distribution associated with a discontinuous function
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $fcolonmathbb{R}tomathbb{R}$ be such that, for every $ninmathbb{Z}$, $f$ is differentiable on $left(n,n+1right)$ and $n$ is a discontinuity of first kind of $f$. We define
$$T_f(phi)=int_{mathbb{R}}f(x)phi(x)dx,quadtext{where }phitext{ is a test function}.$$
I understand that, when $f$ is continuously differentiable, $T_f$ is well defined and the derivative of $T_f$ is just $T_{f'}$. However, these two do not seem clear in this case.
My attempt: Since $n$ and $n+1$ are discontinuities of first kind of $f$, we can define a new function, say $g_{n}$ such that $g_{n}$ is continuous on $[n,n+1]$ and equal to $f$ a.e. Thus $f$ is (Lebesgue) integrable on $[n,n+1]$. We then conclude that $f$ is locally integrable on $mathbb{R}$ and therefore $T_{f}$ is well defined.
My question: 1) Is the above reasoning (to show that $T_f$ is well defined) correct? And:
2) What would the derivative of $T_f$ look like in this case? I think it is not $T_{f'}$ as $f'$ is not defined at $n$.
Any help/hint is highly appreciated.
functional-analysis derivatives distribution-theory topological-vector-spaces discontinuous-functions
asked Nov 27 at 3:59
weirdo
420210
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $fcolonmathbb{R}tomathbb{R}$ be such that, for every $ninmathbb{Z}$, $f$ is differentiable on $left(n,n+1right)$ and $n$ is a discontinuity of first kind of $f$. We define
$$T_f(phi)=int_{mathbb{R}}f(x)phi(x)dx,quadtext{where }phitext{ is a test function}.$$
I understand that, when $f$ is continuously differentiable, $T_f$ is well defined and the derivative of $T_f$ is just $T_{f'}$. However, these two do not seem clear in this case.
My attempt: Since $n$ and $n+1$ are discontinuities of first kind of $f$, we can define a new function, say $g_{n}$ such that $g_{n}$ is continuous on $[n,n+1]$ and equal to $f$ a.e. Thus $f$ is (Lebesgue) integrable on $[n,n+1]$. We then conclude that $f$ is locally integrable on $mathbb{R}$ and therefore $T_{f}$ is well defined.
My question: 1) Is the above reasoning (to show that $T_f$ is well defined) correct? And:
2) What would the derivative of $T_f$ look like in this case? I think it is not $T_{f'}$ as $f'$ is not defined at $n$.
Any help/hint is highly appreciated.
functional-analysis derivatives distribution-theory topological-vector-spaces discontinuous-functions
asked Nov 27 at 3:59
weirdo
420210
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $fcolonmathbb{R}tomathbb{R}$ be such that, for every $ninmathbb{Z}$, $f$ is differentiable on $left(n,n+1right)$ and $n$ is a discontinuity of first kind of $f$. We define
$$T_f(phi)=int_{mathbb{R}}f(x)phi(x)dx,quadtext{where }phitext{ is a test function}.$$
I understand that, when $f$ is continuously differentiable, $T_f$ is well defined and the derivative of $T_f$ is just $T_{f'}$. However, these two do not seem clear in this case.
My attempt: Since $n$ and $n+1$ are discontinuities of first kind of $f$, we can define a new function, say $g_{n}$ such that $g_{n}$ is continuous on $[n,n+1]$ and equal to $f$ a.e. Thus $f$ is (Lebesgue) integrable on $[n,n+1]$. We then conclude that $f$ is locally integrable on $mathbb{R}$ and therefore $T_{f}$ is well defined.
My question: 1) Is the above reasoning (to show that $T_f$ is well defined) correct? And:
2) What would the derivative of $T_f$ look like in this case? I think it is not $T_{f'}$ as $f'$ is not defined at $n$.
Any help/hint is highly appreciated.
functional-analysis derivatives distribution-theory topological-vector-spaces discontinuous-functions
asked Nov 27 at 3:59
weirdo
420210
Let $fcolonmathbb{R}tomathbb{R}$ be such that, for every $ninmathbb{Z}$, $f$ is differentiable on $left(n,n+1right)$ and $n$ is a discontinuity of first kind of $f$. We define
$$T_f(phi)=int_{mathbb{R}}f(x)phi(x)dx,quadtext{where }phitext{ is a test function}.$$
I understand that, when $f$ is continuously differentiable, $T_f$ is well defined and the derivative of $T_f$ is just $T_{f'}$. However, these two do not seem clear in this case.
