0
$\begingroup$

I know this question has been asked a lot and I have already read these questions; Fourier Transform Dirac Delta, Fourier Transform of Dirac Delta Function, The inverse Fourier transform of $1$ is Dirac's Delta and Dirac Delta function inverse Fourier transform.

But in this particular proof shown below, I cannot understand the logic behind a certain step towards the end.

I'm using the following convention for the Fourier transform $$\hat f(k)=\frac{1}{2 \pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(x)e^{-i k x}dx\tag{1}$$ and Fourier Integral (inverse transform) $$f(x)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\hat f(k)e^{i k x}dk\tag{2}$$

Now suppose we take $f(x)=\delta(x)$, then by $(1)$ we get

$$\begin{align}\hat f(k)&=\frac{1}{2 \pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\delta(x)e^{-i k x}dx\\&=\frac{1}{2\pi}\end{align}$$

The last equality came from the sifting property $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(x)\delta(x-a)dx=f(a)$$

If we now write $f(x)$ as a Fourier integral using $(2)$

$$f(x)=\delta(x)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\hat f(k)e^{ikx}dk=\frac{1}{2 \pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{i k x}dk$$

then

$$\delta(x)=\frac{1}{2 \pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{i k x}dk\tag{3}$$

Now suppose we take another function, $g(x)=1$, and take the Fourier transform of it, then by $(1)$

$$\begin{align}\hat g(k)&=\frac{1}{2 \pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}g(x)e^{-i k x}dx\\&=\frac{1}{2 \pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}1 \cdot e^{-i k x}dx\\&=\frac{1}{2 \pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{-i k x}dx\end{align}$$

This $$\hat g(k)=\frac{1}{2 \pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{-i k x}dx\tag{4}$$ has a very similar form to $(3)$


Now it is this point for which I am confused:

My lecturer then states that 'if we replace $x$ with $k$ and $k$ with $x$' in $(3)$ then it follows that $\hat g(k)=\delta(-k)=\delta(k)$. Doing so, I obtain:

$$\delta(k)=\frac{1}{2 \pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{i k x}dx\tag{5}$$

If I now replace $k$ with $-k$ and note that the delta function is even, then, the result follows.



I have 2 questions about this proof:

  1. It is like my lecturer thinks that the $k$ in $(3)$ is just some dummy variable for which you can just change to any another variable. I would understand this if we were writing $$\delta(x)=\frac{1}{2 \pi}\int_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}e^{i k x}dk=\frac{1}{2 \pi}\int_{k'=-\infty}^{\infty}e^{i k' x}dk'$$ But that is not what is going on here, the $x$ and $k$ are being exchanged. Since when can we just interchange $x$ and $k$? Don't we have to worry about the domain of the integral changing also?

  2. This may seem a little trivial, but, why can we simply replace $k$ with $-k$ in $(5)$? It's confusing me as this is an integral, not just some function where we make a change of variables using a substitution.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It seems like you give more meaning to variable names than is the case.

  1. $k$ in $(3)$ really is a dummy variable. It doesn't matter if we use $k$, $k'$, $x$, $x'$, $\theta$, $\theta'$, or whatever. If $F(x) = \int f(x,y) \, dy$ then we can equally well write $F(y) = \int f(y,x) \, dx$ or $F(k) = \int f(k,\theta) \, d\theta$.

  2. Again, if $F(x) = \int f(x,y) \, dy$ then we can replace $x$ with any expression (not containing the bound/dummy variable): $F(2) = \int f(2,y) \, dy$, $F(3z+5) = \int f(3z+5, y) \, dy$, $F(-x) = \int f(-x,y) \, dy$, $F(2x) = \int f(2x,y) \, dy$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer, nice explanation. Everything you said makes perfect sense. I'm not sure why I was overthinking it so much. Regards. $\endgroup$ – BLAZE Nov 5 '19 at 18:17

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.