15

I was solving the integral $$I_n=\int_0^{\frac {\pi}{2}} \left(\frac {\sin ((2n+1)x)}{\sin x}\right)^2 dx$$

With $n\ge 0$ And $n\in \mathbb{N}$

On solving, I got $$I_n =\frac {(2n+1)\pi}{2}$$

But, due to curiosity, I started investigating the family of integrals as

$$I_n(\beta) =\int_0^{\frac {\pi}{2}} \left(\frac {\sin (2n+1)x}{\sin x}\right)^{\beta} dx$$

On trying various values of $\beta\gt 2$ and $\beta\in \mathbb{N}$, I conjectured that $$I_n(\beta) =c_{\beta} \frac{\pi}{2}$$ where $c_{\beta}$ denotes "Number of arrays of $\beta$ integers in $-n$ to $n$ with sum $0$"

But, on trying a lot, I couldn't prove this statement. Also, I suppose that the statement could be proved with help of Dirichlet kernel, but I couldn't get the way out through it.

Any help and hints to prove/disprove the conjecture are greatly appreciated.

Rohan Shinde
  • 9,737
  • 1
    @Masacroso I think $I_n$ is the integral of something alike Fejer kernel, so $\sin((2n+1)x)$. – xbh Dec 29 '18 at 07:08
  • @Masacroso Edited!!! – Rohan Shinde Dec 29 '18 at 07:10
  • https://oeis.org/A201552 – James Arathoon Dec 29 '18 at 12:21
  • 2
    See here: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2885887/515527 – Zacky Dec 29 '18 at 12:36
  • @James Arathoon The statement I guessed was from OEIS only and it also doesn't have any proofs. – Rohan Shinde Dec 29 '18 at 13:01
  • @Zacky The link was a bit helpful but I didn't understand how the integral of summation with a power raised to the summation was changes to the summation of the integrals. – Rohan Shinde Dec 29 '18 at 13:02
  • I guess first we rewrote $$\left(\sum \limits_{k=0}^{n-1} \mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} k x}\right)^m\mbox{ as }\left(\sum \limits_{k_1=0}^{n-1} \mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} k_1 x}\right)\left(\sum \limits_{k_2=0}^{n-1} \mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} k_2 x}\right)\cdots \left(\sum \limits_{k_m=0}^{n-1} \mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} k_3 x}\right),$$ then multiplied these sums, and finally swapped the integral and the sums. – Alex Ravsky Dec 31 '18 at 14:32
  • @Alex Ravsky: Starting with the "adjusted" Dirichlet kernel in this case as $$\left(\sum \limits_{k=-n}^{n} \mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i} k x}\right)^m=\left(\frac {\sin ((2n+1)x)}{\sin x}\right)^{m}$$. Do you only have to multiply out negative k? – James Arathoon Dec 31 '18 at 14:52
  • If $\beta = 4$ doesn't work, then please change the title. – zhw. Dec 31 '18 at 18:41
  • @zhw. Well the statement doesn't fail altogether but the $\beta =4$ follows the statement that $c_{4}$ denotes "Number of arrays of integers in $\color{blue}{-(n-1)}$ to $\color{blue}{(n-1)}$ with sum $0$" and not "Number of arrays of integers in $\color{red}{-n}$ to $\color{red}{n}$ with sum $0$" – Rohan Shinde Jan 01 '19 at 02:51

