My question concerns coordinate maps and non-equally spaced fourier transforms.

I have dependent variables $(X(\xi),Y(\xi))$, where $\xi\in(0,2\pi)$. In general, $Y$ is assumed even and expanded as a Fourier series, ie

$$Y(\xi) = \sum_{k=-N}^{N} Y_k e^{-ik\xi},$$

where $N$ is taken to tend towards infinity and the reality condition implies $Y_{-k} = Y_k$

Now, my governing equations are derived from a lagrangian. I won't go into the full details of it, since they are anscillary for the question, but it is illustrative to look at the potential energy term, V, which takes the form

$$V=\int_0^{2\pi} Y(\xi)^2 \frac{dX(\xi)}{d\xi} \ d\xi,$$

with $X-\xi$ being the Hilbert transform of $Y$ (because (X,Y) are real and imaginary parts of an analytic function in $\mathbb{C}$). That is, $$X = \xi + \sum i \sigma_k Y_k e^{-ik\xi},$$

with $\sigma_i$ being 1 for $i>0$, 0 when $i=0$, and -1 when $i<0$.

Substituting in the Fourier expansion, $V$ can be written entirely in terms of the $Y_k$s. The Euler-Larange equations then returns a set of governing (algebraic) equations are found and a system of equations is solved for a given $N$. It turns out that for the solutions I desire, the series converges very slowly, and this has to do with the fact that $Y(\xi)$ is very localized.

After going through Boyd's book (in particular, see chapter 16), it seems like one way to deal with this is to map the independent variable into a different, non-uniformly spaced map. One example is to send $$\xi\to \theta-sin(\theta)$$ (Boyd calls this a Kepler mapping), for $\theta \in(0,2\pi)$, which will tend to crowd more points towards the ends of the domain, which is where my functions are localized.

This seems promising to me, and I would like to pursue it.

To this end, I take a change of coordinates at the level of the integral $V$, shown above, to find

$$V = \int_0^{2\pi} Y(\theta)^2 \frac{d X(\theta)}{d \theta} \ d\theta$$.

From here it is unclear to me how one takes a Fourier type expansion (needed to allow for the easy computation of the Hilbert transform) on this non-uniform grid.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated,


| cite | improve this question | | | | |

Unless I'm missing something obvious, if you transform $Y=Y_\xi(\xi)$ to use $Y=Y_\theta(\theta) = Y_\xi(\theta-\sin\theta)$, then the function $w(\xi)=X(\xi)+iY(\xi)$, which, as you say, was analytic in $\xi$, would be analytic in $\theta$ also, with $w(\theta) = w(\xi=\theta-\sin\theta)$, so that whatever Fourier series $Y(\theta)$ has w.r.t. $\theta$, $X$ would have the same expression as before in terms of the new variable $\theta$ and the new Forier coefficients $Y_k^{(\theta)}$ (it's a generic expression, independent of the coordinates being used to write it down).

This is assuming that the rest of your equations can be rewritten in terms of $\theta$ as well: I don't know a good way to relate two Fourier series obtained by a change of variable. But this is not the same as doing a discrete Fourier transform on a non-uniform grid, anyway, because you seem to be using a Galerkin-type method, and evaluating all the necessary integrals in closed form by hand. In fact, I don't quite see where in your question a discrete Fourier transform is being used.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the reply. I think I follow your reasoning, and in fact this is what my computations were showing. However, doesn't this imply that the coefficients, ie the $Y_k$, are invariant to the choice of coordinates, as the governing equations remain invariant? This does not make sense to me. $\endgroup$ – Nick P Feb 13 '15 at 3:56
  • $\begingroup$ @NickP No, of course not. The $Y_k$ are different, you have one set $Y_k^{(\xi)}$ coming from $Y(\xi)$, and another set $Y_k^{(\theta)}$. Same function, different variable, therefore different sets of Fourier coefficients. One way to think of them is to note that $e^{ik\xi} = e^{ik\theta}e^{-ik\sin\theta}$, so to relate the two sets of coefficients you can try expanding $e^{-ik\sin\theta}$ in Fourier series. $\endgroup$ – Kirill Feb 13 '15 at 4:16
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, yes. I see now. Thanks for the advice (and patience)! $\endgroup$ – Nick P Feb 13 '15 at 8:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.