Is the Dirac Delta Function Even?

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!
 
Mathematics 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!
 
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top