Integrate by parts because of two functions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the integration of a function multiplied by the Dirac delta function, specifically focusing on the application of integration by parts. Participants explore different cases of definite integrals involving the delta function and the implications of their calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an initial approach to the integral \(\int x(\tau) \delta(t-\tau) d\tau\) using integration by parts, leading to a seemingly nonsensical result.
  • Another participant corrects the interpretation of the integral of the delta distribution, stating it should yield the Heaviside function rather than a constant value.
  • A detailed breakdown of three cases for evaluating the definite integral is provided, with results depending on the relationship between \(t\) and the limits \(a\) and \(b\).
  • Concerns are raised about the signs in the integration by parts formula, with one participant suggesting a potential error in the sign convention used.
  • A later reply clarifies the sign change due to the argument of the delta function and reaffirms the integration by parts setup.
  • Another participant expresses interest in a more general case involving limits approaching infinity and discusses the implications of splitting the integral at the point \(t\).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct application of integration by parts, particularly regarding sign conventions and the interpretation of the delta function. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the integration process.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about the behavior of \(x(t)\) over the specified intervals and the treatment of the delta function in the context of definite integrals.

Cyrus
Messages
3,246
Reaction score
17
I found this interesting little problem when thinking about convolution:

[tex]\int x( \tau) \delta(t-\tau) d\tau[/tex]

Normally to solve something like this you would have to integrate by parts because of two functions in [tex]\tau[/tex]

Using the fact that:

[tex]\int u *dv = u*v - \int v*du[/tex]

Where

[tex]u=x(\tau)[/tex]

[tex]dv= \delta(t-\tau) d\tau[/tex]

Then:

[tex]du=x'(\tau) d\tau[/tex]

[tex]v= 1[/tex]


If you plug this back in you get:

[tex]x(\tau) - x(\tau) = 0[/tex]

Total nonsense!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Cyrus said:
[tex]dv= \delta(t-\tau) d\tau[/tex]

Then:

[tex]v= 1[/tex]

Total nonsense!

When you do your math wrong you get total nonsense. The integral of the delta distribution is the Heaviside function, not 1.

Using definite integrals (which is the only thing that makes sense when using the delta distribution), the goal is to evaluate the definite integral

[tex]\int_a^b x(\tau)\delta(t-\tau)\,d\tau[/tex]

where [itex]a<b[/itex] and x(t) is well-behaved over (a,b). There are three cases to investigate:
  1. [itex]t<a[/itex], which should yield zero,
  2. [itex]t>b[/itex], which should also yield zero, and
  3. [itex]t\in(a,b)[/itex], which should yield [itex]x(t)[/itex].

Integrating by parts,

[tex]\int_a^b x(\tau)\delta(t-\tau)\,d\tau =<br /> -\,x(\tau)H(t-\tau)\Bigl|_{\tau=a}^b + \int_a^b x^{\prime}(\tau)H(t-\tau)\,d\tau[/tex]

In case (1), the first two terms vanish because [itex]H(t-a)=H(t-b)=0[/itex] since both [itex]t-a[/itex] and [itex]t-b[/itex] are negative. Similarly, the integral also vanishes, so the result is zero.

In case (2), the Heaviside function [itex]H(t-\tau)[/itex] is identically one for all [itex]\tau\in(a,b)[/itex]. The results of integrating by parts reduces to
[tex]x(a)-x(b)+ \int_a^b x^{\prime}(\tau)\,d\tau = x(a)-x(b)+x(b)-x(a) = 0[/tex]

In case (3), the Heaviside function changes from 1 to 0 at [itex]\tau=t[/itex]. The results of integrating by parts reduces to
[tex]x(a)+ \int_a^t x^{\prime}(\tau)\,d\tau = x(a)+x(t)-x(a) = x(t)[/tex]

Which is exactly what was expected in all three cases.
 


I got to run right now, but for now, THANKS DH! :smile:
 


Hi DH, I think you might have an error in your signs.

How come the its = - ... +

I think it should be + ... -

No?
 


No.

The goal is to integrate [itex]\int x(\tau) \delta(t-\tau)\,d\tau[/itex] by parts. Setting [itex]u=x(\tau)[/itex] and [itex]dv=\delta(t-\tau)d\tau[/itex], then [itex]du=x'(\tau)d\tau[/itex] and [itex]v=-\,H(t-\tau)[/itex]. The sign change results from the [itex]t-\tau[/itex] argument to the delta distribution.
 


I see. I want the more general case, where the upper and lower limits are +/- infinity. So then, the last case holds just as you stated but a is -inft instead of a finite value.

When it comes to the last integral, it would have to be split up as:

[tex]\int^\infty_{t+} + \int^t_{-\infty}[/tex]

Where the second integral is *just after* t, right?

Otherwise, if it were split at the value of time t, you would get 2x(t) when you did the integral piecewise.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K