Interesting integral related to the Omega Constant/Lambert W Function











up vote
28
down vote

favorite
22












I ran across an interesting integral and I am wondering if anyone knows where I may find its derivation or proof. I looked through the site. If it is here and I overlooked it, I am sorry.



$$displaystylefrac{1}{int_{-infty}^{infty}frac{1}{(e^{x}-x)^{2}+{pi}^{2}}dx}-1=W(1)=Omega$$



$W(1)=Omega$ is often referred to as the Omega Constant. Which is the solution to



$xe^{x}=1$. Which is $xapprox .567$



Thanks much.



EDIT: Sorry, I had the integral written incorrectly. Thanks for the catch.



I had also seen this:



$displaystyleint_{-infty}^{infty}frac{dx}{(e^{x}-x)^{2}+{pi}^{2}}=frac{1}{1+W(1)}=frac{1}{1+Omega}approx .638$



EDIT: I do not what is wrong, but I am trying to respond, but can not. All the buttons are unresponsive but this one. I have been trying to leave a greenie and add a comment, but neither will respond. I just wanted you to know this before you thought I was an ingrate.
Thank you. That is an interesting site.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Maple says the integral is approximately 0.605, but $1/(1+W(1))$ is approximately 0.638
    – GEdgar
    Jun 16 '11 at 16:03










  • In Maple I get .6381037434, which agrees with 1/(1+LambertW(1)). I guess the 0.605 refers to a version of the integral before the last edit.
    – Robert Israel
    Jun 16 '11 at 18:38












  • Originally it had $+x$ instead of $-x$.
    – GEdgar
    Jun 16 '11 at 18:48










  • Nice question (+1)
    – user 1357113
    Oct 9 '12 at 9:48















up vote
28
down vote

favorite
22












I ran across an interesting integral and I am wondering if anyone knows where I may find its derivation or proof. I looked through the site. If it is here and I overlooked it, I am sorry.



$$displaystylefrac{1}{int_{-infty}^{infty}frac{1}{(e^{x}-x)^{2}+{pi}^{2}}dx}-1=W(1)=Omega$$



$W(1)=Omega$ is often referred to as the Omega Constant. Which is the solution to



$xe^{x}=1$. Which is $xapprox .567$



Thanks much.



EDIT: Sorry, I had the integral written incorrectly. Thanks for the catch.



I had also seen this:



$displaystyleint_{-infty}^{infty}frac{dx}{(e^{x}-x)^{2}+{pi}^{2}}=frac{1}{1+W(1)}=frac{1}{1+Omega}approx .638$



EDIT: I do not what is wrong, but I am trying to respond, but can not. All the buttons are unresponsive but this one. I have been trying to leave a greenie and add a comment, but neither will respond. I just wanted you to know this before you thought I was an ingrate.
Thank you. That is an interesting site.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Maple says the integral is approximately 0.605, but $1/(1+W(1))$ is approximately 0.638
    – GEdgar
    Jun 16 '11 at 16:03










  • In Maple I get .6381037434, which agrees with 1/(1+LambertW(1)). I guess the 0.605 refers to a version of the integral before the last edit.
    – Robert Israel
    Jun 16 '11 at 18:38












  • Originally it had $+x$ instead of $-x$.
    – GEdgar
    Jun 16 '11 at 18:48










  • Nice question (+1)
    – user 1357113
    Oct 9 '12 at 9:48













up vote
28
down vote

favorite
22









up vote
28
down vote

favorite
22






22





I ran across an interesting integral and I am wondering if anyone knows where I may find its derivation or proof. I looked through the site. If it is here and I overlooked it, I am sorry.



$$displaystylefrac{1}{int_{-infty}^{infty}frac{1}{(e^{x}-x)^{2}+{pi}^{2}}dx}-1=W(1)=Omega$$



$W(1)=Omega$ is often referred to as the Omega Constant. Which is the solution to



$xe^{x}=1$. Which is $xapprox .567$



Thanks much.



EDIT: Sorry, I had the integral written incorrectly. Thanks for the catch.



