I Lebesgue Integral of Dirac Delta "function"

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the Lebesgue measurability and integrability of a function defined as f(x) = +∞ if x = 0 and 0 otherwise. It is established that this "function" is not well-defined in the context of real-valued functions, as +∞ is not a member of the real numbers. However, it can be treated within the framework of Lebesgue integration, where it is measurable and its integral is considered to be 0, as it differs from 0 only on a set of measure zero. The conversation highlights the distinction between treating the Dirac delta function as a traditional function versus a distribution, emphasizing the need for rigorous definitions in mathematical contexts. Ultimately, the Lebesgue integral exists and is defined as 0, despite the initial confusion surrounding the treatment of +∞.
  • #31
lightarrow said:
Thanks for the link, I'll certainly will watch it. My initial question has been motivated from the fact a physics teacher stated that the Dirac Delta distribution is the only correct way of doing the integral, from - oo to +oo, of:

f(x) = 0, if x is different fro 0
f(x) = +oo if x =0

(and up to here I certainly agree with him)

/because the lebesgue integral of f(x) is zero/.

I replied to him that f(0) = +oo is meaningless (even in the codomain - oo +oo) and it's this the /first/ reason why the lebesgue integral of that f(x) cannot give the right answer.
If I "approximate" f(x) with the functions

f_n(x) = k*n for -1/n < x < 1/n
f_n(x) = 0 else

I get k as integral.
If I approximate f(x) with

g_n(x) = n^2 for -1/n < x < 1/n
g_n(x) = 0 else
I get +oo.

If I use:
h_n(x) = sqrt(n) for -1/n < x < 1/n
h_n(x) = 0 else
I get 0.

So, to me, it's impossibile to do the lebesgue integral of f(x) without precisly specifing what "f(0) = +oo" means. Or, the Lebesgue integral simply cannot be computed.

--
lightarrow
Still, this is better and more rigorous than what I did , but you still do not get an actual value of 0 unless you extend continuously. You can also redefine , e.g., ##f(x)=1/x## so that ##f(0)= +\infty##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
WWGD said:
Still, this is better and more rigorous than what I did , but you still do not get an actual value of 0 unless you extend continuously. You can also redefine , e.g., ##f(x)=1/x## so that ##f(0)= +\infty##
Ok, I can also take ##f_n(x) = (n/\sqrt(\pi)) exp[-(nx)^2]##

--
lightarrow
 
  • #33
lightarrow said:
Ok, I can also take ##f_n(x) = (n/\sqrt(\pi)) exp[-(nx)^2]##

--
lightarrow
Sorry, don't see it here, ##f_n(0)=\frac {n}{\sqrt{\pi}} ##. My point is that , you can use sequential continuity in order to define ##f_n(0)##, and do not define it explicitly; just a (relatively minor) point.
 
  • #34
Thanks to every one for the answers.

--
lightarrow
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K