For an asymptotic sequence , the asymptotic expansion condition is that every fixed truncation has remainder smaller than its last retained term:
This limit is taken as in the specified direction or sector. The number stays fixed while taking that limit. The infinite series need not converge for any nonzero parameter.
Let . Repeated integration by parts using the factor gives
Boundary terms at infinity vanish, and . Therefore
For every fixed , this is as , proving
For each fixed the displayed infinite series diverges, since successive term magnitudes have ratio . Its usefulness is precisely that of an asymptotic expansion, not a convergent power series.
Fix . On , , so that part of the integral is bounded by , exponentially smaller than .
By the assumed local equivalence, the remaining part is asymptotic to . Substitute :
The last step uses the Gaussian integral and monotone convergence of the upper limit to infinity. Hence
A fixed small-angle approximation alone is insufficient because its error is multiplied by . Introduce the shrinking cutoff , which satisfies but .
On , the Taylor expansion gives uniformly. Thus
uniformly there, and the two central integrals are asymptotically equal. On , choose a fixed with for . The sine-integral tail is at most ; the Gaussian tail has the same exponential bound with . Both are , while the central Gaussian integral is asymptotic to . Hence
This justifies the localized Laplace method rather than interchanging a nonuniform approximation with integration.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.