3

We can find the Fourier transform as the limit for infinite period of a Fourier series as explained in https://class.ece.uw.edu/235dl/EE235/Project/lesson15old/lesson15.html

I do the derivation they do:

$f_p$ is a $L$ periodic function. I define $$k_n = \frac{2 \pi n}{L}\qquad \text{and}\qquad c_n = \frac{1}{L} \int_{-L/2}^{L/2} f_p(x) e^{-i k_n x}~ dx$$

$$f_p(x)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+ \infty} c_n e^{i k_n x}$$

Now, we take the period going to infinity and define $$f(x)=\lim_{L \to + \infty} f_p(x)$$

$$\implies f(x)=\lim_{L \to + \infty} \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+ \infty} (k_{n+1}-k_n) \left( \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{-L/2}^{L/2}dx f_p(x) e^{-i k_n x} \right) e^{i k_n x}$$

Up to this point I totally agree and I see that $k_{n+1}-k_n=\delta k$ will play the role of the $dk$ in the integration. But this is more a "feeling" than a proof. Because they say that at this point we recognize a Riemann sum and we thus recognize the Fourier transform:

$$f(x)=\int_{-\infty}^{+ \infty} dk \left( \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dx f(x) e^{-i k x} \right) e^{i k x}$$

This is what I don't understand.


From what I understood from comment on this post, it is not true "in general" but only for some "nice" functions. Indeed, for example, the definition of the integral through Riemann sum is the following:

$$ \int_a^b f(x) dx = \lim_{N \to +\infty} \sum_{n=0}^N \frac{(b-a)}{N} f(a + (b-a)\frac{n}{N})$$

But putting both $a$ and $b$ going to $+ \infty$ and $- \infty$ respectively I don't find an analog expression as the infinite-period Fourier series.

My question:

I would like a proof based on the Riemann summations on which for a set of "nice" functions the equality is rigorously proved.

I tried to prove it for compact support functions but I miss something in my proof as you can see in my very last paragraph.

