Open study

is now brainly

With Brainly you can:

  • Get homework help from millions of students and moderators
  • Learn how to solve problems with step-by-step explanations
  • Share your knowledge and earn points by helping other students
  • Learn anywhere, anytime with the Brainly app!

A community for students.

Is there a simpler method to show from the definition of the Laplace transform. \[\mathcal L\left\{t\sin(nt)\right\}=\frac{2pn}{\left(p^2+n^2\right)^2}\]

I got my questions answered at in under 10 minutes. Go to now for free help!
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Join Brainly to access

this expert answer


To see the expert answer you'll need to create a free account at Brainly

I haven't come across a nicer one, myself, but it'd be nice to see.
(If what I'm seeing is right, of course, considering it's cut off)

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

so u can't use properties of LT ?
\[\mathcal L\left\{t\sin(nt)\right\}=\int\limits_0^\infty t\sin(nt)e^{-pt}\text dt\] \[=\int_0^\infty t\frac{e^{int}-e^{-int}}{2i}e^{-pt}\text dt\] \[=\frac 1{2i}\int_0^\infty t({e^{int}-e^{-int}})e^{-pt}\text dt\] \[=\frac 1{2i}\left(\int_0^\infty t\cdot e^{-(p-in)t}\text dt-\int_0^\infty t\cdot e^{-(p+in)t}\text dt\right)\] \[=\frac 1{2i}\left[\left(\left.\frac{t\cdot e^{-(p-in)}}{-(p-in)}\right|_0^\infty-\int_0^\infty\frac{e^{-(p-in)t}}{-(p-in)}\text dt\right)\right.\]\[\qquad\left.-\left(\left.\frac{t\cdot e^{-(p+in)}}{-(p+in)}\right|_0^\infty-\int_0^\infty\frac{e^{-(p+in)t}}{-(p+in)}\text dt\right)\right]\] \[=\frac 1{2i}\left[\left(0+\int_0^\infty\frac{e^{-(p-in)t}}{(p-in)}\text dt\right)-\left(0+\int_0^\infty\frac{e^{-(p+in)t}}{(p+in)}\text dt\right)\right]\] \[=\frac 1{2i}\left[\int_0^\infty\frac{e^{-(p-in)t}}{(p-in)}\text dt-\int_0^\infty\frac{e^{-(p+in)t}}{(p+in)}\text dt\right]\] \[=\frac 1{2i}\left[\left.\frac{e^{-(p-in)t}}{-(p-in)^2}-\frac{e^{-(p+in)t}}{-(p+in)^2}\right|_0^\infty\right]\] \[=\frac 1{2i}\left[\frac{1}{(p-in)^2}-\frac{1}{(p+in)^2}\right]\] \[=\frac 1{2i}\left[\frac{(p+in)^2-(p+in)^2}{(p-in)^2(p-in)^2}\right]\] \[=\frac 1{2i}\left[\frac{(p^2-2ipn-n^2)-(p^2+2ipn-n^2)}{\left((p-in)(p+in)\right)^2}\right]\] \[=\frac 1{2i}\left[\frac{-4ipn}{\left(p^2+n^2\right)^2}\right]\] \[=\frac{2pn}{\left(p^2+n^2\right)^2}\]
the question was "From the definition, evaluate the following Laplace transforms."
0 L(sinnt)=n/p2+n2 L(tsinnt)=-d/dp(n/p2+n2)=2np/(p2_n2)2
From definition...?
\[\mathcal {L}\{ t f(t)\}=-\frac{\text d}{\text dp}F(p)\] @mahmit2012 does that follow from the definition?
I guess you could write it as a Lemma... don't know how that will fly, with your prof. though.
Yes, that is correct.
I'm still thinking it requires some work, it doesn't just follow from definition.
\[\mathcal L\left\{t sin(nt) \right\}\] \[\qquad\qquad\text{let } f(t)=sin(nt)\]\[\qquad\qquad F(t)= \frac{n}{p^2+n^2}\]\[\qquad\qquad \mathcal {L}\{ t f(t)\}=-\frac{\text d}{\text dp}F(p)\]\[\mathcal L\left\{tf(p)\right\}=-\frac{\text d}{\text dp}\left(\frac{n}{p^2+n^2}\right)\]\[=-\frac{\text d}{\text dp}\left({n}({p^2+n^2})^{-1}\right)\]\[=-2pn(p^2+n^2)^{-2}\]\[=\frac{2pn}{(p^2+n^2)^2}\]
that is much quicker
but u didn't use definition.....
I agree, but I thought you said it had to be from definition...?
u used a property that follows from definition
i did prove \[f(t)=sin(nt)\] \[F(p)= \frac{n}{p^2+n^2}\] in a earlier question
with the given question, i would go with your earlier response, though its longer
What I was trying to say, as with @hartnn is, just go ahead and prove this: \[\mathcal {L}\{ t f(t)\}=-\frac{d}{dp}F(p)\] as a lemma, and you know that you're working from definition.
i havent proved \[\mathcal {L}\{ t f(t)\}=-\frac{\text d}{\text dp}F(p)\] yet
Yes, and you should as it's not a corollary of the definition, it's actually a lemma. Once you've got that, just reference it, I haven't had professors nag me about doing such like this, yet, but you never know.

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question