Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The unitary pulse function (or sample function) is defined as follow:

Let's $\newcommand\R{\mathbb R}d_1:\R\to\R$ be a positive intrgrable function such that $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d_1(x)dx=1.$$ (The usual example is $d_1(x)=1$ for $x\in(0,1)$ and $d_1(x)=0$ otherwise.)

Now: let $d_n:\R\to\R$ be defined as $d_n(x)=nd_1(nx)$. The unitary pulse function is then defined as $$d=\lim_{n\to\infty}d_n.$$

Some properties:

  1. $d(x)=0$ for $x\in\R\setminus\{0\}$.

  2. $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(x)d(x-s)dx=f(s)$ (hence the name “sample function”).

However $d$ is not a function. At least $d$ is not a function in the space of real numbers as $d(0)\notin\R$. We might say that $d(0)=+\infty$ in the closure $\R_{-\infty}^{+\infty}=\R\cup\{-\infty,+\infty\}$; however $d$ is scalable. v.g. $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(x)\cdot(3d(x))dx=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}(f(x)\cdot3)d(x)dx=3f(0)$$ which would suggest $3d(0)\ne d(0)$, unlike $\infty\in\R_{-\infty}^{+\infty}$ where $3\infty=\infty$.

So. How can I characterize $\R_d$ the co-domain of $d$?

This $\R_d$ would have the following characteristics:

  1. $d$ is a function $d:\R\to\R_d$.
  2. $\R\subset\R_d$ (which means that $f:\R\to\R$ then $f:\R\to\R_d$).
  3. $\forall a\in\R:a\cdot d(0)\in\R_d$.
  4. $a\cdot d(0)=d(0)\implies a=1$

Is this space $\R_d$ described in literature?

Instead of extending de co-domain $\R$ into a higher space to make $d$ a function, is it better to extend the spaces of functions $\R^{\R}$ to make $d$ a member of the new space?

share|cite|improve this question
It seems to be more common to treat $d$ as a functional on the space of test functions. – Arctic Char Dec 10 '13 at 5:02
There's basically no way to make this idea work, and one can give a proof that statement (depending on how you want to formalize it). The accepted way to handle this is the theory of distributions, or functionals on a certain space of functions. I can provide more information if you would like. – Potato Dec 10 '13 at 5:04

It doesn't quite work out, algebraically speaking, to extend $\mathbb{R}$ into a larger space to serve as a codomain for $d(x)$. We could try just adjoining some infinities onto $\mathbb{R}$, but, while this can work out topologically, it's hard to find a sensible way to do algebra.

However, we usually don't need to do algebra with a "function" like $d$: often, we only care about how it behaves with integration, bringing us to the idea of a distribution, or generalized function.

To get a space of distributions, we start with some nice space $F$ of functions $\mathbb{R}\mapsto\mathbb{R}$, often the space of smooth, compactly supported functions, and let a distribution be a linear map $F\mapsto F$. We interpret, intuitively, the evaluation of a distribution $D$ at a function $f$ as the "integral" $\int f(x) D(x) dx$. For example, your $d$ would be the functional sending a function $f$ to $f(0)$, and we can embed the space of integrable functions $\mathbb{R}\mapsto\mathbb{R}$ into the space of distributions with usual integration.

Note that, by this definition of a generalized function, we don't care about the values taken on by the function itself, only its behavior under integration. Although you can sometimes define the evaluation of a distribution at a point, essentially locally inverting the embedding of normal functions into distributions, this doesn't always work. For example, although, for your $d$, saying $d(x)=0$ for $x\ne0$ makes sense, there is no way of saying what $d(0)$ is.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.