Dirac delta integral form proof












4














While reading the book "Modern Electrodynamics" by Andrew Zangwill, on page 13 I've encountered a Dirac function integral representation. The proof the book provides is the following:




begin{align*}
int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
&= int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
+ int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ikx}
\
&= lim_{epsilon to 0}
left[
int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ik(x+iepsilon)}
+ int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ik(x-iepsilon)}
right].
end{align*}
The convergence factors make the integrands zero at the upper limit, so
$$
int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
= lim_{epsilon to 0}
left[
frac{i}{x + i epsilon} - frac{i}{x - i epsilon}
right]
= lim_{epsilon to 0} frac{2 epsilon}{x^2 + epsilon^2}
= 2 pi delta(x).
$$
(Original image here.)




I don’t see how the convergence makes the first term inside the limit vanish at the upper limit. I can understand the rest from there as the the $k$-independent factor appears while integrating and the final conclussion is from one of the informal dirac delta definitions.






dirac-delta







share|cite|improve this question
















bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 days ago


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.




















    4














    While reading the book "Modern Electrodynamics" by Andrew Zangwill, on page 13 I've encountered a Dirac function integral representation. The proof the book provides is the following:




    begin{align*}
    int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
    &= int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
    + int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ikx}
    \
    &= lim_{epsilon to 0}
    left[
    int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ik(x+iepsilon)}
    + int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ik(x-iepsilon)}
    right].
    end{align*}
    The convergence factors make the integrands zero at the upper limit, so
    $$
    int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
    = lim_{epsilon to 0}
    left[
    frac{i}{x + i epsilon} - frac{i}{x - i epsilon}
    right]
    = lim_{epsilon to 0} frac{2 epsilon}{x^2 + epsilon^2}
    = 2 pi delta(x).
    $$
    (Original image here.)




    I don’t see how the convergence makes the first term inside the limit vanish at the upper limit. I can understand the rest from there as the the $k$-independent factor appears while integrating and the final conclussion is from one of the informal dirac delta definitions.






    dirac-delta







    share|cite|improve this question
















    bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 days ago


    This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.


















      4












      4








      4


      4





      While reading the book "Modern Electrodynamics" by Andrew Zangwill, on page 13 I've encountered a Dirac function integral representation. The proof the book provides is the following:




      begin{align*}
      int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
      &= int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
      + int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ikx}
      \
      &= lim_{epsilon to 0}
      left[
      int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ik(x+iepsilon)}
      + int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ik(x-iepsilon)}
      right].
      end{align*}
      The convergence factors make the integrands zero at the upper limit, so
      $$
      int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
      = lim_{epsilon to 0}
      left[
      frac{i}{x + i epsilon} - frac{i}{x - i epsilon}
      right]
      = lim_{epsilon to 0} frac{2 epsilon}{x^2 + epsilon^2}
      = 2 pi delta(x).
      $$
      (Original image here.)




      I don’t see how the convergence makes the first term inside the limit vanish at the upper limit. I can understand the rest from there as the the $k$-independent factor appears while integrating and the final conclussion is from one of the informal dirac delta definitions.






      dirac-delta







      share|cite|improve this question















      While reading the book "Modern Electrodynamics" by Andrew Zangwill, on page 13 I've encountered a Dirac function integral representation. The proof the book provides is the following:




      begin{align*}
      int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
      &= int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
      + int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ikx}
      \
      &= lim_{epsilon to 0}
      left[
      int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ik(x+iepsilon)}
      + int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ik(x-iepsilon)}
      right].
      end{align*}
      The convergence factors make the integrands zero at the upper limit, so
      $$
      int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
      = lim_{epsilon to 0}
      left[
      frac{i}{x + i epsilon} - frac{i}{x - i epsilon}
      right]
      = lim_{epsilon to 0} frac{2 epsilon}{x^2 + epsilon^2}
      = 2 pi delta(x).
      $$
      (Original image here.)




      I don’t see how the convergence makes the first term inside the limit vanish at the upper limit. I can understand the rest from there as the the $k$-independent factor appears while integrating and the final conclussion is from one of the informal dirac delta definitions.






      dirac-delta




      dirac-delta






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Sep 26 '18 at 20:33









      Mefitico

      920117




      920117










      asked Feb 12 '15 at 22:04









      Mark A. RuizMark A. Ruiz

      8619




      8619





      bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 days ago


      This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.







      bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 days ago


      This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0














          Looking at the first one:



          $$int_0^infty dk e^{ik(x+i epsilon)} = int_0^infty dk e^{ikx} e^{-k epsilon}.$$



          Now $e^{ikx}$ is bounded in modulus while $e^{-k epsilon}$ (for fixed $epsilon$) decays exponentially in modulus. So the integral converges by comparison to $int_0^infty dk e^{-k epsilon}$.



          The second one is basically the same.



          Note that the first step is quite informal (one cannot justify it by the application of some convergence theorem which can be formulated without distribution theory.) I think you might get more insight by looking at a formal definition of the Fourier transform on tempered distributions. The formal definition is quite simple, and the desired statement (that the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta is a constant function) follows quite easily from it.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:20










          • Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
            – Ian
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:38












          • Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:56











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1145718%2fdirac-delta-integral-form-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          0














          Looking at the first one:



          $$int_0^infty dk e^{ik(x+i epsilon)} = int_0^infty dk e^{ikx} e^{-k epsilon}.$$



          Now $e^{ikx}$ is bounded in modulus while $e^{-k epsilon}$ (for fixed $epsilon$) decays exponentially in modulus. So the integral converges by comparison to $int_0^infty dk e^{-k epsilon}$.



