Special Functions: Valid Gauss Formula Parameters

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the validity of parameters in the Gauss formula related to Euler's integral representation. The participants are exploring the conditions under which the Gauss formula converges, specifically focusing on the parameters a, b, and c, and their relationships to each other.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to clarify the conditions for the validity of the Gauss formula, with some suggesting that c must be greater than a+b. Others are questioning the necessity of specific values for a, b, and c, including whether they must be integers or can be complex numbers.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various interpretations being explored regarding the parameters' constraints. Some participants have offered guidance on the relationships between the parameters, while others are questioning previous assertions and exploring alternative values.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing debate about the implications of certain values for a, b, and c, particularly concerning the gamma function and its restrictions. Some participants mention that the parameters must meet specific conditions for the formula to be well-defined, while others suggest that there may be more flexibility than previously thought.

Ted123
Messages
428
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



It is known that Euler's integral representation
[PLAIN]http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5578/euler.png
is valid for Re(c)>Re(b)>0 and |z|<1.

The series (Gauss Formula)
[PLAIN]http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/2365/gaussz.png
on the other hand converges for Re(c-b-a)>0.

For what values of the parameters a, b and c is the Gauss Formula valid? (Think carefully)

The Attempt at a Solution



Anyone help?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
c must be bigger than a+b ? sorry i mean x must equal 1 for the integral to become the second gamma expression on the nomenator
 
Last edited:
Where's an x? Do you mean z? I'm not asked to derive the formula here - just to explain what values of a,b,c it is valid for. I was thinking c cannot be a non-negative integer
 
im sorry ,z must equal 1. the integral is a beta function and is equal to the gamma (the second in the nomenator) of the second function when z = 1
 
ardie said:
im sorry ,z must equal 1. the integral is a beta function and is equal to the gamma (the second in the nomenator) of the second function when z = 1

I'm not asked to derive the formula here - just to explain what values of a,b,c it is valid for. I was thinking c cannot be a non-negative integer
 
yes c has to be positive and bigger than a+b, and z must equal 1
 
but the thing is u already mention this, when u wrote Re(c-b-a)>0.
so i don't see what the question is
 
ardie said:
but the thing is u already mention this, when u wrote Re(c-b-a)>0.
so i don't see what the question is

The full question is this: (I've done part (a) so far which is deriving it...)
[PLAIN]http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7766/fullqs.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
well b can start from 1 and a from 1 so c must start from 2. I am assuming that the gamma function cannot take negative arguments. last ones just numbercrunching i suppose
 
  • #10
Do a,b and c have to be integers? And why does a+b have to be less than c?

How do I compute the sum of the power series with b=-1 for part (c)?
 
Last edited:
  • #11
the gamma functions are evaluated using the gauss integral method such that:
gamme (n) = factorial (n-1)
you want the factorial to have integer values as input otherwise it becomes really sad and starts to cry
just plug in the numbers to get those values.
factorial (-1) is a mathematical nonsense, hence why c-b-a must be positive for the function to be welldefined
 
  • #12
ardie said:
the gamma functions are evaluated using the gauss integral method such that:
gamme (n) = factorial (n-1)
you want the factorial to have integer values as input otherwise it becomes really sad and starts to cry
just plug in the numbers to get those values.
factorial (-1) is a mathematical nonsense, hence why c-b-a must be positive for the function to be welldefined

Part (c) says verify it for b=-1 but you've said that b must start from 1 for it to be valid in part (b)? a,b and c can be complex numbers...
 
Last edited:
  • #13
yes you can still have b=-1 with a=0 and c=0 and you will still not run into any trouble.
you can't have for example c=10 with b = 10 and a = 5
you also can't have c=-10 with b = 10 and a = 5
 
  • #14
ardie said:
yes you can still have b=-1 with a=0 and c=0 and you will still not run into any trouble.
you can't have for example c=10 with b = 10 and a = 5
you also can't have c=-10 with b = 10 and a = 5

But I thought we established for part (b) that the formula was only valid for a and b starting from 1 and c>2? This shows it can be valid for other values too...
 
  • #15
yes i think i made a mistake there again, but trying to minimise c, you can still have c=0 and then move upwards fitting all possible a and b values in
 
  • #16
ardie said:
yes i think i made a mistake there again, but trying to minimise c, you can still have c=0 and then move upwards fitting all possible a and b values in

So it looks like as long as c&gt;a+b it will be valid?
 
  • #17
yes... and that c is a positive integer
 
  • #18
ardie said:
yes... and that c is a positive integer

So for part (c), do I have to show that

\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(a)_n(-1)_n}{(c)_n n!} = \frac{\Gamma(c)\Gamma(c-a+1)}{\Gamma(c-a)\Gamma(c+1)}\;?

If so, how?

The definition of the shifted factorial (Pochhammer symbol) is:
(a)_n = \frac{\Gamma(a+n)}{\Gamma(a)}
 
Last edited:
  • #19
i believe if u do the summation in the power series you will find by induction that both represent the same rational number
 
  • #20
ardie said:
i believe if u do the summation in the power series you will find by induction that both represent the same rational number

Still struggling with evaluating either side...
 
  • #21
calculate the LHS and confirm it is equal to the RHS?
 
  • #22
ardie said:
calculate the LHS and confirm it is equal to the RHS?

How do I calculate the LHS though?
 
  • #23
ok I am not entirely sure about the notation used in your book, but in my reference books, the a,b,c's on that LHS with the subscripts are pretty hefty recurance relations which I cannot remember off by heart. So you basically just write the numbers in and keep putting new n's. since you have a n! in ur denomenator, youll find that the series converges pretty quickly, maybe after 4-5 terms, then you just calculate and they should be the same
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K