Jump to content

Talk:Initial value theorem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Is F supposed to be the Laplace transform of ƒ? If so, it should say so. This article is written in a generally rather verbally challenged style. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... nobody answered, so I've done some further editing. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone think a proof or examples should be added? Krazyman (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the proof

[edit]

I really don't see the necessity to complicate the proof that much. The initial value theorem is only makes sense for the one-sided Laplace transform, which means that does not make much sense (the derivative may not even exist at , e.g., when using the Heaviside function).

Hence, one can pose . By exchanging the limit and the summation (integral), which is allowed because of the uniform convergence for , one obtains that the integral vanishes whenever (implied by ), and thus the required answer.

Did I miss something essential here ?

ikingut 16:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)