nmasanta
  • 9,640
StarBucK
  • 779
  • This is a heuristic argument and not to be taken literally as a rigorous mathematical proof. There are a great many justifications that are omitted for this to make the least bit of sense. It is only meant to give you a feel for why it is the case. – Cameron L. Williams Sep 30 '19 at 12:10
  • 1
    @CameronWilliams but is it possible to prove it rigorously or it is rigorously wrong ? – StarBucK Sep 30 '19 at 12:10
  • For really nice functions $f$ (like infinitely smooth, exponentially decaying functions), this can be made rigorous, however Fourier theory is done in the general context of Lebesgue integration and measure theory (which is the purview of Lebesgue theory) is the best at dealing with interchanging limits (which is a must here). However implicit in this is Riemann integration which is quite different from Lebesgue integration. Maybe it's possible to make it rigorous, but the amount of hoop jumping would be incredible and not worthwhile (I suspect fairly restricted, e.g. to the Schwartz space). – Cameron L. Williams Sep 30 '19 at 12:14
  • @CameronWilliams so to understand, using not Riemann but Lebesgue integration, the infinite period fourier series is strictly equivalent to the Fourier transform ? If so do you have a document in which this is explained ? Thanks a lot ! – StarBucK Sep 30 '19 at 12:16
  • No no. You cannot take this argument and transport it to the Lebesgue setting (which is the natural setting for Fourier transforms) because this argument invokes Riemann sums and Riemann sums are fundamentally different from "Lebesgue sums". – Cameron L. Williams Sep 30 '19 at 12:19
  • @CameronWilliams ok I am confused now. Is there a general "enough" (taking smooth functions or whatever) framework in which we can rigorously prove that a Fourier serie with an infinite period is equivalent to a Fourier transform ? From your answer I understood that Fourier theory is better done in Lebesgue integration which is the best to understand interchanging limit. So I thought you mean the connection is rigorously done within this context ? (I know I won't have to write a Riemann sum in this context) – StarBucK Sep 30 '19 at 12:28
  • Ah I understand your confusion. Since Lebesgue integration is so different from Riemann (Lebesgue sums are not built on Riemann rectangles exactly which is what this "proof" is built on), trying to make this work in full generality where Fourier theory works 100% is probably impossible, however, for nice functions like the Schwartz class you can probably make this precise. It won't be easy though. – Cameron L. Williams Sep 30 '19 at 12:41
  • @StarBucK the equality you wish to prove (the limit $L \to +\infty$ of the stuff with the $k_n$'s being the fourier inversion formula) can indeed be rigorously proven, possibly just for nice functions. you first have to show $\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-L/2}^{+L/2} f_p(x)e^{-ik_n x}dx$ is really close to $\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f_p(x)e^{-i k_nx}dx$ uniformly in $n$ (this is where you use that $f_p$ is nice); then you end up with $\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} c_{\infty,n}e^{2\pi i\frac{x}{L}}\frac{1}{L}$, where $c_{\infty,n} := \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f_p(x)e^{-i k_nx}dx$ – mathworker21 Feb 08 '20 at 16:18
  • does not depend on $L$. Now you got yourself a Riemann sum and so end up with $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} c_{\infty,k}e^{i kx}dx$. – mathworker21 Feb 08 '20 at 16:19
  • @mathworker21 I would be really interested in such derivation. Note however that I am more doing physics now so I forgot a little bit those notion of uniform convergence even if I learnt it in the past. What I do not totally understand in what you propose however is that you seem to put the limit $L \rightarrow +\infty$ inside of the summation at list for the $c_{{\infty},n}$ on $n$ when you said "then you end up with". Why can you do this ? – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 16:27
  • @StarBucK I didn't put the limit $L \to +\infty$ on the inside. What you have is $\lim_{L \to +\infty} \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} c_{L,n}e^{2\pi i\frac{x}{L}}\frac{1}{L}$. I show that this limit is $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} c_{\infty,k}e^{ikx}dx$. So we must show that $\left|\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} c_{L,n}e^{2\pi i\frac{x}{L}}\frac{1}{L}-\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} c_{\infty,k}e^{ikx}dx\right|$ goes to $0$ as $L \to +\infty$. We use the triangle inequality to bound it by – mathworker21 Feb 08 '20 at 16:31
  • $\left| \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} c_{L,n}e^{2\pi i\frac{x}{L}}\frac{1}{L} - \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} c_{\infty,n}e^{2\pi i\frac{x}{L}}\frac{1}{L}\right| + \left|\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} c_{\infty,n}e^{2\pi i\frac{x}{L}}\frac{1}{L} - \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} c_{\infty,k} e^{ikx}dx\right|$. I explained already that the first term can be handled using that $\sum_n |c_{L,n}-c_{\infty,n}|$ goes to $0$ as $L \to +\infty$ (this is a bit stronger than uniform convergence). The second term goes to $0$ as $L \to +\infty$ since one term is a riemann sum – mathworker21 Feb 08 '20 at 16:31
  • and the other is the corresponding riemann integral – mathworker21 Feb 08 '20 at 16:34
  • @mathworker21 (I am trying to find properly what you suggest here and I come back) – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 16:36
  • @StarBucK ok. I do think there is an issue with $2\pi$'s not appearing in the exponents in $c_{\infty,k}$ and in $e^{ikx}$ (i.e. they should be there) – mathworker21 Feb 08 '20 at 16:39
  • @mathworker21 I don't know if it is the same as what you say here but indeed for me the $\frac{1}{2 \pi}$ should come when I recognize the Riemann sum at the very end (to "switch" from summation on $n$ to summation on $k$ which needs me to multiply by $\frac{1}{2\pi}$, the "density of states"). I don't think it should be present in the $c_{\infty,n}$. I am not sure though I need to do the calculation cleanly – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 16:41
  • @StarBucK im pretty sure it should be in $c_{\infty,n}$. but yea, read what I wrote and try to do everything out cleanly. im pretty sure I have provided everything you need. – mathworker21 Feb 08 '20 at 16:46
  • @mathworker21 I agreed with the triangle inequality you wrote that must go to $0$ to prove the result. However I cannot prove neither the first or the second term goes to $0$. For the second for me it is not exactly a Riemann sum that shows up even if the expression almost looks like it. What "annoys" me are the infinite boundary and the fact $n$ starts at $-\infty$ and not $0$. Look at the Riemann sum I wrote in the end of my question. Maybe it is trivial to show it is equivalent to such form but it is causing me troubles here. – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 17:01
  • @mathworker21 to be more precise, for me the definition of the Riemann sum (for infinite boundary) would be: $$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} g(t)dt = \lim_{(-a,b,N) \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{n=0}^N g(a+n(b-a)/N) 1/N$$ And I cannot relate this expression to the first term in the second part of your triangular inequality. – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 17:11
  • @StarBucK go through the proof of the riemann sum equality you're using. the proof of that should prove this infinite version – mathworker21 Feb 08 '20 at 17:24
  • @mathworker21 For me there is no proof, it is the definition of the Riemann integral that correspond to the limit of the Riemann sum. I am not sure to see what you mean then. (Maybe you were thinking about a connection Riemann-Lebesgue integral but I dont really know well lebesgue integration) – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 17:25
  • @mathworker21 actually from https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1393943/riemann-sum-on-infinite-interval it looks like I need some condition on the derivative of $f$ to be able to solve this problem (it is not true "in general"). – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 17:27
  • @StarBucK the proof in the link is what I had in mind – mathworker21 Feb 08 '20 at 17:29
  • @StarBucK so it seems all you have left is the first term. it clearly suffices to have $\sum_n |c_{L,n}-c_{\infty,n}|$ converge to $0$ as $L \to \infty$. I claim that this will be true for nice $f$. – mathworker21 Feb 08 '20 at 17:31
  • @mathworker21 I managed to do it but for probably too trivial example (like $f$ is non $0$ on a compact, and $0$ elsewhere, because this way I can take $L$ big enough so that the integral on the length $L$ is the same as on the infinite). Maybe I will try to write down as an answer everything I have until now (at least I proved it for compact functions). And if you can suggest me how it can be extended to not soo trivial function I would be happy =) – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 17:55
  • @StarBucK you can approximate nice (e.g. Schwarz) functions by compactly supported functions, so you should be good for nice functions – mathworker21 Feb 08 '20 at 18:03
  • @mathworker21 I wrote an answer with your suggestions. However I am still not sure that $f$ having compact support is enough to make sure everything works fine. Look at my very last paragraph. Also I would be interested in formalizing properly the generalization you propose. – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 19:01

