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 any textbook on fourier analysis:

"It is easily shown that for $f$ and $g$, both $2 \pi$-periodic functions on $[-\pi,\pi]$, we have $$(f \ast g)(x) = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f(x-y)g(y)\;dy = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f(z)g(x-z)\;dz = (g \ast f)(x),$$ by using the substitution $z = x-y.$"

I don't doubt that this is true, but I cannot figure out what happened to the negative sign coming from $dy = -dz\;$ after the change of variable $z = x - y$. In particular, after the change of variable $z = x-y,\;$ I am coming up with $ -\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f(z)g(x-z)\;dz$. What am I missing here?
share|improve this question
You should be coming up with $-\int_\pi^{-\pi}f(z)g(x-z)dz$. :-) –  Robin Chapman Sep 11 '10 at 22:08
@Robin: are kids these days still saying "duh"? –  Tom Stephens Sep 11 '10 at 22:15
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 9 down vote accepted

You need to check the bounds on your integral. since $y$ ranges from $-\pi$ to $\pi$, you'll have $z = x-y$ ranging from $x+\pi$ to $x-\pi$. Therefore: $$ \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f(x-y)g(y)dy = -\int_{x+\pi}^{x-\pi}f(z)g(x-z)dz = \int_{x-\pi}^{x+\pi}f(z)g(x-z)dz = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f(z)g(x-z)dz $$ in the second-last step, I swapped the two bounds on the integral (this changes the sign). In the final step, I shifted both bounds on the integral by $-x$, which does not change the value because we are integrating over an interval of length $2\pi$ and the function is $2\pi$-periodic.

share|improve this answer
ouch, I'm not going to lie - this one hurts a bit! –  Tom Stephens Sep 11 '10 at 22:19
add comment

\begin{align*} \\&\int_0^tf(t-u)g(u)\cdot\text du\\ \\\text{let } v=t-u\\ \text dv=-\text du\\ \\ u=0\rightarrow v=t\\u=t\rightarrow v=0\\ &=\int_t^0f(v)g(t-v)\cdot -\text dv\\ &=\int_0^tf(v)g(t-v)\cdot \text dv\\ \\&\\ \\&\\ \\&\\ \\&\\ \end{align*} \begin{align*}\mathcal L\left\{\int\limits_0^tf(t-u)g(u)\cdot\text du\right\} &=\int\limits_0^\infty\int\limits_0^t f(t-u)g(u)\cdot\text du\cdot e^{-pt}\cdot\text dt\\ &=\int\limits_0^\infty e^{-pt}\int\limits_0^t f(t-u)g(u)\cdot\text du\cdot\text dt\\ u=0\rightarrow t=u\\ u=t \rightarrow t=\infty\\ &=\int\limits_0^\infty g(u)\int\limits_u^\infty e^{-pt}f(t-u)\cdot\text dt\cdot\text du\\ \text{let }v=t-u\\ \text dv =\text dt\\ t=u\rightarrow v=0\\ t=\infty \rightarrow v=\infty\\ &=\int\limits_0^\infty g(u)\int\limits_{0}^\infty e^{-p(v+u)}f(v)\cdot\text dv\cdot\text du\\ &=\int\limits_0^\infty g(u)e^{-up}\cdot\text du\times\int\limits_{0}^\infty f(v)e^{-pv}\cdot\text dv\\ \\&=G(p)F(p) \end{align*}

share|improve this answer
add comment

Here is something I've sometimes wondered about. If $f,g$ are both nonnegative proving commutativity of convolution can be done without a tedious change of variable.

Indeed, let $X$ be a random variable with density $f$ and let $Y$ be a random variable with density $g$. Its easy to see that $f$ convolved with $g$ is the density of $X+Y$ (or in your case $X+Y ~{\rm mod} ~2 \pi$). By commutativity of addition, the density of $X+Y$ is the same as the density of $Y+X$ and we are done!

I wonder if an argument of this sort can work in the general case.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer


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.