Thread: Gamma function
View Single Post
Old 2010-11-25, 14:31   #5
Calvin Culus
 
Calvin Culus's Avatar
 
Sep 2010

1B16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wblipp View Post
Look up the integral definition of gamma. Something like this is necessary because Gamma is defined for reals (except negative integers). Your proposal would destroy the elegance of this definition. Your perception of elegance comes from only knowing the factorial correspondence. The gamma function has many other uses, and deserves elegance within its own domain.
As gamma(0) is undefined, the proposal would actually satisfy your "except negative integers".

Egg, face, case in point. :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse View Post
Although to be fair, the mathematical community wrestled with this question of convention for a long time.
Any idea why they eventually did settle for the z-1, instead of just plain z in the integral definition?
Calvin Culus is offline   Reply With Quote