Bohr–Mollerup Theorem

Two rules alone do not pin down the factorial's extension. An impostor matching the gamma function at every integer survives.

One extra condition filters the impostor out: log-convexity. The graph of the logarithm must be convex. The secant test exposes this fingerprint.

For example, height and weight alone cannot confirm a πŸ§‘ friend's identity. A matching fingerprint settles it. Log-convexity is the gamma function's fingerprint.

f(1)=1f(1) = 1
f(x+1)=x f(x)(x>0)f(x+1) = x\,f(x) \quad (x > 0)
ln⁑f is convex on (0,∞)\ln f \text{ is convex on } (0,\infty)
f=Ξ“f = \Gamma

Part of these learning paths

Examples & Exercises

Let f:(0,∞)β†’(0,∞)f: (0,\infty) \to (0,\infty) satisfy f(1)=1f(1) = 1 and f(x+1)=x f(x)f(x+1) = x\,f(x) for all x>0x > 0.

Prove that f(n)=(nβˆ’1)!f(n) = (n-1)! for every positive integer nn.

f(1)=1,f(x+1)=x f(x)⟹f(n)=(nβˆ’1)!f(1) = 1, \qquad f(x+1) = x\,f(x) \quad \Longrightarrow \quad f(n) = (n-1)!
At a=0.3a = 0.3, x0=0.6x_0 = 0.6: the impostor ln⁑fa\ln f_a has secant violation β‰ˆ0.297>0\approx 0.297 > 0 (convexity broken), while ln⁑Γ\ln\Gamma has violation below 10βˆ’910^{-9} (convexity holds).
Show proof
  1. Base case: f(1)=1=0!f(1) = 1 = 0! β€” given by hypothesis.

  2. Inductive step: assume f(k)=(kβˆ’1)!f(k) = (k-1)!. Applying the recurrence at x=kx = k gives f(k+1)=kβ‹…f(k)=kβ‹…(kβˆ’1)!=k!f(k+1) = k \cdot f(k) = k \cdot (k-1)! = k!.

  3. By mathematical induction, f(n)=(nβˆ’1)!f(n) = (n-1)! for every positive integer nn.

  4. The lesson: this proof uses only the first two conditions β€” ff is not determined at all between the integers.

    Indeed, for ∣a∣<1|a| < 1 (e.g. the preset a=0.3a = 0.3), consider the impostor fa(x)=Ξ“(x)(1+asin⁑2Ο€x)f_a(x) = \Gamma(x)(1 + a\sin 2\pi x).

    If ∣a∣<1|a| < 1 then 1+asin⁑2Ο€xβ‰₯1βˆ’βˆ£a∣>01 + a\sin 2\pi x \ge 1 - |a| > 0, so fa>0f_a > 0 and the codomain (0,∞)(0,\infty) is respected (for ∣a∣β‰₯1|a| \ge 1 positivity can fail).

    It matches Ξ“\Gamma exactly at every integer nn (since sin⁑2Ο€n=0\sin 2\pi n = 0) while differing wildly between them.

    The third condition (log-convexity) is what closes this gap.

Use HΓΆlder's inequality to prove that Ξ“\Gamma is log-convex: show Ο†(x)=ln⁑Γ(x)\varphi(x) = \ln\Gamma(x) is convex on (0,∞)(0,\infty).

Ξ“(tx+(1βˆ’t)y)≀Γ(x)t Γ(y)1βˆ’t(0<t<1,β€…β€Šx,y>0)\Gamma(tx + (1-t)y) \le \Gamma(x)^t\,\Gamma(y)^{1-t} \qquad (0 < t < 1,\; x, y > 0)
HoΒ¨lder: ∫FG≀(∫Fp)1/p(∫Gq)1/q,1p+1q=1\text{H\"older: } \int FG \le \left(\int F^p\right)^{1/p}\left(\int G^q\right)^{1/q}, \quad \frac1p + \frac1q = 1
At a=0.3a = 0.3, x0=0.6x_0 = 0.6: the impostor ln⁑fa\ln f_a has secant violation β‰ˆ0.297>0\approx 0.297 > 0 (convexity broken), while ln⁑Γ\ln\Gamma has violation below 10βˆ’910^{-9} (convexity holds).
Show proof
  1. Let 0<t<10 < t < 1, x,y>0x, y > 0, and z=tx+(1βˆ’t)yz = tx + (1-t)y. Split the integrand of Ξ“(z)=∫0∞szβˆ’1eβˆ’s ds\Gamma(z) = \int_0^\infty s^{z-1} e^{-s}\,ds: szβˆ’1eβˆ’s=(sxβˆ’1eβˆ’s)tβ‹…(syβˆ’1eβˆ’s)1βˆ’ts^{z-1} e^{-s} = \left(s^{x-1} e^{-s}\right)^t \cdot \left(s^{y-1} e^{-s}\right)^{1-t} β€” checking exponents, t(xβˆ’1)+(1βˆ’t)(yβˆ’1)=zβˆ’1t(x-1) + (1-t)(y-1) = z - 1 and the exponent of eβˆ’se^{-s} is t+(1βˆ’t)=1t + (1-t) = 1.

