Write . For , differentiation under the integral sign gives
Indeed, on any compact parameter interval with , the differentiated integrand is bounded by the integrable function . The dominated convergence theorem therefore justifies the operation despite the improper lower endpoint. The apparent singularity at is removable.
Since , the chain rule gives the first-order linear differential equation
The required range is
Near , the ratio tends to , so it causes no convergence problem. Near , one useful identity is
For , this bounds its absolute value by , which is integrable on . It also supplies the domination used in part (i).
For , the integrand is negative and behaves as near zero; its improper integral diverges. For its negative singularity is even stronger, and comparison with that same divergent integral again rules out convergence. Thus the original finite real-valued definition of has precisely the stated domain.
At , the integrand vanishes for , so and
Solving the first-order linear differential equation from part (i) on gives . The initial condition fixes , so
Equivalently, the defining exponent is the logarithmic integral representation of the natural logarithm, .
For , interpret the endpoint by a one-sided limit. Part (iii) shows that extends continuously there with value zero, so both nested integrals converge. Let denote the nested expression inside the derivative. The fundamental theorem of calculus, applied twice with moving lower endpoints, gives
By part (iii), , hence
A direct check is , so , with the same third derivative.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.