Dirac Delta: Normal -> Lognormal?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve Zissou
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Delta Dirac Normal
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the concept of representing the Dirac delta function using a lognormal distribution instead of the traditional normal distribution. Participants examine the mathematical formulation and implications of such a representation, including the physical dimensions involved and the validity of the approach.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose an alternative formulation of the Dirac delta function using a lognormal distribution, questioning whether it can be expressed similarly to the normal distribution limit.
  • Concerns are raised about the physical dimensions of the variable x in the proposed lognormal formulation, with one participant asserting that x represents specific gravity, which is dimensionless.
  • A participant challenges the validity of the proposed lognormal delta function, stating that it does not resemble a delta function and is not defined for positive x.
  • Another participant suggests a modified version of the lognormal delta function that includes a mean parameter, asking if it is legitimate to restrict x to positive values in this context.
  • Several participants engage in detailed mathematical reasoning, discussing the integration of the lognormal distribution to derive a cumulative distribution function and its limiting behavior as parameters approach zero.
  • There is a discussion about the assumptions made in the mathematical manipulations, particularly regarding the exchange of limits and derivatives in the context of the delta function.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of representing the Dirac delta function using a lognormal distribution. While some support the exploration of this idea, others raise concerns about its mathematical and physical validity. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the legitimacy of the proposed formulations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations related to the assumptions made about the physical dimensions of x and the conditions under which the proposed lognormal delta function is defined. There is also uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of certain mathematical operations in deriving the delta function.

Steve Zissou
Messages
75
Reaction score
4
TL;DR
One way to think of the Dirac Delta "function" is the limit of a normal distribution as its standard deviation collapses to an infinitesimal. What if we start with a lognormal?
Hello shipmates,

Instead of imagining a Dirac Delta as the limit of a normal, like this:
$$ \delta\left ( x \right ) = \lim_{a \to 0}\frac{1}{|a|\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp\left [ -\left ( x/a \right )^2 \right ] $$
Could we say the same thing except starting with a lognormal, like this?
$$ \delta_{LN} \left ( x \right ) = \lim_{a \to 0}\frac{1}{|a|x\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp\left [ -\left ( \log{x}/a \right )^2 \right ] $$

Thanks!

Your pal,
Stevsie
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Then what is physical dimension of x ? It seems x cannot be a physical variable in your formula.
 
Last edited:
anuttarasammyak said:
Then what is physical dimension of x ? It seems x cannot be a physical variable in your formula.
x is Specific Gravity. It has no dimensions.
 
Thanks. I plot https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?...x*a)e^(-+log(x)^2/a^2)+for+a=0.1+and+a=0.001+
1721344970418.png
 
This does not look to me like a delta function. δ(-x) is zero for positive x. Your function isn't even defined.
 
Vanadium 50
Right. Good point.
 
Vanadium 50
Do you think it seems legit if we say this:
$$ \delta_{LN}\left ( x-\mu \right )=\lim_{a \to 0^+}\frac{1}{|a|x\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp\left [ -\left ( \frac{\log{x}-\mu}{a} \right )^2 \right ] $$
...and restrict our line of thinking so that ## x>0 ## throughout a bigger problem. Does this seem legitimate to you?
Thanks
Stevsie
 
Steve Zissou said:
restrict our line of thinking
Now we're getting into the question "how close is close enough?" I think that can't be answered in the abstract. It can only be answered only if we know how close is close enough in advance.
 
Steve Zissou said:
TL;DR Summary: One way to think of the Dirac Delta "function" is the limit of a normal distribution as its standard deviation collapses to an infinitesimal. What if we start with a lognormal?

Could we say the same thing except starting with a lognormal, like this?
δLN(x)=lima→01|a|x2πexp⁡[−(log⁡x/a)2]