My attempt: Since $n$ and $n+1$ are discontinuities of first kind of $f$, we can define a new function, say $g_{n}$ such that $g_{n}$ is continuous on $[n,n+1]$ and equal to $f$ a.e. Thus $f$ is (Lebesgue) integrable on $[n,n+1]$. We then conclude that $f$ is locally integrable on $mathbb{R}$ and therefore $T_{f}$ is well defined.
My question: 1) Is the above reasoning (to show that $T_f$ is well defined) correct? And:
2) What would the derivative of $T_f$ look like in this case? I think it is not $T_{f'}$ as $f'$ is not defined at $n$.
Any help/hint is highly appreciated.
functional-analysis derivatives distribution-theory topological-vector-spaces discontinuous-functions
functional-analysis derivatives distribution-theory topological-vector-spaces discontinuous-functions
asked Nov 27 at 3:59
weirdo
420210
asked Nov 27 at 3:59
weirdo
420210
asked Nov 27 at 3:59
weirdo
420210
asked Nov 27 at 3:59
weirdo
420210
asked Nov 27 at 3:59
weirdo
420210
420210
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
If $f$ is absolutely continuous on each segment $[n, n + 1]$ when defined to take the values $f(n + 0)$ and $f((n + 1) - 0)$ at the endpoints, integration by parts shows that the distributional derivative is
$$f'(x) + sum_n (f(n + 0) - f(n - 0)) delta(x - n),$$
where $f'(x)$ is the ordinary derivative. If the conditions for integration by parts do not hold, the distributional derivative may not be representable in this form. Also, if the test functions do not have finite support, it is necessary to add a condition on how fast $f$ can grow.
answered Dec 1 at 6:42
Maxim
4,413219
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
It is important to use the fact that $f$ has left and right limits at integer points. Otherwise $f$ need not be locally integrable and $T_f$ is not a well defined distribution. The fact that these limits exist implies that it is bounded in $(n,n+1)$ and hence it is locally integrable. Any locally integrable function defines a distribution. In 2) there is no guarantee that $f'$ is even locally integrable so $T_f'$ cannot be written in terms of $f'$ without extra assumptions.
answered Nov 27 at 6:18
Kavi Rama Murthy
46.3k31854
For the Heaviside function $f(x)=1$ for $xge 0$ and $=0$ else, the derivative is $0$ a.e. but $T_f'=delta_0$ and hence different from $T_{f'}$.
– Jochen
Nov 27 at 7:44
@Jochen Thank you. I have omitted the last part of my answer.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 27 at 7:46
@KaviRamaMurthy So my attempt to show that $f$ is locally integrable was correct? I was not sure which result we can use to deduce that, if $f$ is integrable on every interval $[n,n+1]$, then $f$ is integrable on each of the finite union of these sets...Perhaps I forgot something in measure theory
– weirdo
Nov 27 at 16:41
1
@weirdo $fI_{cup E_i}=sum fI_{E_i}$ if $E_i$'s are disjoint. Finite sum of integrable functions is integrable.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 27 at 23:08
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
If $f$ is absolutely continuous on each segment $[n, n + 1]$ when defined to take the values $f(n + 0)$ and $f((n + 1) - 0)$ at the endpoints, integration by parts shows that the distributional derivative is
$$f'(x) + sum_n (f(n + 0) - f(n - 0)) delta(x - n),$$
where $f'(x)$ is the ordinary derivative. If the conditions for integration by parts do not hold, the distributional derivative may not be representable in this form. Also, if the test functions do not have finite support, it is necessary to add a condition on how fast $f$ can grow.
answered Dec 1 at 6:42
Maxim
4,413219
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
If $f$ is absolutely continuous on each segment $[n, n + 1]$ when defined to take the values $f(n + 0)$ and $f((n + 1) - 0)$ at the endpoints, integration by parts shows that the distributional derivative is
$$f'(x) + sum_n (f(n + 0) - f(n - 0)) delta(x - n),$$
where $f'(x)$ is the ordinary derivative. If the conditions for integration by parts do not hold, the distributional derivative may not be representable in this form. Also, if the test functions do not have finite support, it is necessary to add a condition on how fast $f$ can grow.
