Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm trying find the inverse Laplace transform $f(t)$ where I have $F(p)=\dfrac{9}{p(p+3)^2}$. I know $f(t)$ already to be $1-3te^{-3t}-e^{-3t}$. I have the integral $$f(t)=\dfrac{9}{2 \pi i}\int_{c-i\infty}^{c+i\infty}\dfrac{9e^{pt}}{p(p+3)^2}dp$$ has a simple pole at $p=0$ and a double pole at $p=-3$ with $$Res(\dfrac{e^{pt}}{p(p+3)^2};0)=\lim_{p \to 0}p\dfrac{e^{pt}}{p(p+3)^2}=\frac{1}{9}$$ and$$Res(\dfrac{e^{pt}}{p(p+3)^2};-3)=\dfrac{d}{dp}(p+3)^2\dfrac{e^{pt}}{p(p+3)^2}=-\dfrac{3te^{-3t}-e^{-et}}{9}$$. After this, I close the Bromwich contour to the left and multiply this sum of residues by $\dfrac{9.2\pi i}{2\pi i}$ and get $f(t)$ as required. The next step is to argue away the circular arc of the Bromwich contour which I've closed to the left. My question is, as $t>0$ in $e^{pt}$ and $\dfrac{1}{p(p+3)^2}\to0$ as $p\to\infty$ (how do I check this?), can I use Jordan's Lemma to argue away the large circular arc when $t>0$ (and also when $t<0$ and we close the contour to the right. Or do I have to use the estimation lemma which would resemble something like $$|\int_c|\leq2\pi R.max|\dfrac{e^{px}}{p(p+3)^2}|$$ and then arguing it away as $R\to\infty$. Can I use both methods to argue away? My lecturer's notes are vague in this regard. Thanks.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Either metod works.

Since the degree in the denominator is so large, you don't need Jordan's lemma. Let $p=x+iy$ and note that $|e^{pt}| = |e^{(x+iy)t}| = e^{xt} \le e^{ct}$ if $t > 0$ and $x \le c$. In other words, $|e^{pt}|$ is bounded by a constant, independently of $p$ along the semi-circle. (Similarly, $|e^{pt}| \le e^{ct}$ if $t < 0$ and $x \ge c$.) Furthermore $$\left|\frac{1}{p(p+3)^2}\right| \le \frac{2}{|p|^3}$$ for $|p|$ large, and the standard estimation lemma (the length of the curve is $\pi R$, not $2\pi R$) brings you home.

Jordan's lemma is only needed when the degree of the denominator is just one more than the degree of the numerator.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you. So I could still use Jordan's lemma as the criteria for it is satisfied. –  L.oiler Jan 20 '13 at 0:43
    
Yes, Jordan's lemma works too. –  mrf Jan 20 '13 at 7:56

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.