How can the Fourier series equation be used to represent the sawtooth function?

Winzer
Messages
597
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove:
f(t)=\sum_{i=1}^\infty (-1)^{n+1} \frac{Sin(n\omega t)}{n}
represents the sawtooth function.

Homework Equations



Fourier Series Equations:
f(t)=\frac{a_0}{2}+\sum_{i=0}^\infty \left(a_n Cos(nt)+b_n Sin(nt) \right)
where
a_n=\frac{2}{T}\int_{t}^{t+T} dt cos(nt) f(t)
b_n=\frac{2}{T}\int_{t}^{t+T} dt sin(nt) f(t)
a_0=\frac{2}{T}\int_{t}^{t+T} dt f(t)

The Attempt at a Solution


I see from wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series that they get
f(t)=2 \sum_{i=1}^\infty (-1)^{n+1} \frac{Sin(n\omega t)}{n}
Is this 2 out in front because of their series is twice the period (T) of the one I'm given?

Anyways. The way I go about this is to first take out the a_n since this is an odd function. The part I am stuck on is the limits of integration. The period is the time it takes to travel from the bottom of the sawtooth wave to the top of one right? So should T be (in the case of my given equation) -\frac{\pi}{2} to \frac{\pi}{2}?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Multiplying by two changes the amplitude of a function, not it's period. What's your definition of the sawtooth exactly?
 
Dick said:
Multiplying by two changes the amplitude of a function, not it's period. What's your definition of the sawtooth exactly?
If you refer to the picture in the link that is saw tooth. My professor gave me a mathematica notebook with that exact picture; plotted with the equation I am suppose to prove. He graphed it with \omega=2\pi. The amplitude appears greater then 1 though.
 
So the amplitude just needs to be divided by 2?
I start off with:

<br /> b_n=\frac{1}{T}\int_{t}^{t+T} dt sin(nt) f(t) <br />

?
 
Winzer said:
So the amplitude just needs to be divided by 2?
I start off with:

<br /> b_n=\frac{1}{T}\int_{t}^{t+T} dt sin(nt) f(t) <br />

?

No. The original formula you gave is correct, T=2pi. The 2 in the wikipedia comes from doing the integration. I don't think there is anything wrong with the definitions, you just aren't calculating something correctly.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top