  2. Set F=(sxβˆ’1eβˆ’s)tF = \left(s^{x-1} e^{-s}\right)^t, G=(syβˆ’1eβˆ’s)1βˆ’tG = \left(s^{y-1} e^{-s}\right)^{1-t} and apply HΓΆlder with exponents p=1tp = \frac1t, q=11βˆ’tq = \frac{1}{1-t} (so 1p+1q=1\frac1p + \frac1q = 1): ∫0∞FG≀(∫0∞Fp)1/p(∫0∞Gq)1/q\int_0^\infty FG \le \left(\int_0^\infty F^p\right)^{1/p} \left(\int_0^\infty G^q\right)^{1/q}.

  3. But Fp=sxβˆ’1eβˆ’sF^p = s^{x-1} e^{-s} and Gq=syβˆ’1eβˆ’sG^q = s^{y-1} e^{-s}, so the right side is Ξ“(x)t Γ(y)1βˆ’t\Gamma(x)^t\,\Gamma(y)^{1-t}. Hence Ξ“(tx+(1βˆ’t)y)≀Γ(x)t Γ(y)1βˆ’t\Gamma(tx + (1-t)y) \le \Gamma(x)^t\,\Gamma(y)^{1-t}; taking logs gives Ο†(tx+(1βˆ’t)y)≀t φ(x)+(1βˆ’t) φ(y)\varphi(tx + (1-t)y) \le t\,\varphi(x) + (1-t)\,\varphi(y), so Ο†=ln⁑Γ\varphi = \ln\Gamma is convex.

  4. Numerical check: the secant test above checks the very definition of convexity (the chord lies above the graph). The violation for ln⁑Γ\ln\Gamma is below 10βˆ’910^{-9} β€” zero, agreeing with the proof.

Prove the Bohr–Mollerup theorem: if f:(0,∞)β†’(0,∞)f: (0,\infty) \to (0,\infty) satisfies (i) f(1)=1f(1) = 1, (ii) f(x+1)=x f(x)f(x+1) = x\,f(x), and (iii) ln⁑f\ln f is convex, then f=Ξ“f = \Gamma.

xln⁑(nβˆ’1)≀φ(n+x)βˆ’Ο†(n)≀xln⁑n(0<x<1,Β nβ‰₯2)x\ln(n-1) \le \varphi(n+x) - \varphi(n) \le x\ln n \qquad (0 < x < 1,\ n \ge 2)
(nβˆ’1)x(nβˆ’1)!∏k=0nβˆ’1(x+k)≀f(x)≀nx(nβˆ’1)!∏k=0nβˆ’1(x+k)\frac{(n-1)^x (n-1)!}{\prod_{k=0}^{n-1}(x+k)} \le f(x) \le \frac{n^x (n-1)!}{\prod_{k=0}^{n-1}(x+k)}
At a=0.3a = 0.3, x0=0.6x_0 = 0.6: the impostor ln⁑fa\ln f_a has secant violation β‰ˆ0.297>0\approx 0.297 > 0 (convexity broken), while ln⁑Γ\ln\Gamma has violation below 10βˆ’910^{-9} (convexity holds).
Show proof
  1. Set Ο†=ln⁑f\varphi = \ln f.

    We use slope monotonicity of convex functions: for a<b<ca < b < c, Ο†(b)βˆ’Ο†(a)bβˆ’a≀φ(c)βˆ’Ο†(b)cβˆ’b\frac{\varphi(b) - \varphi(a)}{b-a} \le \frac{\varphi(c) - \varphi(b)}{c-b}.

    For 0<x<10 < x < 1 and integer nβ‰₯2n \ge 2, applying this to nβˆ’1<n<n+xn-1 < n < n+x gives the lower bound Ο†(n)βˆ’Ο†(nβˆ’1)≀φ(n+x)βˆ’Ο†(n)x\varphi(n) - \varphi(n-1) \le \frac{\varphi(n+x) - \varphi(n)}{x} directly.

    The upper bound does not follow directly: from n<n+x<n+1n < n+x < n+1 we only get Ο†(n+x)βˆ’Ο†(n)x≀φ(n+1)βˆ’Ο†(n+x)1βˆ’x\frac{\varphi(n+x) - \varphi(n)}{x} \le \frac{\varphi(n+1) - \varphi(n+x)}{1-x}.

    Use the weighted average of slopes with the same left endpoint: Ο†(n+1)βˆ’Ο†(n)=xβ‹…Ο†(n+x)βˆ’Ο†(n)x+(1βˆ’x)β‹…Ο†(n+1)βˆ’Ο†(n+x)1βˆ’x\varphi(n+1) - \varphi(n) = x \cdot \frac{\varphi(n+x) - \varphi(n)}{x} + (1-x) \cdot \frac{\varphi(n+1) - \varphi(n+x)}{1-x}, and since the second slope is at least the first, this weighted average is at least the first slope.

    Hence Ο†(n+x)βˆ’Ο†(n)x≀φ(n+1)βˆ’Ο†(n)\frac{\varphi(n+x) - \varphi(n)}{x} \le \varphi(n+1) - \varphi(n).

    Together, Ο†(n)βˆ’Ο†(nβˆ’1)≀φ(n+x)βˆ’Ο†(n)x≀φ(n+1)βˆ’Ο†(n)\varphi(n) - \varphi(n-1) \le \frac{\varphi(n+x) - \varphi(n)}{x} \le \varphi(n+1) - \varphi(n).

  2. From (i) and (ii) (problem 1), f(n)=(nβˆ’1)!f(n) = (n-1)!, so Ο†(n)βˆ’Ο†(nβˆ’1)=ln⁑(nβˆ’1)\varphi(n) - \varphi(n-1) = \ln(n-1) and Ο†(n+1)βˆ’Ο†(n)=ln⁑n\varphi(n+1) - \varphi(n) = \ln n. Multiplying by xx gives the key inequality xln⁑(nβˆ’1)≀φ(n+x)βˆ’Ο†(n)≀xln⁑nx\ln(n-1) \le \varphi(n+x) - \varphi(n) \le x\ln n.

  3. Exponentiating gives (nβˆ’1)x≀f(n+x)f(n)≀nx(n-1)^x \le \frac{f(n+x)}{f(n)} \le n^x, i.e. (nβˆ’1)x(nβˆ’1)!≀f(n+x)≀nx(nβˆ’1)!(n-1)^x (n-1)! \le f(n+x) \le n^x (n-1)!. Iterating (ii) nn times gives f(n+x)=x(x+1)β‹―(x+nβˆ’1) f(x)=f(x)∏k=0nβˆ’1(x+k)f(n+x) = x(x+1)\cdots(x+n-1)\,f(x) = f(x)\prod_{k=0}^{n-1}(x+k); dividing through yields (nβˆ’1)x(nβˆ’1)!∏k=0nβˆ’1(x+k)≀f(x)≀nx(nβˆ’1)!∏k=0nβˆ’1(x+k)\frac{(n-1)^x (n-1)!}{\prod_{k=0}^{n-1}(x+k)} \le f(x) \le \frac{n^x (n-1)!}{\prod_{k=0}^{n-1}(x+k)}.

  4. The ratio of the upper to the lower bound is (nnβˆ’1)xβ†’1\left(\frac{n}{n-1}\right)^x \to 1 as nβ†’βˆžn \to \infty. Writing LnL_n and UnU_n for the bounds, Ln≀f(x)≀UnL_n \le f(x) \le U_n and Unβˆ’Ln=Ln((nnβˆ’1)xβˆ’1)≀f(x)((nnβˆ’1)xβˆ’1)β†’0U_n - L_n = L_n\left(\left(\frac{n}{n-1}\right)^x - 1\right) \le f(x)\left(\left(\frac{n}{n-1}\right)^x - 1\right) \to 0; by the squeeze theorem both bounds converge to the same limit G(x)G(x), and f(x)=G(x)f(x) = G(x) for 0<x<10 < x < 1.

  5. Connecting the Gauss limit to Euler's integral.

    In the truncated integral In(x)=∫0ntxβˆ’1(1βˆ’tn)n dtI_n(x) = \int_0^n t^{x-1}\left(1-\frac{t}{n}\right)^n\,dt, substitute s=tns = \frac{t}{n} to get In(x)=nx∫01sxβˆ’1(1βˆ’s)n dsI_n(x) = n^x\int_0^1 s^{x-1}(1-s)^n\,ds.

    Repeated integration by parts gives ∫01sxβˆ’1(1βˆ’s)k ds=kx∫01sx(1βˆ’s)kβˆ’1 ds\int_0^1 s^{x-1}(1-s)^k\,ds = \frac{k}{x}\int_0^1 s^{x}(1-s)^{k-1}\,ds (boundary terms vanish for x>0x > 0), so ∫01sxβˆ’1(1βˆ’s)n ds=n!x(x+1)β‹―(x+n)\int_0^1 s^{x-1}(1-s)^n\,ds = \frac{n!}{x(x+1)\cdots(x+n)} β€” hence In(x)=nxn!x(x+1)β‹―(x+n)=nn+x UnI_n(x) = \frac{n^x n!}{x(x+1)\cdots(x+n)} = \frac{n}{n+x}\,U_n, where UnU_n is the upper squeeze bound above.

    In(x)=∫0ntxβˆ’1(1βˆ’tn)n dt=nxn!x(x+1)β‹―(x+n)=nn+x UnI_n(x) = \int_0^n t^{x-1}\left(1-\frac{t}{n}\right)^n\,dt = \frac{n^x n!}{x(x+1)\cdots(x+n)} = \frac{n}{n+x}\,U_n
  6. Now nβ†’βˆžn \to \infty: for each tt, (1βˆ’tn)nβ†’eβˆ’t\left(1-\frac{t}{n}\right)^n \to e^{-t}, so the integrand converges pointwise to txβˆ’1eβˆ’tt^{x-1}e^{-t}.

    Domination comes from ln⁑(1βˆ’u)β‰€βˆ’u\ln(1-u) \le -u: for 0≀t≀n0 \le t \le n, (1βˆ’tn)n=enln⁑(1βˆ’t/n)≀eβˆ’t\left(1-\frac{t}{n}\right)^n = e^{n\ln(1-t/n)} \le e^{-t}, giving the integrable dominating function txβˆ’1eβˆ’tt^{x-1}e^{-t} on (0,∞)(0,\infty) (for x>0x > 0).

    By dominated convergence, In(x)β†’βˆ«0∞txβˆ’1eβˆ’t dt=Ξ“(x)I_n(x) \to \int_0^\infty t^{x-1}e^{-t}\,dt = \Gamma(x).

    In(x)⟢∫0∞txβˆ’1eβˆ’t dt=Ξ“(x)(nβ†’βˆž)I_n(x) \longrightarrow \int_0^\infty t^{x-1}e^{-t}\,dt = \Gamma(x) \qquad (n \to \infty)
  7. The two limits agree: from In(x)=nn+x UnI_n(x) = \frac{n}{n+x}\,U_n, since nn+xβ†’1\frac{n}{n+x} \to 1 and Unβ†’G(x)U_n \to G(x) (squeeze), In(x)β†’G(x)I_n(x) \to G(x); but also In(x)β†’Ξ“(x)I_n(x) \to \Gamma(x). Hence G(x)=Ξ“(x)G(x) = \Gamma(x) for 0<x<10 < x < 1 β€” Gauss's product formula equals Euler's integral, fully proved.

  8. Finally extend by (ii): writing x>0x > 0 as x=y+mx = y + m with 0<y≀10 < y \le 1 and integer mβ‰₯0m \ge 0, f(x)=y(y+1)β‹―(y+mβˆ’1) f(y)f(x) = y(y+1)\cdots(y+m-1)\,f(y), and since Ξ“\Gamma satisfies the same recurrence, the agreement on (0,1](0,1] extends to all x>0x > 0: f=Ξ“f = \Gamma.

11. Integration