What is mathematically wrong with this integration?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter EngWiPy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a mathematical integration involving a function g(t) defined over a specific interval. Participants are examining the conditions under which the integration yields a non-zero value, particularly focusing on the implications of inequalities derived from the properties of the function g(t).

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an integration problem and derives a specific condition for t based on the inequalities involving the function g(t).
  • Another participant challenges the validity of directly evaluating t from the inequalities, suggesting that the range of t where both functions are non-zero needs to be calculated instead.
  • Examples are provided to illustrate the ranges of t for specific values of parameters, indicating that both functions can be non-zero over different intervals.
  • A later reply questions whether subtracting or adding the ranges of the functions yields a more accurate representation of t, highlighting a potential conflict in approaches.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct method for determining the range of t where both functions are non-zero. There are competing views on whether to subtract or add the ranges of the functions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in the assumptions made about the integration process and the properties of the function g(t), particularly regarding the evaluation of t based on inequalities.

EngWiPy
Messages
1,361
Reaction score
61
Hello all,

I have the following integration:

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{-j2\pi f_ct[a_p-a_q]}g(t[1+a_p]-kT_s-\tau_p)g(t[1+a_q]-mT_s-\tau_q)\,dt[/tex]

where g(t) is 1 in the interval [0,Ts]. This means that the integration has value when both function g(t[1+a_p]-kT_s-\tau_p) and g(t[1+a_q]-mT_s-\tau_q) are 1. Both are 1 when:

[tex]0\leq t[1+a_p]-kT_s-\tau_p\leq T_s[/tex]

and

[tex]0\leq t[1+a_q]-mT_s-\tau_q\leq T_s[/tex]

Which implies that both are 1 when:

[tex]t=\frac{(\tau_p-\tau_q)+(k-m)T_s}{a_p-a_q}[/tex]

But the integration over a point is zero, which can be the answer of the physical problem I have in hand. Where did I go wrong in the process?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
S_David said:
Which implies that both are 1 when:

[tex]t=\frac{(\tau_p-\tau_q)+(k-m)T_s}{a_p-a_q}[/tex]


This is where you went wrong. You can't use the two inequalities to evaluate t directly. You need to calculate the range of t where the two functions are both nonzero.

For example le[itex]\tau_p=\tau_q=a_p=a_q=0[/itex],
[itex]k=-1[/itex],
and
[itex]m=-2[/itex]

Now
[itex]g(t[1+ap]−kTs−τp) =1[/itex] for [itex]t\in(0,1)[/itex]
and
[itex]g(t[1+aq]−mTs−τq) =1[/itex] for [itex]t\in(0,.5)[/itex]

As you can see there is still a range in [itex]t[/itex] where both g are nonzero.
 
the_wolfman said:
This is where you went wrong. You can't use the two inequalities to evaluate t directly. You need to calculate the range of t where the two functions are both nonzero.

For example le[itex]\tau_p=\tau_q=a_p=a_q=0[/itex],
[itex]k=-1[/itex],
and
[itex]m=-2[/itex]

Now
[itex]g(t[1+ap]−kTs−τp) =1[/itex] for [itex]t\in(0,1)[/itex]
and
[itex]g(t[1+aq]−mTs−τq) =1[/itex] for [itex]t\in(0,.5)[/itex]

As you can see there is still a range in [itex]t[/itex] where both g are nonzero.

When I subtract the ranges of both functions I got something like:

[tex]0\leq x\leq 0[/tex]

which implies that x=0. Right?
 
But if I add the ranges I'll get a range of t! Which one is more correct? and why?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K