Why does Laplace(t) not diverge ?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kkirtac
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the convergence of the Laplace transform, specifically why Laplace(t) does not diverge despite the presence of the variable "t" in the integration by parts. It is established that for functions f(t) satisfying f(t) = O(e^{at}) for a > 0, the Laplace transform F(s) exists for every s > a. The exponential decay of e^{-st} dominates polynomial growth, ensuring convergence as s approaches infinity. Examples provided include the non-existence of the Laplace transform for functions like f(t) = 1/(t-1) due to singularities.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Laplace transforms and their properties
  • Familiarity with asymptotic notation, specifically Big O notation
  • Knowledge of integration techniques, particularly integration by parts
  • Basic concepts of exponential functions and their limits
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the conditions for the existence of Laplace transforms for various functions
  • Learn about the implications of singular points on Laplace transforms
  • Explore the behavior of exponential functions in the context of limits
  • Investigate the application of Laplace transforms in solving differential equations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, engineers, and students studying control systems or differential equations who seek a deeper understanding of Laplace transforms and their convergence properties.

kkirtac
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
hello , anybody can explain me why Laplace(t) does not diverge ? when we perform integration by parts, the "uv" part contains the "t" variable and when we place the infinity bound here, t should cause the "uv" part to diverge as the exponential goes to zero.. so why doesn't it diverge? thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
the question is that if f(t)=O(e^{at}) or what is the same..

f(t)e^{-at}) for and a>0 then the F(s) Laplace transform exist for every s>a if you try to apply the Laplace transform of exp(ax^{2} for a>0 you will say that this does not exist since for big x the quadratic term is dominant..another example of a function not having a Laplace trasnform is f(t)=1/(t-1) due to the singular point at t=1.
 
Karlisbad said:
the question is that if f(t)=O(e^{at}) or what is the same..

f(t)e^{-at}) for and a>0 then the F(s) Laplace transform exist for every s>a if you try to apply the Laplace transform of exp(ax^{2} for a>0 you will say that this does not exist since for big x the quadratic term is dominant..another example of a function not having a Laplace trasnform is f(t)=1/(t-1) due to the singular point at t=1.


thank you for your interest Karlisbad , i need a better explanation, can you or someone else explain it a bit better so that i can understand well.thank you.
 
The point is that it still has e-st in it. That exponential goes to 0 as s goes to infinity and "dominates" any polynomial. That is, for any polynomial P(s), lim_{s\rightarrow \infty}P(s)e^{-st}= 0.

In fact the Laplace transform is only defined for functions for which that is true.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K