# Laplace Transform

Watch
Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Hi,

How I would go about deriving the laplace transform for L[integral of f(t) from zero to t]?

I'm aware of how you derive something like L[df/dt] using the standard definition of the Laplace transform, but I can't make sense of this particular derivation!

Any help would be much appreciated! Thanks!
0
4 years ago
#2
I'm not clear; is the problem that you have a derivation you don't understand, or that you need to find a derivation and can't work out how to do it?
0
Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by DFranklin)
I'm not clear; is the problem that you have a derivation you don't understand, or that you need to find a derivation and can't work out how to do it?
The actual question is 'Derive the following Laplace Transform L[integral f(t) from zero to t].

I'm unsure how to derive it, as you can't use the normal definition?

Sorry, I don't know how to use the fancy maths format on here!
0
4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Bioluminescence1)
The actual question is 'Derive the following Laplace Transform L[integral f(t) from zero to t].

I'm unsure how to derive it, as you can't use the normal definition?

Sorry, I don't know how to use the fancy maths format on here!
Write then use integration by parts on the Laplace transform integral. And think about what is.
0
Thread starter 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by atsruser)
Write then use integration by parts on the Laplace transform integral. And think about what is.
Sorry I'm not sure I get what you mean, could you expand please? (:
0
4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Bioluminescence1)
Sorry I'm not sure I get what you mean, could you expand please? (:
It may be more straightforward to define F as above, differentiate both sides and then apply the Laplace transform. (It's tantamount to doing the same thing in the end.)
0
Thread starter 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by RichE)
It may be more straightforward to define F as above, differentiate both sides and then apply the Laplace transform. (It's tantamount to doing the same thing in the end.)
Differentiate and not integrate? Why would you do that?
0
4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Bioluminescence1)
Differentiate and not integrate? Why would you do that?
Did you try it? What did you get when you differentiated F(t) and then transformed your answer?
0
4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Bioluminescence1)
Sorry I'm not sure I get what you mean, could you expand please? (:
First, do you know what result that you're trying to get to? If not, it'll probably help to look it up. Then, given the expression I wrote above:

1. We have

2. We have

3. What is ?

4. What is ?

5. How does that suggest that you perform the IBP, given the result that you want?
0
4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Bioluminescence1)
Differentiate and not integrate? Why would you do that?
Well, if you know the relationship between the Laplace transform of f(x) and the transform of f'(x), let then since you know the relationship between the Laplace transform of g and that of g', and you know the laplace transform of g' is the laplace transform of f, you should be able to use this to find the laplace transform of g.
0
X

new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### Feeling behind at school/college? What is the best thing your teachers could to help you catch up?

Extra compulsory independent learning activities (eg, homework tasks) (3)
3.75%
Run extra compulsory lessons or workshops (11)
13.75%
Focus on making the normal lesson time with them as high quality as possible (14)
17.5%
Focus on making the normal learning resources as high quality/accessible as possible (9)
11.25%
Provide extra optional activities, lessons and/or workshops (29)
36.25%
Assess students, decide who needs extra support and focus on these students (14)
17.5%