User:Spectrum629/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Final value theorem[edit]

In mathematical analysis, the final value theorem (FVT) is one of several similar theorems used to relate frequency domain expressions to the time domain behavior as time approaches infinity.[1][2][3][4] Mathematically, if in continuous time has (unilateral) Laplace transform then a final value theorem establishes conditions under which

Likewise, if in discrete time has (unilateral) Z-transform then a final value theorem establishes conditions under which

An Abelian final value theorem makes assumptions about the time-domain behavior of (or ) to calculate . Conversely a Tauberian final value theorem makes assumptions about the frequency-domain behaviour of to calculate (or ) (see Abelian and Tauberian theorems for integral transforms).

Final value theorems for the Laplace transform[edit]

Deducing [edit]

In the following statements, the notation '' means that approaches 0, whereas '' means that approaches 0 through the positive numbers.

Standard Final Value Theorem[edit]

Suppose that every pole of is either in the open left half plane or at the origin, and that has at most a single pole at the origin. Then as , and .[5]

Final Value Theorem using Laplace Transform of the Derivative[edit]

Suppose that and both have Laplace transforms that exist for all . If exists and exists then .[3]: Theorem 2.36 [4]: 20 [6]

Remark

Both limits must exist for the theorem to hold. For example, if then does not exist, but .[3]: Example 2.37 [4]: 20 

Improved Tauberian Converse Final Value Theorem[edit]

Suppose that is bounded and differentiable, and that is also bounded on . If as then .[7]

Extended Final Value Theorem[edit]

Suppose that every pole of is either in the open left half plane or at the origin. Then one of the following occurs:

  1. as , and .
  2. as , and as .
  3. as , and as .

In particular, if is a multiple pole of then case 2 or 3 applies ( or ).[5]

Generalized Final Value Theorem[edit]

Suppose that is Laplace transformable. Let . If exists and exists then

where denotes the Gamma function.[5]

Applications[edit]

Final value theorems for obtaining have applications in establishing the long-term stability of a system.

Deducing [edit]

Abelian Final Value Theorem[edit]

Suppose that is bounded and measurable and . Then exists for all and .[7]

Elementary proof[7]

Suppose for convenience that on , and let . Let , and choose so that for all . Since , for every we have

hence

Now for every we have

.

On the other hand, since is fixed it is clear that , and so if is small enough.

Final Value Theorem using Laplace Transform of the Derivative[edit]

Suppose that all of the following conditions are satisfied:

  1. is continuously differentiable and both and have a Laplace Transform
  2. is absolutely integrable, that is is finite
  3. exists and is finite

Then

.[8]

Remark

The proof uses the Dominated Convergence Theorem.[8]

Final Value Theorem for Mean of a Function[edit]

Let be a continuous and bounded function such that such that the following limit exists

Then .[9]

Final Value Theorem for Asymptotic Sums of Periodic Functions[edit]

Suppose that is continuous and absolutely integrable in . Suppose further that is asymptotically equal to a finite sum of periodic functions , that is

where is absolutely integrable in and vanishes at infinity. Then

.[10]

Final Value Theorem for a Function that diverges to infinity[edit]

Let and be the Laplace transform of . Suppose that satisfies all of the following conditions:

  1. is infinitely differentiable at zero
  2. has a Laplace transform for all non-negative integers
  3. diverges to infinity as

Then diverges to infinity as .[11]

Applications[edit]

Final value theorems for obtaining have applications in probability & statistics to calculate the moments of a random variable. Let be cumulative distribution function of a continuous random variable and let be the Laplace-Stieltjes transform of . Then the th moment of can be calculated as

The strategy is to write

where is continuous and for each , for a function . For each , put as the inverse Laplace transform of , obtain , and apply a final value theorem to deduce . Then

and hence is obtained.

Examples[edit]

Example where FVT holds[edit]

For example, for a system described by transfer function

and so the impulse response converges to

That is, the system returns to zero after being disturbed by a short impulse. However, the Laplace transform of the unit step response is

and so the step response converges to

and so a zero-state system will follow an exponential rise to a final value of 3.

Example where FVT does not hold[edit]

For a system described by the transfer function

the final value theorem appears to predict the final value of the impulse response to be 0 and the final value of the step response to be 1. However, neither time-domain limit exists, and so the final value theorem predictions are not valid. In fact, both the impulse response and step response oscillate, and (in this special case) the final value theorem describes the average values around which the responses oscillate.

