Fourier Transform and Convolution

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the convolution of two exponential functions, ##f(t) = e^{3t}## and ##g(t) = e^{7t}##, and the application of Fourier Transforms to compute this convolution. Participants explore both analytical and numerical approaches, questioning the validity of their methods and the definitions of convolution used.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an analytical solution for the convolution of the two functions, claiming it results in ##f(t) \ast g(t) = \frac{1}{4}(e^{7t} - e^{3t})##.
  • Another participant questions how this analytical result is derived, prompting a detailed step-by-step explanation of the convolution integral.
  • A different participant expresses unfamiliarity with the convolution definition used, suggesting an alternative definition that integrates over the entire real line.
  • Concerns are raised about the numerical implementation in MatLab, particularly regarding discrepancies in the output size and graph accuracy when using the built-in convolution function.
  • One participant suggests that the exponential functions cannot be computed numerically due to divergence issues, proposing a restriction of the functions to compare analytical and numerical solutions.
  • Another participant questions the validity of setting the functions to zero outside a certain range to avoid divergence.
  • A participant references a video that discusses multiplying the convolution result by the time step for continuous time signal calculations, seeking clarification on this practice.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definition of convolution and its application to the functions in question. There is no consensus on the validity of the numerical methods used or the implications of divergence in the convolution integral.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the definitions of convolution, the behavior of exponential functions, and the numerical methods employed, which may affect the comparison between analytical and numerical results.

ecastro
Messages
249
Reaction score
8
Considering two functions of ##t##, ##f\left(t\right) = e^{3t}## and ##g\left(t\right) = e^{7t}##, which are to be convolved analytically will result to ##f\left(t\right) \ast g\left(t\right) = \frac{1}{4}\left(e^{7t} - e^{3t}\right)##.

According to a Convolution Theorem, the convolution of two functions can be solved by the use of Fourier Transforms. The theorem states that,

##f\left(t\right) \ast g\left(t\right) = \mathcal{F}^{-1} \left\{\mathcal{F}\left[f\left(t\right)\right] \cdot \mathcal{F}\left[g\left(t\right)\right]\right\}##.

Thus, if I were to transform ##f\left(t\right)## and ##g\left(t\right)##, multiply them per component and take the inverse transform, I should get the same function that was solved analytically. I tried doing this in MatLab, but they're two totally different functions. Also, I tried using MatLab's built-in function for convolution ##\texttt{conv}##, but the resulting size of the matrix is almost twice as large, and the graph is off by several units (although the graph from the Fourier Transform approach and the latter share the same shape). Did I miss anything on why this is so?

Here is my code:
Code:
clear; clc;

t = 0:0.01:1;
y = (1/4).*(exp(7.*t) - exp(3.*t));

f = exp(3.*t); g = exp(7.*t);
F = fft(f); G = fft(g);

FG = ifft(F.*G); FG2 = conv(f, g);
t2 = 0:0.005:1;

The variable ##\texttt{t2}## is for the drawing of the plot of the Fourier Transform approach and the ##\texttt{conv}## approach in the same graph.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How do you get this
ecastro said:
##f\left(t\right) \ast g\left(t\right) = \frac{1}{4}\left(e^{7t} - e^{3t}\right)##.
?
 
blue_leaf77 said:
How do you get this
?

Replacing ##t## to ##x##, ##f\left(x\right) = e^{3x}## and ##g\left(x\right) = e^{7x}##. The definition of convolution is,

##\begin{eqnarray*}f\left(t\right) \ast g\left(t\right) &=& \int^t_0 f\left(x\right) g\left(t - x\right) dx \\
&=& \int^t_0 e^{3x} e^{7\left(t - x\right)} dx \\
&=& \int^t_0 e^{3x} e^{7t} e^{-7x} dx \\
&=& \int^t_0 e^{-4x} e^{7t} dx \\
&=& e^{7t} \int^t_0 e^{-4x} dx \\
&=& e^{7t} \cdot \left.-\frac{1}{4} e^{-4x}\right|^t_0 \\
&=& e^{7t} \left[-\frac{1}{4} e^{-4t} + \frac{1}{4} e^{-4\left(0\right)}\right] \\
&=& e^{7t} \left[-\frac{1}{4} e^{-4t} + \frac{1}{4}\right] \\
&=& -\frac{1}{4} e^{-4t} e^{7t} + \frac{1}{4} e^{7t} \\
&=& \frac{1}{4} \left(e^{7t} - e^{3t}\right) \end{eqnarray*}##
 
To be honest I have never known the definition of convolution you used there. What I know about a convolution between functions ##f(x)## and ##g(x)## is
$$
[f(x) \ast g(x)](t) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(x) g(t-x) dx
$$
 
I restricted my function to an extent so that I can compare it with a numerical solution, or this is not the way to compare an analytical and numerical solution?
 
The exponential functions such as those in your example cannot be calculated using computer to begin with. You can try analytically calculate the convolution using the standard definition I wrote in post #4, you will immediately find that the integral diverges at any ##t##.
 
blue_leaf77 said:
The exponential functions such as those in your example cannot be calculated using computer to begin with.

How about the ##\texttt{exp}## function?

blue_leaf77 said:
You can try analytically calculate the convolution using the standard definition I wrote in post #4, you will immediately find that the integral diverges at any ##t##.

Is my approach valid if I let my function ##f\left(t\right)## and ##g\left(t\right)## be equal to zero for ##t > 1## and for ##t < 0##?
 
In addition, I saw this video:


At the middle of the video, he multiplied the result of the convolution with the value of the time step. He mentioned that it is for the calculation of a continuous time signal result. I don't quite understand why it must be so.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K