Understanding Dirac Delta Squares: Clarifying Doubts

hermitian
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
hi,

may someone help me to clarify my doubts...

in my work, i encounter diracdelta square \delta(x-x_1)\delta(x-x_2) i am not sure what it means... it seems if i integrate it

\int dx \;\delta(x-x_1)\delta(x-x_2) = \delta(x_1-x_2) is either zero of infinity.

is this correct?

thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Technically, saying that it has "value zero or infinity" doesn't make sense. Any Dirac delta only makes sense under an integral sign (although in physics, we tend to think of it as being an "infinite spike with a finite area").

It is correct that
<br /> \int dx \;\delta(x-x_1)\delta(x-x_2) = \delta(x_1-x_2)<br />

So, again, this expression again only makes sense inside an integral, like
\int dx_1 \int dx \; \delta(x - x_1) \delta(x - x_2) = \int dx_1 \; \delta(x_1 - x_2)
which is one or zero (depending on whether or not x2 lies in the integration interval of the x1 integral).
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top