Understanding the Fourier Time Shift Property

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Fourier time shift property, focusing on the notation used in the Fourier transform, specifically the expression X(e^{jω}) and its implications. Participants explore the theoretical aspects, practical applications, and potential confusion arising from different notational conventions in various fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion over the notation X(e^{jω}), questioning its meaning and whether it is a typo, as they are more familiar with X(ω).
  • One participant suggests that the notation may be a convention used in electronic engineering, contrasting it with the notation preferred by physicists.
  • Participants discuss the implications of time shifts in the Fourier transform, noting that certain shifts could lead to multiplication by zero, potentially affecting the signal.
  • There is a mention of the relationship between the Fourier transform and the Laplace transform, highlighting that the Fourier transform can be viewed as a special case of the Laplace transform.
  • One participant acknowledges a misunderstanding in their previous testing of the time shift property, clarifying that they were incorrectly applying complex multiplication.
  • Another participant points out that for purely real time-domain signals, the frequency-domain representation must satisfy the condition X(-ω) = X*(ω), where * denotes the complex conjugate.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the confusion surrounding the notation X(e^{jω}) and its context, but there is no consensus on its correctness or the implications of the time shift property. Multiple competing views on notation and interpretation remain present.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that different fields may adopt varying conventions for Fourier analysis, which can lead to misunderstandings. The discussion also highlights the complexity of applying the time shift property in practical scenarios, particularly regarding signal reconstruction.

junglebeast
Messages
514
Reaction score
2
The time shift property of the Fourier transform is defined as follows:

x(n - n_o ) \Leftrightarrow e^{ - j\omega n_o } X(e^{j\omega } )

I am confused by this notation...what does X(e^{j\omega } ) mean? I know that X(\omega) is the value of the Fourier transform at a given angular frequency but I'm confused why it has been put in a complex exponent.

It is also sometimes written as:

h(x) = f(x - x_0)
\hat{h}(\xi)= e^{-2\pi i x_0\xi }\hat{f}(\xi)

This notation I think I understand...it's saying that, if I have the DFT of f(x), then I can get the DFT for f(x - x_0) by multiplying each point in the DFT by a scale factor that depends on the frequency. Specifically, from Euler's relation, I should scale the real/complex part by,

\cos(-2 \pi x_0 \xi ) + i \sin(2 \pi x_0 \xi ).

I tested this out by constructing a DFT that has a single spike, then taking the inverse FFT to reconstruct a time signal...and scaling the DFT spike and reconstructing again to see if I got a time shifted signal. I did not. When I thought about it more, I realized that this doesn't make sense, because some time shifts would result in multiplication by zero, which means that a shift followed by a negative shift could result in the signal being destroyed.

What have I got wrong?
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
junglebeast said:
The time shift property of the Fourier transform is defined as follows:

x(n - n_o ) \Leftrightarrow e^{ - j\omega n_o } X(e^{j\omega } )

I am confused by this notation...what does X(e^{j\omega } ) mean?
Looks like a typo to me, I think it should be simply X(ω). Here's another link, they do have F(ω) (different notation):
http://cnx.org/content/m10100/latest/

I tested this out by constructing a DFT that has a single spike, then taking the inverse FFT to reconstruct a time signal...and scaling the DFT spike and reconstructing again to see if I got a time shifted signal. I did not. When I thought about it more, I realized that this doesn't make sense, because some time shifts would result in multiplication by zero, which means that a shift followed by a negative shift could result in the signal being destroyed.

What have I got wrong?
Not sure what is going on with your test. You might try starting in the time domain, with both a spike at t=0 and also a time-shifted spike. Take the FFT of both and compare.

BTW, if you want to represent purely real time-domain signals, the frequency-domain should have the property

X(-ω) = X*(ω),

where * denotes the complex conjugate. So the only way to have a single spike in the frequency domain is when that spike is at ω=0.
 
Alright, I found out where my confusion was...everything I said in my above post was correct, except for the place where I said "I tried this and it didn't work," because the reason it didn't work is I was doing the complex multiplication pointwise, and complex multiplication actually involves some addition! Now it all makes sense.

X(-ω) = X*(ω),

where * denotes the complex conjugate. So the only way to have a single spike in the frequency domain is when that spike is at ω=0.

Oh I was only referring to a single spike in the positive frequencies...because obviously the negative frequency range is just a mirror of the positive data as you point out.I'm still confused about the X(e^jw) notation though...I've seen it in many different places so I don't think it's just a typo..
 
Last edited:
junglebeast said:
I'm still confused about the X(e^jw) notation though...I've seen it in many different places so I don't think it's just a typo..
That is bizarre. If X is the signal in the frequency domain, the argument must be a real number ... this is the Fourier Transform, not Laplace, after all. I am equally baffled.
 
It's only a notation criterium.

As usual in Fourier Analysis in function of the application area, differents conventions appear.

the notation X(w) it's usual for physicist but the notation X(expiw) it's more usual for electronic engineering.
The second notation has conection with the bilateral Laplace transform for cotninuous signal and Z transform for discrete signals.
Esentially it means:
a) for cotinuos signal, the Fourier Transform is a particular case of laplace transform, where the complex number s, is restricted to unit circle.
b) for discrete signals, the same idea but with Z Transforms.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K