MHB Property of real-valued Fourier transformation

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

When it is given that a signal $x(t)$ has a real-valued Fourier transformation $X(f)$ then is the signal necessarily real-valued?

I have thought the following:

$X_R(ω)=\frac{1}{2}[X(ω)+X^{\star}(ω)]⟺\frac{1}{2}[x(t)+x^{\star}(−t)]=x_e(t) \\ X_I(ω)=\frac{1}{2i} [X(ω)−X^{\star}(ω)]⟺ \frac{1}{2i}[x(t)−x^{\star}(−t)]=−i⋅x_o(t)$

where $X_R(ω)$ and $X_I(ω)$ are the real and imaginary parts of $X(ω)$, and $x_e(t)$ and $x_o(t)$ are the even and odd parts of $x(t)$, respectively.So the odd part of $x$ is $0$ and the even one is real-valued, and so the signal $x(t)$ is real-valued.Is everything correct? Are the above properties known or do we have to derive them? (Wondering)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hey mathmari!

Wiki lists such a property.
If $X(\omega)$ is real, then $x(t)$ is Hermitian. That is, $x(-t)=x^*(t)$.
It still means that $x(t)$ can be imaginary, but the imaginary part must be odd. Additionally the real part must be even. (Nerd)

Consider for instance $X(\omega)=2\pi\delta(\omega-1)$. It's real isn't it?
Its inverse Fourier transform is $x(t)=\cos t+i\sin t$.
As you can see the real part is even and the imaginary part is odd.
Furthermore, the odd part $x_o(t)$ is indeed $0$, but the even part $x_e(t)$ has an imaginary component. (Worried)
 
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