Can \begin{align*} e^{c\delta(t)} \end{align*} be rewritten some how? Where $\delta(t)$ is a delta function and $c$ is some constant.
-
4Before rewriting a formula, it would be good to know what it means. Given that delta-function is not a function but a linear functional, what do you mean by exponentiating it? – Jan 23 '15 at 01:04
-
This is the case when I have. Some $f(t)$ and I use as input to $f(t)$ a $\delta(t)$--> $f(\delta(t))$. Next, take $f(t)$ to be exponential. On the other hand, this all might not make any sense. I hope it does. – Boby Jan 23 '15 at 01:07
-
1To me, it doesn't. How do you use $\delta(t)$ as an input to a function? – Jan 23 '15 at 01:10
-
You say "this is the case when..." and don't give a "case" but give something general that would include this case, but still don't give a meaning for $f(\delta(t))$. @Boby – Thomas Andrews Jan 23 '15 at 01:12
-
The Dirac delta is not a true function..its used for simplifying integrals. I think you want an indicator function instead. – Jan 23 '15 at 01:47
-
1People define powers of the delta and compositions with functions, see here and here and the references therein. I can't help any further because I didn't understand in what sense some multiplications by zero they have there give a non-trivial definition or even if they do. – Pp.. Jan 23 '15 at 01:55
1 Answers
The problem here is that $\delta$ isn't really a function--rigorously, it's a functional. The idea that $\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(t) \delta(t) dt=f(0)$ for any real function is perfectly fine, but the notion that $\delta$ is some bizarre function that assumes an infinitely tall value in an infinitesimally small region to have unit area can't be made rigorous. In other words, $\delta(t)$ is shouldn't be taken outside of an integral.
Therefore, it makes sense to call $\int_{-\infty}^\infty (\cdot)\delta(t) dt$ a functional: an operator that takes as input a real-valued function $f$ and outputs a real number $\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(t)\delta(t)dt = f(0)$. Let's write this in more suggestive notation: $\delta[f] := f(0)$.
Composing this functional with a function doesn't product a function, then. Let $\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{R}$ denote the set of real valued functions (generally the notation $Y^X$ is the set of functions from the set $X$ to the set $Y$). Then $\delta$ is a function from $\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{R}$ to the real numbers, $\mathbb{R}$. We denote this by $\delta: \mathbb{R}^\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Following this style, let's write $e^x$ instead as $\exp(x)$, andthen we can write $\exp: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. We can connect the two functions like this: $\exp \circ \delta:\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{R} \xrightarrow{\delta} \mathbb{R} \xrightarrow{\exp}\mathbb{R}$. The composite, then, is an operator that takes a function $f$ to the real number $e^{f(0)}$.
Now, for an operator $T$ that has the same domain and range, it is sometimes possible to define its exponential so as to produce a new operator via a power series: $e^T(f):= \sum\frac{T^n(f)}{n!}$. Here $T^n$ denotes the composition of $T$ with itself $n$ times [ex. $T^3(f) = T(T(T(f))) ]$. This doesn't work because $\delta$ takes functions to numbers, not other functions. $\delta(\delta(f))$ isn't a meaningful expression; it would evaluate to $\delta(f(0))$, which doesn't make sense.
For an example where this would work, let's consider the scaled derivative operator, $\alpha \frac{d}{dx}$ where $\alpha$ is a real number. This operator will act on smooth functions to produce new smooth functions, namely the derivative of the original function scaled by $\alpha$. Incredibly enough, using the above definition, $e^{\alpha \frac{d}{dx}}$ is a translation operator. Specifically, $(e^{\alpha \frac{d}{dx}}(f))(x) = \sum \frac{\alpha^n \frac{d^nf}{dx^n}}{n!} =f(x+\alpha)$. That's amazing!
For a proof of this (at least for analytic functions), see the second answer here:Exponential of the differential operator.
Summary: The delta "function" isn't really a function, but is best viewed as an operator that takes real-valued functions to real numbers by the equation $\delta[f] = f(0)$. Composing this operator with the exponential function would then yield a new operator that takes a function $f$ to the real number $e^{cf(0)}$. For operators with the same domain and range, you can use a power series to define a notion of exponentiating an operator to produce a new operator. That is not the case here, but it leads to some interesting results if you want to learn more.
Disclaimer: there are other ways to view the delta functional and other approaches to defining it's exponential that are probably more fruitful for further development
- 1,985
-
A long list of what the expression isn't is interesting, but it hardly gets around of what it actually is. – Pp.. Jan 23 '15 at 03:11
-
1I answered what the only sensible interpretation is: a functional that takes a function $f$ to the real number $e^{cf(0)}$. – Zach Effman Jan 23 '15 at 03:16
-
1And in my opinion, what it isn't is both very interesting and important to understanding what it is. – Zach Effman Jan 23 '15 at 03:17
-
No, you answered what you think the only sensible interpretation is, not the definition. There is, actually, a sensible definition and is not that. – Pp.. Jan 23 '15 at 03:29
-
1Could you please give this definition as a second answer then? The only thing I see in the paper is a (nonstandard) way of defining powers of the delta operator. As this question shows, defining products of Schwartz distributions is in general quite complicated. If you know about a new approach here, I really would like to see it. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/48067/is-square-of-delta-function-defined-somewhere – Zach Effman Jan 23 '15 at 03:33
-
I guess you could use the power series definition combined with the definition of power in the Koh and Kuan paper; is that what you had in mind? – Zach Effman Jan 23 '15 at 03:38
-
The $\delta(f)$ is the limit of the integrals of $f$ times a bump function. What they do is to apply the operation they want to define to the bump function and consider the limit. Now, the limit might/will be infinite, so they consider the neutrix limit, the limit modulo a linear combination of terms that tend to infinity not so fast ($n^a\ln^b(n)$). But I would rather leave it to an expert, which I am not, to explain it. Otherwise I could fall into using my limited knowledge as a measure of all that can be sensible. – Pp.. Jan 23 '15 at 03:52
-
1Thanks for the answer. I don't understand everything fully either, but it seems interesting. It might be worth posting what you're discussing as an answer--it might help point people in a useful direction. – Zach Effman Jan 23 '15 at 05:08
-
I am glad this question stimulated a good discussion. If you are interested, the question come about when I was trying to solve the following convolution equation http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1113068/solve-integralconvolution-equation – Boby Jan 23 '15 at 13:34