Answer to Exercise 11.4-5© 2001 by Karl Hahn |
|
By now you should have the method down, so I won't take you through the step-by-step of integration by parts. You were supposed to do just one round of integration by parts on
xn eax dx |
The easiest way to choose the parts is
u = xn |
and | dv |
v = |
eax dx = |
1 |
1 |
1 |
eax |
du |
xn eax dx |
duSo shoveling that into what we already have and rearranging just a bit:= n xn-1 dx
1 |
n |
xn-1 eax dx = |
xn eax dx |
eq. after the 1st round |
So what is this equation telling you? First it tells you that you can find the integral of xn eax if you know the integral of xn-1 eax. Clearly you can find that integral if you know the integral of xn-2 eax, and so on down to knowing the integral of xn-n eax. But that last one is the same as x0 eax = eax, whose integral we already know. So that last one will form the first rung of our induction ladder.
It is handy to label each round of integration by parts that it takes to do this integral with an integer, k.
Can you see that immediately after the kth round of integration by parts, what you will have will be a the sum of all the uv terms you accumulated at each round, minus some constant multiplier times whatever the remaining integral is. Since at each round we always choose v = eax, and since the power of x inside the integral is reduced by one with each round, what you get after k rounds looks something like
| (the sum of some stuff) × eax | + Ak |
xn-k eax dx |
n-(k-1)
−
a
And can you see how that gives you a recurrence relationship between your
Ak's, whenever k > 1.
Ak = - |
n-(k-1) |
Ak-1 |
and when k = 1, then A1 = n/a. (Or you could make the recurrence relationship hold for k = 1 as well if you arbitrarily let A0 = 1. As you'll see later, this turns out to be a better way of looking at it)
Now take the next step. What are all the factors of Ak? Think about what you're multiplying by each time you do a round? Doesn't that mean that
Ak = − |
n |
n-1 |
n-2 |
n-(k-1) |
If you can see that, then congratulations -- you are thinking inductively.
When you multiply all k of the denominators together, it's pretty easy to see that you get ak. For the resulting sign, it will be positive if k is even, negative if k is odd. But that's the same as multiplying by (-1)k.
Coming up with an expression for the product of all those numerators is a little trickier. But do you remember about factorials? Recall that n! (n factorial) is the product of all the integers from 1 to n. And (n-k)! is the product of all the integers from 1 to (n-k). Now take a piece of paper and work out what happens when you divide n! by (n-k)!. When you take all the cancellations, aren't you left with exactly the product of the numerators? And that means that
Ak = |
n! 1
|
(-1)k |
But what about the part we called "(the sum of some stuff) × eax "? After the first round the equation tells you that "(the sum of some stuff) × eax " is equal to
1 |
xn eax = |
A0 |
xn eax |
But after the first round, the remaining integral is multiplied by A1. Not only that, but its x is raised only to the n-1 power. So when we do the second round, the new "uv" summand that arises will be
A1 |
xn-1 eax |
so you will have
1 |
A0 xn + A1 xn-1 |
eax + C + A2 + |
xn-2 eax dx |
1 |
A0 xn + A1 xn-1 + A2 xn-2 + ... + Ak-1 xn-(k-1) |
eax + C + |
Ak
|
xn-k eax dx |
1 |
A0 xn + A1 xn-1 + A2 xn-2 + ... + An-1 x1 |
eax + C + |
An
|
x0 eax dx |
1 |
A0 xn + A1 xn-1 + A2 xn-2 + ... + An |
eax + C |
1 |
n
eax ∑ Ak xn-k
k=0
|
But recall that
Ak = |
n!
|
1 |
(-1)k |
So making that substitution and multiplying through by the 1/a that's to the left of the sum:
eax |
n
∑
k=0
|
n! (-1)k
|
xn eax dx |
"How on earth," I can hear you thinking, "am I ever going to take the derivative of that thing?" Well -- you're going to use the product rule. And if it helps, you can write it out without the summation notation:
eax |
n! |
n!
|
n!
|
n!
|
+ C = |
|
xn eax dx |
When you apply the product rule, you will have the derivative of eax times that stuff inside the parentheses, and added to that you will have eax times the derivative of the stuff in the parentheses. Write both of those and then see how each term in one cancels with a term in the other (except for one key term) to leave you, in the end, with only xn eax.
I'd like you to focus on what happens to the integral we expanded above in the case when a = -1. Look at the expression we got for the general case, and put in -1 for a. Can you see how this gives you
-e-x |
n! |
n! |
n! |
n! + |
+ C = |
xn e-x dx |
Now lets take the definite integral of this from x = 0  to x = r.
-e-x |
n! |
n! |
n! |
n! + |
|
r |
= |
r |
xn e-x dx |
You recall that this means putting in r for x and zero for x to form two substituted expressions, and then taking the first expression minus the second (noting that when x = 0, then raising it to any positive power also gives you zero).
-e-r |
n! |
n! |
n! |
n! + |
+ |
e0 |
n! |
= |
r
|
xn e-x dx |
Now take the limit as r goes to infinity. Back in the section on L'Hopital's Rule you solved a problem that showed that
lim xn e-x = 0
x → ∞
no matter how large n is. So when we take the limit here as
r goes to infinity, everything in the first set of brackets
will go to zero. That leaves only:
e0 |
n! |
= |
∞ |
xn e-x dx |
(note that when we put the ∞ as one of the limits of the integral, it means that you take the limit as that limit of integration goes to infinity)
But 0! = 1, and e0 = 1. So the result here is
n! = |
∞ |
xn e-x dx |
We have already seen that when n is a nonnegative integer, we have a way of solving the integral on the right. And we have a definition of n! whenever n is a nonnegative integer. But what about when n is not an integer. Our definition of multiplying the integers from 1 to n can't apply, so we have can't have that as a definition of n! for non-integer n. But the definite integral on the right of the above equation does exist even when n is not an integer (even though you can't evaluate it using integration by parts because you miss the first rung of the induction ladder). But this does give us a way to define n! for any positive real number. This is the basis for the so-called Gamma function. For historical reasons, it is defined just a little differently from what we have above:
Γ(s) = |
∞ |
xs-1 e-x dx |
Γ(s) = (s-1)!When s is not an integer, it is not obvious how you would compute a value for Γ(s). But there are some tricks you can find in more advanced mathematical analysis to approximate it to very fine precision, and tables of values of the Gamma function are available in most math handbooks. Although this will be the last you'll be hearing about the Gamma function for a while, it does play an important role in mathematical analysis.
One last thing -- can you use the definition given here for Gamma together with integration by parts to prove that for s > 1, it is always the case that
Γ(s) = (s-1) Γ(s-1)
|
You can email me by clicking this button: