\begin{align*}
y(t) &= e^{2t} - e^t + \big(e^{2(t - 2)} - e^{t - 2}\big) u(t - 2), \\
y'(t) &= 2e^{2t} - e^t + \big(2e^{2(t - 2)} - e^{t - 2}\big) u(t - 2), \\
y''(t) &= 4e^{2t} - e^t + \big(4e^{2(t - 2)} - e^{t - 2}\big) u(t - 2) + \delta(t - 2).
\end{align*}
Why is there a $\delta(t − 2)$ in the equation for $y''(t)$? In which $u$ is the unit step function. When $y'(t)$ is calculated there's no $\delta(t − 2)$ added, why do you need to add an $\delta(t − 2)$ for $y''(t)$?
2026-04-01 08:50:45.1775033445
Why is there a $δ(t − 2)$ in this equation for $y''(t)$ involving a step function?
60 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
First: my background is physics, so this will be characteristically unrigorous.
Three important facts:
Step 1: Let's write your $y(t)$ as \begin{align} y(t) = e^{2 t}-e^t + f(t) u(t-2) \end{align} Step 2: Then using fact 1: \begin{align} y'(t) = 2 e^{2 t} -e^t + \delta (t-2) f(t) + \theta (t-2) f'(t) \end{align} (Do not use Fact 3 to simplify $f(t)\delta(t-2)$ term yet.)
Step 3: Differentiating again: \begin{align} y''(t) =4 e^{2 t} -e^t + 2 \delta (t-2) f'(t) + \delta'(t-2) f(t) + \theta (t-2) f''(t) \end{align} Step 4a: Near $t=2$, $f(t) \approx t-2$ (do a Taylor approx). So it seems safe to replace $\delta' (t-2) f(t)$ by $\delta' (t-2) (t-2)$: \begin{align} y''(t) =4 e^{2 t} -e^t + 2 \delta (t-2) f'(t) + \delta'(t-2) (t-2) + \theta (t-2) f''(t) \end{align} Step 4b: Now use Fact 2 above to replace $\delta'(t-2) (t-2)$ by $-\delta(t-2)$: \begin{align} y''(t) =4 e^{2 t} -e^t + 2 \delta (t-2) f'(t) - \delta(t-2) + \theta (t-2) f''(t) \end{align} Step 5: Now that we're done differentiating, let's clean things up with Fact 3. Since $f'(2)=1$, we get: \begin{align} y''(t) = & 4 e^{2 t} -e^t + 2 \delta (t-2) - \delta(t-2) + \theta (t-2) f''(t)\\ = & 4 e^{2 t} -e^t + \delta (t-2) + \theta (t-2) f''(t) \end{align} Which is the second derivative that you stated.
Again, my background is physics, and I do not have a super rigorous knowledge of delta distributions. I suspect all the equalities above really only hold underneath integral signs ... or something.
In particular, I'd be interested if someone could comment on why using Fact 3 to simplify in the second step will eventually give us the wrong answer.