Poisson’s remarkable calculation - a method or a trick? Denis Bell1 Department of Mathematics, University of North Florida 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224, U. S. A. email: [email protected] x2 The Gaussian function e− plays a fundamental role in probability and statis- tics. For this reason, it is important to know the value of the integral ∞ x2 I = e− dx. Z0 Since the integrand does not have an elementary antiderivative, I cannot be evaluated directly by the fundamental theorem of calculus. The familiar com- putation of the Gaussian integral is via the following remarkable trick, attributed to Poisson. One forms the square of I, interprets it as a double integral in the plane, transforms to polar coordinates and the answer magically pops out. The calculation is as follows 2 ∞ ∞ (x2+y2) I = e− dxdy Z0 Z0 π/2 ∞ r2 π ∞ r2 = re− drdθ = re− dr 2 Z0 Z0 Z0 r2 ∞ πe− π = − = . 4 4 ,0 Hence I = √π/2. Can this method be used to compute other seemingly intractable integrals? In this article we explore this question. Consider an improper integral ∞ J f(x)dx ≡ Z0 and suppose that f satisfies the functional equation f(x)f(y) = g(x2 + y2)h(y/x), x, y > 0. (1) 1Research partially supported by NSF grant DMS-0451194 1 Poisson’s remarkable calculation 2 Then Poisson’s argument yields the relation π/2 1 ∞ J 2 = g(x)dx h(tan θ)dθ . (2) 2 0 0 ≥ Z ¥≥ Z ¥ The determination of J is thereby reduced to the evaluation of two, possibly solvable, integrals. We are therefore led to ask which functions f satisfy an equation of the form (1), where the functions g and h are such that the integrals in (2) can be evaluated? In a previous work [Be], the author characterized the solutions f to equation (1) under the somewhat restrictive assumption that f is asmptotic to a power function at zero. R. Dawson [Da] addressed the problem for the less general equation f(x)f(y) = g(x2 +y2). In the present article, we establish the following generalization of these results. Theorem. Suppose f : (0, ) R satisfies equation (1), f is non-zero on a set of positive Lebesgue measur∞ e,7→and the discontinuity set of f is not dense in (0, ). Then f has the form ∞ 2 f(x) = Axpecx . Furthermore, the corresponding functions g and h are unique up to multiplicative constants and are given by p cx g(x) = A1x e , (3) x p h(x) = A (4) 2 1 + x2 2 ≥ ¥ where A1A2 = A . Denote ∞ 2 J = xpecx dx Z0 and assume that p > 1 and c < 0 to ensure the existence of the integral. The decomposition into (3)−and (4) implied by the Theorem results in the identity Γ(p + 1) π/2 J 2 = sinp tdt ( 2c)p+1 − Z0 where Γ denotes the gamma function. Furthermore, the evaluation of the above integral in closed form requires that p be an integer, thus p 0, 1, 2, . But in this case, J can be reduced to the Gaussian integral I by a scaling∈ { substitution} and successive integration by parts! We conclude that Poisson’s argument has no wider applicability as an integration method. This answers the question posed in the title of the article. As Dawson observes, it is remarkable that Poisson’s method turns out to have essentially only one application and that this single application is such a significant one! The proof of the Theorem differs substantially from the argument in [Be] in focussing on the function g in (1) rather than on h. The proof will require three preliminary results. Poisson’s remarkable calculation 3 Lemma 1. Suppose f satisfies (1) and f is non-zero on a set of positive Lebesgue measure. Then f never vanishes. Proof. Note first that h(1) = 0 otherwise taking y = x in ( 1) gives f 0, contradicting the hypothesis.6 We suppose throughout, without loss of generalit≡ y, that h(1) = 1. Setting y = x in (1) gives f 2(x) = g(2x2). (5) Substituting for the function g in (1), we obtain x2 + y2 y f(x)f(y) = f 2 h . (6) r 2 x ≥ ¥ ° ¢ Define r(x) = f(√x), k(x) = h(√x). Then (6) yields x(1 + t) r(x)r(tx) = r2 k(t), t, x > 0. (7) 2 ≥ ¥ We now prove the claim: there exists δ > 0 such that k(x) = 0 for all x in the interval (1 δ, 1 + δ). We argue by contradiction. Since the6 map x x2 is strictly monotone− on (0, ), the non-zero set of r has positive Lebesgue measure7→ λ. Hence there exists an∞integer N such that a λ(T ) > 0 where T denotes the set ≡ x/ r(x) = 0 [N, N + 1]. { 6 } ∩ Suppose the claim not hold. Then there exists a sequence t 1 such that n → k(tn) = 0 for all n. Equation (7) yields r(x)r(t x) = 0, n, x. (8) n ∀ Define T t x/ x T n ≡ { n ∈ } and ∞ ∞ V T . ≡ k n=1 \ k[=n Then (8) implies Tn and T are disjoint, for all n. Hence V T = φ. (9) ∩ Furthermore ∞ λ(V ) = lim λ Tk lim λ(Tn) = lim tnλ(T ) = a. (10) n ≥ n n ≥ k[=n ¥ If x V , then there exists a subsequence tnk of tn and xk T such that x = ∈t x . Since t 1, this implies x {T¯, }i.e. V{ }T¯. { } ⊂ nk k nk → ∈ ⊂ Poisson’s remarkable calculation 4 Let U be an arbitrary open set such that T U. Then ⊂ T V U¯. (11) ∪ ⊂ We conclude from (9) - (11) that λ(U) = λ(U¯) λ(T V ) = λ(T ) + λ(V ) 2a. ≥ ∪ ≥ Thus a = λ(T ) = inf λ(U)/ U open, T U 2a. ⊂ ≥ This implies a = 0, a contradiction.n The claim follows. o Now suppose f vanishes, so r(x0) = 0 for some x0 > 0. Setting x = x0 in (7) and using the claim, we deduce that r 0 on the interval x0(1 δ/2, 1 + δ/2). Extrapolating this property results in the≡ conclusion r 0, hence− f 0 which contradicts the hypothesis of the Lemma. ≡ ≡ Before proceeding further, we give some examples of functions f satisfying equa- tion (1) that do not have the form specified in the Theorem. Example 1. Let m be a discontinuous function on (0, ) with the multiplicative property ∞ m(x)m(y) = m(xy), x, y > 0. (12) (The existence of a large class of such functions is well-established, see e.g. [A]). t Then equation (1) is satisfied with f = g = m and h(t) = m( 1+t2 ). Note that m is never zero (otherwise (12) implies m 0). ≡ Example 2. Let a > 0 and define f = I a , where I a denotes the indicator { } { } function of the singleton set a , g = I 2a2 , and h = I 1 . Then it is clear that these functions satisfy (1). { } { } { } Example 3. Let A denote the set of algebraic numbers in (0, ). Define f = g = ∞ h = IA. Then (1) follows from the fact that A is closed under the positivity- preserving arithmetic operations and the extraction of square roots. Indeed, 2 2 this immediately implies that if IA(x)IA(y) = 1, then IA(x + y )IA(y/x) = 1. 2 2 2 2 Conversely, suppose IA(x + y )IA(y/x) = 1. Write x + y = α and y/x = β where α, β A. Solving for x and y, we have ∈ α α x = , y = β . 1 + β2 1 + β2 r r Thus x, y A and so I (x)I (y) = 1. ∈ A A This example in conjunction with Lemma 1, provides a new proof of the well- known fact that (assuming at least one transcendental number exists) the set of algebraic numbers has zero Lebesgue measure. In fact, replacing A in this argument by an arbitrary set, we obtain the following result. Proposition. Let E be a measurable proper subset of (0, ) closed under ad- dition, multiplication, division, and the extraction of squar∞e roots. Then E has zero Lebesgue measure. Poisson’s remarkable calculation 5 The above examples show that neither of the additional hypotheses in the The- orem is redundant. Lemma 2. Suppose f satsifes the hypotheses of the Theorem. Then the function r is continuous everywhere. Proof. In view of Lemma 1, we may write (7) in the form 2 x(1+t) r 2 k(t) r(x) = , t, x > 0. (13) ≥ r(tx)¥ By hypothesis, there exists an interval (a, b) on which r is continuous. Define a+b c = 2 . Suppose r is discontinuous at some point x0 > 0. Choose t such that x0+c c = txo and define x1 = 2 . Assume r is continuous at x1. Then (13) yields 2 r (x1)k(t) lim r(x) = = r(x0), x x → 0 r(c) i.e. r is continuous at x0, contrary to assumption. We conclude that r is discon- tinuous at x1. Iteration of this argument shows that r is discontinuous on the sequence of points x defined inductively by { n} xn 1 + c x = − , n 1. n 2 ≥ Since xn eventually lies in (a, b) this gives a contradiction, thereby proving the Lemma. Remark. Lemmas 1 and 2 imply that f and hence r has constant sign, which we may suppose without loss of generality, is positive. We deduce from (7) that k is then strictly positive and everywhere continuous. Lemma 3. Suppose f satisfies the hypotheses of the Theorem.