Integral over scaling function

Derivator
Messages
147
Reaction score
0
Hi,

\phi(x) is an interpolating scaling function (also called fundamental function or Dubuc-Deslauriers function) as given on pages 155 to 158 in these lecture notes: http://pages.unibas.ch/comphys/comphys/TEACH/WS07/course.pdf

Why does the follwoing yield:

\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\phi(x) dx = 1?

At least, I assume this yields, because otherwise I cannot show the equality of the first equation of the exercise on page 158 of the above lecture notes:

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/304/capturevm.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
φ(x) seems to be the Dirac delta function. Check it out on Wikipedia if you are not familiar with it. Most authors use δ(x).
 
no, its definitely not a dirac delta function.

In a 7-th order interpolation scheme it looks like:

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3887/capturekp.png

by the way: i noticed this thread is probably in the wrong forum. Could someone move it to 'Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics', please?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Derivator said:
Hi,
Why does the follwoing yield:
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\phi(x) dx = 1?

I don't think that is true.

I only got a hazy grasp of those notes, but, thinking about the case in 1 dimension, the constant function f(x) = 1, when scaled as f(x)\phi(x) is still the constant function 1. (I haven't mastered the notation. By \phi(x), I mean a function such that when x is between the integers k and k + 1, \phi(x) is the sum of the interpolating scaling function centered at k and the interpolating scaling function centered at k + 1.) So one can say that the integral of (1)( \phi(x)) from k-1/2 to k+1/2 is 1.
 
To get my notation straight, I'll use \phi(x) to mean a (single) scaling function centered at 0 which vanishes for x < -1/2 and x > 1/2. (I don't know where the scaling functions in those notes are supposed to vanish. This is just to test an idea.)

If g(x) is a function that is zero except at integers, then I gather the idea of interpolating scaling functions is extend g to a continuous function f(x). Let's say that for x between the integer values k and k + 1, we compute f(x) by adding two functions. The first function f_{k,1}(x) is g(k) times the scaling function \phi(x-k) and the second function f_{k,2}(x) is g(k+1) times the scaling function \phi(x - (k+1) ).

When you integrate f(x) over all real numbers, its integral can be regarded as the sum of integrals of these functions. Working the exercise might rely on arguing that the sum of these integrals is term-by-term equal to the sum of the non-zero values of g(x).
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top