{"id":1254,"date":"2009-09-11T23:12:41","date_gmt":"2009-09-11T21:12:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wpethzprd.ethz.ch\/kowalski\/?p=1254"},"modified":"2024-02-20T13:40:54","modified_gmt":"2024-02-20T11:40:54","slug":"a-very-curious-identity-indeed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ethz.ch\/kowalski\/2009\/09\/11\/a-very-curious-identity-indeed\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;a very curious identity indeed&#8230;&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This is what H. Widom understandably says of the formula<\/p>\n<p>$latex \\frac{G(1+\\alpha)^2}{G(1+2\\alpha)}=e^{\\alpha(\\alpha-1)\/2}\\pi^{\\alpha\/2}2^{-2\\alpha^2+\\alpha}\\Gamma(\\alpha+1\/2)^{-\\alpha}\\prod_{j\\geq 1}{\\frac{\\pi}{2}x_j(\\alpha)J_{\\alpha+1\/2}(x_j(\\alpha))^2}$<\/p>\n<p>proved in his 1973 paper <a href=\"http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/2373789\"><i>Toeplitz Determinants with Singular Generating Functions<\/i><\/a>. Here the variable <i>&alpha;<\/i> is a complex number, <i>G<\/i> is the <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Barnes_G-function\">Barnes function<\/a>, which can be expressed as<\/p>\n<p>$latex G(z+1)=(2\\pi)^{z\/2}e^{-(z(z+1)+\\gamma z^2)\/2}\\prod_{n\\geq 1}{(1+z\/n)^n\\exp(-z+z^2\/(2n)}}$<\/p>\n<p><i>J<sub>&nu;<\/sub>(z)<\/i> denotes the standard Bessel functions of the first kind, and the <i>x<sub>j<\/sub>(&alpha;)<\/i> are the zeros with positive real part of the Bessel function<\/p>\n<p>$latex J_{\\alpha-1\/2}(z).$<\/p>\n<p>Widom adds that this formula is &#8220;established here by what is certainly a roundabout procedure&#8221;. In fact, he obtains it by comparing two independent computations of, well, Toeplitz determinants with singular generating functions (one his own, one a special case due to Lenard), and it is hard to imagine finding an identity like that by chance&#8230; It seems to be completely and wonderfully different from most other analytic identities which are commonly known!<\/p>\n<p>In one of the last sections of his paper, Widom sketches a direct proof, which is roughly as follows: one shows that the ratio of the two quantities is an entire function of <i>&alpha;<\/i> of order (at most) 2; it follows that it must be of the form<\/p>\n<p>$latex e^{a+bz+cz^2}$<\/p>\n<p>for some constants <i>a<\/i>, <i>b<\/i> and <i>c<\/i>. Hence checking the formula for three values of <i>&alpha;<\/i> will prove it for all. For <i>&alpha;=0<\/i>, this is not difficult; for <i>&alpha;=2<\/i>, it boils down to the elementary formula<\/p>\n<p>$latex \\prod_{j\\geq 1}{\\sin^2 x_j}=\\frac{e}{3}$<\/p>\n<p>where now <i>x<sub>j<\/sub><\/i> are the positive zeros of the function<\/p>\n<p>$latex f(x)=\\frac{1}{x}\\sin x-\\cos x.$<\/p>\n<p>Widom gives a very nice proof of this, due to S. Philipp, which I will not reveal (see pages 377, 378 of the paper&#8230;)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This is what H. Widom understandably says of the formula $latex \\frac{G(1+\\alpha)^2}{G(1+2\\alpha)}=e^{\\alpha(\\alpha-1)\/2}\\pi^{\\alpha\/2}2^{-2\\alpha^2+\\alpha}\\Gamma(\\alpha+1\/2)^{-\\alpha}\\prod_{j\\geq 1}{\\frac{\\pi}{2}x_j(\\alpha)J_{\\alpha+1\/2}(x_j(\\alpha))^2}$ proved in his 1973 paper Toeplitz Determinants with Singular Generating Functions. Here the variable &alpha; is a complex number, G is the Barnes function, which can be expressed as $latex G(z+1)=(2\\pi)^{z\/2}e^{-(z(z+1)+\\gamma z^2)\/2}\\prod_{n\\geq 1}{(1+z\/n)^n\\exp(-z+z^2\/(2n)}}$ J&nu;(z) denotes the standard Bessel functions of the first &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.ethz.ch\/kowalski\/2009\/09\/11\/a-very-curious-identity-indeed\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">&#8220;a very curious identity indeed&#8230;&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":625,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blogroll"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ethz.ch\/kowalski\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1254","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ethz.ch\/kowalski\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ethz.ch\/kowalski\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ethz.ch\/kowalski\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/625"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ethz.ch\/kowalski\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1254"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ethz.ch\/kowalski\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1254\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ethz.ch\/kowalski\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ethz.ch\/kowalski\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ethz.ch\/kowalski\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}