Power series and Laplace transform

ricard.py
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
As it can be read here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace_transform#Relation_to_power_series
the Laplace transform is a continuous analog of a power series in which the discrete parameter n is replaced by the continuous parameter t, and x is replaced by exp(-s).

Therefore, computing a discrete power series or a continuous laplace transform should converge to the same function, is it right?

Let's apply it for the simplest case: a(x)=1

  • For the discrete power series it converges to 1/1-x (provided that -1<x<1)

  • For the continuous power series it converges to 1/s (provided that s>0)
Now, this two should be equivalent right? If you substitute s=-ln(x) you get
-1/ln(x), which is not the same as 1/1-x.

What I am doing wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ricard.py said:
As it can be read here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace_transform#Relation_to_power_series
the Laplace transform is a continuous analog of a power series in which the discrete parameter n is replaced by the continuous parameter t, and x is replaced by exp(-s).

Therefore, computing a discrete power series or a continuous laplace transform should converge to the same function, is it right?

Let's apply it for the simplest case: a(x)=1

  • For the discrete power series it converges to 1/1-x (provided that -1<x<1)

  • For the continuous power series it converges to 1/s (provided that s>0)
Now, this two should be equivalent right? If you substitute s=-ln(x) you get
-1/ln(x), which is not the same as 1/1-x.

What I am doing wrong?

"Replace the discrete parameter n by the continuous paramater t" is not that straightforward.

Doing that literally would require that
<br /> \int_0^\infty f(t)e^{-st}\,dt = \sum_{n=0}^\infty f(n)e^{-ns}<br /> which, as your example shows, is in general false.
What is true is that if you define f(t) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n\delta(t - n) where \delta is the Dirac delta distribution then
<br /> \int_{0^{-}}^\infty f(t)e^{-st}\,dt = \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n e^{-ns}.<br /> Observe that here f(t) = 0 for all non-integer t and that f(t) is not technically defined for integer t; it is not the case that f(n) = a_n.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
In general, your statement "computing a discrete power series or a continuous laplace transform should converge to the same function" is incorrect. Interchanging two limit process does NOT always give the same result.
 
Thread 'Direction Fields and Isoclines'
I sketched the isoclines for $$ m=-1,0,1,2 $$. Since both $$ \frac{dy}{dx} $$ and $$ D_{y} \frac{dy}{dx} $$ are continuous on the square region R defined by $$ -4\leq x \leq 4, -4 \leq y \leq 4 $$ the existence and uniqueness theorem guarantees that if we pick a point in the interior that lies on an isocline there will be a unique differentiable function (solution) passing through that point. I understand that a solution exists but I unsure how to actually sketch it. For example, consider a...

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top