[Proof] Fourier Coefficients = zero => function zero

nonequilibrium
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
2
Hello!

How do I prove
If an integrable function f, 2pi-periodic, has all its Fourier coefficients equal to zero, then f is almost everywhere zero itself.
?

Thank you!

(it can be proven by using the convergence of the Fourier series in L_p-norm, but I want to use the above result to prove the convergence in L_2-norm, so I want to avoid that)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Can you use Parseval's theorem? If the Fourier coefficients are zero, then the time-integrated power in the function is also zero, so the function itself must be zero.
 
marcusl said:
Can you use Parseval's theorem? If the Fourier coefficients are zero, then the time-integrated power in the function is also zero, so the function itself must be zero.
Parseval's theorem is the L2 convergence theorem, which is what he is trying to prove.
 
Hm thank you both.

So is there another suggestion?
 
You can Google Parseval's theorem.
 
It's always hard to suggest what to do for a proof, because we don't know what the starting point is, but I would be inclined to use uniqueness of the Fourier transformation plus the fact that a Fourier transformation is (more or less) its own inverse.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top