What Happens When a Function is Convolved with a Gaussian PDF?

Click For Summary
Convolving a function with a Gaussian probability density function (PDF) results in the original function, as expressed by the equation f(x) = f(x) * g(x). The Fourier transform of a Gaussian also yields a Gaussian, leading to the relationship F[f(x)] = F[f(x) * g(x)] = F[f(x)] * F[g(x)], which simplifies to 1 = F[g(x)]. The discussion raises the possibility of framing this as an eigenvalue problem, suggesting that the convolution operator with respect to the Gaussian may have specific eigenvalues and eigenfunctions. Ultimately, the only solution that satisfies the equation is f(x) = 0, indicating that no other non-trivial solutions exist.
exmachina
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
I've arrived at the following equation involving the convolution of two functions:

<br /> f(x) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(t) g(t-x) dt = f(x) \ast g(x)<br />

Where:

<br /> g(z) = e^{-z^2/2}<br />

In other words, a function convoluted with a Gaussian pdf results in the same function.

I've tried taking Fourier transforms, realizing that the FT of a gaussian results in another Gaussian:

<br /> F[f(x)] = F[f(x) \ast g(x)] = F[f(x)] \cdot F[g(x)]<br />

But this results in the F[f(x)] cancelling out, leaving me with just:

<br /> 1 = F[g(x)] = e^{-w^2/2} <br />

Any suggestions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What if f=0?
 
Yes that is the trivial solution.

Perhaps this can be casted as an eigenvalue problem - as it seems to imply that the convolution operator (wrt to the gaussian) may have certain eigenvalues and corresponding eigenfunctions f(x) being one of them
 
edit - doh - this obviously implies that f(x) must be equal to 0 (no other solution satisfies:

f(x)=f(x)g(x) unless g(x) = 1, which in this case, it isn't)
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K