do you know about the "reciprocal gamma function"??

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 19 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 59

  • @fabianpereyra
    @fabianpereyra Рік тому +170

    The reciprocal funcion of the Γ function is literally his invert symbol L

  • @logician1234
    @logician1234 Рік тому +9

    13:38 smooth

  • @aperson6821
    @aperson6821 Рік тому +10

    that is indeed a good place to

  • @sbares
    @sbares Рік тому +15

    A slightly different technique: Every L(n) except L(1) can be converted to a contour integral in the same way as here (actually this should work for L(1) too, but there one has to be a bit more careful to show that the integral along the half-circle vanishes in the limit). Then one notes a striking similarity between the integrand and that of the Cauchy integral formula, so that after pulling out a factor of i^n from the denominator:
    L(n) = i/n! * (-i)^n * ((n-1)'th derivative of exp(1 + iz) at z=i) = 1/n!

    • @khoozu7802
      @khoozu7802 Рік тому

      It should be i/(n-1)!*i^(-n)
      And thus L(n)=1/(n-1)! L(n+1)=1/n!

  • @goodplacetostop2973
    @goodplacetostop2973 Рік тому +9

    17:07

  • @ach3456
    @ach3456 Рік тому +7

    I don't think you needed the induction part at all, just evaluate the residue by performing the series expansion of the exponential around t=i instead of evaluating the residue with a limit. The exponential is even already set up in that way since it's evaluated for (1+it). That way you already get 1/n! straight from the coefficients.

  • @nguyenquangkiet2103
    @nguyenquangkiet2103 Рік тому +13

    Is that inverse Laplace transform of 1/s^n

    • @GiornoYoshikage
      @GiornoYoshikage Рік тому +6

      Right! L(s) is simply the inverse Laplace transform when integration is over line 'Re(z) = 1' and substitution 'z = 1 + it' is performed

    • @nguyenquangkiet2103
      @nguyenquangkiet2103 Рік тому

      @@GiornoYoshikage In the definition, the inverse Laplace transform is the Bromwich's integral. Can z=it?

  • @eiseks3410
    @eiseks3410 Рік тому +13

    And that's a good place to s

    • @Alan-zf2tt
      @Alan-zf2tt Рік тому

      It reminds me of trainee logician who could not say no and his master who could not say

  • @fantiscious
    @fantiscious Рік тому +1

    What’s really interesting about the reciprocal gamma function is that it’s pretty much the sequence of partial products of the unit fractions, instead of natural numbers

  • @franksaved3893
    @franksaved3893 Рік тому +2

    12:21 i don't know why the module of the denominator is bounded by R²

    • @QuantumHistorian
      @QuantumHistorian Рік тому +4

      Expand (1 + i t)^2 with t = R cos(theta) + i R sin(theta), take the modulus, and you'll see that it's always bounded by R^2.

    • @anjunakrokus
      @anjunakrokus Рік тому +3

      |1+it|² = |1-t_i + it_r|² = (1-t_i)² + (t_r)²

  • @lowbudgetmaths
    @lowbudgetmaths Рік тому +1

    For the Gamma integral, I think it should be pointed out that there is convergence only if the real part of s > 0.
    You can then use recursion to extend, but the original integral only converges if re{s} >0.
    1/Gamma is an entire function.

  • @DeanCalhoun
    @DeanCalhoun Рік тому

    michael you’re a legend, thank you for all the interesting and informative videos

  • @pion137
    @pion137 Рік тому

    Great vid Michael!

  • @Noam_.Menashe
    @Noam_.Menashe Рік тому +4

    I guess this is a simple form for the Bromwich contour integral, at least when S is large enough.

  • @Otanes_Yu
    @Otanes_Yu Рік тому +4

    Use residue from the beginning we can easily solve the integration, just care for the convergence

  • @davidvilla2909
    @davidvilla2909 Рік тому +1

    I have always felt that the reciprocal is the more "natural" representation of the gamma function. If you look at the graph of the function it has all these infinities, especially at the negative integers. These become neat zeros in the reciprocal, and the function itself is "entire" over the complex numbers.

  • @CM63_France
    @CM63_France Рік тому +1

    Hi,
    17:08 : missing "stop".

  • @dominicellis1867
    @dominicellis1867 Рік тому

    You can use this to define transcendental derivatives because it completes the Taylor series for all n values. Is there an application for this? Could you use the Ith derivative coupled with quantum calculus and the Schrödinger equation to reveal hidden properties of the quantum wave equation?

  • @zygoloid
    @zygoloid Рік тому +2

    Is L(z) = 1/Γ(z) for all z, or only for integers?

    • @tomkerruish2982
      @tomkerruish2982 Рік тому +1

      I would conjecture so, but you'd have to deal with appropriately evaluating (1+it)^s when s isn't a positive integer.

    • @yuan-jiafan9998
      @yuan-jiafan9998 Рік тому +2

      According to the wiki page "Reciprocal gamma function", it is for all z.

