The Bohr-Mollerup theorem states that the Gamma function is the unique function that satisfies:

1) f(x+1) = x*f(x)

2) f(1) = 1

3) ln(f(x)) is convex

The Gamma function is meant to interpolate the factorial function, so I can see the importance of the first two properties. But why is log convexity important? How does it affect the Gamma function's applicability in other areas of mathematics?

  • 9
    $\begingroup$ There is also Weilandt's characterisation of the gamma function, it is the unique meromorphic function which is bounded in vertical strips. $\endgroup$
    – teil
    May 2, 2010 at 10:05
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ From 1) (for natural x only) and 2) you can prove that ln(f(x)) is convex on the natural numbers. This doesn't explain why 3) is "important", but does explain why it's a natural property to ask for general x, and it's interesting that only one extension of the factorial keeps this property. $\endgroup$ May 2, 2010 at 13:33
  • $\begingroup$ Related to math.stackexchange.com/questions/1537/… $\endgroup$ May 10, 2012 at 1:30

2 Answers 2


First, let me mention that log convexity of a function is implied by an analytic property, which appears to be more natural than log convexity itself. Namely, if $\mu$ is a Borel measure on $[0,\infty)$ such that the $r$th moment $$f(r)=\int_{0}^{\infty}z^r d\mu(z)$$ is finite for all $r$ in the interval $I\subset \mathbb R$, then $\log f$ is convex on $I$.

Log convexity can be effectively used in derivation of various inequalities involving the gamma function (particularly, two-sided estimates of products of gamma functions). It is linked with the notion of Schur convexity which is itself used in many applications.

An appetizer. Let $m=\max x_i$, $s=\sum x_i$, $x_i > 0$, $i = 1,\dots,n$, then $$[\Gamma(s/n)]^n\leq\prod\limits_{1}^{n}\Gamma (x_i)\leq \left[\Gamma\left(\frac{s-m}{n-1}\right)\right]^{n-1}\Gamma(m).\qquad\qquad\qquad (1)$$

(1) is trivial, of course, when all $x_i$ and $s/n$ are integers, but in general the bounds do not hold without assuming log convexity.

Edit added: a sketch of the proof. Let $f$ be a continuous positive function defined on an interval $I\subset \mathbb R$. One may show that the function $\phi(x)=\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}f(x_i)$, $x\in I^n$ is Schur-convex on $I^n$ if and only if $\log f$ is convex on $I$. Thus the function $$\phi(x)=\prod\limits_{i=1}^n \Gamma(x_i),\quad x_i>0,\qquad \quad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad (2)$$ is Schur-convex on $I^n=(0,\infty)^n$. Since $x_i\le m$, $i=1,\dots,n$, and $\sum x_i=s$, it is easy to check that $$x \prec \left(\frac{s-m}{n-1},\dots,\frac{s-m}{n-1},m\right).$$ The latter majorization and the fact that $\phi(x)$ defined by (2) is Schur-convex imply the upper bound (1). The lower bound follows from the standard majorization $x\succ (s/n,\dots,s/n)$.

Have a look at the recent short article by Marshall and Olkin concerning this and related inequalities for the gamma function.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is the finite Borel measure? Specifically, since $\Gamma(0)=\infty,$ doesn't this imply that $\mu$ is infinite? $\endgroup$ May 3, 2010 at 0:33
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, Victor. I amended the statement to avoid ambiguity. $\endgroup$ May 3, 2010 at 17:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The link for the Marshall-Olkin article is no longer available, but I suppose the intended paper is this: doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8773-0_23 $\endgroup$ Jul 4, 2021 at 7:48

There is a lovely and detailed discussion of the uniqueness of the gamma function in Volume 2 of Markushevich's Theory of Functions of a Complex Variable. The essential points are as follows.

Any meromorphic solution $f$ to the functional equation $zf(z)=f(z+1)$, with $f(1)=1$, must have simple poles at all integers $m\le 0$ with residues $(-1)^m/m!$ Assuming that these are ALL the poles of $f$, Markushevich exhibits all meromorphic interpolations of the factorial function. It turns out that there is a whole zoo of them, and in some (not very satisfying) sense the usual gamma function is the simplest choice.

So ... The Bohr-Mollerup Theorem sheds some light on this situation. But maybe there are other "interesting" extensions of the factorial that are not log-convex.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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