Entries tagged as mathematics
Saturday, November 11. 2006
When I started on my way to my Masters degree seriously in January 2006, several questions began to arise in the course of time, and they continue to do so. While there were some very fundamental questions at the beginning (because my last contact to FA and basic analysis had been quite some time ago), they matured to some more advanced questions today. Here, I give a list of them, in their order of appearance. The answers, however, and as far as they have already been provided anyway, did not come up in the same order. Some questions are so general that they are to be understood as a challenge to look into the books and get familiar with it.
This list will continue to grow in separate entries. Also, for the sake of documentation, currently missing answers will only be given separately.
Continue reading "Raising questions, 1-62"
Friday, November 10. 2006
Here I give my personal reading approach to get familiar with the topics which the NuHAG is working on. This is just one way to get started, and I will mention some pros and cons I noticed. There is always some redundancy, but in my eyes that was of great worth.
A good way to get some first impressions is to read A Short Introduction to Gabor Analysis by Thomas Strohmer, which is the introductory chapter of [Feichtinger/Strohmer] and is also available online. You could also read the introductory chapters of [Blatter], which will make clear what the central ideas are in general. After having read that, you also want to understand it all.
Continue reading "A reading approach to time-frequency analysis"
Sunday, April 9. 2006
Just a note: We know that the inclusion yields for . A similar inclusion statement is valid for -spaces iff we look at . Here, for , the inclusion is the other way round: . This is not valid for , as is not finite.
In Cigler’s script, the fact had just been written down quickly, and it wasn’t mentioned that this was only valid for bounded intervals. I already wondered why it was always said that the Fourier transform could be expanded to “ ” and not simply “ ”.
Friday, March 17. 2006
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 transform, i.e., , where and for . But, it is even a common property for any -function that , where we again use the symbolism . This becomes clear by using the substitution :
So, it’s clear () that this means , and not only for the Gaussian function . And, for , the substitution leads to , because if , then and therefore . I’ll have to recall what the “value of the functional determinant” is.
Regarding the proof that the Gaussian function is an eigenfunction of the Fourier transform, HGFei once handed us one out which seems to be more elegant than the proofs which use the well definedness of solutions for initial value problems of linear common differential equations.
Wednesday, February 1. 2006
|