mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Math Stuff > Analysis & Analytic Number Theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-11-24, 14:58   #1
Calvin Culus
 
Calvin Culus's Avatar
 
Sep 2010

278 Posts
Default Gamma function

It would be much more elegant to define gamma(z) = z!, but mathematicians prefer gamma(z) = (z-1)! and clutter a really beautiful improper integral with an awkwardly placed minus one.

Why?
Calvin Culus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-24, 22:07   #2
wblipp
 
wblipp's Avatar
 
"William"
May 2003
New Haven

22×32×5×13 Posts
Default

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.
wblipp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-25, 03:42   #3
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

22·1,483 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.
Although to be fair, the mathematical community wrestled with this question of convention for a long time.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-25, 04:10   #4
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

114D16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin Culus View Post
It would be much more elegant to define gamma(z) = z!, but mathematicians prefer gamma(z) = (z-1)! and clutter a really beautiful improper integral with an awkwardly placed minus one.

Why?
If you make gamma(z)=z! how would you distinguish it from factorial(z)?
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-25, 14:31   #5
Calvin Culus
 
Calvin Culus's Avatar
 
Sep 2010

23 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
Old 2010-12-07, 20:49   #6
mart_r
 
mart_r's Avatar
 
Dec 2008
you know...around...

599 Posts
Default

I asked myself the same question when I learned about that function, and was even more confused about psi(n) = (value of the harmonic series at n-1) - 0,5772156649... (the Euler-Mascheroni-Constant).

But I always trusted that there is a just reason for it and tried to learn more about it.

Am I wise, or what?
mart_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-23, 22:18   #7
only_human
 
only_human's Avatar
 
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002

3,581 Posts
Default

More discussion here:

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/20...factorial-by-1
only_human is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A useful function. JM Montolio A Miscellaneous Math 28 2018-03-08 14:29
Fun with partition function Batalov And now for something completely different 24 2018-02-27 17:03
phi function rula Homework Help 3 2017-01-18 01:41
Derivative of Gamma nibble4bits Math 0 2008-01-08 05:53
D-R zeta function devarajkandadai Math 4 2007-12-20 21:37

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:39.

Thu Oct 29 11:39:37 UTC 2020 up 49 days, 8:50, 1 user, load averages: 1.41, 1.68, 1.87

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.