<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Sobolev-Spaces on Chen Kai Blog</title><link>https://www.chenk.top/en/tags/sobolev-spaces/</link><description>Recent content in Sobolev-Spaces on Chen Kai Blog</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.chenk.top/en/tags/sobolev-spaces/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Functional Analysis (11): Distributions and Sobolev Spaces — Generalized Solutions</title><link>https://www.chenk.top/en/functional-analysis/11-distributions-sobolev/</link><pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://www.chenk.top/en/functional-analysis/11-distributions-sobolev/</guid><description>&lt;p>I want to start with a confession. For years I treated the Dirac delta the way an undergraduate physicist does: as a function that is zero everywhere except at the origin, where it is infinite, and whose integral is one. That description is, of course, mathematical nonsense. No measurable function can have those properties. Yet every quantum mechanics textbook uses &lt;span class="math-inline">$\delta$&lt;/span>
 on page one, every signal processing course writes &lt;span class="math-inline">$\delta(t)$&lt;/span>
 for an impulse, and every PDE book invokes Green&amp;rsquo;s functions &lt;span class="math-inline">$E$&lt;/span>
 satisfying &lt;span class="math-inline">$\Delta E = \delta$&lt;/span>
. Either an entire scientific community has been making a fundamental error for a century, or there is a way to make this object rigorous. The latter, obviously — and the way is the theory of distributions.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>