# Mathematical defintion of a standing wave? [closed]

I know that a standing wave is the superposition of two waves of equal amplitude and wavelength, moving in opposite directions. But I am looking for a more mathematical defintion of such a wave. The best I can come up with is that (I am foucsing on 1d) its displacement can be written as: $$y=f(x)g(t)$$ But I am not sure if this is right? If not can you please provide me with a mathematical defintion (along with a source if possible) thanks.

## closed as unclear what you're asking by Sofia, Kyle Kanos, David Hammen, ACuriousMind♦, JamalSFeb 16 '15 at 6:25

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• What about your first sentence is not mathematical? You can write down the formula for a wave, and then write down the general formula for a standing wave, can you not? – ACuriousMind Feb 10 '15 at 19:22
• @ACuriousMind It doesn't seem general enough, and ristricted to a special case. I wouln't know how to formulate it mathematically in the general case (e.g. with non-harmonic waves) – Quantum spaghettification Feb 10 '15 at 19:26
• I do not believe there is a treatment of this for the general anharmonic case. – ACuriousMind Feb 10 '15 at 19:29
• Your formula does not work, because the travelling wave $e^{i(kx-\omega t)}$ can be written as a product of your form---$e^{ikx}e^{-i\omega t}$ – Brian Moths Feb 10 '15 at 20:58
• @NowIGetToLearnWhatAHeadIs Good point! Perhaps Joseph's definition would work if $f$ and $g$ are required to be real (or if $fg$ must be real). Technically, only the real part of your wave describes the displacement, and it cannot be written in Joseph's form. – pwf Feb 10 '15 at 21:51