Wallis' integrals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In mathematics, and more precisely in analysis, the Wallis integrals constitute a family of integrals introduced by John Wallis.
The Wallis integrals are the terms of the sequence defined by
or equivalently,
The first few terms of this sequence are:
| ... | ||||||||||
| ... |
The sequence is decreasing and has positive terms. In fact, for all
- because it is an integral of a non-negative continuous function which is not identically zero;
- again because the last integral is of a non-negative continuous function.
Since the sequence is decreasing and bounded below by 0, it converges to a non-negative limit. Indeed, the limit is zero (see below).
Recurrence relation
By means of integration by parts, a reduction formula can be obtained. Using the identity , we have for all ,
Integrating the second integral by parts, with:
- , whose anti-derivative is
- , whose derivative is
we have:
Substituting this result into equation (1) gives
and thus
for all
This is a recurrence relation giving in terms of . This, together with the values of and give us two sets of formulae for the terms in the sequence , depending on whether is odd or even:
Another relation to evaluate the Wallis' integrals
Wallis's integrals can be evaluated by using Euler integrals:
- Euler integral of the first kind: the Beta function:
- for Re(x), Re(y) > 0
- Euler integral of the second kind: the Gamma function:
- for Re(z) > 0.
If we make the following substitution inside the Beta function:
we obtain:
so this gives us the following relation to evaluate the Wallis integrals:
So, for odd , writing , we have:
whereas for even , writing and knowing that , we get :
Equivalence
- From the recurrence formula above , we can deduce that
- (equivalence of two sequences).
- Indeed, for all :
- (since the sequence is decreasing)
- (since )
- (by equation ).
- By the sandwich theorem, we conclude that , and hence .
- By examining , one obtains the following equivalence:
- (and consequently ).
For all , let .
It turns out that, because of equation . In other words is a constant.
It follows that for all , .
Now, since and , we have, by the product rules of equivalents, .
Thus, , from which the desired result follows (noting that ).
Deducing Stirling's formula
Suppose that we have the following equivalence (known as Stirling's formula):
for some constant that we wish to determine. From above, we have
- (equation (3))
Expanding and using the formula above for the factorials, we get
From (3) and (4), we obtain by transitivity:
Solving for gives In other words,
Deducing the Double Factorial Ratio
Similarly, from above, we have:
Expanding and using the formula above for double factorials, we get:
Simplifying, we obtain:
or