Help with 2d convolution formula

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mathematical proof of the two-dimensional convolution of functions f and g under rotation. The user successfully demonstrated that the convolution of rotated functions is equivalent to rotating the convolution of the original functions using the Fourier transform and the convolution theorem. However, they encountered difficulties when attempting to prove this using the definition of convolution. The mistake identified involved the incorrect application of the rotation isometry, leading to confusion in the convolution integral formulation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of two-dimensional convolution and its mathematical definition.
  • Familiarity with Fourier transforms and the convolution theorem.
  • Knowledge of isometries, specifically rotation in R^2.
  • Basic principles of linearity in mathematical functions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of two-dimensional convolution in detail.
  • Explore the application of Fourier transforms in convolution proofs.
  • Investigate isometries and their effects on function transformations.
  • Review linearity principles in the context of mathematical functions.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying advanced calculus or functional analysis, and anyone interested in the applications of convolution in signal processing or image analysis.

mnb96
Messages
711
Reaction score
5
Hello,

I consider two functions [itex]f:R^2 \rightarrow R[/itex] and [itex]g:R^2 \rightarrow R[/itex], and the two dimensional convolution [tex](f \ast g)(\mathbf{x}) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f(\mathbf{t})g(\mathbf{x-t})d^2\mathbf{t}[/tex]
I proved using the Fourier transform and the convolution theorem that the convolution of two "rotated" versions of f and g is equivalent to simply taking the convolution (f*g) and rotating it.

However I have troubles proving these statement using only the definition of convolution. I will show my attempt. There must be a mistake somewhere.

I consider an isometry (rotation) [itex]\phi:R^2\rightarrow R^2[/itex] and the two rotated versions of the functions: [itex]f(\phi(\mathbf{x}))[/itex] and [itex]g(\phi(\mathbf{x}))[/itex].
The convolution would be: [tex]\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f(\phi(\mathbf{t}))g(\mathbf{x}-\phi(\mathbf{t}))d^2\mathbf{t}[/tex] By setting [itex]\mathbf{y}=\phi(\mathbf{t})[/itex] and observing that [itex]d^2y = d^2t[/itex] we get: [tex]\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f(\mathbf{y})g(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})d^2\mathbf{y}[/tex] which is not the expected result. Where is the mistake?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
mnb96 said:
The convolution would be: [tex]\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f(\phi(\mathbf{t}))g(\mathbf{x}-\phi(\mathbf{t}))d^2\mathbf{t}[/tex]
You mean, the convolution of the rotated functions, [tex]f\phi(), g\phi()[/tex]?
Wouldn't that be [tex]\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f(\phi(\mathbf{t})) g(\phi(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{t}))d\mathbf{t}[/tex]
(And [tex]\phi(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{t})=\phi(\mathbf{x})-\phi(\mathbf{t})[/tex], right?)
 
Thanks!
yes. Maybe I was tired and didn't notice that mistake! :redface:
The statement to be proven then follows from the linearity of [itex]\phi[/itex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K