Inverse factorial function
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am wondering what is the inverse/opposite factorial function?
e.g inverse-factorial(6)=3
Furthermore, I am intrigued to know the answer to:
a!=π
find a
I would really appreciate if anyone could explain this to me as I have found nowhere online with a good explanation of inverse factorial functions.
Thanks
factorial inverse-function
asked Nov 14 at 12:18
Cameron Gray
61
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am wondering what is the inverse/opposite factorial function?
e.g inverse-factorial(6)=3
Furthermore, I am intrigued to know the answer to:
a!=π
find a
I would really appreciate if anyone could explain this to me as I have found nowhere online with a good explanation of inverse factorial functions.
Thanks
factorial inverse-function
asked Nov 14 at 12:18
Cameron Gray
61
1
See math.stackexchange.com/questions/931846/… and ams.org/journals/proc/2012-140-04/S0002-9939-2011-11023-2
– lhf
Nov 14 at 12:21
Can you elaborate on what you want out of this? The most popular continuous version of factorial is the Gamma function, but I don't know if "ask a calculator to approximate the solution to $Gamma(x)=pi$ and add $1$ to the answer" is the sort of thing you're looking for. For detailed strategies for approximating answers, maybe see math.stackexchange.com/a/2739498/26369
– Mark S.
Nov 14 at 12:29
No integer's factorial is $pi$ the only thing you have seen is $frac{1}{2}!=pi$ which is not true. See definition of Gamma function : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function and see what happened when we put $frac{1}{2}$
– Sujit Bhattacharyya
Nov 14 at 12:33
also refer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/1624347
– G Cab
Nov 14 at 12:53
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am wondering what is the inverse/opposite factorial function?
e.g inverse-factorial(6)=3
Furthermore, I am intrigued to know the answer to:
a!=π
find a
I would really appreciate if anyone could explain this to me as I have found nowhere online with a good explanation of inverse factorial functions.
Thanks
factorial inverse-function
asked Nov 14 at 12:18
Cameron Gray
61
I am wondering what is the inverse/opposite factorial function?
e.g inverse-factorial(6)=3
Furthermore, I am intrigued to know the answer to:
a!=π
find a
I would really appreciate if anyone could explain this to me as I have found nowhere online with a good explanation of inverse factorial functions.
Thanks
factorial inverse-function
factorial inverse-function
asked Nov 14 at 12:18
Cameron Gray
61
asked Nov 14 at 12:18
Cameron Gray
61
asked Nov 14 at 12:18
Cameron Gray
61
asked Nov 14 at 12:18
Cameron Gray
61
asked Nov 14 at 12:18
Cameron Gray
61
61
1
See math.stackexchange.com/questions/931846/… and ams.org/journals/proc/2012-140-04/S0002-9939-2011-11023-2
– lhf
Nov 14 at 12:21
Can you elaborate on what you want out of this? The most popular continuous version of factorial is the Gamma function, but I don't know if "ask a calculator to approximate the solution to $Gamma(x)=pi$ and add $1$ to the answer" is the sort of thing you're looking for. For detailed strategies for approximating answers, maybe see math.stackexchange.com/a/2739498/26369
– Mark S.
Nov 14 at 12:29
No integer's factorial is $pi$ the only thing you have seen is $frac{1}{2}!=pi$ which is not true. See definition of Gamma function : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function and see what happened when we put $frac{1}{2}$
– Sujit Bhattacharyya
Nov 14 at 12:33
also refer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/1624347
– G Cab
Nov 14 at 12:53
add a comment |
1
See math.stackexchange.com/questions/931846/… and ams.org/journals/proc/2012-140-04/S0002-9939-2011-11023-2
– lhf
Nov 14 at 12:21
Can you elaborate on what you want out of this? The most popular continuous version of factorial is the Gamma function, but I don't know if "ask a calculator to approximate the solution to $Gamma(x)=pi$ and add $1$ to the answer" is the sort of thing you're looking for. For detailed strategies for approximating answers, maybe see math.stackexchange.com/a/2739498/26369
– Mark S.
Nov 14 at 12:29
No integer's factorial is $pi$ the only thing you have seen is $frac{1}{2}!=pi$ which is not true. See definition of Gamma function : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function and see what happened when we put $frac{1}{2}$
– Sujit Bhattacharyya
Nov 14 at 12:33
also refer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/1624347
– G Cab
Nov 14 at 12:53
1
1
See math.stackexchange.com/questions/931846/… and ams.org/journals/proc/2012-140-04/S0002-9939-2011-11023-2
– lhf
Nov 14 at 12:21
See math.stackexchange.com/questions/931846/… and ams.org/journals/proc/2012-140-04/S0002-9939-2011-11023-2
– lhf
Nov 14 at 12:21
Can you elaborate on what you want out of this? The most popular continuous version of factorial is the Gamma function, but I don't know if "ask a calculator to approximate the solution to $Gamma(x)=pi$ and add $1$ to the answer" is the sort of thing you're looking for. For detailed strategies for approximating answers, maybe see math.stackexchange.com/a/2739498/26369
– Mark S.
Nov 14 at 12:29
Can you elaborate on what you want out of this? The most popular continuous version of factorial is the Gamma function, but I don't know if "ask a calculator to approximate the solution to $Gamma(x)=pi$ and add $1$ to the answer" is the sort of thing you're looking for. For detailed strategies for approximating answers, maybe see math.stackexchange.com/a/2739498/26369
– Mark S.
