A More Direct Proof Please of a Theorem of the Incomplete Gamma Function
$begingroup$
I could not find a tag for incomplete gamma function, so I've just used the gamma function one.
A rather curious fact about the normalised incomplete gamma function$${1over n!}operatorname{Gamma}(n,mu)=int_mu^infty x^{n-1}e^{-x}dx$$ (or is that the complementary normalised incomplete gamma function?) is that it is equal to the hypervolume cut out by the hypersurface (a hyperhyperbola, maybe!) $$prod_{k=1}^n x_k=e^{-mu}$$ (the $x_k$ being coordinates in $n$-dimensional space) of the positive unit hyperbox with a corner at the origin, bounden by all the planes $x_j=0$ & $x_j=1$. (So it doesn't matter very much whether it's the IGF or the complementary IGF that is under consideration, as the other function is just the hypervolume in the other part of the box.
I know a rather gross proof of this that consists in integrating the whole of the present function's representation as such a hypervolume along the new axis to get the next function up in the series of increasing $n$: the general case of this can without tremendous difficulty be 'abstracted' from the first two or three by broaching yet another curious theorem of binomial coefficients; but I am not much enamoured of the idea of setting it out, and I suppose few of you are strongly desirous of seeing it.
But the question is - does anyone know a slick proof of the theorem that is the chief subject of this post? - by which I mean a proof that proceeds along somekind of shortcut or 'wormhole' through the space of general function-theory, without recourse to just taking the thing apart & reconstructing it cog-by-cog, as in my method of proof ... but I think the meaning of slick proof is well-enough known amongst us! I feel that there ought to be and probably is such a proof - my intuition just cannot rest in the idea that there isn't one.
multivariable-calculus gamma-function
asked Dec 4 '18 at 0:28
AmbretteOrriseyAmbretteOrrisey
54210
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I could not find a tag for incomplete gamma function, so I've just used the gamma function one.
A rather curious fact about the normalised incomplete gamma function$${1over n!}operatorname{Gamma}(n,mu)=int_mu^infty x^{n-1}e^{-x}dx$$ (or is that the complementary normalised incomplete gamma function?) is that it is equal to the hypervolume cut out by the hypersurface (a hyperhyperbola, maybe!) $$prod_{k=1}^n x_k=e^{-mu}$$ (the $x_k$ being coordinates in $n$-dimensional space) of the positive unit hyperbox with a corner at the origin, bounden by all the planes $x_j=0$ & $x_j=1$. (So it doesn't matter very much whether it's the IGF or the complementary IGF that is under consideration, as the other function is just the hypervolume in the other part of the box.
I know a rather gross proof of this that consists in integrating the whole of the present function's representation as such a hypervolume along the new axis to get the next function up in the series of increasing $n$: the general case of this can without tremendous difficulty be 'abstracted' from the first two or three by broaching yet another curious theorem of binomial coefficients; but I am not much enamoured of the idea of setting it out, and I suppose few of you are strongly desirous of seeing it.
But the question is - does anyone know a slick proof of the theorem that is the chief subject of this post? - by which I mean a proof that proceeds along somekind of shortcut or 'wormhole' through the space of general function-theory, without recourse to just taking the thing apart & reconstructing it cog-by-cog, as in my method of proof ... but I think the meaning of slick proof is well-enough known amongst us! I feel that there ought to be and probably is such a proof - my intuition just cannot rest in the idea that there isn't one.
multivariable-calculus gamma-function
asked Dec 4 '18 at 0:28
AmbretteOrriseyAmbretteOrrisey
54210
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Change of variable $y_k = log(x_k)$ ?
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 4 '18 at 0:31
$begingroup$
So what would by the volume enclosed in that space? It would be just a hyperplane across the hypercorner, I think, wouldn't it. The region would have a simpler shape ... but then to recover the original hypervolume there would have to be a scaling that varies from point-to-point within the area, that would have to be built-into the integral. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any elementary relation between exponential of integral & integral of exponential (of function): I was wondering about that when I failed to find out what integral of gamma function is, but got one for lnΓ.
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 0:41
$begingroup$
@reuns -- Maybe that scaling I mentioned wouldn't be too bad: coz if x_k=e^-y_k, then Π{k=1 to n}dx_j=-Π{k=1 to n}e^y_k.dy_k, so the function to be integrated over the hypervolume is Π{k=1 to n}e^y_k ... but I'm having difficulty transforming the boundaries, as in the "x" formulation it's the part of the hyperbox made by the planes x_k=0 & x_k=l (need to fix this in the question) cut off by the hyperhyperbola Πx=e^-μ: but in the "y" formulation the hyperhyperbola translates to the plane Σy=μ; but because y is from 0 to ∞, how does the box transform!?
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 1:49
$begingroup$
Oh right! I think I've got it now! I see what I was missing before! I think you're right actually. ¶ I'll see what these other comments say. I'll bet they're saying what you said ... & I'll bet you won't believe that I hadn't seen them when I wrote this!
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 3:20
$begingroup$
@reuns I've made another comment above this one, but I forgot to put an "@" @ the beginning of it (hahaha! see what I did there!?). I think the fog has cleared, now! ... or is clearing. Those comments though, that I'd gotten notification of, & expected to be admonishments apprising me of how slow I am - they were actually about something completely different. ¶ Thankyou for your contribution!
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 3:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I could not find a tag for incomplete gamma function, so I've just used the gamma function one.
A rather curious fact about the normalised incomplete gamma function$${1over n!}operatorname{Gamma}(n,mu)=int_mu^infty x^{n-1}e^{-x}dx$$ (or is that the complementary normalised incomplete gamma function?) is that it is equal to the hypervolume cut out by the hypersurface (a hyperhyperbola, maybe!) $$prod_{k=1}^n x_k=e^{-mu}$$ (the $x_k$ being coordinates in $n$-dimensional space) of the positive unit hyperbox with a corner at the origin, bounden by all the planes $x_j=0$ & $x_j=1$. (So it doesn't matter very much whether it's the IGF or the complementary IGF that is under consideration, as the other function is just the hypervolume in the other part of the box.
I know a rather gross proof of this that consists in integrating the whole of the present function's representation as such a hypervolume along the new axis to get the next function up in the series of increasing $n$: the general case of this can without tremendous difficulty be 'abstracted' from the first two or three by broaching yet another curious theorem of binomial coefficients; but I am not much enamoured of the idea of setting it out, and I suppose few of you are strongly desirous of seeing it.
But the question is - does anyone know a slick proof of the theorem that is the chief subject of this post? - by which I mean a proof that proceeds along somekind of shortcut or 'wormhole' through the space of general function-theory, without recourse to just taking the thing apart & reconstructing it cog-by-cog, as in my method of proof ... but I think the meaning of slick proof is well-enough known amongst us! I feel that there ought to be and probably is such a proof - my intuition just cannot rest in the idea that there isn't one.
multivariable-calculus gamma-function
asked Dec 4 '18 at 0:28
AmbretteOrriseyAmbretteOrrisey
54210
$endgroup$
I could not find a tag for incomplete gamma function, so I've just used the gamma function one.
A rather curious fact about the normalised incomplete gamma function$${1over n!}operatorname{Gamma}(n,mu)=int_mu^infty x^{n-1}e^{-x}dx$$ (or is that the complementary normalised incomplete gamma function?) is that it is equal to the hypervolume cut out by the hypersurface (a hyperhyperbola, maybe!) $$prod_{k=1}^n x_k=e^{-mu}$$ (the $x_k$ being coordinates in $n$-dimensional space) of the positive unit hyperbox with a corner at the origin, bounden by all the planes $x_j=0$ & $x_j=1$. (So it doesn't matter very much whether it's the IGF or the complementary IGF that is under consideration, as the other function is just the hypervolume in the other part of the box.
I know a rather gross proof of this that consists in integrating the whole of the present function's representation as such a hypervolume along the new axis to get the next function up in the series of increasing $n$: the general case of this can without tremendous difficulty be 'abstracted' from the first two or three by broaching yet another curious theorem of binomial coefficients; but I am not much enamoured of the idea of setting it out, and I suppose few of you are strongly desirous of seeing it.
But the question is - does anyone know a slick proof of the theorem that is the chief subject of this post? - by which I mean a proof that proceeds along somekind of shortcut or 'wormhole' through the space of general function-theory, without recourse to just taking the thing apart & reconstructing it cog-by-cog, as in my method of proof ... but I think the meaning of slick proof is well-enough known amongst us! I feel that there ought to be and probably is such a proof - my intuition just cannot rest in the idea that there isn't one.
multivariable-calculus gamma-function
multivariable-calculus gamma-function
asked Dec 4 '18 at 0:28
AmbretteOrriseyAmbretteOrrisey
54210
asked Dec 4 '18 at 0:28
AmbretteOrriseyAmbretteOrrisey
54210
edited Dec 4 '18 at 1:46
AmbretteOrrisey
asked Dec 4 '18 at 0:28
AmbretteOrriseyAmbretteOrrisey
54210
asked Dec 4 '18 at 0:28
AmbretteOrriseyAmbretteOrrisey
54210
asked Dec 4 '18 at 0:28
AmbretteOrriseyAmbretteOrrisey
54210
54210
$begingroup$
Change of variable $y_k = log(x_k)$ ?
