This is a group challenge:
It's well known that.
I know of a few ways of showing this. My challenge to all of you is to come up with as many ways as you can to prove this result.
Let's see if there's any ways I'm not aware of yet!![]()
This is a group challenge:
It's well known that.
I know of a few ways of showing this. My challenge to all of you is to come up with as many ways as you can to prove this result.
Let's see if there's any ways I'm not aware of yet!![]()
There are different ways to compute the integral...
(1)
... even if not all [in my opinion...] are 'fully convincing'... there is however also way to non compute it: if You consider (1) as a Lebesgue integral it diverges... in my opiniom this 'controversial' has to be, sooner or later, clarified...
Kind regards
![]()
![]()
I only know of 2 and here they are.
Now switch the order of integration
The other is via the residue theorem
Letbe the linear arc from
and
![]()
and
Now notice thatis an even function so
Now consider
where
is an analytic function.
Using this and the ML bound we get
Now by Jordan's lemma on
![]()
This leaves
Sincewe take the real and immaginary parts to get
This gives
![]()
Here is a proof , first note that
By taking log. differentiation , we obtain this equation :
I would like to stop here and back to the integral.
We find that the integrand is even , i write it as
Consider
Sub.and
on the first and the second integral respectively ,we obtain :
Therefore ,
![]()
the problem here is that you don't have absolute convergence.
in order to justify the interchange, it's better to integrate by parts first by selectingas an antiderivative for
from there you introduce the parameter you said and the interchange is justified now by Tonelli's theorem since the function is no negative.
Althoughdiverges, one can show
in the following way:
First, note that sinceis measurable, we have that
and so
Now note that using Fubini ongives
and changing the order of integration the other way gives, after using integration by parts twice,
![]()
Taking the limit asand using DCT finished off the argument.
Here's a way using minimum machinery, but it requires the simple lemma that ifthen
and the fact that
exists, although this follows immediately from Dirichlet's test for integrals.
Ok, so note that sinceexists we have that
and thus clearly. We next claim that
for every
. But, this follows immediately from the common trigonometric identity associated with the Dirichlet kernel. We then note that
where we've made use of the lemma mentioned at the beginning of the post. Thus, it follows that