Is There a Simpler Definition for the Dirac Delta Function?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the definition of the Dirac Delta function, exploring various interpretations and representations. Participants examine both traditional definitions and operator-based approaches, considering the implications of each in the context of physics and mathematics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a common textbook definition of the Dirac Delta function using a limit involving the gate function, questioning its simplicity.
  • Another participant argues that the limit of real-valued functions does not exist, suggesting that physicists treat the delta function as an operator rather than a traditional function.
  • A participant notes that their tutorial aimed to provide a rigorous understanding of the Dirac Delta function but acknowledges that it does not cover all aspects of distribution theory.
  • There is a discussion about whether the operator definition of the delta function is a result of something or merely a definition, with some participants leaning towards it being a definition.
  • One participant proposes that the delta function can be treated as an operator that acts on continuous functions, leading to a simpler interpretation where the delta function evaluates to the function value at zero.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness and implications of various definitions of the Dirac Delta function. No consensus is reached on a singular definition or approach, and multiple competing interpretations remain present.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations in the discussion include the dependence on specific definitions of functions and operators, as well as the unresolved nature of the mathematical steps involved in the definitions presented.

Swapnil
Messages
459
Reaction score
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.

[tex]\delta(t) \triangleq \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \Pi\Big(\frac{t}{\epsilon}\Big)[/tex]

where [tex]\Pi(t)[/tex] is the gate function and is defined as
[tex] \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} [/tex]

What's wrong by defining the delta function in this way?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Mainly because that limit of real-valued functions does not exist.


However, physics has this weird notational convention that makes everything an operator -- I've never seen anyone try to explicitly state it, but it's evident in how they manipulate different kinds of expressions. When a physicist writes that expression, what they are really writing is the operator pointwise defined as:

[tex] \delta(t) [ f(t) ] \triangleq \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}<br /> \frac{1}{\epsilon} \Pi\left( \frac{t}{\epsilon} \right) [ f(t) ][/tex]

And since [itex]\Pi[/itex] is representable by an actual function, the latter operator application is an honest-to-goodness integral:

[tex] \Pi\left( \frac{t}{\epsilon} \right) [ f(t) ] =<br /> \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \Pi\left( \frac{t}{\epsilon} \right) f(t) \, dt[/tex]

Of course, physicists like to write the left-hand side as an integral too, even though it really isn't:

[tex] \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \delta(t) f(t) \, dt \triangleq \delta(t) [ f(t) ][/tex]

(unless you get into measure theory, and define [itex]\delta(t) \, dt[/itex] to be a certain measure. But if we did that, then we wouldn't be defining it via the limit expression above!)
 
Last edited:
Swapnil:
What I tried to do in that tutorial, was to give ONE fairly rigorous way to make sense of the Dirac Delta function.

The aim of the tutorial is just that, and being thus limited, many interesting issues are not at all addressed there. For example, you won't find any evolved, mature distribution theory in it.
 
Hurkyl said:
And since [itex]\Pi[/itex] is representable by an actual function, the latter operator application is an honest-to-goodness integral:

[tex] \Pi\left( \frac{t}{\epsilon} \right) [ f(t) ] =<br /> \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \Pi\left( \frac{t}{\epsilon} \right) f(t) \, dt[/tex]

Just for the record: That's a definition of the operator, right?
 
Hurkyl said:
And since [itex]\Pi[/itex] is representable by an actual function, the latter operator application is an honest-to-goodness integral:
[tex] \Pi\left( \frac{t}{\epsilon} \right) [ f(t) ] =<br /> \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \Pi\left( \frac{t}{\epsilon} \right) f(t) \, dt[/tex]
Where is this coming from? Is it a result of something or is it a definition?
 
Swapnil said:
Where is this coming from? Is it a result of something or is it a definition?
Hrm, good question. Definition, I suppose.
 
Hurkyl said:
When a physicist writes that expression, what they are really writing is the operator pointwise defined as:

[tex]\delta(t) [ f(t) ] \triangleq \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}<br /> \frac{1}{\epsilon} \Pi\left( \frac{t}{\epsilon} \right) [ f(t) ][/tex]

And since [itex]\Pi[/itex] is representable by an actual function, the latter operator application is an honest-to-goodness integral:
[tex]\Pi\left( \frac{t}{\epsilon} \right) [ f(t) ] =<br /> \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \Pi\left( \frac{t}{\epsilon} \right) f(t) \, dt[/tex]
So essentially, the delta function can be treated as an operator with the following definition:
[tex]\delta(t) [ f(t) ] \triangleq \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}<br /> \frac{1}{\epsilon} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \Pi\left( \frac{t}{\epsilon} \right) f(t) \, dt[/tex]

right? ( I don't know why you included the definition in two steps.).
 
Last edited:
Right. And because one typically defines these operators to operate on certain sets of continuous functions, you can show that's equivalent to the simpler definition of delta:

[tex]\delta(t) [ f(t) ] = f(0).[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K