2

I am trying to calculate the derivative of a function from the fourier coefficients of this function with IJulia. for that, i there is a link between the fourier coefficient of the function and the fourier coefficient of the derivative , being X'[k]=X[k]*2*piik/N, is that right?

i wanted to verify this simple fact by starting from the usual square function x^2, computing its fourier transform and then obtaining the derivative by inverse fourier transform.

here is my code :

theta=-pi:pi/100:pi; # definition of the variable 

four=fft(theta.^2); # computing DFFT of the simple square function 

fourder=Array{Float64}(length(four)); # creating array for derivative

fourder=complex(fourder); # allowing complex values 

for k=1:length(fourder) 
    fourder[k]=four[k]*2*pi*im*(k-1)/length(four); # formula transformation from function coefficients FFT to its derivative 
end

test2=ifft(fourder); # computing inverse fourier transform

But with this algorithm i obtain something really far from what i am supposed to obtain (2x)...

What am I doing wrong? I think it might be a problem of discretization but i dont understand how to do what i want to do in an other way.

Thank you

ChrlTsr
  • 149
  • 1
  • 7

1 Answers1

4

Most of the trouble is tinkering with the functions until all the constants and shifting come out right. Probably the best way is to look at the function definitions and write-down the equations and get it right. But, the temptation to try quickly is too great, and after a few too many minutes, here is the demo code:

x = -π:π/100:π

y = x.^2 ;

FF(v) = ifft(fft(v))

julia> norm(FF(y).-y)
1.4050706174184112e-14

OK, the norm is small, which means we got the original function back. Now for the derivative:

Dy = 2.*x ;

function DFF(v,Δx)
    n = length(v)
    scalefactor = (2π*im/(n*Δx)) * (-n÷2:1:(n-1)÷2)
    return ifft(ifftshift( fftshift(fft(v)) .* scalefactor ))
end

julia> norm(DFF(y,step(x)).-Dy)
7.925149654506916

Oops, why is this norm big? To discover, I'm using UnicodePlots package, because it lets me stay in the cozy REPL:

using UnicodePlots

begin
    show(scatterplot(x,real.(DFF(y,step(x))),ylim=[-4,4],width=120))
    show(scatterplot(x,Dy,ylim=[-4,4],width=120))
end

Results in:

   ┌-------------------------------------------------┐ 
 4 │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡞⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡴⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⢀⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⣠⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡼⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣇⠞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⣤⡯⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠄│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡴⠁⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡞⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠋⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
-4 │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡼⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   └-------------------------------------------------┘ 
     -4                                       4

and

   ┌-------------------------------------------------┐ 
 4 │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡴⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⢀⠞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⣠⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡴⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣇⠞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⣤⡯⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠄│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡴⠁⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠞⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠋⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡴⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
-4 │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡴⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   └-------------------------------------------------┘ 
     -4                                       4

The plots show, the true derivative and the calculated one are indeed close. To find out the problem, let's plot the difference:

julia> scatterplot(x,real.(DFF(y,step(x)).-Dy))

Gives:

   ┌-------------------------------------------------┐ 
 7 │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠬⣭⠷⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⡷⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⢶⣭⡤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠄│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠑⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
-3 │⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀│ 
   └-------------------------------------------------┘ 
       -4                                       4

The problem is in the edges. This was expected. Here is a calculation of the median percentage error:

julia> sort(abs.(DFF(y,step(x)).-Dy)./(abs.(Dy).+0.0001),rev=true)[100]
0.030659460560301284

Still quite a bit, but this is the result of aliasing (a known problem with the discrete Fourier transform on non-periodic functions).

Dan Getz
  • 17,002
  • 2
  • 23
  • 41
  • It would be helpful to include the output of your session as well as the inputs. – StefanKarpinski May 17 '17 at 11:47
  • 1
    Thank you a lot for this! First, i can see that the coefficient of the derivative i used were not right. Here is a nice explanation of the formula you used http://math.mit.edu/~stevenj/fft-deriv.pdf . Before trying this method i first begun by calculating the real function by IFFT and then computing its derivative using this: 'function center_der(v) n = length(v) return (vcat(v[ 2:1:end], v[end]).-vcat(v[1], v[1:1:end-1]))./2 end' But there is also some problem at the edges. Finally, which solution would you reckon ? Thank you again – ChrlTsr May 17 '17 at 18:12
  • sorry about the writing but it seems that putting it as an answer of my question was not accurate, and i can't find a way to insert a linebreak in a comment – ChrlTsr May 17 '17 at 18:17
  • 2
    @StefanKarpinski session outputs added, even the Unicode charts. – Dan Getz May 17 '17 at 21:31
  • @user5035672 The paper you linked to is indeed comprehensive. It feels like Fourier derivatives are especially good for periodic functions. For non-periodic functions the paper recommends expressing the functions using Chebychev polynomials and differentiating these. The expression in your comment goes the way of calculating slope to neighbouring point - this should be good (at least "in the limit"). There are also methods which do the same with several points nearby (kernel methods). Probably the best method depends on the kind of functions you expect to differentiate. – Dan Getz May 17 '17 at 21:36
  • I think i need to study deeper all this theory now! Thank you a lot for your help – ChrlTsr May 18 '17 at 14:01