2
$\begingroup$

The DTFT of a sequence $x[n]$ can be written as $$X(e^{j\omega}) = \sum_{n = -\infty}^{\infty} x[n] e^{-j\omega n}.$$ Is the smallest (fundamental) period in frequency of the DTFT always $2\pi$? Or can it be smaller than $2\pi$?

In addition, I was wondering why we cannot use that same notation for the argument with the CTFT. We typically denote the continuous-time Fourier Transform by $X(j\omega)$. But what's wrong with using $X(e^{j\omega})$ where $$X(e^{j\omega}) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} x(t) e^{-j\omega t} dt?$$

I know for a fact that this is wrong because the notation inherently implies the periodicity of $X(e^{j\omega})$, since $X(e^{j(\omega + 2\pi)}) = X(e^{j\omega})$, which is obbiously not true in this case. But I don't understand what mathematically does not permit us to use $e^{j\omega}$ as an argument in the continuous-time case.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

The DTFT is always $2\pi$-periodic. However, it can also have a smaller period, namely a fraction of $2\pi$. Take any sequence $x[n]$ for which the DTFT exists and insert $L-1$ zeros between the samples. The DTFT of the new sequency $\hat{x}[n]$ can then be written as

$$\hat{X}(e^{j\omega})=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\hat{x}[n]e^{-jn\omega}=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\hat{x}[nL]e^{-jnL\omega}\tag{1}$$

$\hat{X}(e^{j\omega})$ as given by $(1)$ clearly has a period of $2\pi/L$.

Concerning your second question, the reason why a continuous-time Fourier transform $X(j\omega)$ cannot be written as $X(e^{j\omega})$ is that

$$X(j\omega)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}x(t)e^{-j\omega t}dt\neq \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}x(t)(e^{j\omega})^{-t}dt\tag{2}$$

simply because generally

$$e^{-j\omega t}\neq (e^{j\omega})^{-t}\tag{3}$$

unless $t$ is an integer (as is the case with the DTFT).

Note that if $(3)$ were not true, i.e., if $e^{-j\omega t}= (e^{j\omega})^{-t}$ were true, we could easily show that $e^{-j\omega t}=1$ for all $t$. Just write $\omega=2\pi/T$ and you get

$$e^{-j\omega t}=e^{-j2\pi t/T}=\left(e^{-j2\pi}\right)^{t/T}=1^{t/T}=1$$

which is of course absurd.


Proof of Eq. $(3)$:

Let $z$ be a complex number with $|z|=1$ (the magnitude is irrelevant here):

$$z=e^{j\theta}\tag{4}$$

Let $a$ and $b$ be real numbers. Then

$$z^{ab}=e^{j\theta a b}\tag{5}$$

And with $z^a=u$

$$\left(z^a\right)^b=u^b=e^{j\arg\{u\}b}\tag{6}$$

With $\arg\{u\}=\text{pv}\{\theta a\}\in (-\pi,\pi]$, where $\text{pv}$ denotes the principal value, it is clear that generally

$$z^{ab}=e^{j\theta a b}\neq \left(z^a\right)^b=e^{j\,\text{pv}\{\theta a\}b}\tag{7}$$

There are two cases where $(5)$ and $(6)$ are equal:

  1. if $\text{pv}\{\theta a\}=\theta a$, which is the case if $\theta a\in (-\pi,\pi]$.

  2. if $b$ is integer, since

$$\text{pv}\{\theta a\}=\theta a+2\pi k\tag{8}$$

with some appropriately chosen integer $k$ (such that the result is in the interval $(-\pi,\pi]$), then

$$\left(z^a\right)^b=e^{j\,\text{pv}\{\theta a\}b}=e^{j(\theta a+2\pi k)b}=e^{j\theta ab}=z^{ab},\qquad b\in\mathbb{Z}\tag{9}$$

[Note that $(9)$ would also hold for rational $b$ as long as $kb$ is integer.]

