Re: Dirac-Delta function
From: The World Wide Wade (waderameyxiii_at_comcast.remove13.net)
Date: 10/03/04
- Next message: James Harris: "Re: Basic answer, and refutation, end of arguments"
- Previous message: The World Wide Wade: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- Next in thread: David McAnally: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:36:20 -0700
In article <2sacgoF1j6khiU1@uni-berlin.de>,
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > I would like to know what mathematicians think of the Dirac-Delta function.
> > Also, what the pure mathematics way of writing and defining it would be.
>
> A Diract delta "function" is not really a function. It is -functional-
> defined over a set of infinitely differentiable functions with compact
> support.
A functional is a function.
- Next message: James Harris: "Re: Basic answer, and refutation, end of arguments"
- Previous message: The World Wide Wade: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- Next in thread: David McAnally: "Re: Dirac-Delta function"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
