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

Boston (Lincolnshire) Stedsbyld | Berne yn Boston | NavigaasjemenuBoston Borough CouncilBoston, Lincolnshire

Ballerup Komuun Stääden an saarpen | Futnuuten | Luke uk diar | Nawigatsjuunwww.ballerup.dkwww.statistikbanken.dk: Tabelle BEF44 (Folketal pr. 1. januar fordelt på byer)Commonskategorii: Ballerup Komuun55° 44′ N, 12° 22′ O

Serbia Índice Etimología Historia Geografía Entorno natural División administrativa Política Demografía Economía Cultura Deportes Véase también Notas Referencias Bibliografía Enlaces externos Menú de navegación44°49′00″N 20°28′00″E / 44.816666666667, 20.46666666666744°49′00″N 20°28′00″E / 44.816666666667, 20.466666666667U.S. Department of Commerce (2015)«Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano 2018»Kosovo-Metohija.Neutralna Srbija u NATO okruzenju.The SerbsTheories on the Origin of the Serbs.Serbia.Earls: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases.Egeo y Balcanes.Kalemegdan.Southern Pannonia during the age of the Great Migrations.Culture in Serbia.History.The Serbian Origin of the Montenegrins.Nemanjics' period (1186-1353).Stefan Uros (1355-1371).Serbian medieval history.Habsburg–Ottoman Wars (1525–1718).The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922.The First Serbian Uprising.Miloš, prince of Serbia.3. Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Congress of Berlin.The Balkan Wars and the Partition of Macedonia.The Falcon and the Eagle: Montenegro and Austria-Hungary, 1908-1914.Typhus fever on the eastern front in World War I.Anniversary of WWI battle marked in Serbia.La derrota austriaca en los Balcanes. Fin del Imperio Austro-Húngaro.Imperio austriaco y Reino de Hungría.Los tiempos modernos: del capitalismo a la globalización, siglos XVII al XXI.The period of Croatia within ex-Yugoslavia.Yugoslavia: Much in a Name.Las dictaduras europeas.Croacia: mito y realidad."Crods ask arms".Prólogo a la invasión.La campaña de los Balcanes.La resistencia en Yugoslavia.Jasenovac Research Institute.Día en memoria de las víctimas del genocidio en la Segunda Guerra Mundial.El infierno estuvo en Jasenovac.Croacia empieza a «desenterrar» a sus muertos de Jasenovac.World fascism: a historical encyclopedia, Volumen 1.Tito. Josip Broz.El nuevo orden y la resistencia.La conquista del poder.Algunos aspectos de la economía yugoslava a mediados de 1962.Albania-Kosovo crisis.De Kosovo a Kosova: una visión demográfica.La crisis de la economía yugoslava y la política de "estabilización".Milosevic: el poder de un absolutista."Serbia under Milošević: politics in the 1990s"Milosevic cavó en Kosovo la tumba de la antigua Yugoslavia.La ONU exculpa a Serbia de genocidio en la guerra de Bosnia.Slobodan Milosevic, el burócrata que supo usar el odio.Es la fuerza contra el sufrimiento de muchos inocentes.Matanza de civiles al bombardear la OTAN un puente mientras pasaba un tren.Las consecuencias negativas de los bombardeos de Yugoslavia se sentirán aún durante largo tiempo.Kostunica advierte que la misión de Europa en Kosovo es ilegal.Las 24 horas más largas en la vida de Slobodan Milosevic.Serbia declara la guerra a la mafia por matar a Djindjic.Tadic presentará "quizás en diciembre" la solicitud de entrada en la UE.Montenegro declara su independencia de Serbia.Serbia se declara estado soberano tras separación de Montenegro.«Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo (Request for Advisory Opinion)»Mladic pasa por el médico antes de la audiencia para extraditarloDatos de Serbia y Kosovo.The Carpathian Mountains.Position, Relief, Climate.Transport.Finding birds in Serbia.U Srbiji do 2010. godine 10% teritorije nacionalni parkovi.Geography.Serbia: Climate.Variability of Climate In Serbia In The Second Half of The 20thc Entury.BASIC CLIMATE CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE TERRITORY OF SERBIA.Fauna y flora: Serbia.Serbia and Montenegro.Información general sobre Serbia.Republic of Serbia Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA).Serbia recycling 15% of waste.Reform process of the Serbian energy sector.20-MW Wind Project Being Developed in Serbia.Las Naciones Unidas. Paz para Kosovo.Aniversario sin fiesta.Population by national or ethnic groups by Census 2002.Article 7. Coat of arms, flag and national anthem.Serbia, flag of.Historia.«Serbia and Montenegro in Pictures»Serbia.Serbia aprueba su nueva Constitución con un apoyo de más del 50%.Serbia. Population.«El nacionalista Nikolic gana las elecciones presidenciales en Serbia»El europeísta Borís Tadic gana la segunda vuelta de las presidenciales serbias.Aleksandar Vucic, de ultranacionalista serbio a fervoroso europeístaKostunica condena la declaración del "falso estado" de Kosovo.Comienza el debate sobre la independencia de Kosovo en el TIJ.La Corte Internacional de Justicia dice que Kosovo no violó el derecho internacional al declarar su independenciaKosovo: Enviado de la ONU advierte tensiones y fragilidad.«Bruselas recomienda negociar la adhesión de Serbia tras el acuerdo sobre Kosovo»Monografía de Serbia.Bez smanjivanja Vojske Srbije.Military statistics Serbia and Montenegro.