Re: Dirac-Delta function
From: The World Wide Wade (waderameyxiii_at_comcast.remove13.net)
Date: 10/03/04
- Next message: The World Wide Wade: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- Previous message: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: ((.99999.... == 1) == 1) = 1"
- In reply to: Randy Poe: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- Next in thread: A N Niel: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- Reply: A N Niel: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:35:44 -0700
In article <df76407e.0410030226.5be5beeb@posting.google.com>,
poespam-trap@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote:
> Yes. You have seen how it is introduced and used in physics
> courses. But you asked how mathematicians see it, and the answer
> is that from the point of view of mathematics, it isn't a function.
> In order to work rigorously with the Dirac delta, first you have
> to define a thing called a "distribution".
Well of course a distribution is a function.
- Next message: The World Wide Wade: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- Previous message: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: ((.99999.... == 1) == 1) = 1"
- In reply to: Randy Poe: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- Next in thread: A N Niel: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- Reply: A N Niel: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|