MHB Write f(x) in terms of the unit step function u(x)

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on expressing the function f(x) in terms of the unit step function u(x). The original function f(x) is defined to be 1 for intervals between 2n and 2n+1, and 0 elsewhere. It is proposed that f(x) can be represented as a sum involving the unit step function, specifically f(x) = ∑_{n=0}^{∞} (-1)^{n} u(x-n). Additionally, the Laplace transform of a related function f_a(x) is discussed, revealing that its inverse transform yields a similar expression involving the unit step function. The key takeaway is the relationship between f(x) and the unit step function, highlighting their mathematical connections.
alexmahone
Messages
303
Reaction score
0
Write f(x) in terms of the unit step function u(x).

$u(x)=\left\{ \begin{array}{rcl} 1\ &\text{if}& \ x\geq 0 \\ 0\ &\text{if}& \ x<0\end{array} \right.$

$f(x)=\left\{ \begin{array}{rcl} 1\ &\text{if}& \ 2n\le x\le 2n+1 \\ 0\ &\text{elsewhere}\end{array} \right.$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A more useful definition of 'Haeviside Step Function' or 'Unit Step Function' is...

$\mathcal{u}(x)=\begin{cases}1 &\text{if}\ x>0\\ \frac{1}{2} &\text{if}\ x=0\\ 0 &\text{if}\ x<0\end{cases}$ (1)

... and the function...

$f(x)=\begin{cases} 1 &\text{if}\ 2n<x<2n+1\\ \frac{1}{2} &\text{if}\ x=n\\ 0 &\text{elsewhere}\end{cases}$ (2)

... can be written as...

$\displaystyle f(x)= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} (-1)^{n} \mathcal{u}(x-n)$ (3)

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
chisigma said:
A more useful definition of 'Haeviside Step Function' or 'Unit Step Function' is...

But I need to use the definition in post #1.

I get $\displaystyle f(x)=\sum_{-\infty}^\infty u(x-2n)u(2n+1-x)$
 
chisigma said:
A more useful definition of 'Haeviside Step Function' or 'Unit Step Function' is...

$\mathcal{u}(x)=\begin{cases}1 &\text{if}\ x>0\\ \frac{1}{2} &\text{if}\ x=0\\ 0 &\text{if}\ x<0\end{cases}$ (1)

... and the function...

$f(x)=\begin{cases} 1 &\text{if}\ 2n<x<2n+1\\ \frac{1}{2} &\text{if}\ x=n\\ 0 &\text{elsewhere}\end{cases}$ (2)

... can be written as...

$\displaystyle f(x)= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} (-1)^{n} \mathcal{u}(x-n)$ (3)

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

It is curious the fact that the function...

$\displaystyle f_{a}(x) =\begin{cases} 1 &\text{if}\ 2n \le x \le 2n+1\\ 0 &\text{elsewhere}\end{cases}$ (1)

... has Laplace Transform...

$\displaystyle \mathcal{L}\{f_{a}(x)\}= F(s)= \frac{1}{s\ (1+e^-s)}$ (2)

... and the (2) has Inverse Laplace Transform...

$\displaystyle \mathcal{L}^{-1}\{F(s)\}= f_{b}(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} (-1)^{n}\ \mathcal{u}(x-n)$ (3)

... so that for the unicity of the inverse L-transform $f_{a}(x)$ and $f_{b}(x)$ are 'pratically' the same function... where 'pratically' means that the difference between then is a 'null function'...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
526
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K