Integrating Exponential Functions Multiplied by t^n

AI Thread Summary
Integrating exponential functions multiplied by powers of t, such as t^n * exp(-t), always converges to a finite value when evaluated from t0 to infinity. This is due to the exponential decay outpacing the polynomial growth of t^n. The integral can be proven finite through induction and integration by parts, with the result being that ∫_0^∞ t^n e^(-t) dt equals n!. The left summand approaches zero, while the right integral converges, confirming the convergence for all n. The discussion also highlights the ability to interchange sums and integrals for power series involving these functions.
Cyrus
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
17
Its true that if you integrate an exponential function from some time t0 to infinity it will converge to a finite value.

However, is the same true if it is multiplied by say t, t^2, t^3,t^n.


i.e. t*exp(-t) for example.

the exp is decaying to zero faaster than t is, so it goes to zero in the limit. But there are functions that decay to zero but their integral is not finite because the rate of decay is not *fast enough*.

Would the integral of exp multiplied by any power of t ALWAYs converge to a finite number?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Yes.

\int_{t_0}^\infty t^n e^{-t} dt

is always finite. You can prove this by induction (hint: use integration by parts).

Here's an interesting factoid for you:

\int_0^\infty t^n e^{-t} dt = n!.
 
Yes, using an integration by parts to get an inductive argument. Integrating t*exp(-t) for example will get you

<br /> -te^{-t} + \int_{t_0}^\infty e^{-t} dt<br />

The left summand will go to 0 and the right integral converges. That establishes that the indefinite integral of t*exp(-t) converges, then since the derivative t^2 is 2t you can establish it again with t^2 and so on (the left summand, t^n*exp(-t) will always go to 0 since t^n = o(e^t) for all n).

Edit: oops, morphism already answered.
 
Also consider what happens when you integrate the power series.

t^n*exp(-t) is sufficiently nice that you should be able to interchange the sum and integral.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top