Laplace transform linearity problem

Frankenstein19
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Don't understand why the Laplace transform for a u(t)*e^(-t/4) isn't (1/s)*(1/(s+1/4)). The book im reading says it's(1/(s+1/4))
1598842591579.png

I've included the problem statement and a bit about the function but my main issue is with the equation after "then" and the one with the red asterisk. I don't understand why the Laplace transform for a u(t)*e^(-t/4) isn't (1/s)*(1/(s+1/4)). The book I am reading says it's(1/(s+1/4)).
 
Hi,

This follows from the definition of the Laplace Transform:
[tex]F(s) = \int_0^\infty f(t) e^{-st} dt[/tex]

We know that [itex]u(t) = 1[/itex] for [itex]t \geq 0[/itex] so it just becomes a 1 in our integral:
[tex]F(s) = \int_0^\infty e^{-t/4} e^{-st} dt = \int_0^\infty e^{-t/4} e^{-st} dt = \int_0^\infty e^{-t(s + \frac{1}{4})} dt[/tex]

and you can get to the result from there.

Hope that helps. What made you think it ought to have an extra [itex]\frac{1}{s}[/itex] term?
 
It is not generally the case that the transform of a product is equal to the product of the transforms.

In this case from first principles:
[tex] \int_0^\infty u(t) e^{-at} e^{-st}\,dt = \int_0^\infty e^{-(s + a)t}\,dt = \frac{1}{s + a}[/tex] since [itex]u(t) = 1[/itex] for all [itex]t \in (0, \infty)[/itex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K