2 Answers2

2

Thanks to @mathworker21 guidance, I managed to prove it for some class of functions.

I assume I work in an ensemble $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}(\mathbb{R})$. In this ensemble the functions admit Fourier transform.

Definitions

I call $f$ a function in $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}(\mathbb{R})$.

I have:

$$f(x)=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \widehat{f}(k) e^{ikx}dk$$ $$\widehat{f}(k)=\frac{1}{2 \pi}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f(x) e^{-ikx}dx$$

I define $f_L$, the function that is build from $f$ periodized on $[-L/2,+L/2]$. I can thus write its Fourier series:

$$f_L(x)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{L} c_{L}(k_n) e^{i k_n x} \text{ with } k_n=\frac{2 \pi n}{L} \text{ and } c_{L}(k_n) \equiv \int_{-L/2}^{+L/2} f(t)e^{-ik_n t}dt$$

I define a function $\widetilde{f}_L$:

$$\widetilde{f}_L=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{L} c_{\infty}(k_n) e^{i k_n x}$$

Derivation

Now, I want to prove that the infinite period Fourier serie match the Fourier transform, i.e: $\lim_{L \rightarrow + \infty} f_L(x) = f(x)$. It is equivalent to prove that $|f_L(x)-f(x)|$ goes to $0$ for $L$ infinite.

