Swapnil
- 459
- 6
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=73447
I saw the above tutorial by arildno and looked at how he defined the Dirac Delta "function" as a functional. But isn't there a more easier way to do this. I have seen the following definition in a lot of textbooks.
\delta(t) \triangleq \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \Pi\Big(\frac{t}{\epsilon}\Big)
where \Pi(t) is the gate function and is defined as
<br /> \Pi (t) := <br /> \begin{cases}<br /> 0 & \mbox{ for } |x| > \frac{1}{2} \\<br /> \frac{1}{2} & \mbox{ for } |x| = \frac{1}{2} \\<br /> 1 & \mbox{ for } |x| < \frac{1}{2},<br /> \end{cases} <br />
What's wrong by defining the delta function in this way?
I saw the above tutorial by arildno and looked at how he defined the Dirac Delta "function" as a functional. But isn't there a more easier way to do this. I have seen the following definition in a lot of textbooks.
\delta(t) \triangleq \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \Pi\Big(\frac{t}{\epsilon}\Big)
where \Pi(t) is the gate function and is defined as
<br /> \Pi (t) := <br /> \begin{cases}<br /> 0 & \mbox{ for } |x| > \frac{1}{2} \\<br /> \frac{1}{2} & \mbox{ for } |x| = \frac{1}{2} \\<br /> 1 & \mbox{ for } |x| < \frac{1}{2},<br /> \end{cases} <br />
What's wrong by defining the delta function in this way?
Last edited: