You are meant to (somehow) use the inversion formula:
We’ve been writing the inversion formula since we first talked about Fourier transform 30-Jan. What’s new ( and theorem ) is that you can actually trust the inversion formula to tell the truth.
For question 2B, partial fraction clearly won’t work on this. And if I complete the square, the equation looks horrible. How should I tackle this question?
You have the right idea – you just need to stick with it.
You can factor the denominator as:
,
with constants and not too horrible. Then use partial fractions.
Question from a student:
You are meant to (somehow) use the inversion formula:
We’ve been writing the inversion formula since we first talked about Fourier transform 30-Jan. What’s new ( and theorem ) is that you can actually trust the inversion formula to tell the truth.
See 06-Feb, slide 5
Question from a student:
You have the right idea – you just need to stick with it.
You can factor the denominator as:
,
with constants and not too horrible. Then use partial fractions.
I still don’t get it. If coefficients of both “iw” are 1 then one of the terms we get is but we want . So far I have done this
You need to factor out the 2. eg: