Fourier Series Transform Proof Help

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around filling in the missing steps in the proof of the Fourier series representation of a periodic function. Participants are exploring the relationship between the periodicity of the function and its Fourier series expansion, with a focus on the mathematical formulation and notation used in the proof.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests clarification on the steps between the periodicity condition and the Fourier series expression, indicating a gap in the proof.
  • Another participant points out that the first statement indicates periodicity with period T, while the second statement presents the general form of a Fourier series, which is based on a different period (2π/ω), suggesting a potential misunderstanding of the relationship between T and ω.
  • A third participant proposes that the missing step could be related to the transition from a general Fourier expansion (which is an integral) to a discrete sum due to the periodicity, implying that ω is defined as 2π/T.
  • One participant requests clarification on the gap between the two statements without providing further context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the relationship between the periodicity of the function and its Fourier series representation. There is no consensus on the specific missing step or how to connect the two statements.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of T and ω, as well as the transition from integral to sum in the context of Fourier series. The notation used in the expressions has also caused some confusion among participants.

evotunedscc
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Can someone fill in the blank between these two steps? I can't find Fourier series proof anywhere and my professor just left it out.

(1) y(t+nT)=y(t)

(2) y(t)=[tex]A_{0}[/tex] + [tex]\Sigma^{\infty}_{n=1}[/tex][[tex]A_{n}[/tex]cos(n[tex]\omega[/tex]t) + [tex]B_{n}[/tex]sin(n[tex]\omega[/tex]t)]

(The omega is going crazy on me... it's not supposed to be superscripted, just multiplied by n and t)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
evotunedscc said:
Can someone fill in the blank between these two steps? I can't find Fourier series proof anywhere and my professor just left it out.

(1) y(t+nT)=y(t)

(2) y(t)=[tex]A_{0}[/tex] + [tex]\Sigma^{\infty}_{n=1}[/tex][[tex]A_{n}[/tex]cos(n[tex]\omega[/tex]t) + [tex]B_{n}[/tex]sin(n[tex]\omega[/tex]t)]

(The omega is going crazy on me... it's not supposed to be superscripted, just multiplied by n and t)

What do you mean by "steps between them"? The first just says y is periodic with period T and the second is the general expression of a Fourier series of a function periodic with period [itex]2\pi/\omega[/itex]- there is no mention of "T".

As for the LaTex, I would recommend putting the entire thing in [ t e x] not just individual parts:

[tex]y(t)=A_{0}+ \Sigma^{\infty}_{n=1}[A_{n}cos(n\omega t) + B_{n}sin(n\omega t)][/tex]

It looks better and is easier to type!
 
I would say that a general "Fourier expansion" is actually an integral. What (1) implies is that the modes are discrete and thus the integral becomes a sum, and therefore [itex]\omega=2 \pi/T[/itex], as Halls mentioned. Maybe this is the missing step you mean?
 
Last edited:
have u find the gap between those two statements[evotunedscc]?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K