0
$\begingroup$

In reviewing Ramanujan's proof of Bertrand's postulate, Ramanujan observes that:

$$\ln\Gamma(x) - 2\ln\Gamma(\frac{x+1}{2}) \le \ln(\lfloor{x}\rfloor!) - 2\ln(\lfloor\frac{x}{2}\rfloor!)$$

I have noticed that under some circumstances, the following lower bound is better.

$$\ln\Gamma(x) - 2\ln\Gamma(\frac{x+1}{2}) \le \ln\Gamma(x+1) - 2\ln\Gamma(\frac{x+2}{2}) \le \ln(\lfloor{x}\rfloor!) - 2\ln(\lfloor\frac{x}{2}\rfloor!)$$

For example, this is true when $x=34$. I'm assuming that it is not true in all cases or Ramanujan would have used the tighter lower bound in his proof.

How can I show that $\ln\Gamma(x) - 2\ln\Gamma(\frac{x+1}{2})$ is guaranteed to be lower in all cases $x \ge 2$ and identify the conditions when $\ln\Gamma(x+1) - 2\ln\Gamma(\frac{x+2}{2})$ is the better lower bound?

Here's my thinking on this question:

  • $\ln\Gamma(x-1) - 2\ln\Gamma(\frac{x}{2})$ is an increasing function (see here)
  • There are some known conditions when $\ln\Gamma(x-1) - 2\ln\Gamma(\frac{x}{2}) \le \ln\Gamma(\lfloor{x}\rfloor+1) - 2\ln\Gamma(\lfloor\frac{x}{2}\rfloor+1)$
  • My goal with this question is to show the conditions when $\ln\Gamma(x+1) - 2\ln\Gamma(\frac{x+2}{2}) \le \ln(\lfloor{x}\rfloor!) - 2\ln\Gamma(\lfloor\frac{x}{2}\rfloor!)$ and when it is not.

Thanks very much,

-Larry

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "I'm assuming that it is not true in all cases or Ramanujan would have used the tighter lower bound in his proof." I don't know about your example, but this isn't true in general. If a simpler approximation is sufficient for a given situation then people often don't clutter up their work with extra terms. Years ago when I suggested some miniscule corrections to an approximation, my supervisor responded "We're not trying to build a high-precision bomb, we're trying to understand something." $\endgroup$ – Douglas B. Staple Apr 15 '13 at 17:12
1
$\begingroup$

You want to prove $f(x)\leq g(x) \leq h(x)$, where: \begin{align} f(x) &= \ln\Gamma(x) - 2\ln\Gamma\left(\frac{x+1}{2}\right),\\ g(x) &= \ln\Gamma(x+1) - 2\ln\Gamma\left(\frac{x+2}{2}\right),\\ h(x) &= \ln\left( \lfloor{x}\rfloor! \right) - 2\ln\left( \left\lfloor\frac{x}{2} \right\rfloor!\right). \end{align}

Firstly, this is only true for $x\in \mathbb{N}$ with $x\geq 2$. For $x=1$ we have: \begin{align} g(1) &= \ln\Gamma(2) - 2\ln\Gamma\left(3/2\right)\\ &= 2\ln(2) - \ln(\pi)\\ &= 0.24\ldots\\ h(1) &= \ln\left( 1 \right) - 2\ln\left( 1 \right)\\ &= 0, \end{align} so g(1) > h(1). For $x\in \mathbb{R}$, $g(x)>h(x)$ infinitely often.

Secondly, note that for even $x$, $g(x)=h(x)$.

Finally, for odd $x\geq 3$, you can prove $h(x)>g(x)$ by comparing term-by term, and noting that $\Gamma(x/2 + 1)$ is monotonic in this regime ($\Gamma(x)$ has a single minimum at $x=1.46\ldots$).

Comparing $f(x)$ and $g(x)$ is a bit simpler and I'll leave it out for now.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hi Douglas, I am interested in $x \in \mathbb{R}$ where $x \ge 2$. I am especially interested under what conditions $g(x) > h(x)$ and also the reasoning to show that for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$ where $x \ge 2$, $f(x) \le h(x)$. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Larry Freeman Apr 16 '13 at 0:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Larry In your question you say (in terms of my notation) that Ramanujan observed $f(x) \leq h(x)$ and that you want to prove $g(x) \leq h(x)$. So I'm surprised to hear you say now that you want to prove $f(x) \leq h(x)$! $\endgroup$ – Douglas B. Staple Apr 16 '13 at 0:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Larry Regarding the sign of $h(x)-g(x)$, we have $h(x)<g(x)\ \forall x \in (n,n+1)$, for every $n\geq 2$ an even integer, and $h(x)\geq g(x)\ \forall x \in [n,n+1]$ for every $n\geq 3$ an odd integer. You should plot the difference of these two functions. $\endgroup$ – Douglas B. Staple Apr 16 '13 at 0:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, Douglas! That's exactly what I was looking for. I'm sorry if my interest in $f(x) \le h(x)$ wasn't clear. I tried to make this second question clear when I wrote: "How can I show that $\ln\Gamma(x)-2\ln\Gamma(\frac{x+1}{2})$ is guaranteed to be lower in all cases $x \ge 2$." $\endgroup$ – Larry Freeman Apr 16 '13 at 2:40

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.