How Do You Prove the Fourier Transform Definition Using Integral Evaluation?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the Fourier transform definition for a continuous non-periodic function by evaluating integrals. Participants explore the substitution of the Fourier coefficient c(k) into the Fourier transform equation, leading to a complex integral that requires further manipulation. The use of the Dirac Delta function is suggested as a key step in simplifying the integral, with emphasis on its properties and definitions. A limiting argument involving the Dirichlet Kernel is proposed to demonstrate convergence to the original function as the limits approach infinity. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the conditions under which these mathematical properties hold true.
Matt Chu
Messages
16
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Given a continuous non-periodic function, its Fourier transform is defined as:

$$f(x) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty c(k) e^{ikx} dk, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ c(k) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x) e^{-ikx} dx$$

The problem is proving this is true by evaluating the integral when ##c(k)## is plugged into the equation for ##f(x)##.

Homework Equations



$$f(x) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty c(k) e^{ikx} dk$$
$$c(k) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x) e^{-ikx} dx$$

The Attempt at a Solution



This ends up with a long integral:

$$f(x) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \left( \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x') e^{-ikx'} dx' \right) e^{ikx} dk$$

I'm not sure really how to proceed from here. I moved the ##e^{ikx}## into the inner integral, which I figured was fine since it's constant relative to ##x'##.

$$f(x) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \left( \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x') e^{ik(x-x')} dx' \right) dk$$

I tried to kill at least one of the integrals by seeing if something evaluated to a Dirac Delta but I can't seem to get that result. I also tried integrating by parts, but that led me nowhere.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Use the fact that: ##\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\exp(ik(x-x'))dk/2\pi = \delta(x-x')##.
 
MathematicalPhysicist said:
Use the fact that: ##\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\exp(ik(x-x'))dk/2\pi = \delta(x-x')##.

Is there an issue with the the bounds of integration in this case? I wouldn't think so but I'm not positive.
 
Matt Chu said:
Is there an issue with the the bounds of integration in this case? I wouldn't think so but I'm not positive.
No there's no issue.

I think but not sure that that is one of the many definitions of Dirac Delta Distribution (DDD).
Anyway, you can search google or wiki for further explanations.
 
MathematicalPhysicist said:
No there's no issue.

I think but not sure that that is one of the many definitions of Dirac Delta Distribution (DDD).
Anyway, you can search google or wiki for further explanations.
If you take that as the definition of the delta distribution then you must show that it has the other properties that are more common to use for its definition. If you define it (more normally) by its integral property, then you must show that what is given is actually a representation of the delta distribution. This is often done in a hand-waving manner in introductory courses.
 
Matt Chu said:

Homework Statement



Given a continuous non-periodic function, its Fourier transform is defined as:

$$f(x) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty c(k) e^{ikx} dk, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ c(k) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x) e^{-ikx} dx$$

The problem is proving this is true by evaluating the integral when ##c(k)## is plugged into the equation for ##f(x)##.

Homework Equations



$$f(x) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty c(k) e^{ikx} dk$$
$$c(k) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x) e^{-ikx} dx$$

The Attempt at a Solution



This ends up with a long integral:

$$f(x) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \left( \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x') e^{-ikx'} dx' \right) e^{ikx} dk$$

I'm not sure really how to proceed from here. I moved the ##e^{ikx}## into the inner integral, which I figured was fine since it's constant relative to ##x'##.

$$f(x) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \left( \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x') e^{ik(x-x')} dx' \right) dk$$

I tried to kill at least one of the integrals by seeing if something evaluated to a Dirac Delta but I can't seem to get that result. I also tried integrating by parts, but that led me nowhere.

You can do it by a limiting argument; that is the way every treatment I have ever seen has done it. Define
$$c(k) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x') e^{-ikx'} dx'$$
and
$$f_K(x) = \int_{-K}^K c(k) e^{ikx} dk$$
We want the value of ##\lim_{K \to \infty} f_K(x).##

Note that
$$f_K(x) = \int_{ -\infty}^{\infty} f(x') D_K(x-x') \, dx' = \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x-y) D_K(y) \, dy$$
where
$$D_K(y) = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{-K}^K e^{iky} \, dk = \frac{1}{\pi} \frac{\sin(Ky)}{y}.$$
The function ##D_K(y)## is sharply peaked at ##y = 0##, and ##\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} D_K(y) \, dy = 1##--see the link below. Intuitively, this suggests that as ##K \to \infty## the integral of ## f(x-y) D_K(y)## will just pick out the value ##f(x)## coming from ##y = 0##. That is, ##\lim_{K \to \infty} D_K(y) = \delta(y).##

In fact, this is not quite true. What can be proven is that for "reasonably nice functions" ##f(x)##---absolutely integrable, of bounded variation on finite intervals and having a finite number of jump discontinuities on finite intervals---we will have
$$\lim_{K \to \infty} f_K(x) = \frac{1}{2} [ f(x+) + f(x-) ],$$
where ##f(x+)## and ##f(x-)## are the right-hand and left-hand limits of ##f(y)## as ##y \to x##; that is,
$$ f(x+) = \lim_{y \downarrow x} f(y), \;\; f(x-) = \lim_{y \uparrow x} f(y).$$ Of course we have ##f_K(x) \to f(x)## at any point where ##f(x)## is continuous.

The function ##D_K(y)## is called the Dirichlet Kernel, and is well-studied in Fourier series treatments; the convergence theorems proved for Fourier series go through for Fourier transforms, because they both involve limits of integrals like ##f_K(x)## above.

See, eg., http://www.sosmath.com/fourier/fourier3/fourier31.html#proof3 . Be sure to click on the word "proof" that appears a few times in that article. Better still, go to the library and take out a book about Fourier series.
 
Last edited:
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K