- #1
psie
- 108
- 10
- TL;DR Summary
- I have seen in quite a few texts a derivation of the inverse Fourier transform via Fourier series. It is often claimed this derivation is informal and not rigorous, however, I don't understand what is the issue. And if there's an issue, then I don't understand why one presents the argument in the first place.
Here's the standard argument made in some books. I'm using the notation as used in Vretblad's Fourier Analysis and its Applications.
What is the problem with having ##\hat{f}(P,\omega_n)## instead of ##\hat{f}(\omega_n)## in ##(4)##? What is the point of presenting this argument if it doesn't actually derive the inverse Fourier transform?
For the complex Fourier series of ##f## we have \begin{align} f(t)&\sim\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty c_n e^{in\pi t/P}, \tag1 \\ \text{where} \quad c_n&=\frac1{2P}\int_{-P}^P f(t)e^{-in\pi t/P} \ dt. \tag2 \end{align} [...] We define, provisionally, $$\hat{f}(P,\omega)=\int_{-P}^P f(t)e^{-i\omega t} \ dt, \quad \omega\in\mathbb R,\tag3$$ so that ##c_n=\frac{1}{2P}\hat{f}(P,n\pi/P)##. The formula ##(1)## is translated into $$f(t)\sim\frac1{2P}\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty \hat{f}(P,\omega_n)e^{i\omega_nt}=\frac1{2\pi}\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty \hat{f}(P,\omega_n)e^{i\omega_nt}\cdot\frac{\pi}{P},\quad \omega_n=\frac{n\pi}{P}.\tag4$$ Because of ##\Delta\omega_n=\omega_{n+1}-\omega_n=\frac\pi{P}##, this last sum looks rather like a Riemann sum. Now we let ##P\to\infty## in ##(3)## and define $$\hat{f}(\omega)=\lim_{P\to\infty} \hat{f}(P,\omega)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(t)e^{i\omega t} \ dt\quad \omega\in\mathbb R.\tag5$$ (at this point we disregard all details concerning convergence). If ##(4)## had contained ##\hat{f}(\omega_n)## instead of ##\hat{f}(P,\omega_n)##, the limiting process ##P\to\infty## would have resulted in $$f(t)\sim \frac1{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty\hat{f}(\omega)e^{i\omega t} \ d\omega.\tag6$$
What is the problem with having ##\hat{f}(P,\omega_n)## instead of ##\hat{f}(\omega_n)## in ##(4)##? What is the point of presenting this argument if it doesn't actually derive the inverse Fourier transform?
Last edited: