Talk:Delta function
Can we get some expansion on this? Right now, it's lonely, and I have no idea what even could link to it. Researcher 14:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Might I ask what these mathematics articles do for our mission?--BobNot Jim 17:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- A little mathematics can help in understanding science concepts. Depending on the science, even a lot. I'll try adding a section on Bayesian inference later, it's a statistics framework that makes a lot more sense than frequentist statistics, and more importantly approaches how scientists look at the world much more closely.--Star trooper man 17:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think I'm with Bob_M on this one. Some math articles could be useful, but I don't see how the delta function is going to be helpful anywhere else. But if it stays, I'm happy to keep working on it. --Pyfgcr 18:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think we need more maths articles...but not really this one. So perhaps don't bother.--Star trooper man 18:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- This looks like a sorry waste of time to me, but everyone knows I'm a jerk now. But seriously, if this is lonely, it has no reason to exist here. This article has no mission-glue to hold it together. Yet? ħuman
10:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Articles like this are sort of a support article. If we ever need an article with detailed description of quantum mechanics, we would need this. Did I once suggest an appendix namespace? I can't remember but I had the idea for a while. We could move technical details to that namespace and basically say if you want to more details see appendix:delta function. - π 06:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- So when we need it we resuscitate it? Right now it's a pointless bunch of gibberish. Somehow I doubt RW is ever gonna be the go-to place to understand QM. I think WP has it covered... ħuman 07:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- So when we need it we resuscitate it? Right now it's a pointless bunch of gibberish. Somehow I doubt RW is ever gonna be the go-to place to understand QM. I think WP has it covered... ħuman
- Articles like this are sort of a support article. If we ever need an article with detailed description of quantum mechanics, we would need this. Did I once suggest an appendix namespace? I can't remember but I had the idea for a while. We could move technical details to that namespace and basically say if you want to more details see appendix:delta function. - π 06:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- This looks like a sorry waste of time to me, but everyone knows I'm a jerk now. But seriously, if this is lonely, it has no reason to exist here. This article has no mission-glue to hold it together. Yet? ħuman
- I think we need more maths articles...but not really this one. So perhaps don't bother.--Star trooper man 18:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think I'm with Bob_M on this one. Some math articles could be useful, but I don't see how the delta function is going to be helpful anywhere else. But if it stays, I'm happy to keep working on it. --Pyfgcr 18:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- A little mathematics can help in understanding science concepts. Depending on the science, even a lot. I'll try adding a section on Bayesian inference later, it's a statistics framework that makes a lot more sense than frequentist statistics, and more importantly approaches how scientists look at the world much more closely.--Star trooper man 17:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
As the DF is involved in discriminating between numbers (analogous to gender, race and so on) pershaps it should be here (but not necessarily Godsend).
What does it do to numbers when it is at home? Please use words and diagrams, and write on one side of the page at once. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Delta function as a distribution[edit]
The reason why the Dirac Delta function is not a function is not that it has the value infinity, but that we want it to integrate to one over the real line. Since this is impossible (every function that is zero almost everywhere integrates to zero) we must introduce the notion of a distribution to capture some of the behavior we want this 'function' to have. Even Wikipedia gets this right. In fact, why create so many math articles if they're just going to be either wrong or cheap copies of Wikipedia? Mcxz (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)