Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: How to prove that derivatives alternate in sign?

  1. #1
    Senior Member bkarpuz's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    From
    R
    Posts
    481
    Thanks
    2

    Cool [SOLVED] How to prove that derivatives alternate in sign?

    Dear friends, I need with the following problem.

    Let f(z):=\exp\bigg\{-\int_{0}^{1}\frac{\log(1+t z)}{t}\mathrm{d}t\bigg\} for z\geq0.
    Then, I need to prove that (-1)^{k}f^{k}(z)\geq0 for all k\in\mathbb{N} and all z\geq0.

    Any help due to this direction would be very appreciated.
    Last edited by bkarpuz; Sep 23rd 2009 at 06:49 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by bkarpuz View Post
    Dear friends, I need with the following problem.

    Let f(z):=\exp\bigg\{-\int_{0}^{1}\frac{\log(1+t z)}{t}\mathrm{d}t\bigg\} for z\geq0.
    Then, I need to prove that (-1)^{k}f^{k}(z)\geq0 for all k\in\mathbb{N} and all z\geq0.

    Any help due to this direction would be very appreciated.
    This looks like a difficult and interesting problem. Obviously f(z), being an exponential, is always positive (for z>0, which I'll assume throughout). Also, f'(z) = -z^{-1}\log(1+z)\cdot f(z), which is always negative.

    The second derivative is given by f''(z) = z^{-2}\Bigl(\log(1+z) - \frac z{1+z} + \bigl(\log(1+z)\bigl)^2\Bigr)f(z). This is always positive, because the function g(z) = \log(1+z) - \frac z{1+z} is always positive (g(0)=0, and g'(z) = \frac z{(1+z)^2}, which is positive, so g is an increasing function and therefore positive).

    So even for n=2 the result is not altogether easy, and for n≥3 it gets very messy. Clearly some new idea is needed to deal with the general case.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Senior Member bkarpuz's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    From
    R
    Posts
    481
    Thanks
    2

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Opalg View Post
    This looks like a difficult and interesting problem. Obviously f(z), being an exponential, is always positive (for z>0, which I'll assume throughout). Also, f'(z) = -z^{-1}\log(1+z)\cdot f(z), which is always negative.

    The second derivative is given by f''(z) = z^{-2}\Bigl(\log(1+z) - \frac z{1+z} + \bigl(\log(1+z)\bigl)^2\Bigr)f(z). This is always positive, because the function g(z) = \log(1+z) - \frac z{1+z} is always positive (g(0)=0, and g'(z) = \frac z{(1+z)^2}, which is positive, so g is an increasing function and therefore positive).