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why is $e^{-j\omega t} = (e^{j\omega})^{-t}$ invalid? Is it because we are not allowed to raise a complex number to irrational and/or transcendental powers? $\endgroup$ – 0MW Feb 20 '18 at 16:38
  • $\begingroup$ @0MW: You can raise a complex number to any other complex number, but the two complex numbers under consideration are simply not equal. $(e^{j\omega})^{-t}$ is $2\pi$-periodic in $\omega$ and $e^{-j\omega t}$ isn't. With $e^{j\omega}$ you lose information because it gives the same value for $\omega+2\pi k$, which isn't the case for the other function. $\endgroup$ – Matt L. Feb 20 '18 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ I understand that the DTFT can have a period less than $2\pi$, but I was recently reading up on the duality between the DTFT and the continuous-time fourier series: namely, the DTFT can be thought of as a continuous-time fourier series in $\omega$ with period $2\pi$. This last bit is important, since the factor of $2\pi$ appears in the synthesis equation. Does this duality break down if the DTFT is periodic with a period less than $2\pi$? $\endgroup$ – 0MW Feb 23 '18 at 7:44
  • $\begingroup$ @0MW: The analogy always holds; if the period is smaller, then you have zeros in between the coefficients in both cases. $\endgroup$ – Matt L. Feb 23 '18 at 9:40
0
$\begingroup$

You could define a DTFT that has a fundamental period that is less than $2\pi$, and try to find its IDTFT. We say that it's periodic in $2\pi$ because that's true for all DTFTs, but there might be cases where the period is smaller (even though they might not have an easy-to-find inverse). A trivial case would be the transform of the Dirac delta, whose DTFT is a constant and so has any period you want.

Regarding the notation, it's just a way to distinguish between continuous and discrete signals when working on the frequency domain. When you have ADCs and DACs, things may became a bit confusing if we use the same notation for all the transforms.

Note that the only thing that matters is that they are functions of $\omega$, so one could just write $X(\omega)$ in any case and it would be valid.

The fact that we use $j\omega$ in the continuous case comes from the fact that the Fourier transform is (in general) the Laplace transform evaluated when $s=j\omega$. So if we have some Laplace transform $X_L(s)$, we can evaluate that in the imaginary axis to get the Fourier transform, and thus the convention.

In the discrete case, something similar happens. We usually link the z-transform and the DTFT evaluating the former at $z=e^{j\omega}$, and the same as in the continuous case happens.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The question is why a CTFT cannot be written as $X(e^{j\omega})$, and it looks like you discussed the difference between the notations $X(\omega)$ and $X(j\omega)$. $\endgroup$ – Matt L. Feb 20 '18 at 8:45
  • $\begingroup$ @MattL. You are right, I read the question shallowly and misinterpreted it. I'll leave it here though, as I think it can help someone in the future, maybe. +1 to your answer. $\endgroup$ – Tendero Feb 20 '18 at 12:25
0
$\begingroup$

to answer your last question, it turns out (this is ultra-fundamental) that an eigenfunction for a Linear Time-Invariant (LTI) System is the exponential input. this is true whether it's Continuous time:

$$ x(t) = e^{st} $$

or if it's Discrete time

$$ x[n] = e^{\log(z) n} = z^n $$

This means if the eigenfunction goes into the LTI, the same function comes out but scaled by a constant. I think they call that constant an "eigenvalue". Turns out that the output of the two cases above are:

$$ y(t) = H(s) \, x(t) $$

and

$$ y[n] = H(z) \, x[n] $$

So, specifically for the complex sinusoid:

$$ x(t) = e^{j \Omega t} $$

or, if it's Discrete time

$$ x[n] = e^{j \omega n} $$

then what comes out is:

$$ y(t) = H(j \Omega) \, x(t) $$

or

$$ y[n] = H(e^{j \omega}) \, x[n] $$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is all true and important, but I don't see how it answers the OP's second question. $\endgroup$ – Matt L. Feb 20 '18 at 8:43
  • $\begingroup$ it answers why we use $X(s)\bigg|_{s=j\omega}$ in the continuous-time case and $X(z)\bigg|_{z=e^{j\omega}}$ in the discrete-time case. $\endgroup$ – robert bristow-johnson Feb 20 '18 at 17:51
  • $\begingroup$ That's right, but the question was - as far as I understood - why we don't (and cannot) use $X(e^{j\omega})$ in the continuous domain. $\endgroup$ – Matt L. Feb 20 '18 at 17:54
  • $\begingroup$ because we have to use $X(s)\bigg|_{s=j\omega}$ instead. we can't use both. $\endgroup$ – robert bristow-johnson Feb 21 '18 at 1:59
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, but I think that the most important reason is that, unlike the DTFT, the CTFT is no function of $e^{j\omega}$. $\endgroup$ – Matt L. Feb 21 '18 at 6:33

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.