In this post, we apply the culmination of our discussions in complex analysis to sufficiently legitimise the inverse Laplace transform for polytechnic courses in differential equations, taking heavy inspiration from this thread. Unfortunately, Fourier analysis only gets us the desired intuition for the Laplace inversion formula—we’ll need complex analysis to prove it properly.
For any function , recall the Laplace transform
defined by
whenever the integral converges. Recall also the Fourier transform of
defined by
whenever its integral converges. The Fourier inversion theorem tells us that if is continuous and Lebesgue-integrable, then
exists and
Theorem 1. Suppose is differentiable and there exists some
such that
so that , and there exists
such that
and
are Lebesgue-integrable. Then for any
,
where ,
. In particular, if
, then
, yielding the required Laplace inversion.
Remark 1. The intuition for this formula is setting to recover the inverse Fourier transform. The technicality involves the Fourier’s limited effectiveness on only Lebesgue-integrable functions, and how even approximating techniques do not work since the powerful integration convergence theorems still require the baseline condition of integrability (or sadly, un-guaranteed non-negativity).
Proof. Firstly, we define the bounded function by
Using the Dirichlet integral,
For each ,
as
, where
denotes the unit step function. To simplify the contour integral, parameterise and expand the Laplace transform to obtain
where we exchanged the integrals using Fubini’s theorem. By hypothesis, and
are Lebesgue-integrable, so that we can integrate by parts:
Taking , apply the dominated convergence theorem to obtain
as required.
With that, we finally complete our discussion on complex analysis!
—Joel Kindiak, 29 Aug 25, 1158H
Leave a comment