<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css"
   href="/~hammond/style/gellmuart.css"?>
<!DOCTYPE article
  PUBLIC "-//GNU GPL: William F. Hammond//DTD GELLMU XML 0.7.6L//EN"
  "http://www.albany.edu/~hammond/gellmu/xml/axgellmu.dtd">
<article stem="gamma"
><preamble
><title
>About the Gamma Function</title><subtitle
>Notes for Honors Calculus II, <brk
/> Originally Prepared in Spring 1995</subtitle><nul
/><nul
/><nul
/><nul
/><nul
/><nul
/><nul
/><nul
/><nul
/><nul
/><nul
/><nul
/><nul
/><nul
/></preamble><body
><section
>Basic Facts about the Gamma Function</section><parb
>The Gamma function is defined by the improper integral
<displaymath
>  <Gamma
/>(x) <eqs
/> <int
><sub
>0</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
>t<sup
>x</sup> e<sup
><hyp
/>t</sup> <frac
><numr
>dt</numr><denm
>t</denm></frac> </sipbody></int> <spc
/>. </displaymath>
The integral is absolutely convergent for <tmath
> x <geq
/> 1 </tmath> since
<displaymath
>  t<sup
>x<hyp
/>1</sup> e<sup
><hyp
/>t</sup> <leq
/> e<sup
><hyp
/>t<sol mml="mo"
/>2</sup> <spc
/>, <quad
/> t <gg
/> 1  <spc
/></displaymath>
and <tmath
><int
><sub
>0</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
>e<sup
><hyp
/>t<sol mml="mo"
/>2</sup> dt </sipbody></int> </tmath> is convergent<eos
/>  The preceding
inequality is valid, in fact, for all <tmath
>x</tmath><eos
/>  But for <tmath
> x <ltc
/> 1 </tmath>
the integrand becomes infinitely large as <tmath
>t</tmath> approaches <tmath
>0</tmath> through
positive values<eos
/>  Nonetheless, the limit
<displaymath
>  <mbox
>lim</mbox><sub
>r <rightarrow
/> 0<plu
/></sub> <int
><sub
>r</sub><sup
>1</sup><sipbody
>t<sup
>x<hyp
/>1</sup> e<sup
><hyp
/>t</sup> dt </sipbody></int> </displaymath>
exists for <tmath
> x <gtc
/> 0 </tmath> since
<displaymath
> t<sup
>x<hyp
/>1</sup> e<sup
><hyp
/>t</sup> <leq
/> t<sup
>x<hyp
/>1</sup> </displaymath>
for <tmath
>t <gtc
/> 0</tmath>, and, therefore, the limiting value of the preceding integral
is no larger than that of
<displaymath
> <mbox
>lim</mbox><sub
>r <rightarrow
/> 0<plu
/></sub> <int
><sub
>r</sub><sup
>1</sup><sipbody
>t<sup
>x<hyp
/>1</sup> dt </sipbody></int> <eqs
/> <frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>x</denm></frac> <spc
/>. </displaymath>
Hence, <tmath
><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath> is defined by the
first formula above for all values <tmath
> x <gtc
/> 0 </tmath><eos
/></parb><parb
>If one integrates by parts the integral
<displaymath
> <Gamma
/>(x <plu
/> 1) <eqs
/> <int
><sub
>0</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
>t<sup
>x</sup> e<sup
><hyp
/>t</sup> dt </sipbody></int> <spc
/>, </displaymath>
writing
<displaymath
> <int
><sub
>0</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
>udv </sipbody></int> <eqs
/> u(<infty
/>)v(<infty
/>) <hyp
/> u(0)v(0) <hyp
/> <int
><sub
>0</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
>vdu </sipbody></int> <spc
/>,</displaymath>
with <tmath
>dv <eqs
/> e<sup
><hyp
/>t</sup>dt</tmath> and <tmath
>u <eqs
/> t<sup
>x</sup></tmath>, one obtains the <emph
>functional
equation</emph>
<displaymath
> <Gamma
/>(x<plu
/>1) <eqs
/> x <Gamma
/>(x) <spc
/>, <spc
/><spc
/>x <gtc
/> 0  <spc
/>. </displaymath></parb><parb
>Obviously, <tmath
><Gamma
/>(1) <eqs
/> <int
><sub
>0</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
>e<sup
><hyp
/>t</sup> dt </sipbody></int> <eqs
/> 1 </tmath>, and, therefore,
<tmath
><Gamma
/>(2) <eqs
/> 1 <cdot
/> <Gamma
/>(1) <eqs
/> 1</tmath>, <spc
/>
<tmath
><Gamma
/>(3) <eqs
/> 2 <cdot
/> <Gamma
/>(2) <eqs
/> 2<exc
/></tmath>, <spc
/>
<tmath
><Gamma
/>(4) <eqs
/> 3 <Gamma
/>(3) <eqs
/> 3<exc
/></tmath>, <ldots
