MHB Number Theory for Electronic Signal Frequency Synthesis

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on an electrical engineer's challenge in designing frequency synthesizers, specifically finding a suitable value for P2 that meets certain modular conditions. The engineer seeks a P2 that, when F mod P1 = 0, ensures F mod P2 is greater than a fixed constant C, with P1 set at 50. Suggestions include using a rational formula for P2 based on F and C or iterating through potential P2 values to find a solution. The conversation highlights the practical nature of the problem, indicating that while number theory could provide insights, the solution ultimately requires an engineering approach. The engineer plans to implement a brute-force search using Matlab to explore potential solutions.
Garan
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I am new to this forum. I am an electrical engineer designing frequency synthesizers for electronic test and measurement equipment.

I have a design problem and I think that number theory could help me solve it. I'm not a mathematician, so I will state the problem the best I can.

Definitions:
F. Any number between 4000 and 8000
P1 = 50, or other predetermined constant.
P2. Unknown
When F mod P1 = 0, is there a value P2 such that F mod P2 >= C?C is a fixed number, for example 10.

Thank you.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Garan said:
I am new to this forum. I am an electrical engineer designing frequency synthesizers for electronic test and measurement equipment.

I have a design problem and I think that number theory could help me solve it. I'm not a mathematician, so I will state the problem the best I can.

Definitions:
F. Any number between 4000 and 8000
P1 = 50, or other predetermined constant.
P2. Unknown
When F mod P1 = 0, is there a value P2 such that F mod P2 >= C?C is a fixed number, for example 10.

Thank you.

Hi Garan! Welcome to MHB! ;)

Just to clarify, suppose we pick P2=8001. Doesn't that already satisfy your requirement?
 
I like Serena said:
Hi Garan! Welcome to MHB! ;)

Just to clarify, suppose we pick P2=8001. Doesn't that already satisfy your requirement?

P2 is restricted to something similar to P1.

P1 and P2 represent reference frequencies generated by two different crystal oscillators. For various design reasons, it would be best if P2 is "similar" to P1. P2 preferably should be an integer, but can be a rational number.

For example if P1 is 50 and P2 were 55, then this is realizable in the hardware.
But for certain values of F between 4000 and 8000, F mod P1 = 0 and F mod P2 will also get close to 0. I would like to be able to find a value of P2 that will keep F mod P2 > some constant C, (10 for example) whenever F mod P1 = 0.
 
Garan said:
P2 is restricted to something similar to P1.

P1 and P2 represent reference frequencies generated by two different crystal oscillators. For various design reasons, it would be best if P2 is "similar" to P1. P2 preferably should be an integer, but can be a rational number.

For example if P1 is 50 and P2 were 55, then this is realizable in the hardware.
But for certain values of F between 4000 and 8000, F mod P1 = 0 and F mod P2 will also get close to 0. I would like to be able to find a value of P2 that will keep F mod P2 > some constant C, (10 for example) whenever F mod P1 = 0.

Well... suppose we pick F, P1, and C, then we can pick a rational P2:
$$P_2 = P_1\left(1+\frac C F\right)$$
so we'll have:
$$F \bmod P_2 = C$$

Alternatively, we can iterate $P_2$ one frequency at a time until we find one that gives a sufficient modulo.
 
I like Serena said:
Well... suppose we pick F, P1, and C, then we can pick a rational P2:
$$P_2 = P_1\left(1+\frac C F\right)$$
so we'll have:
$$F \bmod P_2 = C$$

Alternatively, we can iterate $P_2$ one frequency at a time until we find one that gives a sufficient modulo.

Thank you. I will use Matlab to do the brute-force search based on your suggestions.

I was hoping for that there was an elegant closed-form solution from number theory :)
 
Garan said:
Thank you. I will use Matlab to do the brute-force search based on your suggestions.

I was hoping for that there was an elegant closed-form solution from number theory :)

Well... suppose we tweak your problem statement a bit.
Let's make it: given $F \bmod P_1 = 0$, find $P_2$ such that $F \bmod P_2 = C$, where $C = \left\lfloor\frac{P_1}{2}\right\rfloor$.
Then we have $F = C + kP_2$ for some integer $k$.
That means $kP_2 = F - C$.
So if we factor $F-C$ in any way, we find $k$ and $P_2$.

Unfortunately we don't have any real conditions on $P_2$.
Rather, it seems that we're searching for a practical way to find some $P_2$ that does what we want within certain practical boundaries.
That's not really a number theory problem, that's more like asking for a practical down-to-earth engineering solution.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top