2π, where α is a non-integer constant. The user initially calculated the Fourier coefficients a0, an, and bn, finding a0 = 0, an = 0 for a ≠ n and 1 for a = n, and bn = 0. Clarifications were made regarding the notation to avoid confusion between the parameter α and the Fourier coefficients. It was noted that for integer values of α, the coefficients could be determined by inspection, but the challenge lies in expressing the coefficients for non-integer α. The user expressed difficulty in formulating a general expression for the series coefficients when α is not an integer.
math_trouble
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I'm having problem finding the representation for the Fourier series with

function f of period P = 2*pi such that f (x) = cosαx, −pi ≤ x ≤ pi , and α ≠ 0,±1,±2,±3,K is a
constant.

Any help is appreciated...
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi math_trouble! :wink:

You probably need one of the standard trigonometric identities for cosAcosB.

Anyway, show us what you've tried, and where you're stuck, and then we'll know how to help! :smile:
 
The Fourier coefficients are certain integrals. Write them down. If you can't do them, let us know.
 
i evaluated a0,an and bn term
i get a0=0

an= 0 when a not equals to n & 1 when a equals to n

bn= 0

i know the general Fourier series representation is in :
a0/2 + SUM(ancos(nx) + bnsin(nx))

but then I am stuck on how to apply the general term to this case
 
Hi Math_Trouble. Just to save confusion, can we call the parameter \alpha instead of "a", so as not to confuse it with the a_n Fourier coefficients.

Your a_n and b_n are correct for integer values of the parameter \alpha, but I thought that you wanted an expression that is valid for non-integer alpha. I'm a little confused here because you say that you've "evaluated the terms" which implies that you have an expression to evaluate. If so then where is your expression and is it valid for non-integer \alpha?

The fact is that for integer values of alpha you don't even need to do the Fourier integrals to determine the series coefficients. You can do it "by inspection" since the waveform is already a perfect cosine wave. It's not that the Fourier integrals don't work for integer \alpha, they do, it's just that the problem is not really interesting for that case (which is why I presume that they explicitly called for a non integer alpha in the question).

If you just do the Fourier integrals then you should get an expression that is valid for real (integer and non integer) values of the parameter (though you may need to take limits to evaluate the integer cases). Show us your working so far and we can help you.
 
Last edited:
Hi uart..thx for reminding tat \alpha is not an integer:smile:

but now I am having trouble again to write down the series coefficient for \alpha \neq integer because it seems to be too many values and not like a general expression could express them all
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top