What I hate is when books say that something is clear, what definitely is not clear! So, why is it clear that for and ? It seems to have something to do with the differentiation rules of the Fourier transform, and I couldn’t verify the mentioned equation yet. As far as I can see, it really is not that trivial that a simple clear-ness is justified.
This claim came together with , the proof of which also doesn’t seem to be too trivial. What still confuses me is the symbolism .
Properties of the Fourier transform, II
I think I found out where the mentioned property comes from: The solution lies in the application of a substitution in the mentioned integral. It is well known that a translation of any (Lebesgue integrable) function leads to a modulation of its Fourier t
Weblog: Logbook of Stephan Paukner Tracked: Feb 21, 13:43
I think I found out where the mentioned property comes from: The solution lies in the application of a substitution in the mentioned integral. It is well known that a translation of any (Lebesgue integrable) function leads to a modulation of its Fourier t
Tracked: Feb 21, 13:43