• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

204 submissions , 162 unreviewed
5,024 questions , 2,178 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,686 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
815 active unimported users
More ...

  Prefactor $\delta(\Sigma_{i}^{n}k_{i})$ of the $n$-point correlation function

+ 0 like - 2 dislike

It can be shown that the $2$-point function $\tilde{G}(k_{1},k_{2})$ of a Poincare-invariant QFT has a prefactor $\delta(k_{1}+k_{2})$ for translational invariance. How to show this for an $n$-point function, where $n>2$?

asked May 15, 2017 in Theoretical Physics by XIaoyiJing (50 points) [ revision history ]
Most voted comments show all comments

We are not answering homework questions. Once you know how to show this for $n=2$ you can immediately generalize the argument to $n>2$.

It's not a homework question.

@ArnoldNeumaier: I think we should apply the term homework only in its proper narrow meaning to actual assignments ...

So this seems to be an ordinary (but maybe a bit too trivial?) technical question. 

My comment more or less contained already the answer. Expand your question by showing how you do it for $n=2$ instead of just saying ''it can be shown''. (The general case can also be shown, which tells you that ''It can be shown'' is an empty phrase unless you can show it.) 

I am not good at expressing myself in English. I derived it for $n=2$, and I cannot get a delta function prefactor for $n=3$. Maybe I am too stupid, but it is not trivial to me. That's why I ask this question here. Saying that it is a homework question is totally clueless. If you think that my questions are inappropriate here, I would stop asking more questions.  

Most recent comments show all comments


Now do the same for the $n$-point function!

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights