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.

Prove that $$H_n(x)= 2^{n+1}e^{x^2}\int_x^\infty e^{-t^2}t^{n+1}P_n\left(\frac{x}t\right)dt,$$ where $H_n$ is Hermite polynomial & $P_n$ is Legendre polynomial

share|improve this question
What have you tried? What are your own thoughts? It is difficult to write an answer at the right level unless you first show what you know. –  Mårten W May 3 '13 at 15:14
Try to prove that the integral satisfies Hermite equation. –  Felix Marin Sep 20 '13 at 20:15

1 Answer 1

The Hermite polynomials $H_n(x)$ have the following explicit expression:

$$H_n(x)=\sum_{m=0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\frac{(-1)^mn!2^{n-2m}}{m!(n-2m)!}\,x^{n-2m}\,.$$

On the other hand, the Legendre polynomials have the following explicit expression:

$$P_n(x)=\frac1{2^n}\sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\frac{(-1)^k(2n-2k)!}{k!(n-k)!(n-2k)!}\,x^{n-2k}\,,$$

which implies

$$t^{n+1}P_n(x/t)=\frac1{2^n}\sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\frac{(-1)^k(2n-2k)!}{k!(n-k)!(n-2k)!}\,x^{n-2k}\,t^{2k+1}\,.$$

For $k\geq0$, let $A_k=\int_x^\infty e^{-t^2}t^{2k+1}\,dt$. Integrating by parts we obtain

$$\begin{align*} A_k=&\,\int_x^\infty\frac{t^{2k}}{-2}e^{-t^2}(-2t)\,dt\\[2mm] =&\,\frac{t^{2k}e^{-t^2}}{-2}\biggl|_{t=x}^{t=\infty}-\int_x^\infty-ke^{-t^2}t^{2k-1}\,dt\\[2mm] =&\,\frac{x^{2k}e^{-x^2}}2+kA_{k-1}\,; \end{align*}$$

in particular $A_0=e^{-x^2}/2$, and so for each $k\geq0$ we have

$$\sum_{r=1}^k\frac{A_r-rA_{r-1}}{r!}=\sum_{r=1}^k\frac{x^{2r}e^{-x^2}}{2\cdot r!}$$

that is


Therefore we have, for $k\geq0$:


which in turn implies that

$$\begin{align*} 2^{n+1}e^{x^2}\int_x^\infty e^{-t^2}t^{n+1}P_n(x/t)\,dt=&\,2^{n+1}e^{x^2}\int_x^\infty e^{-t^2}\frac1{2^n}\sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\frac{(-1)^k(2n-2k)!}{k!(n-k)!(n-2k)!}\,x^{n-2k}t^{2k+1}\,dt\\[2mm] =&\,2^{n+1}e^{x^2}\frac1{2^n}\sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\frac{(-1)^k(2n-2k)!}{k!(n-k)!(n-2k)!}\,x^{n-2k}\underbrace{\int_x^\infty e^{-t^2}t^{2k+1}\,dt}_{=A_k}\\[2mm] =&\,2e^{x^2}\sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\frac{(-1)^k(2n-2k)!}{k!(n-k)!(n-2k)!}\,x^{n-2k}\,\frac{e^{-x^2}}2\sum_{r=0}^k\frac{k!}{r!}\,x^{2r}\\[2mm] =&\,\sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\sum_{r=0}^k\frac{(-1)^k(2n-2k)!}{k!(n-k)!(n-2k)!}\,x^{n-2k}\,\frac{k!}{r!}\,x^{2r}\\[2mm] =&\,\sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\sum_{r=0}^k\frac{(-1)^k(2n-2k)!}{r!(n-k)!(n-2k)!}\,x^{n-2(k-r)}\,. \end{align*}$$

Our objective is to show that

$$\sum_{m=0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\frac{(-1)^mn!2^{n-2m}}{m!(n-2m)!}\,x^{n-2m}=\sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\sum_{r=0}^k\frac{(-1)^k(2n-2k)!}{r!(n-k)!(n-2k)!}\,x^{n-2(k-r)}\,.$$

