Proving Dirac Delta Function Does Not Exist

In summary, you may not be able to prove that no continuous function exists which satisfies the property of the dirac delta function.
  • #1
asdf60
81
0
How can I prove that no continuous function exists that satisfies the property of the dirac delta function? I thought it should be pretty easy, but it's actually giving me quite a hard time! I know that the integral of such a function must be 1, and that it must also be even (symmetric about the y-axis). It's also easy to see that such a delta function exists for any given function, but no such delta function exists for all functions. How do I go from here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
So by the properties of the delta function, you must mean:

[tex]\int_a^b \delta(x) f(x) dx = \left{ \begin{array}{cc} f(0) & \mbox{if } a<0<b\\ -f(0) & \mbox{if } b<0<a\\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array}[/tex]

The last line implies the function must be zero everywhere but x=0 (or, to be more specific, any continuous function must be zero for x≠0 to satisfy this property), and the other two imply it cannot be zero at x=0, so it must be discontinuous. In fact, you could even show there is no discontinuous function which satisfies the above conditions by showing that the value at x must actually be infinite.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Unfortunately, that is not the way the function is defined in this problem. The definition given is:

[tex]\int_a^b \delta(x) f(x) dx =f(0)[/tex]
where a = -1, and b = 1, always.

Heh, i can't figure out how to make the limits of the integration -1 and 1 in latex.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Ok. Also, the function f must be continuous, right? You can define a series of gaussian functions fn(x) that get narrower and narrower, but always have a value of 1 at x=0. All you need to show is that, for any continuous function d(x), there is some n above which the integral of d(x)fn(x) is less than one.

And for bounds on an integral (also powers, subscripts, summation indices, etc) you need to put brackets around the bounds if they are more than one chatacter (click to see the code):

[tex]\int_{-1}^{\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} e^{-p_k}} \delta(x) = 1[/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #5
I don't think we'd be allowed to use gaussian functions. I don't even really know much about them. however, i was thinking about doing something like that, but i still don't quite know how to prove that the integral of d(x)*f(x) will start to be less than 1...
 
  • #6
You can use any function that gets narrower and narrower. To show the integral becomes smaller than one, you can use the fact that a continuous function d(x) on a closed interval takes on a maximum value a, and the integral of any function times d(x) is less than the integral of that function times a.
 
  • #7
Right! I quickly dismissed that idea because I thought that it assumed d(x) doesn't change sign, but i realize now after thinking for a second that it's only necessary that f(x) doesn't change sign, which of course we have control over.

Thanks for the help, and sorry for wasting your time.
 
  • #8
No problem, and you're hardly wasting my time. For one thing, I answered your question voluntarily. Plus, your question gave me an idea that led me to a thread I posted in the analysis section.
 

Related to Proving Dirac Delta Function Does Not Exist

1. What is the Dirac Delta Function?

The Dirac Delta Function, also known as the unit impulse function, is a mathematical function that has a value of 0 everywhere except at a single point, where it has a value of infinity. It is commonly used in physics and engineering to represent a point charge or an infinitely thin plate, among other applications.

2. How is the Dirac Delta Function typically defined?

The Dirac Delta Function is typically defined as the limit of a sequence of functions that are tall and thin, with an area of 1 under the curve. As the functions in the sequence become taller and thinner, their product with any other function becomes more and more like a spike at the point of interest.

3. Why is it difficult to prove that the Dirac Delta Function does not exist?

The Dirac Delta Function is a useful tool in many areas of mathematics and science, and it has been used successfully in a wide range of applications. However, it does not have a rigorous mathematical definition and cannot be represented by a single function. This makes it difficult to prove that it does not exist.

4. What are some arguments against the existence of the Dirac Delta Function?

One argument against the existence of the Dirac Delta Function is that it violates the fundamental principles of mathematics, such as the Lebesgue integral. It also leads to contradictions and paradoxes when used in certain mathematical operations. Additionally, there is no physical evidence or experimental data that supports the existence of an infinitely thin, infinitely tall function.

5. Are there alternative functions that can be used in place of the Dirac Delta Function?

Yes, there are alternative functions that can be used to approximate the behavior of the Dirac Delta Function. These include the rectangular function, the Gaussian function, and the sinc function. However, none of these functions perfectly replicate the behavior of the Dirac Delta Function and may not be suitable for all applications.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
324
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
994
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
376
Back
Top