Is the Dirac Delta Function Squared Equal to Itself?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the properties of the Dirac delta function, particularly the concept of squaring it. While the integral of the delta function squared diverges to infinity, viewing it as a functional leads to the conclusion that the square of the delta function can be expressed as itself, i.e., δ² = δ. However, this interpretation is contentious, as the product of the Dirac delta with itself is not well-defined within the framework of Schwartz distributions. There are varying opinions on what the constant c should be when defining δ² = cδ, with some suggesting c could be zero, infinite, or even δ(0). The conversation highlights the complexities and differing perspectives in the mathematical treatment of the Dirac delta function.
jk22
Messages
732
Reaction score
25
I consider the Dirac delta.

In physics the delta squared has an infinite norm : $$\int\delta (x)^2=\infty $$

But if i look at delta being a functional i could write : $$\delta [f]=f (0) $$ hence $$\delta^2 [f]=\delta [\delta [f]]=\delta [\underbrace {f (0)}_{constant function}]=f (0)$$

Thus in this view $$\delta^2=\delta $$ ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Dirac delta is defined by the integral
##\int \delta(c) g(x) dx = g(c)##
If you plug in ##g(x) = \delta(x)## then you get
##\int \delta(c) \delta(x) dx = \delta(c)## which isn't finite. The integral fails.

You can think of the integral as a functional, but it doesn't make sense to think of delta as a functional.
 
Khashishi said:
You can think of the integral as a functional, but it doesn't make sense to think of delta as a functional.
Dirac delta is indeed a linear functional. Specifically it is the linear functional such that ##f \mapsto f(0)##. Schwartz distributions are our most developed theory of generalized functions, and there all Schwartz distributions are linear functionals.

Now to OP. If you want ##\delta^2 = \delta \cdot \delta## to exist as a Schwartz distribution as well, then it turns out that ##\delta^2 = c\delta## for some constant ##c##, but not for the reason you posted. The notation ##\delta^2## is reserved for the product of Dirac with itself, not the composition of Dirac with itself. As to what ##c## is, there's a lot of disagreement. If the product defined is a "normal product" then ##c=0##. Some mathematicians have argued that non-zero c has physical meaning. Some argue ##c = \infty##. Others define it to be ##c = \delta(0)## and not define what that means (as long as it cancels in the end they are happy with it). So yeah a lot of disagreement.

That being said, if you aren't working with Schwartz distributions, such as working in Colombeu algebra, then it is the operator ##f(x) \mapsto f(-x)^2## (technically the equivalence class of such operators), which in turn corresponds to the non-linear functional ##f \mapsto f(0)^2##

Edit: One last thing. There are people who write ##\delta^2## for ##\delta(x)\delta(y)##, i.e. the two dimensional Dirac delta. But then you wouldn't have ##\int \delta^2 = \infty## at the top of your post, so I'm ignoring that situation.
 
Last edited:
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top