I had also seen this:



$displaystyleint_{-infty}^{infty}frac{dx}{(e^{x}-x)^{2}+{pi}^{2}}=frac{1}{1+W(1)}=frac{1}{1+Omega}approx .638$



EDIT: I do not what is wrong, but I am trying to respond, but can not. All the buttons are unresponsive but this one. I have been trying to leave a greenie and add a comment, but neither will respond. I just wanted you to know this before you thought I was an ingrate.
Thank you. That is an interesting site.










share|cite|improve this question















I ran across an interesting integral and I am wondering if anyone knows where I may find its derivation or proof. I looked through the site. If it is here and I overlooked it, I am sorry.



$$displaystylefrac{1}{int_{-infty}^{infty}frac{1}{(e^{x}-x)^{2}+{pi}^{2}}dx}-1=W(1)=Omega$$



$W(1)=Omega$ is often referred to as the Omega Constant. Which is the solution to



$xe^{x}=1$. Which is $xapprox .567$



Thanks much.



EDIT: Sorry, I had the integral written incorrectly. Thanks for the catch.



I had also seen this:



$displaystyleint_{-infty}^{infty}frac{dx}{(e^{x}-x)^{2}+{pi}^{2}}=frac{1}{1+W(1)}=frac{1}{1+Omega}approx .638$



EDIT: I do not what is wrong, but I am trying to respond, but can not. All the buttons are unresponsive but this one. I have been trying to leave a greenie and add a comment, but neither will respond. I just wanted you to know this before you thought I was an ingrate.
Thank you. That is an interesting site.







integration special-functions






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Sep 23 '11 at 2:45









J. M. is not a mathematician

60.6k5146284




60.6k5146284










asked Jun 16 '11 at 15:50









Cody

713417




713417








  • 1




    Maple says the integral is approximately 0.605, but $1/(1+W(1))$ is approximately 0.638
    – GEdgar
    Jun 16 '11 at 16:03










  • In Maple I get .6381037434, which agrees with 1/(1+LambertW(1)). I guess the 0.605 refers to a version of the integral before the last edit.
    – Robert Israel
    Jun 16 '11 at 18:38












  • Originally it had $+x$ instead of $-x$.
    – GEdgar
    Jun 16 '11 at 18:48










  • Nice question (+1)
    – user 1357113
    Oct 9 '12 at 9:48














  • 1




    Maple says the integral is approximately 0.605, but $1/(1+W(1))$ is approximately 0.638
    – GEdgar
    Jun 16 '11 at 16:03










  • In Maple I get .6381037434, which agrees with 1/(1+LambertW(1)). I guess the 0.605 refers to a version of the integral before the last edit.
    – Robert Israel
    Jun 16 '11 at 18:38












  • Originally it had $+x$ instead of $-x$.
    – GEdgar
    Jun 16 '11 at 18:48










  • Nice question (+1)
    – user 1357113
    Oct 9 '12 at 9:48








1




1




Maple says the integral is approximately 0.605, but $1/(1+W(1))$ is approximately 0.638
– GEdgar
Jun 16 '11 at 16:03




Maple says the integral is approximately 0.605, but $1/(1+W(1))$ is approximately 0.638
– GEdgar
Jun 16 '11 at 16:03












In Maple I get .6381037434, which agrees with 1/(1+LambertW(1)). I guess the 0.605 refers to a version of the integral before the last edit.
– Robert Israel
Jun 16 '11 at 18:38






In Maple I get .6381037434, which agrees with 1/(1+LambertW(1)). I guess the 0.605 refers to a version of the integral before the last edit.
– Robert Israel
Jun 16 '11 at 18:38














Originally it had $+x$ instead of $-x$.
– GEdgar
Jun 16 '11 at 18:48




Originally it had $+x$ instead of $-x$.
– GEdgar
Jun 16 '11 at 18:48












Nice question (+1)
– user 1357113
Oct 9 '12 at 9:48




Nice question (+1)
– user 1357113
Oct 9 '12 at 9:48










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
29
down vote



+100










We wish to compute
$$
int_{-infty}^inftyfrac{mathrm{d}x}{(e^x-x)^2+pi^2}tag{1}
$$
We will do so by computing the contour integral
$$
int_{gamma_R}frac{mathrm{d}z}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}tag{2}
$$
over a family of contours $gamma_R$ for suitable values of $R$.



