In continuation of Lower bounds of laplace transform of characteristic functions.

My question is:

Can anyone point out where i'm going wrong in the derivation below.

It's been a while since I've used transforms and i know I'm missing something as the product of the derivation does not agree with direct calculation.

Thanks in advance.

We wish to solve $K = f(x;a)$ where $K$ is some complex number and \begin{equation} f(x;a) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty h(x-\omega;a)g(\omega) \text{d}\omega \end{equation} with $g$ some probability distribution, $a,x$ are real numbers and \begin{equation} h(x;a) = \frac{1}{a+ i x},\quad a>0 \end{equation}

We let $\bar{\varphi}(t)= \hat{g}(t)$ and calculate the Fourier transform of $h$ \begin{equation} \hat{h}(t) = 2\pi e^{-at}\Theta(t), \end{equation} where $\Theta(t)$ is the Heaviside step function. Thus $\mathcal{F}[K](t) = \mathcal{F}[f](t) $ gives \begin{equation} 2\pi K\delta(t) =2\pi e^{-at}\Theta(t)\bar{\varphi}(t) \implies \frac{K}{\bar{\varphi}(t)}\delta(t)=e^{-at}\Theta(t) \end{equation} Taking the IFT we get \begin{equation} \frac{K}{\bar{\varphi}(0)} = \int_0^\infty e^{-(a-ix)t}\text{d}t \end{equation} Which gives $\frac{1}{a-ix} = \frac{K}{\bar{\varphi(0)}}$ thus $$a+ix = \frac{\varphi(0)}{\bar{K}}$$

However this does no agree with direct calculation. Take the Cauchy distribution with median $0$ $g(\omega;\sigma) = \frac{\sigma}{\pi(\sigma^2+\omega^2)}$ and its analytic continuation $G(\omega;\sigma) =\frac{1}{\pi(\sigma-i \omega)}$ $$f(x;a) =i\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{g(z)}{z - i(a +ix)}dz = \pi G(ia-x)$$ by the Schwarz Integral formula. Which implies $f(x;a) =\frac{1}{x+ia + \sigma}$. Thus if $f(x;a) = K$, then $$ x+ia = \frac{1}{K} - \sigma$$ and from the section above, this is not equal to $x+ia = \frac{\varphi(0)}{\bar{K}} = \frac{1}{\bar{K}}$


Then you pass to $$ 2\pi K\delta(t) =2\pi e^{-at}\Theta(t)\bar{\varphi}(t) $$ it means that you are solving equation $$ K\equiv \int_{-\infty}^\infty h(x-\omega;a)g(\omega) \text{d}\omega $$ and it's not that is required. The Fourier transform is not applicable in this way since the lhs is not given, $K$ being just a value of rhs at some point $x$.

  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand your answer, i do want to solve that equation. $\endgroup$
    – MrSlunk
    May 27 '13 at 6:07
  • $\begingroup$ @MrSlunk One thing is to solve equation $F(x)=K$ for some x. Another is to solve $F(x)\equiv K$. For example, trying to solve $e^{-x^2}=1$ one cannot take the Fourier transform from both sides. Equality F[e^{-x^2}](ξ)=F[1](ξ) for all ξ would imply that $e^{-x^2}\equiv1$. $\endgroup$
    – Andrew
    May 27 '13 at 6:26
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I understand. Considering i arrived in the ballpark of the answer i'm looking for, Do you have any suggestions of alternate approaches? $\endgroup$
    – MrSlunk
    May 27 '13 at 7:05
  • $\begingroup$ @MrSlunk Since $g$ is not specified the resulting function $f$ is rather arbitrary. So the question is a general one: how to find inverse function $f^{-1}$ for a given $f$. It hasn't an explicit general answer. The fact that $f$ is an integral transform of some probability distribution doesn't seem to be of much help. $\endgroup$
    – Andrew
    May 27 '13 at 7:32
  • $\begingroup$ yes, i was hoping that $f$ being an integral transform and $g$ a probability distribution(symmetric and zero mean can be assumed) was enough to provide some general results on the inverse. $\endgroup$
    – MrSlunk
    May 27 '13 at 8:23

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.