/>, and, finally,
<displaymath
> <Gamma
/>(n<plu
/>1) <eqs
/> n<exc
/> </displaymath>
for each integer <tmath
>n <gtc
/> 0</tmath><eos
/></parb><parb
>Thus, the gamma function provides a way of giving a meaning to the
<quophrase
>factorial</quophrase> of any positive real number<eos
/></parb><parb
>Another reason for interest in the gamma function is its relation
to integrals that arise in the study of probability<eos
/>  The graph of the
function <tmath
><varphi
/></tmath> defined by
<displaymath
> <varphi
/>(x) <eqs
/> e<sup
><hyp
/>x<sup
>2</sup></sup> </displaymath>
is the famous <quophrase
>bell<hyp
/>shaped curve</quophrase> of probability theory<eos
/>  It can be
shown that the anti<hyp
/>derivatives of <tmath
><varphi
/></tmath> are not expressible in
terms of elementary functions. On the other hand,
<displaymath
> <Phi
/>(x) <eqs
/> <int
><sub
><hyp
/><infty
/></sub><sup
>x</sup><sipbody
><varphi
/>(t) dt </sipbody></int> </displaymath>
is, by the fundamental theorem of calculus, an anti<hyp
/>derivative of
<tmath
><varphi
/></tmath>, and information about its values is useful<eos
/>
One finds that
<displaymath
> <Phi
/>(<infty
/>) <eqs
/> <int
><sub
><hyp
/><infty
/></sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
>e<sup
><hyp
/>t<sup
>2</sup></sup> dt </sipbody></int> <eqs
/> <Gamma
/>(1<sol mml="mo"
/>2) </displaymath>
by observing that
<displaymath
> <int
><sub
><hyp
/><infty
/></sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
>e<sup
><hyp
/>t<sup
>2</sup></sup> dt </sipbody></int> <eqs
/> 2 <cdot
/> <int
><sub
>0</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
>e<sup
><hyp
/>t<sup
>2</sup></sup> dt </sipbody></int> <spc
/>, </displaymath>
and that upon making the substitution <tmath
>t<eqs
/>u<sup
>1<sol mml="mo"
/>2</sup></tmath> in the latter
integral, one obtains <tmath
><Gamma
/>(1<sol mml="mo"
/>2)</tmath><eos
/></parb><parb
>To have some idea of the size of <tmath
><Gamma
/>(1<sol mml="mo"
/>2)</tmath>, it will be useful
to consider the qualitative nature of the graph of <tmath
><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath><eos
/>
For that one wants to know the derivative of <tmath
><Gamma
/></tmath><eos
/></parb><parb
>By definition <tmath
><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath> is an integral (a definite integral with
respect to the dummy variable <spc
/><tmath
>t</tmath>) of a function of <tmath
>x</tmath> and
<tmath
>t</tmath><eos
/>  Intuition suggests that one ought to be able to find the
derivative of <tmath
><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath> by taking the integral (with respect to <tmath
>t</tmath>)
of the derivative with respect to <tmath
>x</tmath> of the integrand<eos
/>
Unfortunately, there are examples where this fails to be correct; on
the other hand, it is correct in most situations where one is inclined
to do it<eos
/>  The methods required to justify <quophrase
>differentiation under the
integral sign</quophrase> will be regarded as slightly beyond the scope of this
course<eos
/>  A similar stance will be adopted also for differentiation of
the sum of a convergent infinite series<eos
/></parb><parb
>Since
<displaymath
> <frac
><numr
>d</numr><denm
>dx</denm></frac> t<sup
>x</sup> <eqs
/> t<sup
>x</sup>(<func
>log</func> t) <spc
/>, </displaymath>
one finds
<displaymath
> <frac
><numr
>d</numr><denm
>dx</denm></frac> <Gamma
/>(x) <eqs
/> <int
><sub
>0</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
>t<sup
>x</sup> (<func
>log</func> t) e<sup
><hyp
/>t</sup> <frac
><numr
>dt</numr><denm
>t</denm></frac> </sipbody></int><spc
/>, </displaymath>
and, differentiating again,
<displaymath
> <frac
><numr
>d<sup
>2</sup></numr><denm
>dx<sup
>2</sup></denm></frac> <Gamma
/>(x) <eqs
/>
                       <int
><sub
>0</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
>t<sup
>x</sup> (<func
>log</func> t)<sup
>2</sup> e<sup
><hyp
/>t</sup> <frac
><numr
>dt</numr><denm
>t</denm></frac> </sipbody></int> <spc
/>. </displaymath>
One observes that in the integrals for both <tmath
><Gamma
/></tmath> and the second
derivative <tmath
><Gamma
/><rdq
/></tmath> the integrand is always positive<eos
/>  Consequently,
one has <tmath
><Gamma
/>(x) <gtc
/> 0</tmath> and <tmath
><Gamma
/><rdq
/>(x) <gtc
/> 0</tmath> for all <tmath
>x <gtc
/> 0</tmath><eos
/>  This
means that the derivative <tmath
><Gamma
/><rsq
/></tmath> of <tmath
><Gamma
/></tmath> is a strictly increasing
function; one would like to know where it becomes positive<eos
/></parb><parb
>If one differentiates the functional equation
<displaymath
> <Gamma
/>(x<plu
/>1) <eqs
/> x <Gamma
/>(x) <spc
/>, <spc
/><spc
/>x <gtc
/> 0 <spc
/>, </displaymath>
one finds
<displaymath
> <psi
/>(x<plu
/>1) <eqs
/> <frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>x</denm></frac> <plu
/> <psi
/>(x) <spc
/>, <spc
/><spc
/>x <gtc
/> 0 <spc
/>, </displaymath>
where
<displaymath
> <psi
/>(x) <eqs
/> <frac
><numr
>d</numr><denm
>dx</denm></frac> <func
>log</func><Gamma
/>(x) <eqs
/> <frac
><numr
><Gamma
/><rsq
/>(x)</numr><denm
><Gamma
/>(x)</denm></frac> <spc
/>, </displaymath>
and, consequently,
<displaymath
> <psi
/>(n<plu
/>1) <eqs
/> <psi
/>(1) <plu
/> <sum
><sub
>k<eqs
/>0</sub><sup
>n</sup><sipbody
><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac> </sipbody></sum><spc
/>. </displaymath>
Since the harmonic series diverges, its partial sum in the foregoing
line approaches <tmath
><infty
/></tmath> as <tmath
>x <rightarrow
/> <infty
/></tmath><eos
/>  Inasmuch as
<tmath
><Gamma
/><rsq
/>(x) <eqs
/> <psi
/>(x)<Gamma
/>(x)</tmath>, it is clear that <tmath
><Gamma
/><rsq
/></tmath> approaches
<tmath
><infty
/></tmath> as <tmath
>x <rightarrow
/> <infty
/></tmath> since <tmath
><Gamma
/><rsq
/></tmath> is steadily increasing
and its integer values <tmath
>(n<hyp
/>1)<exc
/><psi
/>(n)</tmath> approach <tmath
><infty
/></tmath><eos
/>
Because <tmath
>2 <eqs
/> <Gamma
/>(3) <gtc
/> 1 <eqs
/> <Gamma
/>(2)</tmath>,
it follows that <tmath
><Gamma
/><rsq
/></tmath> cannot be negative everywhere in the interval
<tmath
>2 <leq
/> x <leq
/> 3</tmath>, and, therefore, since <tmath
><Gamma
/><rsq
/></tmath> is increasing, <tmath
><Gamma
/><rsq
/></tmath>
must be always positive for <tmath
>x <geq
/> 3</tmath><eos
/>  As a result, <tmath
><Gamma
/></tmath> must be
increasing for <tmath
>x <geq
/> 3</tmath>, and, since <tmath
><Gamma
/>(n <plu
/> 1) <eqs
/> n<exc
/></tmath>, one sees
that <tmath
><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath> approaches <tmath
><infty
/></tmath> as <tmath
>x <rightarrow
/> <infty
/></tmath><eos
/></parb><parb
>It is also the case that <tmath
><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath> approaches <tmath
><infty
/></tmath> as
<tmath
>x <rightarrow
/> 0</tmath><eos
/>  To see the convergence one observes that the
integral from
<tmath
>0</tmath> to <tmath
><infty
/></tmath> defining <tmath
><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath> is greater than the integral from
<tmath
>0</tmath> to <tmath
>1</tmath> of the same integrand<eos
/>  Since <tmath
>e<sup
><hyp
/>t</sup> <geq
/> 1<sol mml="mo"
/>e</tmath> for
<tmath
>0 <leq
/> t <leq
/> 1</tmath>, one has
<displaymath
><Gamma
/>(x)<gtc
/><int
><sub
>0</sub><sup
>1</sup><sipbody
>(1<sol mml="mo"
/>e)t<sup
>x<hyp
/>1</sup>dt</sipbody></int> <eqs
/>
                    (1<sol mml="mo"
/>e)<balsb
><frac
><numr
>t<sup
>x</sup></numr><denm
>x</denm></frac></balsb><sub
>t<eqs
/>0</sub><sup
>t<eqs
/>1</sup><eqs
/><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>ex</denm></frac><spc
/>.</displaymath>
It then follows from the mean value theorem combined with the fact that
<tmath
><Gamma
/><rsq
/></tmath> always increases that <tmath
><Gamma
/><rsq
/>(x)</tmath> approaches <tmath
><hyp
/><infty
/></tmath>
as <tmath
>x <rightarrow
/> 0</tmath><eos
/></parb><parb
>Hence, there is a unique number <tmath
>c <gtc
/> 0</tmath> for which <tmath
><Gamma
/><rsq
/>(c) <eqs
/> 0</tmath>,
and <tmath
><Gamma
/></tmath> decreases steadily from <tmath
><infty
/></tmath> to the minimum value
<tmath
><Gamma
/>(c)</tmath> as <tmath
>x</tmath> varies from <tmath
>0</tmath> to <tmath
>c</tmath> and then increases to
<tmath
><infty
/></tmath> as <tmath
>x</tmath> varies from <tmath
>c</tmath> to <tmath
><infty
/></tmath><eos
/>  Since
<tmath
><Gamma
/>(1) <eqs
/> 1 <eqs
/> <Gamma
/>(2)</tmath>, the number <tmath
>c</tmath> must lie in the interval
from <tmath
>1</tmath> to <tmath
>2</tmath> and the minimum value <tmath
><Gamma
/>(c)</tmath> must be less than <tmath
>1</tmath><eos
/></parb><parb
><display
><includegraphics scale="0.3" description="Image: graph of Gamma"
>grmplgamma</includegraphics><brk
/> Figure<nbs
/>1: Graph of the Gamma Function</display></parb><parb
>Thus, the graph of <tmath
><Gamma
/></tmath> (see Figure<nbs
/>1) is concave upward
and lies entirely in the first quadrant of the plane<eos
/>  It has the
<tmath
>y</tmath><hyp
/>axis as a vertical asymptote<eos
/>  It falls steadily for <tmath
>0 <ltc
/> x <ltc
/> c</tmath>
to a postive minimum value <tmath
><Gamma
/>(c) <ltc
/> 1</tmath><eos
/>  For <tmath
>x <gtc
/> c</tmath> the graph
rises rapidly<eos
/>
</parb><section
>Product Formulas</section><parb
>It will be recalled, as one may show using l<apos
/>H<ovhat
>o</ovhat>pital<apos
/>s Rule,
that
<displaymath
> e<sup
><hyp
/>t</sup> <eqs
/> <underset
><deco
>n <rightarrow
/> <infty
/></deco><expr
><mbox
>lim</mbox></expr></underset> <bal
>1<hyp
/><frac
><numr
>t</numr><denm
>n</denm></frac></bal><sup
>n</sup> <spc
/>. </displaymath>
From the original formula for <tmath
><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath>, using an interchange of limits
that in a more careful exposition would receive further comment, one has
<displaymath
> <Gamma
/>(x) <eqs
/> <underset
><deco
>n <rightarrow
/> <infty
/></deco><expr
><mbox
>lim</mbox></expr></underset> <Gamma
/>(x,n) <spc
/>, </displaymath>
where <tmath
><Gamma
/>(x,n)</tmath> is defined by
<displaymath
><Gamma
/>(x,n)<eqs
/><int
><sub
>0</sub><sup
>n</sup><sipbody
>t<sup
>x<hyp
/>1</sup><bal
>1<hyp
/><frac
><numr
>t</numr><denm
>n</denm></frac></bal><sup
>n</sup> dt</sipbody></int><spc
/>,<spc
/>n<geq
/> 1<spc
/>.</displaymath>
The substitution in which <spc
/><tmath
>t</tmath> <spc
/> is replaced by <spc
/><tmath
>nt</tmath> <spc
/>leads to
the formula
<displaymath
> <Gamma
/>(x,n) <eqs
/> n<sup
>x</sup> <int
><sub
>0</sub><sup
>1</sup><sipbody
>t<sup
>x<hyp
/>1</sup> (1 <hyp
/> t)<sup
>n</sup> dt</sipbody></int> <spc
/>. </displaymath>
This integral for <tmath
><Gamma
/>(x,n)</tmath> is amenable to integration by parts<eos
/>
One finds thereby:
<displaymath
> <Gamma
/>(x,n)<eqs
/><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>x</denm></frac><bal
><frac
><numr
>n</numr><denm
>n<hyp
/>1</denm></frac></bal><sup
>x<plu
/>1</sup><Gamma
/>(x<plu
/>1,n<hyp
/>1)<spc
/>,n <geq
/> 2 <spc
/>. </displaymath>
For the smallest value of <tmath
>n</tmath>, <spc
/><tmath
>n <eqs
/> 1</tmath> <spc
/>, integration by parts yields:
<displaymath
