Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm confused by the two online references shown below. To me, they give different areas of validity of writing an exponential integral as sum of integralsinus and -cosinus.

On this Wiki page, I find the following:

Function ${\rm E}_1(z) = \int_1^\infty \frac {\exp(-zt)} {t} {\rm d} t \qquad({\rm Re}(z) \ge 0)$ is called exponential integral. It is closely related with ${\rm Si}$ and ${\rm Ci}$:

${\rm E}_1( {\rm i} x)= i\left(-\frac{\pi}{2} +{\rm Si}(x)\right)-{\rm Ci}(x) = i~{\rm si}(x) - {\rm ci}(x) \qquad(x>0)\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; (1) $

As each involved function is analytic except the cut at negative values of the argument, the area of validity of the relation should be extended to ${\rm Re}(x) > 0$. (Out of this range, additional terms which are integer factors of $\pi$ appear in the expression).

Contrary, at least to my understanding, on Wolfram's page, I find:

The exponential integral of a purely imaginary number can be written $${\rm Ei}(ix)={\rm ci}(x) + i[\pi/2 + {\rm si}(x)]\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; (2)$$ for $x>0$ and where ${\rm ci}(x)$ and ${\rm si}(x)$ are cosine and sine integral.

Despite their similarity, it might be that the two sites are not talking about the same thing, because adapting the relation ${\rm E}_1(x)=-{\rm Ei}(-x)$ for the argument $ix$ and applying it to $(2)$ gives: $$ \begin{eqnarray*} -{\rm Ei}(-ix)=-\left({\rm ci}(-x) + i\left[\pi/2 + {\rm si}(-x)\right]\right). \end{eqnarray*} $$ Further using

  • ${\rm si}(x)={\rm Si}(z)-\pi/2$ [1] (they really write ${\rm Si}(z)$, but I think it's OK to put $x$ for $z$, right? ),

  • ${\rm Si}(-x)=-{\rm Si}(x)$ [2] and

  • ${\rm ci}(x)=_3{\rm Ci}(x)=_4{\rm Ci}(-x)$[3] [4],

I get $$ \begin{eqnarray*} -{\rm Ei}(-ix)&=&-\left({\rm ci}(-x) + i{\rm Si}(-x)\right)&&\\ &=&-\left({\rm Ci}(x) - i{\rm Si}(x)\right)&&\\ &=& i{\rm Si}(x)-{\rm Ci}(x)&\neq&{\rm E}_1( {\rm i} x). \end{eqnarray*} $$ So $(1)$ and $(2)$ don't match via my approach: $-i\frac{\pi}{2}$ is missing. I think I made a mistake somewhere and I still asume that they are talking about the same thing.

If not, I would be interested to know, why the area of validity is different in both cases. Or is Wikipedia wrong?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

This is indeed a confusing subject. See Abramowitz and Stegun for the different kind of Exponential Integrals functions, relations between them and link with $\rm li$ function... $\rm E_n$ is a generalization of $\rm E_1$ (your definition of $E_1$ is $\rm E_n$ with $n=1$).
The links with ${\rm Si}$ and $\rm Ci$ are at page 232 (5.2.21 to 5.2.24).
The A&S was the reference for all these definitions for many years. More recent definitions may be found now online in the DLMF.

EDIT A simple way to choose between different interpretations is to consider the classical series expansion of $\rm E_1$ as the reference : $$\rm E_1(z)=-\gamma -\ln z -\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-z)^n}{nn!}\ \text{for}\ |{\rm arg}(z)|\lt \pi\ \ \text{(5.1.11)}$$

plot of the imaginary part of $\rm E_1$:

Im E1

The $\rm Ein(z)=\int_0^z \frac{1-e^{-t}}{t} dt\ $ function removes the $-\gamma -\ln z$ part (and the associated 'branch problems') from $\rm E_1(z)$ to get an entire function.

