So I know that the DTFT of $\{1,1\}$ is equivalent to $1+e^{j\omega }$.

But what is the DTFT of $\{1,-1\}$ equivalent to? Is it equivalent to $1-e^{j\omega }$?

  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by equivalent to? Are you calculating the DTFT of these sequences where x[0] = 1 and x[1] = 1 (or x[1] = -1 in the second case)? $\endgroup$ – Atul Ingle Dec 1 '16 at 1:22
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, the DTFT. I will revise my question. $\endgroup$ – Gary Dec 1 '16 at 1:23
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Gary- I assume you are describing the DTFT due to your tag. If so then yes, you are correct with your assumption. The first is a low pass frequency response while the second is a high pass frequency response. $\endgroup$ – Dan Boschen Dec 1 '16 at 1:24
  • $\begingroup$ how do you "know that the DTFT of $\{1,1\}$ is equivalent to $1+e^{j\omega }$"? $\endgroup$ – robert bristow-johnson Dec 1 '16 at 1:39

You should consider the DTFT pair:

$$\delta[n] \xrightarrow{\text{DTFT}} 1$$

and the time-shifting property of the Fourier transform

$$x[n-n_0] \xrightarrow{\text{DTFT}} X(e^{j\omega})e^{-j\omega n_0}$$

plus the linearity of the FT. That is,

$$ax_1[n]+bx_2[n] \xrightarrow{\text{DTFT}} aX_1(e^{j\omega})+bX_2(e^{j\omega})$$

Now consider the discrete signal $\{1,1\}$ which can be represented by $x[n], n\in\mathbb{Z}$ as follows $$x[0]=1\\x[1]=1\\x[n]=0, \forall n\in\mathbb{Z} \ \backslash \ \{0,1\}$$

and can be denoted by $x[n]=\delta[n]+\delta[n-1]=x_1[n]+x_2[n]$. The DTFT is $$1+(1)e^{-j\omega(1)}=1+e^{-j\omega}$$ Similarly, the signal $\{1,-1\}$ can be represented by $$x[0]=1\\x[1]=-1\\x[n]=0, \forall n\in\mathbb{Z} \ \backslash \ \{0,1\}$$

which can be denoted by $x[n]=\delta[n]-\delta[n-1]=x_1[n]-x_2[n]$, and the DTFT is $$1-(1)e^{-j\omega(1)}=1-e^{-j\omega}$$

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ I have an issue with your notation. Writing $\forall\notin S$ means you essentially allow any kind of object that is not in $S$. So you would have to define somewhere that you take $n$ from $\mathbb{Z}$. But in that case, you can simply write $\forall n \in \mathbb{Z} \setminus S$ or just $\forall n \in \bar{S}$. Also, you wouldn't really use the all-quantor like that. While it's clear what you mean, it would syntactically typically go in front of the statement. As a mathematician I would instead write $x[n]=0, n\in\bar{S}$ or $n\in\bar{S}\implies x[n]=0$. $\endgroup$ – Jazzmaniac Dec 1 '16 at 9:58
  • $\begingroup$ This is something you can safely ignore. But I think spreading a sense of good mathematical style is at least worth the attempt. No nitpicking intended! $\endgroup$ – Jazzmaniac Dec 1 '16 at 10:03
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks @Jazzmaniac. You are right that I didn't mention $n\in \mathbb{Z}$. However, it is something quite known from the context. Nonetheless, even with an incredible level of scrutiny $\forall n\notin\{0,1\}$ is perfectly sufficient for what I need here. It only defines the function in an over-constrained way. Although I don't need objects in $n\notin\mathbb{Z}$ and I set them to zero, eventually what I am looking for is a subset of that set. $\endgroup$ – msm Dec 1 '16 at 10:29
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, it is not wrong, but it is not good style either in my opinion. But like I said, feel free to ignore it. $\endgroup$ – Jazzmaniac Dec 1 '16 at 10:33
  • $\begingroup$ Sure, I will add $n\in \mathbb{Z}$ to the answer. Thanks again for the comment! $\endgroup$ – msm Dec 1 '16 at 10:36

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.