A special polynomial
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
For $n geq 2$, let $phi =|t(t-1)...(t-n)|; forall; t in [0,n]$.
1/ Show that $phi$ peaks at a point belonging to $[0,1]$
2/ Evaluate $dfrac{phi'}{phi}$ in accordance with $displaystyle g(t)=sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{(t-k)}$
Any help would be appreciated.
real-analysis proof-writing
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
For $n geq 2$, let $phi =|t(t-1)...(t-n)|; forall; t in [0,n]$.
1/ Show that $phi$ peaks at a point belonging to $[0,1]$
2/ Evaluate $dfrac{phi'}{phi}$ in accordance with $displaystyle g(t)=sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{(t-k)}$
Any help would be appreciated.
real-analysis proof-writing
Rolle's theorem should help with part 1.
– Andy Walls
Nov 17 at 15:06
For the second, note that $phi’/phi=frac{d}{dx}logphi(x)$.
– Clayton
Nov 17 at 15:16
Thanks for your hints, but i can't come up with a proof for these questions. Can you be more explicit please?
– Morpheus
Nov 17 at 16:37
What do you mean by “peaks”? That it has a local maximum?
– egreg
Nov 17 at 17:37
What i mean by peaks is that $phi$ has a maximum on [0,n], and that it is reached on a point of [0,1]
– Morpheus
Nov 18 at 11:59
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
For $n geq 2$, let $phi =|t(t-1)...(t-n)|; forall; t in [0,n]$.
1/ Show that $phi$ peaks at a point belonging to $[0,1]$
2/ Evaluate $dfrac{phi'}{phi}$ in accordance with $displaystyle g(t)=sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{(t-k)}$
Any help would be appreciated.
real-analysis proof-writing
For $n geq 2$, let $phi =|t(t-1)...(t-n)|; forall; t in [0,n]$.
1/ Show that $phi$ peaks at a point belonging to $[0,1]$
2/ Evaluate $dfrac{phi'}{phi}$ in accordance with $displaystyle g(t)=sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{(t-k)}$
Any help would be appreciated.
real-analysis proof-writing
real-analysis proof-writing
edited Nov 17 at 14:57
amWhy
191k27223438
191k27223438
asked Nov 17 at 14:45
Morpheus
336
336
Rolle's theorem should help with part 1.
– Andy Walls
Nov 17 at 15:06
For the second, note that $phi’/phi=frac{d}{dx}logphi(x)$.
– Clayton
Nov 17 at 15:16
Thanks for your hints, but i can't come up with a proof for these questions. Can you be more explicit please?
– Morpheus
Nov 17 at 16:37
What do you mean by “peaks”? That it has a local maximum?
– egreg
Nov 17 at 17:37
What i mean by peaks is that $phi$ has a maximum on [0,n], and that it is reached on a point of [0,1]
– Morpheus
Nov 18 at 11:59
add a comment |
Rolle's theorem should help with part 1.
– Andy Walls
Nov 17 at 15:06
For the second, note that $phi’/phi=frac{d}{dx}logphi(x)$.
– Clayton
Nov 17 at 15:16
Thanks for your hints, but i can't come up with a proof for these questions. Can you be more explicit please?
– Morpheus
Nov 17 at 16:37
What do you mean by “peaks”? That it has a local maximum?
– egreg
Nov 17 at 17:37
What i mean by peaks is that $phi$ has a maximum on [0,n], and that it is reached on a point of [0,1]
– Morpheus
Nov 18 at 11:59
Rolle's theorem should help with part 1.
– Andy Walls
Nov 17 at 15:06
Rolle's theorem should help with part 1.
– Andy Walls
Nov 17 at 15:06
For the second, note that $phi’/phi=frac{d}{dx}logphi(x)$.
– Clayton
Nov 17 at 15:16
For the second, note that $phi’/phi=frac{d}{dx}logphi(x)$.
– Clayton
Nov 17 at 15:16
Thanks for your hints, but i can't come up with a proof for these questions. Can you be more explicit please?
– Morpheus
Nov 17 at 16:37
Thanks for your hints, but i can't come up with a proof for these questions. Can you be more explicit please?
– Morpheus
Nov 17 at 16:37
What do you mean by “peaks”? That it has a local maximum?
– egreg
Nov 17 at 17:37
What do you mean by “peaks”? That it has a local maximum?
