I am trying to understand the motivation behind the following identity stated in Bracewell's book on Fourier transforms: $$\delta^{(2)}(x,y)=\frac{\delta(r)}{\pi r},$$ where $\delta^{(2)}$ is a 2-dimensional delta function. Starting with something we know to be true, we can do $$1 = \iint \delta^{(2)}(x,y) dx\,dy = \int_0^\infty \int_0^{2\pi} \frac{\delta(r)}{\pi r} r\,dr\,d\theta = 2 \int_0^\infty \delta(r).$$

This suggests that the integral of delta function from 0 to infinity is 1/2. In fact, this seems to make sense if we treat the delta function as a limiting case of an even function peaked at zero (Gaussian, sinc, etc.) However, Wikipedia, citing Bracewell, claims the following to be true:

$$\int_0^\infty \delta(r-a) e^{-s r} dr = e^{-s a},$$ and plugging in 0 for a and s we get $$\int_0^\infty \delta(r) dr = 1.$$

What is going on here?.. Where's the screw-up?.. If the integral from 0 to infinity is not 1/2, then how do we justify the above polar-coordinate expression for a 2D delta function?..


The Wikipedia formula is only valid for $a>0$, but not for $a<0$ or $a=0$.

The left hand side of their formula makes sense, however, and equals zero when $a<0$ and equals one-half (as you expect) when $a=0$.

It may be easier to understand by rewriting the integral as $$ \int_{-\infty}^\infty \delta(r-a)\ e^{-s r}\ \mathbb{I}_{[0,\infty)}(r) \ dr$$ where $\mathbb{I}$ is the indicator function of the positive half of the line. If you treat the delta function above as a limiting case of even functions peaked at zero, you will get the result for any value of $a$.


The equation you quote from Wikipedia (from this section) specifies a Laplace transform, and the article on the Laplace transform (in this section) states that the intended meaning of that integral is the limit as $0$ is approached from the left.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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