If the z-transform of x[n] is X(z)

  • Thread starter Thread starter symsane
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Z-transform
symsane
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
If the z-transform of x[n] is X(z), then what is the z-transform of x[n+1] in terms of X(z) ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


symsane said:
If the z-transform of x[n] is X(z), then what is the z-transform of x[n+1] in terms of X(z) ?
There is a shift theorem, similar to the other kinds of reciprocal transforms. To prove it, just change n to n' in the sum, replace n' by n+1, and then shift the sum back to n.
 


OK I know this Shift Theorem, but I have a problem with it. If the z-transform of x[n] is X(z), I can solve the z-transform of x[n-1] in terms of X(z) and what I found is X(z)z-1+x[-1]. However what is the solution if I want to solve the z-transform of x[n+1] in terms of X(z) ? Or in this case, I can ask this question: How can I solve the z-transform of x[n] if I know the z-transform x[n-1] in terms of X(z) ( As I found x[n-1] = X(z)z-1+x[-1])?
 


I searched the net and I found left shift of z-transform. In this question it is very useful.When we applied this definition we acquire the solution.
 


symsane said:
If the z-transform of x[n] is X(z), I can solve the z-transform of x[n-1] in terms of X(z) and what I found is X(z)z-1+x[-1].
OK, so you are using the UNILATERAL transform (i.e. for causal systems). So, you should see some similarities to the Laplace transform. If you've studied transient response of LTI circuit, the Laplace transform is what you (probably) use there.



symsane said:
... I want to solve the z-transform of x[n+1] in terms of X(z) ?
If you know how to prove the result that you have above for xn-1, then you should be able to do this. Did you read my previous post? Are you having trouble arranging terms in the summation?

EDIT: Sorry, I had a typo in a previous post. I will restate the procedure:

Change n to n' in the sum. Replace n' with n-1. Of course, if you do what I said in the previous post, that will not give you a wrong answer, but it will not help either.
 
Last edited:
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top