Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

What's ordinary derivative of the kronecker delta function? I have used "ordinary" in order not to confuse the reader with the covariant derivative. I have tried the following: $$\delta[x-n]=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}e^{i(x-n)t}dt$$ but that doesn't work since. $x,n \in \mathbb{Z}$, while I look for the case $x \in \mathbb{R}$

share|improve this question
1  
As a function of a single variable, $f(x) = \delta(x,n)$, which is $1$ when $x=n$ and $0$ otherwise, the function is constant at every point other than $n$ and is discontinuous at $n$. So the derivative is $0$ at every point other than $n$, and not defined at $n$. –  Arturo Magidin Apr 22 '12 at 5:30
    
The problem with "ordinary" the way you use it is that (IMO) most people will think you mean to specify the derivative you learned in Calc I, as opposed to the distributional derivative. –  Hurkyl Apr 22 '12 at 5:59
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Let's approach this problem using the Heaviside step function, $$H(x) = \begin{cases} 0, & x < 0 \\ 1, & x \ge 0. \end{cases}$$ Notice we choose the convention that $H(0) = 1$.

The Kronecker delta is then $$\delta_{m n} = H(m-n) + H(n-m) - 1.$$ The derivative of the Heaviside step function is the Dirac delta function, $H'(x) = \delta(x)$. Therefore, $$\begin{eqnarray*} \frac{\partial}{\partial m} \delta_{m n} &=& \delta(m-n) - \delta(n-m) \\ &=& 0 \end{eqnarray*}$$ since $\delta(-x) = \delta(x)$.

Addendum: If by ordinary derivative it is meant the derivative in the classical sense then of course the derivative is everywhere zero, except at $m = n$ where it is undefined. In order to define it at $m=n$, which seems to be the spirit of the question, we must go to the distributional derivative in which case we find the derivative is $0$.

share|improve this answer
    
If you're going to talk distributional derivative, there's a shorter proof: as distributions, the Kronecker delta is equal to zero. –  Hurkyl Apr 22 '12 at 6:00
    
@Hurkyl: I am glad that I agree with your shorter proof! –  user26872 Apr 22 '12 at 6:11
add comment

I take it you are defining $\delta(x,y)$ to be a function of 2 real variables given by $1$ if $x=y$ and $0$ otherwise. I suggest then that you go to the definition of the derivative for functions of two variables and see what happens when you apply it to this function, and then report back to us on your findings.

share|improve this answer
    
Gerry , thanks for your prompt reply . but $n$ needs not to be a variable . –  Mohammad Al Jamal Apr 22 '12 at 4:36
    
In that case, Arturo's comment would seem to settle things. –  Gerry Myerson Apr 22 '12 at 5:44
add comment

As Arturo wrote in a comment, the function $f:\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ such that for all $x\in\mathbb R$ we have $$f(x)=\begin{cases}0, & \text{if $x\neq0$;} \\1, & \text{if $x=0$;}\end{cases}$$ is not continuous at $0$. It follows that it does not have a derivative at $0$. On the other hand, a trivial calculation using the definition itself of what a derivative is will show that it has a derivative at all other points, which is zero.

N.B. Of course, the above paragraph is only true if we interpret your question in classical terms. There are several other interpretations we could give to your question, and that would change the answer. We could think that you really are talking about derivatives in the sense of theory of distributions, as in oenamen's answer. You could have something else in mind. Please be more explicit.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.