Kainui
  • Kainui
Weird accident. Is this just a coincidence?
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
schrodinger
  • schrodinger
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
Kainui
  • Kainui
So I was looking at the Stirling approximation for \(\ln(x!) \approx x \ln x -x +1\). Then I looked at the integral representation of \(x! = \int_0^\infty t^x e^{-t}dt\) and then here I made a mistake as well as a weird bit of playing around. =D I took the logarithm of both sides: \[\ln(x!) = \ln\int_0^\infty t^x e^{-t}dt\] And made the mistake of thinking I could bring the logarithm inside the sum... \[\ln(x!) = \int_0^\infty \ln( t^x e^{-t}dt)\] Then did the weird thing: \[\int_0^\infty x \ln( t) + \int_0^\infty -t + \int_0^\infty \ln(dt)\] Anyways then I recognized that there is an odd similarity here between this and Stirling's approximation: \[x\int_0^\infty \ln( t) - \int_0^\infty t + \int_0^\infty \ln(dt)\] \[x\ln x - x + 1\] Is there a reason for this?
adajiamcneal
  • adajiamcneal
what type of math is this???? :O
Kainui
  • Kainui
Calculus :D

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

adajiamcneal
  • adajiamcneal
ohhh my lawwwd. so glad i dont take it sorry i cant help you i cant even read it haha goodluck though
Kainui
  • Kainui
The derivation of Striling's approximation is what I had in mind while I was doing this, which is why I must have made this mistake in bringing the \(\ln\) inside the sum: \[\ln (x!) = \sum_{k=1}^x \ln k \approx \int_1^x \ln t dt = x \ln x -x +1\]
freckles
  • freckles
so infinity is suppose to be x ?
freckles
  • freckles
wait nevermind I'm confused
freckles
  • freckles
not sure how the improper integrals turned into function of x
Kainui
  • Kainui
No, these are two different things, the infinity is from the gamma function, but it looks like you're catching yourself. There are two separate integrals going on I think haha
Kainui
  • Kainui
So I'll put them up here for reference: Stirling's Approximation of \(\ln (x!)\) \[\ln (x!) \approx \int_1^x \ln x dx\] Gamma function \(\Gamma(x+1)=x!\) \[x! = \int_0^\infty t^xe^{-t}dt\] Yeah this is kind of confusing I can help explain more though since I sorta skipped around.
Kainui
  • Kainui
I can derive or help you derive either of these, although I put the basic steps for deriving Stirling's approximation \(\ln(x!) \approx x \ln x - x +1\) which has that first integral as an intermediate step to deriving it.
freckles
  • freckles
ok I'm going to need a few math moments
freckles
  • freckles
\[\ln (x!) = \sum_{k=1}^x \ln k \approx \int_1^x \ln t dt = x \ln x -x +1\] I do understand this... and you are saying... that weird thing you did looks similar to this right?
freckles
  • freckles
that is kind of weird
Kainui
  • Kainui
Yeah, for some reason the messed up thing ends up almost identical in a way... It's just strangely similar.
Kainui
  • Kainui
If we could somehow show \[\int_0^\infty \ln t = \ln x\] \[\int_0^\infty t = x\] \[\int_0^\infty \ln(dt) = 1\] It would work. Of course, these statements are all nonsense since the first two are infinite and the last one is... well I am not sure. Maybe there's some way around this though? I guess there's something fishy going on here.
Kainui
  • Kainui
I guess this isn't entirely true, I should replace all the = signs with \(\approx\) since the left hand side are the actual terms (although wrong... #_#) while the terms on the other side are the terms of the approximation. Confusing.
freckles
  • freckles
ok I think I'm almost there to seeing why your stuff happened weird like it looks like: \[\ln(x^n e^{-x})= n \ln(n)-n+\text{ blah }\] http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StirlingsApproximation.html
Kainui
  • Kainui
Ohhhh it looks like they derive it using the factorial interesting thanks, this is just what I needed it looks like, just gotta read it!
Kainui
  • Kainui
This is an excellent and really close approximation on that link you shared too which looks great \[x! \approx \sqrt{\left(2x+\frac{1}{3}\right)\pi }*x^xe^{-x}\] https://www.desmos.com/calculator/cmiwh9gfbh
freckles
  • freckles
I wouldn't have thought of any of that you know rewriting ln(x^n*exp(-x)) like they did in lines 9-16
Kainui
  • Kainui
I don't really understand the reasoning though at line 8, how does they come to this conclusion?
freckles
  • freckles
the part where they have x=n+xi where xi<
freckles
  • freckles
I know f'=0 when x=n
freckles
  • freckles
and so we have a sharp corner there for ln(exp(x)*x^n)
freckles
  • freckles
\[\ln((n+\xi)^n e^{-(n+\xi)}) \\ =\ln((n+\xi)^n)+\ln(e^{-(n+\xi)}) \\ =n \ln(n+\xi)-(n+\xi)\]
freckles
  • freckles
I don't know why they found the critical point
Kainui
  • Kainui
Ohhhhh I think I see. They found the critical point because that's the local max. This means this is where the most contribution comes from, for instance if you integrate \(-x^2+5\) where it's larger than 0, the most area contribution will be the integral around x=0 since that's where the max is.
Kainui
  • Kainui
I think they should have just taken the derivative of \(x^ne^{-x}\) instead to make it clearer that that's what's happening I think
dan815
  • dan815
good mistake :)
Kainui
  • Kainui
ty I'm expert mistaker

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.