Group Abstract Group Abstract

Message Boards Message Boards

5
|
3.9K Views
|
19 Replies
|
21 Total Likes
View groups...
Share
Share this post:
GROUPS:

[WSG25] Daily Study Group: Introduction to Laplace Transforms

Posted 5 months ago

A Wolfram U Daily Study Group, Introduction to Laplace Transforms, begins on Tuesday, February 18, 2025, at 11am CT.

Join me and a group of fellow learners to study the foundations of Laplace transforms. Our topics for the Study Group include the basic definition as an integral and its elementary properties, Laplace transforms of different types of functions, numerical approximations, inverse Laplace transforms and their properties, inverse Laplace transforms of different types of functions, complex inversion and numerical approximations for the inverse transform. A final section consists of applications to ODEs, PDEs and even fractional calculus, sums and integrals. The Study Group is intended for science, technology, engineering and math majors; teachers and professors looking for different ways of presenting Laplace transforms for their students; and anyone who wants to learn about Laplace transforms using Wolfram Language.

A basic working knowledge of Wolfram Language is recommended. If you want to get started now, try out Introduction to Differential Equations or Introduction to Complex Analysis.

Daily Study Group: Introduction to Laplace Transforms

Dates and Times: February 18 - February 28, 11am -12pm CT (4 - 5pm GMT)

Register here: https://wolfr.am/1t3TBbwv6

enter image description here

POSTED BY: Juan Ortiz
19 Replies

Hi;

In trying to get a better understanding of complex numbers in the Laplace Transform, I have formed the following understanding from the webinar. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

It seems that there is quite a bit of terminology associated with the complex numbers that were created during the Laplace Transform, with the first being “analytical”. My understanding of the meaning of analytical is that the derivative can be taken of the function. In other words, the function has no features which would inhibit taking a derivative, such as: cusps, jumps, esc. (just a smooth continuous function). Now sometimes in complex numbers, you encounter features such as poles (where the function runs off to infinity) or zeros (where you have a divide by zero – undefined), which these features make the function non-analytic. However, with these non-analytic functions, you can incorporate techniques such a pruning (which is piecewise definitions) to eliminate the areas of the function that are non-analytic (poles & zeros), thus making the function differentiable. If this is not correct, please tell me what I am misinterpreting.

Additionally, what causes the complex numbers of the Laplace Transform?

Thanks,

Mitch Sandlin

POSTED BY: Mitchell Sandlin

Dear Mitch:

We used 'analytical' essentially meaning that there was a closed formula for it, particularly in the numerical evaluation lesson to distinguish between the two.

The parameter s, in the integral definition of the Laplace transform is complex, and this is the variable in the Laplace transform. That is where complex numbers come from.

POSTED BY: Juan Ortiz
Posted 4 months ago
POSTED BY: Phil Earnhardt

Thank you Phil. This is a very nice real LIVE example.

POSTED BY: Juan Ortiz
Posted 4 months ago

I'm a bit late to this DSG; I joined yesterday. Last night, I viewed the first session from the BigMarker video sessions. The "Download Materials" link is NOT visible in the BigMarker archive videos -- but the other links that @Cassidy inserted in the moderator's chat are visible. This appears to be a limitation of the BigMarker archive/repaly mechanism and has nothing to do with Wolfram Research. I was able to get the amoeba.wolfram.com URL by pausing Juan's presentation and taking a picture of the address bar in his browser on my iPad and parsing the URL there like an animal. ;)

I suggest the Wolfram U team be mindful of the limitations of Big Marker's video playback system and put all pertinent URLs for a course as moderator chat messages. That may mean putting whatever URL is put in the "download" area a second time in that chat window. That will help truant students get access to all the course materials on replay of the classes. Thank you, Cassidy.

I'm a bit overwhelmed with the math right now, but I appreciate where it is used in the world. That's a start. Reviewing the conversations here has been quite helpful. Thank you.

POSTED BY: Phil Earnhardt

I asked in today's lecture but I stepped away for a moment and when I came back the lecture was over and never saw if I got a reply:

Why do you choose to use the 2D version of ComplexPlot? I find the rainbow colors to be difficult to interpret. The 3D version of the plot more clearly shows poles and zeroes and seems to provide a better understanding of the behavior of the functions. Specially with the ability to rotate it around and look at if from all angles.

Do you have a special reason for that? Or is it just a question of taste?

