Why is gamma(z+1) = z * gamma(z)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shnaiwer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Zero
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the identity gamma(z+1) = z * gamma(z) using the integral definition of the gamma function. Participants utilized integration by parts, leading to the conclusion that the term (x^z) * e^(-x) evaluates to zero at the limits of integration from 0 to infinity. The dominant behavior of exponential terms over algebraic terms in limits was emphasized, with suggestions to apply l'Hôpital's rule to analyze limits involving infinity. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the behavior of functions as they approach critical points.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the gamma function and its integral definition
  • Knowledge of integration techniques, specifically integration by parts
  • Familiarity with limits and l'Hôpital's rule
  • Basic concepts of exponential and algebraic function behavior
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the gamma function, particularly gamma function identities
  • Learn about integration by parts in the context of improper integrals
  • Explore l'Hôpital's rule and its applications in limit evaluation
  • Investigate the behavior of exponential functions compared to polynomial functions in limits
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying calculus or advanced mathematics, and anyone interested in the properties and applications of the gamma function.

shnaiwer
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
hi to all ...
it is just an attempt to understand ...
the problem was to prove that
gamma ( z+ 1) = z * gamma(z) using the integral definition of gamma function ...
when i used the integration by parts i get the following :

gamma ( z+ 1 ) = ( x^z) * e^(-x) (0 ,∞) + ⌠ z x^(z-1) e^(-x ) dx
where the limits of integration ( 0 ,∞)

the integration already gives z * gamma (z) , then ( x^z) * e^(-x) │( 0 ,∞) = 0

i don't have the evidense that this term is zero ...

have u ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What does the " | " actually denote? What values do you get when you sub in 0 and take the limit as x goes to infinity ? It should be quite straight forward. Remember exponential terms dominate algebraic terms in limits.
 
Gib Z said:
What does the " | " actually denote? What values do you get when you sub in 0 and take the limit as x goes to infinity ? It should be quite straight forward. Remember exponential terms dominate algebraic terms in limits.

thank u ... " | " denote nothing other than ( when or at ) , we can neglect it..
when we sub in zero we get zero , since
( 0^z) * e^(-0) = 0 * 1 = 0

but the problem still hold when we try that limit as x goes to infinity , where it gives
( ∞ / ∞ ) or ( 0 / 0) if we try l'Hôpital's rule , in fact i want to understand or get the answer of the question :
why do exponential terms dominate algebraic terms in limits ?
i think that you put the exact description of what my question originally is , when you said : Remember exponential terms dominate algebraic terms in limits
 
Last edited:
Take the log of L=x^z*e^(-x), log(L)=z*log(x)-x. x grows faster than z*log(x). Use l'Hopital to prove it. So the limit of the log(L) goes to negative infinity. That means L goes to zero.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K