Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Mathematics
General TopicsResearchOperations ResearchStatisticsMathematical LogicNumerical AnalysisUndergraduate MathAlgebra HelpRecreational Math
Math Software
MapleMathematicaMATLABScilabSASSPSS

Math Forum / Mathematics / Research / February 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

New(?) identity for unsigned Stirling Numbers of the first kind

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Carlo Wood - 15 Feb 2007 03:15 GMT
I discovered the following identity:

Let s(n,k) be the Stirling Numbers of the first kind,
and |s(n,k)| the unsigned Stirling Numbers of the first kind.

Then

\sum_{i=0}^{n} { |s(n,i)| \binom{i}{k} } = |s(n+1,k+1)|

Since neither Mathematica nor Maple were able
to do this simplificiation, I wonder how well known it is?

Is it a "new" identity?

-----------------------------

On a second note, the above allows one to define an extension
w(n,k) over the Reals of |s(n,k)| !

Replace the sum over i with an integral, and the binomial
with Gamma, than it is a convolution product that expresses
w(n+1,k+1) in w(n,k).

w(n+1,k+1) = \integral_{x=0}^{n}
{ w(n,x) \Gamma(x+1)/(\Gamma(k+1)\Gamma(x-k+1)) dx }

Since w(n,x) is expected to be 0 for negative x (or n)
and also when x > n, we might as well integrate from
-\inf till \inf.

w(n+1,k+1) = \integral_{x=-\inf}^{\inf}
{ w(n,x) \Gamma(x+1)/(\Gamma(k+1)\Gamma(x-k+1)) dx }

Then defining

w(n,0) = \delta{n}
w(0,k) = \delta{k}

for real n and k should somehow define w().

For a start, if n=0, we have:

w(1,k+1) = \integral_{x=-\inf}^{\inf}
{ w(0,x) \Gamma(x+1)/(\Gamma(k+1)\Gamma(x-k+1)) dx } =
\Gamma(1)/(\Gamma(k+1)\Gamma(-k+1)) =
1/(\Gamma(1+k)\Gamma(1-k))

Thus w(1,1) = 1, and w(1,k) = 0 for integer values of k \ne 0,
just like |s(1,k+1)|. For non integer values of k we get
both positive and negative values (if you have Mathematica:
Plot[1/(Gamma[1 + k]Gamma[1 - k]), {k, -10, 10}])

In turn, this allows us to find w(2,k) and so on.

I'm not sure how to find non integer values of n yet.
It seems those are all 0, because for 0 < n < 1, we
find:

w(n,k) = \integral_{x=-\inf}^{\inf}
{ w(n-1,x) \Gamma(x+1)/(\Gamma(k)\Gamma(x-k)) dx }

where where w(n-1,x) is expected to be 0. However,
it might very well be that this is only the case for
negative integers, and that w() is non-zero for
fractional values in the area where s() is zero...

Carlo Wood
acrbelton@googlemail.com - 15 Feb 2007 10:47 GMT
> I discovered the following identity:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Is it a "new" identity?

No. It goes back at least as far as (1.4) in

D.S. Mitrinovi\'c, Sur une classe de nombre reli\'es aux
nombres de Stirling, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 252 (1961),
2354--2356.

Variations on this theme can be found in Section 2 of

A.C.R. Belton, The monotone Poisson process, in: Quantum
Probability (M. Bo\.zejko, W. M{\l}otkowski and
J. Wysocza\'nski, eds.), Banach Center Publications 73,
Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, 2006

and probably in many other places.
Carlo Wood - 16 Feb 2007 12:26 GMT
<x-charset UTF-8>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:47:13 -0800, acrbelton wrote:
> No. It goes back at least as far as (1.4) in
>
> D.S. Mitrinovi\'c, Sur une classe de nombre reli\'es aux
> nombres de Stirling, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 252 (1961),
> 2354--2356.

Thanks. What about my idea to extend the Stirling numbers
to a function of two real variables? Is this something that
is already been done?
</x-charset>
Mitch - 15 Feb 2007 16:04 GMT
> I discovered the following identity:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Is it a "new" identity?

No, it is not 'new'. See Graham, Knuth, Patashnik, Concrete
Mathematics (2nd ed). Table 265, eq 6.16.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is in Benjamin and Quinn, Proofs that
Really Count, along with a combinatorial proof.

As to the history of this particular identity, I don't know how old it
is.

As to using Mathematica or Maple, wonderful as those aids may be,
just because they don't simplify something doesn't mean it's not easy
(I think both implement the WZ method, but that won't work with
Stirling numbers).

Mitch
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.