Why define the z-transform differently from the Laplace transform? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar ManaraRelationship Between The Z-Transform And The Laplace TransformFourier Transform, Laplace Transform, but what about…How to intuitively understand why Laplace transform has a planar region of convergence, where Z transform has a circular region of covergenceWhy does the laplace transform of sine and cosine looks the way they areA question about the idea of Laplace transformDoes the Laplace Transform have any practical use or provide any mathematical insight?What do the “real” and “imaginary” parts of the Laplace and Z transform represent?We can guess the CTFT from the DTFT, but can we guess the Laplace transform from the Z-transform?Laplace and Fourier transformLimitations of Bromwich integral for inverting Laplace transform

Why did Peik Lin say, "I'm not an animal"?

Is there a way to generate uniformly distributed points on a sphere from a fixed amount of random real numbers per point?

Sort list of array linked objects by keys and values

Could an empire control the whole planet with today's comunication methods?

What is the role of 'For' here?

Separating matrix elements by lines

Was credit for the black hole image misappropriated?

How do you keep chess fun when your opponent constantly beats you?

Am I ethically obligated to go into work on an off day if the reason is sudden?

US Healthcare consultation for visitors

Can withdrawing asylum be illegal?

Would an alien lifeform be able to achieve space travel if lacking in vision?

Circular reasoning in L'Hopital's rule

Match Roman Numerals

Is it ok to offer lower paid work as a trial period before negotiating for a full-time job?

What is the padding with red substance inside of steak packaging?

Visa regaring travelling European country

What do I do when my TA workload is more than expected?

What was the last x86 CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?

Is every episode of "Where are my Pants?" identical?

Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments

Does Parliament need to approve the new Brexit delay to 31 October 2019?

Drawing arrows from one table cell reference to another

should truth entail possible truth



Why define the z-transform differently from the Laplace transform?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar ManaraRelationship Between The Z-Transform And The Laplace TransformFourier Transform, Laplace Transform, but what about…How to intuitively understand why Laplace transform has a planar region of convergence, where Z transform has a circular region of covergenceWhy does the laplace transform of sine and cosine looks the way they areA question about the idea of Laplace transformDoes the Laplace Transform have any practical use or provide any mathematical insight?What do the “real” and “imaginary” parts of the Laplace and Z transform represent?We can guess the CTFT from the DTFT, but can we guess the Laplace transform from the Z-transform?Laplace and Fourier transformLimitations of Bromwich integral for inverting Laplace transform










1












$begingroup$


The mapping between the $z$-plane and the $s$-plane is defined by
$$z=e^sT$$
where $T$ is the sampling period. A result of this mapping is that the shapes of the planes are quite different, e.g., the stable region of the $z$-plane is inside the unit circle, whereas the stable region of the $s$-plane is the left half-plane (LHP).



Why have people chosen to define the $z$-plane like this? Why not something like this instead:
$$z=sT$$
so that the $z$-transform becomes
$$X(z) = sum_k=0^infty x[k] e^-zk$$
Defining $z$ in this way makes the $z$-transform much more similar to the Laplace transform, and makes the structure of each plane pretty much the same, so you don't have to 'relearn' as much when moving to the $z$-transform.



Furthermore, if it is more beneficial to use $z=e^sT$ in the discrete domain, why wouldn't it also be beneficial to use a similar form in the time domain? If you did that, the Laplace transform would look like:
$$X(s) = int_0^infty x(t) s^-t,dt$$



So I guess my question is really: why define the Laplace and $z$-transforms differently? What is it about discrete vs. continuous that makes one form preferable over another in a specific domain?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Maybe useful: electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/86489/….
    $endgroup$
    – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
    Mar 31 at 10:44










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks but that doesn't really help. I understand the difference between the transforms fine. My question is just why people have chosen to define the $z$-transform differently from the Laplace transform (i.e.: why not just change the integral to a sum and set $z=sT$? - that seems much more natural and has the benefit of preserving the structure of the $s$-plane in the discrete domain).
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    Apr 1 at 4:05











  • $begingroup$
    The main reason why they are defined like that is because many operations and concepts have different meaning on continuous and discrete time domains. Applying a time shift to a continuous-time signal is not the same as applying a time shift to a discrete-time signal. Differentiating a discrete-time signal is not the same as differentiating a continuous-time signal. Periodicity is not quite the same for continuous-time and discrete-time. Therefore, it does not make much sense to define identically two transformations that deal with essentially two different things
    $endgroup$
    – bertozzijr
    Apr 3 at 9:25











  • $begingroup$
    @bertozzijr how is periodicity different and how does the standard definition of the $z$-transform address that? Similarly with differentiation. Thanks. It might be better to write it out as an answer if it takes up a lot of space.
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    Apr 7 at 10:34















1












$begingroup$


The mapping between the $z$-plane and the $s$-plane is defined by
$$z=e^sT$$
where $T$ is the sampling period. A result of this mapping is that the shapes of the planes are quite different, e.g., the stable region of the $z$-plane is inside the unit circle, whereas the stable region of the $s$-plane is the left half-plane (LHP).