    So even for n=2 the result is not altogether easy, and for n≥3 it gets very messy. Clearly some new idea is needed to deal with the general case.
    It looks hard when we do as you have shown.
    With the additionional assumption 1-tz>0 for all t\in[0,1] (or equivalently z<1), we can use the Taylor expansions, i.e.,
    \mathrm{log}(1+u)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{k}}{k+1}u^{k+1}....for all u\in(-1,1]
    and
    \mathrm{exp}(u)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k!}u^{  k}....for all u\in(-\infty,\infty).
    Hence, for all z\in[0,1), we have
    f(z):=\exp\bigg\{-\int_{0}^{1}\frac{\log(1+t z)}{t}\mathrm{d}t\bigg\}
    {\color{white}{f(z)'}}=\exp\bigg\{-\int_{0}^{1}\frac{1}{t}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{k}}{k+1}\big(tz\big)^{k+1}\mathrm{d}t\bigg\}
    {\color{white}{f(z)'}}=\exp\bigg\{-\int_{0}^{1}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{k}}{k+1}z^{k+1}t^{k}\mathrm{d}t\bigg\} (we may reverse the order of the sum and the integral since the series converge uniformly)
    {\color{white}{f(z)'}}=\exp\bigg\{\sum_{k=0}^{\inf  ty}\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{k+1}z^{k+1}\int_{0}^{1}t^{k}\mathrm{d}t\  bigg\}
    {\color{white}{f(z)'}}=\exp\bigg\{\sum_{k=0}^{\inf  ty}\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{(k+1)^{2}}z^{k}\bigg\}
    {\color{white}{f(z)'}}=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}  {l!}\Bigg(\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{(k+1)^{2}}z^{k+1}\Bigg)^{l}.
    I have just jammed here.
    There should be a way of rewriting this as follows:
    f(z):=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}c_{k}z^{k}....for z\in[0,1).
    Is there a formula for multiplication of power series for more than two?
    I think by using that formula it will be possible to obtain the latter formula...
    By the way, it is also okay for me to prove the claim on [0,1).
    Last edited by bkarpuz; Sep 20th 2009 at 03:49 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Senior Member bkarpuz's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    From
    R
    Posts
    481
    Thanks
    2
    (Continued). hmm, I have done something but seems more complicated now.
    For all z\in[0,1), we have
    f(z)=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{j}}{j!}\bigg(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{i}}{(i+1)^{2}}z^{i}\bigg)^{j}z^{j}....(apply Cauchy's multiplication formula for j times)
    .......' =\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{j}}{j!}\bigg(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{i}\sum_{i_{1}=0}^{i}\sum_{i_{2}=0}^{i_{1}} \cdots\sum_{i_{j-1}=0}^{i_{j-2}}\frac{1}{\big((i-i_{1})+1\big)^{2}\big((i_{1}-i_{2})+1\big)^{2}\cdots\big((i_{j-2}-i_{j-1})+1\big)^{2}\big(i_{j-1}+1\big)^{2}}z^{i}\bigg)z^{j}
    .......' =\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\sum_{i_{1}  =0}^{i}\sum_{i_{2}=0}^{i_{1}}\cdots\sum_{i_{j-1}=0}^{i_{j-2}} \frac{(-1)^{i+j}}{j!\big((i-i_{1})+1\big)^{2}\big((i_{1}-i_{2})+1\big)^{2}\cdots\big((i_{j-2}-i_{j-1})+1\big)^{2}\big(i_{j-1}+1\big)^{2}}z^{i+j}....(set k:=i+j and i_{0}:=j, then reverse the order of the sums)
    .......' =\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\sum_{i_{0}=0}^{k}\sum_{i_{1}=  0}^{i_{0}}\sum_{i_{2}=0}^{i_{1}}\cdots\sum_{i_{i_{  0}-1}=0}^{i_{i_{0}-2}} \frac{(-1)^{k}}{i_{0}!\big((i_{0}-i_{1})+1\big)^{2}\big((i_{1}-i_{2})+1\big)^{2}\cdots\big((i_{i_{0}-2}-i_{i_{0}-1})+1\big)^{2}\big(i_{i_{0}-1}+1\big)^{2}}z^{k}.
    Any ideas at this point are welcome, thanks!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    10
    Here are a few more thoughts on this intriguing problem. First,

    \int_0^1\frac{\log(1+tz)}tdt = \int_0^1\int_0^z\frac1{1+tx}dxdt = \int_0^z\Bigl[\frac{\log(1+tx)}x\Bigr]_0^1dx = \int_0^z\frac{\log(1+x)}xdx

    (reversing the order of integration in the double integral). Therefore

    f(z) = \exp\left\{-\int_0^1\frac{\log(1+tz)}tdt\right\} = \exp\left\{-\int_0^z\frac{\log(1+x)}xdx\right\}<br />
.

    Next, let A denote the set of all infinitely-differentiable function on the positive reals whose derivatives alternate in sign: -1)^kf^{(k)}(x)>0\text{ for all }x>0\text{ and all }k\geqslant0\}" alt="A := \{f\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}_{>0})-1)^kf^{(k)}(x)>0\text{ for all }x>0\text{ and all }k\geqslant0\}" />.

    Proposition. If u\in A then f(x) = \exp\bigl(-{\textstyle\int}u(x)\,dx\bigr) \in A.

    Outline proof: The n'th derivative of f is of the form f^{(n)}(x) = u_n(x)\exp\bigl(-{\textstyle\int}u(x)\,dx\bigr), where u_1(x) = -u(x). Also, you can see by differentiating f^{(n)}(x) that u_{n+1}(x) = u_1(x)u_n(x) + u_n'(x). It is then straightforward to prove by induction (using the condition u\in A) that the functions u_n(x) alternate in sign, with (-1)^{n-1}u_n(x)>0 for all x>0 and all n.

    It follows from that Proposition and the previous remarks that if the function u(z) = z^{-1}\log(1+z) is in A then so is the function f(z) = \exp\left\{-\int_0^1\frac{\log(1+tz)}tdt\right\}.

    I suspect that the function u(z) is indeed in A, but I haven't been able to prove that. However, this seems like a step in the right direction, because u(z) is a considerably simpler-looking function than f(z).

    One final thought: functions whose derivatives alternate in sign seem to occur in Boltzmann's approach to the theory of entropy. I wonder if that is where this problem originated?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Senior Member bkarpuz's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    From
    R
    Posts
    481
    Thanks
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Opalg View Post
    Here are a few more thoughts on this intriguing problem. First,

    \int_0^1\frac{\log(1+tz)}tdt = \int_0^1\int_0^z\frac1{1+tx}dxdt = \int_0^z\Bigl[\frac{\log(1+tx)}x\Bigr]_0^1dx = \int_0^z\frac{\log(1+x)}xdx

    (reversing the order of integration in the double integral). Therefore

    f(z) = \exp\left\{-\int_0^1\frac{\log(1+tz)}tdt\right\} = \exp\left\{-\int_0^z\frac{\log(1+x)}xdx\right\}<br />
.

    Next, let A denote the set of all infinitely-differentiable function on the positive reals whose derivatives alternate in sign: -1)^kf^{(k)}(x)>0\text{ for all }x>0\text{ and all }k\geqslant0\}" alt="A := \{f\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}_{>0})-1)^kf^{(k)}(x)>0\text{ for all }x>0\text{ and all }k\geqslant0\}" />.

    Proposition. If u\in A then f(x) = \exp\bigl(-{\textstyle\int}u(x)\,dx\bigr) \in A.

    Outline proof: The n'th derivative of f is of the form f^{(n)}(x) = u_n(x)\exp\bigl(-{\textstyle\int}u(x)\,dx\bigr), where u_1(x) = -u(x). Also, you can see by differentiating f^{(n)}(x) that u_{n+1}(x) = u_1(x)u_n(x) + u_n'(x). It is then straightforward to prove by induction (using the condition u\in A) that the functions u_n(x) alternate in sign, with (-1)^{n-1}u_n(x)>0 for all x>0 and all n.

    It follows from that Proposition and the previous remarks that if the function u(z) = z^{-1}\log(1+z) is in A then so is the function f(z) = \exp\left\{-\int_0^1\frac{\log(1+tz)}tdt\right\}.

    I suspect that the function u(z) is indeed in A, but I haven't been able to prove that. However, this seems like a step in the right direction, because u(z) is a considerably simpler-looking function than f(z).

    One final thought: functions whose derivatives alternate in sign seem to occur in Boltzmann's approach to the theory of entropy. I wonder if that is where this problem originated?
    No, it is not related to Boltzmann's approach, I heard about this for the first time. May be I have to read about it...
    By the way, is it your proposition, or did you find it somewhere else?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Senior Member bkarpuz's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    From
    R
    Posts
    481
    Thanks
    2

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Opalg View Post
    Here are a few more thoughts on this intriguing problem. First,

    \int_0^1\frac{\log(1+tz)}tdt = \int_0^1\int_0^z\frac1{1+tx}dxdt = \int_0^z\Bigl[\frac{\log(1+tx)}x\Bigr]_0^1dx = \int_0^z\frac{\log(1+x)}xdx

    (reversing the order of integration in the double integral). Therefore

    f(z) = \exp\left\{-\int_0^1\frac{\log(1+tz)}tdt\right\} = \exp\left\{-\int_0^z\frac{\log(1+x)}xdx\right\}<br />
.

