Factorial Notation for Gamma Function Expression with Fractional Input?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the factorial notation for the gamma function, particularly in the context of fractional inputs. Participants explore the implications of the gamma function's properties and its relationship with factorials, addressing both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that gamma(n+1) equals n!, leading to the expression gamma(2(n+3/2))=gamma(2n+1) and seek a factorial representation for this.
  • Others argue that factorials are traditionally defined for natural numbers only, questioning the validity of applying factorial notation to fractional or complex inputs.
  • One participant counters that it is reasonable to define factorials for complex numbers, citing examples such as (-0.5)! = sqrt(pi).
  • There is a claim that the equation gamma(2(n+3/2))=gamma(2n+1) is false due to a misinterpretation of the expressions involved.
  • Another participant highlights that the gamma function is not one-to-one on the real line, suggesting that the statement may not be false in a broader context.
  • Some participants note that if solutions are restricted to integers, there are no solutions, while if considered over the real line, there may be two real solutions.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the nature of integers as complex numbers and the implications of the gamma function's non-invertibility.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement on the validity of the equation gamma(2(n+3/2))=gamma(2n+1), with some asserting it is false and others suggesting that the gamma function's properties allow for different interpretations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of fractional inputs and the conditions under which the gamma function can be applied.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their assumptions about the nature of n (whether it is restricted to integers or can be real), which affects the validity of their claims. The discussion also touches on the non-invertibility of the gamma function, which complicates the analysis of the equations presented.

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