Homework Six: Difference between revisions

From Class Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 23: Line 23:
(c) Do another property on the Wiki and get it reviewed (i.e. review a second property) -- [[Fourier Transform Properties]]
(c) Do another property on the Wiki and get it reviewed (i.e. review a second property) -- [[Fourier Transform Properties]]


'''Find <math>\mathcal{F} \left[ g(t-t_{0})e^{j2 \pi f_{0}t} \right]</math><br/>'''
(i) '''Find <math>\mathcal{F} \left[ g(t-t_{0})e^{j2 \pi f_{0}t} \right]</math><br/>'''


-- Using the above definition of ''complex modulation'' and the definition from class of a ''time delay'' (a.k.a "the slacker function"), I will attempt to show a hybrid of the two...
-- Using the above definition of ''complex modulation'' and the definition from class of a ''time delay'' (a.k.a "the slacker function"), I will attempt to show a hybrid of the two...
Line 68: Line 68:


<br/>
<br/>

(ii)
I reviewed Max's second Fourier Transform property: <math>\mathcal{F}\bigg[\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}g(t) h^*(t) dt\bigg]</math>

As near as I can tell, it all looks legitimate. I made one comment about adding an additional step to make the proof/identity more complete, but that was all that I could find.

Revision as of 17:30, 31 October 2009

Perform the following tasks:


Nick Christman



(a) Show . HINT:




(b)If can you find in terms of ?




(c) Do another property on the Wiki and get it reviewed (i.e. review a second property) -- Fourier Transform Properties

(i) Find

-- Using the above definition of complex modulation and the definition from class of a time delay (a.k.a "the slacker function"), I will attempt to show a hybrid of the two...

By definition we know that:

Rearranging terms we get:


Now lets make the substitution .
This leads us to:

After some simplification and rearranging terms, we get:

Rearranging the terms yet again, we get:

We know that the exponential in terms of is simply a constant and because of the Fourier Property of complex modualtion, we finally get:


(ii) I reviewed Max's second Fourier Transform property:

As near as I can tell, it all looks legitimate. I made one comment about adding an additional step to make the proof/identity more complete, but that was all that I could find.