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.

From planetmath and wolfram, the Fourier-Stieltjes transform of a function $\alpha$ is defined as $\displaystyle \int_{\mathbb{R}} e^{itx} d(\alpha(t)).$ The kernel $\displaystyle e^{itx}$ is unlike the one $\displaystyle e^{-itx}$ used in Fourier transformation.

From Wikipedia, the Laplace-Stieltjes transform of a function $g$ is given as $ \displaystyle \int_{\mathbb{R}} e^{-sx}\,dg(x).$ The kernel ${e}^{-sx}$ is same as the one used in Laplace transformation.

I was wondering why the minus sign in the exponent of kernels for Fourier-Stieltjes transform and Fourier transform are not consistent, while consistent for Laplace-Stieltjes transform and Laplace transform?

Are there mistakes in the quoted sources, or other popular variant definitions?

share|improve this question
3  
I wouldn't say "mistake" but more of "different conventions". You'll also see this for different uses of the discrete Fourier transform (DFT). Some use $\exp(-i\cdot)$ for the forward transform and $\exp(i\cdot)$ for the inverse transform, while others have their convention backwards. Just be careful in noting the convention the author of what you're reading is using. –  J. M. May 13 '11 at 23:49
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I guess this is mostly a matter of convention. I think the minus convention in Fourier Series comes from the fact that

$\int_0^{2 \pi} f(t) \, e^{-int} \, dt$

Is the hermitian scalar product of $f$ and $\epsilon^n : x \mapsto e^{inx}$, which makes Fourier inversion formula more natural :

$f = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \langle f \,|\, \epsilon^n \rangle \, \epsilon^n$

If you look at planetmath and wolfram, their point of view is to take a function $f$ and write it as an integral of $\epsilon$ with regards to a certain $d \alpha$. On the other hand, Wikipedia starts from $\alpha$ and then defines $f$. I guess the (admittedly subtle) difference in point of view might explain their convention.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.