The Singularities



The singularities of the integrand in $(2)$ occur when $(e^z-z)^2+pi^2=(e^z-z+pi i)(e^z-z-pi i)$ vanishes; that is, for $z_k^pm=x_k^pm+iy_k^pm$ where
$$
e^{z_k^pm}-z_k^pmpmpi i=0tag{3}
$$
that is
$$
e^{2x_k^pm}={x_k^pm}^2+(y_k^pmmppi)^2tag{4}
$$
and
$$
y_k^pm=mathrm{atan2}(y_k^pmmppi,x_k^pm)tag{5}
$$
In fact, the roots of $(3)$ can be expressed in terms of the multivalued Lambert W function as
$$
z_k^pm=-W_{-k}(1)pmpi itag{6}
$$
The negative indices ensure that $z_0^+$ and $z_k^pm$ for $k>0$ are in the upper half-plane. In Mathematica, these can be computed as -LambertW[-k,1]+Pi I and -LambertW[-k,1]-Pi I.



Note that as $|z_k^pm|toinfty$, $(3)$ precludes $x_k^pm$ from being negative. In fact, as specified in $(6)$, only $x_0^pm<0$. Equation $(4)$ says that
$$
|y_k^pmmppi|=sqrt{e^{2x_k^pm}-{x_k^pm}^2}tag{7}
$$
As $|z_k^pm|toinfty$, $(5)$ and $(7)$ yield
$$
|y_k^pm|tofracpi2pmod{2pi}tag{8}
$$



The Contours



We will use the contours, $gamma_R=overline{gamma}_Rcupoverset{frown}{gamma}_R$, which circle the upper half plane, $overline{gamma}_R$ passing from $-R$ to $R$ on the real axis, then $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ circling back counter-clockwise along $|z|=R$ in the upper half-plane. To get the desired decay of the integral along $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$, we will also require that $Requivfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$; this is so that $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ passes well between the singularities.



Let us also define the curves $rho^pm$ to be where $|e^z|=|zmppi i|$. Note that all the singularities of the integrand in $(2)$ lie on $rho^pm$.



On $rho^pm$, we have $R-pile e^xle R+pi$, therefore,
$$
log(R-pi)le xlelog(R+pi)tag{9}
$$
Furthermore, because $R-|y|=frac{x^2}{R+|y|}<frac{log(R+pi)^2}{R}$, we have
$$
R-frac{log(R+pi)^2}{R}le|y|le Rtag{10}\
$$
Therefore, at $overset{frown}{gamma}_Rcaprho^pm$ as $Rtoinfty$,
$$
text{on }overset{frown}{gamma}_Rtext{, }x^2+y^2=R^2Rightarrowleft|frac{mathrm{d}y}{mathrm{d}x}right|=left|frac xyright|simfrac{log(R)}{R}to0
$$
and
$$
text{on }rho^pmtext{, }e^{2x}=x^2+(ymppi)^2Rightarrowleft|frac{mathrm{d}y}{mathrm{d}x}right|=left|frac{e^{2x}-x}{ymppi}right|sim Rtoinfty
$$
Thus, at $overset{frown}{gamma}_Rcaprho^pm$ as $Rtoinfty$, $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ becomes horizontal and $rho^pm$ becomes vertical. For example, here is the situation when $R=129.5pi$:



$hspace{35mm}$enter image description here



$$
hspace{-1cm}small
begin{array}{}
z_{64}^+=5.99292081954932666 + 403.67969492855003099 i\
z_{65}^-=6.00848352082933166 + 403.67988772309602824 i\
z_{65}^+=6.00848352082933166 + 409.96307303027561472 i\
z_{66}^-=6.02380774554030566 + 409.96326053797959857 i
end{array}
$$
As $Rtoinfty$, on $rho^pm$ in the upper half-plane, $(9)$ and $(10)$ imply that $arg(zmppi i)tofracpi2$; thus, as indicated by $(8)$, $e^z$ and $zmppi i$ cancel only when $mathrm{Im}(z)approxfracpi2!!!!pmod{2pi}$. Likewise, $e^z$ and $zmppi i$ reinforce when $mathrm{Im}(z)approxfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$.



Therefore, when $Requivfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$ and $zinoverset{frown}{gamma}_Rcaprho^pm$, we have that $|e^z-zpmpi i|sim2R$. As $zinoverset{frown}{gamma}_R$ moves to the right, by even just $1$, $e^z$ more than doubles, and dominates $zmppi i$; thus, $|e^z-zpmpi i|ge2R-R$. As $zinoverset{frown}{gamma}_R$ moves to the left, by even just $1$, $e^z$ decreases by more than half, and $zmppi i$ dominates; thus, $|e^z-zpmpi i|ge R-R/2$. Therefore, when $Requivfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$, $|e^z-zpmpi i|ge R/2$, and $|(e^z-z)^2+pi^2|ge R^2/4$. This guarantees that, as $Rtoinfty$, the integral over $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ vanishes.



