How Do You Solve a Discrete Convolution Sum with Step Functions?

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 3K views
Xyius
Messages
501
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


Find ##x[n] \ast h[n]## when ##x[n] = 3 u[2-n]## and ##h[n] = 4\left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{n+2}u[n+4]## where ##u[n-k]## is the unit step function.

Homework Equations


None really

The Attempt at a Solution



So I know this is probably simple but I am confused.

So the convolution is written as,

[tex]\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} 4\left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{k+2}u[k+4](3)u[2-n+k][/tex]

This simplifies to,

[tex]3\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{k}u[k+4]u[2-n+k][/tex]

The first step function of ##u[k+4]## means that the terms in the sum corresponding to ## k < -4 ## are zero, therefore this becomes the bottom limit.

[tex]3\sum_{k=-4}^{\infty} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{k}u[2-n+k][/tex]

This form is confusing to me. I don't see an obvious limit on k except for that its LOWER limit is ##n-2##. What I tried to do is do some change of variables, such as ##k'=2-n+k##, this changes the lower limit to -2-n and the upper limit to infinity. So I have...

[tex]3\sum_{k'=-2-n}^{\infty} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{k'-2+n}u[k'][/tex]

So this means that ##k'## must be larger than zero, which means ## n < -2##. So in this regime, the step function is 1 and I get..

[tex]3\sum_{k'=0}^{\infty} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{k'-2+n}=3\left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{n-1}[/tex]

Am I doing this correctly? I am just not sure. Thank you in advance for anyone that takes the time to read this!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Xyius said:

Homework Statement


Find ##x[n] \ast h[n]## when ##x[n] = 3 u[2-n]## and ##h[n] = 4\left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{n+2}u[n+4]## where ##u[n-k]## is the unit step function.

Homework Equations


None really

The Attempt at a Solution



So I know this is probably simple but I am confused.

So the convolution is written as,

[tex]\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} 4\left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{k+2}u[k+4](3)u[2-n+k][/tex]

This simplifies to,

[tex]3\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{k}u[k+4]u[2-n+k][/tex]

The first step function of ##u[k+4]## means that the terms in the sum corresponding to ## k < -4 ## are zero, therefore this becomes the bottom limit.

[tex]3\sum_{k=-4}^{\infty} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{k}u[2-n+k][/tex]

This form is confusing to me. I don't see an obvious limit on k except for that its LOWER limit is ##n-2##. What I tried to do is do some change of variables, such as ##k'=2-n+k##, this changes the lower limit to -2-n and the upper limit to infinity. So I have...

[tex]3\sum_{k'=-2-n}^{\infty} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{k'-2+n}u[k'][/tex]

So this means that ##k'## must be larger than zero, which means ## n < -2##. So in this regime, the step function is 1 and I get..

[tex]3\sum_{k'=0}^{\infty} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{k'-2+n}=3\left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{n-1}[/tex]

Am I doing this correctly? I am just not sure. Thank you in advance for anyone that takes the time to read this!

I don't see how the substitution is any improvement. Since both step functions have to be simultaneously ##1## I get:
[tex]3\sum_{k=max\{-4, n-2\}}^{\infty} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{k}[/tex]
which leaves you two cases. Is ##n## a natural number or another integer?
 
fresh_42 said:
I don't see how the substitution is any improvement. Since both step functions have to be simultaneously ##1## I get:
[tex]3\sum_{k=max\{-4, n-2\}}^{\infty} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{k}[/tex]
which leaves you two cases. Is ##n## a natural number or another integer?

##n## is an integer. And I believe must be smaller than -2 from what I showed here. So that would mean the max value in the lower limit should be -4? Then I could just expand out until k=0 and use a geometric sum.
 
Xyius said:
##n## is an integer. And I believe must be smaller than -2 from what I showed here. So that would mean the max value in the lower limit should be -4? Then I could just expand out until k=0 and use a geometric sum.
Yes. Except that I'm not certain about your assumption on ##n##. But that will only give you a factor depending on ##n##. If you can calculate it for ##k = -4## you should as well be able to calculate it for ##k=n-2## regardless what ##n## is.