Discrete Fourier transform of exp(i k |m|)











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Apologies if this is not mathematically very precise.



I have been trying to calculate the Fourier series of $e^{i q |m|}$, but I'm having trouble with the absolute value in the exponential.
Without having a proof, I think this might be true, but I'm not sure.
$$sum_{m=-infty}^infty e^{i(q|m|-km)}=1+sum_{m=1}^inftyleft(e^{i m(q-k)}+e^{i m(q+k)}right)
=1+pi(delta(q-k)+delta(q+k))$$

Splitting up $e^{i q|m|}=cos(qm) + i |sin(qm)|$
the second term in the above formula would correspond to the cosine part, but it seems wrong that the sine part becomes just 1?



--------- EDIT -------



I now believe that the LHS equals just $pi(delta(q-k)+delta(q+k))$ (I've done the sum from -5000 to 5000 and plotted the real and imaginary parts). I still don't know how to show this though.



--------- EDIT2 --------



Actually, it seems that there is also some part like $idelta'(k-q)+idelta'(k+q)$ or something similar.










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    Apologies if this is not mathematically very precise.



    I have been trying to calculate the Fourier series of $e^{i q |m|}$, but I'm having trouble with the absolute value in the exponential.
    Without having a proof, I think this might be true, but I'm not sure.
    $$sum_{m=-infty}^infty e^{i(q|m|-km)}=1+sum_{m=1}^inftyleft(e^{i m(q-k)}+e^{i m(q+k)}right)
    =1+pi(delta(q-k)+delta(q+k))$$

    Splitting up $e^{i q|m|}=cos(qm) + i |sin(qm)|$
    the second term in the above formula would correspond to the cosine part, but it seems wrong that the sine part becomes just 1?



    --------- EDIT -------



    I now believe that the LHS equals just $pi(delta(q-k)+delta(q+k))$ (I've done the sum from -5000 to 5000 and plotted the real and imaginary parts). I still don't know how to show this though.



    --------- EDIT2 --------



    Actually, it seems that there is also some part like $idelta'(k-q)+idelta'(k+q)$ or something similar.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      Apologies if this is not mathematically very precise.



      I have been trying to calculate the Fourier series of $e^{i q |m|}$, but I'm having trouble with the absolute value in the exponential.
      Without having a proof, I think this might be true, but I'm not sure.
      $$sum_{m=-infty}^infty e^{i(q|m|-km)}=1+sum_{m=1}^inftyleft(e^{i m(q-k)}+e^{i m(q+k)}right)
      =1+pi(delta(q-k)+delta(q+k))$$

      Splitting up $e^{i q|m|}=cos(qm) + i |sin(qm)|$
      the second term in the above formula would correspond to the cosine part, but it seems wrong that the sine part becomes just 1?



      --------- EDIT -------



      I now believe that the LHS equals just $pi(delta(q-k)+delta(q+k))$ (I've done the sum from -5000 to 5000 and plotted the real and imaginary parts). I still don't know how to show this though.



      --------- EDIT2 --------



      Actually, it seems that there is also some part like $idelta'(k-q)+idelta'(k+q)$ or something similar.










      share|cite|improve this question















      Apologies if this is not mathematically very precise.



      I have been trying to calculate the Fourier series of $e^{i q |m|}$, but I'm having trouble with the absolute value in the exponential.
      Without having a proof, I think this might be true, but I'm not sure.
      $$sum_{m=-infty}^infty e^{i(q|m|-km)}=1+sum_{m=1}^inftyleft(e^{i m(q-k)}+e^{i m(q+k)}right)
      =1+pi(delta(q-k)+delta(q+k))$$

      Splitting up $e^{i q|m|}=cos(qm) + i |sin(qm)|$
      the second term in the above formula would correspond to the cosine part, but it seems wrong that the sine part becomes just 1?



      --------- EDIT -------



      I now believe that the LHS equals just $pi(delta(q-k)+delta(q+k))$ (I've done the sum from -5000 to 5000 and plotted the real and imaginary parts). I still don't know how to show this though.



      --------- EDIT2 --------



      Actually, it seems that there is also some part like $idelta'(k-q)+idelta'(k+q)$ or something similar.







      complex-analysis fourier-series transformation






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 15 at 16:55

























      asked Nov 14 at 14:01









      Daniel

      1085




      1085






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          We can make some progress by taking the real part, which is straightforward and then calculate the imaginary part via the Kramers-Kronig relations. The latter requires the function in question to be analytic in the UHP and vanish as $|k|toinfty$.