> <Gamma
/>(x,1) <eqs
/> <frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>x(x<plu
/>1)</denm></frac> <spc
/>. </displaymath>
Iterating <tmath
>n<hyp
/>1</tmath> times, one obtains:
<displaymath
> <Gamma
/>(x,n) <eqs
/> n<sup
>x</sup> <frac
><numr
>n<exc
/></numr><denm
>x(x<plu
/>1)(x<plu
/>2)<cdots
/>(x<plu
/>n)</denm></frac> <spc
/>, <spc
/>n <geq
/> 1 <spc
/>. </displaymath>
Thus, one arrives at the formula
<displaymath
> <Gamma
/>(x) <eqs
/> <underset
><deco
>n <rightarrow
/> <infty
/></deco><expr
><mbox
>lim</mbox></expr></underset> n<sup
>x</sup> <frac
><numr
>n<exc
/></numr><denm
>x(x<plu
/>1)(x<plu
/>2)<cdots
/>(x<plu
/>n)</denm></frac> <spc
/>. </displaymath></parb><parb
>This last formula is not exactly in the form of an infinite product
<displaymath
> <prod
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
>p<sub
>k</sub> </sipbody></prod> <eqs
/> <underset
><deco
>n <rightarrow
/> <infty
/></deco><expr
><mbox
>lim</mbox></expr></underset><aF
/><lgg
><prod
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
>n</sup><sipbody
>p<sub
>k</sub></sipbody></prod></lgg> <spc
/>. </displaymath>
But a simple trick enables one to maneuver it into such an infinite
product<eos
/>  One writes <spc
/><tmath
>n</tmath> <spc
/> as a <quophrase
>collapsing product</quophrase>:
<displaymath
>n<plu
/>1<eqs
/><frac
><numr
>n<plu
/>1</numr><denm
>n</denm></frac><cdot
/><frac
><numr
>n</numr><denm
>n<hyp
/>1</denm></frac><cdot
/>
                   <cdots
/> <cdot
/><frac
><numr
>3</numr><denm
>2</denm></frac><cdot
/><frac
><numr
>2</numr><denm
>1</denm></frac> </displaymath>
or
<displaymath
> n<plu
/>1 <eqs
/> <prod
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
>n</sup><sipbody
><bal
>1 <plu
/> <frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac></bal></sipbody></prod> <spc
/><cma
/> </displaymath>
and, taking the <tmath
>x</tmath>th power, one has
<displaymath
> (n<plu
/>1)<sup
>x</sup> <eqs
/> <prod
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
>n</sup><sipbody
><bal
>1 <plu
/> <frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac></bal><sup
>x</sup></sipbody></prod> <spc
/><eos
/> </displaymath>
Since
<displaymath
> <mbox
>lim</mbox><sub
>n <rightarrow
/> <infty
/></sub><aF
/><frac
><numr
>n<sup
>x</sup></numr><denm
>(n<plu
/>1)<sup
>x</sup></denm></frac> <eqs
/> 1 <spc
/><cma
/> </displaymath>
one may replace the factor <tmath
>n<sup
>x</sup></tmath> by <tmath
>(n<plu
/>1)<sup
>x</sup></tmath> in the last expression above
for <tmath
><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath> to obtain
<displaymath
> <Gamma
/>(x) <eqs
/> <frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>x</denm></frac><itimes
/><mbox
>lim</mbox><sub
>n <rightarrow
/> <infty
/></sub><aF
/><lgg
><prod
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
>n</sup><sipbody
><frac
><numr
><bal
>1 <plu
/> <frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac></bal><sup
>x</sup></numr><denm
><bal
>1 <plu
/> <frac
><numr
>x</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac></bal></denm></frac></sipbody></prod></lgg> <spc
/>, </displaymath>
or
<displaymath
><Gamma
/>(x)<eqs
/><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>x</denm></frac><itimes
/><lgg
><prod
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
><frac
><numr
><bal
>1 <plu
/> <frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac></bal><sup
>x</sup></numr><denm
><bal
>1 <plu
/> <frac
><numr
>x</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac></bal></denm></frac></sipbody></prod></lgg><spc
/>.</displaymath></parb><parb
>The convergence of this infinite product for <tmath
><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath> when <tmath