To prove it I do:

$$|f_L(x)-f(x)|=|\left(f_L(x)-\widetilde{f}_L\right) + \left(\widetilde{f}_L-f(x)\right)| \leq |f_L(x)-\widetilde{f}_L|+|\widetilde{f}_L-f(x)|$$

I will prove that for "good" functions $f$, the rhs converge to $0$ which will prove my statement. I start to deal with the second term:

$$\widetilde{f}_L(x) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{L} c_{\infty}(k_n) e^{i k_n x}=\frac{1}{L} \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} g_x(\frac{n}{L})$$

Where:

$$g_x(\frac{n}{L})=c_{\infty}(2 \pi \frac{n}{L}) e^{i 2 \pi \frac{n}{L} x}$$

As explained here Riemann sum on infinite interval, if $u \rightarrow g_x(u)$ is such that $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} g_x'(u)du \leq + \infty$, then I have a Riemann summation, which means:

$$ \lim_{L \rightarrow +\infty} \frac{1}{L} \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} g_x(\frac{n}{L}) = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} g_x(u)du$$

Now, I have:

$$\lim_{L \rightarrow +\infty} \widetilde{f}_L(x)=\lim_{L \rightarrow +\infty} \frac{1}{L} \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} g_x(\frac{n}{L})=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} g_x(u)du\\=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} c_{\infty}(2 \pi u) e^{i 2 \pi u x}du=\frac{1}{2 \pi}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} c_{\infty}(k) e^{i k x}dk=f(x)$$

Thus, the second term in the triangular inequality vanishes.

It remains to prove that the first term vanishes.

We have:

$$|f_L(x)-\widetilde{f}_L|\leq \frac{1}{L} \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} |c_L(k_n)-c_{\infty}(k_n)|$$

We need to take "nice" function that allow this term to vanish for $L$ going to infinity. One simple example is to take functions defined on a compact. For $L$ big enough, we have:

$$c_{L}(k_n)=\int_{-L/2}^{+L/2} f(t)e^{-ik_n t}dt=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f(t)e^{-ik_n t}dt=c_{\infty}(k_n)$$

Thus, for $L$ big enough: $\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} |c_L(k_n)-c_{\infty}(k_n)|=0$.

And we would have proven that for $L$ going to infinity: $$f_L(x) \rightarrow f(x)$$

In summary, sufficient condition we need

We need two different things to get to the result using this method:

First requirement: $\lim_{L \rightarrow +\infty} \frac{1}{L} \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} g_x(\frac{n}{L})=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} g_x(u)du$, which can be true if the derivative of $g_x$ is integrable.

Second requirement: $|f_L(x)-\widetilde{f}_L|$ , or more restrictively: $\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} |c_L(k_n)-c_{\infty}(k_n)|$ goes to $0$ for $L$ infinite. It can be done for $f$ having a compact support.

I am however not sure that the first requirement is true if $f$ is has a compact support ?

StarBucK
  • 779
  • were you an undegrad math major who is now doing physics? i would be greatly surprised if you've only done physics. – mathworker21 Feb 09 '20 at 04:42
  • @mathworker21 I did two years half physics half math and then mainly physics (but ofc you still have occasionally math class in physics major) – StarBucK Feb 09 '20 at 11:33
  • Sorry is $\tilde{D}(\mathbb{R})$ the space of (tempered) Schwarz distributions? I don't know if that's considered standard notation. – Chill2Macht Jan 05 '25 at 18:11
-1

Let $f_p$ is a $L_0$ periodic function and \begin{cases} k_n = \dfrac{2 \pi n}{L_0}\\[4pt] c_n = \dfrac{1}{L_0} \int\limits_{-\,^{L_0}/_2}^{^{L_0}/_2} \mathrm dx f_p(x) e^{-i k_n x}\\[4pt] f_p(x)=\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+ \infty} c_n e^{i k_n x}. \end{cases}

Let the new period of $f_p(x)$ is $L=mL_0.$ Then \begin{cases} k_n = \dfrac{2 \pi n}{mL_0}\\[4pt] c_n = \dfrac{1}{mL_0} \int\limits_{-\,^{mL_0}/_2}^{^{mL_0}/_2} \mathrm dx f_p(x) e^{-i k_n x}\\[4pt] f_p(x)=\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+ \infty} c_n e^{i k_n x}, \end{cases}

$$f_p(x)=\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+ \infty} \left(\dfrac{1}{mL_0} \int\limits_{-\,^{mL_0}/_2}^{^{mL_0}/_2} \mathrm dx f_p(x) e^{-i k_n x}\right) e^{i k_n x}$$ $$ = \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+ \infty} \dfrac{2\pi}{mL_0}\left(\dfrac{1}{2\pi} \int\limits_{-\,^{mL_0}/_2}^{^{mL_0}/_2} \mathrm dx f_p(x) e^{-i k_n x}\right) e^{i k_n x}.$$

