Proof of the convolution theorem for laplace transform

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the convolution theorem for the Laplace transform, focusing on the mathematical steps involved in deriving the relationship between the Laplace transforms of two functions and their convolution. Participants explore the implications of variable changes in the context of the proof.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the variable changes in the proof, questioning how the proof transitions from f(t) and g(t) to f(a) and g(b).
  • Another participant provides a detailed mathematical formulation of the Laplace transforms and the convolution integral, leading to the conclusion that the Laplace transform of the convolution is the product of the individual Laplace transforms.
  • A later reply questions whether the limits of integration for the Laplace convolution should be from 0 to t instead of 0 to infinity, suggesting a potential misunderstanding or alternative interpretation of the convolution limits.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus on the limits of integration for the convolution, indicating that multiple views remain on this aspect of the proof.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes unresolved questions regarding the assumptions made in the proof, particularly concerning the variable changes and the limits of integration in the convolution definition.

O.J.
Messages
198
Reaction score
0
My textbook provides a proof but there's one thing about the proof i do not understand

it starts assuming L{f(t)} = the laplace integral with the f(t) changed to f(a)

same goes with L{g(t)} as it changes it to g(b)

i understand the big picture>>starting from a product of 2 L transforms and working ur way back to an expression in terms of the two functions transformed, but how can u change the variable for f and g when we started off stating f of T and g of T.?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Am I not presenting my questions clearly?
 
Let

[tex]F(s)=\mathcal{L}\{f(t)\}=\int_0^{+\infty}e^{-s\,t}\,d\,t\,f(t) \quad \text{and} \quad <br /> G(s)=\mathcal{L}\{g(t)\}=\int_0^{+\infty}e^{-s\,t}\,g(t)\,d\,t[/tex]

be the two Laplace transormations and let's denote

[tex](f\star g)(t)=\int_0^{+\infty}f(\tau)\,g(t-\tau)\,d\,\tau[/tex]

the convolution of [tex]f,\,g[/tex].

Thus the Laplace transform for the convolution would be

[tex]\mathcal{L}\{(f\star g)(t)\}=\int_0^{+\infty}e^{-s\,t}\left( \int_0^{+\infty}f(\tau)\,g(t-\tau)\,d\,\tau \right)\,d\,t =\int_0^{+\infty}\int_0^{+\infty}e^{-s\,t}f(\tau)\,g(t-\tau)\,d\,\tau \,d\,t \quad (1)[/tex]

The above double integral is to be evaluated in the domain [tex]\mathcal{D}=\{(t,\tau): t \in (0,+\infty),\tau \in (0,+\infty)\}[/tex].

Performing the change of variables
[tex](t,\tau)\rightarrow (u,v): t=u+v, \, \tau=v[/tex] with [tex]u \in (0,+\infty),v \in (0,+\infty)[/tex] we have [tex]d\,\tau\,d\,t=d\,u\,d\,v[/tex] since the Jacobian equals to 1. Thus (1) becomes

[tex]\mathcal{L}\{(f\star g)(t)\}=\int_0^{+\infty}\int_0^{+\infty}e^{-s\,(u+v)}f(u)\,g(v)\,d\,u\,d\,v= \int_0^{+\infty}e^{-s\,u}f(u)\,d\,u \cdot \int_0^{+\infty}e^{-s\,v}\,g(v)\,d\,v[/tex]

yielding to

[tex]\mathcal{L}\{(f\star g)(t)\}=\mathcal{L}\{f(t)\} \cdot \mathcal{L}\{g(t)\}[/tex]

Nothing but double integrals! :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davidbenari
Isn't the laplace convolution between 0 and t rather than 0 and infinity?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K