  • @dariofagotto4047
    @dariofagotto4047 Рік тому +2

    Pretty nice function, integration by part for recursive formula's always works! I'm a bit confused by L(1) cause it doesn't feel like it necessary converges how it's written, but 0! is not a big deal, also I think the analytic continuation of that function must be unique like it's unique for the factorial making it 1/Gamma probably?

    • @leostein128
      @leostein128 Рік тому +2

      The function is clearly analytic, but to show that it coincides with 1/Γ(s), I believe you need agreement in an open set, (rather than on a countably infinite set of isolated points, which is what was shown here)

    • @Alan-zf2tt
      @Alan-zf2tt Рік тому

      @@leostein128if I may ask: how do you get capital gamma to appear as text in your comment?

  • @danilonascimentorj
    @danilonascimentorj Рік тому

    I have a nice challenging number theory problem for you: Find all n natural such as 5^n-121 is a perfect square. I believe it uses complex numbers, but I have no idea how to prove that n=3 is the only solution.

  • @Happy_Abe
    @Happy_Abe Рік тому

    @12:20 why is the denominator bounded by R^2?

    • @toddtrimble2555
      @toddtrimble2555 Рік тому +1

      He didn't do that carefully and I think what he said is literally wrong, but it's anyway on the "order of" R^2 which is good enough and leads to the value 0 for this integral in the limit. Points t along that arc are of the form t = Re^{ia} where a is some angle. In absolute value, the expression (1 + it)^2 is bounded below by (|it| - 1)^2 = (R-1)^2 and bounded above by (|it| + 1)^2 = (R + 1)^2, by applications of the triangle inequality. So the integral overall is bounded above by integral_{Gamma_R} e/(R-1)^2 which tends to 0 anyway as R --> infinity.

    • @Happy_Abe
      @Happy_Abe Рік тому

      @@toddtrimble2555 thanks can you pleas explain the inequalities here using the triangle inequality. Also why is |it|=R here?

    • @toddtrimble2555
      @toddtrimble2555 Рік тому

      @@Happy_Abe We have |iRe^{ia}| = |i| times R times |e^{ia}| (using |xy| = |x| |y|), where |i| = 1 = |e^{ia}| because both i and e^{ia} lie on the unit circle (use Euler's formula for the latter). The two triangle inequalities are |x| - |y|

    • @Happy_Abe
      @Happy_Abe Рік тому +1

      @@toddtrimble2555 honestly amazing explanation, thank you so much. Perfectly clear!

    • @CORDEIROMAT
      @CORDEIROMAT 19 днів тому +1

      @@toddtrimble2555 Great. When youtubers do the things without correct explanation new learners do not understand and leave Math. I think you saved one with your text.

  • @darylewalker6862
    @darylewalker6862 Рік тому +1

    In the integration by parts, why does the u*v part end up being zero? What does e^it mean when t goes towards positive or negative infinity?

    • @QuantumHistorian
      @QuantumHistorian Рік тому +5

      He sort of tackles that. On it's own, e^it doesn't converge: it's modulus is always 1 but the phase oscillates for ever. However, when taking the denominator (which scales as 1/t^2) into account, then we can see the modulus of the whole ratio goes to 0. There's only one number whose modulus is 0 - regardless of its phase - and that's 0. So the ratio as a whole converges, even if the numerator is stuck in a cycle.

  • @Budgiebrain994
    @Budgiebrain994 Рік тому

    Hi. Please consider making a video on the inverse Gamma function, where e.g. x! = 12; solve for x. Thanks in advance

  • @jonathan3372
    @jonathan3372 Рік тому

    Is there any motivation for the construction of the integral, or did someone just happened to guess at the correct form (which feels unlikely)?

  • @scottmiller2591
    @scottmiller2591 Рік тому

    "We can pull an eye out the denominator" Poor denominator.

  • @Stelios2711
    @Stelios2711 Рік тому +1

    Nice, the Hankel integral respresentation of Γ. Almost... The Hankel contour is a bit different than the one here.

  • @aidarosullivan5269
    @aidarosullivan5269 Рік тому +4

    Complex residues are fascinating tool

  • @EqSlay
    @EqSlay 7 місяців тому

    I feel a super complicated representation of e^x emerging.

  • @Johnny-tw5pr
    @Johnny-tw5pr Рік тому

    KUM-BA-YAH!

  • @koendos3
    @koendos3 Рік тому

    The Gamma Function is the most intesting function in math... after the zeta function ofc. I found a formula for 1.k!, where k HAS TO BE AN INTEGER: it equals \frac{2}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\pi}e^{\cos\left(t
    ight)}\cos\left(\sin t
    ight)\cos\left(xt
    ight)dt

  • @charleyhoward4594
    @charleyhoward4594 Рік тому

    beyond me - as usual

  • @kkanden
    @kkanden Рік тому

    and that's a good place to s--

  • @gp-ht7ug
    @gp-ht7ug Рік тому

    Bello!

  • @Majid12829
    @Majid12829 Рік тому

    I like it, sir