    Next, let A denote the set of all infinitely-differentiable function on the positive reals whose derivatives alternate in sign: -1)^kf^{(k)}(x)>0\text{ for all }x>0\text{ and all }k\geqslant0\}" alt="A := \{f\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}_{>0})-1)^kf^{(k)}(x)>0\text{ for all }x>0\text{ and all }k\geqslant0\}" />.

    Proposition. If u\in A then f(x) = \exp\bigl(-{\textstyle\int}u(x)\,dx\bigr) \in A.

    Outline proof: The n'th derivative of f is of the form f^{(n)}(x) = u_n(x)\exp\bigl(-{\textstyle\int}u(x)\,dx\bigr), where u_1(x) = -u(x). Also, you can see by differentiating f^{(n)}(x) that u_{n+1}(x) = u_1(x)u_n(x) + u_n'(x). It is then straightforward to prove by induction (using the condition u\in A) that the functions u_n(x) alternate in sign, with (-1)^{n-1}u_n(x)>0 for all x>0 and all n.
    Remark. This fails to hold for n=1, i.e., (-1)^{1-1}u_{1}=-u<0.
    See the link the above discussion is mentioned to be a typo: http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-he...594-post9.html

    Quote Originally Posted by bkarpuz View Post
    No, it is not related to Boltzmann's approach, I heard about this for the first time. May be I have to read about it...
    By the way, is it your proposition, or did you find it somewhere else?
    I now think that the proposition belongs to you (Opalg).

    Just modified the proposition as follows.

    Proposition 1. Let u\in\mathcal{A}. Then (-1)^{k}u_{k}>0 for all k\in\mathbb{N}, where
    u_{k}:=\begin{cases}1,&k=0\\ u_{k-1}^{\prime}-u_{k-1}u,&k\in\mathbb{N}\end{cases}....on [0,\infty).

    As Opalg mentioned that it is straight forward to prove Proposition 1 but it is a little bit tricky since the derivative of the preceding term appears in the recursion. But the following modification, which implies the one above, can be proved.

    Proposition 2. Let u\in\mathcal{A}, then (-1)^{k}u_{k}\in\mathcal{A} for all k\in\mathbb{N}.

    Below, I would like to give the proof for those being interested with this problem (with the hope that myself and Opalg are not the only ones ).

    Proof. Clearly, (-1)u_{1}=u\in\mathcal{A}. Suppose now that (-1)^{k}u_{k}\in\mathcal{A} for some k\in\mathbb{N}, then for any n\in\mathbb{N}_{0}, we have
    (-1)^{k+n+1}u_{k+1}^{(n)}=(-1)^{k+n+1}\big(u_{k}^{\prime}+u_{k}u_{1}\big)^{(n)  }
    ..................... =(-1)^{k+n+1}\Big(u_{k}^{(n+1)}+\big(u_{k}u_{1}\big)^  {(n)}\Big)
    ..................... =(-1)^{k+n+1}\Bigg(u_{k}^{(n+1)}+\sum_{\ell=0}^{n}\bi  nom{n}{\ell}u_{k}^{(\ell)}u_{1}^{(n-\ell)}\big)\Bigg)
    ..................... =(-1)^{k+n+1}u_{k}^{(n+1)}+\sum_{\ell=0}^{n}\binom{n}  {\ell}\bigg((-1)^{k+\ell}u_{k}^{(\ell)}\bigg)\bigg((-1)^{1+n-\ell}u_{1}^{(n-\ell)}\bigg)\geq0,
    which proves (-1)^{k+1}u_{k+1}\in\mathcal{A}.
    The proof of the proposition is now complete. \rule{0.3cm}{0.3cm}

    Corollary. If u\in\mathcal{A}, then u^{\ast}\in\mathcal{A}, where u^{\ast}(z):=\exp\bigg\{-\int_{0}^{z}u(w)\mathrm{d}w\bigg\} for z\geq0.

    Proof. (-1)^{n}\big(u^{\ast}\big)^{(n)}=(-1)^{n}u_{n}u^{\ast}>0 for all n\in\mathbb{N}_{0}. \rule{0.3cm}{0.3cm}

    The last corollary is now applicable for the original problem.

    For the rest of the proof see: http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-he...495-post8.html
    Last edited by bkarpuz; Sep 22nd 2009 at 09:51 AM. Reason: Modified the proof in the suitable form
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    10
    Okay, after a second sleepless night I think I have cracked this problem.

    According to my previous comment, we need to show that the function f(x) = x^{-1}\log(1+x) is in the class \mathcal A, namely (-1)^nf^{(n)}(x)\geqslant0 for all x>0 and all n.

    By Leibniz's formula, f^{(n)}(x) = \sum_{k=0}^n{n\choose k}\frac{d^{n-k}}{dx^{n-k}}\bigl(x^{-1}\bigr) \frac{d^k}{dx^k}\bigl(\log(1+x)\bigr). But \frac{d^k}{dx^k}\bigl(x^{-1}\bigr) = (-1)^kk!x^{-k-1}, and (for k\geqslant1) \frac{d^k}{dx^k}\bigl(\log(1+x)\bigr) = (-1)^{k-1}(k-1)!(1+x)^{-k}. Therefore

    \begin{aligned}(-1)^nf^{(n)}(x) &= (-1)^n\biggl((-1)^nn!x^{-n-1}\log(1+x) \\ &\qquad\qquad + \sum_{k=1}^n{n\choose k}(-1)^{n-k}(n-k)!x^{k-n-1} (-1)^{k-1}(k-1)!(1+x)^{-k}\biggr) \\ &= n!x^{-n-1}\biggl(\log(1+x) - \sum_{k=1}^n\frac1k\Bigl(\frac x{1+x}\Bigr)^k\biggr).\end{aligned}

    So we need to show that the function g(x) = \log(1+x) - \sum_{k=1}^n\frac1k\Bigl(\frac x{1+x}\Bigr)^k is positive for all x>0. But g(0) = 0, so it will be sufficient to show that g'(x)>0. Now g'(x) = \frac1{1+x} - \sum_{k=1}^n\Bigl(\frac x{1+x}\Bigr)^{k-1}\frac1{(1+x)^2}, so the problem reduces to showing that \sum_{k=1}^n\Bigl(\frac x{1+x}\Bigr)^{k-1} < 1+x. But that sum is less than the infinite sum \sum_{k=0}^\infty\Bigl(\frac x{1+x}\Bigr)^k, which is a geometric series with sum 1+x.

    That completes the proof that f(x)\in\mathcal A.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by bkarpuz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Opalg View Post
    Proposition. If u\in A then f(x) = \exp\bigl(-{\textstyle\int}u(x)\,dx\bigr) \in A.

    Outline proof: The n'th derivative of f is of the form f^{(n)}(x) = u_n(x)\exp\bigl(-{\textstyle\int}u(x)\,dx\bigr), where u_1(x) = -u(x). Also, you can see by differentiating f^{(n)}(x) that u_{n+1}(x) = u_1(x)u_n(x) + u_n'(x). It is then straightforward to prove by induction (using the condition \color{red}u\in A) that the functions \color{red}u_n(x) alternate in sign, with \color{red}(-1)^{n-1}u_n(x)>0 for all x>0 and all n.
    Remark. This fails to hold for n=1, i.e., (-1)^{1-1}u_{1}=-u<0.
    Sorry, that was careless. I should have written (-1)^{n}u_n(x)>0 for all x>0 and all n. The Proposition should still be true, and tthe outline proof (with that modification) should still work.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Senior Member bkarpuz's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    From
    R
    Posts
    481
    Thanks
    2

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Opalg View Post
    Okay, after a second sleepless night I think I have cracked this problem.

