Prove that derivative of the theta function is the dirac delta function

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the derivative of the theta function is the Dirac delta function. The original poster presents the theta function defined piecewise and expresses the need to demonstrate the relationship through integration and differentiation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to show that the integral of the derivative of the theta function equals 1, while expressing uncertainty about the limits of integration and the resulting value. Other participants suggest considering the problem rigorously and reference the properties of distributions and the fundamental theorem of calculus.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring different approaches to the problem, with some suggesting a more rigorous framework for understanding distributions. There is an acknowledgment of the original poster's method and a suggestion that it may not be the most careful approach.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of the need for a rigorous understanding of the delta function and its properties, as well as the implications of using intuitive versus formal methods in the context of distributions.

demonelite123
Messages
216
Reaction score
0
let θ(x-x') be the function such that θ = 1 when x-x' > 0 and θ = 0 when x-x' < 0. Show that d/dx θ(x-x') = δ(x - x').

it is easy to show that d/dx θ(x-x') is 0 everywhere except at x = x'. To show that d/dx θ(x-x') is the dirac delta function i also need to show that the integral over the real line of d/dx θ(x-x') = 1.

this is what i tried: ∫ d/dx θ(x-x') dx' = d/dx ∫ θ(x-x') dx' = d/dx ∫ 1 dx' but now i am a little stuck and not sure if this is the way to go or not. my plan was to show that the integral equals x so that d/dx (x) = 1 like we wanted. but it seems like the bottom limit of integration will be x and i'll end up getting -1 instead of 1. can anyone give me some advice on this problem? thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is one of those problems that tends to be really easy if you think of them in a rigorous fashion rather than a heuristic "intuitive" fashion.

What foundations are you using for the delta function and derivatives and such? When working with tempered distributions, the derivative of a distribution F is the (unique) distribution which satisfies, for all test functions [itex]\varphi[/itex],
[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} F'(x) \varphi(x) \, dx = -\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} F(x) \varphi'(x) \, dx[/tex]​
 
Just think about what is [itex]f(x) = \int_{-\infty}^{x} \delta(t) dt[/itex] for each [itex]x \ne 0[/itex]. You should obvious separate it into positive and negative [itex]x[/itex] case. Then the fundamental theorem of calculus applies.
 
mathfeel said:
Just think about what is [itex]f(x) = \int_{-\infty}^{x} \delta(t) dt[/itex] for each [itex]x \ne 0[/itex]. You should obvious separate it into positive and negative [itex]x[/itex] case. Then the fundamental theorem of calculus applies.

ah that's a similar idea to what i did. thanks for your answer! so would this be a more rigorous way to do this problem? i know that taking the derivative operator out of the integral isn't being very careful but the physics book seemed to do that all the time so i thought it would be "ok" since i wan't doing mathematics here.
 

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K