Talk:Periodic function

Period of a modified sine graph

How do you find the period of a modified sine graph?

What do you mean? The period is the smallest number a such that

f(x+a) = f(x) for all x

i.e. the point at which it starts to repeat itself

What does your modified sine graph look like?

In general, a sine function

g(x)=a*sin(m*(x+p))+d

has period

P

such that

m=(2*Pi)/P

. Note that the coefficient of x in

(x+p)

must be 1. --anon

Help wanted at oscillator

There is some content at oscillator that needs sorting out. Please read the proposal at Talk:oscillator Cutler 18:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Overuse of f for function name

The function name f is re-used here, sometimes for an arbitrary function and sometimes for a specific one. Would it be clearer if the function that gives the "fractional part" of its argument were named something else? Frac is a reasonably common name for this operation in programming languages. --FOo 02:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Naturally Occuring Functions

Should this secton contain some real-life periodic functions? i.e tides over a 48 hour perion Ac current etc? --anon

Constant functions (and one other function)

Should constant functions be considered periodic? If f is a constant function, then f(x+p) = f(x) for all p, in which case there is no “smallest” such positive p.

Also, consider the following function of the real numbers:

{\mbox{f}}(x)=\left\{{\begin{array}{cl}1&x{\mbox{ rational}}\\0&x{\mbox{ irrational}}\end{array}}\right.

From

rational + rational = rational

irrational + rational = irrational

it follows that f(x+q) = f(x) for any real number x and rational number q (but again there is no “smallest” such positive q). Should this strange function be considered periodic?

Jane Fairfax 09:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any requirement on the smallest period in the article. I think these functions are indeed periodic according to the definition. For continuous non-constant functions I think one can prove the existence of the smallest period. For stranger functions, well, we accept them as they are. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Oliphant: Indeed, I wrote a paper about how periodic functions need not have a smallest period! In fact, I discovered an uncountable number of periodic functions such that they have no smallest period AND they are UNBOUNDED in both the positive and negative directions! This is how. Let I be any irrational number. Then consider the function:

f(x) = a if x = a * I + b [ a,b rational] f(x) = 0 otherwise

This function has every rational as a period, and since 'a' can be as large or as small as desired, the function is unbounded in both the positive and negative directions. THIS is a weird function! Note that the 'otherwise' value need not be '0', but can be ANY real number, and I can be any irrational. Thus, there are an uncountable number of these functions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.5.106 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aperiodic

Unfortunately a search on "Aperiodic" links instead to "Periodic", which of course has the opposite meaning and quite different usage. This will cause needless confusion. Could somebody please insert a Disambiguation page and an entry for Aperiodic. Or Whatever is appropriate. Gutta Percha (talk)

The concept of "aperiodic" is essentially the concept of "periodic" seen from the opposite direction:

information about what the one means is also information about what the other means by its negative. I have added an explanation of the word "aperiodic" to the lead of this article, which seems to me the best way of dealing with the issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the sine and cosine functions have the same period and are both centered around the x axis, then there must be a constant x such that sin(a)+x = cos(a). Right?? 99.185.0.100 (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generalizations are not

A function can be periodic without being anti-periodic. Therefore, I think it's incorrect to think of anti-periodicity as as generalization of periodicity. e.g. f(x) = sin(x) + 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellec7 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The generalisation works in the other direction: if f is anti-periodic, it is also periodic. So it is a generalisation in the sense that it includes or rather implies the "original"https://accionvegana.org/accio/0IzZy9mLhlGZlBXarl2du4WZ6MHc0/"basic" property, but not in the sense that it is less restrictive and includes the former property as a special case.

Also consider that it is a special case (k = π/P) of the more general Block periodicity, which in turn does include the "normal" periodicity as the special case k = 0. Here it is more clear in what sense the notion is a generalisation of the basic one. — MFH:Talk 21:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of periodic function

According to my college book on mathematics (in Danish), a periodic function needs to have all of R as domain. But according to the definition in this article the domain can also be a subset of R, so for example the tangent function is a periodic function after the definition in the article, but not after the definition in my book. So I think different definitions should be discussed, and sources should be given. Best regards, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

standardizing format

I found this otherwise informative article hard on the eyes. Inline variables and symbols varied among raw HTML, ${{{1}}}$ , and LaTeX, and some formulas were in raw HTML as well. I am familiar with the relevant page on mathematical formatting in Wikipedia Help, and with LaTeX, but not so much with ${{{1}}}$ . I am aware that opinions vary on the relative merits of LaTeX and ${{{1}}}$ for inline variables. I prefer LaTeX for everything, but have no desire to impose my preference unilaterally. In the belief though that some improvement is better than none, in most sections, I converted inline variables and symbols to LaTeX as I did the formulas that were in HTML. Two sections had ${{{1}}}$ formatting for inline variables together with LaTeX formulas. I left these intact in part again because I am less facile with ${{{1}}}$ . I think it’s now more readable, but the article is still not fully consistent format-wise. I seek professional advice and if the feeling is that the inline stuff should be rendered in ${{{1}}}$ , I’ll be happy to change it. Jmcclaskey54 (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh - sorry! — I use {{math}} so little I forgot to escape the display for its reference. Everywhere you see ${{{1}}}$ , please read {{math}}. Jmcclaskey54 (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the changes look good! Thank you for making them. Personally, I'm happy with LaTeX. Cheers, Doctormatt (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — I will wait a little longer but if the two of us remain the consensus, I will change it all to LaTeX. Jmcclaskey54 (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]