Is Dirac Delta a Function or a Distribution?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of the Dirac delta function, specifically whether it should be classified as a function or a distribution. Participants explore the implications of its properties, particularly in relation to integration and definitions within mathematical frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the Dirac delta as an "infinitely high, infinitely thin spike" at the origin, arguing that its integral property suggests it can be viewed as a function despite being zero everywhere else.
  • Another participant acknowledges the possibility of defining a function that is infinite at a single point, but argues that the standard definition of the integral would yield a value of zero for this function, contradicting the properties of the Dirac delta.
  • A question is raised regarding the definition of the integral being referenced, specifically whether it pertains to the Riemann sum approach.
  • A later reply clarifies that the Lebesgue definition of the integral is being referenced, noting that it treats functions differing only on sets of Lebesgue measure zero as equivalent, which affects the integral's value.
  • One participant suggests that a rigorous treatment of the Dirac delta function necessitates the use of Schwartz's distributions, providing a link to further information.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the Dirac delta can be considered a function or if it is strictly a distribution. There is no consensus on the classification, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in definitions and assumptions regarding integrals, particularly in relation to different mathematical frameworks such as Riemann and Lebesgue integrals.

ShayanJ
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
605
In texts about dirac delta,you often can find sentences like "The delta function is sometimes thought of as an infinitely high, infinitely thin spike at the origin".
If we take into account the important property of dirac delta:
[itex]\int_\mathbb{R} \delta(x) dx=1[/itex]
and the fact that it is zero everywhere except at the origin,it seems that we can have an explanation for the quoted sentence.It can be said that the area under the curve of dirac delta should be one but it's width is zero so its height should be infinite.
Everything seems to work out well until it is said that,rigorously,dirac delta isn't a function because no function which is zero everywhere except at one point,can have non-zero definite integral .

But the explanation I gave for the dirac delta being infinite at origin,can be applied to a function like f(x) defined as [itex]f(0)=\infty \ \mbox{and} \ f(x \neq 0)=0[/itex]

The definite integral of f(x) can be thought of as the area of a rectangle having zero width
and infinite height so having a finite and possibly non-zero area.

So it seems that's not a good reason for telling that dirac delta isn't a function.
I'll appreciate any idea.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, you can define a function that way. This function would be "extended real-valued" instead of "real-valued", but that's not a problem. The problem is that the standard definition of the integral assigns the value 0 to this function, not 1.
 
What you mean by the standard definition of the integral?
Is it the limit of the Riemann sum?
You mean by doing that sum and taking the limit,the integral of f(x) comes out to be zero?
 
I'm referring to the Lebesgue definition of the integral. It assigns the same value to any two functions that differ only on a set of Lebesgue measure 0. Your f differs from the constant function 0 only on the set {0}, which has Lebesgue measure 0. So the value of f at 0 is actually irrelevant to the value of the integral.
 
A mathematically rigorous treatment of Dirac delta function requires using Schwartz's distributions.
http://www2.math.umd.edu/~trivisa/distributions.pdf
The above shows the connection.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K