>x <gtc
/> 0</tmath>
is a consequence, through the various maneuvers performed, of the
convergence of the original improper integral defining <tmath
><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath> for
<tmath
>x <gtc
/> 0</tmath><eos
/></parb><parb
>It is now possible to represent <tmath
><func
>log</func><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath> as the sum of an infinite
series by taking the logarithm of the infinite product formula<eos
/>  But first
it must be noted that
<displaymath
> <frac
><numr
>(1<plu
/>t)<sup
>r</sup></numr><denm
>1 <plu
/> rt</denm></frac> <gtc
/> 0 <spc
/><spc
/><mbox
>for</mbox> <spc
/>t <gtc
/> 0 <spc
/>, <spc
/><spc
/>r <gtc
/> 0 <spc
/>. </displaymath>
Hence, the logarithm of each term in the preceding infinite product is
defined when <tmath
>x <gtc
/> 0</tmath><eos
/></parb><parb
>Taking the logarithm of the infinite product one finds:
<displaymath
> <func
>log</func> <Gamma
/>(x) <eqs
/> <hyp
/> <func
>log</func> x <plu
/> <sum
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
>u<sub
>k</sub>(x)</sipbody></sum> <spc
/>, </displaymath>
where
<displaymath
> u<sub
>k</sub>(x) <eqs
/> x<func
>log</func><bal
>1 <plu
/> <frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac></bal><hyp
/><func
>log</func><bal
>1 <plu
/> <frac
><numr
>x</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac></bal> <spc
/>. </displaymath>
It is, in fact, almost true that this series converges absolutely for
<emph
>all</emph> real values of <tmath
>x</tmath><eos
/>  The only problem with non<hyp
/>positive
values of <tmath
>x</tmath> lies in the fact that <tmath
><func
>log</func>(x)</tmath> is meaningful only for
<tmath
>x <gtc
/> 0</tmath>, <spc
/>and, therefore, <tmath
><func
>log</func>(1<plu
/>x<sol mml="mo"
/>k)</tmath> is meaningful only for
<tmath
>k <gtc
/> <vbr
/>x<vbr
/></tmath><eos
/>  For fixed <tmath
>x</tmath>, if one excludes the finite set of terms
<tmath
>u<sub
>k</sub>(x)</tmath> for which <tmath
>k <leq
/> <vbr
/>x<vbr
/></tmath>, <spc
/>then the remaining <quophrase
>tail</quophrase> of
the series is meaningful and is absolutely convergent<eos
/>
To see this one applies the <quophrase
>ratio
comparison test</quophrase> which says that an infinite series converges absolutely
if the ratio of the absolute value of its general term to the general
term of a convergent positive series exists and is finite<eos
/>  For this
one may take as the <quophrase
>test series</quophrase>, the series
<displaymath
> <sum
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k<sup
>2</sup></denm></frac></sipbody></sum> <spc
/>. </displaymath>
Now as <spc
/><tmath
>k</tmath> <spc
/>approaches <spc
/><tmath
><infty
/></tmath>, <spc
/><tmath
>t <eqs
/> 1<sol mml="mo"
/>k</tmath> <spc
/>approaches <tmath
>0</tmath>,
and so
<eqnarray nonum="true"
><eqnabody
><eqnrow
><eqnleft
><mbox
>lim</mbox><sub
>k <rightarrow
/> <infty
/></sub><frac
><numr
>u<sub
>k</sub>(x)</numr><denm
>1<sol mml="mo"
/>k<sup
>2</sup></denm></frac> </eqnleft><tabampcell>  <eqs
/> </tabampcell><tabampcell>  <mbox
>lim</mbox><sub
>t <rightarrow
/> 0</sub><frac
><numr
>x<func
>log</func>(1<plu
/>t)<hyp
/><func
>log</func>(1<plu
/>xt)</numr><denm
>t<sup
>2</sup></denm></frac> </tabampcell></eqnrow><eqnrow
><eqnleft><nbs
/> </eqnleft><tabampcell>  <eqs
/> </tabampcell><tabampcell>  <mbox
>lim</mbox><sub
>t <rightarrow
/> 0</sub><frac
><numr
><frac
><numr
>x</numr><denm
>1<plu
/>t</denm></frac><hyp
/><frac
><numr
>x</numr><denm
>1<plu
/>xt</denm></frac></numr><denm
>2t</denm></frac> </tabampcell></eqnrow
><eqnrow
><eqnleft><nbs
/> </eqnleft><tabampcell>  <eqs
/> </tabampcell><tabampcell>  <mbox
>lim</mbox><sub
>t <rightarrow
/> 0</sub><frac
><numr
>x[(1<plu
/>xt)<hyp
/>(1<plu
/>t)]</numr><denm
>2t(1<plu
/>t)(1<plu
/>xt)</denm></frac> </tabampcell></eqnrow
><eqnrow
><eqnleft><nbs
/> </eqnleft><tabampcell>  <eqs
/> </tabampcell><tabampcell>  <frac
><numr
>x(x<hyp
/>1)</numr><denm
>2</denm></frac> <spc
/><eos
/></tabampcell></eqnrow
></eqnabody></eqnarray>
Hence, the limit of <tmath
><vbr
/>u<sub
>k</sub>(x)<sol mml="mo"
/>k<sup
><hyp
/>2</sup><vbr
/></tmath> is <tmath
><vbr
/>x(x<hyp
/>1)<sol mml="mo"
/>2<vbr
/></tmath>, and the series
<tmath
><sum
><sipbody
>u<sub
>k</sub>(x)</sipbody></sum></tmath> is absolutely convergent for all real <tmath
>x</tmath><eos
/>  The absolute
convergence of this series foreshadows the possibility of defining
<tmath
><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath> for all real values of <tmath
>x</tmath> other than non<hyp
/>positive integers<eos
/>
This may be done, for example, by using the functional equation
<displaymath
> <Gamma
/>(x<plu
/>1) <eqs
/> x <Gamma
/>(x) </displaymath>
or
<displaymath
> <Gamma
/>(x) <eqs
/> <frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>x</denm></frac> <Gamma
/>(x <plu
/> 1) </displaymath>
to define <tmath
><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath> for <tmath
><hyp
/>1 <ltc
/> x <ltc
/> 0</tmath> and from there
to <tmath
><hyp
/>2 <ltc
/> x <ltc
/> <hyp
/>1</tmath>, etc<eos
/></parb><parb
>Taking the derivative of the series for <tmath
><func
>log</func><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath> term<hyp
/>by<hyp
/>term
<rdash
/> once again a step that would receive justification in a more careful
treatment <rdash
/> and recalling the previous notation <tmath
><psi
/>(x)</tmath> for the
derivative of <tmath
><func
>log</func><Gamma
/>(x)</tmath>, one obtains
<eqnarray nonum="true"
><eqnabody
><eqnrow
><eqnleft
><psi
/>(x) <plu
/> <frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>x</denm></frac>
     </eqnleft><tabampcell>  <eqs
/> </tabampcell><tabampcell>  <sum
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
><balbr
><func
>log</func><bal
>1 <plu
/> <frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac></bal>
           <hyp
/><frac
><numr
><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac></numr><denm
><bal
>1 <plu
/> <frac
><numr
>x</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac></bal></denm></frac></balbr></sipbody></sum></tabampcell></eqnrow><eqnrow
><eqnleft><nbs
/> </eqnleft><tabampcell>  <eqs
/> </tabampcell><tabampcell>  <underset
><deco
>n <rightarrow
/> <infty
/></deco><expr
><mbox
>lim</mbox></expr></underset><sum
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
>n</sup><sipbody
><balbr
><func
>log</func><frac
><numr
>k<plu
/>1</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac><hyp
/><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>x<plu
/>k</denm></frac></balbr></sipbody></sum> </tabampcell></eqnrow
><eqnrow
><eqnleft><nbs
/> </eqnleft><tabampcell>  <eqs
/> </tabampcell><tabampcell>  <underset
><deco
>n <rightarrow
/> <infty
/></deco><expr
><mbox
>lim</mbox></expr></underset><balbr
><func
>log</func>(n<plu
/>1)<hyp
/><sum
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
>n</sup><sipbody
><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>x<plu
/>k</denm></frac></sipbody></sum></balbr> </tabampcell></eqnrow
><eqnrow
><eqnleft><nbs
/> </eqnleft><tabampcell>  <eqs
/> </tabampcell><tabampcell>  <underset
><deco
>n <rightarrow
/> <infty
/></deco><expr
><mbox
>lim</mbox></expr></underset><balbr
><func
>log</func>(n<plu
/>1)<hyp
/><sum
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
>n</sup><sipbody
