- #1

- 69

- 1

$$p(x)\dfrac{dG}{dx} \Big|_{t-\epsilon}^{t+\epsilon} +\int_{t-\epsilon}^{t+\epsilon} q(x) \;G(x,t) dx = 1$$

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter Wledig
- Start date

- #1

- 69

- 1

$$p(x)\dfrac{dG}{dx} \Big|_{t-\epsilon}^{t+\epsilon} +\int_{t-\epsilon}^{t+\epsilon} q(x) \;G(x,t) dx = 1$$

- #2

- 17,388

- 7,279

They can, but not if it is to hold as ##\epsilon \to 0##.

- #3

- 69

- 1

- #4

- 17,388

- 7,279

No, that would not help. The integral would still go to zero.Couldn't the same be accomplished by letting G have a discontinuity in t?

This is really not a strange thing. There are many examples of sich functions. For example ##f(x) = |x|##.I guess I just find a bit awkward to let G be continuous but not its derivative, not sure if this is a condition that should hold true.

Still, I can relate to your worries and I also never liked this argument although it does its job in the end. My preferred argument, and the one I use in my book, is to write ##G## as a piecewise function ##G(x,x’) = \theta(x-x’)g_1(x) + \theta(x’-x)g_2(x)## and insert this into the differential equation using that ##\theta’## is a delta function. You will need some delta function properties, but once the smoke clears you will obtain exactly the same result.

- #5

- 69

- 1

You're right, I completely forgot this classic example.This is really not a strange thing. There are many examples of sich functions. For example f(x)=|x|f(x)=|x|f(x) = |x|.

That's actually a much more natural way of thinking about the problem, since the derivative of the step function is Dirac's delta, we're just left with the boundary conditions. I just wonder how to reach the relation below from it though. $$ \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \left( \dfrac{dG}{dx} \Big|_{x=t+\epsilon} - \dfrac{dG}{dx} \Big|_{x=t-\epsilon} \right) = \dfrac{1}{p(t)} $$Still, I can relate to your worries and I also never liked this argument although it does its job in the end. My preferred argument, and the one I use in my book, is to write GGG as a piecewise function G(x,x′)=θ(x−x′)g1(x)+θ(x′−x)g2(x)G(x,x′)=θ(x−x′)g1(x)+θ(x′−x)g2(x)G(x,x’) = \theta(x-x’)g_1(x) + \theta(x’-x)g_2(x) and insert this into the differential equation using that θ′θ′\theta’ is a delta function. You will need some delta function properties, but once the smoke clears you will obtain exactly the same result.

- #6

- 17,388

- 7,279

What do you get when you do the insertion into your differential equation?

- #7

- 69

- 1

- #8

- 17,388

- 7,279

It is impossible to know that unless you actually show us what you got.Am I following your line of thought correctly?

- #9

- 69

- 1

$$ p[(g''_1 \theta(x-x') + 2g'_1 \delta(x-x') + g_1 \delta(x-x')') + (g''_2 \theta(x'-x) + 2g'_2 \delta(x'-x) + g_2 \delta(x'-x)')] + p'(g'_1 \theta(x-x') + g'_2\theta(x'-x) + g_1 \delta(x-x') + g_2 \delta(x'-x)) + q(g_1 \theta(x-x') + g_2\theta(x'-x)) = \delta(x-x')$$

Now, I looked it up that the derivative of the delta function is ##\frac{\delta}{x}## so I could substitute it there, but it doesn't seem to lead anywhere. I also thought about isolating ##\frac{dG}{dx}## and inserting in the other terms to come up with something, but that didn't seem to work either.

- #10

- 17,388

- 7,279

Share: