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.
complex-analysis fourier-series transformation
add a comment |
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.
complex-analysis fourier-series transformation
add a comment |
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.
complex-analysis fourier-series transformation
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
complex-analysis fourier-series transformation
edited Nov 15 at 16:55
asked Nov 14 at 14:01
Daniel
1085
1085
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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).
add a comment |
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.
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).
add a comment |
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.
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).
add a comment |
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.
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).
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.
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).
edited Nov 16 at 12:36
answered Nov 15 at 13:06
Daniel
1085
1085
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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