MHB Is the half interval Fourier series for f(x)=x over (0,L) correct?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on finding the sine Fourier series for the function f(x)=x over the interval (0,L). A mistake was identified in the calculation of the coefficient b_n, specifically in the evaluation of the first term of the integral. The correct evaluation yields b_n = -L/(nπ), contrasting with the book's result. The book's series, which is for f(x)=1, is mistakenly attributed to f(x)=x. Clarification is needed to resolve the discrepancies between the calculations and the book's answer.
ognik
Messages
626
Reaction score
2
Please help me find my mistake - "find the Sine F/series of f(x)=x over the half-interval (0,L)"

I get $ b_n=\frac 2L \int_{0}^{L}x Sin \frac{2n\pi x}{L} \,dx $

$ = \frac 2L \left[ x(-Cos \frac{2n\pi x}{L}. \frac{L}{2n\pi x}\right] + \frac {1}{n\pi} \int_{0}^{L} Cos \frac{2n\pi x}{L} \,dx$ ... and the 2nd term evals to 0

$ = -\frac{L}{n\pi}Cos 2n \pi $ but the book gives something very different.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ognik said:
Please help me find my mistake - "find the Sine F/series of f(x)=x over the half-interval (0,L)"

I get $ b_n=\frac 2L \int_{0}^{L}x Sin \frac{2n\pi x}{L} \,dx $

$ = \frac 2L \left[ x(-Cos \frac{2n\pi x}{L}. \frac{L}{2n\pi x}\right] + \frac {1}{n\pi} \int_{0}^{L} Cos \frac{2n\pi x}{L} \,dx$ ... and the 2nd term evals to 0

$ = -\frac{L}{n\pi}Cos 2n \pi $ but the book gives something very different.

Hi ognik,

The first term should be:
$$\frac 2L \left[ x(-\cos \frac{2n\pi x}{L} \cdot \frac{L}{2n\pi})\right]_0^L
=-\frac 1{n\pi} \left[ x \cos \frac{2n\pi x}{L}\right]_0^L
=-\frac 1{n\pi} [L\cdot 1 - 0\cdot 1]
= -\frac L{n\pi}
$$
 
Thanks ILS (I have a typo in my last line, left out the 1/L)

The book gives $x=\frac 4\pi \sum_{n-0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2n+1} Sin \frac{(2n+1)\pi x}{L} $ (I assume they mean f(x)=)
 
ognik said:
Thanks ILS (I have a typo in my last line, left out the 1/L)

The book gives $x=\frac 4\pi \sum_{n-0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2n+1} Sin \frac{(2n+1)\pi x}{L} $ (I assume they mean f(x)=)

Looks like there is a mix-up.
That series belongs to f(x)=1.
 
There are probably loads of proofs of this online, but I do not want to cheat. Here is my attempt: Convexity says that $$f(\lambda a + (1-\lambda)b) \leq \lambda f(a) + (1-\lambda) f(b)$$ $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (f(a) - f(b))$$ We know from the intermediate value theorem that there exists a ##c \in (b,a)## such that $$\frac{f(a) - f(b)}{a-b} = f'(c).$$ Hence $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (a - b) f'(c))$$ $$\frac{f(b + \lambda(a-b)) - f(b)}{\lambda(a-b)}...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
9K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K