5
$\begingroup$

I am looking for an equivalent (or something weaker) of the following integral:

$$u_n=\int_{1}^{+\infty}e^{-t}\log^n(t)\,\mathrm dt$$

when $n\rightarrow\infty$. I have tried some recurrence relations that leads to $u_n^{\frac{1}{n}}=o(n^{\epsilon})$ for any $\epsilon>0$, but I'm sure it is possible to get something sharper. Any hint is welcome! Thank you.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe rewriting the integral as $$\int_0^\infty e^{x-e^x}x^n\:dx$$ might make asymptotics easier to find. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 16, 2023 at 16:37

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

If a heuristic consideration is acceptable, we can do the following. $$I(n)=\int_1^\infty e^{-t}\ln^nt\,dt\overset{t=nx}{=}n\int_{1/n}^\infty e^{-n\big(x-\ln(\ln n+\ln x)\big)}dx=n\int_{1/n}^\infty e^{-nf(x,n)}dx$$ Though the function $f(x,n)=x-\ln(\ln n+\ln x)$ depends on $n$, we can try to apply the Laplace method. Logarithm is a very slowly changing function, and the extremum of $f(x,n)$ lies nearly $x=\frac1{\ln n};$ (can be easily checked by iterations).

For $n\gg1$ the point $x=\frac1{\ln n}$ lies far from the end of the interval of integration ($x=\frac1n$), so we may suppose that the Laplace' method is applicable (checking afterwards that we get a reasonable approximation). $$\frac{d}{dx}f(x,n)=1-\frac1{x\ln(xn)}=0\,\,\Rightarrow\,\,x\ln(xn)=1\,\,\Rightarrow\,\,\frac1xe^\frac1x=n$$ so the extremum (maximum) point is $x_0=\frac1{W(n)}$, where $W$ is the Lambert's function, defined as $\,We^W=n$ $$f''(x,n)=\frac{1+\ln(xn)}{x^2\ln^2(xn)}; \,f(x_0;n)=W(n)+1$$ $$I(n)\approx ne^{-n\left(\frac1{W(n)}-\ln W(n)\right)}\int_{1/n}^\infty e^{-\frac n2\big(W(n)+1\big)\left(x-\frac1{W(n)}\right)^2}dx$$ $$\approx ne^{-n\left(\frac1{W(n)}-\ln W(n)\right)}\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{-\frac n2\big(W(n)+1\big)t^2}dt$$ $$\boxed{\,\,I(n)\approx\sqrt{\frac{2\pi n}{W(n)+1}}e^{n\left(\ln W(n)-\frac1{W(n)}\right)}=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi n}{W(n)+1}}(W(n))^ne^{-e^{W(n)}}\,\,}$$ For the rough approximation we can take $W(n)\approx \ln n$ (for example, for $W(n)=5,\, n=742.066$, and $\ln (742.066)=6.609...$), though to get higher accuracy we should use the exact value of $W(n)$ for every $n$ (or vice versa - evaluate $n$ for every $W$).


Numeric check with WolframAlpha

  1. $W=2, \, n=14.778,\, I=98.4065,\, approximation =95.5954$
  2. $W=3, \, n=60.26,\, I=1.044\times 10^{21},\, approximation =1.037\times 10^{21}$
  3. $W=4, \, n=218.2926,\, I=9.86\times 10^{108},\, approximation =9.84\times 10^{108}$
  4. $W=5, \, n=742.066,\, I=4.7033\times 10^{455},\, approximation =4.6997\times 10^{455}$
$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for the nice heuristic! I didn't dare to use Laplace methode because of the n-dependency but your arguments are convincing. $\endgroup$
    – Bob
    Commented Jun 16, 2023 at 23:00
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the interesting problem :) $\endgroup$
    – Svyatoslav
    Commented Jun 17, 2023 at 7:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is much more than nice ! It is elegant. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 17, 2023 at 7:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Claude Leibovici , thank you! I share your view on math and enjoy every elegant answer very much - as soon as there is a chance to get it. $\endgroup$
    – Svyatoslav
    Commented Jun 17, 2023 at 7:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .