Do Fourier transforms always converge to 0 at the extreme ends?

AI Thread Summary
Fourier transforms do not always converge to zero at the extreme ends, particularly for periodic signals, which are discrete in the frequency domain and do not approach zero at infinity. The first term in integration by parts tends to zero due to the properties of functions satisfying Dirichlet conditions, but this does not imply that the function itself converges to zero as x approaches infinity. A finite integral of the absolute value of the function is a reasonable condition for the Fourier transform to behave sensibly, but it does not guarantee convergence to zero. The relationship between Fourier series and transforms is complex, especially for periodic functions, which can lead to Dirac delta functions in their transforms. Understanding these nuances is essential for correctly applying Fourier analysis in various contexts.
nabeel17
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
From -infinity to infinity at the extreme ends do Fourier transforms always converge to 0? I know in the case of signals, you can never have an infinite signal so it does go to 0, but speaking in general if you are taking the Fourier transform of f(x)

If you do integration by parts, you get a term (f(x)e^ikx evaluated from -infinity to infinity why does this always = 0?
 
  • Like
Likes kq6up
Physics news on Phys.org
nabeel17 said:
From -infinity to infinity at the extreme ends do Fourier transforms always converge to 0?
No, not always. If a signal is periodic in one domain then it is discrete in the other domain. So if you have a signal which is discrete in time, then it is periodic in frequency. Since it is periodic in frequency it does not converge to 0 at infinity.
 
DaleSpam said:
No, not always. If a signal is periodic in one domain then it is discrete in the other domain. So if you have a signal which is discrete in time, then it is periodic in frequency. Since it is periodic in frequency it does not converge to 0 at infinity.

Ok then why is it that we the first term in the integration by parts goes to 0 then regardless of the function (Whether it is periodic or not)? For example when finding the Fourier transform of a derivative F[d/dx] = ∫d/dxf(x)e^ikx= f(x)e^ikx evaluated -infinity to infinity -ik∫f(x)e^ikx

the first term = 0, why is that? If it were a wave function like in QM then it makes sense because the area under the wave function must be finite and converge to 0 at the extremes for it to have a probability density, but why here?
 
nabeel17 said:
Ok then why is it that we the first term in the integration by parts goes to 0 then regardless of the function (Whether it is periodic or not)? For example when finding the Fourier transform of a derivative F[d/dx] = ∫d/dxf(x)e^ikx= f(x)e^ikx evaluated -infinity to infinity -ik∫f(x)e^ikx

the first term = 0, why is that? If it were a wave function like in QM then it makes sense because the area under the wave function must be finite and converge to 0 at the extremes for it to have a probability density, but why here?
I think that the various properties of the Fourier transform all assume that f satisfies the Dirichlet conditions.
 
The OP is asking about Fourier transforms, not Fourier series (of periodic functions) which is what #2 and #4 appear to be about.

A reasonable condition for Fourier transforms to behave sensibly is that ##\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}|f(x)|dx## is finite. Note that if you use Lebesque measure to define integration, that does not imply ##f(x)## converges to 0 as x tends to infinity. ##f(x)## can take any values on a set of measure zero.

(Also note, "reasonable" does not necessarily mean either "necessary" or "sufficient"!)

The mathematical correspondence between Fourier series and Fourier transforms is not quite "obvious", since the Fourier transform of a periodic function (defined by an integral with an infinite range) involves Dirac delta functions, and indeed the Fourier transform of a periodic function is identically zero except on a set of measure zero (i.e. the points usually called the "Fourier coefficients").

On the other hand if you integrate over one period of a periodic function, it is a lot simpler to get to some practical results, even if you have to skate over why the math "really" works out that way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top