Thus, the integral along the real axis is $2pi i$ times the sum of the residues in the upper half-plane.



The Residues



Let $z_k^pm=-W_{-k}(1)pmpi i$. We will use the fact that $e^{z_k^pm}-z_k^pm=mppi i$.



The residue of $displaystylefrac1{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}$ at $z_k^pm=-W_{-k}(1)pmpi i$ is
$$
begin{align}
lim_{zto z_k^pm}frac{z-z_k^pm}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}
&=frac1{2(mppi i)(e^{z_k^pm}-1)}\
&=frac1{2pi i}frac1{mp(z_k^pm-1mppi i)}\
&=frac1{2pi i}frac1{pm(W_{-k}(1)+1)}\
end{align}
$$
Thus, the residues at the pairs of singularities cancel each other, leaving us with the residue at $z_0^+$ which is $dfrac1{2pi i}dfrac1{W_0(1)+1}$. Thus, the integral is
$$
int_{-infty}^inftyfrac{mathrm{d}x}{(e^x-x)^2+pi^2}=frac1{W_0(1)+1}
$$






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 2




    Thanks for the fantastic answer!
    – Argon
    Oct 8 '12 at 17:33






  • 4




    @Argon: This is a marvelous question! It's nice to see LambertW appear as the result an integral (or a rational function thereof).
    – robjohn
    Oct 8 '12 at 17:41










  • @ robjohn: Good lesson to learn (+1)
    – user 1357113
    Oct 9 '12 at 9:51


















up vote
9
down vote













While this is by no means rigorous, but it gives the correct solution. Any corrections to this are welcome!



Let



$$f(z) := frac{1}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}$$



Let $C$ be the canonical positively-oriented semicircular contour that traverses the real line from $-R$ to $R$ and all around $Re^{i theta}$ for $0 le theta le pi$ (let this semicircular arc be called $C_R$), so



$$oint_C f(z), dz = int_{-R}^R f(z),dz + int_{C_R}f(z), dz$$



To evaluate the latter integral, we see



$$
left| int_{C_R} frac{1}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}, dz right| =
int_{C_R} left| frac{1}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}right| , dz le
int_{C_R} frac{1}{(|e^z-z|)^2-pi^2} , dz le
int_{C_R} frac{1}{(e^R-R)^2-pi^2} , dz
$$



and letting $R to infty$, the outer integral disappears.



Looking at the denominator of $f$ for singularities:



$$(e^z-z)^2 + pi^2 = 0 implies e^z-z = pm i pi implies z = -W (1)pm ipi$$



using this.



We now use the root with the positive $ipi$ because when the sign is negative, the pole does not fall within the contour because $Im (-W (1)- ipi)<0$.



$$z_0 := -W (1)+ipi$$



We calculate the beautiful residue at $b_0$ at $z=z_0$:



$$
b_0=
operatorname*{Res}_{z to z_0} f(z) =
lim_{zto z_0} frac{(z-z_0)}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2} =
lim_{zto z_0} frac{1}{2(e^z-1)(e^z-z)} =
frac{1}{2(-W(1) -1)(-W(1)+W(1)-ipi)} =
frac{1}{-2pi i(-W(1) -1)} =
frac{1}{2pi i(W(1)+1)}
$$



using L'Hopital's rule to compute the limit.



And finally, with residue theorem



$$
oint_C f(z), dz = int_{-infty}^infty f(z),dz = 2 pi i b_0 = frac{2 pi i}{2pi i(W(1)+1)} =
frac{1}{W(1)+1}
$$





An evaluation of this integral with real methods would also be intriguing.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Just as there are infinitely many solutions to $wexp(w)=1$, there are infinitely many singularities in the upper half plane. Let $z_k=-W_k(1)mp ipi$, where $W_k(1)$ are the solutions to $W_k(1)exp(W_k(1))=1$, then $e^z-z=pm ipi$. All but one of these singularities seem to be ignored in the contour integration.
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 7:17












