Weinberg at page 300 of The Quantum Theory of Fields - Volume I says:
$L$ itself should be a space integral of an ordinary scalar function of $\Psi(x)$ and $\partial \Psi(x)/\partial x^\mu \,$, known as the Lagrangian density $\mathscr{L}$:
$$ L[\Psi(t), \dot{\Psi}(t)]= \int d^3x \, \mathscr{L}\bigr(\Psi({\bf x},t), \nabla \Psi({\bf x},t), \dot{\Psi}({\bf x},t)\bigl) $$
So he says that $\mathscr{L} \, $ is a function. But Gelfand and Formin at page one of their book Calculus of variations say:
By a functional we mean a correspondence which assigns a definite (real) number to each function (or curve) belonging to some class.
So from that I'd say it is a functional. The notes of quantum field theory of my professor stay on this side, explicitly calling the lagrangian density a functional.
I'm very confused at the moment. I always used this latter way of defining functionals (the Gelfand way) so Weinberg saying that $\mathscr{L}$ is a function confuses me.
Can someone makes some clarity about this?
Making a strict decision whether or not to call $f(x)$ a function is often not done. Above I'm assuming a kind of "programmers' convention" where $f$ is a function, $f(x)$ is a value.
– Sean E. Lake Jan 16 '19 at 15:39