Re: integral of sin(x)/x
- From: grubb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Daniel Grubb)
- Date: 17 Nov 2005 18:25:40 GMT
>>>The reason that this derivation begs the question is that
>>>you actually have to know that the integral of sin(k)/k
>>>is pi/2 to prove that taking the Fourier transform of
>>>the Fourier transform gives the original function back.
>>
>>No, you don't need this. Some proofs of the fact *use* this,
>>but there are other proofs that don't.
>Well, I don't know of how you would prove it without
>doing something at least as difficult.
Another way of doing this is to use f(x)=exp(-x^2), which
satisfies f'(x)+xf(x)=0. The Fourier transform satisfies
the same differential equation. This trick is used in Rudin's
book on Functional analysis to anchor the inversion theorem.
This is much easier than using sin(x)/x, IMHO.
--Dan Grubb
.
- References:
- integral of sin(x)/x
- From: david
- Re: integral of sin(x)/x
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: integral of sin(x)/x
- From: Daniel Grubb
- Re: integral of sin(x)/x
- From: Daryl McCullough
- integral of sin(x)/x
- Prev by Date: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Next by Date: Re: More of an Algorithems question
- Previous by thread: Re: integral of sin(x)/x
- Next by thread: Re: integral of sin(x)/x
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading