Skip to main content
edited tags
Link
Iosif Pinelis
  • 127.7k
  • 8
  • 107
  • 229
(Re-)added top-level tag (each question should carry a top-level tag)
Link
gmvh
  • 3.1k
  • 6
  • 27
  • 45
one more example and notation is changed
Source Link

I have functions $B(x), F(x), S(x)$$A, B, F, S$ that are zero foron $x<0$$(-\infty, 0)$. And I have successfully represented the below equation as convolution and multiplication:

$\int_0^t {dt_1} \int_0^t {dt_2} B(t - t_2)F(t_2 - t_1)S(t - t_1)F(t_1)$

$=\int_0^t {dt_1}F(t_1) S(t - t_1)\int_{t_1}^t {dt_2} B(t - t_2)F(t_2 - t_1)$

$=\int_0^t {dt_1}F(t_1) S(t - t_1)\int_0^{t-t_1} {dt'_2} B(t - t_1 - t'_2)F(t'_2)$

$=\int_0^t {dt'_1}F(t - t'_1) S(t'_1)\int_0^{t'_1} {dt'_2} B(t'_1 - t'_2)F(t'_2)$

$=\int_0^t {dt'_1}F(t - t'_1) S(t'_1)\{B(t'_1)*F(t'_1)\}$$=\int_0^t {dt'_1}F(t - t'_1) S(t'_1)(B*F)(t'_1)$

$=F(t) * [S(t)\{B(t)*F(t)\}]$$=(F * (S(B*F)))(t)$

where $F(t)*G(t)=\int_0^tF(t-t')G(t')dt'$$(F*G)(t)=\int_0^tF(t-t')G(t')dt'$. The first equality holds because $F(t_2-t_1)=0$ for $t_2<t_1$. The second equality results by substitution $t'_2=t_2-t_1$. The third equality results by substitution $t'_1=t-t_1$.

It doesn't look like it can be represented as a convolution at first, but actually it turns out that it is represented by a combination of convolution and multiplication of functions.

But I failed to represent the below equation as a combination of convolution and multiplication. Is it possible, or not? If it is not possible, how can one prove that it is not possible?

$\int_0^t {dt_1} \int_0^t {dt_2} \int_0^t {dt_3} B(t - t_3)F(t_3 - t_2)S(t - t_2)F(t_2 - t_1)F(t_1)$

For me, it doesn't look like it is possible. But like the equation in the first line which doesn't seem to be represented as convolution at first glance, it may be possible. If anyone succeeds, please let me know. Thank you.


Is it possible to represent the following function as a convolution?

$$ \int_0^tdt_1 \int_0^tdt_2 \int_0^tdt_3 A(t-t_3)F(t_3-t_2)S(t-t_2)F(t_2-t_1)S(t_3-t_1)F(t_1) $$

I have functions $B(x), F(x), S(x)$ that are zero for $x<0$. And I have successfully represented the below equation as convolution and multiplication:

$\int_0^t {dt_1} \int_0^t {dt_2} B(t - t_2)F(t_2 - t_1)S(t - t_1)F(t_1)$

$=\int_0^t {dt_1}F(t_1) S(t - t_1)\int_{t_1}^t {dt_2} B(t - t_2)F(t_2 - t_1)$

$=\int_0^t {dt_1}F(t_1) S(t - t_1)\int_0^{t-t_1} {dt'_2} B(t - t_1 - t'_2)F(t'_2)$

$=\int_0^t {dt'_1}F(t - t'_1) S(t'_1)\int_0^{t'_1} {dt'_2} B(t'_1 - t'_2)F(t'_2)$

$=\int_0^t {dt'_1}F(t - t'_1) S(t'_1)\{B(t'_1)*F(t'_1)\}$

$=F(t) * [S(t)\{B(t)*F(t)\}]$

where $F(t)*G(t)=\int_0^tF(t-t')G(t')dt'$. The first equality holds because $F(t_2-t_1)=0$ for $t_2<t_1$. The second equality results by substitution $t'_2=t_2-t_1$. The third equality results by substitution $t'_1=t-t_1$.

It doesn't look like it can be represented as a convolution at first, but actually it turns out that it is represented by a combination of convolution and multiplication of functions.

But I failed to represent the below equation as a combination of convolution and multiplication. Is it possible, or not? If it is not possible, how can one prove that it is not possible?

$\int_0^t {dt_1} \int_0^t {dt_2} \int_0^t {dt_3} B(t - t_3)F(t_3 - t_2)S(t - t_2)F(t_2 - t_1)F(t_1)$

For me, it doesn't look like it is possible. But like the equation in the first line which doesn't seem to be represented as convolution at first glance, it may be possible. If anyone succeeds, please let me know. Thank you.

I have functions $A, B, F, S$ that are zero on $(-\infty, 0)$. And I have successfully represented the below equation as convolution and multiplication:

$\int_0^t {dt_1} \int_0^t {dt_2} B(t - t_2)F(t_2 - t_1)S(t - t_1)F(t_1)$

$=\int_0^t {dt_1}F(t_1) S(t - t_1)\int_{t_1}^t {dt_2} B(t - t_2)F(t_2 - t_1)$

$=\int_0^t {dt_1}F(t_1) S(t - t_1)\int_0^{t-t_1} {dt'_2} B(t - t_1 - t'_2)F(t'_2)$

$=\int_0^t {dt'_1}F(t - t'_1) S(t'_1)\int_0^{t'_1} {dt'_2} B(t'_1 - t'_2)F(t'_2)$

$=\int_0^t {dt'_1}F(t - t'_1) S(t'_1)(B*F)(t'_1)$

$=(F * (S(B*F)))(t)$

where $(F*G)(t)=\int_0^tF(t-t')G(t')dt'$. The first equality holds because $F(t_2-t_1)=0$ for $t_2<t_1$. The second equality results by substitution $t'_2=t_2-t_1$. The third equality results by substitution $t'_1=t-t_1$.

It doesn't look like it can be represented as a convolution at first, but actually it turns out that it is represented by a combination of convolution and multiplication of functions.

But I failed to represent the below equation as a combination of convolution and multiplication. Is it possible, or not? If it is not possible, how can one prove that it is not possible?

$\int_0^t {dt_1} \int_0^t {dt_2} \int_0^t {dt_3} B(t - t_3)F(t_3 - t_2)S(t - t_2)F(t_2 - t_1)F(t_1)$

For me, it doesn't look like it is possible. But like the equation in the first line which doesn't seem to be represented as convolution at first glance, it may be possible. If anyone succeeds, please let me know. Thank you.


Is it possible to represent the following function as a convolution?

$$ \int_0^tdt_1 \int_0^tdt_2 \int_0^tdt_3 A(t-t_3)F(t_3-t_2)S(t-t_2)F(t_2-t_1)S(t_3-t_1)F(t_1) $$

Minor copyediting, added top-level tag
Source Link
gmvh
  • 3.1k
  • 6
  • 27
  • 45
Loading
Source Link
Loading