Why is the heaviside function in the inverse Laplace transform of 1?

Click For Summary
The Heaviside function appears in the inverse Laplace transform of 1/s because it defines the function's behavior for t < 0, where the function is zero. The Laplace transform of a constant function f(t) = 1 is indeed 1/s, but this constant is only valid for t ≥ 0, aligning with the Heaviside function's definition. When performing inverse transforms, the Heaviside function ensures that the result is correctly defined for all time, particularly for t < 0. The discussion also clarifies that while the Heaviside function can be omitted in some contexts, it is crucial for accurately representing the function's behavior across its entire domain. Understanding this relationship is essential for correctly applying the Laplace transform in various problems.
Blanchdog
Messages
56
Reaction score
22
Homework Statement:: Why is the heaviside function in the inverse laplace transform of 1?
Relevant Equations:: N/A

This is a small segment of a larger problem I've been working on, and in my book it gives the transform of 1 as 1/s and vice versa. But as I've looked online for help in figuring parts of this out, I keep seeing that the heaviside function is the inverse laplace transform of 1/s, when I would think (according to my book) that it should just be 1. Can anyone explain this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Blanchdog said:
Homework Statement:: Why is the heaviside function in the inverse laplace transform of 1?
Relevant Equations:: N/A

This is a small segment of a larger problem I've been working on, and in my book it gives the transform of 1 as 1/s and vice versa. But as I've looked online for help in figuring parts of this out, I keep seeing that the heaviside function is the inverse laplace transform of 1/s, when I would think (according to my book) that it should just be 1. Can anyone explain this?
The Laplace transform of a function f(t), defined on the real numbers, is ##\int_0^\infty f(t)e^{-st}dt##. The Heaviside function, H(x), is defined to be 0 for x < 0, 1/2 for x = 0, and 1 for x > 0. For the interval in the Laplace integral, the Heaviside function is identical to the constant function f(x) = 1.
 
Mark44 said:
The Laplace transform of a function f(t), defined on the real numbers, is ##\int_0^\infty f(t)e^{-st}dt##. The Heaviside function, H(x), is defined to be 0 for x < 0, 1/2 for x = 0, and 1 for x > 0. For the interval in the Laplace integral, the Heaviside function is identical to the constant function f(x) = 1.

Okay, so in the context of the broader problem: $$x=L^{-1} \frac{e^(-2s)}{s(s+2)^2} $$ In which I get the result $$x = \frac{H(t-2)}{4}(1 -e^{4-2t}+2te^{4-2t}-4e^{4-2t})$$ The first term could be replaced by ##H(t-2)## and both would be correct?
 
Blanchdog said:
Okay, so in the context of the broader problem: $$x=L^{-1} \frac{e^(-2s)}{s(s+2)^2} $$ In which I get the result $$x = \frac{H(t-2)}{4}(1 -e^{4-2t}+2te^{4-2t}-4e^{4-2t})$$ The first term could be replaced by ##H(t-2)## and both would be correct?
I'm not sure what you're doing above.
$$\mathcal L^{-1}[\frac{e^{-2s}}{s(s + 2)^2}] = \mathcal L^{-1}[ \frac{1/4e^{-2s}}{s} + \frac{-1/4e^{-2s}}{s+2} + \frac{-1/2e^{-2s}}{(s + 2)^2}]$$
I don't know why you have four terms inside the parentheses or why you have H(t-2) multiplying those four terms.
 
Mark44 said:
I'm not sure what you're doing above.
$$\mathcal L^{-1}[\frac{e^{-2s}}{s(s + 2)^2}] = \mathcal L^{-1}[ \frac{1/4e^{-2s}}{s} + \frac{-1/4e^{-2s}}{s+2} + \frac{-1/2e^{-2s}}{(s + 2)^2}]$$
I don't know why you have four terms inside the parentheses or why you have H(t-2) multiplying those four terms.
I broke up the last term because it was multiplied by ##(t-1)##. I also got the last term as being positive rather than negative in my partial fraction expansion.

EDIT: Found my algebra error, your partial fraction expansion is right.
 
Last edited:
I didn't work out the inverse Laplace transforms of what I showed. All I did was to get the partial fraction decomposition.
$$\frac 1 {s(s + 2)^2} = \frac {1/4}{s} + \frac{-1/4}{s+ 2} + \frac{-1/2}{(s + 2)^2}$$
I've checked my work, so I'm pretty confident of the coefficients.

I don't understand what you're saying about being multiplied by t - 1. I also don't understand why you have H(t - 2) multiplying all of your terms.
 
I've used the theorem ##L (H(t-c)*f(t-c)) = e^{-cs} F(s)##, where the partial fraction expansion above is ##F(s)##, and ##c = 2##. Since the problem is of the form of this theorem, the inverse transform results in a heaviside function multiplied by the inverse transform of ##F(s)## with t substituted by ##(t-c)##, in this case ##(t-2)## (not 1, I misread my work before).
 
Blanchdog said:
I've used the theorem L(H(t−c)∗f(t−c))=e−csF(s), where the partial fraction expansion above is F(s), and c=2. Since the problem is of the form of this theorem, the inverse transform results in a heaviside function multiplied by the inverse transform of F(s) with t substituted by (t−c), in this case (t−2) (not 1, I misread my work before).
Be careful when you write ##\mathcal L[H(t - c) * f(t - c)]##. I took this at first to mean the transform of the convolution of H(t - c) and f(t - c). Not that the symbol '*' is used for convolution.
Some definitions:
$$f(t) * g(t) = \int_0^1 f(t - x)g(x)dx$$
$$\mathcal L[f(t) * g(t)] = F(s)G(s)$$

Regarding your problem, with the wrinkles removed, do you still have any questions?
 
Last edited:
When you take a Laplace Transform of a function ##f##, you typically ignore what ##f(t)## is for negative values of ##t##, so when the table says ##f(t)=1##, what it really means is ##f(t)=1## for ##t\ge 0##. But when you shift this function to the right, the value of ##f(t)## for negative values of ##t## becomes important, and it's assumed that ##f(t)=0## for ##t<0##. So the full definition of ##f## is really
$$f(t) = \begin{cases} 1 & t \ge 0 \\ 0 & t<0 \end{cases},$$ which you should recognize is one of the possible definitions for the Heaviside step function.

On a related note, when you invert, say, ##F(s) = \frac 1{s+a}## and get ##f(t) = e^{-at}##, it's understood that this result is valid only for ##t\ge 0##. Technically, you should write ##f(t) = e^{-at} H(t)##, but pedantically including the step function can get tedious, so it's often omitted and assumed that the reader knows it's there.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K