Register to reply

Dirac Delta Function Proof

by jumbogala
Tags: delta, dirac, function, proof
Share this thread:
jumbogala
#1
Mar15-12, 07:39 PM
P: 400
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DeltaFunction.html

I want to show (6) on that page. I can show it using (7), but we aren't supposed to do that. I already proved (5), and my prof says to use the fact that (5) is true to get the answer.


2. Relevant equations



3. The attempt at a solution
Here's what I tried:
δ(x2 - a2) = δ((x-a)(x+a))

I'm not sure how to use (5), because here a is not multiplying x. I'm not sure where to go from here.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Climate change increases risk of crop slowdown in next 20 years
Researcher part of team studying ways to better predict intensity of hurricanes
New molecule puts scientists a step closer to understanding hydrogen storage
sunjin09
#2
Mar15-12, 08:47 PM
P: 312
Imagine what the delta look like in the neighborhood of a and -a, i.e., when one factor goes to zero, the other factor is pretty much constant over that entire neighborhood.
jumbogala
#3
Mar15-12, 09:37 PM
P: 400
I don't really know what it looks like. I know that δ(x) is zero everywhere except at x = 0. At x = 0, it's infinity.

I know that δ(x-a) is the same as above except that now it's infinity at x = a.

But I don't know what δ(x2) looks like.

Dick
#4
Mar15-12, 10:19 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 25,251
Dirac Delta Function Proof

Quote Quote by jumbogala View Post
I don't really know what it looks like. I know that δ(x) is zero everywhere except at x = 0. At x = 0, it's infinity.

I know that δ(x-a) is the same as above except that now it's infinity at x = a.

But I don't know what δ(x2) looks like.
Near x=a, δ((x-a)(x+a)) pretty much looks like δ((x-a)*2a). That's sunjin09's point.
jumbogala
#5
Mar15-12, 10:31 PM
P: 400
I don't understand why it looks like that though. I am having problems visualizing it.

I don't get how you know what it looks like unless it's just δ(x) or δ(x-a) by itself.
Dick
#6
Mar15-12, 10:37 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 25,251
Quote Quote by jumbogala View Post
I don't understand why it looks like that though. I am having problems visualizing it.

I don't get how you know what it looks like unless it's just δ(x) or δ(x-a) by itself.
Near x=a, (x+a) is nearly 2a. You can't visualize that?
jumbogala
#7
Mar15-12, 10:55 PM
P: 400
Ohh okay, I see that near x = a, (x+a) is about 2a. So we're just making an approximation and plugging it into the delta function, is that right?

I wasn't sure what the delta function itself looked like, not what x+a looks like.
Dick
#8
Mar15-12, 11:03 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 25,251
Quote Quote by jumbogala View Post
Ohh okay, I see that near x = a, (x+a) is about 2a. So we're just making an approximation and plugging it into the delta function, is that right?

I wasn't sure what the delta function itself looked like, not what x+a looks like.
Yes, I think you are ok with hand waving through this. Near x=(-a) the value of (x-a) is nearly -2a. So split it into two delta functions at the two values where x^2-a^2 vanishes.
jumbogala
#9
Mar15-12, 11:19 PM
P: 400
Alright, that makes a lot more sense now. So basically, we're saying:

δ((x-a)(x+a)) = δ((x-a)*2a) + δ((x+a)*(-2a))

Is it okay to do that because it's zero elsewhere (within the delta function)?
Dick
#10
Mar15-12, 11:24 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 25,251
Quote Quote by jumbogala View Post
Alright, that makes a lot more sense now. So basically, we're saying:

δ((x-a)(x+a)) = δ((x-a)*2a) + δ((x+a)*(-2a))

Is it okay to do that because it's zero elsewhere? It seems a little odd to split a multiplication up like that.
Yes, I think it's ok to do that because it's zero elsewhere. It's not a formal proof, but the answer is correct.
sunjin09
#11
Mar16-12, 12:50 PM
P: 312
The idea is δ(f(x)) is zero except at f(x0)=0, so all that matters is the local behavior of f(x) near x0, so you can approximate f(x) around x0 by f(x)≈f'(x0)(x-x0). Since all the zeros of f(x) must be accounted for, you easily derive the general formula (7) mentioned in your original post. This is certainly not a formal proof, as Dick pointed out, but I think you can have a formal but still not rigorous proof by using a test function, i.e., try evaluate ∫ δ(f(x))*g(x) dx and see what you get.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Prove that derivative of the theta function is the dirac delta function Advanced Physics Homework 3
Proof of Dirac delta sifting property. Calculus & Beyond Homework 2
Ramp function, Dirac delta function and distributions Calculus & Beyond Homework 1
Dirac delta function proof Calculus & Beyond Homework 7
Dirac delta function and Heaviside step function Advanced Physics Homework 2