Fourier transforms of power of a function

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equation relating the integral of the square of the derivative of a function to the sum of the squares of its Fourier transform. Participants express confusion about the validity of the equation and the lack of clarity regarding the summation range on the right-hand side. It is suggested that the equation might be linked to Parseval's theorem and the differentiation property of Fourier transforms. Further clarification is requested on how to properly express the relationship using Fourier transforms and the relevant theorems. The conversation highlights the need for precise definitions and conditions in mathematical expressions.
sumesh.pt
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I am not able to comprehend this :
/int dx (df(x)/dx)^2 = \sum (q^2 F(q)^2 where F(q) is the Fourier transform of f(x).

Can some one throw light?
thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm typesetting your attempt at LaTeX properly so that I can read it:

sumesh.pt said:
I am not able to comprehend this :
\int\, dx \left(\frac{df(x)}{dx}\right)^2 = \sum q^2 F(q)^2

where F(q) is the Fourier transform of f(x).

Can some one throw light?
thanks.
 
I don't think that the equation, as it stands, is true. It's also not very clear because you haven't specified what range you are summing over on the right-hand side. If you told me that the Fourier transform of what was on the left-hand side was equal to the right-hand side, I might believe it. Because you mentioned the power of signal, I suspect that this might be a combination of Parseval's relation for Fourier transforms (or series?) and the differentiation property of said transform (or series).
 
Thanks for the reply.
In RHS summation is over all possible q. Could you please clarify the last part of your explanation where you say that it would be true if it is written as FT(LHS) and use a combination of Parsevals theorem and some differentiation property. How do I see that?
Thanks.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
485
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top