this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2025
127 points (96.4% liked)

Science Memes

17998 readers
1584 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 38 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Explanation: Top left is a Taylor series, which expresses an infinitely differentiable function as an infinite polynomial. Center left is a Fourier transform, which extracts from periodic function into the frequencies of the sines and cosines composing it. Bottom left is the Laplace transform, which does the same but for all exponentials (sines and cosines are actually exponentials, long story). It seems simpler than the Fourier transform, until you realize that the s is a complex number. In all of these the idea is to break down a function into its component parts, whether as powers of x, sines and cosines or complex exponentials.

Edit: I'll try to explain if something is unclear, but... uh... better not get your hopes up.

[โ€“] AliSaket@mander.xyz 15 points 1 month ago (6 children)

It seems simpler than the Fourier transform, until you realize that the s is a complex number.

Oh, look at that hornet's nest. I wonder what happens if I poke it

As someone who worked with system modelling, analysis and control for years... I do think the Laplace transform is easier to work with ๐Ÿ™ˆ๐Ÿƒโ€โ™‚๏ธ

[โ€“] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It is, but conceptually it's a lot weirder than the Fourier transform, whose idea at least is very straightforward. I mean, when doing Laplace transforms you do have to assume that int(e^tdt){0}{โˆž}=-1. I'd definitely rather use the Laplace transform, but you couldn't pay me to explain how that shit actually works to an undergrad student.

[โ€“] AliSaket@mander.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

Basically the assumption is that the signal x(t) is equal to 0 for all t < 0 and that the integral converges. And what is a bit counter-intuitive: Laplace transformations can be regarded as generalizations of Fourier transformations, since the variable s is not only imaginary but fully complex. But yeah... I would have to brush up on it again, before explaining it as well. It's... been a while.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)