Parseval's Theorem — Definition, Formula & Examples
Parseval's Theorem states that the total energy of a periodic function (computed by integrating its square over one period) equals the sum of the squares of its Fourier coefficients. In other words, you can calculate a function's energy either in the time domain or the frequency domain and get the same result.
If is a square-integrable function on with Fourier coefficients , then Equivalently, using the complex Fourier coefficients , the theorem states .
Key Formula
Where:
- = A square-integrable periodic function on $[-\pi, \pi]$
- = The zeroth (constant) Fourier cosine coefficient
- = The $n$th Fourier cosine coefficient
- = The $n$th Fourier sine coefficient
How It Works
To apply Parseval's Theorem, first compute the Fourier coefficients of your function. Then square each coefficient, form the appropriate series, and sum. The result equals the average squared value of the function (scaled by the period). This is powerful because it converts a difficult integral into an infinite series, or vice versa — whichever is easier to evaluate. Parseval's Theorem also provides a convergence check: if the series of squared coefficients diverges, the function is not square-integrable on that interval.
Worked Example
Problem: Use Parseval's Theorem to evaluate , given that the Fourier series of on has coefficients , , and .
Compute the left side: Evaluate the integral of over .
Compute the right side: Since and , the right side reduces to the sum of .
Equate and solve: Set the two sides equal and solve for the desired sum.
Answer: , which is the famous Basel problem result.
Why It Matters
Parseval's Theorem is central in signal processing, where it guarantees that energy computed in the time domain matches energy in the frequency domain. It also provides elegant proofs of exact values of series like and , connecting Fourier analysis directly to number theory.
Common Mistakes
Mistake: Forgetting the factor of on the term.
Correction: The constant term in Parseval's identity is , not . This factor arises because the standard definition of already includes an averaging factor different from for .