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 4 '18 at 0:31
$begingroup$
So what would by the volume enclosed in that space? It would be just a hyperplane across the hypercorner, I think, wouldn't it. The region would have a simpler shape ... but then to recover the original hypervolume there would have to be a scaling that varies from point-to-point within the area, that would have to be built-into the integral. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any elementary relation between exponential of integral & integral of exponential (of function): I was wondering about that when I failed to find out what integral of gamma function is, but got one for lnΓ.
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 0:41
$begingroup$
@reuns -- Maybe that scaling I mentioned wouldn't be too bad: coz if x_k=e^-y_k, then Π{k=1 to n}dx_j=-Π{k=1 to n}e^y_k.dy_k, so the function to be integrated over the hypervolume is Π{k=1 to n}e^y_k ... but I'm having difficulty transforming the boundaries, as in the "x" formulation it's the part of the hyperbox made by the planes x_k=0 & x_k=l (need to fix this in the question) cut off by the hyperhyperbola Πx=e^-μ: but in the "y" formulation the hyperhyperbola translates to the plane Σy=μ; but because y is from 0 to ∞, how does the box transform!?
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 1:49
$begingroup$
Oh right! I think I've got it now! I see what I was missing before! I think you're right actually. ¶ I'll see what these other comments say. I'll bet they're saying what you said ... & I'll bet you won't believe that I hadn't seen them when I wrote this!
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 3:20
$begingroup$
@reuns I've made another comment above this one, but I forgot to put an "@" @ the beginning of it (hahaha! see what I did there!?). I think the fog has cleared, now! ... or is clearing. Those comments though, that I'd gotten notification of, & expected to be admonishments apprising me of how slow I am - they were actually about something completely different. ¶ Thankyou for your contribution!
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 3:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Change of variable $y_k = log(x_k)$ ?
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 4 '18 at 0:31
$begingroup$
So what would by the volume enclosed in that space? It would be just a hyperplane across the hypercorner, I think, wouldn't it. The region would have a simpler shape ... but then to recover the original hypervolume there would have to be a scaling that varies from point-to-point within the area, that would have to be built-into the integral. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any elementary relation between exponential of integral & integral of exponential (of function): I was wondering about that when I failed to find out what integral of gamma function is, but got one for lnΓ.
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 0:41
$begingroup$
@reuns -- Maybe that scaling I mentioned wouldn't be too bad: coz if x_k=e^-y_k, then Π{k=1 to n}dx_j=-Π{k=1 to n}e^y_k.dy_k, so the function to be integrated over the hypervolume is Π{k=1 to n}e^y_k ... but I'm having difficulty transforming the boundaries, as in the "x" formulation it's the part of the hyperbox made by the planes x_k=0 & x_k=l (need to fix this in the question) cut off by the hyperhyperbola Πx=e^-μ: but in the "y" formulation the hyperhyperbola translates to the plane Σy=μ; but because y is from 0 to ∞, how does the box transform!?
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 1:49
$begingroup$
Oh right! I think I've got it now! I see what I was missing before! I think you're right actually. ¶ I'll see what these other comments say. I'll bet they're saying what you said ... & I'll bet you won't believe that I hadn't seen them when I wrote this!
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 3:20
$begingroup$
@reuns I've made another comment above this one, but I forgot to put an "@" @ the beginning of it (hahaha! see what I did there!?). I think the fog has cleared, now! ... or is clearing. Those comments though, that I'd gotten notification of, & expected to be admonishments apprising me of how slow I am - they were actually about something completely different. ¶ Thankyou for your contribution!
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 3:39
$begingroup$
Change of variable $y_k = log(x_k)$ ?
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 4 '18 at 0:31
$begingroup$
Change of variable $y_k = log(x_k)$ ?
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 4 '18 at 0:31
$begingroup$
So what would by the volume enclosed in that space? It would be just a hyperplane across the hypercorner, I think, wouldn't it. The region would have a simpler shape ... but then to recover the original hypervolume there would have to be a scaling that varies from point-to-point within the area, that would have to be built-into the integral. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any elementary relation between exponential of integral & integral of exponential (of function): I was wondering about that when I failed to find out what integral of gamma function is, but got one for lnΓ.
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 0:41
$begingroup$
So what would by the volume enclosed in that space? It would be just a hyperplane across the hypercorner, I think, wouldn't it. The region would have a simpler shape ... but then to recover the original hypervolume there would have to be a scaling that varies from point-to-point within the area, that would have to be built-into the integral. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any elementary relation between exponential of integral & integral of exponential (of function): I was wondering about that when I failed to find out what integral of gamma function is, but got one for lnΓ.
