Integrating a Kronecker Delta with F(u) and G(v)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter natski
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Delta Integrating
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the integration of a Kronecker delta function within a double integral involving two functions, F(u) and G(v). Participants explore the implications of using a Kronecker delta versus a Dirac delta function, and the potential outcomes of the integral based on these choices. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and conceptual clarification regarding the properties of delta functions in integrals.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant, Natski, presents an integral involving a Kronecker delta and seeks an equivalent property to that of the Dirac delta in one-dimensional integrals.
  • Another participant questions the use of a Kronecker delta, suggesting that it may not be appropriate for continuous variables and prompting Natski to clarify their derivation.
  • Natski asserts that the integral simplifies to a form where the two functions are the same, indicating a potential misunderstanding of the delta function's role.
  • Some participants argue that the integral should be zero, citing that the Kronecker delta does not contribute to the integral in the context of continuous variables, as it only evaluates at discrete points.
  • There is a suggestion that if the Kronecker delta is treated as a continuous function, the integral would still yield zero due to the measure of the set where the delta function is non-zero being zero in two dimensions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the integral evaluates to zero and the appropriateness of using a Kronecker delta in this context. There is no consensus on the correct interpretation or outcome of the integral.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the distinction between Kronecker and Dirac delta functions, noting that the former is typically used in discrete contexts, which may affect the validity of the integral's formulation. The discussion also reflects uncertainty regarding the assumptions made in the derivation of the integral.

natski
Messages
262
Reaction score
2
Hi alll,

I have an integral which includes a Kronecker delta:

[tex] I = \int_{u=0}^{a} \int_{v=0}^{a} F(u) G(v) \delta_{u,v} \, \mathrm{d}u \, \mathrm{d}v[/tex]

I know that for a 1D integral there exists the special property: \int F(u) DiracDelta(u-a) = F(a)

However, is there something equivalent for the problem I have stated in the first equation? I was thinking perhaps that:

I = \int F(u) G(u) du dv or something similar...

Cheers,

Natski
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fixing your latex to make it readable:

[tex] I = \int_{u=0}^{a} \int_{v=0}^{a} F(u) G(v) \delta_{u,v} du dv[/tex]
 
Are you sure that it is a Kronecker Delta and not a Dirac Delta?
 
Yes I believe so, but I did derive the equation myself. I thought there would be a way to convert between the two types of delta functions...
 
I have just obtained the following simplification, which may make the next step easier:

[tex] I = \int_{u=0}^{a} \int_{v=0}^{a} F(u) F(v) \delta_{u,v} \, \mathrm{d}u \, \mathrm{d}v[/tex]

i.e. the two functions are the same, just with a different variable.

Natski
 
I think it should be zero... the only thing that makes the integral with a Dirac Delta produce something different of zero is that it assumes infinite value at a certain point. For any finite value, which is the case for any function by definition (the Dirac Delta is NOT a function by definition), the Riemann integral should be zero, as it's not altered by a single point.
 
You're really sure it's a Kronecker delta? Were you always dealing with integrals, or did you have sums that you approximated as integrals?

How did you arrive at this equation? Kronecker deltas do not take continuous variables as their arguments, so I would suspect that you either converted sums to integrals but didn't convert the Kronecker delta or you made some other error. Please tell us how you got the Kronecker so that we can try to figure out what the problem is.
 
Yes it is definitely Kronecker.

I also think that this integral is zero. When I plot the function, it looks like a 2D function in a 3D environment and thus the "area" under the curve is infinitesimal.

Thanks for your advise on this!

Natski
 
natski said:
Hi alll,

I have an integral which includes a Kronecker delta:

[tex] I = \int_{u=0}^{a} \int_{v=0}^{a} F(u) G(v) \delta_{u,v} \, \mathrm{d}u \, \mathrm{d}v[/tex]

I know that for a 1D integral there exists the special property: \int F(u) DiracDelta(u-a) = F(a)

However, is there something equivalent for the problem I have stated in the first equation? I was thinking perhaps that:

I = \int F(u) G(u) du dv or something similar...

Cheers,

Natski
If this is, in fact, a continuous Kronecker [itex]\delta[/itex], [itex]\delta_{xy}= 1[/itex] if x= y, 0 other wise, then [itex]F(u)G(u)\delta_{uv}[/itex] is 0 except on the line u= v. Since that is one dimensional it has two dimensional measure 0 and the double integral of any function on that set is 0.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K