Properties of the dirac delta function

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the properties of the Dirac delta function, specifically the differentiation of the delta function in the context of integration. The integral \int \delta \prime(x-x')f(x') dx = f\prime(x) is examined, with a focus on the validity of differentiating the delta function with respect to x' and applying integration by parts. The user references Shankar's demonstration on page 62, ultimately concluding that Shankar's method is more straightforward and effective for proving the property.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Dirac delta function and its properties
  • Familiarity with integration by parts
  • Knowledge of functional derivatives
  • Basic concepts of distribution theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Dirac delta function in detail
  • Learn about integration by parts in the context of distributions
  • Explore functional derivatives and their applications
  • Review Shankar's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics" for further insights
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, mathematicians, and anyone studying advanced calculus or quantum mechanics who seeks a deeper understanding of the Dirac delta function and its applications in integration.

ptabor
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to show that
[tex]\int \delta \prime(x-x')f(x') dx = f\prime(x)[/tex]
can I differentiate delta with respect to x' instead (giving me a minus sign), and then integrate by parts and note that the delta function is zero at the boundaries? this will give me an integral involving f' and delta, so the f' would come out - but I'm not sure that this will shift the argument of f to x.
Shankar demonstrates the property on page 62, but I'd like to know if my method is valid.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hm, assuming that the integration on the left hand side is actually over [itex]x^\prime[/itex] and that [itex]x[/itex] is within the limits of the integration I believe that you can prove this using integration by parts.

Edit: Sorry, that's what you said :smile:

I took a look at Shankar and I like his way better.
 
Last edited:
yes, his derivation is more tidy and more direct. i did the proof using integration by parts first, and then happened upon his.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K