Approximating Gamma Function: Numerically Calculate \(\frac{3}{2}\)

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
8 replies · 3K views
twalker40
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
1. Numerically approximate [tex]\Gamma(\frac{3}{2})[/tex]. Is it reasonable to define these as [tex](\frac{1}{2})[/tex]!?

2. Show in the sense of question 1. that [tex](\frac{1}{2})[/tex]! = [tex]\frac{1}{2}[/tex][tex]\sqrt{\pi}[/tex] at least numerically.


How am i supposed to attempt this numerically? given that i do not know additional identities of the gamma function...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmm, seems like a poorly phrased question. The usual definition of the gamma function is

[tex]\Gamma(z)=\int_0^\infty dt\,t^{z-1}e^{-t}[/tex]

for [itex]\mathop{\rm Re}z>0[/itex]. Then it's pretty easy to show that [itex]\Gamma(n)=(n-1)![/itex] when [itex]n[/itex] is a positive integer. You could use this integral as a basis for numerical approximation, I suppose.
 
Dick said:
The definition of the gamma function is given by an integral. What is it? You can numerically approximate an integral. I think that's what they are after.

okay, if i numerically approximate by plugging in 3/2 into the gamma function, i get infinity.

how am i supposed to use that information to arrive at the conclusion in #2?
 
O, I am sorry. I did my math incorrectly...

after reworking the problem, using integration by parts,
i'm stuck at
(-t^(1/2))/(e^t)|[tex]^{infinity}_{0}tex]+(1/2) (original integral except t^-1/2)<br /> <br /> after further integration, isn't it an endless cycle?[/tex]
 
No, you aren't going to get much of anywhere integrating by parts. I thought you wanted to make a numerical approximation. Don't you just want to approximate the integral of t^(1/2)*exp(-t) from 0 to infinity?
 
would that be a basic fnInt(y,x,0,99) command on the calc?