Factorial Notation for Gamma Function Expression with Fractional Input?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the gamma function and its relationship to factorial notation, specifically addressing the expression gamma(2(n+3/2))=gamma(2n+1). Participants clarify that the gamma function is not invertible on the real line, which complicates the validity of the original equation. There is a consensus that if n is restricted to integers, there are no solutions, while allowing real numbers introduces two real solutions. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the properties of the gamma function, particularly its non-invertibility. Ultimately, the original questioner acknowledges a mistake in their wording, indicating a need for clarity in mathematical expressions.
Belgium 12
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Hi members,

gamma (n+1)=n!

Now I have the following:

gamma(2(n+3/2))=gamma(2n+1)

What is factorial notation for this??

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Factorial (and double factorial) is defined for natural numbers only.
 
^I don't know why people say that.
It is perfectly reasonable (and common) to define factorial (and double factorial) for complex numbers.
(-.5)!=sqrt(pi) for example is perfectly sensible

any way gamma (n+1)=n! implies
gamma (x)=(x-1)!
so
gamma(2(n+3/2))=gamma(2n+1)
(2(n+3/2)-1)!=(2n+1-1)!
(2n+2)!=(2n)!
which is in no way helpful
Are you to solve it?
If so hint
(a+b*sqrt(c))/d
 
Although (2n+2)! = (2n)! looks strange, it is important to remember that the gamma function is anything but one-to-one on the real line. I really like lurflurf's train of thought. Looks like the quadratic formula would be golden in this problem.

-Junaid
 
gamma(2(n+3/2))=gamma(2n+1) is false because 2(n+3/2)=2n+3 which is not 2n+1
 
The gamma function is not invertible on the real line so the statement is not necessarily false.

Consider instead the function f(x) = x^2.

Then f(-2)=f(2) is true even though -2 ≠ 2.

-J
 
junaid314159 said:
The gamma function is not invertible on the real line so the statement is not necessarily false.

Consider instead the function f(x) = x^2.

Then f(-2)=f(2) is true even though -2 ≠ 2.

-J

Belgium 12 stated : gamma(2(n+3/2))=gamma(2n+1) in which 2(n+3/2) and (2n+1) are integers. Obviously, no complex are considered. If Belgium 12 was thinking on complex roots, he would have mention it. Moreover, he would have not use the notation "n", but "x" or "z". So the statement is false.
 
I agree. If the solutions for n are restricted to the integers, then there is no solution. If the solutions are open to the real line, then there are in fact two real solutions. Just as a clarification, note that integers are complex numbers. There are two real, irrational, complex solutions to this equation. I do agree with you though that there are no integer solutions! :)

Also, note that:
gamma(n+1)=gamma(n) has a solution in the integers even though n+1 = n is a false statement. This really brings home the idea that you cannot remove the gamma on both sides of the equation as the gamma function is not invertible.

Junaid Mansuri
 
Last edited:
junaid314159 said:
I agree. If the solutions for n are restricted to the integers, then there is no solution. If the solutions are open to the real line, then there are in fact two real solutions. Just as a clarification, note that integers are complex numbers. There are two real, irrational, complex solutions to this equation. I do agree with you though that there are no integer solutions! :)

Also, note that:
gamma(n+1)=gamma(n) has a solution in the integers even though n+1 = n is a false statement. This really brings home the idea that you cannot remove the gamma on both sides of the equation as the gamma function is not invertible.

Junaid Mansuri

OK.
In fact, the sender of the question recognizes that there was a mistake in the wording of his question :
http://mathhelpforum.com/calculus/220899-gamma-function-factorial.html#post793851
 
  • #10
Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K