Does the Delta Sequence Converge to the Dirac Delta Function?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Undoubtedly0
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Delta Sequence
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the convergence of the delta sequence defined by \(\delta_n(x) = ne^{-nx}\) for \(x > 0\) and \(0\) for \(x < 0\), and its relationship to the Dirac delta function. Participants are tasked with showing that the limit of the integral of this sequence multiplied by a function \(f(x)\) approaches \(f(0)\) as \(n\) approaches infinity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the validity of a hint suggesting to replace the upper limit of integration with \(c/n\) and question how this relates to the mean value theorem of integral calculus. There are inquiries about the restrictions on the function \(f(x)\) and whether assumptions about its behavior at infinity are necessary. Some participants suggest considering functions whose integrals over the entire real line are finite.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring various interpretations of the problem and the conditions under which the limit can be evaluated. Some guidance has been offered regarding the types of functions that may be suitable for this analysis, but no consensus has been reached on the assumptions or the implications of the hints provided.

Contextual Notes

There is a lack of clarity regarding the assumptions about the function \(f(x)\), particularly concerning its behavior at infinity and whether it must be well-behaved in a specific sense. Participants are also grappling with the implications of the limit process as \(n\) approaches infinity.

Undoubtedly0
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Show that [tex]\delta_n(x) = ne^{-nx} \quad \mathrm{for}\quad x>0[/tex][tex]\qquad = 0 \quad \mathrm{for}\quad x<0[/tex]

satisfies [tex]\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \delta_n(x)f(x)\mathrm{d}x = f(0)[/tex]

The attempt at a solution
The hint says to replace the upper limit ([itex]\infty[/itex]) with [itex]c/n[/itex], where [itex]c[/itex] is "large but finite", and then use the mean value theorem of integral calculus.

I do not understand how this replacement in the hint is allowable. Since [itex]n\longrightarrow\infty[/itex], [itex]c/n\longrightarrow0[/itex], not [itex]\infty[/itex]. Even if this is okay, how does it aid using the mean value theorem of integral calculus?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are there any restrictions on f(x)?
 
voko said:
Are there any restrictions on f(x)?

It is only stated that [itex]f(x)[/itex] is a well-behaved function. It seems that this would be easier to prove if [itex]\lim_{x\longrightarrow\pm\infty}f(x)[/itex] was at least finite, but no such assumption is made.
 
Then assume the integral of f(x) over the entire real line is finite. Given that, you should be estimate the "left-over" as you restrict integration to c/n.
 
voko said:
Then assume the integral of f(x) over the entire real line is finite.

Why can this be assumed? Not even a function as well-behaved as [itex]f(x)=x^2[/itex] satisfies this.
 
## e^{x^{100}} ## is also well behaved, but will it be acceptable in this case?
 
voko said:
## e^{x^{100}} ## is also well behaved, but will it be acceptable in this case?

Sure, if [itex]f(x) = e^{x^{100}}[/itex], then I do not know how I would answer the problem. Any suggestions?
 
As I said, you should select a class of functions that are admissible. Those whose integral over the entire real line is finite obviously fit the bill. Those the product of which with exp(-x) has the same property would work, too.
 
Evidently, however, the proof can be made for any well-behaved function [itex]f(x)[/itex]. I understand how to prove this for special cases, but I am confused on how to prove this in general.
 
  • #10
## \delta_1 = e^{-x} ## so you must have at least ## \int_0^{\infty} f(x)e^{-x} dx < \infty## for any "well-behaved" function.
 
  • #11
voko said:
## \delta_1 = e^{-x} ## so you must have at least ## \int_0^{\infty} f(x)e^{-x} dx < \infty## for any "well-behaved" function.

If there exists a Taylor series expansion of f(x) of the form [tex]f(x)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty f^{(k)}(0)\frac{x^k}{k!}[/tex]

does that imply that ## \int_0^{\infty} f(x)e^{-x} dx < \infty##?

Thanks for your help.
 
  • #12
Undoubtedly0 said:
Homework Statement
Show that [tex]\delta_n(x) = ne^{-nx} \quad \mathrm{for}\quad x>0[/tex][tex]\qquad = 0 \quad \mathrm{for}\quad x<0[/tex]

satisfies [tex]\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \delta_n(x)f(x)\mathrm{d}x = f(0)[/tex]

The attempt at a solution
The hint says to replace the upper limit ([itex]\infty[/itex]) with [itex]c/n[/itex], where [itex]c[/itex] is "large but finite", and then use the mean value theorem of integral calculus.

I do not understand how this replacement in the hint is allowable. Since [itex]n\longrightarrow\infty[/itex], [itex]c/n\longrightarrow0[/itex], not [itex]\infty[/itex]. Even if this is okay, how does it aid using the mean value theorem of integral calculus?
You are asked to show this for n a fixed constant. There is nothing said about "n going to infinity" and no reason to worry about that.
 
  • #13
HallsofIvy said:
You are asked to show this for n a fixed constant. There is nothing said about "n going to infinity" and no reason to worry about that.

Hi HallsofIvy. I confess I do not understand what you mean. Certainly the following says that n goes to infinity, no?

[tex]\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \delta_n(x)f(x)\mathrm{d}x[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K