0
$\begingroup$

Reading Gamma by Julian Havil (really good!) on p. 111 there is a derivation which contains an identity that has me confounded. Where $n \in \mathbb{N^+}$, he uses this as one step in the development:

$$\ln n = \sum_{r=2}^n \ln \left( \frac{r}{r-1} \right)$$

I know the basic identities:

$$ \ln (1+x) = x-\frac{1}{2}x^2+\frac{1}{3}x^3-\frac{1}{4}x^4+\cdots =\sum_{r=1}^\infty (-1)^{r-1} \frac{x^r}{r} \qquad -1<x\le 1 $$

and

$$ \ln x = \sum_{r=1}^\infty \frac{ (−1)^{r-1}(x-1)^r}{r} \qquad 0<x\le 2 $$

but I can't seem to understand how the author takes that identity above as obvious? What am I missing please?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Heh, that's actually pretty amusing. Remember that the sum of the logs is the log of the product. So taking the antilog of both sides, you get $n=(2/1)(3/2)(4/3)\cdots(n/(n-1))$. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 18, 2022 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ Not sure there's ASCII for embarrassing, but thank you @EricSnyder! $\endgroup$
    – Colin
    Commented Sep 18, 2022 at 13:11
  • $\begingroup$ No worries, we all do it sometimes. I guess I should have made it an answer instead for that sweet sweet karma though! /sarcasm $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 19, 2022 at 9:01

3 Answers 3

2
$\begingroup$

This is because $n$ in the formulae is finite, therefore $$ \sum_{r = 2}^n\log\left(\frac{r}{r-1}\right) = \log\left(\frac{2}{2 - 1}\right) + \log\left( \frac{3}{3 - 1}\right) + \ldots + \log\left(\frac{n}{n -1}\right) = \log\left(\frac{2}{1}\cdot \frac{3}{2}\cdot\ldots\cdot \frac{n}{n-1}\right) = \log n. $$

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Series expansion is not required here. The identity follows from the fact that $$ \ln\left(r\over r-1\right)=\ln r-\ln(r-1). $$

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Sure, but that's the substitution he makes, and for a good reason as it turns out later in the derivation as he links the zeta function to $\gamma$. $\endgroup$
    – Colin
    Commented Sep 18, 2022 at 13:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I suppose the author's motivation to rewrite $\ln n$ like this is only to prove the existence of that limit for $\gamma$. $\endgroup$
    – TravorLZH
    Commented Sep 18, 2022 at 20:51
1
$\begingroup$

The key identity used is the telescopic series: $$ \log n = \sum_{r=2}^n (\log r - \log(r-1)) $$ (using the fact that $\log 1 = 0$ to dismiss the $\log 1$). Combine this with $$ \log a - \log b = \log\frac{a}{b} $$ to conclude.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .