Solution of the f_1(x)-f_1(x-pi)=f_2(x) functional equation

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the functional equation f_1(x) - f_1(x - π) = f_2(x) and its Laplace transform. The rearrangement of the equation leads to an expression for F1(p) in terms of F2(p). It is noted that there are multiple valid constructions for f_1 due to the periodic nature of functions like sine. Specifically, functions with a period of π/n satisfy the equation f(x) - f(x - π) = 0. The complexity of finding an explicit formula for f_1 is acknowledged, emphasizing the variety of potential solutions.
Domdamo
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
We have the equation
f1(x)-f1(x-pi)=f2(x)
where f1, f2 are the unknown and the known functions, respectively.
f1, f2 are periodic functions with period 2pi.

Is it possible to determine the explicit formula of f1?
If yes how should we calculate it?
Relevant Equations
[1]
f1(x)-f1(x-pi)=f2(x)
[2]
f1(x)=f1(x+2pi)
[3]
f2(x)=f2(x+2pi)
Laplace transform of eq. [1]
[4]
F1(p)-exp{-pi*p}*F1(p) = F2(p)
Rearranging eq. [4]
[5]
F1(p) = frac{1}{1-exp{-pi*p}}*F2(p)
Inverse LT of eq. [5]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

You might want to learn a little ##\LaTeX## so that your f1(x)-f1(x-pi)=f2(x) becomes

$$f_1(x)-f_1(x-\pi)=f_2(x)$$ and looks like $$f_1(x)-f_1(x-\pi)=f_2(x)$$
Re:
Domdamo said:
Is it possible to determine the explicit formula of f1?
No. Lots of ##f_1## can be constructed since e.g. ##\sin(\alpha) - \sin(\pi-\alpha) = 0## and ##\sin(n\beta)## is periodical with period ##2\pi## .
So any multiple of any function (periodical with period ##2\pi## ) that has ##f_1(x)-f_1(x-\pi)=0## can be added to a candidate ##f_1##.

[edit]Oops, sign errors...
 
  • Like
Likes Domdamo
Recant: any function with period ##\pi/n## has ##f(x) - f(x-\pi) = 0##.
 
Thank you very much.
 
At first, I derived that: $$\nabla \frac 1{\mu}=-\frac 1{{\mu}^3}\left((1-\beta^2)+\frac{\dot{\vec\beta}\cdot\vec R}c\right)\vec R$$ (dot means differentiation with respect to ##t'##). I assume this result is true because it gives valid result for magnetic field. To find electric field one should also derive partial derivative of ##\vec A## with respect to ##t##. I've used chain rule, substituted ##\vec A## and used derivative of product formula. $$\frac {\partial \vec A}{\partial t}=\frac...
Thread 'Conducting Sphere and Dipole Problem'
Hi, I'm stuck at this question, please help. Attempt to the Conducting Sphere and Dipole Problem (a) Electric Field and Potential at O due to Induced Charges $$V_O = 0$$ This potential is the sum of the potentials due to the real charges (##+q, -q##) and the induced charges on the sphere. $$V_O = V_{\text{real}} + V_{\text{induced}} = 0$$ - Electric Field at O, ##\vec{E}_O##: Since point O is inside a conductor in electrostatic equilibrium, the electric field there must be zero...
Back
Top