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

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation of the Dirac delta function, specifically why it is expressed as δ(x-x') instead of simply δ(x'). Participants are exploring the implications of this notation in the context of mathematical definitions and properties of the delta function.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants question the necessity of the notation δ(x-x') and express confusion over its meaning compared to δ(x'). Others discuss the implications of using δ(x') in integrals and whether it maintains the properties of the delta function.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing differing perspectives on the nature of the delta function and its notation. Some have suggested defining a delta function for each real number, while others emphasize the distinction between the delta function as a distribution and its interpretation as a number.

Contextual Notes

There appears to be some disagreement regarding the definitions and properties of the delta function, particularly in relation to its use in integrals and its classification as a functional or a number. Participants are navigating these conceptual differences without reaching a consensus.

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.
 
[itex]\delta(x')[/itex] 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. [itex]\delta(x)[/itex] and [itex]\delta(x- x')[/itex], for fixed x', are "functionals" or "generalized functions". [itex]\delta(x')[/itex] is a number, just as [itex](x- x')^2[/itex], for fixed x', is a function of x, but [itex]x'^2[/itex] 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K