Can anyone simplify the following expression? I guess something from Fourier transform can help:

$f(\omega) = \lim_\limits{R \to \infty} \frac{1}{R^2} \int_{r=0}^{R}{re^{ \omega r^{-\gamma}}} \mathrm{d}r$, where $\gamma > 2$.


assuming $c>0$, this limit is dominated by the upper end of the integration interval, so $f(\omega)=a/2$ independent of $\omega$; as a check, try $\gamma=3$, when a closed form expression exists,

$$f(\omega) = \lim_\limits{R \to \infty} \frac{a}{R^2}\left( 1 - (1+bR)e^{-cR}\right) \int_{r=0}^{R}{re^{i \omega r^{-3}}} \mathrm{d}r$$ $$=\lim_\limits{R \to \infty}\frac{1}{3}a \left(1-(b R+1) e^{-c R}\right) \Gamma \left(-\frac{2}{3},-\frac{i \omega}{R^3}\right) \left(\frac{i R^3}{\omega}\right)^{-2/3}$$ $$=\lim_\limits{R \to \infty}\frac{1}{3}a \left(1-(b R+1) e^{-c R}\right)\times\frac{3}{2}=\frac{1}{2}a$$

hmm, I notice the question has been heavily edited; in reference to the new question:

$$ \lim_\limits{R \to \infty} \frac{1}{R^2} \int_{0}^{R}{re^{ \omega r^{-\gamma}}} \mathrm{d}r=\frac{1}{2}\;\;{\rm for}\;\;{\rm Re}\,\omega\leq 0.$$

for ${\rm Re}\,\omega>0$ the integral is undefined.

  • $\begingroup$ There is a contradiction with this proof. I posed a question to highlight this contradiction. You may see math.stackexchange.com/questions/1363393/… and let me know your comments. $\endgroup$ – Jeff Jul 16 '15 at 15:32
  • $\begingroup$ try $\gamma=3$ or $\gamma=4$, where the integral can be done exactly for finite $R$; then take the limit $R\rightarrow\infty$ and you get 1/2, what contradiction might there be? $\endgroup$ – Carlo Beenakker Jul 16 '15 at 20:15
  • $\begingroup$ solved, you are right. there is no contradiction. $\endgroup$ – Jeff Jul 16 '15 at 23:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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