POSTED BY: Carl Hahn

Dear Carl:

Yes, I did reply a short answer. Hrachya Khachatryan, the author of the book used ComplexPlot and it was a bit difficult for me to understand it at first too. But note the following discrepancies about the two commands. ComplexPlot[F[s],{s,2}] considers s in the rectangle with diagonal -2-2i to 2+2i in the complex plane and it shows the argument of the value of F[s] there. The key here is that F[s] is complex. Plot3D[f[x,y],{x,=2,2},{y,-2,2}] shows the value of the real function f[x,y] over the same rectangle considered with cartesian coordinates. Thus to get something that gives you similar information you will need Plot3D[Abs[F[s]]/.s->x+I y, {x,=2,2},{y,-2,2}]. Do it for s/(s^2+1) and compare.

POSTED BY: Juan Ortiz

Thanks Juan,

But there is a ComplexPlot3D. For example:

ComplexPlot3D[(z^2 + 1)/(z^2 - 1), {z, -2 - 2 I, 2 + 2 I}]

Carl

POSTED BY: Carl Hahn
POSTED BY: Juan Ortiz

I have signed up to take the quizzes for certification in the Laplace Transform DSG. I have the downloaded the textbook, the daily lessons, and the exercises (with solutions). But where are the quizzes? (I do not see any links to quizzes in the download section for the study group.)

POSTED BY: Michael Ulrey

Thanks!

POSTED BY: Michael Ulrey
Posted 4 months ago

Without giving too much away, I'm wondering if there might be a typo in problem 6 and 10 of Quiz 1. For #6 I get a slightly different answer from one of them, but 'None of the Above' is not given as correct. For #10, I also get a slightly different answer from one of them, but not an exact match. Has anyone else given the Quiz a try?

POSTED BY: Graham Gyatt

Dear Graham:

Both seem fine to me. For problem 6, I will suggest comparing your answer with the answers provided considering that s>0 in this case. For example, you can try the command FullSimplify[yourAnswer==answerCompared, s>0] or you can cheat a bit to very using InverseLaplaceTransform on each of the posible aswers provided. For 10, make sure to set the WorkingPrecision to 10 as an option in your call to LaplaceTransform.

POSTED BY: Juan Ortiz

Is there a formal explanation of when one should be using Laplace Transforms and when one should be using Fourier Transforms? It seems that when doing signal analysis one uses Fourier Analysis and when analyzing physical systems one uses Laplace Transforms. But then when you want to run a signal through a system you start describing the system using Fourier Transforms. But I've never read or heard someone say what exactly are the formal guidelines. When and why? Can you provide some insight into that question?

POSTED BY: Carl Hahn
POSTED BY: Juan Ortiz

I noticed in the exercises for Part 6 that when WorkingPrecision (WP) was increased, the resulting numerical answer differed before the last digit. For example, in exercise 2, when WP->10, the result was 0.1979119699 and when WP was increased to 20, the answer was 0.19791196966502245964 yielding a difference of 3x10^10. Granted, not much of a difference, but I expected a difference of no greater than 1x10^-10. I suspect the difference is due to the accumulation of rounding "errors". There is discussion in the WP documentation that final results from internal calculations done to n-digit precision may have much lower precision. So I wonder if there are examples where a long series of calculations resulted in significant differences. If so, it would be useful to know what to watch out for. I need to review the Precision & Accuracy Control Guide in the WL documentation to see if any guidelines are suggested.

POSTED BY: James Kralik

Dear James:

WorkingPrecision->n causes all internal computations to be done to at most n-digit precision. This does not imply that the answer will be correct to that number of digits. The final results you get may have much lower precision.

Instead of comparing WorkingPrecision->10 with WorkingPrecision->20, we should compare each to infinite precision. This will require to have an analytic representation for the transform. Consider exercise 1 in the same lesson:

exact = LaplaceTransform[
   Cos[Sqrt[t^2 - 4]]/Sqrt[t^2 - 4] UnitStep[t - 2], t, s] /. 
  s -> 17/10

approximate = 
 LaplaceTransform[Cos[Sqrt[t^2 - 4]]/Sqrt[t^2 - 4] UnitStep[t - 2], t,
   1.7]

approximateWP10 = 
 LaplaceTransform[Cos[Sqrt[t^2 - 4]]/Sqrt[t^2 - 4] UnitStep[t - 2], t,
   1.7, WorkingPrecision -> 10]

approximateWP20 = 
 LaplaceTransform[Cos[Sqrt[t^2 - 4]]/Sqrt[t^2 - 4] UnitStep[t - 2], t,
   1.7, WorkingPrecision -> 20]

Now:

exact - approximate=4.50937*10^-10

exact - approximateWP10=-1.14043*10^-12

exact - approximateWP20=-3.46945*10^-18

POSTED BY: Juan Ortiz

Juan is a highly-experienced instructor and has worked hard to create this wonderful introduction to Laplace transforms and their many applications.

I strongly recommend this study group to everyone!

POSTED BY: Devendra Kapadia
Reply to this discussion
Community posts can be styled and formatted using the Markdown syntax.
Reply Preview
Attachments
Remove
or Discard