5

I have come across the expression $$ \int f(x) \delta(x-a) \delta''(x-a) \mathrm dx$$ where the prime represents the derivative.

Usually with derivatives of the Dirac delta distribution I'd partially integrate, but here I keep running in circles. What I tried is \begin{align} \int f \delta \delta'' &= - \int (f \delta)' \delta' = -\int f' \delta \delta' - \int f \delta' \delta' = - \int f' \delta \delta' + \int (f \delta')' \delta\\ & ={} - \int f' \delta \delta' + \int f' \delta' \delta + \int f \delta '' \delta= \int f \delta \delta'' \end{align} or if I take the other term for the second partial integration \begin{align} \int f \delta \delta'' &= - \int (f \delta)' \delta' = \int (f \delta)'' \delta = \int f'' \delta \delta + 2 \int f' \delta' \delta + \int f \delta '' \delta \\ \Rightarrow 0 &= \int f'' \delta \delta + 2 \int f' \delta' \delta \end{align} which I also could have gotten from elementary partial integration of $ f'' \delta^2 $.

What further options do I have? Squares of delta functions etc. are not a problem.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Neuneck
  • 9,129
  • Just apply the regular rule to integrate a delta function, substitute everywhere else $x=a$. Your integral yields $f(a)\delta''(0)$. – JamalS Nov 11 '14 at 14:23
  • @JamalS But values of a derivative of the delta distribution are not defined. Only the $\delta$ without any derivatives can be evaluated. – Neuneck Nov 11 '14 at 14:24
  • 2
    Can you give the specific context wherein this integral arises? – JamalS Nov 11 '14 at 14:25
  • The doubly derived delta function arises in theories with higher dimensions, when you calculate the loop-induced FI-Terms. If you couple this FI term to a brane scalar and do not want to compensate the FI term by other means (like background fluxes), a combination like the one described appears in the action. In order to derive the effective 4D action I need to integrate over the internal dimensions, giving me the above integral. – Neuneck Nov 11 '14 at 14:29
  • I am not aware of any reasonable definition of the square of a delta functions. How do you define it? – doetoe Nov 11 '14 at 14:44
  • 1
    It is not as much a reasonable definition, but the infinities that arise can be rewritten in such a way that they cancel divergent parts of higher-order terms. $\delta^2$ still is not very well-defined, but I can get rid of the $\delta(0)$ that ensues and for most physicists this suffices - that's actually the reason I put this here and not on math.stackexchange.com – Neuneck Nov 11 '14 at 14:46
  • Concerning product of Dirac delta distributions: http://mathoverflow.net/q/48067 , http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/47934/2451 and links therein. – Qmechanic Nov 11 '14 at 14:48
  • Just for the record, mathematically derivatives of the delta functions (or any other distribution) are well defined (as distributions): $\delta'(x)$ is the distribution such that $\int \delta'(x)f(x)dx = - f'(0)$. – yuggib Nov 11 '14 at 15:01
  • @yuggib: Yes, I think in general $\int f(x) \delta^{(n)}(x-a) , dx = (-1)^n f^{(n)}(a)$. – JamalS Nov 11 '14 at 18:55
  • I understand that the integral is from -∞ to +∞. Then, it's useful to do the change of variable

    u = x - a .

    So, you'll have

    ∫f(u+a)δ(u)δ′′(u)du .

    For the rest, I don't see a possible escape of δ′′, I also tried. So, let's integrate straightly your initial integrand. You get, ∫f(u+a)δ(u)δ′′(u)du = f(a)δ′′(0).

    Unfortunately, δ′′(0) = −∞ .

    – Sofia Nov 11 '14 at 19:16
  • Comment to the question (v2): Echoing @JamalS's comment: Consider adding references in order to receive useful and focused answers. – Qmechanic Nov 11 '14 at 22:08
  • I think you can multiply distributions only when the singularities of each of the distributions are not on top of each other. The fact that you have two distributions with singularities at the same point makes it seem this is ill-defined. – QuantumEyedea Jan 13 '21 at 18:21

1 Answers1

2

I was just playing with things and got this, let me know if you find it a useful idea (or if I'm missing something which makes this useless).

Denote $\delta_k(x)=\frac{1}{k\sqrt{\pi}} e^{-(x/ k)^2}$. You get the well known (completely mathematically rigorous) result:

$\lim_{k\to 0} \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x) \delta_k(x) dx=f(0)$ for well behaved enough $f$.

So let's look at:

$\lim_{k\to 0} \int_{-\infty}^\infty (c_0+c_1 x+c_2 x^2+\cdots) \delta_k''(x) \delta_k(x) dx=f(0)$

Using the well known technique of Proof By Mathematica:

delta[x_] := 1/(k Sqrt[ Pi]) E^(-(x/k)^2);
g[x_] = FullSimplify[delta''[x] delta[x] x^n];
Integrate[g[x], {x, -Infinity, Infinity}, Assumptions -> {Element[n, Integers], a > 0}]

I get the result:

$$\int_{-\infty}^\infty x^n \delta_k''(x) \delta_k(x) dx=\frac{2^{-\frac{n}{2}-\frac{3}{2}} \left((-1)^n+1\right) (n-1) k^{n-3} \Gamma \left(\frac{n+1}{2}\right)}{\pi }$$

As $k\to 0^+$, the value is zero for $n=1,3,4,5,6,7,\cdots$ and diverges for $n=0,2$, like $-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}k^3}$ for the $n=0$ case and like $\frac{1}{4 k\sqrt{2 \pi}}$ for the $n=2$ case.

  • 1
    Good idea to look at $f(x) = x^n$! Indeed for $n > 2$ we have $x^n\delta'' = 0$, so that the integral makes sense and is 0. Furthermore we have $x^0\delta'' = \delta''$, $x^1\delta'' = 2\delta'$ and $x^2\delta'' = \delta$. Note that your result that we get 0 for $n = 1$, as well as the order of growth, are artefacts of the sequence you chose to converge to $\delta$. – doetoe Nov 11 '14 at 22:37
  • @doetoe How can you be sure that they're just artefacts? (though I think you're right, since the $\sqrt{2 \pi}$ seems too specific). The process works exactly (no artefacts) for $\delta^{(n)}(x)$ –  Nov 11 '14 at 23:30
  • @doetoe actually, scratch that, I guess it is a bit obvious they're artefacts, and only the $k=0$ behavior (which doesn't exist) is the important part. –  Nov 11 '14 at 23:36