There are two checks performed in Control theory which confirm valid results for the Final Value Theorem:

  1. All non-zero roots of the denominator of must have negative real parts.
  2. must not have more than one pole at the origin.

Rule 1 was not satisfied in this example, in that the roots of the denominator are and .

Final value theorems for the Z transform[edit]

Deducing [edit]

Final Value Theorem[edit]

If exists and exists then .[4]: 101 

Other things[edit]

Carbon based life[edit]

In the movie adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke's "2010" (1984) a character argues, "Whether we are based on carbon or on silicon makes no fundamental difference; we should each be treated with appropriate respect". This quote may be the basis of Steve Job's quip in 1998 when he introduced Carbon within MacOS X, "Carbon. All life forms will be based on it".


Calculating the variance[edit]

Let Sn be the sum of n random variables. Many central limit theorems provide conditions such that Sn/Var(Sn) converges in distribution to N(0,1) (the normal distribution with mean 0, variance 1) as n→ ∞. In some cases, it is possible to find a constant σ2 and function f(n) such that Sn/(σn⋅f(n)) converges in distribution to N(0,1) as n→ ∞.

Lemma.[12] Suppose is a sequence of real-valued and strictly stationary random variables with for all , , and . Construct

  1. If is absolutely convergent, , and then as where .
  2. If in addition and converges in distribution to as then also converges in distribution to as .


Alternately, replace the 3n+1 with n' / H(n') where n' = 3n+1 and H(n') is the highest power of 2 that divides n' (with no remainder). The resulting function f maps from odd numbers to odd numbers. Now suppose that for some odd number n, applying this operation k times yields the number 1 (that is, ). Then in binary, the number n can be written as the concatenation of strings wk wk-1 … w1 where each wh is a finite and contiguous extract from the representation of 1 / 3h .[13] The representation of n therefore holds the repetends of 1 / 3h , where each repetend is optionally rotated and then replicated up to a finite number of bits. It is only in binary that this occurs.[14]

Artificial systems and moral responsibility[edit]

The emergence of robotics and automation prompted the question, 'Can an artificial system can be morally responsible?'[15][16][17] The question has a closely-related variant, 'When (if ever) does moral responsibility transfer from its human creator(s) to the system?'[18][19]

Arguments against the possibility of artificial systems being morally responsible[edit]

Batya Friedman and Peter Kahn Jr posited that intentionality is a necessary condition for moral responsibility, and that computer systems as conceivable in 1992 in material and structure could not have intentionality.[20]

Arthur Kuflik asserted that humans must bear the ultimate moral responsibility for a computer's decisions, as it is humans who design the computers and write their programs. He further proposed that humans can never relinquish oversight of computers.[19]

Frances Grodzinsky et al considered artificial systems that could be modelled as finite state machines. They posited that if the machine had a fixed state transition table, then it could not be morally responsible. If the machine could modify its table, then the machine's designer still retained some moral responsibility.[18]

Patrick Hew argued that for an artificial system to be morally responsible, its rules for behaviour and the mechanisms for supplying those rules must not be supplied entirely by external humans. He further argued that such systems are a substantial departure from technologies and theory as extant in 2014. An artificial system based on those technologies will carry zero responsibility for its behaviour. Moral responsibility is apportioned to the humans that created and programmed the system.[21]

(Further arguments may be found in [21].)

Arguments that artificial systems can be morally responsible[edit]

Colin Allen et al proposed that an artificial system may be morally responsible if its behaviours are functionally indistinguishable from a moral person, coining the idea of a 'Moral Turing Test'.[15] They subsequently disavowed the Moral Turing Test in recognition of controversies surrounding the Turing test.[16]

Andreas Matthias described a 'responsibility gap' where to hold humans responsible for a machine would be an injustice, but to hold the machine responsible would challenge 'traditional' ways of ascription. He proposed three cases where the machine's behaviour ought to be attributed to the machine and not its designers or operators. First, he argued that modern machines are inherently unpredictable (to some degree), but perform tasks that need to be performed yet cannot be handled by simpler means. Second, that there are increasing 'layers of obscurity' between manufacturers and system, as hand coded programs are replaced with more sophisticated means. Third, in systems that have rules of operation that can be changed during the operation of the machine.[22]

(Further arguments may be found in [21].)

  1. ^ Wang, Ruye (2010-02-17). "Initial and Final Value Theorems". Retrieved 2011-10-21.
  2. ^ Alan V. Oppenheim; Alan S. Willsky; S. Hamid Nawab (1997). Signals & Systems. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-814757-4.
  3. ^ a b c Schiff, Joel L. (1999). The Laplace Transform: Theory and Applications. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-1-4757-7262-3.
  4. ^ a b c d Graf, Urs (2004). Applied Laplace Transforms and z-Transforms for Scientists and Engineers. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag. ISBN 3-7643-2427-9.
  5. ^ a b c Chen, Jie; Lundberg, Kent H.; Davison, Daniel E.; Bernstein, Dennis S. (June 2007). "The Final Value Theorem Revisited - Infinite Limits and Irrational Function". IEEE Control Systems Magazine. 27 (3): 97–99. doi:10.1109/MCS.2007.365008.
  6. ^ "Final Value Theorem of Laplace Transform". ProofWiki. Retrieved 12 April 2020.
  7. ^ a b c Ullrich, David C. (2018-05-26). "The tauberian final value Theorem". Math Stack Exchange.
  8. ^ a b Sopasakis, Pantelis (2019-05-18). "A proof for the Final Value theorem using Dominated convergence theorem". Math Stack Exchange.
  9. ^ Murthy, Kavi Rama (2019-05-07). "Alternative version of the Final Value theorem for Laplace Transform". Math Stack Exchange.
  10. ^ Gluskin, Emanuel (1 November 2003). "Let us teach this generalization of the final-value theorem". European Journal of Physics. 24 (6): 591–597. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/24/6/005.
  11. ^ Hew, Patrick (2020-04-22). "Final Value Theorem for function that diverges to infinity?". Math Stack Exchange.
  12. ^ Hew, Patrick Chisan (2017). "Asymptotic distribution of rewards accumulated by alternating renewal processes". Statistics and Probability Letters. 129: 355–359. doi:10.1016/j.spl.2017.06.027.
  13. ^ Colussi, Livio (9 September 2011). "The convergence classes of Collatz function". Theoretical Computer Science. 412 (39): 5409–5419. doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2011.05.056.
  14. ^ Hew, Patrick Chisan (7 March 2016). "Working in binary protects the repetends of 1/3h: Comment on Colussi's 'The convergence classes of Collatz function'". Theoretical Computer Science. 618: 135–141. doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2015.12.033.
  15. ^ a b Allen, Colin; Varner, Gary; Zinser, Jason (2000). "Prolegomena to any future artificial moral agent". Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence. 12 (3): 251-261. doi:10.1080/09528130050111428.
  16. ^ a b Allen, Colin; Smit, Iva; Wallach, Wendell (September 2005). "Artificial Morality: Top-down, Bottom-up and Hybrid Approaches". Ethics and Information Technology. 7 (3): 149-155. doi:10.1007/s10676-006-0004-4.
  17. ^ Sparrow, Robert (2007). "Killer Robots". Journal of Applied Philosophy. 24 (1): 62-77. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2007.00346.x.
  18. ^ a b Grodzinsky, Frances S.; Miller, Keith W.; Wolf, Marty J. (21 Jun 2008). "The ethics of designing artificial agents". Ethics and Information Technology. 10 (2–3): 115-121.
  19. ^ a b Kuflik, Arthur (1999). "Computers in control: Rational transfer of authority or irresponsible abdication of autonomy?". Ethics and Information Technology. 1 (3): 173-184. doi:10.1023/A:1010087500508.
  20. ^ Friedman, Batya; Kahn, Jr., Peter H. (January 1992). "Human Agency and Responsible Computing: Implications for Computer System Design". Journal of Systems and Software. 17 (1): 7-14. doi:10.1016/0164-1212(92)90075-u.
  21. ^ a b c Hew, Patrick Chisan (13 May 2014). "Artificial moral agents are infeasible with foreseeable technologies". Ethics and Information Technology. 16 (3): 197-206. doi:10.1007/s10676-014-9345-6.
  22. ^ Matthias, Andreas (2004). "The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata". Ethics and Information Technology. 6 (3): 175-183. doi:10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1.