5
$\begingroup$

I am trying to get a better understanding on how we can manipulate the infinitesimal dx in an integral $$\int f(x) dx$$

I have come across the following $$ d(\cos (x)) = -\sin(x) dx$$

Therefore

$$\int^{x=2\pi}_{x=0} dx \sin(x) \cos(x) = - \int^{x = 2\pi}_{x=0} d(\cos(x)) \cos(x) = - \dfrac{1}{2} [ \cos^{2}(x)]^{x=2\pi}_{x=0} = -\dfrac{1}{2}[1-1] = 0$$

This looks to me like the chain rule can be applied to infinitesimals in analogy to differentiation.

However, today I'm trying to solve the following problem : prove $$\delta(ax) = \dfrac{\delta(x)}{|a|}$$

Following the hint I looked at $$\int d(ax)\delta(ax) = 1 = \int d(ax)\delta(-ax)$$ Since $$\int d(ax)\delta(ax) = 1 \quad \text{and} \quad \delta(x) = \delta(-x)$$

From this it would seem $$d(ax) = |a|dx$$ giving $$\int d(ax)\delta(ax) = |a|\int dx \delta(ax) = |a|\int dx \delta(-ax) = \int dx \delta(x) = 1$$ as expected.

I would have naively assumed $d(ax) = a \space dx$

In summary, I have no idea how to treat d(f(x)), and I'm not sure where to look for information. Could someone help me gain a better understanding ? Unfortunately I have only taken a few undergraduate maths courses so far, so I couldn't understand anything too complex.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The discrepancy is due to mixing the theory of differential forms, which formalizes calculations like $d(\cos \theta) = -\sin \theta d\theta$ for taking the differential of orientation-reversing (or even non-injective) functions, and the measure theory used by Lebesgue integration where measures cannot be negative and have no orientation. Someone more conversant in measure theory can hopefully give you a complete answer. $\endgroup$ – user7530 Aug 24 at 17:46
  • $\begingroup$ If you include the limits on the integrals and transform them, then you can use $d(ax) = a \, dx$: $$ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d(-x) = \int_{\infty}^{-\infty} (-dx). $$ $\endgroup$ – md2perpe Aug 24 at 18:21
2
$\begingroup$

The answer of md2perpe is the good way to prove what you want to prove. Another way to solve your problem, is to remark that defining the Heaviside function $H = \mathbb{1}_{\mathbb{R}_+}$, one has $H' = \delta_0$ and $H(ax) = \mathrm{sign}(a)\,H(x)$. Therefore $$ \begin{align*} \delta_0(a\,x) &= H'(a\,x) = \frac{1}{a} \frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm d x} (H(a\,x)) \\ &= \frac{1}{a} \frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm d x} (\mathrm{sign}(a)\,H(x)) = \frac{1}{|a|} H'(x) \\ &= \frac{1}{|a|} \delta_0(x) \end{align*} $$


I will here add some comment about the notation $\mathrm d(f(x))$. One of the problems with this notation is that $\mathrm d x$ denotes the Lebesgue measure, while $\delta$ (which I prefer to write $\delta_0$) is not a Lebesgue measurable function but also a measure. So one should not use the expression $$ ∫ \delta_0(x) \,\mathrm{d} x $$ but either $∫ f(x) \,\mathrm{d} x$ if $f$ is a Lebesgue measurable function, and $∫ f\,\delta_0 = f(0)$ if $f$ is a $\delta_0$ measurable function (e.g. a function continuous in $0$). In some sense, a measure is only defined on sets and not on points, so if we identify $\mathrm d x$ with the indication of a local volume, then we should rather write $$ ∫ f(x) \,\delta_0(\mathrm{d}x) $$

An other good formalism is the one of the Stieltjes integral (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue%E2%80%93Stieltjes_integration). In this formalism, if $g$ is a function of bounded variations, then one can define $$ ∫ f\,\mathrm{d}g = \int f(x)\,\mathrm{d}g(x) $$ and actually, since $g$ is of bounded variations if and only if its derivative in the sense of distributions $g'$ is a measure. So, as a distribution, we have $$ \langle g',f\rangle = ∫ f(x) \,\mathrm{d}g(x) $$ (or if you do not know distributions, let say that if $g'$ is integrable then we have $\int f\,g' = ∫ f \,\mathrm{d}g$). So, to have coherent notations, one should write $∫ f\,\mathrm d g$ to indicate that one integrate with respect to the measure $g'$, and not $g$. For example, for the Dirac delta, this gives $$ ∫ f(x)\,\mathrm{d}H(x) = ∫ f(x)\,\delta_0(\mathrm{d}x) = \langle \delta_0,f\rangle = f(0) $$ Here the first integral is well define as a Lebesgue-Stieltjes integral, the second as an integral with respect to a measure and the third as a distribution.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ (+1) This is a very well-written and compact synopsis that addresses the OP's issues, in my opinion, at an appropriate level fit for purpose. Well done! $\endgroup$ – Mark Viola Sep 18 at 16:35
1
$\begingroup$

Let $\varphi$ be a test function.

If $a>0$ then $$ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \delta(ax) \, \varphi(x) \, dx = \{ y=ax \} = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \delta(y) \, \varphi(y/a) \, \frac{1}{a} dy \\ = \frac{1}{a} \varphi(0) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{1}{a} \delta(x) \, \varphi(x) \, dx . $$

If $a<0$ then $$ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \delta(ax) \, \varphi(x) \, dx = \{ y=ax \} = \int_{\infty}^{-\infty} \delta(y) \, \varphi(y/a) \, \frac{1}{a} dy = - \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \delta(y) \, \varphi(y/a) \, \frac{1}{a} dy \\ = -\frac{1}{a} \varphi(0) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{1}{-a} \delta(x) \, \varphi(x) \, dx . $$ Thus, for any $a\neq 0,$ $$ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \delta(ax) \, \varphi(x) \, dx = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{1}{|a|} \delta(x) \, \varphi(x) \, dx . $$

Since this is valid for all test functions $\varphi$ we have $$ \delta(ax) = \frac{1}{|a|} \delta(x). $$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much, this really clears things up for the delta function identity. Your comment also helped me understand I didn't realise I was using different variables for the limits $1=\int^{x=\infty}_{x=-\infty}dx\delta(x)=\int^{ax=\infty}_{ax=-\infty}dax \space \delta(ax)=\dfrac{1}{|a|}\int^{ax=\infty}_{ax=-\infty}dax \space \delta(x)$ $\endgroup$ – Mr Lolo Aug 29 at 12:10

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.