A Dirac-Delta from Normalization of Continuous Eigenfunctions

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the normalization of continuous eigenfunctions in the context of SL(2,R) representations as outlined in Kitaev's paper. The integral for the inner product contains a singular contribution at the endpoint, leading to a Dirac delta function normalization condition. Attempts to resolve the integral by splitting it into two parts reveal discrepancies in sign when comparing results with the paper. While one approach yields the correct sign for the normalization, it introduces non-Dirac delta terms that do not cancel out. The challenge lies in accurately handling the singular behavior of the integral near the endpoint u=1.
MultipleSearching
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy
\langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67}
The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form
f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}
f_{s'}(u) is also given by this expression but with s \to s', where s, s' \in \mathbb{R}^+ and where a_s, a_{s'} \in \mathbb{C} are complex coefficients in terms of s, s', respectively, given by
a_s = \frac{\Gamma(-2i s)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2} - i s + l\right) \Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2} - i s + r\right)}.
Using these approximations, they immediately present in equation (70) the normalization condition
\langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = 4 \pi |a_s|^2 \delta(s - s'). \tag{70}
which is what I'm trying to obtain. My attempt at solving this involved splitting the integral into two, as follows
\int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du = \int_{0}^{1 - e^{-1/\varepsilon}} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) , du + \int_{1 - e^{-1/\varepsilon}}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du
and solving for the latter, which contains the divergent part. I used the u \to 1 approximation presented above and simplified the expression to a sum of 4 terms. Each term is an integral of the form (singular endpoint – problem arises here)
\mathcal{I} = \int_{1 - e^{-1/\varepsilon}}^{1} (1-u)^{i(s + s') - 1} , du = -\frac{i e^{-i(s + s')/\varepsilon}}{s + s'}.
After integrating all terms and using the following identities (in the distributional sense)
\lim_{a \to \infty} \frac{\sin(a x)}{\pi x} = \delta(x), \quad \lim_{a \to \infty} \cos(a x) = 0,
I got
\mathcal{I} = -4 \pi |a_s|^2 \delta(s - s').
I believe the problem comes from the way I solved the \mathcal{I} integral, which leads to a sign discrepancy between what I obtained and the paper.

I've also tried the integral
\int_{0}^{1 - e^{-1/\varepsilon}} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du
Eventhough we're using an asymptotic expansion for u \to 1, I considered these limits since the dominant contribution to the Dirac delta function lies near u=1. This produces the correct sign for the normalization as seen in Kitaev's paper, but it also yields non-Dirac delta terms that don't cancel out. Namely
\int_0^1 \frac{2 du}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u) f_{s'}^*(u) = 4 \pi |a_s|^2 \delta(s-s') + \frac{4 \Im(a_s a_{s'})}{s+s'} + \frac{4 \Im(a_s a_{s'}^*)}{s-s'}
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
For advice, use # # equation here # # for express equations, or $ $ equation here centered $ $. And use both like this $$ ## without the space.
 
Theoretical physicist C.N. Yang died at the age of 103 years on October 18, 2025. He is the Yang in Yang-Mills theory, which he and his collaborators devised in 1953, which is a generic quantum field theory that is used by scientists to study amplitudes (i.e. vector probabilities) that are foundational in all Standard Model processes and most quantum gravity theories. He also won a Nobel prize in 1957 for his work on CP violation. (I didn't see the post in General Discussions at PF on his...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K