- #1

ainster31

- 158

- 1

Why is the math in the red box necessary? According to this definition, it isn't:

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter ainster31
- Start date

- #1

ainster31

- 158

- 1

Why is the math in the red box necessary? According to this definition, it isn't:

- #2

tiny-tim

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 25,838

- 255

Why is the math in the red box necessary? According to this definition, it isn't:

sorry, i don't understand your question …

the red box proves that (φ

- #3

ainster31

- 158

- 1

hi ainster31!

sorry, i don't understand your question …

the red box proves that (φ_{0}, φ_{n}) = 0 (for n ≠ 0)

According to definition 12.1.3, a set of real-valued functions can be proven to be orthogonal if (φ

- #4

- 13,242

- 1,019

- #5

ainster31

- 158

- 1

m=0 is contained as a particular case for arbitrary m and n. It's no need to make the particular case.

So you're saying it was unnecessary?

The proof goes directly by putting cos a = Re (e^ia).

That went over my head.

- #6

tiny-tim

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 25,838

- 255

According to definition 12.1.3, a set of real-valued functions can be proven to be orthogonal if (φ_{m}, φ_{n}) = 0. So why is it necessary to prove (φ_{0}, φ_{n}) = 0?

because φ

- #7

- 13,242

- 1,019

So you're saying it was unnecessary?[...]

That's exactly what I meant.

Share:

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 153

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 589

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 375

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 790

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 587

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 691

- Replies
- 16

- Views
- 77

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 517