Curious definite integral related to sophomores dream

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around evaluating a definite integral related to the "sophomore dream," specifically the integral involving an exponential function and a logarithmic term. Participants explore the properties of this integral, including potential singularities and its physical applications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an integral that resembles the "sophomore dream" integral and suggests it has a singularity at -π²/6.
  • Another participant challenges the existence of this singularity, stating that the integral is a sum of two regular functions and does not exhibit singular behavior.
  • A different participant discusses the implications of the integral's behavior, noting that it abruptly goes to zero at -π²/6 and compares this to a known singularity in a different function.
  • Concerns are raised about the numerical stability of computing the integral, especially when dealing with very small values that may lead to misleading results.
  • Participants discuss the sign of a variable in the integral, with one acknowledging a mistake in the sign and its implications for the observed singularity.
  • There is mention of a document that claims no singularity exists around x = -π²/6, which is supported by one participant's data.
  • Questions are posed regarding whether the function reaches zero at negative values or if it is entire, with references to Taylor expansions suggesting an infinite radius of convergence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence of a singularity at -π²/6, with some asserting it is present while others argue against it. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the behavior of the function at negative values and the implications of numerical integration.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations in their analyses, including the dependence on numerical precision and the complexity of the integral's behavior in the complex plane.

lamarche
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
The integral I am seeking to evaluate is
int_{-\inf}^{+\inf) exp(-|w|/2) exp( i w [ln(|w|)/pi-x]) dw
a definite integral which is a function of x... at x=0, it is nearly the same
as the "sophomore dream" integral...

I don't know why, but this function seems to have a singularity at -pi^2/6
This does have a physical application: it would be the minimum phase impulse
response of a cable having losses linear with frequency,,,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Probably, there is a misunderstanding.
The integral eq.(1) is the sum of two regular functions Eq.(2) and (3).
I cannot see any singularity.
 

Attachments

  • Integral.JPG
    Integral.JPG
    40.5 KB · Views: 757
Last edited:
Hi! JJ,

Cos(a+b) = cos(a) cos(b) - sin(a) sin(b)

so actually what you want to plot is (2) minus (3), not plus...

which is such that the function abruply goes to zero (and stays exactly there) at -pi^2/6

It is a singularity in the same way that the function f=(0,x<=0;exp(-1/x),x>0) has

a singularity at 0: all derivatives vanish... but only exactly on the real axis. On the

complex plane the series diverges/oscillated like crazy (no Taylor expansion possible...).
 
Cos(a+b) = cos(a) cos(b) - sin(a) sin(b)
so actually what you want to plot is (2) minus (3), not plus...
a = w*ln(w)/pi
b = -w*x ... (not +w*x)
Cos(a+b) = cos(w*ln(w)/pi) cos(w*x) + sin(w*ln(w)/pi) sin(w*x)
The sum is (2) plus (3), not minus.
And, as a matter of fact, the red curve ploted in not { (2) plus (3) }, but it is (1), before any transformation.
Also I ploted first { (2) plus (3) } but the curve is not visible because it is exactly the same as the curve (1).

the function abruply goes to zero (and stays exactly there) at -pi^2/6
I have doubts about that. It seems that, when x is positive and large, both fonctions Fc(x) and Fs(x) tend to zero, Fc(x) with positive values and Fs(x) with negative values, both tending to a common absolute value : i.e. Fc(x) equivalent to -Fs(x) . Equivalent, is not equal : the sum isn't exacty 0, but very close to 0.
So, Fc(x)+Fs(x) tend to zero very quickly, as it is often the case, due to exponentials.
The computation of the sum of two very low numerical values of oposite sign is hasardous.
I would not swear to it, but I think that the appearance of a threshold is related to the precision of the numerical integrator. If the threshold is crossed, the numerical result is 0, instead of a correct very low but not nil value, which moreover tends even more quickly to 0 when x increases.
I think that pi^2/6 is an empirical result, only due to hasard and without signifiance.
 
Last edited:
Hi! JJ,

caution, in English you would say "chance" not "hasard"... "hasard" is like "danger"

You are right, I flipped the sign of x in what I sent you (here I actually FFT/IFFT
with MATLAB), so on your graph what I call a singularity is at +1.6..., not -1.6...
and the impulse response is time-flipped...

Merci pour les corrections... je suppose que vous vivez en France? Je pourrais
vous expliquer comment j'en suis arrive la et ce que je compte faire, mais ce serait
mieux par telephone que dans ce forum...
 
Je pourrais vous expliquer comment j'en suis arrive la et ce que je compte faire, mais ce serait mieux par telephone que dans ce forum...
Bonjour,
En effet, il vaut mieux ne pas encombrer le forum par des sujets devenant trop spécifiques.
Dans ce cas, la messagerie privée de ce site peut être un moyen de communication plus discret.
 
Hi! Lamarche,
The document showing that there is no singularity around x=-pi²/6 is in attachment.
The sign of x has been flipped.
 

Attachments

  • Integral.JPG
    Integral.JPG
    44.7 KB · Views: 580
lamarche said:
Hi! JJ,

caution, in English you would say "chance" not "hasard"... "hasard" is like "danger"
And, in English, the spelling is "hazard"!

You are right, I flipped the sign of x in what I sent you (here I actually FFT/IFFT
with MATLAB), so on your graph what I call a singularity is at +1.6..., not -1.6...
and the impulse response is time-flipped...

Merci pour les corrections... je suppose que vous vivez en France? Je pourrais
vous expliquer comment j'en suis arrive la et ce que je compte faire, mais ce serait
mieux par telephone que dans ce forum...
 
JJacquelin said:
Hi! Lamarche,
The document showing that there is no singularity around x=-pi²/6 is in attachment.
The sign of x has been flipped.

Your data looks convincing. I had the wrong intuition.
Do you think the function actually reaches zero at some negative value (e.g. -2 ?)?
or do you think it is entire? I tried a Taylor expansion on it, and I actually got some hints
of an infinite radius of convergence!
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Should the function f to be continuous for applying MVTI or not?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Help needed with derivation: solving a complex double integral
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Solving an Integral using Feyman's trick
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Optimization of multiple integrals
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
MHB Definite integral challenge ∫ln(2−2cosx)dx=0
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Why is the integral of ##\arcsin(\sin(x))## so divisive?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Graduate Summing over continuum and uncountable numerocities
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
MHB Definite integral ∫(cos4x−cos4α)/(cosx−cosα)dx
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Can this difficult Gaussian integral be done analytically?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate Curious definite integral : sine integral times exponential
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K