Anyone Watch Fringe - Mysterious Equation

  • Thread starter Thread starter erok81
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fringe watch
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a formula presented in the TV show Fringe, specifically the integral n(s) involving the Gamma function, which is an extension of the factorial function. The character's resolution of the integral to zero raises questions about its implications, particularly since the integrand is always non-zero except at the poles of the Gamma function (s=0, -1, -2, etc.). Participants express skepticism about the choice of the Gamma function in the context of the show, suggesting it may have been selected for its visual appeal rather than mathematical significance. Additionally, there's a mention that if the expression were altered to e^x-1, it would relate to the Riemann zeta function, linking the discussion to the Riemann hypothesis and its implications in mathematics.
erok81
Messages
454
Reaction score
0
So I was watching Fringe this morning and this came up. Then the character ominously solved it with a zero. I could solve the integral but there is a symbol that appears in the beginning that I am not familiar with. Plus, with the emphasis on him solving it with zero, maybe this is a famous equation and something bad happens when it equals zero. :smile:

Here is the formula in question (the best I can see it anyway).

n(s)=\frac{1}{\Gamma (s)} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{x^{s-1}}{e^{x}+1}dx

And here is a screen shot of his notepad. Which includes a few other things.
 

Attachments

  • fringe.jpg
    fringe.jpg
    17.7 KB · Views: 531
Physics news on Phys.org
\Gamma (s) is the Gamma function, which is an extension of the factorial function to the reals and complex numbers.
 
Wtf is the gamma function doing on fox?
 
pergradus said:
Wtf is the gamma function doing on fox?
Satisfying a recursion formula I suppose :rolleyes:
 
Sounds like they just picked something that looked cool. I was hoping for an actual something, but I guess not. :redface:
 
You can easily show that the equation cannot be 0 for any value of s, because the integrand is always non-zero. The only exception is for the poles of the gamma function (s=0, -1, -2...).

By the way, if e^x+1 were instead e^x-1, n(s) would be a definition of the Riemann zeta function. The previous line is R(s)>1/2, which makes me think this has something to do with the Riemann hypothesis.
 
It's probably supposed to be the zeta function.
 
Back
Top