I have the following boundary value problem $$ \begin{cases} -u'' = \delta_{0} \quad \text{in }(-1,1) \subset \mathbb{R} \\[2ex] u(-1) = 0, \quad u(1) = 0 \end{cases}\tag{A} $$ where $ \delta_{0} \in \mathscr{D}^{''}(-1,1) $ is the Dirac delta in $0$. The goal is to obtain a variational formulation of (A), to demonstrate that there is a unique solution $ u \in H_{0}^{1}(-1,1) $ and to derive the analitic expression of the solution $u$.
I note that $ H_{0}^{1}(-1,1) \subset C([-1,1]) $, so that $ v \in H_{0}^{1} $. The following should hold: $ \langle \delta_{0}, v \rangle = v(0) $, and $ \lvert\langle \delta_{0}, v \rangle\rvert = \lvert v(0) \rvert \leq \displaystyle \max_{x \in [-1,1]} \lvert v(x) \rvert = \lVert v \rVert_{C([-1,1])} \leq M\lVert v \rVert_{H_{0}^{1}(-1,1)} $, where M is a constant. This should help, but here it is where I'm really stuck.
Although I guess this is not a difficult problem, I'm getting stuck with some basic issues. This is a homework problem, and I have very few skills with Hilbert spaces and the application of functional analysis to PDEs. Any guide will be much appreciatted.



The key idea is this: if $f$ and $g$ are two equal "vectors" (i.e. functions in this case), then $\langle f,v \rangle$ should equal $\langle g,v \rangle$ for every (appropriate) vector $v$. In the case of our functions, we've defined $$ \langle f,v \rangle = \int_{-1}^1 f(x) v(x)\,dx $$ (assuming these functions are real valued). Along these lines, the variational formulation of the problem is that for all (integrable) functions $v(x)$, we should have $$ \int_{-1}^1 u''(x)v(x)\,dx = \int_{-1}^1 \delta_0(x)v(x)\,dx $$ With the same initial condition. Simplifying the right side, we have $$ \int_{-1}^1 u''(x)v(x)\,dx = v(0) $$ and from there, applying integration by parts on the left brings us to the "weak formulation".
So, why do we care? Think about it this way: $\delta_0$ doesn't really make sense as a function, so how could a function $u$ satisfy $-u'' = \delta_0$? On the other hand, integrating with $\delta_0(x)v(x)$ makes perfect sense (or at least, there's a rule that lets us handle it), so the variational form gives us an equation where all the pieces have a literal interpretation in terms of functions.