Consider the following system: $$y(t-1)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty x(𝜏)u(𝜏-t) d𝜏 $$ where $u(t)$ is the unit step function, which is zero for $t<0$ and equals $1$ for $t>0$.

$(1)$ Is the system causal? Why or why not?

I think if $u(t)=0$ for all $t<0$. This means that $u(Ο„βˆ’t)=0$ for all $Ο„<t$ or, equivalently, for all $t>Ο„$ and the integrand is zero in range $({-\infty}, t)$.
Therefore, we can show that: $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty x(𝜏)u(𝜏-t) d𝜏 = \int_{t}^\infty x(𝜏)u(𝜏-t) d𝜏 = \int_{t}^\infty x(𝜏) d𝜏$$ So, the system is not causal! Am I right?!

$(2)$ Is the system time-invariant? Why or why not?

Let $ s=t-1$
$$y(s)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty x(𝜏)u(𝜏-s+1) d𝜏 $$
For invariance, we need to show output resulted from $x(sβˆ’s_o)$ = $y(sβˆ’s_o)$.
$$y_1(s)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty x(𝜏-s_0)u(𝜏-s+1) d𝜏 $$ Now when I change of variable to $z=Ο„βˆ’s_o$, $Ο„=z+s_0$ , $dz=dΟ„$ it leads to: $$y_1(s)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty x(z)u(z+s_0-s+1) dz $$
For $y(s-s_o)$ integral becomes: $$y_2(s-s_0)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty x(𝜏)u(𝜏-s+1-s_0) d𝜏 $$
So it seems to time-variant system.
Update:I would appreciate if anyone can answer my question because it's not a homework anymore and yet I didn't find the answer.


2 Answers 2



Substitute $s = t-1$. That gets you the equations in a more standard form $y(s) = ...$ Then go through the same excercise.


Concerning causality, your conclusion is correct. When you tried to investigate time-invariance you failed because you're not sufficiently careful when substituting variables. The first error occurred already when formulating the input-output equation for $y(t)$. Using $s=t-1$ means that $\tau-t$ becomes $\tau-(s+1)=\tau-s-1$, and hence you should obtain


Now you're making the same mistake when you try to evaluate $y_2(s-s_0)$. Replacing $s$ by $s-s_0$ doesn't result in what you wrote down. If you do things right, you should see that the system is in fact time-invariant.

Time-invariance is also directly obvious from the original input-output equation, because it can be seen that the output signal is given by a convolution integral, and only LTI systems can be represented by convolution.

  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps you could include a little bit of explanation as to why you are calling $(1)$ a convolution integral when, at first glance, it looks very much like a correlation integral since the variable of integration $\tau$ has the same sign in both arguments in $(1)$ whereas in a convolution integral, it should have opposite signsl. $\endgroup$ Dec 31, 2020 at 13:27
  • $\begingroup$ @DilipSarwate: I thought I'd initially leave that leap of imagination to the OP. $\endgroup$
    – Matt L.
    Dec 31, 2020 at 13:45

Your Answer

By clicking β€œPost Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.