Šutanovac: Vojni budžet za 2009. godinu 70 milijardi dinara.Serbia-Montenegro shortens obligatory military service to six months.No hay justicia para las víctimas de los bombardeos de la OTAN.Zapatero reitera la negativa de España a reconocer la independencia de Kosovo.Anniversary of the signing of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.Detenido en Serbia Radovan Karadzic, el criminal de guerra más buscado de Europa."Serbia presentará su candidatura de acceso a la UE antes de fin de año".Serbia solicita la adhesión a la UE.Detenido el exgeneral serbobosnio Ratko Mladic, principal acusado del genocidio en los Balcanes«Lista de todos los Estados Miembros de las Naciones Unidas que son parte o signatarios en los diversos instrumentos de derechos humanos de las Naciones Unidas»versión pdfProtocolo Facultativo de la Convención sobre la Eliminación de todas las Formas de Discriminación contra la MujerConvención contra la tortura y otros tratos o penas crueles, inhumanos o degradantesversión pdfProtocolo Facultativo de la Convención sobre los Derechos de las Personas con DiscapacidadEl ACNUR recibe con beneplácito el envío de tropas de la OTAN a Kosovo y se prepara ante una posible llegada de refugiados a Serbia.Kosovo.- El jefe de la Minuk denuncia que los serbios boicotearon las legislativas por 'presiones'.Bosnia and Herzegovina. Population.Datos básicos de Montenegro, historia y evolución política.Serbia y Montenegro. Indicador: Tasa global de fecundidad (por 1000 habitantes).Serbia y Montenegro. Indicador: Tasa bruta de mortalidad (por 1000 habitantes).Population.Falleció el patriarca de la Iglesia Ortodoxa serbia.Atacan en Kosovo autobuses con peregrinos tras la investidura del patriarca serbio IrinejSerbian in Hungary.Tasas de cambio."Kosovo es de todos sus ciudadanos".Report for Serbia.Country groups by income.GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP) OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 1997–2007.Economic Trends in the Republic of Serbia 2006.National Accounts Statitics.Саопштења за јавност.GDP per inhabitant varied by one to six across the EU27 Member States.Un pacto de estabilidad para Serbia.Unemployment rate rises in Serbia.Serbia, Belarus agree free trade to woo investors.Serbia, Turkey call investors to Serbia.Success Stories.U.S. Private Investment in Serbia and Montenegro.Positive trend.Banks in Serbia.La Cámara de Comercio acompaña a empresas madrileñas a Serbia y Croacia.Serbia Industries.Energy and mining.Agriculture.Late crops, fruit and grapes output, 2008.Rebranding Serbia: A Hobby Shortly to Become a Full-Time Job.Final data on livestock statistics, 2008.Serbian cell-phone users.U Srbiji sve više računara.Телекомуникације.U Srbiji 27 odsto gradjana koristi Internet.Serbia and Montenegro.Тренд гледаности програма РТС-а у 2008. и 2009.години.Serbian railways.General Terms.El mercado del transporte aéreo en Serbia.Statistics.Vehículos de motor registrados.Planes ambiciosos para el transporte fluvial.Turismo.Turistički promet u Republici Srbiji u periodu januar-novembar 2007. godine.Your Guide to Culture.Novi Sad - city of culture.Nis - european crossroads.Serbia. Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List .Stari Ras and Sopoćani.Studenica Monastery.Medieval Monuments in Kosovo.Gamzigrad-Romuliana, Palace of Galerius.Skiing and snowboarding in Kopaonik.Tara.New7Wonders of Nature Finalists.Pilgrimage of Saint Sava.Exit Festival: Best european festival.Banje u Srbiji.«The Encyclopedia of world history»Culture.Centenario del arte serbio.«Djordje Andrejevic Kun: el único pintor de los brigadistas yugoslavos de la guerra civil española»About the museum.The collections.Miroslav Gospel – Manuscript from 1180.Historicity in the Serbo-Croatian Heroic Epic.Culture and Sport.Conversación con el rector del Seminario San Sava.'Reina Margot' funde drama, historia y gesto con música de Goran Bregovic.Serbia gana Eurovisión y España decepciona de nuevo con un vigésimo puesto.Home.Story.Emir Kusturica.Tercer oro para Paskaljevic.Nikola Tesla Year.Home.Tesla, un genio tomado por loco.Aniversario de la muerte de Nikola Tesla.El Museo Nikola Tesla en Belgrado.El inventor del mundo actual.República de Serbia.University of Belgrade official statistics.University of Novi Sad.University of Kragujevac.University of Nis.Comida. Cocina serbia.Cooking.Montenegro se convertirá en el miembro 204 del movimiento olímpico.España, campeona de Europa de baloncesto.El Partizan de Belgrado se corona campeón por octava vez consecutiva.Serbia se clasifica para el Mundial de 2010 de Sudáfrica.Serbia Name Squad For Northern Ireland And South Korea Tests.Fútbol.- El Partizán de Belgrado se proclama campeón de la Liga serbia.Clasificacion final Mundial de balonmano Croacia 2009.Serbia vence a España y se consagra campeón mundial de waterpolo.Novak Djokovic no convence pero gana en Australia.Gana Ana Ivanovic el Roland Garros.Serena Williams gana el US Open por tercera vez.Biography.Bradt Travel Guide SerbiaThe Encyclopedia of World War IGobierno de SerbiaPortal del Gobierno de SerbiaPresidencia de SerbiaAsamblea Nacional SerbiaMinisterio de Asuntos exteriores de SerbiaBanco Nacional de SerbiaAgencia Serbia para la Promoción de la Inversión y la ExportaciónOficina de Estadísticas de SerbiaCIA. Factbook 2008Organización nacional de turismo de SerbiaDiscover SerbiaConoce SerbiaNoticias de SerbiaSerbiaWorldCat1512028760000 0000 9526 67094054598-2n8519591900570825ge1309191004530741010url17413117006669D055771Serbia