Laplace transform linearity problem

In summary, the conversation discussed the Laplace Transform of a u(t)*e^(-t/4) function and the confusion regarding the resulting equation. It is clarified that the Laplace Transform for this function is (1/(s+1/4)) and not (1/s)*(1/(s+1/4)), as the latter is not a correct application of the Laplace Transform definition. The concept of transforming a product is also mentioned and the correct result is explained.
  • #1
Frankenstein19
56
0
TL;DR Summary
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)).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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?
 
  • #3
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
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top