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

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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the relationship gamma(z + 1) = z * gamma(z) using the integral definition of the gamma function. Participants are exploring the implications of integration by parts and the behavior of limits in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to use integration by parts to derive the relationship but questions the validity of a term evaluated at the limits of integration. Other participants raise questions about the notation used and the limits involved, particularly the behavior as x approaches zero and infinity.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, offering insights into the limits and the behavior of exponential versus algebraic terms. Some guidance has been provided regarding the evaluation of limits, but there is no explicit consensus on the original poster's concerns.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing discussion about the assumptions related to the limits of integration and the behavior of the gamma function at specific points. The original poster expresses uncertainty about the zero evaluation of a term, which remains unaddressed in terms of resolution.

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
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K