Thanks!
\delta_{LN}(x)=\frac{\delta ( \log x )}{x}=\frac{\delta(x-1)}{x}=\delta(x-1)
defined in x>0. Plot in #4 shows it. BTW how do you design specific gravity x plays a role in the formula ?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Steve Zissou said:
TL;DR Summary: One way to think of the Dirac Delta "function" is the limit of a normal distribution as its standard deviation collapses to an infinitesimal. What if we start with a lognormal?
Yes, you can get a Dirac delta function (but not exactly the one you wrote down) by starting with a lognormal distribution ##\phi##:$$\phi\left(x>0\right)=\frac{1}{x\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\ln x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)^{2}\right],\quad\phi\left(x\leq0\right)=0\tag{1}$$where ##\mu,\sigma## are the mean and standard deviation of the distribution. First integrate ##\phi## to find the cumulative distribution function ##\Phi##:$$\varPhi\left(x>0\right)=\intop_{0}^{x}\phi\left(x^{\prime}\right)dx^{\prime}=\frac{1}{2}\text{erfc}\left(\frac{\mu-\ln x}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right)\tag{2}$$in terms of the complementary error function. By the limiting properties of ##\text{erfc}\left(-z/(\sigma\sqrt{2})\right)##, eq.(2) reduces to the Heaviside step function ##\theta(z)## as the standard deviation goes to zero:$$
\
\lim_{\sigma\rightarrow0^{+}}\varPhi\left(x\right)=\lim_{\sigma\rightarrow0^{+}}\frac{1}{2}\text{erfc}\left(\frac{\mu-\ln x}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right)=\begin{cases}
\begin{array}{c}
1\\
0
\end{array} & \begin{array}{c}
\left(\ln x>\mu\right)\\
\left(\ln x<\mu\right)
\end{array}\end{cases}\equiv\theta\left(\ln x-\mu\right)
\tag{3}$$Now differentiate (3) with respect to ##\text{ln }x## obtain a Dirac delta function:$$\frac{d}{d\ln x}\left[\lim_{\sigma\rightarrow0^{+}}\varPhi\left(x\right)\right]=\frac{d}{d\ln x}\left[\theta\left(\ln x-\mu\right)\right]=\delta\left(\ln x-\mu\right)\tag{4}$$Then, (using physicists math!) assume that it's OK to exchange the order of the derivative and limit operations to get:$$\delta\left(\ln x-\mu\right)=\lim_{\sigma\rightarrow0^{+}}\frac{d}{d\ln x}\varPhi\left(x\right)=\lim_{\sigma\rightarrow0^{+}}x\frac{d}{dx}\varPhi\left(x\right)=\lim_{\sigma\rightarrow0^{+}}x\,\phi\left(x\right)\tag{5}$$or finally, in view of eq.(1):$$\delta\left(\ln x-\mu\right)=\lim_{\sigma\rightarrow0^{+}}\left[\frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\ln x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)^{2}\right]\right]\tag{6}$$where ##x## is restricted to be positive.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Steve Zissou
  • #11
renormalize said:
Yes, you can get a Dirac delta function (but not exactly the one you wrote down) by starting with a lognormal distribution ##\phi##:$$\phi\left(x>0\right)=\frac{1}{x\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\ln x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)^{2}\right],\quad\phi\left(x\leq0\right)=0\tag{1}$$where ##\mu,\sigma## are the mean and standard deviation of the distribution. First integrate ##\phi## to find the cumulative distribution function ##\Phi##:$$\varPhi\left(x>0\right)=\intop_{0}^{x}\phi\left(x^{\prime}\right)dx^{\prime}=\frac{1}{2}\text{erfc}\left(\frac{\mu-\ln x}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right)\tag{2}$$in terms of the complementary error function. By the limiting properties of ##\text{erfc}\left(-z/(\sigma\sqrt{2})\right)##, eq.(2) reduces to the Heaviside step function ##\theta(z)## as the standard deviation goes to zero:$$
\
\lim_{\sigma\rightarrow0^{+}}\varPhi\left(x\right)=\lim_{\sigma\rightarrow0^{+}}\frac{1}{2}\text{erfc}\left(\frac{\mu-\ln x}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right)=\begin{cases}
\begin{array}{c}
1\\
0
\end{array} & \begin{array}{c}
\left(\ln x>\mu\right)\\
\left(\ln x<\mu\right)
\end{array}\end{cases}\equiv\theta\left(\ln x-\mu\right)
\tag{3}$$Now differentiate (3) with respect to ##\text{ln }x## obtain a Dirac delta function:$$\frac{d}{d\ln x}\left[\lim_{\sigma\rightarrow0^{+}}\varPhi\left(x\right)\right]=\frac{d}{d\ln x}\left[\theta\left(\ln x-\mu\right)\right]=\delta\left(\ln x-\mu\right)\tag{4}$$Then, (using physicists math!) assume that it's OK to exchange the order of the derivative and limit operations to get:$$\delta\left(\ln x-\mu\right)=\lim_{\sigma\rightarrow0^{+}}\frac{d}{d\ln x}\varPhi\left(x\right)=\lim_{\sigma\rightarrow0^{+}}x\frac{d}{dx}\varPhi\left(x\right)=\lim_{\sigma\rightarrow0^{+}}x\,\phi\left(x\right)\tag{5}$$or finally, in view of eq.(1):$$\delta\left(\ln x-\mu\right)=\lim_{\sigma\rightarrow0^{+}}\left[\frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\ln x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)^{2}\right]\right]\tag{6}$$where ##x## is restricted to be positive.
Outstanding. Thank you.
 
  • #12
Thanks all.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K