Using sifting property to prove other properties

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the sifting property of the Dirac delta function and its implications for proving related properties. The sifting property allows for the evaluation of integrals involving the delta function, leading to the conclusion that δ(t) equals zero for t not equal to zero and is undefined at t equals zero. One participant successfully proved that the integral of δ(t) over the entire real line equals one but struggled with the first two properties. Another contributor clarified that δ(0) cannot be treated as a number due to contradictions arising from its definition. The conversation highlights the complexities of understanding the Dirac delta function and its rigorous mathematical framework.
Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
Suppose you have the following definition of Dirac-delta function, or the so called sifting property:

\int^{d}_{c}f(t)δ(t-a)dt =\left\{\begin{array}{cc}f(a),&amp;\mbox{ if }<br /> c\leq x \leq d\\0, &amp; \mbox{ if } x&gt;d \mbox{ or } x&lt;c \\ \mbox{undefined}, &amp; \mbox {if } x = d \mbox{ or } x = c \end{array}\right.

Can I use this to prove the following?

\mbox{ 1) } δ(t) = 0 \ t ≠ 0
\mbox{ 2) } δ(t) \mbox{ is undefined at } t = 0
\mbox{ 3) } \int^{∞}_{-∞}δ(t)dt = 1

I was able to prove property 3 but it seems not possible to prove the first two. But I am probably mistaken else my text would not use the sifting property to define this unit impulse function. Any ideas? Thanks!

BiP
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The delta function is rigorously defined as a linear functional on the vector space of all functions (which satisfy nice properties, e.g. continuous, decay quickly, etc.). If we started using that terminology would you be totally lost?

"Proving" that delta(0) is not a number is fairly simple in a naive way:
\int_{0}^{0} 1*\delta(t) dt = 1
If delta(0) was a number then we would get the answer 0, not 1, so delta(0) can't be a number
 
I'm sorry Office I don't fully comprehend your proof. I don't understand why Dirac(0), if it were a number, would lead to a contradiction involving the integral in your post. My knowledge of Dirac delta is very sloppy, nor do I have any idea what a functional is. And any tips on how to prove property 1?

BiP
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K