Derivative of Dirac Delta function

Hello I'm trying to figure out how to evaluate(in the distribution sense)
$\delta'(g(x))$. Where $\delta(x)$ is the dirac delta function. Please notice that what I want to evaluate is not $\frac{d}{dx}(\delta(g(x)))$ but the derivative of the delta function calculated in g(x).
If anyone could post a proof, an idea to find the proof or a link it would be greatly appreciated!
 PhysOrg.com science news on PhysOrg.com >> Ants and carnivorous plants conspire for mutualistic feeding>> Forecast for Titan: Wild weather could be ahead>> Researchers stitch defects into the world's thinnest semiconductor
 $\delta'$ is a linear operator on functions. Are you referring to its value when you pair it with g(x), as in $$\langle \delta',\, g\rangle = \int_{\mathbb{R}} \delta'(x)g(x)\, dx \, ?$$ I'll assume you are. In that case, you use the integral notation above and then symbolically do integration by parts. Don't worry if it is not a well-defined operation because the answer you get is literally the definition of what you want. Look here under distributional derivatives for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function
 No I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I understand the value of $\int \delta'(x)g(x)dx$ I'm asking the value of $\int \delta'(g(x))\phi(x)dx$ Where $\phi(x)$ is the test function. Here it is not immediately obvious to me how to integrate by parts. I thought about this(but I am unsure of whether it is correct): Assume that g(x) is an invertible function with as many derivatives as necessary(to keep things simple for now), so we substitute $y = g(x)$ and get $\int \delta'(y)\frac{\phi(g^{-1}(y))}{g'(g^{-1}(y))} dy$ Now I could integrate by parts and get $-\int \delta(y)\frac{d}{dy}(\frac{\phi(g^{-1}(y))}{g'(g^{-1}(y))}) dy$ Do you think my reasoning is correct up to here?

Derivative of Dirac Delta function

The dirac delta is just a normal distribution who's standard deviation approaches 0. Take the derivative of the normal dist. then take the limit as stdev =>0. I'm not sure if that's a valid way to do the problem, but its what I would try.
 Ok thanks, I'll try that
 Your calculation looks right to me, and what Aero said makes sense too. As far as proof goes, I can't remember exactly how general the rules are for changing variables like that. A book like Friedlander would probably have it... Check out the very last post here for a similar problem: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...=201774&page=2 There is no proof, but there is a citation. If g is not injective, then in the end, when you evaluate against a test function, you should get a sum of terms, one for each zero of g. If g' and g are simultaneously 0 at any point, then I don't think the distribution is well-defined.