The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.symbolic

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Delta functions.
Replies: 14   Last Post: Apr 22, 2013 8:58 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 1,245
Registered: 4/26/08
Re: Delta functions.
Posted: Apr 21, 2013 12:20 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Waldek Hebisch schrieb:
> wrote:

> >
> > schrieb:

> > >
> > > As I usually succeed in consistently computing with Dirac delta's, I've
> > > felt no need to look into research on this. And while I don't know if
> > > such research exists, my gut feeling is that the delta's cannot be
> > > tweaked to qualify as members of your "field". By the way, since FriCAS
> > > is a strongly typed system, what type does it assign to delta(x) where x
> > > is a (say) complex irrational number?
> > >

> >
> > Oops, this was nonsense: for 'complex' read 'real'. The Dirac delta
> > makes sense for real arguments only, albeit in as many dimensions as one
> > likes: it lives in R^n only: The flexibility required of the test
> > functions cannot be achieved on C.
> >
> > Martin.

> ATM there is no delta finction in FriCAS. The place to add it
> is 'Expression' domain. More precisly (since 'Expression'
> need a parameter) domains like 'Expression(Integer)',
> 'Expression(Fraction(Integer))', 'Expression(AlgebraicNumber)'.
> Note that analytically, delta at a complex number makes perfect
> sense if you chose apropriate theory of distributions.
> Similarly, in some theories of distributions you can
> freely multiply them. This is one of the reasons I want
> algebraic theory: such theory can be much more flexible
> than usual analytic approach.
> Also, in Maple 'Dirac(x)' does not mean delta at point 'x',
> but inverse image of delat at 0 via 'x'. If 'x' is a one
> variable in multivariate context you get Lebesqu'e measure
> at appropriate hyperplane. Using this convention 'Dirac(3)'
> is just 0.

I am ill equipped to discuss alternative theories of distributions since
I know only of one ...

For members of a "field", division would have to be allowed as well. I
remember dimly having seen something somewhere about multiplication of
delta's - I imagine other properties would have to go in a theory that
allows to multiply delta functions. Since distributions figure most
prominently in the context of differential equations and integral
transforms, multiplication by differentiable functions and
differentiation are more important. It is also important that what is
implemented in a CAS corresponds with what is commonly used.

There is nothing at all unusual about assigning delta(3) = 0 since
(delta, f) = 0 for any test function f that vanishes outside some small
environment of x = 3. See e.g. Constantinescu.

What particular theory of distributions do you have in mind that lends
meaning to the delta function at a complex number? Perhaps somebody
might want to look it up.


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.