4
$\begingroup$

I am wondering what $\mathcal{F}[\exp(f)]$ is in terms of $\mathcal{F}[f]$. The farthest I have got is using the series expansion of $\exp$, such that I end up with

$\mathcal{F}[\exp(f)] = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac1{k!} \mathcal{F}[f^k]$,

but $\mathcal{F}[f^k]$ is a $k-1$-fold convolution of $\mathcal{F}[f]$ with itself, which turns out not to be too useful in my context.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why do you assume that it is possible to express $\mathcal F [\exp (f)]$ in terms of $\mathcal F [f]$? As you correctly note, the core difficulty stays in the fact that $\mathcal F$ behaves nicely with respect the underlying linear structure, but not with respect to multiplication. Your problem boils down to expressing $\mathcal F [f^2]$ in simple terms of $\mathcal F [f]$, which I do not think to be feasible. $\endgroup$ – Alex M. May 21 '15 at 17:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with your reduction of the problem to expressing $\mathcal{F}[f^2]$. However, $\mathcal{F}[f^2]$ should be $\mathcal{F}[f] \ast \mathcal{F}[f]$, so an expression in terms of $\mathcal{F}[f]$ is possible. I just thought there may be a nicer one. $\endgroup$ – bers May 21 '15 at 20:56
  • $\begingroup$ I think it would be difficult trying to express with the Taylor expansion as you do as iterated convolution will make stuff hairy. You may want to take a look at this question math.stackexchange.com/questions/171462/… $\endgroup$ – mathreadler Oct 2 '15 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ @mathreadler thanks, this other question looks very useful! $\endgroup$ – bers Oct 2 '15 at 17:24
2
$\begingroup$

We can at least use linearity one more step, using the notation $a^{\otimes k} = (\underset{\overbrace{\text{k times}}}{a*\cdots *a})$: $$\sum \mathcal{F}(f^k) = \sum \mathcal{F}(f)^{\otimes k} = |\text{linearity of $\mathcal{F}$ and distributivity of *}| = S_k(\mathcal{F}(f))$$ Where $S_k$ is a recursive summation such that: $S_k(a) = a*(S_{k-1}(a)+\delta)$

Does this make sense? What I'm trying to do is basically the convolutional equivalent of a Horner's method for evaluating polynomials / power series.

Horners method on an ordinary polynomial is this factoring: $$3+2f+f^2+3f^3 = 3+f\cdot(2+f\cdot(1+f\cdot(3)))$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I understand what you mean. I will think about it, but after a first look, it does not seem very helpful. I agree with the Horner analogy, but Horner's method is mainly used to efficiently evaluate a polynom numerically - I am not aware of any use this has to simplify other uses of the polynom. Thanks again, anyway! $\endgroup$ – bers Oct 2 '15 at 17:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, it is mainly a way to rewrite it to make it prettier or faster to compute. I can not say it helps me very much with the intuition either, but maybe it makes it easier for someone else who has seen something like that before. $\endgroup$ – mathreadler Oct 2 '15 at 17:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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