2
$\begingroup$

When taking Laplace transforms such as

$$\int_{t_0}^\infty e^{-st},$$

we subsequently get

$$-\dfrac{1}{s} \left[ e^{-st} \right]^\infty_{t_0}.$$

Now, my textbook author will just claim that $e^{-s \infty} = 0$, leaving us with the solution $\dfrac{1}{s} e^{-s t_0}$. However, since $s$ is a complex number, this seems exceedingly handy-wavy to me. I find this unacceptable, and I want to understand the mathematics of what's going on here.

In my research, I have encountered the concept of radius of convergence, and I suspect that this has something to do with what's going on here. However, doing a search for keywords, my textbook does not address the radius of convergence in any direct context of the Laplace transform, but rather later in the context of the Taylor/Laurent series.

I would greatly appreciate it if people could please take the time to explain what's going on here. Please note that I have not studied complex analysis - just pieces of it - so please provide careful explanations.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ Look for "region of convergence", not radius. $\endgroup$
    – N. S.
    Commented May 28, 2019 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ @N.S. Already did; there are no results for "region of convergence" in my textbook. $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2019 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ Is your textbook a math or a physics textbook? :) $\endgroup$
    – N. S.
    Commented May 28, 2019 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ @N.S. Math by a Professor of Applied Mathematics in the U.K. $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2019 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ Look back to the definition of the Laplace transform, and around it. Even if the words "region of convergence" are not stated explicitely, the author probably writes something along the lines "the formula is understood to hold for all $s$ for which the limit exists" or "the formula is understood to hold whenever when it makes sense" or something like that. $\endgroup$
    – N. S.
    Commented May 28, 2019 at 16:33

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

As you said

$$\int_{t_0}^\infty e^{-st}dt = \lim_{r \to +\infty}-\dfrac{1}{s} \left[ e^{-st} \right]^r_{t_0}$$

Now, the RHS is convergent if and only if $\mbox{Re}(s) >0$.


Added details

$$\lim_{r \to +\infty}-\dfrac{1}{s} \left[ e^{-st} \right]^r_{t_0}= \dfrac{1}{s} e^{-s t_0} - \lim_{r \to +\infty}\dfrac{1}{s} e^{-sr} \\ =\dfrac{1}{s} e^{-s t_0}- \lim_{r \to +\infty}\dfrac{1}{s} e^{-\mbox{Re}{(s)}r} \left(\cos( -\mbox{Im}(s)r)+i \sin(-\mbox{Im}(s)r) \right) $$

Now, if

  • $\mbox{Re}{(s)} >0$ then $\lim_{r \to \infty} e^{-\mbox{Re}{(s)}r} =0$ and by the squeeze theorem $$ \lim_{r \to +\infty}-\dfrac{1}{s} \left[ e^{-sr} \right]^r_{t_0} = \dfrac{1}{s} e^{-s t_0}$$
  • $\mbox{Re}{(s)} =0$ then $$-\dfrac{1}{s} \left[ e^{-st} \right]^r_{t_0}= \left(\cos( -\mbox{Im}(s)r)+i \sin(-\mbox{Im}(s)r) \right)$$ does not have a limit at $r =\infty$.
  • $\mbox{Re}{(s)} < 0$ then $\lim_{r \to \infty} e^{-\mbox{Re}{(s)}r} =\infty$ and the limit $$ \lim_{r \to +\infty} - \dfrac{1}{s} \left[ e^{-st} \right]^r_{t_0}$$ cannot be finite since $$\lim_{r \to +\infty}\left| -\dfrac{1}{s} \left[ e^{-st} \right]^r_{t_0} \right| = \infty$$

In this case $$\lim_{r \to +\infty}-\dfrac{1}{s} \left[ e^{-st} \right]^r_{t_0}=\dfrac{1}{s} e^{-s t_0}$$

This yields the formula $$\int_{t_0}^\infty e^{-st}dt =\dfrac{1}{s} e^{-s t_0} \qquad \mbox{ for } \mbox{Re}(s) >0 \,.$$

Remember that, whenever we speak about the Laplace trasnform, the formula we get holds over the region of convergence. It is always important to emphasize/state what this region is, but this is often lost in a side note.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Why do we only focus on the real part of $s$? $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2019 at 16:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ThePointer Check the edit. The reason why we can focus on it is because $$\left| e^{-st} \right|= e^{-\mbox{Re}(s) t}$$ which converges to $0$ or infinity when $\mbox{Re}(s)>0$ and $\mbox{Re}(s)<0$ respectively. This immediately implies convergence, and divergence, in these cases. $\endgroup$
    – N. S.
    Commented May 28, 2019 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ Shouldn't that be $\left(\cos( -\mbox{Im}(s)r)+i \sin(-\mbox{Im}(s)r) \right)$? $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2019 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ Which that? Note that $\left(\cos( -\mbox{Im}(s)r)+i \sin(-\mbox{Im}(s)r) \right)$ has modulus 1. $\endgroup$
    – N. S.
    Commented May 28, 2019 at 17:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ThePointer Yes, you are right. Typo. $\endgroup$
    – N. S.
    Commented May 28, 2019 at 17:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .