Hi,

I have a little question. Why Walsh functions are orthonormal basis in L2[0,1] ?

Printable View

- January 12th 2009, 12:25 PMBlackWarriorWalsh Functions
Hi,

I have a little question. Why Walsh functions are orthonormal basis in L2[0,1] ? - January 13th 2009, 12:07 AMOpalg
Apart from the first Walsh function, which is identically 1, all the others are equal to +1 on half of the interval [0,1] and –1 on the remaining half. Also, the product of any two Walsh functions is again a Walsh function (the first 2^n functions form a multiplicative group. It follows that the integral over [0,1] of the product of two Walsh functions is zero. Hence they form an orthogonal set.

- January 13th 2009, 02:45 AMBlackWarrior
Hi,

First thank you for your response..

I get that w1(x)=1 , w2(x)=w3(x) ... so how walsh functions can be orthogonal ? - January 13th 2009, 03:11 AMOpalg
- January 13th 2009, 03:33 AMBlackWarrior
Hi,

Oplag , thank you ! (Clapping)

Can you write a definition of these functions ???

(Wink) - January 13th 2009, 08:19 AMOpalg
The mathematical definition is complicated, using something called the Gray code. But there is a reasonably understandable inductive way to define these functions, taking them in blocks of 2^n at a time.

Start with W_1, which is the constant function 1. To get W_2, you split the unit interval in two, and define W_2(x) = W_1(x) on the first half of the interval and W_2(x) = –W_1(x) on the second half. (I'm ignoring what happens at the point x=1/2, because the value at a single point is irrelevant when it comes to integration. If you want to be fussy, replace closed intervals by half-open intervals in what follows.)

To get W_3 and W_4, you apply the same process to W_2 and W_1 respectively. (Note the reversal of the ordering: W_3 comes from W_2, and W_4 from W_1.) In more detail, here's how you construct W_3 from W_2. Take each of the two intervals on which W_2 is constant, split it in half, and define W_3 to be the same as W_2 on the first of each pair of half-intervals, and –W_2 on the second one.

The inductive step works like this. Suppose that W_k has been defined for 1≤k≤2^n, and that it is constant on each interval . For 1≤k≤2^n, define to be equal to on each interval , and equal to on each interval , for . In that way, W_k is defined for all k up to and including .

Notice again the reversal of the ordering: comes from , and so on until comes from . - January 13th 2009, 08:40 AMBlackWarrior
Thank you man (Clapping) (Happy)