Quick question regarding the def. of this function.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Je m'appelle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of a piecewise function intended for Fourier Series analysis, specifically questioning the validity of the function's definition at the point x = 0.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are examining the correctness of the function's definition, particularly the apparent contradiction of having two values at x = 0. They suggest that the second condition may contain a typographical error.

Discussion Status

Multiple participants have expressed concerns regarding the function's definition, with suggestions pointing towards a likely typo in the problem statement. There is a general agreement that the current definition is problematic, but no consensus on the exact nature of the correction has been reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the function is presented exactly as it appears in the problem, raising questions about the implications of the definition as stated.

Je m'appelle
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
I have to find the Fourier Series of the following function

f(x) = \begin{cases} 1, & \mbox{if } 0 \leq x \leq \pi, \\ -1, & \mbox{if } 0 \leq x < 0. \end{cases}

My question is, is the above definition for the function f(x) correct? How can the function have two values at x = 0? Could it be a typo?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's probably supposed to be -pi <= x < 0 in the second line.
 
The way it appears now (second line reads 0≤x<0), no, it's not correct, but I'm guessing that's your typo, not the problem's. I assume that was supposed to be -π≤x<0.
 
hgfalling said:
It's probably supposed to be -pi <= x < 0 in the second line.

That's precisely what I was thinking about, I just wasn't so sure if there was some special condition or anything like that. Then it really is a typo. Thanks hgfalling.
 
vela said:
The way it appears now (second line reads 0≤x<0), no, it's not correct, but I'm guessing that's your typo, not the problem's. I assume that was supposed to be -π≤x<0.

It has been posted exactly as it is in the problem, that was the whole point of this thread. But I can see it now that it really is a typo, I just needed a confirmation. Thanks vela.
 
Oh, OK. It's just that your question about two values at x=0 didn't really make sense to me as there are no values of x such that 0≤x<0 (so the second line would never matter).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K