          This is why we'll consider the complex conjugate instead
          $$chi(k)=sum_{m=-infty}^infty e^{i(km-q|m|)}.$$
          I'm not entirely sure if the function is analytic. If it isn't, that might explain the discrepancy of this calculation to the actual solution.



          The real part is
          $$Re[chi(k)]=1+sum_{m=1}^inftyleft[cos((q-k)m)+cos((q+k)m)right]
          =pileft[delta(k-q)+delta(k+q)right],$$

          such that the imaginary part evaluates to
          $$Im[chi(k)]=-frac1pimathcal Pint_{-infty}^inftyfrac{Re[chi(k')]}{k'-k},dk'
          =frac{1}{k-q}+frac{1}{k+q}.$$



          However, this answer is not quite right, as can be seen from the numerical solution. The actual answer should be
          $$Im[chi(k)]=frac{1}{k-q}-frac{1}{k+q},$$
          the crucial difference being the minus sign, which is probably related to the absolute value being nonanalytical at 0.



          numerics
          Blue=actual answer, grey=numerically performed sum (oscillatory), green=average of grey.



          Another way to write the solution is
          $$sum_{m=-infty}^infty e^{ikam-ik_0a|m|}
          =frac ialeft(frac 1{k-k_0+ivarepsilon}-frac 1{k+k_0-ivarepsilon}right)$$

          (understood in the usual sense that you have to take the limit $varepsilonto0^+$ in the end).






          share|cite|improve this answer























            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2998306%2fdiscrete-fourier-transform-of-expi-k-m%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            0
            down vote













            We can make some progress by taking the real part, which is straightforward and then calculate the imaginary part via the Kramers-Kronig relations. The latter requires the function in question to be analytic in the UHP and vanish as $|k|toinfty$.



            This is why we'll consider the complex conjugate instead
            $$chi(k)=sum_{m=-infty}^infty e^{i(km-q|m|)}.$$
            I'm not entirely sure if the function is analytic. If it isn't, that might explain the discrepancy of this calculation to the actual solution.



            The real part is
            $$Re[chi(k)]=1+sum_{m=1}^inftyleft[cos((q-k)m)+cos((q+k)m)right]
            =pileft[delta(k-q)+delta(k+q)right],$$

            such that the imaginary part evaluates to
            $$Im[chi(k)]=-frac1pimathcal Pint_{-infty}^inftyfrac{Re[chi(k')]}{k'-k},dk'
            =frac{1}{k-q}+frac{1}{k+q}.$$



            However, this answer is not quite right, as can be seen from the numerical solution. The actual answer should be
            $$Im[chi(k)]=frac{1}{k-q}-frac{1}{k+q},$$
            the crucial difference being the minus sign, which is probably related to the absolute value being nonanalytical at 0.



            numerics
            Blue=actual answer, grey=numerically performed sum (oscillatory), green=average of grey.



            Another way to write the solution is
            $$sum_{m=-infty}^infty e^{ikam-ik_0a|m|}
            =frac ialeft(frac 1{k-k_0+ivarepsilon}-frac 1{k+k_0-ivarepsilon}right)$$

            (understood in the usual sense that you have to take the limit $varepsilonto0^+$ in the end).






            share|cite|improve this answer



























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              We can make some progress by taking the real part, which is straightforward and then calculate the imaginary part via the Kramers-Kronig relations. The latter requires the function in question to be analytic in the UHP and vanish as $|k|toinfty$.



              This is why we'll consider the complex conjugate instead
              $$chi(k)=sum_{m=-infty}^infty e^{i(km-q|m|)}.$$
              I'm not entirely sure if the function is analytic. If it isn't, that might explain the discrepancy of this calculation to the actual solution.



              The real part is
              $$Re[chi(k)]=1+sum_{m=1}^inftyleft[cos((q-k)m)+cos((q+k)m)right]
              =pileft[delta(k-q)+delta(k+q)right],$$

              such that the imaginary part evaluates to
              $$Im[chi(k)]=-frac1pimathcal Pint_{-infty}^inftyfrac{Re[chi(k')]}{k'-k},dk'
              =frac{1}{k-q}+frac{1}{k+q}.$$



              However, this answer is not quite right, as can be seen from the numerical solution. The actual answer should be
              $$Im[chi(k)]=frac{1}{k-q}-frac{1}{k+q},$$
              the crucial difference being the minus sign, which is probably related to the absolute value being nonanalytical at 0.



              numerics
              Blue=actual answer, grey=numerically performed sum (oscillatory), green=average of grey.



