How can a function be infinite in a point if infinite is not a real number?

Bump, i don't get it either. Unless that's just plain wrong.

>>15387328 (OP)

That’s not how the Dirac delta mass is defined at all. Dirac delta mass is not a function, it’s a measure

>>15387328 (OP)

reminder that this only exists because Pauling and Heisenberg refused to accept the REALITY and physical implications of the electron spinning

>>15387328 (OP)

Literally the first paragraph on wiki. You have to be kidding me.

>>15387328 (OP)

>How can a function

and that's where you're wrong

unbounded infinity is not a concept people understand or can encapsulate within their bounded existence. Infinity is instead otherwise definable relative to a pre-supposed acceptable amount of accuracy/inaccuracy. As many steps X necessary to produce Y result. In most consumer electronic aided math endeavors, a common decimal number being stored as a Double, a 64-bit number, can afford up to 15 decimal places. Many terms of function would just need as many clearly finite steps as necessary to fill in just those first 15 terms after the decimal point.

Umm ackshually it's a distribution.

>>15387328 (OP)

Only physicists would say something this moronic

>>15387328 (OP)

like this



[math]\delta(x-c)=\left\{ \begin{array}{cl}

&amp; sasquatch &amp; , \ \text{si} \ x = c\\

&amp; 0 &amp; , \ \text{si} \ x \neq c\\

\end{array} \right.[/math]

>NOO YOU CANNOT DEFINE A FUNCTION INTO THE EXTENDED REALS

>>15387328 (OP)

It's not a function, it's a functional, or distribution

>>15387328 (OP)

>function

Because it’s not technically speaking a function.

A distribution is a measure

Even if you could, that’s not how the Dirac delta mass would be defined

this

>The method of Dirac, mentioned above (and this is overlooked today in a great part of the quantum mechanical literature, because of the clarity and elegance of the theory) in no way satisfies the requirements of mathematical rigor—not even if these are reduced in a natural and proper fashion to the extent common elsewhere in theoretical physics. For example, the method adheres to the fiction that every self-adjoint operator can be put in diagonal form. In the case of those operators for which this is not actually the case, this requires the introduction of “improper” functions with self-contradictory properties. The insertion of such a mathematical “fiction” is frequently necessary in Dirac’s approach, even though the problem at hand is merely one of calculating numerically the result of a clearly defined experiment.

>>15387328 (OP)

>How can a function be infinite in a point if infinite is not a real number?

I guess that would mean it's not a "real-valued" function, for starters.

>>15387328 (OP)

That just means it's not a real-valued function.

it's literally defined as a bell curve compressed into an infinitesimal range

elaborate.

That compressing is in the L1 norm not the uniform norm, so it’s limit is not defined as that function
