How Does the Scaling Property Affect the Derivative of the Dirac Delta Function?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the scaling property of the Dirac delta function and its derivative, specifically examining the expression \(\delta'(\lambda x)\) and its relationship to \(\delta(x)\). Participants explore the implications of this scaling in the context of distributional derivatives, raising questions about the correctness of the proposed identity and the mathematical steps involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes the identity \(\delta'(\lambda x) = \dfrac{1}{\lambda \vert \lambda \vert} \delta(x)\) and attempts to prove it using the definition of the distributional derivative.
  • Another participant agrees with the initial claim but points out a potential dimensional inconsistency in the proposed identity.
  • A question is raised regarding the notation of the prime in \(\delta'\), specifically whether it denotes differentiation with respect to \(x\) or \(\lambda x\).
  • Clarification is sought on whether the identity should involve \(\delta'(x)\) instead of \(\delta(x)\), suggesting a possible typo in the original statement.
  • A later reply confirms the typo and corrects it to \(\delta'(\lambda x) = \dfrac{1}{\lambda \vert \lambda \vert} \delta'(x)\), but expresses uncertainty about the validity of the identity itself.
  • Another participant attempts to derive the identity using the chain rule and the definition of the distributional derivative, but does not reach a conclusive result.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding the correctness of the proposed identity and the steps leading to it. There is no consensus on whether the identity is valid, and multiple interpretations of the notation and mathematical steps are presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential issues with dimensional analysis and the interpretation of derivatives in the context of distributions, which may affect the validity of the proposed identity.

parton
Messages
79
Reaction score
1
Hello!

I should prove:

\delta'(\lambda x) = \dfrac{1}{\lambda \vert \lambda \vert} \delta(x),
where lambda is just a constant.

If we make use of the scaling property and the definition of the distributional derivative, we find:

\left( \delta'(\lambda x), f \right) = \dfrac{1}{\vert \lambda \vert} \left( \delta', f(x/\lambda) \right) = \dfrac{(-1)}{\lambda \vert \lambda \vert} \left( \delta, f'(x/\lambda) \right) = \dfrac{1}{\lambda \vert \lambda \vert} \left( \delta', f(x/\lambda) \right)
Because this is true for all testfunctions f, we have shown the identity.

Now I think that my last step is wrong.

Because of
f'(x/\lambda) = \left( \dfrac{\partial f}{\partial x} \right) (x/\lambda) \neq \dfrac{\partial}{\partial x} \left( f(x/\lambda) \right) = \dfrac{1}{\lambda} f'(x/\lambda)
there should be an additional factor of lambda if I 'shift' the derivative back to the delta distribution.
You can also see this by (formally) writing the last step:

\dfrac{(-1)}{\lambda \vert \lambda \vert} \left( \delta, f'(x/\lambda) \right) = \dfrac{(-1)}{\lambda \vert \lambda \vert} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \delta(x) f'(x/\lambda) \, \mathrm{d}x = \dfrac{1}{\vert \lambda \vert} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \delta'(x) f(x/\lambda) \, \mathrm{d} x = \dfrac{1}{\vert \lambda \vert} \left( \delta', f(x/\lambda) \right),
where I used integration by parts.

So something is really wrong here.
Maybe someone could help me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe you are right.

You can also look at this physically the dimensions of this distribution has [1/x].


So you cannot have on one side dimensions of [1/(x\lambda)] and on the other side dimensions of [1/x\lambda^2].
 
parton said:
Hello!

I should prove:

\delta'(\lambda x) = \dfrac{1}{\lambda \vert \lambda \vert} \delta(x),
where lambda is just a constant.

What does the prime denote differentiation with respect to? Is it ##d\delta(\lambda x)/dx## or ##d \delta(\lambda x)/d(\lambda x)##?

Also, I don't think the identity as you have written it can be correct. Are you trying to prove

$$\delta'(\lambda x) = \dfrac{1}{\lambda \vert \lambda \vert} \delta'(x)?$$

i.e., did you make a typo and mean to write the derivative of the dirac function on the RHS?

You either need both sides to be derivatives of the Dirac function or you need the test function on the LHS and its derivative on the RHS to appear explicitly. Otherwise, for ##\lambda = 1##, your identity reduces to ##\delta'(x) = \delta(x)##, which is not true of course.
 
Mute said:
What does the prime denote differentiation with respect to? Is it ##d\delta(\lambda x)/dx## or ##d \delta(\lambda x)/d(\lambda x)##?

I don't know. But, I think if you write
\delta'(\lambda x) you usually mean \left[ \dfrac{\partial \delta}{\partial x} \right] (\lambda x),
so you first build the derivative and then you evaluate it with lambda*x.

I also tried ##\partial \delta(\lambda x)/ \partial x##, but I nevertheless cannot show the identity.

Mute said:
Also, I don't think the identity as you have written it can be correct. Are you trying to prove

$$\delta'(\lambda x) = \dfrac{1}{\lambda \vert \lambda \vert} \delta'(x)?$$

i.e., did you make a typo and mean to write the derivative of the dirac function on the RHS?

Yes, your are right, it is a typo, thanks. It should be
\delta'(\lambda x) = \dfrac{1}{\lambda \vert \lambda \vert} \delta'(x)

But still, I am not able to show the identity. Maybe the identity itself is wrong? What do you think?
 
Ok, I should have somehting.

(\delta'(\lambda x), f) = \dfrac{1}{\vert \lambda \vert} \left( \delta', f(x/\lambda) \right) = \dfrac{(-1)}{\vert \lambda \vert} \left( \delta, \partial [ f(x/\lambda) ]/ \partial x \right) = \dfrac{(-1)}{\lambda \vert \lambda \vert} \left( \delta, f'(x/\lambda) \right) = \dfrac{(-1)}{\lambda \vert \lambda \vert} f'(0) = \dfrac{1}{\lambda \vert \lambda \vert} \left( \delta', f \right)

So I used the chain rule in the 3rd step and
in the last one just the definition of the distributional derivative, i.e., ##(\delta', f) = - f'(0)##
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K