Why have people chosen to define the $z$-plane like this? Why not something like this instead:
$$z=sT$$
so that the $z$-transform becomes
$$X(z) = sum_k=0^infty x[k] e^-zk$$
Defining $z$ in this way makes the $z$-transform much more similar to the Laplace transform, and makes the structure of each plane pretty much the same, so you don't have to 'relearn' as much when moving to the $z$-transform.



Furthermore, if it is more beneficial to use $z=e^sT$ in the discrete domain, why wouldn't it also be beneficial to use a similar form in the time domain? If you did that, the Laplace transform would look like:
$$X(s) = int_0^infty x(t) s^-t,dt$$



So I guess my question is really: why define the Laplace and $z$-transforms differently? What is it about discrete vs. continuous that makes one form preferable over another in a specific domain?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Maybe useful: electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/86489/….
    $endgroup$
    – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
    Mar 31 at 10:44










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks but that doesn't really help. I understand the difference between the transforms fine. My question is just why people have chosen to define the $z$-transform differently from the Laplace transform (i.e.: why not just change the integral to a sum and set $z=sT$? - that seems much more natural and has the benefit of preserving the structure of the $s$-plane in the discrete domain).
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    Apr 1 at 4:05











  • $begingroup$
    The main reason why they are defined like that is because many operations and concepts have different meaning on continuous and discrete time domains. Applying a time shift to a continuous-time signal is not the same as applying a time shift to a discrete-time signal. Differentiating a discrete-time signal is not the same as differentiating a continuous-time signal. Periodicity is not quite the same for continuous-time and discrete-time. Therefore, it does not make much sense to define identically two transformations that deal with essentially two different things
    $endgroup$
    – bertozzijr
    Apr 3 at 9:25











  • $begingroup$
    @bertozzijr how is periodicity different and how does the standard definition of the $z$-transform address that? Similarly with differentiation. Thanks. It might be better to write it out as an answer if it takes up a lot of space.
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    Apr 7 at 10:34













1












1








1


1



$begingroup$


The mapping between the $z$-plane and the $s$-plane is defined by
$$z=e^sT$$
where $T$ is the sampling period. A result of this mapping is that the shapes of the planes are quite different, e.g., the stable region of the $z$-plane is inside the unit circle, whereas the stable region of the $s$-plane is the left half-plane (LHP).



Why have people chosen to define the $z$-plane like this? Why not something like this instead:
$$z=sT$$
so that the $z$-transform becomes
$$X(z) = sum_k=0^infty x[k] e^-zk$$
Defining $z$ in this way makes the $z$-transform much more similar to the Laplace transform, and makes the structure of each plane pretty much the same, so you don't have to 'relearn' as much when moving to the $z$-transform.



Furthermore, if it is more beneficial to use $z=e^sT$ in the discrete domain, why wouldn't it also be beneficial to use a similar form in the time domain? If you did that, the Laplace transform would look like:
$$X(s) = int_0^infty x(t) s^-t,dt$$



So I guess my question is really: why define the Laplace and $z$-transforms differently? What is it about discrete vs. continuous that makes one form preferable over another in a specific domain?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




The mapping between the $z$-plane and the $s$-plane is defined by
$$z=e^sT$$
where $T$ is the sampling period. A result of this mapping is that the shapes of the planes are quite different, e.g., the stable region of the $z$-plane is inside the unit circle, whereas the stable region of the $s$-plane is the left half-plane (LHP).



Why have people chosen to define the $z$-plane like this? Why not something like this instead:
$$z=sT$$
so that the $z$-transform becomes
$$X(z) = sum_k=0^infty x[k] e^-zk$$
Defining $z$ in this way makes the $z$-transform much more similar to the Laplace transform, and makes the structure of each plane pretty much the same, so you don't have to 'relearn' as much when moving to the $z$-transform.



