ScalingStacks

Proof. [03HE]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context · Original author HTML

Proof.

For simplicity, we will calculate the asymptotic behavior in yy. For fixed hh and jj, as y→∞y\rightarrow\infty, it is straightforward that

(4.66) t0=y+h2​y+O⁡(y−2)s0=h2​y+O⁡(y−2)\begin{split}t_{0}&=y+\frac{h}{2y}+O(y^{-2})\\ s_{0}&=\frac{h}{2y}+O(y^{-2})\end{split}

which implies that

(4.67) F⁡(t0)=y2+h​log⁡y+O⁡(y−1)U⁡(s0)=−h+h​log⁡h−h​log⁡(2​y)+O⁡(y−1).\begin{split}F(t_{0})&=y^{2}+h\log y+O(y^{-1})\\ U(s_{0})&=-h+h\log h-h\log(2y)+O(y^{-1}).\end{split}

First, we prove the asymptotics for ℱ\mathcal{F}. As in the proof of Lemma 4.6, we get

∫0∞eF⁡(t)​𝑑t\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{F(t)}dt =eF⁡(t0)​∫02​t0eF⁡(t)−F⁡(t0)​𝑑t+∫2​t0∞eF⁡(t)​𝑑t\displaystyle=e^{F(t_{0})}\int_{0}^{2t_{0}}e^{F(t)-F(t_{0})}dt+\int_{2t_{0}}^{\infty}e^{F(t)}dt
(4.68) =t0​eF⁡(t0)​∫−11e−t02​ϵ2+h⁡(log⁡(1+ϵ)−ϵ)​𝑑ϵ+∫2​t0∞eF⁡(t)​𝑑t.\displaystyle=t_{0}e^{F(t_{0})}\int_{-1}^{1}e^{-t_{0}^{2}\epsilon^{2}+h(\log(1+\epsilon)-\epsilon)}d\epsilon+\int_{2t_{0}}^{\infty}e^{F(t)}dt.

Notice that

(4.69) limt0→∞t0​∫−11e−t02​ϵ2+h⁡(log⁡(1+ϵ)−ϵ)​𝑑ϵ=π,\lim_{t_{0}\rightarrow\infty}t_{0}\int_{-1}^{1}e^{-t_{0}^{2}\epsilon^{2}+h(\log(1+\epsilon)-\epsilon)}d\epsilon=\sqrt{\pi},

and

(4.70) limt0→∞e−F⁡(t0)​∫2​t0∞eF⁡(t)​𝑑t=0.\lim_{t_{0}\rightarrow\infty}e^{-F(t_{0})}\int_{2t_{0}}^{\infty}e^{F(t)}dt=0.

Moreover, by (4.66), limy→+∞t0​(y)→∞\lim\limits_{y\to+\infty}t_{0}(y)\to\infty. It follows that

(4.71) limz→∞ℱ⁡(z)π​e−j​z22+F​(t0​(z))=1.\lim\limits_{z\to\infty}\frac{\mathcal{F}(z)}{\sqrt{\pi}e^{-\frac{jz^{2}}{2}+F(t_{0}(z))}}=1.

Combining the above limit and (4.67), the proof of (4.64) is complete.

In the case j∈ℤ+j\in\mathbb{Z}_{+} and h>0h>0, we will prove the asymptotic behavior of 𝒰\mathcal{U} and we write

∫0∞eU⁡(t)​𝑑t\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{U(t)}dt =s0​eU⁡(s0)​∫−1∞e−s02​ϵ2+h⁡(log⁡(1+ϵ)−ϵ)​𝑑ϵ\displaystyle=s_{0}e^{U(s_{0})}\int_{-1}^{\infty}e^{-s_{0}^{2}\epsilon^{2}+h(\log(1+\epsilon)-\epsilon)}d\epsilon
(4.72) =s0​eU⁡(s0)​∫−1∞e−s02​ϵ2⋅(1+ϵ)h​e−h​ϵ​𝑑ϵ.\displaystyle=s_{0}e^{U(s_{0})}\int_{-1}^{\infty}e^{-s_{0}^{2}\epsilon^{2}}\cdot(1+\epsilon)^{h}e^{-h\epsilon}d\epsilon.

We claim that

(4.73) lims0→0∫−1∞(e−s02​ϵ2−1)⋅(1+ϵ)h​e−h​ϵ​𝑑ϵ=0.\lim\limits_{s_{0}\to 0}\int_{-1}^{\infty}(e^{-s_{0}^{2}\epsilon^{2}}-1)\cdot(1+\epsilon)^{h}e^{-h\epsilon}d\epsilon=0.

In fact, it is straightforward that for any s0>0s_{0}>0,

(4.74) −1≤e−s02​ϵ2−1≤0-1\leq e^{-s_{0}^{2}\epsilon^{2}}-1\leq 0

and for any fixed h>0h>0,

(4.75) ∫−1∞(1+ϵ)h​e−h​ϵ​𝑑ϵ<∞.\int_{-1}^{\infty}(1+\epsilon)^{h}e^{-h\epsilon}d\epsilon<\infty.

Applying the dominated convergence theorem,

(4.76) lims0→0∫−1∞(e−s02​ϵ2−1)⋅(1+ϵ)h​e−h​ϵ​𝑑ϵ=0.\lim\limits_{s_{0}\to 0}\int_{-1}^{\infty}(e^{-s_{0}^{2}\epsilon^{2}}-1)\cdot(1+\epsilon)^{h}e^{-h\epsilon}d\epsilon=0.

This completes the proof the the claim. Next, by the definition of the gamma function,

(4.77) ∫−1∞(1+ϵ)h​e−h​ϵ​𝑑ϵ=eh​∫0∞e−h​s​sh​𝑑s=eh​h−h−1​Γ​(h+1).\int_{-1}^{\infty}(1+\epsilon)^{h}e^{-h\epsilon}d\epsilon=e^{h}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-hs}s^{h}ds=e^{h}h^{-h-1}\Gamma(h+1).

Therefore,

(4.78) lims0→0∫−1∞e−s02​ϵ2+h⁡(log⁡(1+ϵ)−ϵ)​𝑑ϵ=eh​h−h−1​Γ​(h+1).\lim\limits_{s_{0}\to 0}\int_{-1}^{\infty}e^{-s_{0}^{2}\epsilon^{2}+h(\log(1+\epsilon)-\epsilon)}d\epsilon=e^{h}h^{-h-1}\Gamma(h+1).

Since limy→+∞s0=0\lim\limits_{y\to+\infty}s_{0}=0 and UU yields to the asymptotic property (4.67), eventually we obtain (4.65). ∎

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.