What is the value of the integral of a delta function over a finite interval?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the evaluation of an integral involving a delta function over a finite interval, specifically in the context of a mass distribution on a ring. Participants explore the implications of integrating the delta function and the associated definitions and conventions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a scenario involving a mass distribution on a ring defined by the delta function and questions the value of the integral over the interval from 0 to 2π.
  • Another participant suggests adjusting the limits of integration to include an infinitesimal lower limit to arrive at a result of m for the integral.
  • A later reply discusses the periodic nature of the delta function when integrated over a circular domain, proposing that it contributes to the integral at both boundaries of the interval.
  • Some participants question the definition of the delta function and its properties, particularly regarding its evenness and the implications of integrating over finite intervals versus the entire real line.
  • There is a discussion about the validity of using certain test functions with the delta function and the conventions surrounding its integration, with some participants asserting that the integral from 0 to ∞ should yield 1/2 while others argue it could be 1.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the differing claims regarding the value of the integral and acknowledges their non-mathematical background.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the value of the integral or the definitions of the delta function. Multiple competing views and interpretations remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the properties of the delta function, the choice of test functions, and the implications of integrating over different domains. The discussion reflects a variety of interpretations and conventions that are not universally agreed upon.

benjamin_cro
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Problem arises from next situation. If we have some distribution (of mass for example) on a ring which is given by

\begin{equation}
\rho=m\delta(\phi)
\end{equation} where phi is azimuthal angle.

What is the value of integral ?

\begin{equation}
\int_0^{2\pi} \! \rho \, \mathrm{d} \phi
\end{equation}


If we use definition of delta function

\begin{equation}
\int_0^\infty \! \delta({x}) \, \mathrm{d} x=1/2
\end{equation}

result is m/2 but in this problem we integrate on the whole domain so i am not sure if it is necessary to divide by half!

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey benjamin_cro and welcome to the forums.

Hint: Sub in m*d(whatever_that_symbol_is_in_greek) into your equation and remember that Integral (a,b+c) = Integral (a,b) + Integral (b,c) where a < b < c (i.e. they are limits of the integral).
 
For convenience, I would probably take the lower limit of integration to be infinitesimally less than zero so that you get the result

$$\int_{0^-}^{2\pi} d\phi~m \delta(\phi) = m.$$

The reason I suggest this is because if you have a ring with a particle one it (which is where the mass is concentrated), then you can really assign the angular coordinate in any way you like and since you haven't changed the physical situation, you should get the same answer no matter how you do it. So, for instance, suppose I decide to orient the ring so that the mass is still at ##\phi = 0##, but I decide that ##\phi## is in the range ##[-\pi,\pi)##. Then, there is no issue at all:

$$\int_{-\pi}^\pi d\phi~m\delta(\phi) = m.$$

To put it in a slightly more technical way, really what you're doing is taking the delta function defined on the real line and compressing it onto the circle. Suppose you integrate the delta function against a periodic function f(x) (of period ##2\pi##, say)

$$\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx~f(x) \delta(x-x_0) & = & \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty \int_{2\pi k}^{2\pi (k+1)} dx~f(x) \delta(x-x_0) \\
&= & \int_0^{2\pi}dx~\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty f(x - 2\pi k) \delta(x-x_0 - 2\pi k) \\
&= & \int_0^{2\pi}dx~f(x) \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty \delta(x-x_0 - 2\pi k) \\
&= & \int_0^{2\pi}dx~f(x) \delta_{\rm circ}(x-x_0~\mbox{mod} 2\pi).
\end{eqnarray*}$$

The function ##\delta_{\rm circ}(x-x_0~\mbox{mod} 2\pi)## is defined in such a way that it will give a contribution to the integral whenever ##x = x_0 - 2\pi k## for some integer k. So, even if x is outside the integration bounds, it will still contribute to the integral. So, even if ##x_0 = 0## and you take the definition that the delta function only contributes a half when the argument is zero at a boundary, the circular delta function actually contributes at both boundaries: ##x=0## and ##x = 2\pi##, so you would get two halves and the overall integral would give you ##m## again.
 
Thank you very much for your explanation.
 
benjamin_cro said:
If we use definition of delta function

\begin{equation}
\int_0^\infty \! \delta({x}) \, \mathrm{d} x=1/2
\end{equation}

Is this definition of delta function?
Sometimes people say that the delta function is an even function and
its integral from -∞ to ∞ is 1, therefore it is 1/2 if it is integrated from -∞ to 0
or 0 to ∞.
Is this logic completely and mathematically right?
 
meltchocolate said:
Is this definition of delta function?
Sometimes people say that the delta function is an even function and
its integral from -∞ to ∞ is 1, therefore it is 1/2 if it is integrated from -∞ to 0
or 0 to ∞.
Is this logic completely and mathematically right?

No, its a heuristic. Dirac is a distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta#As_a_distribution so it acts on test functions. The two most popular classes of test functions are
  1. smooth functions with compact support,
  2. Schwartz functions.
Given a test function, f, we define
##\int_{-\infty}^\infty \delta(x) \, f(x)\, dx = f(0)##.
But f(x)=1 is not a valid test function, so ##\int_{-\infty}^\infty \delta(x) \, dx = 1## is invalid (it's actually undefined).

And ##\int_0^\infty \delta(x) \, f(x) \, dx = f(0)/2## is also convention. It's neither even nor odd. That's a property for functions whose domain is ℝ. What people mean is by that is choose a nanset which is even and approximate. The convention came about because
##\int_{-\infty}^\infty \delta(x) f(x) dx = \int_{-\infty}^0 \delta(x) f(x) dx + \int_0^\infty \delta(x) f(x) dx##
is desirable.

Edit: I forgot something. When you are not working on R, but on a locally compact abelian group, the test function space is the Schwartz-Bruhart space. On a ring (or a torus) that's all smooth functions, including f(x)=1. So it's allowed in this case.

Another edit: while I'm here, I also want to mention that ##\int_{-\infty}^\infty \delta(x) f(x) \, dx## is not an integral in the standard sense:
As a result, the latter notation is a convenient abuse of notation, and not a standard (Riemann or Lebesgue) integral.
 
Last edited:
pwsnafu said:
##\int_0^t \delta(x) \, dx##

Thank you for the detailed explanation.
I just wanted to know the above integral and asked a question.
Some say it becomes 1/2 and others say it is 1.

Actually, I'm not a mathematician and found this in a book of stochastic process.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K