    According to my previous comment, we need to show that the function f(x) = x^{-1}\log(1+x) is in the class \mathcal A, namely (-1)^nf^{(n)}(x)\geqslant0 for all x>0 and all n.

    By Leibniz's formula, f^{(n)}(x) = \sum_{k=0}^n{n\choose k}\frac{d^{n-k}}{dx^{n-k}}\bigl(x^{-1}\bigr) \frac{d^k}{dx^k}\bigl(\log(1+x)\bigr). But \frac{d^k}{dx^k}\bigl(x^{-1}\bigr) = (-1)^kk!x^{-k-1}, and (for k\geqslant1) \frac{d^k}{dx^k}\bigl(\log(1+x)\bigr) = (-1)^{k-1}(k-1)!(1+x)^{-k}. Therefore

    \begin{aligned}(-1)^nf^{(n)}(x) &= (-1)^n\biggl((-1)^nn!x^{-n-1}\log(1+x) \\ &\qquad\qquad + \sum_{k=1}^n{n\choose k}(-1)^{n-k}(n-k)!x^{k-n-1} (-1)^{k-1}(k-1)!(1+x)^{-k}\biggr) \\ &= n!x^{-n-1}\biggl(\log(1+x) - \sum_{k=1}^n\frac1k\Bigl(\frac x{1+x}\Bigr)^k\biggr).\end{aligned}

    So we need to show that the function g(x) = \log(1+x) - \sum_{k=1}^n\frac1k\Bigl(\frac x{1+x}\Bigr)^k is positive for all x>0. But g(0) = 0, so it will be sufficient to show that g'(x)>0. Now g'(x) = \frac1{1+x} - \sum_{k=1}^n\Bigl(\frac x{1+x}\Bigr)^{k-1}\frac1{(1+x)^2}, so the problem reduces to showing that \sum_{k=1}^n\Bigl(\frac x{1+x}\Bigr)^{k-1} < 1+x. But that sum is less than the infinite sum \sum_{k=0}^\infty\Bigl(\frac x{1+x}\Bigr)^k, which is a geometric series with sum 1+x.

    That completes the proof that f(x)\in\mathcal A.
    Leave f as f(z):=\exp\bigg\{-\int_{0}^{z}\int_{0}^{1}\frac{1}{1+tw}\mathrm{d}t\  mathrm{d}w\bigg\} for z\geq0, and let u(z):=\int_{0}^{1}\frac{1}{1+t z}\mathrm{d}t for z\geq0,
    then we have (-1)^{n}u^{(n)}(z)=n!\int_{0}^{1}\frac{t^{n}}{(1+t z)^{n+1}}\mathrm{d}t>0 for all z\geq0.

    By the way, many thanks to Opalg again.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Senior Member bkarpuz's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    From
    R
    Posts
    481
    Thanks
    2

    Exclamation

    Functions that alternate in sign with respect to its derivative are called as completely monotonic functions.

    I came a cross with the reference [1] by chance, and saw that what we have done here is known from [1, Theorem 2].

    References

    [1] Miller and Samko, Completely monotonic functions, Integr. Transf. and Spec. Funct., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 389--402, 2001.
    http://w3.ualg.pt/~ssamko/dpapers/fi..._monotonic.pdf
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Alternate Form Help
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Dec 21st 2010, 01:07 AM
  2. Partial derivatives for the sign function
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sep 20th 2010, 07:05 AM
  3. Alternate Angles In Transversal
    Posted in the Geometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Nov 28th 2009, 05:24 PM
  4. alternate way of solution
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Aug 1st 2009, 05:12 AM
  5. Alternate Series Test
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Apr 21st 2009, 10:28 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum