Fourier Series/ transform demonstration

MrAlbot
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Hey guys!

if anyone can help me I guess it is you! :)

I'm trying to find the Fourier Series demonstration to continuous and periodic functions.

I don't understand why people keep using X(jw) and X[e^jw] and even sometimes X(w) and X(f)

If anyone can help me I'm really not understanding that!

Best regards

Peter
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I'm trying to understand why in my Signals and Systems they use X(jw) (and X[e^jw] in disrete signals) and in my telecomunications class they use X(f) and what does it change, and why can they change that. I have no problem going into deep mathematics if that means understanding it. I feel like only after understanding this Fourier series/transform Laplace and Z transform will make sense in my head and I'll be able to sleep at night if I get this right into my head. ^^

Thanks again.
 
Last edited:
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top