Is the Dirac Delta Function Even?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the Dirac delta function, specifically whether it is an even function. Participants explore its properties, particularly in relation to its behavior under transformations and the implications of its definition as a distribution.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the Dirac delta function's evenness, questioning the validity of expressions like \(\int\delta(h-x)\;f(x)\;dx=f(h)\) compared to \(\int\delta(x-h)\;f(x)\;dx=f(h)\).
  • Another participant discusses the behavior of the Dirac delta function under variable changes, noting that the definition of distributions like the delta function can lead to ambiguities in notation.
  • A different participant clarifies that the Dirac delta function is zero everywhere except at zero, suggesting that this characteristic supports its classification as an even function.
  • One participant seeks to understand why the delta function is considered even, proposing that expressions like \(\delta(x-h) = \delta(-x+h)\) imply a reflection across the axis, which raises questions about the function's graphical representation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of the Dirac delta function as an even function. There are differing interpretations and explanations regarding its properties and implications, indicating ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

There are ambiguities in notation and definitions related to the Dirac delta function, particularly concerning its treatment as a distribution versus a traditional function. Some assumptions about variable transformations and the nature of the delta function remain unresolved.

sirona
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi this is my first post here so I'm sorry if my question seems trivial.
I haven't worked a lot with the dirac delta function before, so i always thought that the shifting property would only work as:
\int\delta(x-h)\;f(x)\;dx=f(h)
Now I've been reading some articles and I came across expressions like:
\int\delta(h-x)\;f(x)\;dx=f(h)
which didn't make sense to me so I checked on the internet and saw that the delta function is supposed to be an even function.
Now I know it is not entirely a true function, but still the only description I know is that it's zero everywhere except for x. If I can give values to x other than zero, than
\delta(x)=\delta(-x) means for example
\delta(5)=\delta(-5) which doesn't make sense to me.
So I'll be very glad if someone can explain to me why it's an even function.
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To a great extent, the kind of object the dirac delta function is plays well with changes of variable. The simplest case is when f is an invertible, differentiable, increasing function, \varphi is a distribution, and both g(x) and g(f(x)) f'(x) are test functions, then

\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \varphi(x) g(x) \, dx = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \varphi(f(x)) g(f(x)) f'(x) \, dx

This equation can be taken as the very definition of \varphi(f(x)) -- although some effort must be taken to show this definition is well-defined.

For other f, things are a little trickier. f(x) = -x isn't so bad, since it's still differentiable and invertible. Other f simply won't make sense all, such as when f(x) = 0 in the case where \varphi = \delta.



I should point out that there is an ambiguity in notation. When we have expressions involving a variable, such as sin(x) or x + 3, sometimes we mean for that expression to represent the (undetermined) real number that is the result of the computation involving the (undetermined) real number x. Other times, we mean for that expression to represent a function of a single variable, which we have named x.

The latter kind of notation is often applied to distributions like the Dirac delta, since it is rather convenient to write.
 
sirona said:
Now I know it is not entirely a true function, but still the only description I know is that it's zero everywhere except for x.
x being which number, exactly?

The delta function is, roughly, zero everywhere except for 0, and as such is obviously even - delta(0) = +infinity (metaphorically speaking), delta(non-zero) = 0. To say that it's zero everywhere except for "x" doesn't even make sense.
 
yes ok i see your point.
no need to be hostile, what i meant to ask was why it's an even function in general. so i could also phrase it like
\delta (x-h) = \delta (-x+h)
or just give a number
\delta (x-5) = \delta (-x+5)
In this case I just felt like the "spike" formed by the delta function would be on the other side of the axis, but the distribution argument makes sense.
Thanks for the replies!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K