What does H represent in the graph of y = 2H(x - 4)?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jaja1990
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mean
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of "H" in the equation y = 2H(x - 4), specifically relating to the Heaviside step function. The Heaviside function, H(x), is defined as 0 for x < 0, 1/2 at x = 0, and 1 for x > 0, with variations in definitions noted in different sources. The consensus leans towards using H(0) = 1/2 for applications involving Fourier series, particularly in relation to the Gibbs phenomenon. This distinction is crucial for accurately sketching the graph of the function.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Heaviside step function and its definitions
  • Familiarity with graphing piecewise functions
  • Basic knowledge of Fourier series and their properties
  • Ability to interpret mathematical notation and functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties and applications of the Heaviside step function
  • Learn about the Gibbs phenomenon in Fourier series
  • Explore different definitions of the Heaviside function and their implications
  • Practice sketching piecewise functions using various definitions of H(x)
USEFUL FOR

Students in mathematics, particularly those studying calculus and analysis, as well as anyone involved in signal processing or related fields that utilize the Heaviside step function.

jaja1990
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
What does "H" mean?!

I have this question in my assignment paper:-

8. Sketch the graph of:
(a)
y = |2x − 2|;
(b)
y = 2H(x − 4)

(a) is obvious, but how do I sketch (b)? Does "H" stand for some specific constant?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org


The webpage in the link you've given says:-
The function is:-
0 when x < 0,
1/2 when x = 0,
1 when x > 0.
But here: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaviside_Function, defines the function as:-
1 when x => 0,
0 when x < 0.

To begin with, which should I follow?
 


I think that H(0)=0 correponds to an old definition remaining from history and that the standard definition is with H(0)=1/2.
Generally this is of no consequence in particle applications.
 


JJacquelin said:
I think that H(0)=0 correponds to an old definition remaining from history and that the standard definition is with H(0)=1/2.
Generally this is of no consequence in particle applications.

If one wanted to use an approximation like a Fourier series version, then it makes sense to define H(0) as 1/2 based on properties of Fourier series when you have this kind of 'Gibbs' phenomenon.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K