MHB Fourier Transform: Proving $G(z)$ is an Entire Function

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the Fourier transform \( G(z) = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} e^{zt} g(t) dt \) is an entire function. Participants emphasize the need to demonstrate that \( G(z) \) is differentiable at every point in the complex plane, suggesting the use of the definition of the derivative and the continuity of \( G \) to establish this. The conversation also touches on the justification for differentiating under the integral sign, with participants noting that \( g(t) \) can be treated as a constant during differentiation with respect to \( z \). Additionally, the uniform convergence of the series expansion for \( e^{zt} \) is highlighted as a key factor in manipulating the integral. The overall goal is to show that \( G(z) \) has no singularities, confirming its status as an entire function.
Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
Let $g:[-\pi,\pi]\to\mathbb{R}$ be a continuous function. Define the Fourier transform of $g$ as
$$
G(z)=\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}e^{zt}g(t)dt, \quad \text{for all} \ z\in\mathbb{C}.
$$
Prove that $G(z)$ is an entire function.

That means $G$ has to have no singularities, but other than that I am lost. We have to continuous functions multiplied together but then what?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dwsmith said:
Let $g:[-\pi,\pi]\to\mathbb{R}$ be a continuous function. Define the Fourier transform of $g$ as
$$
G(z)=\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}e^{zt}g(t)dt, \quad \text{for all} \ z\in\mathbb{C}.
$$
Prove that $G(z)$ is an entire function.

That means $G$ has to have no singularities, but other than that I am lost. We have to continuous functions multiplied together but then what?
You want to show that $G(z)$ is differentiable at each point $z_0\in\mathbb{C}.$ If you differentiate $G(z)$ naively: $\displaystyle\frac d{dz}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}e^{zt}g(t)\,dt$ (not worrying about how to justify slipping the differentiation operator past the integral sign), then you see that $G'(z_0)$ "ought" to be equal to $H(z_0)$, where $\displaystyle H(z) = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}te^{zt}g(t)\,dt.$

To prove that that is indeed the case, go back to the definition of derivative and show that $$\left|\frac{G(z)-G(z_0)}{z-z_0} - H(z_0)\right| \to0\text{ as }z\to z_0.$$

That should be a reasonably straightforward exercise in epsilons and deltas, using the fact that $G$ is continuous, hence bounded, on $[-\pi,\pi].$
 
Opalg said:
You want to show that $G(z)$ is differentiable at each point $z_0\in\mathbb{C}.$ If you differentiate $G(z)$ naively: $\displaystyle\frac d{dz}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}e^{zt}g(t)\,dt$ (not worrying about how to justify slipping the differentiation operator past the integral sign), then you see that $G'(z_0)$ "ought" to be equal to $H(z_0)$, where $\displaystyle H(z) = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}te^{zt}g(t)\,dt.$

To prove that that is indeed the case, go back to the definition of derivative and show that $$\left|\frac{G(z)-G(z_0)}{z-z_0} - H(z_0)\right| \to0\text{ as }z\to z_0.$$

That should be a reasonably straightforward exercise in epsilons and deltas, using the fact that $G$ is continuous, hence bounded, on $[-\pi,\pi].$

When you differentiated G, why didn't you differentiate via the product? It appears as if you only differentiated e^{zt} and treated g(t) as a constant.

So I need to do:
Given $\epsilon > 0$.

$ \left|\frac{G(z)-G(z_0)}{z-z_0} - H(z_0)\right| < \epsilon \ \ \text{whenever} \ \ 0<|z - z_0|<\delta $
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dwsmith said:
When you differentiated G, why didn't you differentiate via the product? It appears as if you only differentiated e^{zt} and treated g(t) as a constant.
When you are differentiating with respect to $\color{red}z$, $g(t)$ is indeed a constant.
 
Opalg said:
When you are differentiating with respect to $\color{red}z$, $g(t)$ is indeed a constant.

I check that the C.R. equations are satisfied. Could that work as well?
 
Opalg said:
If you differentiate $G(z)$ naively: $\displaystyle\frac d{dz}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}e^{zt}g(t)\,dt$ (not worrying about how to justify slipping the differentiation operator past the integral sign), then you see that $G'(z_0)$ "ought" to be equal to $H(z_0)$, where $\displaystyle H(z) = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}te^{zt}g(t)\,dt.$

Why can we slip the differentiation operator past the integral sign?
 
dwsmith said:
Let $g:[-\pi,\pi]\to\mathbb{R}$ be a continuous function. Define the Fourier transform of $g$ as
$$
G(z)=\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}e^{zt}g(t)dt, \quad \text{for all} \ z\in\mathbb{C}.
$$
Prove that $G(z)$ is an entire function.

That means $G$ has to have no singularities, but other than that I am lost. We have to continuous functions multiplied together but then what?

Ok so $e^{zt} = \sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(zt)^n}{n!}$.

Then
$$
G(z) = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(zt)^ng(t)}{n!}dt
$$

$e^{zt}$ converges uniformly on $[-\pi,\pi]$ so we can write
$$
G(z) = \sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{(zt)^ng(t)}{n!}dt
$$

How can I perform the ratio test on this expression?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K