Is the Dirac Delta Function Squared Equal to Itself?

jk22
Messages
732
Reaction score
25
I consider the Dirac delta.

In physics the delta squared has an infinite norm : $$\int\delta (x)^2=\infty $$

But if i look at delta being a functional i could write : $$\delta [f]=f (0) $$ hence $$\delta^2 [f]=\delta [\delta [f]]=\delta [\underbrace {f (0)}_{constant function}]=f (0)$$

Thus in this view $$\delta^2=\delta $$ ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Dirac delta is defined by the integral
##\int \delta(c) g(x) dx = g(c)##
If you plug in ##g(x) = \delta(x)## then you get
##\int \delta(c) \delta(x) dx = \delta(c)## which isn't finite. The integral fails.

You can think of the integral as a functional, but it doesn't make sense to think of delta as a functional.
 
Khashishi said:
You can think of the integral as a functional, but it doesn't make sense to think of delta as a functional.
Dirac delta is indeed a linear functional. Specifically it is the linear functional such that ##f \mapsto f(0)##. Schwartz distributions are our most developed theory of generalized functions, and there all Schwartz distributions are linear functionals.

Now to OP. If you want ##\delta^2 = \delta \cdot \delta## to exist as a Schwartz distribution as well, then it turns out that ##\delta^2 = c\delta## for some constant ##c##, but not for the reason you posted. The notation ##\delta^2## is reserved for the product of Dirac with itself, not the composition of Dirac with itself. As to what ##c## is, there's a lot of disagreement. If the product defined is a "normal product" then ##c=0##. Some mathematicians have argued that non-zero c has physical meaning. Some argue ##c = \infty##. Others define it to be ##c = \delta(0)## and not define what that means (as long as it cancels in the end they are happy with it). So yeah a lot of disagreement.

That being said, if you aren't working with Schwartz distributions, such as working in Colombeu algebra, then it is the operator ##f(x) \mapsto f(-x)^2## (technically the equivalence class of such operators), which in turn corresponds to the non-linear functional ##f \mapsto f(0)^2##

Edit: One last thing. There are people who write ##\delta^2## for ##\delta(x)\delta(y)##, i.e. the two dimensional Dirac delta. But then you wouldn't have ##\int \delta^2 = \infty## at the top of your post, so I'm ignoring that situation.
 
Last edited:
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