Timeline for Does the derivative of log have a Dirac delta term?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 12, 2016 at 16:46 | vote | accept | Mikhail Katz | ||
| Apr 15, 2013 at 20:47 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | You may cirticize this as "less elegant" but others can criticize the original Dirac formula as "less rigorous". | |
| Apr 15, 2013 at 13:21 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | typo corrected. | |
| Apr 15, 2013 at 13:21 | history | edited | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo
|
| Apr 15, 2013 at 12:54 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | Thanks for the reference. I think it should be "Plemelj". One can specify a branch of log and still hope for a more direct formalisation with functions having local values. | |
| Apr 15, 2013 at 9:59 | history | edited | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
theorem
|
| Apr 15, 2013 at 9:16 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | less elegant, perhaps, but you do need to specify that the principal value is to be taken, otherwise the formula is not correct (or not complete). | |
| Apr 15, 2013 at 9:14 | history | edited | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
absolute value
|
| Apr 15, 2013 at 9:07 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | Thanks, but somehow that looks less elegant than Dirac's formula. | |
| Apr 15, 2013 at 9:04 | history | answered | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |