13
$\begingroup$

I was messing around with the Gamma function and it's poles when I happened upon the following series:

$$f(x)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{(-1)^n}{n!(x+n)}$$

Does anyone know what this is? This graph (red line) appears to be very close to the Gamma function (black line):

full graph here

enter image description here

Is there any way to turn this exactly into the Gamma function or derive the closed form of that series? I thought about adding $e^x$ to get the positive side more fixed and similar, but I'm also interested in an actual way to get this working.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I believe if you take what you've written subtract $f(x)$ and add $\Gamma (x)$ you will get the Gamma function as desired. But I can't be sure. I'm sorry...I couldn't help myself... $\endgroup$ – David Feb 13 '17 at 22:34
22
$\begingroup$

It is $f(s) = \gamma(s,1)$ the lower incomplete gamma function. You have separated $\Gamma(s) = \int_0^\infty x^{s-1} e^{-x}dx$ into $$\Gamma(s) = \int_0^1 x^{s-1} e^{-x}dx+\int_1^\infty x^{s-1} e^{-x}dx$$ where $\int_1^\infty x^{s-1} e^{-x}dx$ is entire and $\int_0^1 x^{s-1} e^{-x}dx=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^n}{n!}\int_0^1 x^{s+n-1}dx$ is a locally uniformly convergent series of poles

(using say the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma and $\Gamma(s+1) = s \Gamma(s)$ we can see that $\gamma(s,1)\to 0$ when $s$ moves away from the negative real axis)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, that makes good sense :D $\endgroup$ – Simply Beautiful Art Feb 13 '17 at 22:54
17
$\begingroup$

Let's compute

$$f(x+1)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{(-1)^n}{n!(x+1+n)}=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{(n-1)!(x+n)}$$

and observe that

$$f(x+1)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^{n-1}[(x+n)-x]}{n!(x+n)}=1-\frac 1e+x\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^n}{n!(x+n)}=1-\frac 1e+x\left(f(x)-\frac 1x\right)$$

We get :

$$\boxed{\forall x>0,\,f(x+1)=x\,f(x)-\frac 1e}$$

This is not the same functional equation than the one verified by $\Gamma$, but looks like ...

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, very interesting :D $\endgroup$ – Simply Beautiful Art Feb 13 '17 at 22:52
  • $\begingroup$ Beautifull answer! $\endgroup$ – Richard Clare Aug 26 '17 at 0:53
10
$\begingroup$

This series differs from $\Gamma(x)$ by an analytic function. For $\Re(x)>0$, $$ \Gamma(x) = \int_0^{\infty} t^{x-1} e^{-t} \, dt \\ = \int_0^1 t^{x-1} e^{-t} \, dt + \int_1^{\infty} t^{x-1} e^{-t} \, dt \\ = f(x) + \Gamma(1,x), $$ by expanding the exponential as a power series and integrating term-by-term. $\Gamma(1,x)$ is the upper incomplete Gamma-function, and is an analytic function of $x$, while your series is the lower incomplete Gamma-function $\gamma(1,x)$. Meromorphic continuation implies that the equality derived above holds whenever $x$ is not a nonpositive integer: one can show that $f(x)$ is locally uniformly convergent on domains avoiding the nonpositive integers, so is a meromorphic function, and the result follows.

Notably, it is easy to check using integration by parts that $\Gamma(1,x)$ is exponentially small for $x \ll 0$, hence why the dominant behaviour on the left is captured by $f$. On the other hand, $f$ is much smaller than the exponentially large $\Gamma(1,x)$ for $x \gg 0$, so $\Gamma(1,x)$ is dominant on the right.

For more information, you can also see this answer I wrote a while ago.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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