Integral of Dirac times Heaviside

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the evaluation of the integral of the product of the Heaviside step function \( H(x) \) and the Dirac delta function \( \delta(x) \). Participants explore the implications of defining \( H(0) \) and the validity of using \( H(x) \) as a test function in this context, touching on both theoretical and practical aspects of the integral.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that the integral \( \int_{-\infty}^\infty H(x) \delta(x) dx \) equals \( \frac{1}{2} \left(H(0^+) + H(0^-) \right) \) and expresses uncertainty about how to prove this claim.
  • Another participant notes that for the integral to be well-defined, \( H(0) \) must be defined, suggesting that \( H(0) = \frac{1}{2} \) is a common convention, but not the only choice.
  • A different participant introduces a standard extension of the Dirac delta function, indicating that using the Heaviside function leads to a result of \( \frac{1}{2} \) when applying this extension.
  • One participant acknowledges the sketchiness of using certain methods for proof but finds them adequate for their application.
  • A participant suggests that the integral could directly evaluate to \( \frac{1}{2} H^2(x) \) without dependence on the definition of \( H(0) \), but this is challenged by another participant who emphasizes the distributional nature of the Dirac delta function.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of integrating \( H(x) \) in the context of the Dirac delta function due to the discontinuity of \( H(x) \).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definition of \( H(0) \) and its implications for the integral. There is no consensus on the correctness of the various approaches discussed, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the best method to evaluate the integral.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the definitions and assumptions regarding the Dirac delta function and the Heaviside step function, particularly concerning the treatment of discontinuities and the implications for integration.

wil3
Messages
177
Reaction score
1
I am trying to solve the integral

\int_{-\infty}^\infty H(x) \delta(x) dx

Where H(x) is a unit step and d(x) is a standard Dirac delta. Mathematica chokes on this, but I'm pretty sure that the value is

\int_{-\infty}^\infty H(x) \delta(x) dx = \dfrac12 \left(H(0^+) + H(0^-) \right) = 1/2

However, I am having trouble proving that my intuition is correct. Is this claim correct, and, if so, how can I show it?

Thank you in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The intuitive way would be...in order for ##\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x) \delta(x) \, dx## to be well defined, ##f(x)## needs to have the domain to be all of the reals. That means ##H(0)## needs to be defined. A lot of books choose ##H(0) = 1/2## as a convention, but it is just a convention. You could theoretically choose any real number, and indeed the notation ##H_c (x)## is the Heaviside step function with ##H(0) = c##.

Anyway, ##\int_{-\infty}^\infty H(x) \delta(x) dx = H(0)##, so the question is what have you chosen ##H(0)## to be?

Disclaimer: it's worth pointing out that in the strict definition of Dirac delta, H(x) is not a valid test function. Mathematica "chokes" because that is the correct response. What you are asking for is an extension of Dirac to include discontinuous functions. There is no "correct" way to do this. You can use what you wrote as a new definition of Dirac, and then demonstrate that it is consistent with the standard definition. I personally wouldn't do it that way because the value is now dependent on the neighborhood of 0, rather than 0 itself.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
One standard way that the Dirac delta function is extended is to define
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \delta(x) h(x) dx = \lim_{a\to 0} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi} a} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2/(2a)} h(x) dx
for h(x) any distribution. This satisfies the definition for \delta(x) when h(x) is continuous and integrable (the Gaussian function defined has a peak at 0 that goes to infinity as a goes to zero, so this is not too hard to prove). and for h(x) the Heaviside function you will in fact get 1/2.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
These were both great answers, I agree that using this trick is sketchy in a proof but it seems to work for my application. Thank you!
 
Another method

Doesn't this integrate directly to 1/2 H^2(x) between -∞ and ∞, which equals 1/2?

This observation seems to have no dependence on how H(0) is defined, other than what is implied from the statement that d/dx of H(x) is δ(x).
 
davidmoore63@y said:
Doesn't this integrate directly to 1/2 H^2(x) between -∞ and ∞, which equals 1/2?

No, because Dirac delta is not a real function but a distribution. That integral that is written is not actually an integral. We just write the evaluation in that notation.

This observation seems to have no dependence on how H(0) is defined, other than what is implied from the statement that d/dx of H(x) is δ(x).

Dirac delta is the distributional derivative of Heaviside. Integration by substitution requires continuous differentiability, which Heaviside does not have.
 
interesting thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K