Question about laplace transform limits

quietrain
Messages
648
Reaction score
2
if say the function

f(t) is 0 from 1 to 2
is 1 from 2 to 3

if i laplace transform it , for f(t) = 1, i get f(s) = 1/s

so what are the limits for my s ? is it still 2 to 3?

thanks!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
No, the Laplace transform of your function is NOT 1/s. That is the Laplace transform of f(x)= 1 for all x.

In order to have a Laplace transform, a function has to be defined for all non-negative number. It doesn't make any sense to talk about a function that is only defined between 1 and 3 as you have here.

Instead, let f(x)= 1 for x between 2 and 3 and 0 for all other non-negative x. Then the Laplace transform is
\int_0^\infty f(x)e^{-sx}dx= \int_2^3 e^{-sx}dx= \left[\frac{-1}{s}e^{-sx}\right]_2^3
= \frac{e^{-2s}- e^{-3s}}{s}
and s can have any value. The values of "s" have nothing to do with the values of "x".
 
ah thank you very much
 
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top