  • Here are the first seven singularities $$ begin{align} -W_0(1)+ipi&=-0.5671432904097838730 + 3.1415926535897932385 i\ -W_{-1}(1)-ipi&=+1.5339133197935745079 + 1.2335924994721051470 i\ -W_{-1}(1)+ipi&=+1.5339133197935745079 + 7.5167778066516916239 i\ -W_{-2}(1)-ipi&=+2.4015851048680028842 + 7.6347068625252776600 i\ -W_{-2}(1)+ipi&=+2.4015851048680028842 + 13.917892169704864137 i\ -W_{-3}(1)-ipi&=+2.8535817554090378070 + 13.971942885822352674 i\ -W_{-3}(1)+ipi&=+2.8535817554090378070 + 20.255128193001939151 i\ &vdots end{align} $$
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 7:18












  • What do you consider rigorous? Other than not catching all of the singularities, your proof looks like a pretty standard application of contour integration.
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 9:25










  • I have finally updated my answer so that the contour misses the singularities.
    – robjohn
    Oct 8 '12 at 9:23


















up vote
4
down vote













I also considered this integral in another site, but it is only imperfect and non-rigorous one.



It seems that the Formelsammlung Mathematik is rendering a complete solution. It is written in German, but your bona fide translater Google may read this for you.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Your proof on AoPS seems to be along the same lines as mine. Using the tools of contour integration, it appears rigorous enough. (+1)
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 9:01












  • @robjohn, Thanks for your upvote! Though numerically justified, I was not sure if my assumptions on the zeros can be justified...
    – Sangchul Lee
    Oct 5 '12 at 23:06












  • Actually, I did notice a problem with the arbitrary selection of the radius of the semicircular contours. It turns out that we need to avoid $Requivfrac{pi}{2}pmod{2pi}$ to avoid the singularities so that we can assure that the integral along the semicircle vanishes. I have almost updated my answer to handle this.
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 23:50










  • I have finally updated my answer so that the contour misses the singularities.
    – robjohn
    Oct 8 '12 at 9:30










  • @robjohn: I am surprised by the detail of your final solution!
    – Sangchul Lee
    Oct 8 '12 at 11:41


















up vote
2
down vote













The identity is due to Victor Adamchik, see




http://mathworld.wolfram.com/OmegaConstant.html




You may want to contact Dr Adamchik himself via the e-mail at




http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~adamchik/research.html




because this particular paper doesn't seem to be in the list, as far as I can see.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Are you also able to give useful answers as well?
    – Von Neumann
    Nov 12 '16 at 10:44











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f45745%2finteresting-integral-related-to-the-omega-constant-lambert-w-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
29
down vote



+100










We wish to compute
$$
int_{-infty}^inftyfrac{mathrm{d}x}{(e^x-x)^2+pi^2}tag{1}
$$
We will do so by computing the contour integral
$$
int_{gamma_R}frac{mathrm{d}z}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}tag{2}
$$
over a family of contours $gamma_R$ for suitable values of $R$.



The Singularities



The singularities of the integrand in $(2)$ occur when $(e^z-z)^2+pi^2=(e^z-z+pi i)(e^z-z-pi i)$ vanishes; that is, for $z_k^pm=x_k^pm+iy_k^pm$ where
$$
e^{z_k^pm}-z_k^pmpmpi i=0tag{3}
$$
that is
$$
e^{2x_k^pm}={x_k^pm}^2+(y_k^pmmppi)^2tag{4}
$$
and
$$
y_k^pm=mathrm{atan2}(y_k^pmmppi,x_k^pm)tag{5}
$$
In fact, the roots of $(3)$ can be expressed in terms of the multivalued Lambert W function as
$$
z_k^pm=-W_{-k}(1)pmpi itag{6}
$$
The negative indices ensure that $z_0^+$ and $z_k^pm$ for $k>0$ are in the upper half-plane. In Mathematica, these can be computed as -LambertW[-k,1]+Pi I and -LambertW[-k,1]-Pi I.



