Susanne217
- 311
- 0
Homework Statement
If I have the standard sign function defined on R is the corresponding Fourier series the standard Fourier series with plus/minus in front respectively?
The discussion revolves around finding the Fourier series for the sign function defined on the interval from -π to π. Participants explore the implications of defining the function over a finite interval and the necessary conditions for deriving its Fourier series.
Some participants have provided guidance on the formulas for Fourier coefficients and the integration process. There is an ongoing exploration of how to apply these formulas specifically to the sign function, with various interpretations of the interval and function behavior being discussed.
Participants note that the Fourier series is dependent on the choice of interval and that the function's odd nature simplifies some calculations. There are references to potential confusion regarding the definitions and assumptions surrounding the sign function and its Fourier series representation.
jbunniii said:Can you write down exactly what you mean by "standard sign function"? To me, it means
[tex]f(x) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}1, & \textrm{if }x > 0 \\<br /> -1, & \textrm{if }x < 0 \end{array}\right.[/tex]
and [itex]f(0)[/itex] is typically defined as either 0 or 1, though its value doesn't make any difference with regard to Fourier series.
There is no Fourier series defined for this function unless you restrict the domain to a finite interval. And the series will depend on which interval you choose.
jbunniii said:Can you write down the formula for finding the Fourier coefficients of [itex]f(x)[/itex], and then try plugging in this particular [itex]f(x)[/itex], so we can see how far you are able to get on your own?
jbunniii said:Yes, let's work with that. Your function is clearly odd, so use the formula for [itex]b_k[/itex]. (By the way, there's a typo in your formula for [itex]f(x)[/itex]: surely [itex]n_k[/itex] should be [itex]b_k[/itex].)
Now plug in [itex]f(x)[/itex] for this particular function. What is [itex]n[/itex] in this case?
jbunniii said:No, [itex]n[/itex] is the (one-sided) interval over which the function is defined.
Your function is defined on [itex][-\pi, \pi][/itex], so [itex]n = \pi[/itex].
The formula for [itex]b_k[/itex] tells you to integrate only over [itex][0,\pi][/itex]. Your function is equal to ONE over that entire interval, so you simply end up with
[tex]b_k = 2 \int_{0}^{\pi} sin(kx) dx[/tex]
You don't have to worry about the negative half of the function, because this formula for [itex]b_k[/itex] assumes that the function is odd.
There is a more general formula for Fourier coefficients which does not assume that the function is even OR odd:
[tex]a_k = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} f(x) \cos(kx) dx[/tex]
[tex]b_k = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} f(x) \sin(kx) dx[/tex]
Note that in the special case where [itex]f(x)[/itex] is odd, [itex]a_k = 0[/itex] (can you see why?), and the formula for [itex]b_k[/itex] can be simplified as follows:
[tex]\begin{align*}b_k &= \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} f(x) \sin(kx) dx \\<br /> &= \int_{-\pi}^0 f(x) \sin(kx) dx + \int_{0}^{\pi} f(x) \sin(kx) dx \\<br /> &= 2 \int_{0}^{\pi} f(x) \sin(kx) dx \end{align*}[/tex]
which matches the formula you are using. Thus if the function is odd, this simplified formula allows you to integrate only over the positive half, [itex][0,\pi][/itex].
LCKurtz said:Hey Susanne217, I have missed you in your other thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2371059#post2371059
Just when I thought we were getting close, you disappeared. Did you get that problem solved?
Susanne217 said:Is says find the Fourier series
[tex]f(x) = sign(x)[/tex] where [tex]x \in ]-\pi,\pi[[/tex]
But since my interval is finite. How do I then go about finding the Fourier series for that f(x)??
ramsey2879 said:Did you mean "sign" or --sine--?
Susanne217 said:Hi I had some family troubles so I didn't get arround to finishing it.
I did the intermediate calculations for the b_k but how was suppose to compare that result to find the some for the second series that I didn't?
Is it some obvious theorem that I overlooked maybe? Compare two series?
Susanne217 said:So basically my Fourier series for the sign function over the finite is with that b_k above?