answered Dec 1 at 6:42
Maxim
4,413219
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
If $f$ is absolutely continuous on each segment $[n, n + 1]$ when defined to take the values $f(n + 0)$ and $f((n + 1) - 0)$ at the endpoints, integration by parts shows that the distributional derivative is
$$f'(x) + sum_n (f(n + 0) - f(n - 0)) delta(x - n),$$
where $f'(x)$ is the ordinary derivative. If the conditions for integration by parts do not hold, the distributional derivative may not be representable in this form. Also, if the test functions do not have finite support, it is necessary to add a condition on how fast $f$ can grow.
answered Dec 1 at 6:42
Maxim
4,413219
If $f$ is absolutely continuous on each segment $[n, n + 1]$ when defined to take the values $f(n + 0)$ and $f((n + 1) - 0)$ at the endpoints, integration by parts shows that the distributional derivative is
$$f'(x) + sum_n (f(n + 0) - f(n - 0)) delta(x - n),$$
where $f'(x)$ is the ordinary derivative. If the conditions for integration by parts do not hold, the distributional derivative may not be representable in this form. Also, if the test functions do not have finite support, it is necessary to add a condition on how fast $f$ can grow.
answered Dec 1 at 6:42
Maxim
4,413219
edited Dec 7 at 15:39
answered Dec 1 at 6:42
Maxim
4,413219
answered Dec 1 at 6:42
Maxim
4,413219
answered Dec 1 at 6:42
Maxim
4,413219
4,413219
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
It is important to use the fact that $f$ has left and right limits at integer points. Otherwise $f$ need not be locally integrable and $T_f$ is not a well defined distribution. The fact that these limits exist implies that it is bounded in $(n,n+1)$ and hence it is locally integrable. Any locally integrable function defines a distribution. In 2) there is no guarantee that $f'$ is even locally integrable so $T_f'$ cannot be written in terms of $f'$ without extra assumptions.
answered Nov 27 at 6:18
Kavi Rama Murthy
46.3k31854
For the Heaviside function $f(x)=1$ for $xge 0$ and $=0$ else, the derivative is $0$ a.e. but $T_f'=delta_0$ and hence different from $T_{f'}$.
– Jochen
Nov 27 at 7:44
@Jochen Thank you. I have omitted the last part of my answer.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 27 at 7:46
@KaviRamaMurthy So my attempt to show that $f$ is locally integrable was correct? I was not sure which result we can use to deduce that, if $f$ is integrable on every interval $[n,n+1]$, then $f$ is integrable on each of the finite union of these sets...Perhaps I forgot something in measure theory
– weirdo
Nov 27 at 16:41
1
@weirdo $fI_{cup E_i}=sum fI_{E_i}$ if $E_i$'s are disjoint. Finite sum of integrable functions is integrable.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 27 at 23:08
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
It is important to use the fact that $f$ has left and right limits at integer points. Otherwise $f$ need not be locally integrable and $T_f$ is not a well defined distribution. The fact that these limits exist implies that it is bounded in $(n,n+1)$ and hence it is locally integrable. Any locally integrable function defines a distribution. In 2) there is no guarantee that $f'$ is even locally integrable so $T_f'$ cannot be written in terms of $f'$ without extra assumptions.
answered Nov 27 at 6:18
Kavi Rama Murthy
46.3k31854
For the Heaviside function $f(x)=1$ for $xge 0$ and $=0$ else, the derivative is $0$ a.e. but $T_f'=delta_0$ and hence different from $T_{f'}$.
– Jochen
Nov 27 at 7:44
@Jochen Thank you. I have omitted the last part of my answer.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 27 at 7:46
@KaviRamaMurthy So my attempt to show that $f$ is locally integrable was correct? I was not sure which result we can use to deduce that, if $f$ is integrable on every interval $[n,n+1]$, then $f$ is integrable on each of the finite union of these sets...Perhaps I forgot something in measure theory
– weirdo
Nov 27 at 16:41
1
@weirdo $fI_{cup E_i}=sum fI_{E_i}$ if $E_i$'s are disjoint. Finite sum of integrable functions is integrable.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 27 at 23:08
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
It is important to use the fact that $f$ has left and right limits at integer points. Otherwise $f$ need not be locally integrable and $T_f$ is not a well defined distribution. The fact that these limits exist implies that it is bounded in $(n,n+1)$ and hence it is locally integrable. Any locally integrable function defines a distribution. In 2) there is no guarantee that $f'$ is even locally integrable so $T_f'$ cannot be written in terms of $f'$ without extra assumptions.
