Dirac Delta as Gaussian functions

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on expressing the Dirac delta function as a limiting case of Gaussian functions. The first expression, \(\delta(x-a) = \lim_{\sigma \rightarrow{0}} \int_{a - \sigma}^{{a + \sigma}} \sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi \sigma^{2}}}e^{-((x-a)^{2})/(2\sigma^{2})} dx\), is confirmed as correct. However, the second expression, which approaches zero from the positive side, is critiqued for not accurately representing a delta function, as it leads to a unit step function instead. The discussion emphasizes the importance of correctly identifying dummy variables in integrals.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Dirac delta functions
  • Familiarity with Gaussian functions and their properties
  • Knowledge of limits and integration techniques
  • Basic concepts of functional analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Dirac delta functions in detail
  • Explore Gaussian function applications in signal processing
  • Learn about the relationship between integrals and distributions
  • Investigate the concept of unit step functions and their implications
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineers interested in signal processing, functional analysis, and the mathematical foundations of distributions.

rajetk
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am looking at a problem, part of which deals with expressing delta dirac as a limiting case of gaussian function. I am aware of the standard ways of doing it. In addition, I would also like to know if the following are correct -
<br /> \delta(x-a) = \lim_{\sigma \rightarrow{0}} \int_{a - \sigma}^{{a + \sigma}} \sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi \sigma^{2}}}e^{-((x-a)^{2})/(2\sigma^{2})} dx<br />

Or can I say something like the following -
<br /> \lim_{\sigma \rightarrow{0+}} \int_{a - \sigma}^{{a + \sigma}} \sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi \sigma^{2}}}e^{-((x-a)^{2})/(2\sigma^{2})} dx<br />

where the second expression is not a delta function but its approximation (since both the a+ and a- regions are considered in the integral)?

Please do excuse me if I am seriously wrong :(. Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first one is correct, I'm not sure what you're saying about the second one. It looks like the only difference is that sigma is approaching zero from the positive side
 
Neither is correct. For one thing, where is the x on the right hand side? It is not the dummy variable of the integration; that you happened to use x is somewhat misleading. You could have called that dummy variable t, u, or anything without changing the value of the integral. It is just a dummy variable.

That missing x is just a tiny nitpick compared to the bigger problem of using an integral. In the limit of sigma going to zero, that integral will become a unit step function, not a Dirac delta distribution.

You just want the Gaussian, non-integrated.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K