Is the Dirac Delta Function Squared Equal to Itself?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the properties of the Dirac delta function, particularly the concept of squaring it. While the integral of the delta function squared diverges to infinity, viewing it as a functional leads to the conclusion that the square of the delta function can be expressed as itself, i.e., δ² = δ. However, this interpretation is contentious, as the product of the Dirac delta with itself is not well-defined within the framework of Schwartz distributions. There are varying opinions on what the constant c should be when defining δ² = cδ, with some suggesting c could be zero, infinite, or even δ(0). The conversation highlights the complexities and differing perspectives in the mathematical treatment of the Dirac delta function.
jk22
Messages
732
Reaction score
25
I consider the Dirac delta.

In physics the delta squared has an infinite norm : $$\int\delta (x)^2=\infty $$

But if i look at delta being a functional i could write : $$\delta [f]=f (0) $$ hence $$\delta^2 [f]=\delta [\delta [f]]=\delta [\underbrace {f (0)}_{constant function}]=f (0)$$

Thus in this view $$\delta^2=\delta $$ ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Dirac delta is defined by the integral
##\int \delta(c) g(x) dx = g(c)##
If you plug in ##g(x) = \delta(x)## then you get
##\int \delta(c) \delta(x) dx = \delta(c)## which isn't finite. The integral fails.

You can think of the integral as a functional, but it doesn't make sense to think of delta as a functional.
 
Khashishi said:
You can think of the integral as a functional, but it doesn't make sense to think of delta as a functional.
Dirac delta is indeed a linear functional. Specifically it is the linear functional such that ##f \mapsto f(0)##. Schwartz distributions are our most developed theory of generalized functions, and there all Schwartz distributions are linear functionals.

Now to OP. If you want ##\delta^2 = \delta \cdot \delta## to exist as a Schwartz distribution as well, then it turns out that ##\delta^2 = c\delta## for some constant ##c##, but not for the reason you posted. The notation ##\delta^2## is reserved for the product of Dirac with itself, not the composition of Dirac with itself. As to what ##c## is, there's a lot of disagreement. If the product defined is a "normal product" then ##c=0##. Some mathematicians have argued that non-zero c has physical meaning. Some argue ##c = \infty##. Others define it to be ##c = \delta(0)## and not define what that means (as long as it cancels in the end they are happy with it). So yeah a lot of disagreement.

That being said, if you aren't working with Schwartz distributions, such as working in Colombeu algebra, then it is the operator ##f(x) \mapsto f(-x)^2## (technically the equivalence class of such operators), which in turn corresponds to the non-linear functional ##f \mapsto f(0)^2##

Edit: One last thing. There are people who write ##\delta^2## for ##\delta(x)\delta(y)##, i.e. the two dimensional Dirac delta. But then you wouldn't have ##\int \delta^2 = \infty## at the top of your post, so I'm ignoring that situation.
 
Last edited:
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
28K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K