              Another way to write the solution is
              $$sum_{m=-infty}^infty e^{ikam-ik_0a|m|}
              =frac ialeft(frac 1{k-k_0+ivarepsilon}-frac 1{k+k_0-ivarepsilon}right)$$

              (understood in the usual sense that you have to take the limit $varepsilonto0^+$ in the end).






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                0
                down vote










                up vote
                0
                down vote









                We can make some progress by taking the real part, which is straightforward and then calculate the imaginary part via the Kramers-Kronig relations. The latter requires the function in question to be analytic in the UHP and vanish as $|k|toinfty$.



                This is why we'll consider the complex conjugate instead
                $$chi(k)=sum_{m=-infty}^infty e^{i(km-q|m|)}.$$
                I'm not entirely sure if the function is analytic. If it isn't, that might explain the discrepancy of this calculation to the actual solution.



                The real part is
                $$Re[chi(k)]=1+sum_{m=1}^inftyleft[cos((q-k)m)+cos((q+k)m)right]
                =pileft[delta(k-q)+delta(k+q)right],$$

                such that the imaginary part evaluates to
                $$Im[chi(k)]=-frac1pimathcal Pint_{-infty}^inftyfrac{Re[chi(k')]}{k'-k},dk'
                =frac{1}{k-q}+frac{1}{k+q}.$$



                However, this answer is not quite right, as can be seen from the numerical solution. The actual answer should be
                $$Im[chi(k)]=frac{1}{k-q}-frac{1}{k+q},$$
                the crucial difference being the minus sign, which is probably related to the absolute value being nonanalytical at 0.



                numerics
                Blue=actual answer, grey=numerically performed sum (oscillatory), green=average of grey.



                Another way to write the solution is
                $$sum_{m=-infty}^infty e^{ikam-ik_0a|m|}
                =frac ialeft(frac 1{k-k_0+ivarepsilon}-frac 1{k+k_0-ivarepsilon}right)$$

                (understood in the usual sense that you have to take the limit $varepsilonto0^+$ in the end).






                share|cite|improve this answer














                We can make some progress by taking the real part, which is straightforward and then calculate the imaginary part via the Kramers-Kronig relations. The latter requires the function in question to be analytic in the UHP and vanish as $|k|toinfty$.



                This is why we'll consider the complex conjugate instead
                $$chi(k)=sum_{m=-infty}^infty e^{i(km-q|m|)}.$$
                I'm not entirely sure if the function is analytic. If it isn't, that might explain the discrepancy of this calculation to the actual solution.



                The real part is
                $$Re[chi(k)]=1+sum_{m=1}^inftyleft[cos((q-k)m)+cos((q+k)m)right]
                =pileft[delta(k-q)+delta(k+q)right],$$

                such that the imaginary part evaluates to
                $$Im[chi(k)]=-frac1pimathcal Pint_{-infty}^inftyfrac{Re[chi(k')]}{k'-k},dk'
                =frac{1}{k-q}+frac{1}{k+q}.$$



                However, this answer is not quite right, as can be seen from the numerical solution. The actual answer should be
                $$Im[chi(k)]=frac{1}{k-q}-frac{1}{k+q},$$
                the crucial difference being the minus sign, which is probably related to the absolute value being nonanalytical at 0.



                numerics
                Blue=actual answer, grey=numerically performed sum (oscillatory), green=average of grey.



                Another way to write the solution is
                $$sum_{m=-infty}^infty e^{ikam-ik_0a|m|}
                =frac ialeft(frac 1{k-k_0+ivarepsilon}-frac 1{k+k_0-ivarepsilon}right)$$

                (understood in the usual sense that you have to take the limit $varepsilonto0^+$ in the end).







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Nov 16 at 12:36

























                answered Nov 15 at 13:06









                Daniel

                1085




                1085






























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded



















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2998306%2fdiscrete-fourier-transform-of-expi-k-m%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Plaza Victoria

                    In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

                    How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...