3

I am considering a function $f(x)$ defined by an integral as follows:

$$ f(x) = \int_0^1 dt \frac{\sqrt{t}}{(1 -xt^2)^{\beta}} ,$$

which depends on real $x< 1$ and real $\beta > 1$. First note that $f(0) = 2/3$ for all $\beta$. In terms of an asymptotic estimate of the singular behaviour for $x$ close to $1$, it can be shown that one has

$$ f(x) \sim A (1-x)^{1 - \beta} , $$

for some constant $A$.

Is there some way to evaluate or estimate what $A$ is? It seems from some numerics I did (which might be mistaken) that

$$A = (2 \beta - 2)^{-1}.$$

Edit: It can be show that this is correct by using the hypergeometric function and its known asymptotics to derive $A$, but this kind of seems like cheating so I am looking for a more elegant way to show that my guess for $A$ is correct.

Tom
  • 3,135

3 Answers3

4

Using asymptotic properties of the Gaussian hypergeometric functions.

If $\beta$ is a positive number, the asymptotic of $$f(x) = \int_0^1 \frac{\sqrt{t}}{(1 -x\,t^2)^{\beta}} \,dt=\frac{2}{3} \,\, _2F_1\left(\frac{3}{4},\beta ;\frac{7}{4};x\right)$$ is in general

$$f(x) \sim \frac{(1-x)^{\beta-1}}{2(\beta-1) }$$

For example, for $\beta=\frac 32$, $\frac{3-x}{2 \sqrt{1-x}}$ is much better than $\sqrt{1-x}$

4

Too long for a comment $$f(x) = \int_0^1 \frac{\sqrt{t}}{(1 -xt^2)^{\beta}}dt\overset{xt^2=s}{=}\frac{x^{-3/4}}2\int_0^x\frac{s^{-1/4}}{(1-s)^\beta}ds$$ Denoting $\epsilon=1-x$ $$f(x)=\frac{(1-\epsilon)^{-3/4}}2\int_\epsilon^1t^{-\beta}(1-t)^{-1/4}dt$$ Using the decomposition $$(1-t)^{-1/4}=1+\frac t4+\frac{5t^2}{32}+...$$ we can choose as many terms as we need - depending on $\beta$.

For example, for $\beta\in(1;2)$ we can write $$f(x)=\frac{(1-\epsilon)^{-3/4}}2\left(\int_\epsilon^1t^{-\beta}\Big((1-t)^{-1/4}-1\Big)dt+\int_\epsilon^1t^{-\beta}dt\right)$$ As the first integral is regular at $\epsilon=0$ $$=\frac{(1-\epsilon)^{-3/4}}2\left(\int_0^1t^{-\beta}\Big((1-t)^{-1/4}-1\Big)dt+o(1)+\int_\epsilon^1t^{-\beta}dt\right)$$ $$f(x)=\frac{(1-x)^{1-\beta}}{2(\beta-1)}+O(1);\,\,\beta\in(1;2)$$ For $\beta\in(2;3)$ we keep two terms in the first integral; namely, present $f(x)$ in the form $$f(x)=\frac{(1-\epsilon)^{-3/4}}2\left(\int_\epsilon^1t^{-\beta}\Big((1-t)^{-1/4}-1-\frac t4\Big)dt+\int_\epsilon^1t^{-\beta}\Big(1+\frac t4\Big)dt\right)$$ Again, the first integral is regular at $\epsilon=0$, and we have for two leading asymptotic terms ($\epsilon =1-x$) $$f(x)\sim\frac{(1-\epsilon)^{-3/4}}2\int_\epsilon^1t^{-\beta}\Big(1+\frac t4\Big)dt\sim\frac{(1-\epsilon)^{-3/4}}2\left(\frac{\epsilon^{1-\beta}}{\beta-1}+\frac{\epsilon^{2-\beta}}{4(\beta-2)}\right)$$ Decomposing also $(1-\epsilon)^{-3/4}=1+\frac34\epsilon+O(\epsilon^2)$ $$f(x)\sim\frac{(1-x)^{1-\beta}}{2(\beta-1)}+\left(\frac38\frac1{\beta-1}+\frac18\frac1{\beta-2}\right)(1-x)^{2-\beta}+O(1);\,\,\beta\in(2;3)$$ etc.

