Laplace transform of dirac delta function

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the Laplace transform of the Dirac delta function and the application of a specific formula for functions with finite jumps. The formula presented, L{F'(t)}=s f(s)-F(0)-[F(t0+0)-F(t0-0)]*exp(-s t0), is questioned for its application to the unit step function. There is a suggestion that the term accounting for the discontinuity may not be necessary when dealing with the unit step function, which is simpler without the discontinuity. The confusion arises from the expectation that the Laplace transform of the delta function should yield a non-zero result, while the application of the formula leads to zero. Clarification is sought on the correct application of the formula in this context.
Kambiz_Veshgini
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
let S be the Unit Step function

for a function with a finite jump at t0 we have:

(*) L{F'(t)}=s f(s)-F(0)-[F(t0+0)-F(t0-0)]*exp(-s t0)]

so:

L{S'(t-k)}=s exp(-s k)/s-0-[1-0]*exp(-s k) = 0 & k>0

but S'(t-k)=deltadirac(t-k) and we know that L{deltadirac(t-k)}=exp(-s k)

so why do I get ZERO when using the formula (*)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Kambiz_Veshgini said:
let S be the Unit Step function

for a function with a finite jump at t0 we have:

(*) L{F'(t)}=s f(s)-F(0)-[F(t0+0)-F(t0-0)]*exp(-s t0)]

Ok, I'm not familiar with that one, but I think you're mis-applying it.

The expression I'm familar with is just the L{F'(t)}=s f(s)-F(0) part.

My suspicion is that the [F(t0+0)-F(t0-0)]*exp(-s t0)] is just inserted to manually take care of the dirac impulse that results from the finite discontinuity and that in this case the f(s) you should be using is that of the original function without the discontinuity. Note that the unit step without the step is a pretty simple function. :)
 
Last edited:
Good morning I have been refreshing my memory about Leibniz differentiation of integrals and found some useful videos from digital-university.org on YouTube. Although the audio quality is poor and the speaker proceeds a bit slowly, the explanations and processes are clear. However, it seems that one video in the Leibniz rule series is missing. While the videos are still present on YouTube, the referring website no longer exists but is preserved on the internet archive...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
28K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K