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.
We focus on the case, and consider . Using Lemma 4.22, the contribution to from the region is negligible, where is any small given number. Outside this region is asymptotic to along the three ends up to exponentially small error, and furthermore Lemma 4.23 allows us to replace by without affecting the limit.
We are now left to consider the improper integral
|
|
|
Using the formula of in Lemma 4.21, we can simplify further by setting without affecting the limit.
Along the end,
|
|
|
which we compute as
|
|
|
Similarly, the integrals from and are respectively
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
Summing over the three contributions and take the limit ,
|
|
|
This proves
. Likewise with the case.
The ‘morever’ statement follows from a simpler argument. The key is that higher derivatives of the integrand have faster decay at large distance, so that the divergence issues do not arise.
∎