Why is the Dirac delta function written as δ(x-x') instead of just δ(x')?

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
What's the reason that you write δ(x-x') rather than just δ(x') both indicating that the function is infinite at x=x' and 0 everywhere else? For me that notation just confuses me, and in my opinion the other notation is easier.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aaaa202 said:
What's the reason that you write δ(x-x') rather than just δ(x') both indicating that the function is infinite at x=x' and 0 everywhere else? For me that notation just confuses me, and in my opinion the other notation is easier.

I don't understand exactly what you want to do, but it doesn't seem to make sense. Consider the equality $$\int f(x')\delta(x'-x)dx'=f(x).$$ Are you suggesting that we write the left-hand side as
$$\int f(x')\delta(x')dx'$$ or as $$\int f(x')\delta(x)dx'\ ?$$ The former is independent of x, so it can't be equal to f(x). The latter at least contains an x, but since the "δ(something)" doesn't contain an x', it's not involved in the integration, so we should be able to take it outside the integral.

It would however make sense to define one "delta function" ##\delta_x## for each real number x: ##\delta_x(y)=\delta(y-x)##. Now x indicates where the "function" has its peak.
 
\delta(x') is not a function, it is a number. Specifically, it is 0 if x' is not 0, undefined if x= 0.
 
No, it is a continuous linear functional, or distribution. Physicists just call it a function but it is not a number.
 
You really need to think before you speak. \delta(x) and \delta(x- x'), for fixed x', are "functionals" or "generalized functions". \delta(x') is a number, just as (x- x')^2, for fixed x', is a function of x, but x'^2 is a number.
 
I didn't say for fixed x prime. The delta distribution is defined in terms of the independent variable. Look at the second integral in Fredrik's post above. Clearly well defined and equal to f(0). I can call my variables anything that I want and it doesn't change the meaning of the distribution. I still think that calling it a number is rather loose.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top