How to Prove δ(cx) = (1/|c|)δ(x)?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the relationship involving the Dirac delta function, specifically the expression δ(cx) = (1/|c|)δ(x). The subject area includes properties of distributions and the Dirac delta function within the context of mathematical physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of changing variables in integrals involving the Dirac delta function, particularly focusing on the case when c is negative. Questions arise regarding the validity of the original poster's approach and the treatment of limits of integration.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants questioning assumptions made about the variable c and exploring the consequences of these assumptions on the proof. Some guidance has been offered regarding the need to consider the sign of c when changing variables.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the need for clarity regarding the behavior of the Dirac delta function under transformations, particularly in relation to the sign of the constant c. The original poster's approach is noted to be valid for c > 0, but concerns are raised about its applicability for c < 0.

Raze2dust
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] Dirac delta function

Homework Statement


Prove that \delta(cx)=\frac{1}{|c|}\delta(x)


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



For any function f(x), <br /> \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(x)\delta(cx) dx = \frac{1}{c}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(t/c)\delta(t) dt<br />

where I have used t=cx.
<br /> =\frac{1}{c}f(0) <br />
This is fine and matches RHS for c>0. But how do we get the mod sign for c<0. Why isn't the above procedure valid for c<0 as well?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have implicitly assumed that c>0 when you changed variables. Either that, or you forgot what else needs to be changed...
 
Raze2dust said:

Homework Statement


Prove that \delta(cx)=\frac{1}{|c|}\delta(x)


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



For any function f(x), <br /> \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(x)\delta(cx) dx = \frac{1}{c}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(t/c)\delta(t) dt<br />

where I have used t=cx.
<br /> =\frac{1}{c}f(0) <br />
This is fine and matches RHS for c>0. But how do we get the mod sign for c<0. Why isn't the above procedure valid for c<0 as well?

What happens to the limits of integration when you make the change of variable and c is negative?
 
nrqed said:
What happens to the limits of integration when you make the change of variable and c is negative?

thanks nrged!
wonder how it didn't strike me after pulling my hair off for one hour
 


Consider a spring-mass system with a time-dependent force f(t) applied to the mass.
The situation is modeled by the second-order differential equation
mx"(t) + cx0'(t) + kx(t) = f(t)
where t is time and x(t) is the displacement of the mass from equilibrium. Now suppose
that for t greater than or equal to 0 the mass is at rest in its equilibrium position, so x'(0) = x(0) = 0. At
t = 0 the mass is struck by an “instantaneous” hammer blow. This situation actually occurs
frequently in practice—a system sustains an forceful, almost-instantaneous input. Our goal
is to model the situation mathematically and determine how the system will respond.
In the above situation we might describe f(t) as a large constant force applied on a very
small time interval. Such a model leads to the forcing function
 


The Dirac delta function is a special kind of object - it is not a
function in the usual sense, although we sometimes think of it that
way. Basically, it can be thought of as the "function" d(x) such that:

d(x) = 0 for x <> 0
= Infinity for x = 0

and the "size" of the infinity is such that the integral of d(x) with
respect to x from a to b is zero if a and b are of the same sign, and
the integral is exactly unity if a < 0 < b. More precisely, it can be
thought of as the limit of a series of functions that get more and
more peaked near zero, and whose area is always unity.

It is always to be implicitly used inside an integral, even though we
carry out operations such as:

f(x) = d(x) + d(x-2) (when integrated, this has area 2)
 
Last edited:


Consider a spring-mass system with a time-dependent force f(t) applied to the mass.
The situation is modeled by the second-order differential equation
mx"(t) + cx0'(t) + kx(t) = f(t)
where t is time and x(t) is the displacement of the mass from equilibrium. Now suppose
that for t greater than or equal to 0 the mass is at rest in its equilibrium position, so x'(0) = x(0) = 0. At
t = 0 the mass is struck by an “instantaneous” hammer blow. This situation actually occurs
frequently in practice—a system sustains an forceful, almost-instantaneous input. Our goal
is to model the situation mathematically and determine how the system will respond.
In the above situation we might describe f(t) as a large constant force applied on a very
small time interval. Such a model leads to the forcing function
f (t) = \left\{\stackrel{^{\frac{A}{\epsilon},}}{0,else} 0 \leq t \leq \epsilon

Here A is some constant and \epsilon is a “small” positive real number. When \epsilon is close to zero the applied force is very large during the time interval 0 \leq t \leq \epsilon
In this case it’s easy to see that for any choice of \epsilon we have
\int\stackrel{\infty^}{f (t) dt = A}
-\infty
 
Last edited:


k..thanx for the info Horbacz !
:)
 


your welcome raze 2 dust. and by the way, I am only 13...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K