Nov 14 at 12:29
No integer's factorial is $pi$ the only thing you have seen is $frac{1}{2}!=pi$ which is not true. See definition of Gamma function : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function and see what happened when we put $frac{1}{2}$
– Sujit Bhattacharyya
Nov 14 at 12:33
No integer's factorial is $pi$ the only thing you have seen is $frac{1}{2}!=pi$ which is not true. See definition of Gamma function : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function and see what happened when we put $frac{1}{2}$
– Sujit Bhattacharyya
Nov 14 at 12:33
also refer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/1624347
– G Cab
Nov 14 at 12:53
also refer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/1624347
– G Cab
Nov 14 at 12:53
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Unfortunately there is not a closed form or nice series for the inverse of the factorial (or Gamma function).
First obstacle is that the factorial has a local minimum at $x:;psi(x)=0; to ; x=0.4616..$, so , considering only positive values of the argument, that gives you two values for the inverse.
For an analysis of the problem please refer to this and this papers.
A lighter look is given in this other paper.
Finally an interesting approximated function is given here.
answered Nov 14 at 12:46
G Cab
16.9k31237
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
inverse functions are not well defined when it is not a $1:1$ function, and as there is a minimum where:
$$Gamma'(z+1)=0$$
that is:
$$int_0^inftypartial_nt^ze^{-t}dt=0$$
which can be numerically estimated.
answered Nov 14 at 13:22
Henry Lee
1,656117
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Unfortunately there is not a closed form or nice series for the inverse of the factorial (or Gamma function).
First obstacle is that the factorial has a local minimum at $x:;psi(x)=0; to ; x=0.4616..$, so , considering only positive values of the argument, that gives you two values for the inverse.
For an analysis of the problem please refer to this and this papers.
A lighter look is given in this other paper.
Finally an interesting approximated function is given here.
answered Nov 14 at 12:46
G Cab
16.9k31237
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Unfortunately there is not a closed form or nice series for the inverse of the factorial (or Gamma function).
First obstacle is that the factorial has a local minimum at $x:;psi(x)=0; to ; x=0.4616..$, so , considering only positive values of the argument, that gives you two values for the inverse.
For an analysis of the problem please refer to this and this papers.
A lighter look is given in this other paper.
Finally an interesting approximated function is given here.
answered Nov 14 at 12:46
G Cab
16.9k31237
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Unfortunately there is not a closed form or nice series for the inverse of the factorial (or Gamma function).
First obstacle is that the factorial has a local minimum at $x:;psi(x)=0; to ; x=0.4616..$, so , considering only positive values of the argument, that gives you two values for the inverse.
For an analysis of the problem please refer to this and this papers.
A lighter look is given in this other paper.
Finally an interesting approximated function is given here.
answered Nov 14 at 12:46
G Cab
16.9k31237
Unfortunately there is not a closed form or nice series for the inverse of the factorial (or Gamma function).
First obstacle is that the factorial has a local minimum at $x:;psi(x)=0; to ; x=0.4616..$, so , considering only positive values of the argument, that gives you two values for the inverse.
For an analysis of the problem please refer to this and this papers.
A lighter look is given in this other paper.
Finally an interesting approximated function is given here.
answered Nov 14 at 12:46
G Cab
16.9k31237
answered Nov 14 at 12:46
G Cab
16.9k31237
answered Nov 14 at 12:46
G Cab
16.9k31237
answered Nov 14 at 12:46
G Cab
16.9k31237
16.9k31237
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
inverse functions are not well defined when it is not a $1:1$ function, and as there is a minimum where:
$$Gamma'(z+1)=0$$
that is:
$$int_0^inftypartial_nt^ze^{-t}dt=0$$
which can be numerically estimated.
answered Nov 14 at 13:22
Henry Lee
1,656117
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
inverse functions are not well defined when it is not a $1:1$ function, and as there is a minimum where:
$$Gamma'(z+1)=0$$
that is:
$$int_0^inftypartial_nt^ze^{-t}dt=0$$
which can be numerically estimated.
answered Nov 14 at 13:22
Henry Lee
1,656117
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
inverse functions are not well defined when it is not a $1:1$ function, and as there is a minimum where:
$$Gamma'(z+1)=0$$
that is:
$$int_0^inftypartial_nt^ze^{-t}dt=0$$
which can be numerically estimated.
answered Nov 14 at 13:22
Henry Lee
1,656117
inverse functions are not well defined when it is not a $1:1$ function, and as there is a minimum where:
$$Gamma'(z+1)=0$$
that is:
$$int_0^inftypartial_nt^ze^{-t}dt=0$$
which can be numerically estimated.
answered Nov 14 at 13:22
Henry Lee
1,656117
answered Nov 14 at 13:22
Henry Lee
1,656117
answered Nov 14 at 13:22
Henry Lee
1,656117
answered Nov 14 at 13:22
Henry Lee
1,656117
1,656117
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2998201%2finverse-factorial-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
See math.stackexchange.com/questions/931846/… and ams.org/journals/proc/2012-140-04/S0002-9939-2011-11023-2
– lhf
Nov 14 at 12:21
Can you elaborate on what you want out of this? The most popular continuous version of factorial is the Gamma function, but I don't know if "ask a calculator to approximate the solution to $Gamma(x)=pi$ and add $1$ to the answer" is the sort of thing you're looking for. For detailed strategies for approximating answers, maybe see math.stackexchange.com/a/2739498/26369
– Mark S.
Nov 14 at 12:29
No integer's factorial is $pi$ the only thing you have seen is $frac{1}{2}!=pi$ which is not true. See definition of Gamma function : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function and see what happened when we put $frac{1}{2}$
– Sujit Bhattacharyya
Nov 14 at 12:33
also refer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/1624347
– G Cab
Nov 14 at 12:53