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.

I've read the following definition:

Let $u \in \mathcal{D}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n)$. We say that $y_0 \notin \mathrm{sing} \ \mathrm{supp} \ u$ if there exists $\phi \in \mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)$ such that $\phi(y_0) \neq 0$ and $\phi u \in \mathcal{C}^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)$.

However, after thinking for a while, I don't understand it very well.

Firstly, in general, the support of a function is a subset of its domain, isn't it? In this case, I guess the singular support is just a type of support -that of singularities-, but the domain of an element in $\mathcal{D}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is not $\mathbb{R}^n$ but $\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)$. However, $y_0 \in \mathbb{R}^n$. What if $u$ is not a distribution induced by some $L^1_{\text{loc}}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ function?

On the other hand, what's the meaning of $\phi u \in \mathcal{C}^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)$? I mean, by definition, given $u \in \mathcal{D}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n)$, we have that for every $\phi \in \mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)$ and $j = 1, \dots, n$ $$ \partial_j u (\phi) = - u(\partial_j \phi). $$ So, it doesn't follow that $u$ is infinitely differentiable?

Thanks a lot for your help!

share|improve this question
    
It should be pointed out that $\partial_j u(\phi)=-u(\partial_j\phi)$ is taken to be the definition of the derivative of a distribution. The formula certainly doesn't imply that distributions are everywhere smooth. –  icurays1 Nov 23 '12 at 5:17

1 Answer 1

up vote 0 down vote accepted

Let us review some idea. If $f \in L^{1}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\Bbb{R}^n)$, then we can define an element $T_{f} \in \mathcal{D}'(\Bbb{R}^n)$ by

$$ \left< T_{f}, \phi \right> = \int_{\Bbb{R}^n} f\phi, \quad \forall \phi \in C_{c}^{\infty}(\Bbb{R}^n). $$

Then the embedding $f \mapsto T_{f}$ allows us to identify $L^{1}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\Bbb{R}^n)$ as a subspace of $\mathcal{D}'(\Bbb{R}^n)$.

Of course we may not write $u = u(x) = \cdots$ for arbitrary $u \in \mathcal{D}'(\Bbb{R}^n)$. But let us take a deeper look on the identification above. We observe that the value of $f$ at $x = x_0$ is completely determined by the family of functions $f \phi$ such that $\phi$ is supported on a neighborhood of $x_0$. Then every claim on local property of $f$ can be translated in terms of the local data $\{ f \phi \}$. For example, the value of $f$ at $x = x_0$ is $y_0$ whenever

$$ \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \left< T_{f}, \phi_{\varepsilon} \right> = y_0$$

for $ \phi_{\varepsilon}(x) = \varepsilon^{-n} \phi\left( \varepsilon^{-1} (x - x_0) \right)$, where $\phi \in C^{\infty}_{c}(\Bbb{R}^n)$ supported on a neighborhood of $0$ and its total mass satisfies $\int_{\Bbb{R}^n} \phi = 1$. In this way, we can regard $f = T_{f}$ as a function-like object such that at each point $x$ there corresponds a local data of $f$. The term generalized function is used for this point of view.

The key point is that, this idea extends naturally to distributions as well. In particular, $u$ is completely determined by its local data at each point $x \in \Bbb{R}^n$. But in this case, the local data no longer need not yield a value of $u$ at $x_0$. This is why we define the support of a distribution to be a subset of $\Bbb{R}^n$.

Of course, it can happen that the local data give rise to the function value of $u$ at some points. Indeed, we can speak of the value of $u \in \mathcal{D}'(\Bbb{R}^n)$ at a point $x_0$ whenever the condition above holds with $u$ instead of $T_f$. Thus it may also happen that $u$ reduces to a function on some open set. A good example is the Dirac delta $\delta_0$, where $\delta_0 = 0$ on $\Bbb{R}^n \setminus \{0\}$.

share|improve this answer

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.