Fourier series coefficient problem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of Fourier series coefficients through the minimization of the integrated square of the deviation between a function and its Fourier series representation. Participants explore the mathematical steps involved in taking partial derivatives and the implications of using different summation indices.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the formula for the deviation and questions the steps leading to the partial derivatives with respect to the Fourier coefficients.
  • Another participant suggests that when taking the derivative with respect to \( a_n \), \( n \) should be treated as fixed, and a different index should be used for the summation.
  • There is a discussion about the validity of including or excluding certain summation terms in the integral when applying the chain rule.
  • Participants discuss the orthogonality of sine and cosine functions and how it affects the evaluation of integrals in the context of Fourier series.
  • One participant expresses confusion about when to use a different summation index and seeks clarification on this point.
  • A later reply confirms that the integral of a sum is equivalent to the sum of integrals, which aids in simplifying the expressions involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the mathematical principles involved, such as the use of orthogonality and the properties of integrals. However, there is disagreement and confusion regarding the proper use of summation indices and the steps in the derivation process, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved on these specific points.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the indices used in summations and the specific steps in the derivation that some participants find unclear. The discussion also reflects varying levels of familiarity with the underlying mathematical concepts.

ognik
Messages
626
Reaction score
2
Hi - an example in my book shows that FS coefficiants can be arrived at by minimizing the integrated square of the deviation,

i.e. $ \Delta_p = \int_0^{2\pi}\left[ f(x) - \frac{a_0}{2}-\sum_{n=1}^{p}\left( a_nCosnx + b_nSinnx \right) \right]^2dx $

So we're looking for $ \pd{\Delta_p}{a_n} =0 $ and $ \pd{\Delta_p}{b_n} =0 $

they then jump to $ 0 = -2\int_0^{2\pi} f(x) Cosnx dx +2\pi a_n $ and I can't follow it all, would appreciate some help.

Using the chain rule for the partial deriv for $a_n$, should it be $ 0 = \int_0^{2\pi}\left[ f(x) - \frac{a_0}{2}-\sum_{n=1}^{p}\left( a_nCosnx + b_nSinnx \right) \right] \left( -\sum_{n=1}^{p}Cosnx \right) dx $ - or without the 2nd summation? They must NOT include that last summation but I don't know why?

Then clearly the $a_0$ term vanishes but I can't see why?

And please confirm - integral of a sum $\equiv$ sum of an integral?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi ognik,

The place where things took a wrong turn has to do with the use of indices. In the expression $\pd{\Delta_{p}}{a_{n}}$, you want to think of $n$ as fixed; i.e. we have made a choice of which partial derivative we would like to take (e.g. $n=3~\Longrightarrow~\pd{\Delta_{p}}{a_{3}}$). Since $n$ is then fixed, we need to index the sum by a different variable, say $k$, then use the relation $\pd{a_{k}}{a_{n}}=\delta^{k}_{n}$. I think you should be able to get where you want to go from here. If not, let me know. Good luck!
 
ognik said:
Using the chain rule for the partial deriv for $a_n$, should it be $ 0 = \int_0^{2\pi}\left[ f(x) - \frac{a_0}{2}-\sum_{n=1}^{p}\left( a_nCosnx + b_nSinnx \right) \right] \left( -\sum_{n=1}^{p}Cosnx \right) dx $ - or without the 2nd summation?

They must NOT include that last summation but I don't know why?

And please confirm - integral of a sum $\equiv$ sum of an integral?

Thanks GJA, while I'm working on that would you mind looking at the other 2 queries I had, quoted above? Much obliged.
 
Thanks GJA, that's clear now; Also I read that integral of a sum $\equiv$ sum of an integral so I get to:

$ 0 = \int_0^{2\pi}\left[ f(x) - \frac{a_0}{2}-\sum_{n=1}^{p}\left( a_nCosnx + b_nSinnx \right) \right] Cosnx dx $ (I multiplied the -1 both sides)

i.e. $ 0 = \int_0^{2\pi} f(x) Cosnx dx - \frac{a_0}{2} \int_0^{2\pi} Cosnx dx -\sum_{n=1}^{p} a_n\int_0^{2\pi} Cos^2nx -\sum_{n=1}^{p} b_n\int_0^{2\pi}Sinnx Cosnx dx $

The 2nd term evals to 0, the 4th term = 0 due to orthogonality, $ a_n\int_0^{2\pi} Cos^2nx dx = \pi a_n $ but I can't find an argument to drop the summation in front of the third term?
 
Hey ognik,

Been away from the computer for a bit over the holiday, sorry for the delay. I think you've picked up on what I was getting at in my last post and to help push past the where you're currently stuck, it will be best to get in the habit of actually using a new summation index. For example, where you wrote

ognik said:
$ 0 = \int_0^{2\pi}\left[ f(x) - \frac{a_0}{2}-\sum_{n=1}^{p}\left( a_nCosnx + b_nSinnx \right) \right] Cosnx dx $ (I multiplied the -1 both sides)

we would really want something like this (note that $k$ is being used as the summation index, while $n$ is still the frequency term of the cosine outside the parenthesis in the integrand):

$$0=\int_{0}^{2\pi}\left[f(x)-\frac{a_{0}}{2}-\sum_{k=1}^{p}\big(a_{k}\cos(kx)+b_{k}\sin(kx)\big)\right]\cos(nx)\, dx$$

(Note: We could use any letter (e.g. $m$, $j$, $r$, $s$, etc.) we want to index the sum, except $n$ and $p$ as those letters have an assigned meaning already in the problem)

After multiplying out this new expression the term of confusion now has the form:

$$\sum_{k=1}^{p}a_{k}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\cos(kx)\cos(nx)\, dx$$

Can you you see how to get where you want to go from there? You're very close to being done and I know you can get it. Let me know if this is still a sticking point. Good luck!
 
Understand GJA, my kids are away so I have time on my hands - and thanks for the reply.

I doubt I would recognise at the moment, when to use a different summation index, and I'm afraid I don't follow why in this case?

However assuming it, from where you introduce the 2nd index: $0= \int_{0}^{2\pi} f(x) Cosnx \,dx - \frac{a_0}{2} \int_{0}^{2\pi}Cosnx dx - \int_{0}^{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}a_k Cos kx Cos nx - \int_{0}^{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} b_n Sin kx Cos nx dx $

The 2nd term evals. to 0, the 4th term is 0 by orthogonality, and the third term $= a_n\pi$ by orthogonality for k=n only (=0 for $k \ne n$)

$ \therefore a_n = \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{0}^{2\pi} f(x) Cos nx dx $ - yay!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K