Furthermore, if it is more beneficial to use $z=e^sT$ in the discrete domain, why wouldn't it also be beneficial to use a similar form in the time domain? If you did that, the Laplace transform would look like:
$$X(s) = int_0^infty x(t) s^-t,dt$$



So I guess my question is really: why define the Laplace and $z$-transforms differently? What is it about discrete vs. continuous that makes one form preferable over another in a specific domain?







laplace-transform z-transform






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Mar 31 at 8:15









hddhhddh

1529




1529











  • $begingroup$
    Maybe useful: electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/86489/….
    $endgroup$
    – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
    Mar 31 at 10:44










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks but that doesn't really help. I understand the difference between the transforms fine. My question is just why people have chosen to define the $z$-transform differently from the Laplace transform (i.e.: why not just change the integral to a sum and set $z=sT$? - that seems much more natural and has the benefit of preserving the structure of the $s$-plane in the discrete domain).
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    Apr 1 at 4:05











  • $begingroup$
    The main reason why they are defined like that is because many operations and concepts have different meaning on continuous and discrete time domains. Applying a time shift to a continuous-time signal is not the same as applying a time shift to a discrete-time signal. Differentiating a discrete-time signal is not the same as differentiating a continuous-time signal. Periodicity is not quite the same for continuous-time and discrete-time. Therefore, it does not make much sense to define identically two transformations that deal with essentially two different things
    $endgroup$
    – bertozzijr
    Apr 3 at 9:25











  • $begingroup$
    @bertozzijr how is periodicity different and how does the standard definition of the $z$-transform address that? Similarly with differentiation. Thanks. It might be better to write it out as an answer if it takes up a lot of space.
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    Apr 7 at 10:34
















  • $begingroup$
    Maybe useful: electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/86489/….
    $endgroup$
    – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
    Mar 31 at 10:44










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks but that doesn't really help. I understand the difference between the transforms fine. My question is just why people have chosen to define the $z$-transform differently from the Laplace transform (i.e.: why not just change the integral to a sum and set $z=sT$? - that seems much more natural and has the benefit of preserving the structure of the $s$-plane in the discrete domain).
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    Apr 1 at 4:05











  • $begingroup$
    The main reason why they are defined like that is because many operations and concepts have different meaning on continuous and discrete time domains. Applying a time shift to a continuous-time signal is not the same as applying a time shift to a discrete-time signal. Differentiating a discrete-time signal is not the same as differentiating a continuous-time signal. Periodicity is not quite the same for continuous-time and discrete-time. Therefore, it does not make much sense to define identically two transformations that deal with essentially two different things
    $endgroup$
    – bertozzijr
    Apr 3 at 9:25











  • $begingroup$
    @bertozzijr how is periodicity different and how does the standard definition of the $z$-transform address that? Similarly with differentiation. Thanks. It might be better to write it out as an answer if it takes up a lot of space.
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    Apr 7 at 10:34















$begingroup$
Maybe useful: electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/86489/….
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
Mar 31 at 10:44




$begingroup$
Maybe useful: electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/86489/….
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
Mar 31 at 10:44












$begingroup$
Thanks but that doesn't really help. I understand the difference between the transforms fine. My question is just why people have chosen to define the $z$-transform differently from the Laplace transform (i.e.: why not just change the integral to a sum and set $z=sT$? - that seems much more natural and has the benefit of preserving the structure of the $s$-plane in the discrete domain).
$endgroup$
– hddh
Apr 1 at 4:05





$begingroup$
Thanks but that doesn't really help. I understand the difference between the transforms fine. My question is just why people have chosen to define the $z$-transform differently from the Laplace transform (i.e.: why not just change the integral to a sum and set $z=sT$? - that seems much more natural and has the benefit of preserving the structure of the $s$-plane in the discrete domain).
$endgroup$
– hddh
Apr 1 at 4:05













$begingroup$
The main reason why they are defined like that is because many operations and concepts have different meaning on continuous and discrete time domains. Applying a time shift to a continuous-time signal is not the same as applying a time shift to a discrete-time signal. Differentiating a discrete-time signal is not the same as differentiating a continuous-time signal. Periodicity is not quite the same for continuous-time and discrete-time. Therefore, it does not make much sense to define identically two transformations that deal with essentially two different things
$endgroup$
– bertozzijr
Apr 3 at 9:25





$begingroup$
The main reason why they are defined like that is because many operations and concepts have different meaning on continuous and discrete time domains. Applying a time shift to a continuous-time signal is not the same as applying a time shift to a discrete-time signal. Differentiating a discrete-time signal is not the same as differentiating a continuous-time signal. Periodicity is not quite the same for continuous-time and discrete-time. Therefore, it does not make much sense to define identically two transformations that deal with essentially two different things
$endgroup$
– bertozzijr
Apr 3 at 9:25













$begingroup$
@bertozzijr how is periodicity different and how does the standard definition of the $z$-transform address that? Similarly with differentiation. Thanks. It might be better to write it out as an answer if it takes up a lot of space.
$endgroup$
– hddh
Apr 7 at 10:34




$begingroup$
@bertozzijr how is periodicity different and how does the standard definition of the $z$-transform address that? Similarly with differentiation. Thanks. It might be better to write it out as an answer if it takes up a lot of space.
$endgroup$
– hddh
Apr 7 at 10:34










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

I think I figured out a satisfactory answer to this myself.



