0
$\begingroup$

Is the following system invertible or not?

$$y[n]=x[n] * x[n^2]$$ where $*$ stands for the aperiodic convolution operator. I have not been able to find a mathematically sufficient argument for it...

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

The system is nonlinear (bilinear in $x$), with a nonlinear law (square) on indices. Odds are the system is not invertible. One can try to prove it in its full generally, or try to find a counterexample. Let us try the lazy way, using properties at hand.

The system is bilinear. Hence, the output for $k x[n]$, $k\in \mathbb{R} $, will be $k^2 y[n]$. Resultingly, since $(-k)^2 = k^2$, $k x[n]$ and $-k x[n]$ have the same output. If they are nonzero, they differ and yield the same result. Verdict: non-invertible.

This is a first way. Another is possible, along the same line, using the indices $n$ and $n^2$. Fat32 just did it, using prime delays. With more generality: take some signal $x[n]$, assuming that:

  • there exists at least one non-square index $n_+$, for which $x[n_+] \neq 0$: for instance $x[-2] =1$ (many negative numbers are not perfect squares),
  • $x$ is zero at all square indices: $x[0] = x[1] = x[4] = x[9]=\cdots = 0$.

Then $x[n^2]$ is identically zero, while $x[n]$ is not and the convolution is zero.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

This system is not invertible and a single counter-example is sufficient to prove it.

First express the signal $x[n^2]$ as $w[n]$ and then the output is $$y[n]= x[n] \star w[n]$$

Then let an example input be $x[n] = \delta[n-3]$. Then you can verify easily that $w[n] = 0$ for all $n$. Hence the output $y[n]$ for the input $x[n]=\delta[n-3]$ is $$ y[n] = x[n] \star w[n] = 0$$ for all $n$.

Hence you can conlcude that from the computed output $y[n] = 0$ you cannot re-construct back $x[n] = \delta[n-3]$ therefore the system is not invertible.

Furthermore, you can also verify that the output $y[n]$ will be identically zero for many distinct inputs such as $x[n] = \delta[n-5] + \delta[n-7]$ or $x[n] = \delta[n-11] + \delta[n-19]$. Therefore you can further conclude that distinct inputs producing same outputs would violate the principle of invertibility.

$\endgroup$

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.