Evaluating the Challenging Integral I_n(x) and its Impact on the Sum S_n(x)

  • Thread starter Thread starter benorin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating the integral \( I_n(x) = \int \frac{n!dx}{x(x+1)\cdots (x+n)} \) and its relationship to the sum \( S_n(x) = \sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^{k}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array}\right) (x+k)\log (x+k) \). Participants express a desire to find a non-homogeneous recurrence relation for \( I_n(x) \) and explore various approaches to connect \( I_n(x) \) and \( S_n(x) \).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the potential use of partial fraction decomposition and question its necessity. There are attempts to clarify the relationship between \( I_n(x) \) and \( S_n(x) \), with some expressing confusion over notation and the implications of integrating \( I_n(x) \). Others suggest exploring connections through generating functions and Feynman's trick.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing insights and questioning assumptions. Some have proposed potential connections between the integral and the sum, while others are still clarifying their understanding of the notation and relationships involved. There is no explicit consensus, but various lines of reasoning are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of not using partial fraction decomposition for evaluating \( I_n(x) \) and express a desire for a non-homogeneous recurrence relation. There is also mention of specific constraints related to the evaluation of the sums and integrals involved.

benorin
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
1,442
Reaction score
191
Put

[tex]I_n(x)=\int \frac{n!dx}{x(x+1)\cdots (x+n)}[/tex]​

The desired result is an evaluation of the sum

[tex]S_n(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^{k}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array}\right) (x+k)\log (x+k)[/tex]​

and so it is important that the evaluation of [tex]I_n(x)[/tex] be not by means of partial fraction decomposition, for this is already of note that [tex]S_n(x)[/tex] may be evaluated, that is to say: it is known to me that

[tex]\int\frac{n!dx}{x(x+1)\cdots (x+n)}=\int\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array}\right) \frac{(-1)^k}{x+k}dx = \sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array}\right) (-1)^{k}\log (x+k)+C[/tex]​

whence integrating once again will produce an evaluation for [tex]S_n(x)[/tex].

I was working on developing a recurrence relation for [tex]I_n(x)[/tex] that I may solve it via generating functions; here of note is that it is also known to me that

[tex]I_{n+1}(x)=I_n(x)-I_n(x+1)[/tex]

yet this is not useful to that end. What is desired is a non-homogeneous recurrence. Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
How does S relate to I?

Is there any reason why you can't use the partial fraction decomposition, and then rearrage it into the form you desire?
 
I made a mistake in my tex, now the three dots show up.
 
To answer your question,

[tex]\int I_n(x)dx = S_n(x) +g(x)[/tex]

where I suspect that g(x) is rather tivial.

EDIT: in fact, g(x)=0.
 
Last edited:
benorin said:
To answer your question,

[tex]\int I_n(x)dx = S_n(x) +g(x)[/tex]

where I suspect that g(x) is rather tivial.

EDIT: in fact, g(x)=0.
You don't really mean the integral of I_n(x), right? You mean I_n(x) = S_n(x), correct?

EDIT: Actually, I am a bit confused by the notation.I is an integral over x so why is it a function of x? Fo you mean [itex]I_n(x) = \int_0^x \, f(x')[/itex] or something to that effect?
 
Last edited:
benorin said:
Put

[tex]I_n(x)=\int \frac{n!dx}{x(x+1)\cdots (x+n)}[/tex]​

The desired result is an evaluation of the sum

[tex]S_n(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^{k}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array}\right) (x+k)\log (x+k)[/tex]​

and so it is important that the evaluation of [tex]I_n(x)[/tex] be not by means of partial fraction decomposition, for this is already of note that [tex]S_n(x)[/tex] may be evaluated, that is to say: it is known to me that

[tex]\int\frac{n!dx}{x(x+1)\cdots (x+n)}=\int\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array}\right) \frac{(-1)^k}{x+k}dx = \sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array}\right) (-1)^{k}\log (x+k)+C[/tex]​

whence integrating once again will produce an evaluation for [tex]S_n(x)[/tex].

I was working on developing a recurrence relation for [tex]I_n(x)[/tex] that I may solve it via generating functions; here of note is that it is also known to me that

[tex]I_{n+1}(x)=I_n(x)-I_n(x+1)[/tex]

yet this is not useful to that end. What is desired is a non-homogeneous recurrence. Any thoughts?

