Fourier transform of rect(x/2)*comb(x) + sketch

AI Thread Summary
The Fourier Transform of the function f(x) = rect(x/2) * comb(x) results in F(u) = 2sinc(2u) * comb(u). The sinc function is defined as sinc(u) = sin(pi u)/(pi u), which affects the graphing of the result. The graph consists of sampled points along 2sinc(2u) at the period of comb(u), leading to a point of 2 at u=0 and zeros at other integer values. The assumption that the graph is simply {2,0,0,...,0} for all n>=0 is confirmed, highlighting the straightforward nature of the problem. The discussion also notes a potential misplacement of the thread in the forum categories.
scholzie
Messages
75
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Take the Fourier Transform of f(x)=rect(x/2)*comb(x) where rect is the rectangle function and comb is the Dirac comb. Sketch the results.

Homework Equations


The FT of a convolution is the product of the individual FTs.


The Attempt at a Solution


Taking the FT is pretty simple, but it's the graph that I'm a little confused about. If we take the FT of f(x)<->F(u)

F(u)=2sinc(2u)comb(u), if we define sinc(u)=sin(pi u)/(pi u), rather than the other way which leaves out pi.

The graph of such a function is simply the sampling of points along 2sinc(2u) at the period of comb(u), which should just be 1. Therefore at u=0, you'd have a point of 2 (although 2sinc(2u) isn't defined at u=0, though I believe it's commonly considered to be defined as its limit, which in this case is 2). All of the other integer values of 2sinc(2u) are simply 0.

Am I correct in assuming that the graph of 2sinc(2u)comb(u) is just {2,0,0,...,0} for all n>=0?

This seems like a silly answer for a problem, but maybe that's the point. I just have a tendency to second guess myself when given a stupid problem with a simple answer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry, this thread should be in Calculus & Beyond. I thought I was in that forum before I posted. If a mod could move it, I'd appreciate not having to re-post it.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...

Similar threads

Back
Top