Reflection Rule of a Fourier Transform

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the reflection rule of the Fourier Transform, specifically examining the transformation of a function when its argument is negated. Participants explore the mathematical steps involved in this transformation and the implications for the Fourier Transform.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the equation G(s) as an integral involving f(-x) and seeks clarification on the transformation to F(-s).
  • Another participant elaborates on the transformation by substituting u = -x, explaining how this affects the integral and the limits of integration.
  • There is a light-hearted exchange about feelings of confusion and learning, with participants expressing their struggles with the concepts presented.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express similar feelings of confusion and learning, but there is no formal agreement or disagreement on the mathematical concepts discussed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes informal expressions of confusion and learning, which may not fully capture the mathematical rigor of the topic. The transformation steps and implications are not exhaustively detailed, leaving some assumptions and mathematical steps unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in Fourier Transforms, mathematical transformations, or those seeking clarification on specific integral properties may find this discussion relevant.

BustedBreaks
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
I feel a bit dumb, but could someone help me see this:

[tex]G(s):= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(-x)e^{-2\pi isx}dx = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(u)e^{-2\pi i(-s)u}du = F(-s)[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BustedBreaks said:
I feel a bit dumb, but could someone help me see this:

[tex]G(s):= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(-x)e^{-2\pi isx}dx = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(u)e^{-2\pi i(-s)u}du = F(-s)[/tex]

You're about to feel even dumber! (But actually be smarter.)

Let u= -x. Then [itex]-2\pi isx= -2\pi i(-s)u[/itex], f(-x) becomes f(u), of course.

As x goes to [itex]\infty[/itex], u goes to [itex]-\infty[/itex] and vice-versa so the limits of integration are switched. That's the reason the "-" in front of the first integral disappears.
 
I feel dumber for not realizing this, and even more dumbest for this sentance. A little smarterest though for the learning...

Thanks!
 
Hey, you've got a long way to go before you are as dumberized as I am!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K