Assume that $$\lim\limits_{m\to\infty}\dfrac{1}{2\pi} \int\limits_{-\,^{mL_0}/_2}^{^{mL_0}/_2} \mathrm dx f_p(x) e^{-i k_n x} = F(k_n),$$

then the expression $$f_p(x)=\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+ \infty} F(k_n) e^{i k_n x} \Delta k_n$$

looks as the classic Riemann integral sum of the improper integral $$f(x)=\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+ \infty}\mathrm dk F(k) e^{i k x},$$

or $$f(x)=\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+ \infty}\mathrm dk \left( \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dx f(x) e^{-i k x} \right) e^{i k x}.$$

If all the nesessary conditions are provided, then the limiting transition $m\to\infty$ provides the limiting transition $L\to \infty.$

Therefore, considered approach looks correct.

  • 1
    Hello. I am not sure to understand how you can recognize a Riemann summation here. For me as the boundary are infinite you need some condition on the function, as explained here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1393943/riemann-sum-on-infinite-interval?rq=1 – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 19:19
  • 1
    Also is it correct to integrate with symmetric boundaries like you did ? Isn't $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f(x) dx = \lim_{a,b \rightarrow +\infty} \int_{-a}^{b} f(x)dx \neq \lim_{N \rightarrow +\infty} \int_{-N}^{N} f(x)dx$ where the last "not equal to" might sometimes be equal but not generally. (I noticed I made the same mistake in my answer actually) – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 19:22
  • @StarBucK Really, is possible firstly apply the Riemann summation to the bounded interval $(-M,M)$ and then execute the limiting transition $M\to \infty.$. There is well-known approach, so I have not elaborated this. – Yuri Negometyanov Feb 08 '20 at 19:32
  • @StarBucK Hello! Thank you for comments. (2) More than correct. This is a definition of v.p. for such improper integrals. – Yuri Negometyanov Feb 08 '20 at 19:36
  • My point is that we can do this if we want. But we wont have: $ \lim\limits_{m\to\infty} f_p(x)=\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+ \infty} F(k_n) e^{i k_n x} \Delta k_n = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} F(k) e^{ikx}$, because, from the definition of Riemann sum, we have $\lim_{(N,a,b) \to +\infty} \sum_{n=0}^N \frac{(b-(-a))}{N} f(-a + (b-(-a))\frac{n}{N})=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} F(k) e^{ikx}$. And for me "my" Riemann sum is not equivalent to yours. However "my" sum is the real definition for a finite interval for which I take the limit to find the infinite interval – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 19:47
  • Said differently, If you can show me how to go from your formula of Riemann sum for infinite integral to mine, I would be totally convinced. – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 19:48
  • @StarBucK OP does not contain all nesessary conditions for that. Besides, these conditions are missed in the applied materials. The level on the answer corresponds to the anwer about $\delta k$ and $\mathrm dk,$ and was shown the correspondence via $\Delta k.$ – Yuri Negometyanov Feb 08 '20 at 20:03
  • Yes, this is why I am okay to work with a restricted set of functions in which this equality would be true. I would like a rigorous derivation however. If you can prove it for function $f$ defined on a compact support (or better for integrable functions) I would be very happy. In my answer I still dont know if it is true for function defined on a compact support because of the first constraint I have (look at the end of my answer). Thanks – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 20:05
  • @StarBucK Such standing looks as a subject of a new special question. – Yuri Negometyanov Feb 08 '20 at 20:16
  • I don't think so because I explicitly wrote it in the end of my question. – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 20:16
  • I will edit to make it more clear – StarBucK Feb 08 '20 at 20:16