Proving x*delta' ~ -delta with Generalized Functions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter aphrodasic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the relationship x * (delta)' ~ -delta, where delta represents the Dirac delta function and (delta)' is its first derivative. Participants explore the use of generalized functions and integration by parts in this context, focusing on theoretical aspects and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks assistance in proving the relationship using generalized functions, mentioning difficulties encountered in their approach.
  • Another participant provides a definition of the derivative of a generalized function, which is accepted by others as correct.
  • A participant asserts that the identity x * delta'(x) = -delta(x) holds under specific integral conditions involving test functions.
  • Concerns are raised about the integration by parts method used by one participant, suggesting a misunderstanding in the choice of functions for u and v.
  • One participant expresses confusion about their integration by parts steps and the resulting expressions, indicating a lack of clarity in their approach.
  • Another participant questions the use of a Gaussian function as a definition for the delta function, seeking validation for this approach.
  • There is a discussion about the correct notation and understanding of integration by parts, with differing interpretations noted among participants.
  • One participant mentions that their attempts at integration by parts are unsuccessful due to uncertainties regarding the derivatives of the delta function.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus on the proof or the methods used, with multiple competing views and unresolved issues regarding integration techniques and definitions of the delta function.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the delta function and its derivatives, as well as the specific conditions under which integration by parts is applied. The use of generalized functions and their definitions is also a point of contention.

aphrodasic
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
hi
can anyone tell me how could one go about to prove
x* (delta)' ~ -delta

where delta is the dirac delta funtion of x.
~ approximately equal

delta' = first derivative of delta

i know this can be done by using the concept of GENERALISED FUNTIONS.
WHICH INVOLVES MUTLIPLYING THE LHS OF THE EQUATION WITH A GOOD FUNCTION and taking limits to infinity to get the RHS..
I tried but there is something wrong.
can anyone help me out?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is your definition of the derivative of a generalized function?

In the one I'm most familiar with, the definition of the derivative of a generalized function [itex]\varphi[/itex], its that it's the generalized function satisfying
[tex] \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \varphi'(x) f(x) \, dx<br /> =<br /> -\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \varphi(x) f'(x) \, dx[/tex]
for all test functions f.
 
yes, that is the correct defination.
 
So, your identity
[tex]x \delta'(x) = -\delta(x)[/tex]
is true if and only if
[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} x \delta'(x) f(x) \, dx = <br /> \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} (-\delta(x)) f(x) \, dx = -f(0)[/tex]
for all test functions f, right? So what did you get when you used the definition of derivative?
 
i expanded the LHS of your equation using PArts.
where u = x(delta') and v = f
and i got stuck.
i am still not able to trace the steps which you did to land on to the expression which you posted in the previous step.
 
Isn't one of the important points in doing integration by parts that you choose something to be du/dx, and the other part to be v? Setting u= somthing and v=something seems lke you're not sure how to integrate by parts.

There is clearly only one choice to make for du/dx...
 
i am still not able to trace the steps which you did to land on to the expression which you posted in the previous step.
I was simply restating what you needed to prove, not actually providing a proof.



I'm not sure what you're trying to do with IBP; if you were setting [itex]u = x \delta'(x)[/itex] and [itex]v = f(x)[/itex], that would allow you to do something with
[tex]\int u \, dv = \int f'(x) \delta'(x) x \, dx[/tex]
but it wouldn't help at all when the integrand is [itex]\delta'(x) x f(x) \, dx[/itex].



Did you try applying the definition of the derivative of a generalized function?
(This is equivalent to formally doing integration by parts with a certain choice, but I find it easier to think about by treating it as a rule in of itself)
 
Last edited:
yes i used the defination of the GF,
taking u = delta'*f'; v = x
and solving the integral gives me zero. something is going wrong..
 
i was wondering can i use the following defination for delta function
delta = n/(pi)^.5 *exp (-(n*x)^2)
having done this i can get my answer.
but i do not know if this is correct?
 
  • #10
Huh? There are no u's and v's in the definition I quoted...

I agree with matt's assessment, though; you seem to have forgotten integration by parts. If you want to use integration by parts here, I really think it would be worthwhile to reopen your calculus textbook and do some integration by parts exercises before proceeding with this problem.
 
  • #11
i am not sure what is going wrong here..
integral u(x)v(x) dx = u(x)integral v(x) - integral( (derivative u(x)) (integral v(x)) )
where u(x) = something and v(x) = somethign else.

but anyways, i solved my way through the problem, if only i can replace delta by the defination of gaussian functions delta= n/(pi)^.5 *exp (-(n*x)^2) where n--> infinity.
i get my result
 
  • #12
aphrodasic said:
i am not sure what is going wrong here..
integral u(x)v(x) dx = u(x)integral v(x) - integral( (derivative u(x)) (integral v(x)) )
where u(x) = something and v(x) = somethign else.
You use a different notation for IBP than I've ever seen. I'm used to:
[tex]\int u(x) v'(x) \, dx = u(x) v(x) - \int u'(x) v(x) \, dx[/tex]
So your v is my v'.


Anyways, it's clear why your attempts at integration by parts isn't working: you have no idea what delta''(x) is, so it doesn't help to differentiate delta'(x).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
13K