Trouble understanding the Gamma function

vcdfrexzaswq
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function" is the integral \Gamma(z)=\int_{0}^{\infty}{dt\, t^{z-1}e^{-t}} . It has poles for integers of z less than 1 and is finite everywhere else. But to me it seems like it should be infinite for non integer values of z less than 0.

My reasoning: when t is close to 0, the function t^{z-1}e^{-t} is approximately equal to t^{z-1}.

The integral \int_{t_1}^{t_2}{dt\, t^{z-1}} is equal to (t_2^{z} - t_1^{z})/z. When z<0 and t_1 = 0, t_1^{z} is infinite. Thus it seems the integral \int_{0}^{\infty}{dt\, t^{z-1}e^{-t}} has an infinite contribution right after t=0 for z<0.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
properties of the integrand may be seen by expanding it into a Laurent series
 
vcdfrexzaswq said:
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function" is the integral \Gamma(z)=\int_{0}^{\infty}{dt\, t^{z-1}e^{-t}} .

Only when z has positive real part. It is extended to the rest of the complex plane by analytic continuation or, equivalently, by enforcing that \Gamma(z+1)=z\Gamma(z) holds everywhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gel said:
Only when z has positive real part. It is extended to the rest of the complex plane by analytic continuation or, equivalently, by enforcing that \Gamma(z+1)=z\Gamma(z) holds everywhere.

Ok thanks
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
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