Why define the Laplace transform with $e^-st$?



You might think that you could define the Laplace transform as follows:
$$
F(s) = int_0^inftyf(t)s^-t,dt
$$

to be consistent with the $z$-transform. This has issues however. Using the above definition,
$$
s = e^lne^iargs = e^sigma e^iomega
$$

where $sigma=ln$ and $omega = args$.



The problem here is that $omega=args$ will only give values in the range $(-pi,pi]$ (the principal range), so using $s^-t$ to define the Laplace transform prevents you from analyzing most frequencies. This highlights an important point:
$$
e^-(sigma+iomega) t
$$

is not equal to
$$
left(e^sigma+iomegaright)^-t
$$

for all $tinmathbbR$. In fact, these two expressions are only equal when $t$ is some multiple of the period of $exp(iomega)$ (i.e., $omega/2pi$). If we use the definition of complex exponentiation, we find that
$$
left(e^sigma+iomegaright)^-t = e^-sigma te^-iarg(e^iomega)t
$$

which is almost the same as $e^-(sigma+iomega)t$ except for that fact that $arge^iomega$ is not equal to $omega$, but instead equal to $omega$ when wrapped around into the principal range of $(-pi,pi]$.



Why define the $z$-transform with $z^-n$?



It's possible to define the $z$-transform like the Laplace transform:
$$
F(z) = sum_n=0^inftyf[n]e^-zn
$$

however there are a few benefits to using $z=e^sT$. First of all, when dealing with discrete systems, differential equations turn into difference equations. A result of this is that instead of getting derivatives in the equation, we get delays.



We use the Laplace transform on differential equations since it turns differentiation into multiplication:
$$
mathcalLleftfracdxdtright = sX(s)
$$



On the other hand, we use the $z$-transform on difference equations, since it has a similar property for delays:
$$
mathcalZleftx[n-1]right = z^-1X(z)
$$



If we defined the $z$-transform like the Laplace transform, then we'd end up with a multiplication by an exponential instead of the above, and $z$-domain transfer functions would be much uglier as a result.



Another convenience of defining the $z$-transform the way it is, is that it "enforces" the notion that sampling causes aliasing of frequencies. Due to the definition $z=e^sT$, the $z$ transform cannot distinguish between frequencies separated by a multiple of the Nyquist limit (half the sampling rate).



Summary



  • The Laplace transform cannot be defined in the same manner as the $z$-transform, since it would prevent you from analyzing frequencies outside the range $(-pi,pi]$.

  • The above point is not a problem for $z$-transforms, since $z$-transforms deal with discrete systems, which cannot distinguish between frequencies separated by a multiple of $2pi/T$ (where $T$ is the sampling period) due to aliasing.

  • The definition of $z=e^sT$ is more suitable for discrete systems since they involve delays instead of derivatives, so using $z=e^sT$ makes the resulting transfer functions simpler.





share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    The point is the inverse transform : the Laplace transform of a sequence will be $2pi$-periodic so the inverse Laplace transform integral diverges. That's the same idea as for the Fourier series vs Fourier transform. Letting $z= e^-s$ means we are looking only at one period.
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @reuns Why would periodicity make it not invertible? Isn’t the DTFT invertible? (which would equal the Laplace transform of a sequence along the imaginary axis if in the ROC.) (In the sense that you can recover the sampled impulse train from it, not the original signal).
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Similarly, isn’t the Fourier transform of a sampled signal invertible (again, in the sense that you can recover the samples from it, not some original continuous signal).
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    Just because it’s periodic, doesn’t mean you can’t recover the original discrete signal.
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The inverse Laplace transform integral en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    yesterday












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3169159%2fwhy-define-the-z-transform-differently-from-the-laplace-transform%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1












$begingroup$

I think I figured out a satisfactory answer to this myself.



Why define the Laplace transform with $e^-st$?



You might think that you could define the Laplace transform as follows:
$$
F(s) = int_0^inftyf(t)s^-t,dt
$$

to be consistent with the $z$-transform. This has issues however. Using the above definition,
$$
s = e^lne^iargs = e^sigma e^iomega
$$

where $sigma=ln$ and $omega = args$.



