Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Hello and Happy holidays.

I am interested in generalizations of the following product formula for the gamma function $\Gamma(z)= \int_{0}^{\infty} t^{z-1}e^{-t}dt$ when $n \geq 2$:

\begin{align} \displaystyle\prod_{k = 1}^{n} \frac{\Gamma(\frac{z}{2^k}+\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(\frac{1}{2})} = & \frac{\Gamma(z+1)}{2^{2z(1-\frac{1}{2^n})} \Gamma(\frac{z}{2^n}+\frac{1}{2})} \end{align}

Let $H_1,H_2,...H_n \in (0,1)$ and $z \in \mathbb{R^+}$.
1) Then is it true that the following formula holds for $n \geq 2$?

\begin{align} \frac{\Gamma(zH_1 + \frac{1}{2})\Gamma(zH_1H_2 + \frac{1}{2}) \dotsb \Gamma(zH_1H_2 \dotsb H_n + \frac{1}{2})}{\prod_{k=1}^{n} \Gamma(\frac{1}{2})} = \end{align}

$\frac{\Gamma(z+1)}{2^{2z(1-H_1H_2 \dotsb H_n)} \Gamma( z H_1 H_2 \dotsb H_n + \frac{1}{2})}$

2) As $n$ tends to $\infty$ is the LHS of the last expression finite?

3) Does question 1) hold if $H_1 = 1$?

(In the context of my research the $H_i$'s are Hurst parameters from n+1 independent fractional Brownian motions)

share|improve this question
    
Could you give some more context on why you believe this to be true? –  Harry Gindi Dec 25 '10 at 7:47
    
In brief we are studying moments of iterated stochastic processes and each product can be thought of as representing the moment of a random walk iterated $n$ times . –  jzadeh Dec 25 '10 at 8:28
    
In particular a paper titled "Iterated Random Walk" L. Turban 2004 Europhys. Lett. 65 627 uses the product formula for all $H_i=1/2$ to show that successive iterations of a random walk converge to a fixed process as $n$ tends to $\infty$.We think something like the last expression should hold for general $H_i \in (0,1)$ because we where able to arrive at a type of generalization of Turban's result from a different perspective than his method of moments. –  jzadeh Dec 25 '10 at 8:28
    
For both assignments: z,h1,h2=0.5,0.3,0.4 and z,h1,h2,h3=0.5,1/3,1/3,1/3 - sage says that equality does not hold. –  Dror Speiser Dec 25 '10 at 9:04
    
Thank you for your analysis. –  jzadeh Dec 26 '10 at 0:03
show 2 more comments

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Certainly not. Let all $H_i$ tend to zero. By continuity yu get $$ 1=\frac{\Gamma(z+1)}{2^{2z}}, $$ which is false.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you very much for your time and nice one line answer. We also have been considering the case $H_1 = 1$. For fixed $z \in \mathbb{R}$ and $H_1 = 1$ is there a way to multiply by an appropriate constant to still make the equality hold? –  jzadeh Dec 26 '10 at 0:06
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.