Dirac delta function homework help

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the mathematical properties of the Dirac delta function, particularly the expression involving two delta functions, \(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(x)\delta(x-a)\delta(x-b)dx\). It is established that while the first integral \(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(x)\delta(x-a)dx = f(a)\) is meaningful, the second integral does not have a defined value unless a or b is treated as a variable. The participants clarify that multiplying two delta functions is problematic, as distributions cannot be multiplied in this way. Ultimately, the consensus is that the second integral equals zero unless it is part of a larger integral involving a variable. The discussion highlights the complexities of working with generalized functions in mathematical analysis.
shoehorn
Messages
420
Reaction score
2
Suppose that we take the delta function \delta(x) and a function f(x). We know that

\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(x)\delta(x-a)\,dx = f(a).

However, does the following have any meaning?

\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(x)\delta(x-a)\delta(x-b)dx,

for some constants -\infty<a,b<\infty.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
shoehorn said:
Suppose that we take the delta function \delta(x) and a function f(x). We know that

\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(x)\delta(x-a)\,dx = f(a).

However, does the following have any meaning?

\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(x)\delta(x-a)\delta(x-b)dx,

for some constants -\infty<a,b<\infty.

Remember that \delta is not a true function. It is a "distribution" or "generalized function". The first integral is defined for distributions but the second isn't. (If we were to force a meaning on it, the only reasonable value it could have would be 0.)

You could do that in more than one dimension:
\int_{x=-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{y=-\infty}^{\infty}f(x,y)\delta(x-a)\delta(y-b)dydx= f(a,b)[/itex]
 
Here's what I was thinking about it. The integral

\int_{-\infty}^\infty \, f(x)\delta(x-a) dx

integrates a function f(x) times a distribution \delta, so the whole thing is an integral of a generalized function, dependent on x. Suppose now that I define a generalized function g(x) according to

g(x) \equiv f(x)\delta(x-a).

Then the second integral becomes

\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x)\delta(x-a)\delta(x-b)\,dx = \int_{-\infty}^\infty g(x) \delta(x-b).

My instinct is to then conclude that

\int_{-\infty}^\infty g(x)\delta(x-b)\, dx = g(b) = f(b)\delta(b-a)

Thus, the second integral is itself something which has meaning only if it appears within an integral. Yet you don't think that this is correct?
 
Last edited:
the function g(x) is basiclly a constant (f(a)) times the dirac delta function. so in your second integral you want the integral of the product of two different DD functions times a constant, that would equal 0
 
daniel_i_l said:
the function g(x) is basiclly a constant (f(a)) times the dirac delta function. so in your second integral you want the integral of the product of two different DD functions times a constant, that would equal 0

I'm afraid I don't see how you conclude that g(x) is a constant. Going with the definition I gave above,

g(x)\equiv f(x)\delta(x-a)

for some function f(x). The only relationship between g(x) and f(a) is

\int_{-\infty}^\infty g(x)\,dx = \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x)\delta(x-a)\,dx = f(a),

i.e., the integral of g(x) is equal to f(a).
 
shoehorn said:
I'm afraid I don't see how you conclude that g(x) is a constant.
I didn't say that it was a constant, i said that is was equal to a constant times the DD function. what i meant to say that was in this case you could look at g(x) as being g(x) = f(a)*DD(x-a) when you're doing the integral. so you're right, it doesn't really equal f(a)*DD(x-a) but when you integrate you get the same resault when you interchange the two.
and anyway f(b)DD(b) = 0.
 
Last edited:
- Shoehorn according to "Schwartz theorem2 you can't multiply 2 distribution..this is really "nasty" since avoiding this (if we could) we would have solved divergences in the form \int_{0}^{\infty}dx x^{n} using "Casual perturbation theory2 (see wikipedia) although i believe that for big n:

\delta (x-a) \delta (x-b) =n^{2}\pi e^{-n^{2}((x-a)^2 +(x-b)^2)} <br /> <br /> for n tending to \infty
 
shoehorn said:
As a result, if, for example, f(x) is L^2, then g(x) is L^2 also.


How do you conclude something that is not even a function is actually a lebesgue square measurable function?
 
matt grime said:
How do you conclude something that is not even a function is actually a lebesgue square measurable function?

Oops, sorry. I was editing a post earlier and pasted that in by accident. Please ignore it - it's obviously not true. :-)
 
  • #10
shoehorn said:
However, does the following have any meaning?

\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(x)\delta(x-a)\delta(x-b)dx,

for some constants -\infty&lt;a,b&lt;\infty.
No.

However, if a (or b) was a variable, then this expression could be considered a distribution. Convolving it with h(a) gives:

<br /> \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}<br /> f(x) h(a) \delta(x-a) \delta(x-b) \, da \, dx<br /> = f(b) h(b)<br />
 

Similar threads

Back
Top