Im thinking whether any convolutional operation can output a unit impulse, an example to further explain: where a convolution between system $h[n]$ and unknown system $g[n]$ would output $\delta[n]$.

conv(h[n], g[n]) = δ[n]


$$h[n] = \delta[n] + \delta[n-1]/2 + \delta[n-2]/4 + \delta[n-3]/8 + \delta[n-4]/16$$

In regards to Z-transform - it can be concluded that

$$H[z] = 1 + 1/2z^{-1} + 1/4z^{-2} + 1/8z^{-3} + 1/16z^{-4}$$

Moreover, it is know that in z domain conv becomes multiplication therefore:

$$H[z] G[z] = 1$$

And in conclusion $G[z] = 1/H[z]$

$$G[z] = \frac{1}{1 + 1/2z^{-1} + 1/4z^{-2} + 1/8z^{-3} + 1/16z^{-4}}$$

If the above is somehow correct, then when trying to achieve the inverse z-transform we will get:

$$g[n] = \delta[n] + 2/\delta[n-1] + 4/\delta[n-2] + 8/\delta[n-3] + 16/\delta[n-4]$$

We get $1/\delta[n]$, which does not bode well for anybody.

Im I in the wrong? Can it be possible?


This problem is related to deconvolution and equalization. You are basically undoing the effect of a filter by another filter, such that the total system has a flat response, i.e., has a unit impulse as its impulse response.

From $$(h\star g)[n]=\delta[n]\tag{1}$$ it follows that $$H(z)G(z)=1\tag{2}$$ must be satisfied. So the solution to the problem is $$G(z)=\frac{1}{H(z)}\tag{3}$$

as you've already found out.

However, the problem with $(3)$ is that the corresponding filter might not be causal and stable. Note that the poles of $G(z)$ are the zeros of $H(z)$, and the pole locations determine whether $G(z)$ is causal and stable. The inverse filter $G(z)$ is stable if all its poles are inside the unit circle. I.e., all zeros of $H(z)$ must be inside the unit circle for the inverse filter $G(z)$ to be causal and stable. Such a filter $H(z)$ with all its zeros inside the unit circle is called minimum-phase.

As a simple example take $h[n]=\delta[n]+\frac12\delta[n-1]$. We have $H(z)=1+\frac12z^{-1}$, and the zero of $H(z)$ is $z_0=-\frac12$. We can conclude that the inverse filter $(3)$ is causal and stable, because its pole is inside the unit circle:


The inverse $\mathcal{Z}$-transform of $G(z)$ is


It's straightforward to show that the sequences $h[n]$ and $g[n]$ indeed satisfy $(1)$.

In practice, we usually assume that an exact inversion $(3)$ is not possible, so we try to approximately invert a given system. And we usually allow a certain delay, so $(1)$ is changed to $$(h\star g)[n]\approx\delta[n-N]\tag{6}$$ with some appropriately chosen $N>0$.

As a final remark, you have to work on your $\mathcal{Z}$-transform skills. Your attempt at inverting $G(z)$ was not successful.

  • $\begingroup$ Very nice explanation Matt, thank you very much for your time. $\endgroup$ – MadFlax Jun 15 '20 at 9:27
  • $\begingroup$ @MadFlax: Thx, you're welcome. $\endgroup$ – Matt L. Jun 15 '20 at 10:19

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.