Taylor series expansion of Dirac delta

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Taylor series expansion of the Dirac delta function and its derivatives. Participants explore the algebraic properties of the Dirac delta function, particularly in relation to composite functions and the implications of differentiating the delta function.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to derive a Taylor series expansion for a composite function involving the Dirac delta function, specifically whether to replace variables directly or differentiate first.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the Dirac delta is not a function but a generalized function (distribution), arguing against the validity of writing a series expansion for it.
  • Some participants mention that the Dirac delta can be defined by its action as an integration kernel, with a specific example of a smooth approximation provided.
  • A participant suggests that the k-th derivative of the Dirac delta could be expressed in terms of a test function, referencing a definition found on Wikipedia, and questions if this could aid in constructing an expansion.
  • Further clarification is provided on how to find the k-th derivative of the Dirac delta function using integration by parts, leading to a relationship with the derivatives of test functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the treatment of the Dirac delta function as a conventional function suitable for series expansion. There are competing views on how to approach the Taylor series expansion and the implications of differentiating the delta function.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations are noted regarding the definitions and properties of the Dirac delta function, particularly its status as a distribution rather than a traditional function, which affects how series expansions and derivatives are handled.

friend
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
9
I'm trying to understand how the algebraic properties of the Dirac delta function might be passed onto the argument of the delta function.

One way to go from a function to its argument is to derive a Taylor series expansion of the function in terms of its argument. Then you are dealing with the argument and powers of it.

Normally, the Taylor series expansion for f(x) is:
[tex]f(x) = \sum\limits_{n = 0}^\infty {\frac{{{f^{(n)}}({x_0})}}{{n!}} \cdot {{(x - {x_0})}^n}}[/tex]

But how does this change for a composite function? How do you expand [itex]f(g(x))[/itex]? Do you just replace x in the sum with g(x) and x0 with g(x0)? Or do you differentiat f(g(x)) with respect to x in each term before setting x to x0?

But I suspect the even harder question is how do you take the derivatives of the Dirac delta function for each term in the sum. And if you have to evaluate it at x0, won't that make each term infinity? Is there an easy expression for [itex]{\delta ^{(n)}}({x_0})[/itex]? Or better yet, how do we evaluate [itex]{\delta ^{(n)}}(g(x))[/itex]? Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The mistake you are making is that the Dirac delta is not a function. It has some properties of a function, and is sometimes called a generalized function (better known as distribution). One of these is that you can define an n-th order derivative. But one of the things you can't do is write down a series, see for example this old PF thread.

There are different ways to define the Dirac delta. Normally, in distribution theory, it is defined by the way it acts as integration kernel, i.e. by the property [itex]\int \delta(x) f(x) \, dx = f(0)[/itex]. However, you can write it down as the limit of a series of continuous functions, my favourite one being
[tex]\delta_a(x) = \frac{1}{a \sqrt{\pi}} e^{-x^2 / a^2}[/tex]
such that [itex]\delta(x) = \lim_{a \to 0} \delta_a(x)[/itex]
and of course you are free to expand [itex]\delta_a(x)[/itex] because it's as smooth as you could possibly wish.
 
CompuChip said:
The mistake you are making is that the Dirac delta is not a function. It has some properties of a function, and is sometimes called a generalized function (better known as distribution). One of these is that you can define an n-th order derivative. But one of the things you can't do is write down a series, see for example this old PF thread.

There are different ways to define the Dirac delta. Normally, in distribution theory, it is defined by the way it acts as integration kernel, i.e. by the property [itex]\int \delta(x) f(x) \, dx = f(0)[/itex]. However, you can write it down as the limit of a series of continuous functions, my favourite one being
[tex]\delta_a(x) = \frac{1}{a \sqrt{\pi}} e^{-x^2 / a^2}[/tex]
such that [itex]\delta(x) = \lim_{a \to 0} \delta_a(x)[/itex]
and of course you are free to expand [itex]\delta_a(x)[/itex] because it's as smooth as you could possibly wish.

I was thinking more in terms like this for the kth derivative of the delta,
[tex]{\delta ^{(k)}}[\varphi ] = {( - 1)^k}{\varphi ^{(k)}}(0)[/tex]
that I found about a third of the way down on the wikipedia.com website for the Dirac delta. Could this be used to construct an expansion? I don't know if the [itex]\varphi[/itex] here can be used as the g(x) in my composition.
 
Last edited:
Yes, this is the definition as you would get it from distribution theory, where the Dirac delta would be defined by the way it "acts on" other functions [itex]\phi[/itex].
This definition is what I said earlier:
[tex]\int \delta(x) \phi(x) dx = \phi(0)[/tex]

To find the k'th derivative, apply partial integration k times to
[tex]\int \delta^{(k)}(x) f(x) dx[/tex]
to move it over to the test function f(x). This gives
[tex]\int \delta^{(k)}(x) f(x) dx = (-1)^k \int \delta(x) f^{(k)}(x) \, dx[/tex]
which is [itex](-1)^k f^{(k)}(0)[/itex] by the definition applied to [itex]\phi = f^{(k)}[/itex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K