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 0:41
$begingroup$
@reuns -- Maybe that scaling I mentioned wouldn't be too bad: coz if x_k=e^-y_k, then Π{k=1 to n}dx_j=-Π{k=1 to n}e^y_k.dy_k, so the function to be integrated over the hypervolume is Π{k=1 to n}e^y_k ... but I'm having difficulty transforming the boundaries, as in the "x" formulation it's the part of the hyperbox made by the planes x_k=0 & x_k=l (need to fix this in the question) cut off by the hyperhyperbola Πx=e^-μ: but in the "y" formulation the hyperhyperbola translates to the plane Σy=μ; but because y is from 0 to ∞, how does the box transform!?
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 1:49
$begingroup$
@reuns -- Maybe that scaling I mentioned wouldn't be too bad: coz if x_k=e^-y_k, then Π{k=1 to n}dx_j=-Π{k=1 to n}e^y_k.dy_k, so the function to be integrated over the hypervolume is Π{k=1 to n}e^y_k ... but I'm having difficulty transforming the boundaries, as in the "x" formulation it's the part of the hyperbox made by the planes x_k=0 & x_k=l (need to fix this in the question) cut off by the hyperhyperbola Πx=e^-μ: but in the "y" formulation the hyperhyperbola translates to the plane Σy=μ; but because y is from 0 to ∞, how does the box transform!?
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 1:49
$begingroup$
Oh right! I think I've got it now! I see what I was missing before! I think you're right actually. ¶ I'll see what these other comments say. I'll bet they're saying what you said ... & I'll bet you won't believe that I hadn't seen them when I wrote this!
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 3:20
$begingroup$
Oh right! I think I've got it now! I see what I was missing before! I think you're right actually. ¶ I'll see what these other comments say. I'll bet they're saying what you said ... & I'll bet you won't believe that I hadn't seen them when I wrote this!
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 3:20
$begingroup$
@reuns I've made another comment above this one, but I forgot to put an "@" @ the beginning of it (hahaha! see what I did there!?). I think the fog has cleared, now! ... or is clearing. Those comments though, that I'd gotten notification of, & expected to be admonishments apprising me of how slow I am - they were actually about something completely different. ¶ Thankyou for your contribution!
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 3:39
$begingroup$
@reuns I've made another comment above this one, but I forgot to put an "@" @ the beginning of it (hahaha! see what I did there!?). I think the fog has cleared, now! ... or is clearing. Those comments though, that I'd gotten notification of, & expected to be admonishments apprising me of how slow I am - they were actually about something completely different. ¶ Thankyou for your contribution!
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 3:39
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3024932%2fa-more-direct-proof-please-of-a-theorem-of-the-incomplete-gamma-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3024932%2fa-more-direct-proof-please-of-a-theorem-of-the-incomplete-gamma-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Change of variable $y_k = log(x_k)$ ?
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 4 '18 at 0:31
$begingroup$
So what would by the volume enclosed in that space? It would be just a hyperplane across the hypercorner, I think, wouldn't it. The region would have a simpler shape ... but then to recover the original hypervolume there would have to be a scaling that varies from point-to-point within the area, that would have to be built-into the integral. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any elementary relation between exponential of integral & integral of exponential (of function): I was wondering about that when I failed to find out what integral of gamma function is, but got one for lnΓ.
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 0:41
$begingroup$
@reuns -- Maybe that scaling I mentioned wouldn't be too bad: coz if x_k=e^-y_k, then Π{k=1 to n}dx_j=-Π{k=1 to n}e^y_k.dy_k, so the function to be integrated over the hypervolume is Π{k=1 to n}e^y_k ... but I'm having difficulty transforming the boundaries, as in the "x" formulation it's the part of the hyperbox made by the planes x_k=0 & x_k=l (need to fix this in the question) cut off by the hyperhyperbola Πx=e^-μ: but in the "y" formulation the hyperhyperbola translates to the plane Σy=μ; but because y is from 0 to ∞, how does the box transform!?
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 1:49
$begingroup$
Oh right! I think I've got it now! I see what I was missing before! I think you're right actually. ¶ I'll see what these other comments say. I'll bet they're saying what you said ... & I'll bet you won't believe that I hadn't seen them when I wrote this!
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 3:20
$begingroup$
@reuns I've made another comment above this one, but I forgot to put an "@" @ the beginning of it (hahaha! see what I did there!?). I think the fog has cleared, now! ... or is clearing. Those comments though, that I'd gotten notification of, & expected to be admonishments apprising me of how slow I am - they were actually about something completely different. ¶ Thankyou for your contribution!
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 4 '18 at 3:39