Note that as $|z_k^pm|toinfty$, $(3)$ precludes $x_k^pm$ from being negative. In fact, as specified in $(6)$, only $x_0^pm<0$. Equation $(4)$ says that
$$
|y_k^pmmppi|=sqrt{e^{2x_k^pm}-{x_k^pm}^2}tag{7}
$$
As $|z_k^pm|toinfty$, $(5)$ and $(7)$ yield
$$
|y_k^pm|tofracpi2pmod{2pi}tag{8}
$$



The Contours



We will use the contours, $gamma_R=overline{gamma}_Rcupoverset{frown}{gamma}_R$, which circle the upper half plane, $overline{gamma}_R$ passing from $-R$ to $R$ on the real axis, then $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ circling back counter-clockwise along $|z|=R$ in the upper half-plane. To get the desired decay of the integral along $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$, we will also require that $Requivfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$; this is so that $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ passes well between the singularities.



Let us also define the curves $rho^pm$ to be where $|e^z|=|zmppi i|$. Note that all the singularities of the integrand in $(2)$ lie on $rho^pm$.



On $rho^pm$, we have $R-pile e^xle R+pi$, therefore,
$$
log(R-pi)le xlelog(R+pi)tag{9}
$$
Furthermore, because $R-|y|=frac{x^2}{R+|y|}<frac{log(R+pi)^2}{R}$, we have
$$
R-frac{log(R+pi)^2}{R}le|y|le Rtag{10}\
$$
Therefore, at $overset{frown}{gamma}_Rcaprho^pm$ as $Rtoinfty$,
$$
text{on }overset{frown}{gamma}_Rtext{, }x^2+y^2=R^2Rightarrowleft|frac{mathrm{d}y}{mathrm{d}x}right|=left|frac xyright|simfrac{log(R)}{R}to0
$$
and
$$
text{on }rho^pmtext{, }e^{2x}=x^2+(ymppi)^2Rightarrowleft|frac{mathrm{d}y}{mathrm{d}x}right|=left|frac{e^{2x}-x}{ymppi}right|sim Rtoinfty
$$
Thus, at $overset{frown}{gamma}_Rcaprho^pm$ as $Rtoinfty$, $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ becomes horizontal and $rho^pm$ becomes vertical. For example, here is the situation when $R=129.5pi$:



$hspace{35mm}$enter image description here



$$
hspace{-1cm}small
begin{array}{}
z_{64}^+=5.99292081954932666 + 403.67969492855003099 i\
z_{65}^-=6.00848352082933166 + 403.67988772309602824 i\
z_{65}^+=6.00848352082933166 + 409.96307303027561472 i\
z_{66}^-=6.02380774554030566 + 409.96326053797959857 i
end{array}
$$
As $Rtoinfty$, on $rho^pm$ in the upper half-plane, $(9)$ and $(10)$ imply that $arg(zmppi i)tofracpi2$; thus, as indicated by $(8)$, $e^z$ and $zmppi i$ cancel only when $mathrm{Im}(z)approxfracpi2!!!!pmod{2pi}$. Likewise, $e^z$ and $zmppi i$ reinforce when $mathrm{Im}(z)approxfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$.



Therefore, when $Requivfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$ and $zinoverset{frown}{gamma}_Rcaprho^pm$, we have that $|e^z-zpmpi i|sim2R$. As $zinoverset{frown}{gamma}_R$ moves to the right, by even just $1$, $e^z$ more than doubles, and dominates $zmppi i$; thus, $|e^z-zpmpi i|ge2R-R$. As $zinoverset{frown}{gamma}_R$ moves to the left, by even just $1$, $e^z$ decreases by more than half, and $zmppi i$ dominates; thus, $|e^z-zpmpi i|ge R-R/2$. Therefore, when $Requivfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$, $|e^z-zpmpi i|ge R/2$, and $|(e^z-z)^2+pi^2|ge R^2/4$. This guarantees that, as $Rtoinfty$, the integral over $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ vanishes.



Thus, the integral along the real axis is $2pi i$ times the sum of the residues in the upper half-plane.



The Residues



Let $z_k^pm=-W_{-k}(1)pmpi i$. We will use the fact that $e^{z_k^pm}-z_k^pm=mppi i$.



