Proving the Poisson Summation Formula: A Formal Approach

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the formal proof of the Poisson Summation Formula, emphasizing the need for clarity and precision in mathematical writing. Key corrections include explicitly stating the change of variables from x to y = x + n and adjusting the exponent accordingly to e^{2 \pi i m (y - n)}. The importance of maintaining objectivity in formal proofs is highlighted, particularly in avoiding subjective phrases like "the RHS is simple." Additionally, the role of the function F and its periodicity requires clarification within the proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Poisson Summation Formula
  • Familiarity with Fourier transforms
  • Knowledge of complex exponentials
  • Experience in formal mathematical proof writing
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Poisson Summation Formula in detail
  • Learn about Fourier transform properties and applications
  • Explore techniques for writing formal mathematical proofs
  • Investigate the periodicity of functions in Fourier analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators preparing for seminars, and researchers interested in Fourier analysis and formal proof techniques.

stripes
Messages
262
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove the Poisson summation formula.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Correction to image below: the very last line of the theorem (italicized) should say f hat is the Fourier transform, not f(n).

attachment.php?attachmentid=57796&stc=1&d=1365760686.jpg


Does this proof make sense and is it complete? I mean there are a million proofs online that are identical to mine but I am presenting this in a seminar tomorrow for my class so I wanted to make sure it was descriptive enough.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    27.1 KB · Views: 1,186
Physics news on Phys.org
I have a few small remarks.

First of all, I'd make the change of variables explicit (saying that you change to y = x + n).

Secondly, if you make that change, you should also change it in the exponent, so e^{2\pi i m x} becomes e^{2 \pi i m (y - n)}. You should then argue that the n can be dropped and replace the x with y in the next lines so that in the last line you get e^{2 \pi i m y}.

Finally, I wouldn't say "... the RHS is simple" in a formal proof. It's not an objective statement and doesn't add anything, just write "For the right hand side, notice that ...".

Also, what is F? And where are you using its periodicity?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
12K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K