Note that when $k$ and $r$ ranges as in the right-hand side double sum above, then the quantity $k-r$ varies precisely on the set $\bigl\{0,1,\dots,\lfloor n/2\rfloor\bigr\}$. Given $m$ in this set, then the possible pairs $(k,r)$ with $k-r=m$ are precisely those satisfying $m\leq k\leq\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ and $r=k-m$, so the right-hand side sum above can be rewritten as

$$\begin{align*} &\,\sum_{m=0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\,\Biggl[\,\sum_{k=m}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\frac{(-1)^k(2n-2k)!}{(k-m)!(n-k)!(n-2k)!}\Biggr]\,x^{n-2m}\\[2mm] =&\,\sum_{m=0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\,\Biggl[\,\sum_{k=m}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}(-1)^k\,\binom{2n-2k}n\,\binom nk\,\binom km\,m!\,\Biggr]\,x^{n-2m}\,, \end{align*}$$

so it remains to prove that for any $n,m$ with $0\leq m\leq\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ the following equality holds:

$$\frac{(-1)^mn!2^{n-2m}}{m!(n-2m)!}=\sum_{k=m}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}(-1)^k\,\binom{2n-2k}n\,\binom nk\,\binom km\,m!\,,$$

or, equivalently,

$$(-1)^m2^{n-2m}\,\binom n{2m}\,\binom{2m}m=\sum_{k=0}^n(-1)^k\,\binom{2n-2k}n\,\binom nk\,\binom km\tag{$\boldsymbol{\ast}$}$$

(the summands with $k<m$ or $\lfloor n/2\rfloor<k\leq n$ are equal to $0$).

I already have a proof of this fact, but it is too long to write down, so I will include later. This proves the result.


Let $n$ and $m$ be as before, fixed. Let $f(z)=\sum_{j=0}^\infty(-1)^j\,\binom nj\,\binom jm\,z^j$ and $g(z)=\sum_{j=0}^\infty\binom{2j}n\,z^j$. Then the right-hand side of $\boldsymbol{(\ast)}$ is precisely the coefficient of $z^n$ in the power series expansion of $f(z)g(z)$. I use Mathematica to obtain the formulas for $f$ and $g$, and afterwards I $\ $ construct $\ \ $ try to construct a direct proof of the equalities (thanks Mathematica!). Now

$$\begin{align*} f(z)=&\,\sum_{j=m}^n(-1)^j\,\frac{n!j!}{j!(n-j)!m!(j-m)!}\,\frac{(n-m)!}{(n-m)!}\,z^j\\[2mm] =&\,\sum_{j=m}^n(-1)^j\,\binom{n-m}{j-m}\,\binom nm\,z^j\\[2mm] =&\,\sum_{j=0}^{n-m}(-1)^{j+m}\,\binom{n-m}j\,\binom nm\,z^{j+m}\\[2mm] =&\,\binom nm\,(-z)^m(1-z)^{n-m}\,. \end{align*}$$

On the other hand, denote by $\lceil x\rceil$ the least integer greater or equal than $x$. Then

$$g(z)=\sum_{\substack{j\geq0\\2j\geq n}}\binom{2j}n\,z^j=\sum_{j=\lceil n/2\rceil}^\infty\binom{2j}n\,z^j\,.$$

If $k=2j-n$ then $k\equiv n(\bmod\ 2)$, and $k\geq0$ iff$j\geq\lceil n/2\rceil$. Therefore the sum above can be rewritten as

$$\begin{align*} g(z)=&\,\sum_{\substack{k\geq0\\k\equiv n(\bmod\ 2)}}\binom{k+n}n\,z^{\,(k+n)/2}\\ =&\,\frac{(-1)^n}2\sum_{k=0}^\infty\binom{k+n}n\,\bigl[(-1)^k-(-1)^{n+1}\bigr]\,z^{\,(k+n)/2}\\ =&\,\frac{(-1)^nz^{n/2}}2\sum_{k=0}^\infty\binom{k+n}n\,\bigl[(-1)^k-(-1)^{n+1}\bigr]\,z^{\,k/2}\\ =&\,\frac{(-1)^nz^{n/2}}2\sum_{k=0}^\infty\binom{k+n}n\,\bigl[\bigl(-\sqrt z\bigr)^k-(-1)^{n+1}\bigr(\sqrt z\bigr)^k\bigr]\,.\\ \end{align*}$$

