Talk:Gamma function

Mathematics High‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
High	This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.

Citizendium Porting (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Euler's definition as an infinite product

The reference for Euler's infinite product says that the limit goes to n!, not 1. 104.187.53.82 (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are talking about two different expressions. Both of these are true:

\lim _{n\to \infty }{\frac {n!\,\left(n+1\right)^{z}}{(n+z)!}}=1

\lim _{n\to \infty }{\frac {1}{z}}\prod _{k=1}^{n}\left[{\frac {1}{1+{\frac {z}{k}}}}\left(1+{\frac {1}{k}}\right)^{z}\right]=\Gamma (z)

—

Q

uantling (talk | contribs) 16:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

log vs ln

I don't care much about which, but the article should be consistent. Do we want to use " $log$ " or " $ln$ " to indicate a natural logarithm? We could use one or the other throughout. Or, if we mostly go with " $ln$ ", we could nonetheless use " $log$ " in those fewer cases where the expression works regardless of the base of the logarithm. What do you prefer? — $Q$ uantling (talk | contribs) 17:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it consistent. Since I had to choose one, I chose log, with a notation on first use that it is the natural logarithm. I think this is the more common style for mathematical analysis and analytic number theory, the main subfields of mathematics for this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equation appears wrong

The equation immediately following the words "Laplace transform" appears wrong.

The number log(π) has a positive sign in the previous equation, on the right of the equals sign.

So when it is brought to the left of the equals sign as in the equation following "Laplace transform", it should have a negative sign.

But it does not.

If this observation is correct, I hope someone familiar with this subject can fix this.

t?

What is t? This is crucial really, but I have never found a definition for it. Is it a constant? If not, how would you go about working it out on a scientific calculator with standard trig and logarithmic functions? Koro Neil (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the t in the first displayed equation and in the infobox? It's the variable of integration. Obviously. That's what the "dt" part at the end of the integral denotes. If you don't know what a variable of integration is, this article may not be for you. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing 0! in image

In the Generalized factorial function more infos image in the Motivation section, the point 0!=1 is missing. As much as I'd like to know how to fix this, I don't, so can someone else fix it instead? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]