Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Elementary Fourier analysis
Replies: 2   Last Post: Apr 23, 2013 11:34 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Paul Posts: 780 Registered: 7/12/10
Re: Elementary Fourier analysis
Posted: Apr 23, 2013 11:34 AM

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 2:42:29 PM UTC+1, dull...@sprynet.com wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:27:14 -0700 (PDT), pepstein5@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>

> >As I understand it, the sum from n = -infinity to n = infinity of c_n exp(inx) is defined as the limit as N tends to infinity of the sum from -N to N of c_n exp(inx).
>
>
>
> Usually, yes.
>
>
>

> >Suppose the infinite sum is defined as lim N -> infinity, M-> infinity [ the sum from n = - M to n = N] of c_n exp(inx), then does the basic theory change?
>
>
>
> Yes. Because the symmetric partial sum is equal to f *D_N, where *
>
> denotes convolution and D_N is the Dirichlet kernel; this is the basis
>
> of many results about convergence of Fourier series, and it
>
> doesn't work for asymmetric partial sums.
>
>
>
> See "Dini's test" and its proof, for example.
>
>
>

> >Would Parseval's theorem fail to hold with this alternative definition?
>
>
>
> No, Parseval holds for any sort of rearrangement of the Fourier
>
> series.
>
>
>
> Because Parseval is just a result about complete orthonormal
>
> sets, and any reordering of the standard orthonomal basis
>
> is still an orthonormal basis. The things that do change are
>
> subtler than Parseval.
>
>
>

> >
>
> >Thank you,
>
> >
>
> >Paul Epstein

Thanks a lot. Great response.

Paul

Date Subject Author
4/23/13 Paul
4/23/13 David C. Ullrich
4/23/13 Paul