Why is the derivative of |x| not equal to sgn(x) + 2xδ(x)?

  • Level: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter IniquiTrance
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivatives
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
3 replies · 3K views
IniquiTrance
Messages
185
Reaction score
0
The wikipedia article on [itex]\sgn (x)[/itex] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_function) states that,

[tex] \frac{d}{dx}\vert x\vert = \sgn(x)[/tex]

and [itex]\frac{d}{dx}\sgn(x) = 2\delta(x)[/itex]. I'm wondering why the following is not true:

[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> \vert x\vert &= x\sgn(x)\\<br /> \Longrightarrow \frac{d}{dx}\vert x \vert &= \sgn(x) + 2x\delta(x) <br /> \end{align*}[/tex]

by the product rule for derivatives. Is it because this derivative is indeterminate at [itex]x=0[/itex], and [itex]2x\delta(x) \equiv 0[/itex] for all [itex]x \neq 0[/itex]?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The stated derivative of ##\text{sgn}## is the derivative of ##\text{sgn}## as a distribution, but for distributions that are not identifiable with differentiable functions the chain rule don't apply in general.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
It is quite common that formal calculations still give correct results in some sense, even if they are not fully justified.

In this case I don't see anything wrong with the formula

[tex] \frac{d}{dx}|x| = \textrm{sgn}(x) + 2x\delta(x)[/tex]

Simply subsitute [itex]2x\delta(x)=0[/itex] and you get the previous formula

[tex] \frac{d}{dx}|x| = \textrm{sgn}(x)[/tex]

For test function [itex]f[/itex] we have

[tex] \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(x) 2x\delta(x)dx = 0[/tex]

so in this sense [itex]2x\delta(x)=0[/itex] holds "for all [itex]x[/itex]", not only for [itex]x\neq 0[/itex].
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
The formula is true, because [itex]x\cdot \delta[/itex] is actually the zero distribution.