Delta Function Integration: Justified or Fudging?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the integration of the derivative of the delta function, specifically evaluating the integral ##I = \int_{-1}^{1} dx \delta'(x)e^{3x}##. Participants are exploring the implications of using integration by parts in this context and questioning the justification of their steps.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to use integration by parts and expresses uncertainty about the justification of their steps, particularly regarding the treatment of the delta function. Some participants provide affirmations and alternative perspectives on understanding the delta function's properties.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's concerns, offering insights into the evaluation of integrals involving the delta function. There is a productive exchange of ideas, with some participants suggesting conceptual frameworks to clarify the original poster's understanding.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing exploration of the properties of the delta function and its derivative, with participants discussing the implications of evaluating integrals at specific points. The original poster expresses concern about potentially "fudging" the integration process, indicating a desire for clarity on the rules governing such integrals.

BOAS
Messages
546
Reaction score
19
Hello,

I feel like I am fudging these integrals a bit and would like some concrete guidance about what's going on.

1. Homework Statement

Evaluate ##I = \int_{-1}^{1} dx \delta'(x)e^3{x} ##

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
I use integration by parts as follows,
##u = e^{3x}##
##du = 3e^{3x} dx##

##dv = \delta'(x)##
##v = \delta(x)##

##I = uv|^{1}_{-1} - \int^{1}_{-1} v du##

Evaluating ##uv## gives zero because the delta function is zero at both limits.

##I = - \int^{1}_{-1} dx \delta(x) 3e^{3x}##

Clearly, the only non zero value of this function is at ##x = 0##, making me think the answer to my problem is ##I = -3##, but this is the step that I think I'm 'fudging'. I feel like I'm disregarding the integration sign...

Is this justified?

Thanks for any guidance you can give.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's justified because ##\delta(x)## is centered in ##x=0##, which is contained by the integration limits.
 
That looks correct. It sometimes helps to think of a finite spiked function instead of delta. Let's say it's 0 outside ##[-a, a]## for some small a, and has a value of ##1/2a## in that interval. The integral is then approx: ##2a \frac{1}{2a} e^0 = e^0##
 
PeroK said:
That looks correct. It sometimes helps to think of a finite spiked function instead of delta. Let's say it's 0 outside ##[-a, a]## for some small a, and has a value of ##1/2a## in that interval. The integral is then approx: ##2a \frac{1}{2a} e^0 = e^0##

I don't quite follow.

Where do you evaluate the limits?

I see that the spiked function is ##\frac{1}{2a}## inside this interval, and since (I assume) it's centered on ##0##, I see where ##e^0## comes from, but not the ##2a##.
 
BOAS said:
I don't quite follow.

Where do you evaluate the limits?

I see that the spiked function is ##\frac{1}{2a}## inside this interval, and since (I assume) it's centered on ##0##, I see where ##e^0## comes from, but not the ##2a##.

2a is the width of the interval. An integral is the area under a curve!
 
PeroK said:
2a is the width of the interval. An integral is the area under a curve!

Ah!

I'm with you now. So an integral of a function multiplied by the dirac delta function is like evaluating the function itself at the point where the delta function is non-zero?
 
BOAS said:
Ah!

I'm with you now. So an integral of a function multiplied by the dirac delta function is like evaluating the function itself at the point where the delta function is non-zero?

That's exactly what it is. You can think of the delta function as the limit of a sequence of rectangular functions with area 1. That gives some justification for things.
 
PeroK said:
That's exactly what it is. You can think of the delta function as the limit of a sequence of rectangular functions with area 1. That gives some justification for things.

Cool - Thanks for your help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
7K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K