The problem here is that $omega=args$ will only give values in the range $(-pi,pi]$ (the principal range), so using $s^-t$ to define the Laplace transform prevents you from analyzing most frequencies. This highlights an important point:
$$
e^-(sigma+iomega) t
$$

is not equal to
$$
left(e^sigma+iomegaright)^-t
$$

for all $tinmathbbR$. In fact, these two expressions are only equal when $t$ is some multiple of the period of $exp(iomega)$ (i.e., $omega/2pi$). If we use the definition of complex exponentiation, we find that
$$
left(e^sigma+iomegaright)^-t = e^-sigma te^-iarg(e^iomega)t
$$

which is almost the same as $e^-(sigma+iomega)t$ except for that fact that $arge^iomega$ is not equal to $omega$, but instead equal to $omega$ when wrapped around into the principal range of $(-pi,pi]$.



Why define the $z$-transform with $z^-n$?



It's possible to define the $z$-transform like the Laplace transform:
$$
F(z) = sum_n=0^inftyf[n]e^-zn
$$

however there are a few benefits to using $z=e^sT$. First of all, when dealing with discrete systems, differential equations turn into difference equations. A result of this is that instead of getting derivatives in the equation, we get delays.



We use the Laplace transform on differential equations since it turns differentiation into multiplication:
$$
mathcalLleftfracdxdtright = sX(s)
$$



On the other hand, we use the $z$-transform on difference equations, since it has a similar property for delays:
$$
mathcalZleftx[n-1]right = z^-1X(z)
$$



If we defined the $z$-transform like the Laplace transform, then we'd end up with a multiplication by an exponential instead of the above, and $z$-domain transfer functions would be much uglier as a result.



Another convenience of defining the $z$-transform the way it is, is that it "enforces" the notion that sampling causes aliasing of frequencies. Due to the definition $z=e^sT$, the $z$ transform cannot distinguish between frequencies separated by a multiple of the Nyquist limit (half the sampling rate).



Summary



  • The Laplace transform cannot be defined in the same manner as the $z$-transform, since it would prevent you from analyzing frequencies outside the range $(-pi,pi]$.

  • The above point is not a problem for $z$-transforms, since $z$-transforms deal with discrete systems, which cannot distinguish between frequencies separated by a multiple of $2pi/T$ (where $T$ is the sampling period) due to aliasing.

  • The definition of $z=e^sT$ is more suitable for discrete systems since they involve delays instead of derivatives, so using $z=e^sT$ makes the resulting transfer functions simpler.





share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    The point is the inverse transform : the Laplace transform of a sequence will be $2pi$-periodic so the inverse Laplace transform integral diverges. That's the same idea as for the Fourier series vs Fourier transform. Letting $z= e^-s$ means we are looking only at one period.
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @reuns Why would periodicity make it not invertible? Isn’t the DTFT invertible? (which would equal the Laplace transform of a sequence along the imaginary axis if in the ROC.) (In the sense that you can recover the sampled impulse train from it, not the original signal).
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Similarly, isn’t the Fourier transform of a sampled signal invertible (again, in the sense that you can recover the samples from it, not some original continuous signal).
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    Just because it’s periodic, doesn’t mean you can’t recover the original discrete signal.
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The inverse Laplace transform integral en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    yesterday
















1












$begingroup$

I think I figured out a satisfactory answer to this myself.



Why define the Laplace transform with $e^-st$?



You might think that you could define the Laplace transform as follows:
$$
F(s) = int_0^inftyf(t)s^-t,dt
$$

to be consistent with the $z$-transform. This has issues however. Using the above definition,
$$
s = e^lne^iargs = e^sigma e^iomega
$$

where $sigma=ln$ and $omega = args$.



The problem here is that $omega=args$ will only give values in the range $(-pi,pi]$ (the principal range), so using $s^-t$ to define the Laplace transform prevents you from analyzing most frequencies. This highlights an important point:
$$
e^-(sigma+iomega) t
$$

is not equal to
$$
left(e^sigma+iomegaright)^-t
$$

for all $tinmathbbR$. In fact, these two expressions are only equal when $t$ is some multiple of the period of $exp(iomega)$ (i.e., $omega/2pi$). If we use the definition of complex exponentiation, we find that
$$
left(e^sigma+iomegaright)^-t = e^-sigma te^-iarg(e^iomega)t
$$

which is almost the same as $e^-(sigma+iomega)t$ except for that fact that $arge^iomega$ is not equal to $omega$, but instead equal to $omega$ when wrapped around into the principal range of $(-pi,pi]$.