answered Nov 27 at 6:18
Kavi Rama Murthy
46.3k31854
It is important to use the fact that $f$ has left and right limits at integer points. Otherwise $f$ need not be locally integrable and $T_f$ is not a well defined distribution. The fact that these limits exist implies that it is bounded in $(n,n+1)$ and hence it is locally integrable. Any locally integrable function defines a distribution. In 2) there is no guarantee that $f'$ is even locally integrable so $T_f'$ cannot be written in terms of $f'$ without extra assumptions.
answered Nov 27 at 6:18
Kavi Rama Murthy
46.3k31854
edited Nov 27 at 7:46
answered Nov 27 at 6:18
Kavi Rama Murthy
46.3k31854
answered Nov 27 at 6:18
Kavi Rama Murthy
46.3k31854
answered Nov 27 at 6:18
Kavi Rama Murthy
46.3k31854
46.3k31854
For the Heaviside function $f(x)=1$ for $xge 0$ and $=0$ else, the derivative is $0$ a.e. but $T_f'=delta_0$ and hence different from $T_{f'}$.
– Jochen
Nov 27 at 7:44
@Jochen Thank you. I have omitted the last part of my answer.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 27 at 7:46
@KaviRamaMurthy So my attempt to show that $f$ is locally integrable was correct? I was not sure which result we can use to deduce that, if $f$ is integrable on every interval $[n,n+1]$, then $f$ is integrable on each of the finite union of these sets...Perhaps I forgot something in measure theory
– weirdo
Nov 27 at 16:41
1
@weirdo $fI_{cup E_i}=sum fI_{E_i}$ if $E_i$'s are disjoint. Finite sum of integrable functions is integrable.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 27 at 23:08
add a comment |
For the Heaviside function $f(x)=1$ for $xge 0$ and $=0$ else, the derivative is $0$ a.e. but $T_f'=delta_0$ and hence different from $T_{f'}$.
– Jochen
Nov 27 at 7:44
@Jochen Thank you. I have omitted the last part of my answer.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 27 at 7:46
@KaviRamaMurthy So my attempt to show that $f$ is locally integrable was correct? I was not sure which result we can use to deduce that, if $f$ is integrable on every interval $[n,n+1]$, then $f$ is integrable on each of the finite union of these sets...Perhaps I forgot something in measure theory
– weirdo
Nov 27 at 16:41
1
@weirdo $fI_{cup E_i}=sum fI_{E_i}$ if $E_i$'s are disjoint. Finite sum of integrable functions is integrable.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 27 at 23:08
For the Heaviside function $f(x)=1$ for $xge 0$ and $=0$ else, the derivative is $0$ a.e. but $T_f'=delta_0$ and hence different from $T_{f'}$.
– Jochen
Nov 27 at 7:44
For the Heaviside function $f(x)=1$ for $xge 0$ and $=0$ else, the derivative is $0$ a.e. but $T_f'=delta_0$ and hence different from $T_{f'}$.
– Jochen
Nov 27 at 7:44
@Jochen Thank you. I have omitted the last part of my answer.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 27 at 7:46
@Jochen Thank you. I have omitted the last part of my answer.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 27 at 7:46
@KaviRamaMurthy So my attempt to show that $f$ is locally integrable was correct? I was not sure which result we can use to deduce that, if $f$ is integrable on every interval $[n,n+1]$, then $f$ is integrable on each of the finite union of these sets...Perhaps I forgot something in measure theory
– weirdo
Nov 27 at 16:41
@KaviRamaMurthy So my attempt to show that $f$ is locally integrable was correct? I was not sure which result we can use to deduce that, if $f$ is integrable on every interval $[n,n+1]$, then $f$ is integrable on each of the finite union of these sets...Perhaps I forgot something in measure theory
– weirdo
Nov 27 at 16:41
1
1
@weirdo $fI_{cup E_i}=sum fI_{E_i}$ if $E_i$'s are disjoint. Finite sum of integrable functions is integrable.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 27 at 23:08
@weirdo $fI_{cup E_i}=sum fI_{E_i}$ if $E_i$'s are disjoint. Finite sum of integrable functions is integrable.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Nov 27 at 23:08
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3015318%2fdistribution-associated-with-a-discontinuous-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