2 Answers2

7

$\def\b{\beta}$\begin{align*} \newcommand\cmt[1]{{\small\textrm{#1}}} I_n(\b) &= \int_0^{\pi/2} \left(\frac{\sin (2n+1)x}{\sin x}\right)^\b dx \\ &= \frac 1 4 \int_0^{2\pi} \left(\frac{\sin (2n+1)x}{\sin x}\right)^\b dx & \cmt{begin similar to user630708} \\ &= \frac{1}{4i} \oint_\gamma \left(\frac{z^{4n+2}-1}{z^2-1}\right)^\b \frac{dz}{z^{2n\b+1}} & \cmt{let $z=e^{ix}$} \\ &= \frac{1}{4i} \oint_\gamma \left(\sum_{k=0}^{2n}z^{2k}\right)^\b \frac{dz}{z^{2n\b+1}} & \cmt{partial sum of geometric series} \\ &= \left.\frac{1}{4i} \frac{2\pi i}{(2n\b)!} \left(\frac{d}{dz}\right)^{2n\b} \left(\sum_{k=0}^{2n}z^{2k}\right)^\b \right|_{z=0} & \cmt{Cauchy integral formula} \\ &= \left.\frac{\pi}{2} \frac{1}{(2n\b)!} \left(\frac{d}{dz}\right)^{2n\b} \sum_{\sum x_k=\b} \frac{\b!}{\prod x_k!} \prod (z^{2k})^{x_k} \right|_{z=0} & \cmt{multinomial expansion, $k=0,1,\ldots,2n$} \\ &= \left.\frac{\pi}{2} \frac{1}{(2n\b)!} \left(\frac{d}{dz}\right)^{2n\b} \sum_{\sum x_k=\b} \frac{\b!}{\prod x_k!} z^{2\sum k x_k} \right|_{z=0} \\ &= \frac{\pi}{2} \sum_{\sum x_k=\b \atop \sum k x_k = n\b} \frac{\b!}{\prod x_k!} & \cmt{only surviving terms have $\sum k x_k = n\b$} \\ &= \frac{\pi}{2} \sum_{\sum x_k=\b \atop \sum (n-k) x_k = 0} \frac{\b!}{\prod x_k!} \end{align*} In the last line note that $\sum_{k=0}^{2n} n x_k=n\b$ and so $\sum_{k=0}^{2n} (n-k)x_k = 0$. By inspection one can see that $$\sum_{\sum_{k=0}^{2n} x_k=\b \atop \sum_{k=0}^{2n} (n-k) x_k = 0} \frac{\b!}{\prod x_k!} = \textrm{number of arrays of $\b$ integers in $-n,\ldots,n$ with sum equal to 0,}$$ i.e., $$I_n(\b) = \frac{\pi}{2} T(\b,n),$$ where $T(\b,n)$ is OEIS A201552, as pointed out by James Arathoon in the comments. (On that page we also find an integral form of $T(\b,n)$ which, after a simple substitution, gives $I_n(\b) = \frac{\pi}{2} T(\b,n)$.)

user26872
  • 19,465
4

This is easy using Residue Theory:

Note that by symmetry $\int_{0}^{\pi/2}...dx=1/4\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}…dx$ (use parity and a sub $y=\pi-x$ to Show that).

employing $z=e^{ix}$ we get

$$ 4 I_{n,\beta}=\oint_C \left[\frac{z^{4n+2}-1}{z^2-1}\right]^{\beta}\frac{dz}{i z^{2\beta n+1}} $$

where $C$ denotes the unit circle in the comlex plane. By the residue theorem (there is one pole inside the contour at $z=0$, using f.e. the geometric series you can Show that the Points $z=\pm i$ are removable singularities). We have

$$ 4 I_{n,\beta}=2\pi \text{Res}(\left[\frac{z^{4n+2}-1}{z^2-1}\right]^{\beta}\frac{1}{z^{2\beta n+1}} ,z=0) $$

Using $\beta!(z^2-1)^{-\beta}=((2z)^{-1}\partial_z)^{\beta-1}(z^2-1)^{-1}$ we get

$$ (1-z^2)^{-\beta}=\frac{1}{2^{\beta-1}}\sum_{m\geq0}\binom{m+\beta-1}{\beta-1}z^{2m}\\ (1-z^{4n+2})^{\beta}=z^{2\beta}\sum_{k\geq0}(-1)^k\binom{\beta}{k}z^{4k} $$

which means that we have the condition $4k+2(m+\beta)-2\beta n-1=-1$ (since we are interested in $a_{-1}$ coefficent of the Laurent expansion) which essenitally kills one of the sums, and we end up with

$$ I_{n,\beta}=\frac{\pi}{2^{\beta}}\sum_{m\geq0}(-1)^{\beta n /2-(\beta+m)/2}\binom{m+\beta-1}{\beta-1}\binom{\beta}{\beta n /2-(\beta+m)/2} $$

which is a finite sum, since the second binomial becomes zero when $m$ is large enough ($m> \beta (n-1)$)

  • This seems cool, but where does the $\beta \neq 4$ exception come from? Is it from that line about how we "kill one of the sums"? – goblin GONE Jan 01 '19 at 23:46
  • Notice that the final sum is not necessarily real. – user26872 Jan 02 '19 at 00:37
  • Things seem to go off the rails with $\beta!(z^2-1)^{-\beta}=((2z)^{-1}\partial_z)^{\beta-1}(z^2-1)^{-1}$, which is false for $\beta>1$. It is true that $(\beta-1)!(z^2-1)^{-\beta}=((-2z)^{-1}\partial_z)^{\beta-1}(z^2-1)^{-1}$. – user26872 Jan 05 '19 at 20:45