Why define the $z$-transform with $z^-n$?



It's possible to define the $z$-transform like the Laplace transform:
$$
F(z) = sum_n=0^inftyf[n]e^-zn
$$

however there are a few benefits to using $z=e^sT$. First of all, when dealing with discrete systems, differential equations turn into difference equations. A result of this is that instead of getting derivatives in the equation, we get delays.



We use the Laplace transform on differential equations since it turns differentiation into multiplication:
$$
mathcalLleftfracdxdtright = sX(s)
$$



On the other hand, we use the $z$-transform on difference equations, since it has a similar property for delays:
$$
mathcalZleftx[n-1]right = z^-1X(z)
$$



If we defined the $z$-transform like the Laplace transform, then we'd end up with a multiplication by an exponential instead of the above, and $z$-domain transfer functions would be much uglier as a result.



Another convenience of defining the $z$-transform the way it is, is that it "enforces" the notion that sampling causes aliasing of frequencies. Due to the definition $z=e^sT$, the $z$ transform cannot distinguish between frequencies separated by a multiple of the Nyquist limit (half the sampling rate).



Summary



  • The Laplace transform cannot be defined in the same manner as the $z$-transform, since it would prevent you from analyzing frequencies outside the range $(-pi,pi]$.

  • The above point is not a problem for $z$-transforms, since $z$-transforms deal with discrete systems, which cannot distinguish between frequencies separated by a multiple of $2pi/T$ (where $T$ is the sampling period) due to aliasing.

  • The definition of $z=e^sT$ is more suitable for discrete systems since they involve delays instead of derivatives, so using $z=e^sT$ makes the resulting transfer functions simpler.





share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    The point is the inverse transform : the Laplace transform of a sequence will be $2pi$-periodic so the inverse Laplace transform integral diverges. That's the same idea as for the Fourier series vs Fourier transform. Letting $z= e^-s$ means we are looking only at one period.
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @reuns Why would periodicity make it not invertible? Isn’t the DTFT invertible? (which would equal the Laplace transform of a sequence along the imaginary axis if in the ROC.) (In the sense that you can recover the sampled impulse train from it, not the original signal).
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Similarly, isn’t the Fourier transform of a sampled signal invertible (again, in the sense that you can recover the samples from it, not some original continuous signal).
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    Just because it’s periodic, doesn’t mean you can’t recover the original discrete signal.
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The inverse Laplace transform integral en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    yesterday














1












1








1





$begingroup$

I think I figured out a satisfactory answer to this myself.



Why define the Laplace transform with $e^-st$?



You might think that you could define the Laplace transform as follows:
$$
F(s) = int_0^inftyf(t)s^-t,dt
$$

to be consistent with the $z$-transform. This has issues however. Using the above definition,
$$
s = e^lne^iargs = e^sigma e^iomega
$$

where $sigma=ln$ and $omega = args$.



The problem here is that $omega=args$ will only give values in the range $(-pi,pi]$ (the principal range), so using $s^-t$ to define the Laplace transform prevents you from analyzing most frequencies. This highlights an important point:
$$
e^-(sigma+iomega) t
$$

is not equal to
$$
left(e^sigma+iomegaright)^-t
$$

for all $tinmathbbR$. In fact, these two expressions are only equal when $t$ is some multiple of the period of $exp(iomega)$ (i.e., $omega/2pi$). If we use the definition of complex exponentiation, we find that
$$
left(e^sigma+iomegaright)^-t = e^-sigma te^-iarg(e^iomega)t
$$

which is almost the same as $e^-(sigma+iomega)t$ except for that fact that $arge^iomega$ is not equal to $omega$, but instead equal to $omega$ when wrapped around into the principal range of $(-pi,pi]$.



Why define the $z$-transform with $z^-n$?



It's possible to define the $z$-transform like the Laplace transform:
$$
F(z) = sum_n=0^inftyf[n]e^-zn
$$

however there are a few benefits to using $z=e^sT$. First of all, when dealing with discrete systems, differential equations turn into difference equations. A result of this is that instead of getting derivatives in the equation, we get delays.



We use the Laplace transform on differential equations since it turns differentiation into multiplication:
$$
mathcalLleftfracdxdtright = sX(s)
$$



On the other hand, we use the $z$-transform on difference equations, since it has a similar property for delays:
$$
mathcalZleftx[n-1]right = z^-1X(z)
$$



If we defined the $z$-transform like the Laplace transform, then we'd end up with a multiplication by an exponential instead of the above, and $z$-domain transfer functions would be much uglier as a result.



