This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
I don't have a clue about what it is the topic about, but it could be nice to include the explanation about why in the specific used described both formulations could be used equivalently.
191.125.179.92 (
talk)
19:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Proposal: change name from Dirac delta function to Dirac delta distribution
I suggest to rename the mathematical object and the page "Dirac delta distribution". Although using the word function is common, it is also common to call it distribution, which is more appropriate mathematically.
Skater00 (
talk)
16:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think
WP:COMMONNAME favors the current "Dirac delta function". I will add another reason for keeping things as they are: prospective readers of the article will all have heard of "function", but not know "distribution", and may as a result be uncertain whether they have arrived at the correct article. Thus the current naming is the least likely to cause confusion.
Tito Omburo (
talk)
09:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
complex analysis
This also comes up in complex harmonic analysis, right? Is there a corresponding theory of generalized functions in C? It doesn't like it can be done the same way as in the reals. 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:6CE6 (
talk)
03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Dirac delta in quantum mechanics
@
Tito Omburo you've reverted part of my
. Could you please give an example of a wave function that cannot be expressed as a linear combination of an orthonormal basis and complex coefficients? As that is what is being suggested by the current phrasing.
That doesn't alter the fact that we are talking about wave functions in here, they span the "state space" (i.e. Hilbert space).
Lets turn the phrasing around for a second:
If no wave function (in can be expressed as a linear combination [...], then a set of orthonormal wave functions is "incomplete" in
Which makes even less sense.
If the wave functions are normalizable, they belong to which, in this case, is a separable Hilbert space. Therefore both and can be expressed as linear combinations of ONBs with complex coefficients.
Roffaduft (
talk)
12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Look, the sentence is just defining what it means for an orthonormal set to be complete. Just being orthonormal is not enough, because they might not span the space.
Tito Omburo (
talk)
12:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I get that, from a purely mathematical point of view. Which would be true were it not that the sentence is not “just” defining what it means for “an” orthonormal set to be complete. We are talking about wave functions here, not arbitrary functions.
For something to be a wave function, it satisfies additional conditions. The “if” statement falsely ignores these conditions.
Roffaduft (
talk)
12:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I just gave an explanation on why (normalizable) wave functions always belong to . I also showed why the “if” statement didn’t make sense by giving the opposite implication as an example. You’re the one who claims the “if” statement holds for wave functions, so I think you should be the one clarifying your claim.
So every orthonormal set in L^2 is complete in L^2? (I did not engage with your contrapositive, but it is not the correct contrapositive.)
Tito Omburo (
talk)
13:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe you want to lookup the meaning of the normalization condition in quantum mechanics first. Also, you forgot the “separable” part; it’s not just a complex Hilbert space. I provided two hyperlinks in my initial reaction that may be of use to you.
Roffaduft (
talk)
13:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Can any element of a separable complex hilbert space be expressed as the linear combination of an ONB with a (complex) coefficient?
Roffaduft (
talk)
13:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I see what you mean, but that doesn't alter the fact that the statement implies normalizable wave functions can exist (in ) that cannot be expressed as a linear combination of the normalized wave function (in ) with a complex coefficient. So can we at least agree that the "if" statement should be an "if and only if"?
Roffaduft (
talk)
14:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Now that I read back my remarks I understand that I wasn't clear in addressing the issue I have, which is that the sentence suggests that normalized wave functions (can) form an orthonormal basis.
For example, the wave function (in position representation) is denoted and defined in terms of the state vector and position basis
A set of vectors is complete if every state of the quantum system can be represented as: