|
|
Line 169: |
Line 169: |
|
1. Find <math> \mathcal{F}\left[\int_{-\infty}^ \infty s(t)dt\right]</math> <br> |
|
1. Find <math> \mathcal{F}\left[\int_{-\infty}^ \infty s(t)dt\right]</math> <br> |
|
First we know that <math> \mathcal{F}\left[\int_{-\infty}^ \infty s(t)dt\right] = \int_{-\infty}^\infty\left(\int_{-\infty}^ \infty s(t)dt\right)e^{-j2\pi ft} dt </math> <br> |
|
First we know that <math> \mathcal{F}\left[\int_{-\infty}^ \infty s(t)dt\right] = \int_{-\infty}^\infty\left(\int_{-\infty}^ \infty s(t)dt\right)e^{-j2\pi ft} dt </math> <br> |
|
We also know that <math> \mathcal{F}\left[s(t)\right] = S(f) and \int_{-\infty}^ \infty e^{-j2\pi ft} dt = \delta(f) </math> <br> |
|
We also know that <math> \mathcal{F}\left[s(t)\right] = S(f) \mbox{ and } \int_{-\infty}^ \infty e^{-j2\pi ft} dt = \delta(f) </math> <br> |
|
Which gives us <math> \int_{-\infty}^\infty\left(\int_{-\infty}^ \infty s(t)dt\right)e^{j2\pi ft} dt = \int_{-\infty}^ \infty S(f) \delta (f)df </math> <br> |
|
(+) Which gives us <math> \int_{-\infty}^\infty\left(\int_{-\infty}^ \infty s(t)dt\right)e^{-j2\pi ft} dt = \int_{-\infty}^ \infty S(f) \delta (f)df </math> <br> |
|
Since <math> \int_{-\infty}^ \infty \delta (f) df </math> is only non-zero at f = 0 this yeilds <br> |
|
Since <math> \int_{-\infty}^ \infty \delta (f) df </math> is only non-zero at f = 0 this yeilds <br> |
|
<math> \int_{-\infty}^ \infty S(f) \delta (f)df = S(0) </math> <br> |
|
<math> \int_{-\infty}^ \infty S(f) \delta (f)df = S(0) </math> <br> |
|
So <math> \mathcal{F}\left[\int_{-\infty}^ \infty s(t)dt\right] = S(0)</math> <br><br> |
|
So <math> \mathcal{F}\left[\int_{-\infty}^ \infty s(t)dt\right] = S(0)</math> <br><br> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviewed by [[Nick Christman]] |
|
'''PLEASE ENTER PEER REVIEW HERE''' <br><br><br> |
|
|
|
-- I fixed one typo (needed a minus sign in the exponential). I'm not sure about the step (+). I would like to believe it, but I'm just not sure that it works... if you are sure it works, maybe add a little comment to explain it a little better. Other than that, it looks good! <br><br><br> |
|
|
|
|
|
2. Find <math>\mathcal{F}\left[e^{j2\pi f_0t}s(t)\right] </math><br> |
|
2. Find <math>\mathcal{F}\left[e^{j2\pi f_0t}s(t)\right] </math><br> |
Some properties to choose from if you are having difficulty....
Max Woesner
1. Find
Recall , so
Also recall ,so
Now
So
reviewed by Joshua Sarris
2. Find
Recall
Similarly,
So
Now
Note that
Added step per Nick's suggestion
Substituting gives us
And
Since is a simply a dummy variable, we can conclude that:
"I was going to make a comment on the delta identity, but after looking at it closer I think it is fine. One comment I have is that you might consider adding one more step, showing the delta function in the integral and pulling the integrands together to make it look like a double integral -- it isn't necessary and I understood the transition, but it helps the proof/identity look a little more complete. Good job!"
Example:
Reviewed by Nick Christman
Nick Christman
Note: After scratching my head for a couple of hours, I decided that I would try a different Fourier Property. In fact, I chose a property that would need to be defined in order to show my second property.
1. Find
This is a fairly straightforward property and is known as complex modulation
Combining terms, we get:
Now let's make the following substitution
This now gives us a surprisingly familiar function:
This looks just like !
We can now conclude that:
PLEASE ENTER PEER REVIEW HERE
2. 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:
PLEASE ENTER PEER REVIEW HERE
Joshua Sarris
Find
Recall
,
so expanding we have,
Also recall
,
so we can convert to exponentials.
Now integrating gives us, ( I believe you are missing 'j' in the denominator of the second term)
So we now have the identity,
or rather
Reviewed by Max Woesner
Also reviewed by Nick Christman
-- Looks good. I found one typo (I think), see . Good job Josh!
Kevin Starkey
1. Find
First we know that
We also know that
(+) Which gives us
Since is only non-zero at f = 0 this yeilds
So
Reviewed by Nick Christman
-- I fixed one typo (needed a minus sign in the exponential). I'm not sure about the step (+). I would like to believe it, but I'm just not sure that it works... if you are sure it works, maybe add a little comment to explain it a little better. Other than that, it looks good!
2. Find
First
or rearranging we get
Which leads to
So
PLEASE ENTER PEER REVIEW HERE