Question Fourier Transform Smoothness/Compactness

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the smoothness and compactness properties of the Fourier Transform, specifically addressing a reasoning presented in Bracewell's "The Fourier Transform and Its Applications." Participants are examining the behavior of the Fourier Transform as the frequency variable approaches infinity, particularly the claim that ωF(ω) tends to zero.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the statement ωF(ω) → 0 is made instead of just F(ω) → 0 as ω approaches infinity.
  • Another participant notes that ωF(ω) → 0 is a stronger assertion than F(ω) → 0.
  • A different participant expresses confusion, suggesting that multiplying F(ω) by ω would prevent it from tending to zero, drawing a parallel with the behavior of 1/x as x approaches zero.
  • There is a mention that if F(ω) does not tend to zero, then the inverse Fourier Transform, f(x), would not exist.
  • One participant clarifies that the integral involving f'(x) tends to zero unless f'(x) is pathological.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the behavior of ωF(ω) versus F(ω) as ω approaches infinity. There is no consensus on the reasoning behind the original statement or the implications of the behavior of F(ω).

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential assumptions regarding the behavior of f'(x) and the conditions under which the Fourier Transform properties hold, but these assumptions remain unresolved.

mnb96
Messages
711
Reaction score
5
Hello,
my question arises from reading the section on Smoothness/Compactness from Bracewell's "The Fourier Transform and Its Applications" page 162.

I don't quite understand the following reasoning:

F(\omega) = \ldots = \frac{1}{i\omega}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f'(x)e^{-i\omega x}dx

and at this point the author says that when \omega\to\infty then \omega F(\omega) \to 0.

But why \omega F(\omega) is supposed to tend to zero, and not just F(\omega) \to 0 ?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ωF(ω) -> 0 is a stronger statement than F(ω) -> 0 for ω -> ∞.
 
Ok, but I thought that if you multiply F by \omega that quantity does not tend to zero anymore.

In a similar way 1/x -> 0 but x(1/x) clearly tends to 1.

*EDIT:
On the other hand, I was thinking that if F(w) itself didnt tend to zero, its inverse FT, that is f(x), would not exist.
 
Last edited:
mnb96 said:
Hello,
my question arises from reading the section on Smoothness/Compactness from Bracewell's "The Fourier Transform and Its Applications" page 162.

I don't quite understand the following reasoning:

F(\omega) = \ldots = \frac{1}{i\omega}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f'(x)e^{-i\omega x}dx

and at this point the author says that when \omega\to\infty then \omega F(\omega) \to 0.

But why \omega F(\omega) is supposed to tend to zero, and not just F(\omega) \to 0 ?

Thanks.

The author is simply saying that |\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f'(x)e^{-i\omega x}dx| tends to 0. This makes sense unless f'(x) is completely pathological.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K