Region of Convergence: Re${s} > -3 for $\beta$

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dustinsfl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convergence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the constraints on the real and imaginary parts of \(\beta\) in the context of the Laplace transform of a signal defined as \(x(t) = e^{-5t}\mathcal{U}(t) + e^{-\beta t}\mathcal{U}(t)\). Participants explore the implications of the region of convergence being \(\text{Re} \ \{s\} > -3\) and how this affects the overall region of convergence when combining two integrals.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant calculates the Laplace transform \(X(s)\) and identifies that the first integral gives a region of convergence of \(\sigma > -5\) while suggesting that for \(\beta\), the real part should be \(3\) to achieve a region of convergence of \(\sigma_1 > -3\).
  • Another participant provides an example with the function \(f(t) = e^{at}\) to illustrate the conditions under which the Laplace transform converges, stating that it converges absolutely for \(\sigma > a\), but notes that this does not directly resolve the original problem.
  • A later reply questions the utility of using the triangle inequality in this context, suggesting that it does not provide a clear advantage due to the differing regions of convergence of the two integrals.
  • One participant mentions that when combining integrals with different regions of convergence, one typically takes the larger of the two regions, but does not clarify how this applies to the current discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding how to determine the overall region of convergence when combining the two integrals, with no consensus reached on the method to apply. Multiple competing views on the implications of the regions of convergence remain present.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved aspects regarding the dependence on the definitions of convergence and the implications of combining integrals with different regions of convergence. The discussion does not clarify the mathematical steps necessary to fully resolve these issues.

Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
Consider the signal
\[
x(t) = e^{-5t}\mathcal{U}(t) + e^{-\beta t}\mathcal{U}(t)
\]
and denote the its Laplace transform by \(X(s)\).
What are the constraints placed on the real and imagainary parts of \(\beta\)
if the region of convergence of \(X(s)\) is \(\text{Re} \ \{s\} > -3\)?

Let's start by taking the Laplace transform.
\begin{align*}
X(s) &= \int_0^{\infty}e^{-5t}\mathcal{U}(t)e^{-st}dt +
\int_0^{\infty}e^{-\beta t}\mathcal{U}(t)e^{-st}dt\\
&= \int_0^{\infty}e^{-5t}e^{-st}dt +
\int_0^{\infty}e^{-\beta t}e^{-st}dt\\
&= \frac{1}{s + 5} + \frac{1}{s + \text{Re} \ \{\beta\}}
\end{align*}
The first integral gives us a region of convergence of \(\sigma > -5\). For \(\beta\), we need the real part to be \(3\). Then the second integral would have a region of convergence of \(\sigma_1 > -3\). With the addition of the integrals, how does that affect the overall region of convergence? Do we just take the lesser of the two or is there something else?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is not exactly what you are asking but it is a good starting point as you had a similar issue in your other post involving convergence of the Laplace transform. This is to clear this issue up.

Let us start with a simple example. Consider the function $f(t) = e^{at}$.
Now compute the Laplace transform,
$$L[f(t)](s) = \int_0^{\infty} e^{at} e^{-st} ~ dt $$
Write $s = \sigma + ib$ then $e^{-st} = e^{-\sigma t}e^{-ibt}$, since $|e^{-ibt}|=1$ it follows that $|e^{-st}| = e^{-\sigma t}$.

If $\sigma > a$ then $|e^{at}e^{-st}| = e^{at}e^{-\sigma t} = e^{-(\sigma - a)t}$. Note that $\sigma - a > 0$. Then we have,
$$ \int_0^{\infty} |e^{at}e^{-st}| ~ dt = \int_0^{\infty} e^{-(\sigma - a)t} ~ dt = -\frac{1}{\sigma - a} e^{-(\sigma - a)t} \bigg|_0^{\infty} $$
At limit $t=\infty$ the exponential goes to zero because its exponent is of the form $e^{-\infty}$, this has to do with the crucial fact that $\sigma - a > 0$. In particular, the integral $\int_0^{\infty} e^{at}e^{-st} ~ dt$ converges absolutely* for $\sigma > a$. Recall that $\sigma = \text{Re}(s)$ and so we have shown that the Laplace transform of $e^{at}$ converges absolutely for $\text{Re}(s) > a$.

*We say $\int_0^{\infty} g(t) ~ dt$ converges absolutely when $\int_0^{\infty} |g(t)| ~ dt$ converges. In particular it means the original integral without absolute values converges also.
 
ThePerfectHacker said:
This is not exactly what you are asking but it is a good starting point as you had a similar issue in your other post involving convergence of the Laplace transform. This is to clear this issue up.

Let us start with a simple example. Consider the function $f(t) = e^{at}$.
Now compute the Laplace transform,
$$L[f(t)](s) = \int_0^{\infty} e^{at} e^{-st} ~ dt $$
Write $s = \sigma + ib$ then $e^{-st} = e^{-\sigma t}e^{-ibt}$, since $|e^{-ibt}|=1$ it follows that $|e^{-st}| = e^{-\sigma t}$.

If $\sigma > a$ then $|e^{at}e^{-st}| = e^{at}e^{-\sigma t} = e^{-(\sigma - a)t}$. Note that $\sigma - a > 0$. Then we have,
$$ \int_0^{\infty} |e^{at}e^{-st}| ~ dt = \int_0^{\infty} e^{-(\sigma - a)t} ~ dt = -\frac{1}{\sigma - a} e^{-(\sigma - a)t} \bigg|_0^{\infty} $$
At limit $t=\infty$ the exponential goes to zero because its exponent is of the form $e^{-\infty}$, this has to do with the crucial fact that $\sigma - a > 0$. In particular, the integral $\int_0^{\infty} e^{at}e^{-st} ~ dt$ converges absolutely* for $\sigma > a$. Recall that $\sigma = \text{Re}(s)$ and so we have shown that the Laplace transform of $e^{at}$ converges absolutely for $\text{Re}(s) > a$.

*We say $\int_0^{\infty} g(t) ~ dt$ converges absolutely when $\int_0^{\infty} |g(t)| ~ dt$ converges. In particular it means the original integral without absolute values converges also.

This doesn't help with this problem though. We can either look at the integrals separate or use the triangle inequality, but I don't see an advantage of using the triangle inequality since we will still have two integrals with different regions of convergence. How does the adding of two integrals with separate regions of convergence affect the overal region of convergence?
 
dwsmith said:
This doesn't help with this problem though. We can either look at the integrals separate or use the triangle inequality, but I don't see an advantage of using the triangle inequality since we will still have two integrals with different regions of convergence. How does the adding of two integrals with separate regions of convergence affect the overal region of convergence?

Laplace transform of $e^{t}$ converges for $\text{Re}(s) > 1$ and Laplace transform of $e^{2t}$ converges for $\text{Re}(s) > 2$. So if $\text{Re}(s) > 2$ then it is certainly bigger than $1$ and so it converges for both. More generally, you take the larger of the two numbers.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K