Problem with a gaussian integral.

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on deriving a general formula for Gaussian integrals, specifically for the case where n is even. The user is trying to evaluate the integral I = ∫ e^{-x^2} dx and is confused about the necessity of using different variables when squaring the integral. It is clarified that while the integrals can be expressed with different dummy variables, they ultimately represent the same value, leading to the conclusion that I^2 can be rewritten as a double integral. The importance of using the gamma function and converting to cylindrical coordinates is also highlighted. The user acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding the necessity of changing variables.
misogynisticfeminist
Messages
370
Reaction score
0
Hey, I've been learning about gaussian integrals lately. And I'm now stuck in one part. I am now trying to derive some kind of general formula for gaussian integrals

\int x^n e^{-\alpha x^2}

for the case where n is even. So they ask me to evaluate the special case n=0 and alpha=1. So its I= \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} e^{-x^2} dx. When i square this integral, they said that its I^2= ({\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} e^{-x^2} dx})({\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} e^{-y^2} dy}) with both x and y as according to them, i have to use a different variable for the first and second integral factors.

Why is this so? I have limited calc background. So i was wondering you guys could help me out. Thanks alot...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think they're trying to get you to use the gamma function.

\Gamma(z)=2{\int^{\infty}_{0}dte^{-t^2}t^{z-1}

Those two integrands you have are even and the gamma func has useful properities for situations like this.
 
By using different variables for the squared version, you can convert to different coordinate systems, i.e. to cylindrical coordinates. What you typed above is the way you prove that \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} e^{-x^2} dx = \sqrt{\pi}
 
"When i square this integral, they said that its I^2= ({\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} e^{-x^2} dx})({\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} e^{-y^2} dy})"

No, they didn't say that! You put in the "when I square this integral" yourself- they didn't square the integral.

What they did say was: If I= \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} e^{-x^2} dx, then it is also true that I= \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} e^{-y^2} dy because that is just a change in the dummy variable.

It is then true that I^2= I*I= \(\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} e^{-x^2} dx\)\(\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} e^{-y^2} dy\)- just multiplying two different ways of writing the same thing.

Of course, the really important thing is that fact that that product of integrals can be written as a double integral:
(\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} e^{-x^2} dx)(\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} e^{-y^2} dy= \int_{y= -\infty}^{\infty}\int_{x=-\infty}^{\infnty}e^{-(x^2+ y^2)}dxdy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ahhhh so i see, a double integral. Thanks alot. Maybe i misinterpreted what they said, cos' they made it sound that changing the dummy variable was a must.
 
There are probably loads of proofs of this online, but I do not want to cheat. Here is my attempt: Convexity says that $$f(\lambda a + (1-\lambda)b) \leq \lambda f(a) + (1-\lambda) f(b)$$ $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (f(a) - f(b))$$ We know from the intermediate value theorem that there exists a ##c \in (b,a)## such that $$\frac{f(a) - f(b)}{a-b} = f'(c).$$ Hence $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (a - b) f'(c))$$ $$\frac{f(b + \lambda(a-b)) - f(b)}{\lambda(a-b)}...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K