MHB What Is the Relation Between \( x(n) \) and \( X(f) \) Given \( f = kn \)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter maysam1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fft Transform
maysam1
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Suppose that there is a linear relation between discrete time (n) and frequency (f), then what is the relatian between x(n) and X(f) (X(f) is DFT transform of x(n))?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
maysam said:
Suppose that there is a linear relation between discrete time (n) and frequency (f), then what is the relatian between x(n) and X(f) (X(f) is DFT transform of x(n))?

Hi maysam! Welcome to MHB! (Smile)

I guess we'll need to find the DFT transform of $x(n)=c\cdot n$ where $c$ is some constant.
Can you calculate it?
What is the formula for a DFT?
 
I like Serena said:
Hi maysam! Welcome to MHB! (Smile)

I guess we'll need to find the DFT transform of $x(n)=c\cdot n$ where $c$ is some constant.
Can you calculate it?
What is the formula for a DFT?

Hi, x(n) can be any signal.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    1.8 KB · Views: 108
maysam said:
Hi, x(n) can be any signal.

Hmm... can you clarify what a "linear relation between discrete time (n) and frequency (f)" means?

Presumably we have a signal amplitude $x(n) = x(t_n)$ that depends on time, which transforms to a signal amplitude $X(f) = X(f_k)$ that depends on frequency.
There is no relation between time and frequency.
 
I like Serena said:
Hmm... can you clarify what a "linear relation between discrete time (n) and frequency (f)" means?

Presumably we have a signal amplitude $x(n) = x(t_n)$ that depends on time, which transforms to a signal amplitude $X(f) = X(f_k)$ that depends on frequency.
There is no relation between time and frequency.

Yes, originally There is no relation between time and frequency but In a system we can assume that f=kn and k is a constant. this means that in this system we can see a linear relation between time and frequency.
 
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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K