1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: Unit Step Function and Laplace Transforms

  1. Apr 2, 2005 #1

    I was wondering if someone would check my work on this problem:

    [tex]{\cal L}[/tex] = Laplace
    [tex]{\cal U}[/tex] = Unit Step Function

    [tex]{\cal L} \{ \cos(2t) \,\,\, {\cal U} (t - \pi)\}[/tex]

    [tex]=e^{-\pi s} {\cal L} \{ \cos(2(t + \pi)) \}[/tex]

    [tex]=e^{-\pi s} {\cal L} \{ \cos(2t + 2\pi) \}[/tex]

    [tex]=e^{-\pi s} {\cal L} \{ \cos(2t) \}[/tex]

    [tex]=\frac{se^{-\pi s}}{s^2+4}[/tex]

    Can anyone help me with this problem:

    [tex]{\cal L} \{ \sin(t) \,\,\, {\cal U} (t - \pi/2)\}[/tex]

    [tex]=e^{-\frac{\pi s}{2}} {\cal L} \{ \sin(t + \pi / 2) \}[/tex]

    [tex]=e^{-\frac{\pi s}{2}} {\cal L} \{ \cos(t) \}[/tex]

    [tex]=\frac{s \, e^{-\frac{\pi s}{2}}}{s^2 + 1}[/tex]

    But this is different from the books published answer (in the exponential, they do not have it divived by two, they just have e^(-pi*s)...but the rest of it the same....also the solution manual did the problem differently, it changed the sin(t) to cos(t - pi/2)...but then wouldn't that just convert back to sin(t)? Anyways...it skips a lot of work and just ends up with the answer after that step
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 2, 2005 #2
    First one is correct.

    [tex] {\cal L}\{ \cos(t - \pi / 2) u(t - \pi / 2) \} = e^{-\frac{\pi}{2}s}{\cal L}\{\cos \left( (t+\pi /2) - \pi /2\right)\} = e^{-\frac{\pi}{2}s}{\cal L}\{\cos{t}\} = \frac{e^{-\frac{\pi}{2}s}s}{s^2+1}[/tex]
  4. Apr 3, 2005 #3
    oh, I edited my post as you posted that...so is the books answer wrong then?
  5. Apr 3, 2005 #4
    your answer is correct...

    Sounds like the author of the solutions manual was having a bad day.
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2005
  6. Apr 3, 2005 #5
    ok, thanks
  7. Apr 3, 2005 #6
    ok, I am confused on the end of the proof of the Second Translation Theorem

    If you go to this link (just a link I found that has the proof so I don't have to type it all in LaTeX):


    Then go to PAGE 20

    That is the page with the end of the proof.,..what I don't understand is this part:

    [tex]=e^{-as}\int_0^\infty{e^{sv} \, f(v) \, dv}[/tex]

    [tex]=e^{-as}{\cal L}\{ f(t) \}[/tex]

    Isn't that integral the definition of the Laplace transform of f(v), not f(t)?? I don't understand why it is the Laplace of t instead of the transformed variable v.

    Thanks for any help!
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  8. Apr 3, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Actually I think the first one is wrong. When you say L{cos(2t+2pi)} you implicitly mean L{f(t)} where f(t) = cos(2t+2pi) for t>0 and 0 for t<0. This is not the same as g(t) = cos(2t) for t>0 and 0 for t<0. This could be obtained by doing another translation. Do you have an answer for this problem?

    Regarding your last post, v and t are just dummy variables and can be interchanged. I'm not exactly sure why they used v in the first place, but maybe they explain it somewhere else.
  9. Apr 3, 2005 #8
    it is explained as to why v is there, it was used in a transformation:

    v = t - a

    This was done to make it to correct for of a Laplace transformation
  10. Apr 3, 2005 #9
    It's not the Laplace transform of anything, the way it's written (I assume you missed a minus sign! :smile:).

    Once corrected, it's really the Laplace transform of the function [itex]f[/itex]. The argument is irrelevant. Note that

    [tex]\int_0^\infty f(t)e^{-st} \ dt = \int_0^\infty e^{-sv}f(v) \ dv = \int_0^\infty e^{-s\asymp}f(\asymp}) \ d\asymp.[/tex]

    The [itex]t[/itex], [itex]v[/itex], and [itex]\asymp[/itex] are just "dummy variables."

    Your textbook undoubtedly actually has many mistakes in it, because of this. By their own definition,

    [tex]{\cal L}\{f(t - a)\} = {\cal L}\{f(t)\}[/tex]

    for every real [itex]a[/itex]. What they really mean when they look at [itex]{\cal L}\{f(t-a)\}[/itex], of course, is [itex]{\cal L}\{g(t)\}[/itex] where [itex]g(t) = f(t-a)[/itex].
  11. Apr 3, 2005 #10
    As for your comment about my first problem posted, I had already accounted for the Unit Step function when I pulled out the exponential and plugged in t - pi into the cos function
  12. Apr 3, 2005 #11
    So is this true:

    [tex]{\cal L}\{ f(t + a) \} = {\cal L}\{ f(t) \}[/tex]

    For any real number a?
  13. Apr 3, 2005 #12
    It's right, because [itex]\cos[/itex] is [itex]2\pi[/itex]-periodic. Otherwise you would be right.
  14. Apr 3, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I'm sorry, I'm probably too tired to be trying to help.
  15. Apr 3, 2005 #14
    Yes. But that isn't what your textbook means when it says [itex]{\cal L}\{f(t - a)\}[/itex]. As I said, it has many "errors" in it as a result.

    Recall the definition of the Laplace transform,

    [tex]{\cal L}\{f(t)\} = \int_0^\infty f(t)e^{-st} \ dt.[/tex]

    and thus

    [tex]{\cal L}\{f(t - a)\} = \int_0^\infty f(t-a)e^{-s(t-a)} \ d(t-a).[/tex]

    This integral is the same one as in the definition (note that it is now [itex]d(t-a)[/itex]!!!), with the dummy variable changed from [itex]t[/itex] to [itex]t-a[/itex].

    This is NOT what your textbook means when it says [itex]{\cal L}\{f(t - a)\}[/itex], though, and this is why they have made errors (unless they have some cleverly hidden fine print somewhere :wink:).

    What your textbook actually means by [itex]{\cal L}\{f(t - a)\}[/itex] is

    [tex]\int_0^\infty f(t-a)e^{-st} \ dt,[/tex]

    which is not the same thing (note we now have just [itex]dt[/itex], and the exponent on the [itex]e[/itex] has changed!).
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2005
  16. Apr 3, 2005 #15
    Good. I should have pointed out the mathematical resolution to this apparent conundrum (no, current math isn't ultimately totally inconsistent!):

    instead define

    [tex]{\cal L}\{u\} = \int_0^\infty u e^{-st} \ dt[/tex]

    while the difference doesn't look too big, it's pretty important... when you want [itex]{\cal L}\{u\}[/itex] for any [itex]u[/itex], just throw it into that position in the integral.
  17. Apr 3, 2005 #16
    ok, thanks
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook