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 am reviewing Ramanujan's proof of Bertrand's Postulate which can be found here.

At step #7, he writes: "But it is easy to see that..."

$\log\Gamma(x) - 2\log\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}x + \frac{1}{2}\right) \le \log[x]! - 2\log\left[\frac{1}{2}x\right]!$

As $\Gamma(x+1) = [x]!$, this seems reasonable enough to me.

My question is: why did Ramanujan choose $\frac{1}{2}$. It seems like this would be true for any $n \ge 0$ where:

$\log\Gamma(x) - 2\log\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}x + n\right) \le \log[x]! - 2\log\left[\frac{1}{2}x\right]!$

Is that correct?

Thanks,

-Larry

share|improve this question
1  
Having cracked a book and taken out my magnifying glass, I feel that you may have mis-stated (7). I would be the last to down-vote for a typo... –  daniel Mar 23 '13 at 23:33
    
Thanks for the tip. I'll check it and update my question. –  Larry Freeman Mar 23 '13 at 23:58
    
@daniel: I checked it and it's possible that 1/3 may be 1/2. It does look like 1/3 to me. Is there any other area where you see a mistake? That's the only ambiguity that I see. –  Larry Freeman Mar 24 '13 at 0:02
    
Thanks! I've change the detail to 1/2. Thanks very much for the correction! :-) –  Larry Freeman Mar 24 '13 at 0:08
1  
For those interested, here is an easier-to-read html version of Ramanujan's proof of Betrand's Postulate. –  Larry Freeman Mar 24 '13 at 0:54
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Inequality (7) is delicate. $\log x!-\log\Gamma(x)$ is a little bigger than $2\log (x/2)!-2\log\Gamma(x/2+1/2),$ which makes the lower bound tight. $\log\Gamma(x+1)$ is no different from $\log x!$ so he relies on $2\log\Gamma(x/2+1/2)$ being slightly less than $2\log(x/2)!$ to achieve the upper bound.

In (8) he refers to the Stirling approximation for the bounds in (7), so there may have been an element of computational convenience in the choice 1/2. Once he establishes the numerical bound in (8),(9) he has no further use for the $\log\Gamma$ functions used in (7).

There may be room for a constant other than 1/2 but anything you do will have an effect at both ends. $2\log\Gamma(x/2+3/4)$ might be closer to and still less than $2\log(x/2)!$ but will the left inequality hold? It appears not.

Whether 1/2 is optimal I am not sure but I would guess so. When you examine the asymptotic behavior of $\log\Gamma$ the derivative becomes important. Question 94582, though I can't link to it at the moment, concerned this property. The factor 1/2 in argument of $\log\Gamma$ (and 2 outside it) make it something to check as an explanation of the choice of 1/2.

Edit: In light of this question it appears that $1/2$ is needed to give desired asymptotic behavior to the l.h.s. and r.h.s. For completeness:

$PG(x) :=$ Polygamma(x). From (7):

$$\ln\Gamma(x) -2\ln\Gamma\left(\frac{x+1}{2}\right)\leq \cdot \leq \ln\Gamma\left(x+1\right)-2\ln\Gamma\left(\frac{x+1}{2}\right) $$

$$\frac{d}{dx}\left(\ln\Gamma(x)-2\ln\Gamma\left(\frac{x+1}{2}\right)\right)= PG(x)-PG\left(\frac{x+1}{2}\right)\sim \ln 2^-$$

$$\frac{d}{dx}\left(\ln\Gamma\left(x+1\right)-2\ln\Gamma\left(\frac{x+1}{2}\right)\right)= PG\left(x+1\right)-PG\left(\frac{x+1}{2}\right)\sim \ln 2^+$$

So $\log[x]! -2\log[x/2]!$ is trapped between two functions which approach $\log 2$ from above and below. The 1/2 is from $\frac{x+1}{2}$ and is essential to the asymptotic limits.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.