I haven't thought this one through completely but have you heard of Feynman's trick for combining propagators in quantum field theory. It *might* prove useful. It is the identity

[tex]{ 1 \over A_1 A_2 \ldots A_n} = \int_0^1 dy_1 \ldots dy_n \, \delta (\sum_{i=1}^n y_i -1) \, { (n-1)! \over (y_1 A_1 + y_2 A_2 + \ldots y_n A_n)^n }[/tex]

I just have a *gut* feeling that this might do the trick but I haven't worked out anything. It's 1 Am here and I am about to go to bed.

Patrick
 
nrqed said:
You don't really mean the integral of I_n(x), right? You mean I_n(x) = S_n(x), correct?

EDIT: Actually, I am a bit confused by the notation.I is an integral over x so why is it a function of x? Fo you mean [itex]I_n(x) = \int_0^x \, f(x')[/itex] or something to that effect?

Because it is an indefinite integral, it is still a function of x after the integration is carried out, as in:[tex]\int \cos xdx=\sin x +C[/tex]
 
And no, I do mean to say that [tex]\int I_n(x)dx = S_n(x) +C[/tex] since

[tex]I_n(x)=\int\frac{n!dx}{x(x+1)\cdots (x+n)}=\int\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ k\end{array}\right) \frac{(-1)^k}{x+k}dx = \sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array }\right) (-1)^{k}\log (x+k)+C_1[/tex]

we have

[tex]\int I_n(x)dx=\int\int\frac{n!dxdx}{x(x+1)\cdots (x+n)}= \int\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array }\right) (-1)^{k}\log (x+k) dx +\int C_1 dx[/tex]
[tex]= \sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array }\right) (-1)^{k}\int\log (x+k) dx+C_1x = \sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array }\right) (-1)^{k}\left[ (x+k)\log (x+k)-(x+k)\right] +C_1x+C_2[/tex]
[tex]=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array }\right) (-1)^{k}(x+k)\log (x+k)-\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array }\right) (-1)^{k}(x+k)+C_1x+C_2+h_n(x)=S_n(x)+C[/tex]

where a formula from the calculus of finite differences has been used to determine that

[tex]h_n(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array }\right) (-1)^{k}(x+k)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}x,& \mbox{ if } n=0\\-1, & \mbox{ if } n=1\\0, & \mbox{ if } n\geq 1 \end{array}\right.[/tex]​
 
Last edited:
An interesting development

An interesting development: recall that

[tex]\log x = \int_{0}^{\infty}\left( e^{-t}-e^{-xt}\right)\frac{dt}{t}[/tex]​

so that (dropping the "+C") we have

[tex]I_n(x+1)=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array}\right) (-1)^{k}\log (x+k+1)=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array}\right) (-1)^{k}\int_{0}^{\infty}\left( e^{-t}-e^{-(x+k+1)t}\right)\frac{dt}{t}[/tex]
[tex]= \int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-t}\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array}\right) (-1)^{k}\left( 1-e^{-(x+k)t}\right)\frac{dt}{t}=\int_{0}^{\infty}\left[e^{-t}\delta_{n,0}- e^{-t(x+1)}\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\k\end{array}\right) \left(-e^{-t}\right) ^{k}\right] \frac{dt}{t}[/tex]
[tex]=\int_{0}^{\infty}\left[e^{-t}\delta_{n,0}- e^{-t(x+1)}\left(1-e^{-t}\right) ^{n}\right] \frac{dt}{t}[/tex]​

where [tex]\delta_{n,0} = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}1,&\mbox{ if }<br /> n=0\\0, & \mbox{ if } n\neq 0\end{array}\right.[/tex] is the discete delta function, hence the evaluation

[tex]I_n(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\int_{0}^{\infty}\left(e^{-t}- e^{-xt}\right) \frac{dt}{t}=\log x ,&\mbox{ if }<br /> n=0\\ -\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-tx}\left(1-e^{-t}\right) ^{n}\frac{dt}{t}, & \mbox{ if } n\neq 0\end{array}\right.[/tex]​
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K