Svyatoslav
  • 20,502
  • Is there a way to do this without having to choose beta to be in a certain interval? Is this enough to show that $A$ is what I suggest in my question, or is this more ''evidence''? Note that beta is non-integer. – Tom Oct 03 '23 at 11:03
  • 1
    I'm afraid I can't provide the general formula for an arbitrary $\beta$. The point is that the asymptotic contains several divergent (at $x\to1$) terms, and the number of these terms (and their explicite expressions) depend on $\beta$. But the leading term is the same for all $\beta>1$, so A in your question is correct. – Svyatoslav Oct 03 '23 at 13:28
  • Sorry I'm slightly confused by something, why is the first integral regular at $\epsilon =0$ in the case of $\beta \in (1,2)$? – Tom Oct 07 '23 at 13:04
  • $$\int_\epsilon^1t^{-\beta}\Big((1-t)^{-1/4}-1\Big)dt=\int_\epsilon^1t^{-\beta}\frac t{\big((1-t)^{\frac14}+1\big)\big((1-t)^{\frac12}+1\big)(1-t)^{\frac14}}dt$$ $$<\int_\epsilon^1t^{1-\beta}(1-t)^{-\frac14}dt<\int_0^1t^{1-\beta}(1-t)^{-\frac14}dt=B\Big(2-\beta;\frac34\Big)=\frac{\Gamma(2-\beta)\Gamma\big(\frac34\big)}{\Gamma\big(2+\frac34-\beta\big)}$$ – Svyatoslav Oct 07 '23 at 14:15
  • Just in case, $$\int_0^1t^{-\beta}\Big((1-t)^{-1/4}-1\Big)dt=\frac1{\beta-1}\left(1-\frac{\Gamma(2-\beta)\Gamma\big(\frac34\big)}{\Gamma\big(\frac74-\beta\big)}\right)$$ (for example, here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4119506/integrate-int-0-infty-big-y-x-lambda-1-y-lambda-1-bi/4121834#4121834 ) – Svyatoslav Oct 07 '23 at 14:49
2

$\require{cancel}$

Note. The following might just be an extremely long comment and not be what OP is looking for. However, this has several interesting ideas, identities, and another way of finding a solution to $A$.

Observations

First, observe

$$f(x)=\int_0^1 \frac{\sqrt{t}}{(1-xt^2)^{\beta}}dt$$

at least resembles or is literally a special case of the Hypergeometric function:

$${}_2F_1(a,b;c;z)=\frac{1}{\text{B}(b,c-b)}\int_0^1 \frac{t^{b-1}(1-z)^{c-b-1}}{(1-zt)^a}dt$$

Where $\text{B}(b,c-b)$ is the beta function.

How would you recognize this relation? I didn't–Wolfram did :) Working with such an integral I would assume a knowledge of such functions, especially in a course. However, I will try my best to make this answer as accessible as possible.

Second, the Eulerian transformations:

\begin{align}{}_2F_1(a,b;c;z)&=(1-z)^{-a}{}_2F_1(a,c-b;c;\frac{z}{z-1})\\&=(1-z)^{-b}{}_2F_1(c-a,b;c;\frac{z}{z-1})\\&=(1-z)^{c-a-b}{}_2F_1(c-a,c-b;c;z)\end{align}

These transformations have a factor of $(1-z)$, which can help in finding $A$:

$$f(x)\sim A(1-x)^{1-\beta}$$


Working backward

A quick WolframAlpha search gives us, where ${}_2F_1$ is a hypergeometric function: \begin{align}f(x) &= \int_0^1 \frac{\sqrt{t}}{(1 -xt^2)^{\beta}}dt\\&=\frac23 \,{}_2F_1\left(\frac34,\beta;\frac74;x\right)\end{align}

For a special case where $\beta=\frac74$, $$f(x)=\frac23 (1-x)^{-3/4}$$

We have such special cases when $b=c$ for a function in the form ${}_2F_1(a,b;c;z)$.

I have tried substitutions and other tricks, but I couldn't figure out how WolframAlpha found the exact representation of $f(x)$.

Edit. I posted this as a question and there you can see how to arrive to this Hypergeometric function.

Series Representations

Note that the Hypergeometric function is named so because it is a generalization of the geometric series. Namely, when $b=c$,

$${}_2F_1(a,b;b;z)=1+x+x^2+x^3+\dots$$

Then, by definition,

$$f(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(3/4)_n(\beta)_n}{(7/4)_n}\frac{x^n}{n!}=3\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(\beta)_nx^n}{(4n+3)n!}\tag{1}$$

We can do this because

$$\frac{(a)_n}{(a+1)_n}=\frac{a}{a+n}$$

A few identities by playing around: $$\frac{\Gamma(a+n)\Gamma(a+1)}{\Gamma(a)\Gamma(a+n+1)}=\frac{a}{a+n}$$ $$(a)_n\Gamma(a)=\Gamma(a+n)$$

We'll get back to Equation $(1)$ soon.