          The second one is basically the same.



          Note that the first step is quite informal (one cannot justify it by the application of some convergence theorem which can be formulated without distribution theory.) I think you might get more insight by looking at a formal definition of the Fourier transform on tempered distributions. The formal definition is quite simple, and the desired statement (that the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta is a constant function) follows quite easily from it.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:20










          • Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
            – Ian
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:38












          • Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:56
















          0














          Looking at the first one:



          $$int_0^infty dk e^{ik(x+i epsilon)} = int_0^infty dk e^{ikx} e^{-k epsilon}.$$



          Now $e^{ikx}$ is bounded in modulus while $e^{-k epsilon}$ (for fixed $epsilon$) decays exponentially in modulus. So the integral converges by comparison to $int_0^infty dk e^{-k epsilon}$.



          The second one is basically the same.



          Note that the first step is quite informal (one cannot justify it by the application of some convergence theorem which can be formulated without distribution theory.) I think you might get more insight by looking at a formal definition of the Fourier transform on tempered distributions. The formal definition is quite simple, and the desired statement (that the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta is a constant function) follows quite easily from it.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:20










          • Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
            – Ian
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:38












          • Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:56














          0












          0








          0






          Looking at the first one:



          $$int_0^infty dk e^{ik(x+i epsilon)} = int_0^infty dk e^{ikx} e^{-k epsilon}.$$



          Now $e^{ikx}$ is bounded in modulus while $e^{-k epsilon}$ (for fixed $epsilon$) decays exponentially in modulus. So the integral converges by comparison to $int_0^infty dk e^{-k epsilon}$.



          The second one is basically the same.



          Note that the first step is quite informal (one cannot justify it by the application of some convergence theorem which can be formulated without distribution theory.) I think you might get more insight by looking at a formal definition of the Fourier transform on tempered distributions. The formal definition is quite simple, and the desired statement (that the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta is a constant function) follows quite easily from it.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          Looking at the first one:



          $$int_0^infty dk e^{ik(x+i epsilon)} = int_0^infty dk e^{ikx} e^{-k epsilon}.$$



          Now $e^{ikx}$ is bounded in modulus while $e^{-k epsilon}$ (for fixed $epsilon$) decays exponentially in modulus. So the integral converges by comparison to $int_0^infty dk e^{-k epsilon}$.



          The second one is basically the same.



          Note that the first step is quite informal (one cannot justify it by the application of some convergence theorem which can be formulated without distribution theory.) I think you might get more insight by looking at a formal definition of the Fourier transform on tempered distributions. The formal definition is quite simple, and the desired statement (that the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta is a constant function) follows quite easily from it.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Feb 12 '15 at 22:18

























          answered Feb 12 '15 at 22:11









          IanIan

          67.4k25387




          67.4k25387












          • I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:20










          • Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
            – Ian
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:38












          • Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:56


















          • I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:20










          • Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
            – Ian
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:38












          • Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:56
















          I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
          – Mark A. Ruiz
          Feb 12 '15 at 23:20




          I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
          – Mark A. Ruiz
          Feb 12 '15 at 23:20












          Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
          – Ian
          Feb 12 '15 at 23:38






          Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
          – Ian
          Feb 12 '15 at 23:38














          Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
          – Mark A. Ruiz
          Feb 12 '15 at 23:56




          Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
          – Mark A. Ruiz
          Feb 12 '15 at 23:56


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1145718%2fdirac-delta-integral-form-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Mario Kart Wii

          Image
          Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! Mario Kart Wii From The Cutting Room Floor Jump to: navigation, search Mario Kart Wii Developer : Nintendo Publisher : Nintendo Platform : Wii Released in JP : April 10, 2008 Released in US : April 27, 2008 Released in EU : April 11, 2008 Released in AU : April 24, 2008 Released in KR : April 30, 2009 This game has unused animations. This game has unused areas. This game has unused code. This game has unused objects. This game has unused modes / minigames. This game has unused graphics. This game has unused models. This game has unused items. This game has unused music. This game has regional differences. This game has a notes page This game has a prerelease article Mario Kart Wii is the sixth game in the series (not counting Arcade editions), which intro...
          Read more

          The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth/Afterbirth

          Image
          Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth/Afterbirth From The Cutting Room Floor < The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth Jump to: navigation, search This is a sub-page of The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth . Afterbirth is the first expansion pack for Rebirth and features a variety of improvements. Contents 1 Unused Graphics 1.1 Old Man Keeper 1.2 Skinless Hush 1.3 Miscellaneous Unused Hush Sprites 1.4 Generosity achievement 1.5 Afterbirth+ Room Editor 1.6 Bearded Ultra Greed 1.7 Early Ultra Greed 1.8 Unused Brownie Expression 1.9 Frail's Spinning Head 1.10 Mom's Dead Hand Alt 2 Unused Audio 2.1 Unused Dead Womb Layer 2.2 Unused Hush Battle Outro 2.3 The Stain Grunt Unused Graphics Old Man Keeper Image file: gfxuimain me...
          Read more

          What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

          Image
          5 Does "Dominus providebit" mean "The Lord will provide" or "The Lord provides"? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have. meaning latin-to-english-translation grammar-identification share | improve this question edited Jan 18 at 15:27 V2Blast 105 4 asked Jan 17 at 22:49 Donald K. Donald K. 26 1 ...
          Read more