Now we use the fact that $(1-\alpha)^{-(n+1)}=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\binom{k+n}k\,\alpha^k=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\binom{k+n}n\,\alpha^k$ (for $|\alpha|$ small), obtaining

$$\begin{align*} g(z)=&\,\frac{(-1)^nz^{n/2}}2\Biggl[\frac1{\ \ \bigl[1-\bigl(-\sqrt z\bigr)\bigr]^{\,n+1}}-(-1)^{n+1}\frac1{\ \ \bigl[1-\sqrt z\,\bigr]^{\,n+1}}\Biggr]\\ =&\,\frac{(-1)^nz^{n/2}}2\,\frac{\bigl(\sqrt z-1\bigr)^{\,n+1}-\bigl(\sqrt z+1\bigr)^{\,n+1}}{(z-1)^{n+1}}\,. \end{align*}$$


$$\begin{align*} f(z)g(z)=&\,\binom nm\,(-z)^m(1-z)^{n-m}\,\frac{(-1)^nz^{n/2}}2\,\frac{\bigl(\sqrt z-1\bigr)^{\,n+1}-\bigl(\sqrt z+1\bigr)^{\,n+1}}{(z-1)^{n+1}}\\ =&\,\binom nm\,z^m\,\frac{z^{n/2}}2\,\frac{\bigl(\sqrt z-1\bigr)^{\,n+1}-\bigl(\sqrt z+1\bigr)^{\,n+1}}{(z-1)^{m+1}}\\ =&\,\binom nm\,\frac{z^m}{2(z-1)^{m+1}}\,z^{n/2}\ \sum_{k=0}^{n+1}\binom{n+1}k\,\bigl(\sqrt z\bigr)^{\,k}\bigl[(-1)^{n+1-k}-1\bigr]\\ =&\,\binom nm\,\frac{z^m}{(z-1)^{m+1}}\sum_{\substack{0\leq k\leq n+1\\k\equiv n(\bmod\ 2)}}-\binom{n+1}k\,z^{\,(k+n)/2}\\ =&\,(-1)^m\binom nm\,z^m\Biggl[\sum_{\substack{0\leq k\leq n+1\\k\equiv n(\bmod\ 2)}}\binom{n+1}k\,z^{\,(k+n)/2}\Biggr]\sum_{r=0}^\infty\binom{r+m}m\,z^r\,. \end{align*}$$

Taking $k=2j-n$, we see that $0\leq k\leq n+1$ iff $\frac n2\leq j\leq n+\frac12$, which implies

$$\begin{align*} f(z)g(z)=&\,(-1)^m\binom nm\,z^m\Biggl[\sum_{j=\lceil n/2\rceil}^n\binom{n+1}{2j-n}\,z^j\,\Biggr]\sum_{r=0}^\infty\binom{r+m}m\,z^r\\ =&\,(-1)^m\binom nm\,z^m\Biggl[\sum_{j=0}^\infty\binom{n+1}{2j-n}\,z^j\,\Biggr]\sum_{r=0}^\infty\binom{r+m}m\,z^r\\ \end{align*}$$

It remains to show that the coefficient of $z^{n-m}$ in $\Bigl[\sum_{j=0}^\infty\binom{n+1}{2j-n}\,z^j\,\Bigr]\sum_{r=0}^\infty\binom{r+m}m\,z^r$ is equal to $2^{n-2m}\binom{n-m}m$. Unfortunately, I was unable to prove this, but Mathematica says that it is true: taking $n=2\ell$ the software confirms that


and similarly it is confirmed that for $n=2\ell+1$ the equality



share|improve this answer
While I don't know whether or not this addresses the question in a context that suits the questioner, it is dismayingly opaque to me. E.g., please, what is the reason, if any, that there is such a relation? Is it truly just computational and formulaic? ... so that any small error is fatal? –  paul garrett Sep 21 '13 at 0:26
It is very frustrating to think hard about a question, only to be rewarded with an anonymous downvote. –  Matemáticos Chibchas Sep 21 '13 at 0:31
Again, I don't have much of an idea about other interested parties' reactions, but I would be interested in more explanatory narrative to this answer. Or, if it is the point, an explicit claim that the relation is fundamentally combinatorial (which would surprise me, but I am willing to learn new things). Thus, as in my earlier comment/request-for-clarification, I am curious about where the formula manipulation come from, if one can say. Or, again, if there is a claim that the "true" argument is exactly "combinatorial", could this claim be made explicit? Just asking for context, in part... –  paul garrett Sep 21 '13 at 0:40
@paulgarrett I agree with you, believe me, I want to find a more systematic method of solution, but this is better than nothing. Be my guest to provide a more concise and solid answer. –  Matemáticos Chibchas Sep 21 '13 at 2:36
Of course @paulgarrett is right in saying that a more intuitive explanation would be welcomed, but I too think it is unfair to award all this work with a downvote. While using the explicit formulae for the two special functions results in a fairly brutal calculation, one can at least follow the argument broadly and see that the author made every effort to be especially thorough. I hope that the original questioner accepts the answer and awards the bounty. –  Bennett Gardiner Sep 21 '13 at 7:25

Your Answer


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.