Why does Laplace(t) not diverge ?

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the behavior of the Laplace transform, specifically why it does not diverge as certain variables approach infinity. Participants explore the implications of integration by parts and the conditions under which the Laplace transform exists, examining the role of exponential decay in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the "uv" part of integration by parts diverges when considering the limit as t approaches infinity, suggesting that the exponential term should cause divergence.
  • Another participant introduces the condition that if f(t)=O(e^{at}) for a>0, then the Laplace transform exists for every s>a, providing examples of functions that do not have a Laplace transform due to singularities or dominant terms.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the exponential term e^{-st} approaches zero as s increases, which dominates any polynomial, leading to the conclusion that the Laplace transform is defined under these conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing levels of understanding regarding the conditions for the existence of the Laplace transform and the implications of exponential decay. No consensus is reached on the initial question about divergence.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions regarding the behavior of functions and the conditions for the existence of the Laplace transform are not fully explored, particularly in relation to specific examples provided.

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