5
$\begingroup$

This is an exercise from Functional Analysis By Walter Rudin on page 178 from chapter Test functions and Distribution. I am having trouble arguing for 2nd part.

Question: For $\Omega=(0, \infty)$

$\displaystyle \Lambda(\phi) = \sum_{m=0}^{\infty}{ D^m\phi(1/m)} $

1) $\Lambda$ is a distribution of infinite order.

In small neighborhood around $\frac{1}{m}$ it's restriction would be $\delta^{(m)}$ which has order m, hence $\Lambda$ has to be of infinite order.

2) Here, we need to show that $\Lambda$ can not be extended to $R$. For this we take infinitely differentiable function $\psi$ with compact support and taking value 1 on compact set $K$ around 0.

$\phi(x) = \psi(x) \exp{ax} ; a>1$ Now, this function $\phi$ makes the series given above diverge. But how to argue that $\Lambda(\phi)$ will be the series given above for $\Lambda $ extended to R.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

If $\tilde\Lambda$ is an extension of $\Lambda$ and $\phi$ is a compactly supported function which is constantly equal to one on $[-1,1]$, then $\phi\tilde\Lambda$ is a distribution of infinite order, by the same reasoning you used in (1). But $\phi\tilde\Lambda$ has compact support, so that cannot happen.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Hint: If you can find a sequence of test functions $\phi_n$ such that each $\phi_n$ is supported in $(0,\infty)$ and $\phi_n \to \phi$ (in the usual sense), but $\Lambda(\phi_n)$ does not converge, then you will be done. What properties would such $\phi$ have to have?

I don't think there's any special reason to believe that an extension of $\Lambda$ would have to be given by the above series. In fact, in principle $\Lambda$ could have lots of different extensions (an extension could do whatever it wants on $(-\infty,0)$ for instance).

$\endgroup$

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.