><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac></sipbody></sum>
     <plu
/><sum
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
>n</sup><sipbody
><bal
><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac><hyp
/><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>x<plu
/>k</denm></frac></bal></sipbody></sum></balbr> </tabampcell></eqnrow
><eqnrow
><eqnleft><nbs
/> </eqnleft><tabampcell>  <eqs
/> </tabampcell><tabampcell>  <underset
><deco
>n <rightarrow
/> <infty
/></deco><expr
><mbox
>lim</mbox></expr></underset><balbr
><func
>log</func>(n<plu
/>1)<hyp
/><sum
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
>n</sup><sipbody
><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac></sipbody></sum>
     <plu
/>x<sum
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
>n</sup><sipbody
><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k(x<plu
/>k)</denm></frac></sipbody></sum></balbr> </tabampcell></eqnrow
><eqnrow
><eqnleft><nbs
/> </eqnleft><tabampcell>  <eqs
/> </tabampcell><tabampcell>  <hyp
/><gamma
/> <plu
/> x<sum
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k(x<plu
/>k)</denm></frac></sipbody></sum> <spc
/>,</tabampcell></eqnrow
></eqnabody></eqnarray>
where <tmath
><gamma
/></tmath> denotes Euler<apos
/>s constant
<displaymath
> <gamma
/> <eqs
/> <underset
><deco
>n <rightarrow
/> <infty
/></deco><expr
><mbox
>lim</mbox></expr></underset><bal
><sum
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
>n</sup><sipbody
><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac></sipbody></sum> <hyp
/> <func
>log</func> n</bal> <spc
/>. </displaymath></parb><parb
>When <tmath
>x <eqs
/> 1</tmath> one has
<displaymath
> <psi
/>(1) <eqs
/> <hyp
/>1 <hyp
/> <gamma
/> <plu
/> <sum
><sub
>k<eqs
/>1</sub><sup
><infty
/></sup><sipbody
><frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k(k<plu
/>1)</denm></frac></sipbody></sum> <spc
/>, </displaymath>
and since
<displaymath
> <frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k(k<plu
/>1)</denm></frac> <eqs
/> <frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k</denm></frac> <hyp
/> <frac
><numr
>1</numr><denm
>k<plu
/>1</denm></frac> <spc
/>, </displaymath>
this series collapses and, therefore, is easily seen to sum to <tmath
>1</tmath><eos
/>
Hence,
<displaymath
> <psi
/>(1) <eqs
/> <hyp
/> <gamma
/> <spc
/>, <spc
/><spc
/><psi
/>(2) <eqs
/> <psi
/>(1) <plu
/> 1<sol mml="mo"
/>1 <eqs
/> 1 <hyp
/> <gamma
/> <spc
/>. </displaymath>
Since <spc
/><tmath
><Gamma
/><rsq
/>(x) <eqs
/> <psi
/>(x)<Gamma
/>(x)</tmath>, <spc
/>one finds:
<displaymath
> <Gamma
/><rsq
/>(1) <eqs
/> <hyp
/> <gamma
/> <spc
/>, </displaymath>
and
<displaymath
> <Gamma
/><rsq
/>(2) <eqs
/> 1 <hyp
/> <gamma
/> <spc
/>. </displaymath>
</parb><hrule
/><parb
>These course notes were prepared while consulting standard references
in the subject, which included those that follow<eos
/>
</parb><thebibliography
><bibentry
><bibhead
><biblabel
></biblabel><bibkey
>courant</bibkey></bibhead><bibbody
> R.<nbs
/>Courant, <slnt
>Differential and Integral
Calculus</slnt> (2 volumes), English translation by E.<nbs
/>J. McShane,
Interscience Publishers, New York, 1961<eos
/>
</bibbody></bibentry><bibentry
><bibhead
><biblabel
></biblabel><bibkey
>whittakerWatson</bibkey></bibhead><bibbody
> E.<nbs
/>T. Whittaker <amp
/> G.<nbs
/>N. Watson,
<slnt
>A<nbs
/>Course of Modern Analysis</slnt>, 4th edition, Cambridge University
Press, 1969<eos
/>
</bibbody></bibentry><bibentry
><bibhead
><biblabel
></biblabel><bibkey
>widder</bibkey></bibhead><bibbody
> David Widder, <slnt
>Advanced Calculus</slnt>, 2nd edition,
Prentice Hall, 1961<eos
/>
</bibbody></bibentry></thebibliography></body></article>
