What theorem accounts for the decay rate of this Fourier series?
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
It is known that the function defined as
$$ f (theta) = frac{1}{2}(pi - theta )$$
for $0< theta < 2 pi $, and $f(0)=0$, and extended periodically to the whole axis has the Fourier series
$$ sum_{n=1}^infty frac{sin ntheta }{n } .$$
Here the Fourier coefficients $F_n$ decay as $O(1/n)$.
My problem is, what theorem tells us this behavior without calculation? The Riemann-Lebesgue theorem only gives $F_n rightarrow 0$. We also have the theorem that if $f$ is in $C^k$, then $F_n = O(1/n^k)$. But here the specific $f$ is not even in $C^0$.
analysis fourier-analysis
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
It is known that the function defined as
$$ f (theta) = frac{1}{2}(pi - theta )$$
for $0< theta < 2 pi $, and $f(0)=0$, and extended periodically to the whole axis has the Fourier series
$$ sum_{n=1}^infty frac{sin ntheta }{n } .$$
Here the Fourier coefficients $F_n$ decay as $O(1/n)$.
My problem is, what theorem tells us this behavior without calculation? The Riemann-Lebesgue theorem only gives $F_n rightarrow 0$. We also have the theorem that if $f$ is in $C^k$, then $F_n = O(1/n^k)$. But here the specific $f$ is not even in $C^0$.
analysis fourier-analysis
1
Can the lemma in Christian Blatter's answer here be generalized to relax the continuity requirement on $f$?
– Rahul
Nov 16 at 9:41
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
It is known that the function defined as
$$ f (theta) = frac{1}{2}(pi - theta )$$
for $0< theta < 2 pi $, and $f(0)=0$, and extended periodically to the whole axis has the Fourier series
$$ sum_{n=1}^infty frac{sin ntheta }{n } .$$
Here the Fourier coefficients $F_n$ decay as $O(1/n)$.
My problem is, what theorem tells us this behavior without calculation? The Riemann-Lebesgue theorem only gives $F_n rightarrow 0$. We also have the theorem that if $f$ is in $C^k$, then $F_n = O(1/n^k)$. But here the specific $f$ is not even in $C^0$.
analysis fourier-analysis
It is known that the function defined as
$$ f (theta) = frac{1}{2}(pi - theta )$$
for $0< theta < 2 pi $, and $f(0)=0$, and extended periodically to the whole axis has the Fourier series
$$ sum_{n=1}^infty frac{sin ntheta }{n } .$$
Here the Fourier coefficients $F_n$ decay as $O(1/n)$.
My problem is, what theorem tells us this behavior without calculation? The Riemann-Lebesgue theorem only gives $F_n rightarrow 0$. We also have the theorem that if $f$ is in $C^k$, then $F_n = O(1/n^k)$. But here the specific $f$ is not even in $C^0$.
analysis fourier-analysis
analysis fourier-analysis
asked Nov 16 at 9:17
pie
413
413
1
Can the lemma in Christian Blatter's answer here be generalized to relax the continuity requirement on $f$?
– Rahul
Nov 16 at 9:41
add a comment |
1
Can the lemma in Christian Blatter's answer here be generalized to relax the continuity requirement on $f$?
– Rahul
Nov 16 at 9:41
1
1
Can the lemma in Christian Blatter's answer here be generalized to relax the continuity requirement on $f$?
– Rahul
Nov 16 at 9:41
Can the lemma in Christian Blatter's answer here be generalized to relax the continuity requirement on $f$?
– Rahul
Nov 16 at 9:41
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
For functions of bounded variation, we can show that its Fourier coefficient is $mathcal{O}(1/n)$. For a proof, you can start with a monotone function. Finally, noting that
$$ int_0^{2pi}f(x)e^{-inx}dx=-int_0^{2pi}f(x+frac{pi}{n})e^{-inx}dx$$ would give the desired result.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Another argument is that by differentiating the jump becomes a delta-function, whose Fourier series is constant, but differentiation in Fourier space causes the $n$th Fourier coefficient to be multiplied by $n$. So $1/n$ behaviour indicates a jump of finite size (and can sometimes be useful in checking Fourier calculations).
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
For functions of bounded variation, we can show that its Fourier coefficient is $mathcal{O}(1/n)$. For a proof, you can start with a monotone function. Finally, noting that
$$ int_0^{2pi}f(x)e^{-inx}dx=-int_0^{2pi}f(x+frac{pi}{n})e^{-inx}dx$$ would give the desired result.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
For functions of bounded variation, we can show that its Fourier coefficient is $mathcal{O}(1/n)$. For a proof, you can start with a monotone function. Finally, noting that
$$ int_0^{2pi}f(x)e^{-inx}dx=-int_0^{2pi}f(x+frac{pi}{n})e^{-inx}dx$$ would give the desired result.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
For functions of bounded variation, we can show that its Fourier coefficient is $mathcal{O}(1/n)$. For a proof, you can start with a monotone function. Finally, noting that
$$ int_0^{2pi}f(x)e^{-inx}dx=-int_0^{2pi}f(x+frac{pi}{n})e^{-inx}dx$$ would give the desired result.
For functions of bounded variation, we can show that its Fourier coefficient is $mathcal{O}(1/n)$. For a proof, you can start with a monotone function. Finally, noting that
$$ int_0^{2pi}f(x)e^{-inx}dx=-int_0^{2pi}f(x+frac{pi}{n})e^{-inx}dx$$ would give the desired result.
answered Nov 16 at 10:05
Song
5439
5439
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Another argument is that by differentiating the jump becomes a delta-function, whose Fourier series is constant, but differentiation in Fourier space causes the $n$th Fourier coefficient to be multiplied by $n$. So $1/n$ behaviour indicates a jump of finite size (and can sometimes be useful in checking Fourier calculations).
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Another argument is that by differentiating the jump becomes a delta-function, whose Fourier series is constant, but differentiation in Fourier space causes the $n$th Fourier coefficient to be multiplied by $n$. So $1/n$ behaviour indicates a jump of finite size (and can sometimes be useful in checking Fourier calculations).
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Another argument is that by differentiating the jump becomes a delta-function, whose Fourier series is constant, but differentiation in Fourier space causes the $n$th Fourier coefficient to be multiplied by $n$. So $1/n$ behaviour indicates a jump of finite size (and can sometimes be useful in checking Fourier calculations).
Another argument is that by differentiating the jump becomes a delta-function, whose Fourier series is constant, but differentiation in Fourier space causes the $n$th Fourier coefficient to be multiplied by $n$. So $1/n$ behaviour indicates a jump of finite size (and can sometimes be useful in checking Fourier calculations).
answered Nov 16 at 10:50
Richard Martin
1,3938
1,3938
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%2f3000929%2fwhat-theorem-accounts-for-the-decay-rate-of-this-fourier-series%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
1
Can the lemma in Christian Blatter's answer here be generalized to relax the continuity requirement on $f$?
– Rahul
Nov 16 at 9:41