Looking at WolframAlpha and functions.wolfram we may find the $\rm Ei$ formula : $$\rm{Ei}(z)=\gamma +\frac 12 \left(\ln z-\ln\frac 1z\right) +\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{z^n}{nn!}$$

plot of the imaginary part of $\rm {Ei}$ :

Im Ei

The formula for $\rm{Ei}(z)$ looks similar but is not $-\rm {E_1}(-z)$ as may be seen from the imaginary part of $-\rm {E_1}(-z)$ :

Im -E1(-z)

(to make things even more confusing $\rm{Ei}$ is sometimes defined as $-\rm {E_1}(-z)$ and conversely for example in the excellent book of Lebedev "Special functions and their applications")

The difference comes only from the choice of the cut : for $\rm{Ei}$ and $\rm {E_1}$ the cut was clearly chosen on the negative real axis (with continuity on the other side of course!) so that $-\rm {E_1}(-z)$ will have the cut on the wrong side.
The appropriate definition for $\rm{Ei}$ from $\rm {E_1}$ seems to be : $$ \rm{Ei}=\begin{cases} -\rm {E_1}(-z)+i\pi & \Im(z)>0\ \text{or}\ \Im(z)=0\ \text{and}\ \Re(z)>0\\ -\rm {E_1}(-z)-i\pi & \Im(z)<0\\ -\rm {E_1}(-z) & \Im(z)=0\ \text{and}\ \Re(z)<0\\ \end{cases} $$

I think that the $\rm{Ei}$ function verifies (in conformity with A&S) :
$\rm Ei(x)=-\rm E_1(-x)$ for $x\lt 0$ and real but
$\rm Ei(z)=-\rm E_1(-z)$ +/- $i\pi$ for the remaining cases (c.f. 5.1.7 and the $i\pi$ coming from the '$\ln z$' or Wolfram link where the incomplete gamma function $\Gamma(0,z)=\rm E_1(z)$),
$\rm Ei(ix)=\rm Ci(x)+i\ \rm Si(x) + i\pi/2$ for $x\gt 0$,
$\rm Ei(ix)=\rm Ci(x)-i\ \rm Si(x) - i\pi/2$ for $x\lt 0$ (for the more general formula see here),
$\rm si(z)=\rm Si(z)-\pi/2$,
$\rm Si(-z)=-\rm Si(z)$ but
$\rm Ci(-z)=Ci(z)+i\pi\ $ (or $-i\pi$ as in 5.2.20 depending of the branch of the $\ln z$ term in 5.2.16 or try Ci(-x)-Ci(x) at WolframAlpha).
(I used '$x$' for a real and '$z$' for a complex, in these documentations $x\gt 0$ and so on imply usually that x is real).

Again all this is easier to verify using series (for example $\ln i=i\pi/2$) :

$$\rm Ci(z)=\gamma+ \ln z +\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^nz^{2n}}{(2n)(2n)!}\ \ \ \text{(5.2.16)} $$

$$\rm Si(z)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^nz^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)(2n+1)!}\ \ \ \text{(5.2.14)} $$

Perhaps simply that MathWorld had the '$\rm si$ and '$\rm ci$' lower case instead of upper case... Anyway I think that the more reliable references are A&S (I didn't use much DLMF yet), functions.wolfram and WolframAlpha. Of course Wikipedia and MathWorld are great for cross-references!

share|improve this answer

I have some numerical code using expint of MATLAB. I cannot publish the code but I have strong evidence that there is a sign difference in the imaginary part. Matlab help claim that they calculate E1(x) but Ei(x)=-expint(-x)-i*pi so indeed: -expint(-1.8) ans = 4.249867557487933 + 3.141592653589793i

and Ei(1.8)=4.249...real

The split logarithm function 1/2(ln(x)-ln(1/x)) removes effectively the imaginary argument for negative reals. In calculation of expint MATLAB (ver 2012a) uses -log(z) yielding -i*pi for negative reals.

When I want to integrate -E1(-x) from x -inf to +abs(x) (the integral exp(t)/t) I think the integral should have the addition -i*pi considering that I move along the upper side of the real negative axis and then circulate origin from +pi to zero before progressing to abs(x). Therefore I reach an answer in line with your answer that we should indeed have: Ei(x)=-E1(-x)+i*pi but -expint(-1.8)+i*pi= 4.249867557487933 + 6.283185307179586i

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks. Would you mind using Tex? –  draks ... May 28 at 10:06

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.