– egreg
Nov 17 at 17:37
What i mean by peaks is that $phi$ has a maximum on [0,n], and that it is reached on a point of [0,1]
– Morpheus
Nov 18 at 11:59
What i mean by peaks is that $phi$ has a maximum on [0,n], and that it is reached on a point of [0,1]
– Morpheus
Nov 18 at 11:59
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Well, assuming that I understand you correctly, the first part is the product:
$$phi_n(t)=left|prod_{k=0}^nt-kright|implies{left(phi(t)=0iff t-k=0;\thereforephi(t)=0iff t=kright)}$$
You can evaluate this product using the falling factorial, provided that you appropriately restrict the domain of $n$ to $ngeq2$:
$$phi_n(t)=left|(t)_{n+1}right| : ngeq2$$
By definition, this is the same as
$$phi_n(t)=left|frac{Gamma(t+1)}{Gamma(t-n)}right|; text{if }tinmathbb{Z}, text{then }phi_n(t)=left|frac{t!}{Gamma(t-n)}right|$$
Now, I'm not sure what you mean by "peaks at a point belonging to $[0,1]$," but if you mean that $phi_n(t)$ has a local maximum at $0leq tleq 1$ then you only need to show that $phi_n(0)=0$, $phi_n(1)=0$, and $exists tin(0,1):phi_n(t)neq0$.
From the original product, you know that $phi_n(k)=0$, where $kinleft{xinmathbb{Z}mid0leq xleq nright}$, so the first two statements are true (you can also show this using the limit of the gamma function in the denominator). For the final statement, consider that $Gamma(x)$ has no zeros (so the numerator is never zero), and is finite if $x$ is not a negative integer (so the denominator is finite if $x$ is not an integer). Thus if $tnotinmathbb{Z}$, then $phi_n(t)neq0$.
Hope this helps.
As for the second part to your question, I'm not sure how to interpret it. Is $frac{phiprime}{phi}$ meant to denote $frac{partialphi_n(t)}{partial t}frac{1}{phi_n(t)}$? And if so, what does $g(t)$ have to do with it?
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Well, assuming that I understand you correctly, the first part is the product:
$$phi_n(t)=left|prod_{k=0}^nt-kright|implies{left(phi(t)=0iff t-k=0;\thereforephi(t)=0iff t=kright)}$$
You can evaluate this product using the falling factorial, provided that you appropriately restrict the domain of $n$ to $ngeq2$:
$$phi_n(t)=left|(t)_{n+1}right| : ngeq2$$
By definition, this is the same as
$$phi_n(t)=left|frac{Gamma(t+1)}{Gamma(t-n)}right|; text{if }tinmathbb{Z}, text{then }phi_n(t)=left|frac{t!}{Gamma(t-n)}right|$$
Now, I'm not sure what you mean by "peaks at a point belonging to $[0,1]$," but if you mean that $phi_n(t)$ has a local maximum at $0leq tleq 1$ then you only need to show that $phi_n(0)=0$, $phi_n(1)=0$, and $exists tin(0,1):phi_n(t)neq0$.
From the original product, you know that $phi_n(k)=0$, where $kinleft{xinmathbb{Z}mid0leq xleq nright}$, so the first two statements are true (you can also show this using the limit of the gamma function in the denominator). For the final statement, consider that $Gamma(x)$ has no zeros (so the numerator is never zero), and is finite if $x$ is not a negative integer (so the denominator is finite if $x$ is not an integer). Thus if $tnotinmathbb{Z}$, then $phi_n(t)neq0$.
Hope this helps.
As for the second part to your question, I'm not sure how to interpret it. Is $frac{phiprime}{phi}$ meant to denote $frac{partialphi_n(t)}{partial t}frac{1}{phi_n(t)}$? And if so, what does $g(t)$ have to do with it?
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Well, assuming that I understand you correctly, the first part is the product:
$$phi_n(t)=left|prod_{k=0}^nt-kright|implies{left(phi(t)=0iff t-k=0;\thereforephi(t)=0iff t=kright)}$$
You can evaluate this product using the falling factorial, provided that you appropriately restrict the domain of $n$ to $ngeq2$:
$$phi_n(t)=left|(t)_{n+1}right| : ngeq2$$
By definition, this is the same as
$$phi_n(t)=left|frac{Gamma(t+1)}{Gamma(t-n)}right|; text{if }tinmathbb{Z}, text{then }phi_n(t)=left|frac{t!}{Gamma(t-n)}right|$$
Now, I'm not sure what you mean by "peaks at a point belonging to $[0,1]$," but if you mean that $phi_n(t)$ has a local maximum at $0leq tleq 1$ then you only need to show that $phi_n(0)=0$, $phi_n(1)=0$, and $exists tin(0,1):phi_n(t)neq0$.
From the original product, you know that $phi_n(k)=0$, where $kinleft{xinmathbb{Z}mid0leq xleq nright}$, so the first two statements are true (you can also show this using the limit of the gamma function in the denominator). For the final statement, consider that $Gamma(x)$ has no zeros (so the numerator is never zero), and is finite if $x$ is not a negative integer (so the denominator is finite if $x$ is not an integer). Thus if $tnotinmathbb{Z}$, then $phi_n(t)neq0$.
Hope this helps.
As for the second part to your question, I'm not sure how to interpret it. Is $frac{phiprime}{phi}$ meant to denote $frac{partialphi_n(t)}{partial t}frac{1}{phi_n(t)}$? And if so, what does $g(t)$ have to do with it?
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Well, assuming that I understand you correctly, the first part is the product:
$$phi_n(t)=left|prod_{k=0}^nt-kright|implies{left(phi(t)=0iff t-k=0;\thereforephi(t)=0iff t=kright)}$$
You can evaluate this product using the falling factorial, provided that you appropriately restrict the domain of $n$ to $ngeq2$:
$$phi_n(t)=left|(t)_{n+1}right| : ngeq2$$
By definition, this is the same as
$$phi_n(t)=left|frac{Gamma(t+1)}{Gamma(t-n)}right|; text{if }tinmathbb{Z}, text{then }phi_n(t)=left|frac{t!}{Gamma(t-n)}right|$$
Now, I'm not sure what you mean by "peaks at a point belonging to $[0,1]$," but if you mean that $phi_n(t)$ has a local maximum at $0leq tleq 1$ then you only need to show that $phi_n(0)=0$, $phi_n(1)=0$, and $exists tin(0,1):phi_n(t)neq0$.
From the original product, you know that $phi_n(k)=0$, where $kinleft{xinmathbb{Z}mid0leq xleq nright}$, so the first two statements are true (you can also show this using the limit of the gamma function in the denominator). For the final statement, consider that $Gamma(x)$ has no zeros (so the numerator is never zero), and is finite if $x$ is not a negative integer (so the denominator is finite if $x$ is not an integer). Thus if $tnotinmathbb{Z}$, then $phi_n(t)neq0$.
Hope this helps.
As for the second part to your question, I'm not sure how to interpret it. Is $frac{phiprime}{phi}$ meant to denote $frac{partialphi_n(t)}{partial t}frac{1}{phi_n(t)}$? And if so, what does $g(t)$ have to do with it?
Well, assuming that I understand you correctly, the first part is the product:
$$phi_n(t)=left|prod_{k=0}^nt-kright|implies{left(phi(t)=0iff t-k=0;\thereforephi(t)=0iff t=kright)}$$
You can evaluate this product using the falling factorial, provided that you appropriately restrict the domain of $n$ to $ngeq2$:
$$phi_n(t)=left|(t)_{n+1}right| : ngeq2$$
By definition, this is the same as
$$phi_n(t)=left|frac{Gamma(t+1)}{Gamma(t-n)}right|; text{if }tinmathbb{Z}, text{then }phi_n(t)=left|frac{t!}{Gamma(t-n)}right|$$
Now, I'm not sure what you mean by "peaks at a point belonging to $[0,1]$," but if you mean that $phi_n(t)$ has a local maximum at $0leq tleq 1$ then you only need to show that $phi_n(0)=0$, $phi_n(1)=0$, and $exists tin(0,1):phi_n(t)neq0$.
From the original product, you know that $phi_n(k)=0$, where $kinleft{xinmathbb{Z}mid0leq xleq nright}$, so the first two statements are true (you can also show this using the limit of the gamma function in the denominator). For the final statement, consider that $Gamma(x)$ has no zeros (so the numerator is never zero), and is finite if $x$ is not a negative integer (so the denominator is finite if $x$ is not an integer). Thus if $tnotinmathbb{Z}$, then $phi_n(t)neq0$.
Hope this helps.
As for the second part to your question, I'm not sure how to interpret it. Is $frac{phiprime}{phi}$ meant to denote $frac{partialphi_n(t)}{partial t}frac{1}{phi_n(t)}$? And if so, what does $g(t)$ have to do with it?
edited Nov 17 at 17:56
answered Nov 17 at 17:25
R. Burton
1267
1267
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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%2f3002439%2fa-special-polynomial%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
Rolle's theorem should help with part 1.
– Andy Walls
Nov 17 at 15:06
For the second, note that $phi’/phi=frac{d}{dx}logphi(x)$.
– Clayton
Nov 17 at 15:16
Thanks for your hints, but i can't come up with a proof for these questions. Can you be more explicit please?
– Morpheus
Nov 17 at 16:37
What do you mean by “peaks”? That it has a local maximum?
– egreg
Nov 17 at 17:37
What i mean by peaks is that $phi$ has a maximum on [0,n], and that it is reached on a point of [0,1]
– Morpheus
Nov 18 at 11:59