Eulerian transformation: solving for $A$

Applying the Eulerian transformation,

\begin{align}f(x)={}_2F_1\left(\frac34,\beta;\frac74;x\right)&=(1-x)^{1-\beta}{}_2F_1\left(1,\frac74-\beta;\frac74;x\right)\\&=A(1-x)^{1-\beta}\end{align}
$$\therefore A={}_2F_1\left(1,\frac74-\beta;\frac74;x\right)$$

Turn this into a series by definition:

$$A=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{\cancel{(1)_n}(\frac74-\beta)_n}{(\frac74)_n}\frac{x^n}{\cancel{n!}}\tag{2}$$

And we are done here.

Peculiar results

What we find is truly beautiful. With equations $(1)$ and $(2)$,

$$f(x)=3\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(\beta)_nx^n}{(4n+3)n!}=A(1-x)^{1-\beta}=(1-x)^{1-\beta}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{x^n(\frac74-\beta)_n}{(\frac74)_n}$$

Rewriting in a more dramatic way:

$$(1-x)^{1-\beta}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{x^n(\frac74-\beta)_n}{(\frac74)_n}=3\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{x^n(\beta)_n}{(4n+3)n!}$$

Which means, with @ClaudeLeibovici's asymptotics,

$$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(1-x)^{1-\beta}x^n(\frac74-\beta)_n}{(\frac74)_n}=\frac{1}{2\beta-2}$$

I apologize if any these results are wrong. I am still in school, so it's very difficult to do math and other work.

sreysus
  • 797
  • Why is it weird, because $A$ is apparently a multiple of $f(x)$? So basically $A$ has not actually been determined? – Tom Oct 01 '23 at 15:40
  • It's not really close to your numeric value for $A$ (or doesn't seem to, at first) – sreysus Oct 01 '23 at 15:41
  • OK, I mean I did the numerical part a bit quickly. I might be completely wrong, and you could be right. – Tom Oct 01 '23 at 15:42
  • It could also be the other way around, I'm still in school :\ I hope this helps (as at least a very long comment) – sreysus Oct 01 '23 at 15:43
  • I mean, I don't exactly see anything wrong with your argument, but I am also not an expert on this type of stuff. Perhaps we could wait for someone else to see what they have to say. – Tom Oct 01 '23 at 15:44
  • I probably misread, but what does it mean $f(x) \sim (x-1)^{-2} f(x) (1-x)^{1 - \beta}$? – Tom Oct 01 '23 at 15:52
  • Did you mean $A = (x-1)^{-2}$? – Tom Oct 01 '23 at 15:59
  • If what I did was correct, then no. If $A=(x-1)^{-2}f(x)$, then presumably $f(x)\asymp(x-1)^{-2}f(x)(1-x)^{1-\beta}=(x-1)^{\beta-3}f(x)$, which I'm not really sure how to interpret. – sreysus Oct 01 '23 at 16:01
  • 1
    It seems like my guess agrees with your special case when $\beta = 7/4$? ie. you get $A = 2/3$ . – Tom Oct 01 '23 at 18:08
  • So I have actually derived my original guess by using the fact that the hypergeometric function has known asymptotics as $x$ goes to $1$, so my guess was correct. However, the part where Wolfram is used to derive the hypergeometric function sort of seems like cheating, so I am still looking for a more elegant way to derive $A$. – Tom Oct 01 '23 at 19:53
  • I think I did it now :) – sreysus Oct 01 '23 at 20:45
  • I think (1) and (2) are both wrong unfortunately. Shouldn't A be a constant? In this context, I would trust Wolfram Alpha. The value for A I obtained is constant, and it was done by considering known asymptotics of the hypergeometric function. – Tom Oct 01 '23 at 22:23
  • I did not see the spoiler (I am blind). But $(2)$ is not correct at all : you forgot to replace $\sqrt t$ by $\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt{1-u}}{\sqrt{x}}}$. Doing it, we are back to the same hypergeometric function. – Claude Leibovici Oct 02 '23 at 10:17
  • I have realized, unfortunately, almost immediately after the discussion with @Tom. I wasn't able to change my answer as I am still in school (sad), so I have almost no time for MSE. However, I did find a formula that (hopefully) transforms the integral into a hypergeometric function here: Go to equation (16). I am working on editing my answer now. – sreysus Oct 02 '23 at 10:19
  • Yeah, that is what I was trying to say: you can't generally express hypergeometric function in terms of elementary functions so if you try to do the elementary integral you will just go back to a hypergeometric function. – Tom Oct 02 '23 at 10:47
  • But does the link (partially) answer your question about how the hypergeometric function is derived from the integral? The structure of the integrand is quite similar to the formula. Perhaps the exercise (if you were doing one) has to do with the function – sreysus Oct 02 '23 at 13:41