Another convenience of defining the $z$-transform the way it is, is that it "enforces" the notion that sampling causes aliasing of frequencies. Due to the definition $z=e^sT$, the $z$ transform cannot distinguish between frequencies separated by a multiple of the Nyquist limit (half the sampling rate).



Summary



  • The Laplace transform cannot be defined in the same manner as the $z$-transform, since it would prevent you from analyzing frequencies outside the range $(-pi,pi]$.

  • The above point is not a problem for $z$-transforms, since $z$-transforms deal with discrete systems, which cannot distinguish between frequencies separated by a multiple of $2pi/T$ (where $T$ is the sampling period) due to aliasing.

  • The definition of $z=e^sT$ is more suitable for discrete systems since they involve delays instead of derivatives, so using $z=e^sT$ makes the resulting transfer functions simpler.





share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



I think I figured out a satisfactory answer to this myself.



Why define the Laplace transform with $e^-st$?



You might think that you could define the Laplace transform as follows:
$$
F(s) = int_0^inftyf(t)s^-t,dt
$$

to be consistent with the $z$-transform. This has issues however. Using the above definition,
$$
s = e^lne^iargs = e^sigma e^iomega
$$

where $sigma=ln$ and $omega = args$.



The problem here is that $omega=args$ will only give values in the range $(-pi,pi]$ (the principal range), so using $s^-t$ to define the Laplace transform prevents you from analyzing most frequencies. This highlights an important point:
$$
e^-(sigma+iomega) t
$$

is not equal to
$$
left(e^sigma+iomegaright)^-t
$$

for all $tinmathbbR$. In fact, these two expressions are only equal when $t$ is some multiple of the period of $exp(iomega)$ (i.e., $omega/2pi$). If we use the definition of complex exponentiation, we find that
$$
left(e^sigma+iomegaright)^-t = e^-sigma te^-iarg(e^iomega)t
$$

which is almost the same as $e^-(sigma+iomega)t$ except for that fact that $arge^iomega$ is not equal to $omega$, but instead equal to $omega$ when wrapped around into the principal range of $(-pi,pi]$.



Why define the $z$-transform with $z^-n$?



It's possible to define the $z$-transform like the Laplace transform:
$$
F(z) = sum_n=0^inftyf[n]e^-zn
$$

however there are a few benefits to using $z=e^sT$. First of all, when dealing with discrete systems, differential equations turn into difference equations. A result of this is that instead of getting derivatives in the equation, we get delays.



We use the Laplace transform on differential equations since it turns differentiation into multiplication:
$$
mathcalLleftfracdxdtright = sX(s)
$$



On the other hand, we use the $z$-transform on difference equations, since it has a similar property for delays:
$$
mathcalZleftx[n-1]right = z^-1X(z)
$$



If we defined the $z$-transform like the Laplace transform, then we'd end up with a multiplication by an exponential instead of the above, and $z$-domain transfer functions would be much uglier as a result.



Another convenience of defining the $z$-transform the way it is, is that it "enforces" the notion that sampling causes aliasing of frequencies. Due to the definition $z=e^sT$, the $z$ transform cannot distinguish between frequencies separated by a multiple of the Nyquist limit (half the sampling rate).



Summary



  • The Laplace transform cannot be defined in the same manner as the $z$-transform, since it would prevent you from analyzing frequencies outside the range $(-pi,pi]$.

  • The above point is not a problem for $z$-transforms, since $z$-transforms deal with discrete systems, which cannot distinguish between frequencies separated by a multiple of $2pi/T$ (where $T$ is the sampling period) due to aliasing.

  • The definition of $z=e^sT$ is more suitable for discrete systems since they involve delays instead of derivatives, so using $z=e^sT$ makes the resulting transfer functions simpler.






share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered yesterday









hddhhddh

1529




1529











  • $begingroup$
    The point is the inverse transform : the Laplace transform of a sequence will be $2pi$-periodic so the inverse Laplace transform integral diverges. That's the same idea as for the Fourier series vs Fourier transform. Letting $z= e^-s$ means we are looking only at one period.
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @reuns Why would periodicity make it not invertible? Isn’t the DTFT invertible? (which would equal the Laplace transform of a sequence along the imaginary axis if in the ROC.) (In the sense that you can recover the sampled impulse train from it, not the original signal).
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Similarly, isn’t the Fourier transform of a sampled signal invertible (again, in the sense that you can recover the samples from it, not some original continuous signal).
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    Just because it’s periodic, doesn’t mean you can’t recover the original discrete signal.
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The inverse Laplace transform integral en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    yesterday

















  • $begingroup$
    The point is the inverse transform : the Laplace transform of a sequence will be $2pi$-periodic so the inverse Laplace transform integral diverges. That's the same idea as for the Fourier series vs Fourier transform. Letting $z= e^-s$ means we are looking only at one period.
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @reuns Why would periodicity make it not invertible? Isn’t the DTFT invertible? (which would equal the Laplace transform of a sequence along the imaginary axis if in the ROC.) (In the sense that you can recover the sampled impulse train from it, not the original signal).
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Similarly, isn’t the Fourier transform of a sampled signal invertible (again, in the sense that you can recover the samples from it, not some original continuous signal).
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    Just because it’s periodic, doesn’t mean you can’t recover the original discrete signal.
    $endgroup$
    – hddh
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The inverse Laplace transform integral en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    yesterday
















$begingroup$
The point is the inverse transform : the Laplace transform of a sequence will be $2pi$-periodic so the inverse Laplace transform integral diverges. That's the same idea as for the Fourier series vs Fourier transform. Letting $z= e^-s$ means we are looking only at one period.
$endgroup$
– reuns
yesterday





$begingroup$
The point is the inverse transform : the Laplace transform of a sequence will be $2pi$-periodic so the inverse Laplace transform integral diverges. That's the same idea as for the Fourier series vs Fourier transform. Letting $z= e^-s$ means we are looking only at one period.
$endgroup$
– reuns
yesterday













$begingroup$
@reuns Why would periodicity make it not invertible? Isn’t the DTFT invertible? (which would equal the Laplace transform of a sequence along the imaginary axis if in the ROC.) (In the sense that you can recover the sampled impulse train from it, not the original signal).
$endgroup$
– hddh
yesterday




$begingroup$
@reuns Why would periodicity make it not invertible? Isn’t the DTFT invertible? (which would equal the Laplace transform of a sequence along the imaginary axis if in the ROC.) (In the sense that you can recover the sampled impulse train from it, not the original signal).
$endgroup$
– hddh
yesterday












$begingroup$
Similarly, isn’t the Fourier transform of a sampled signal invertible (again, in the sense that you can recover the samples from it, not some original continuous signal).
$endgroup$
– hddh
yesterday





$begingroup$
Similarly, isn’t the Fourier transform of a sampled signal invertible (again, in the sense that you can recover the samples from it, not some original continuous signal).
$endgroup$
– hddh
yesterday













$begingroup$
Just because it’s periodic, doesn’t mean you can’t recover the original discrete signal.
$endgroup$
– hddh
yesterday




$begingroup$
Just because it’s periodic, doesn’t mean you can’t recover the original discrete signal.
$endgroup$
– hddh
yesterday












$begingroup$
The inverse Laplace transform integral en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
$endgroup$
– reuns
yesterday





$begingroup$
The inverse Laplace transform integral en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
$endgroup$
– reuns
yesterday


















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3169159%2fwhy-define-the-z-transform-differently-from-the-laplace-transform%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Triangular numbers and gcdProving sum of a set is $0 pmod n$ if $n$ is odd, or $fracn2 pmod n$ if $n$ is even?Is greatest common divisor of two numbers really their smallest linear combination?GCD, LCM RelationshipProve a set of nonnegative integers with greatest common divisor 1 and closed under addition has all but finite many nonnegative integers.all pairs of a and b in an equation containing gcdTriangular Numbers Modulo $k$ - Hit All Values?Understanding the Existence and Uniqueness of the GCDGCD and LCM with logical symbolsThe greatest common divisor of two positive integers less than 100 is equal to 3. Their least common multiple is twelve times one of the integers.Suppose that for all integers $x$, $x|a$ and $x|b$ if and only if $x|c$. Then $c = gcd(a,b)$Which is the gcd of 2 numbers which are multiplied and the result is 600000?

Ingelân Ynhâld Etymology | Geografy | Skiednis | Polityk en bestjoer | Ekonomy | Demografy | Kultuer | Klimaat | Sjoch ek | Keppelings om utens | Boarnen, noaten en referinsjes Navigaasjemenuwww.gov.ukOffisjele webside fan it regear fan it Feriene KeninkrykOffisjele webside fan it Britske FerkearsburoNederlânsktalige ynformaasje fan it Britske FerkearsburoOffisjele webside fan English Heritage, de organisaasje dy't him ynset foar it behâld fan it Ingelske kultuergoedYnwennertallen fan alle Britske stêden út 'e folkstelling fan 2011Notes en References, op dizze sideEngland

Հադիս Բովանդակություն Անվանում և նշանակություն | Դասակարգում | Աղբյուրներ | Նավարկման ցանկ