The residue of $displaystylefrac1{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}$ at $z_k^pm=-W_{-k}(1)pmpi i$ is
$$
begin{align}
lim_{zto z_k^pm}frac{z-z_k^pm}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}
&=frac1{2(mppi i)(e^{z_k^pm}-1)}\
&=frac1{2pi i}frac1{mp(z_k^pm-1mppi i)}\
&=frac1{2pi i}frac1{pm(W_{-k}(1)+1)}\
end{align}
$$
Thus, the residues at the pairs of singularities cancel each other, leaving us with the residue at $z_0^+$ which is $dfrac1{2pi i}dfrac1{W_0(1)+1}$. Thus, the integral is
$$
int_{-infty}^inftyfrac{mathrm{d}x}{(e^x-x)^2+pi^2}=frac1{W_0(1)+1}
$$






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 2




    Thanks for the fantastic answer!
    – Argon
    Oct 8 '12 at 17:33






  • 4




    @Argon: This is a marvelous question! It's nice to see LambertW appear as the result an integral (or a rational function thereof).
    – robjohn
    Oct 8 '12 at 17:41










  • @ robjohn: Good lesson to learn (+1)
    – user 1357113
    Oct 9 '12 at 9:51















up vote
29
down vote



+100










We wish to compute
$$
int_{-infty}^inftyfrac{mathrm{d}x}{(e^x-x)^2+pi^2}tag{1}
$$
We will do so by computing the contour integral
$$
int_{gamma_R}frac{mathrm{d}z}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}tag{2}
$$
over a family of contours $gamma_R$ for suitable values of $R$.



The Singularities



The singularities of the integrand in $(2)$ occur when $(e^z-z)^2+pi^2=(e^z-z+pi i)(e^z-z-pi i)$ vanishes; that is, for $z_k^pm=x_k^pm+iy_k^pm$ where
$$
e^{z_k^pm}-z_k^pmpmpi i=0tag{3}
$$
that is
$$
e^{2x_k^pm}={x_k^pm}^2+(y_k^pmmppi)^2tag{4}
$$
and
$$
y_k^pm=mathrm{atan2}(y_k^pmmppi,x_k^pm)tag{5}
$$
In fact, the roots of $(3)$ can be expressed in terms of the multivalued Lambert W function as
$$
z_k^pm=-W_{-k}(1)pmpi itag{6}
$$
The negative indices ensure that $z_0^+$ and $z_k^pm$ for $k>0$ are in the upper half-plane. In Mathematica, these can be computed as -LambertW[-k,1]+Pi I and -LambertW[-k,1]-Pi I.



Note that as $|z_k^pm|toinfty$, $(3)$ precludes $x_k^pm$ from being negative. In fact, as specified in $(6)$, only $x_0^pm<0$. Equation $(4)$ says that
$$
|y_k^pmmppi|=sqrt{e^{2x_k^pm}-{x_k^pm}^2}tag{7}
$$
As $|z_k^pm|toinfty$, $(5)$ and $(7)$ yield
$$
|y_k^pm|tofracpi2pmod{2pi}tag{8}
$$



The Contours



We will use the contours, $gamma_R=overline{gamma}_Rcupoverset{frown}{gamma}_R$, which circle the upper half plane, $overline{gamma}_R$ passing from $-R$ to $R$ on the real axis, then $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ circling back counter-clockwise along $|z|=R$ in the upper half-plane. To get the desired decay of the integral along $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$, we will also require that $Requivfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$; this is so that $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ passes well between the singularities.



Let us also define the curves $rho^pm$ to be where $|e^z|=|zmppi i|$. Note that all the singularities of the integrand in $(2)$ lie on $rho^pm$.



On $rho^pm$, we have $R-pile e^xle R+pi$, therefore,
$$
log(R-pi)le xlelog(R+pi)tag{9}
$$
Furthermore, because $R-|y|=frac{x^2}{R+|y|}<frac{log(R+pi)^2}{R}$, we have
$$
R-frac{log(R+pi)^2}{R}le|y|le Rtag{10}\
$$
Therefore, at $overset{frown}{gamma}_Rcaprho^pm$ as $Rtoinfty$,
$$
text{on }overset{frown}{gamma}_Rtext{, }x^2+y^2=R^2Rightarrowleft|frac{mathrm{d}y}{mathrm{d}x}right|=left|frac xyright|simfrac{log(R)}{R}to0
$$
and
$$
text{on }rho^pmtext{, }e^{2x}=x^2+(ymppi)^2Rightarrowleft|frac{mathrm{d}y}{mathrm{d}x}right|=left|frac{e^{2x}-x}{ymppi}right|sim Rtoinfty
$$
Thus, at $overset{frown}{gamma}_Rcaprho^pm$ as $Rtoinfty$, $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ becomes horizontal and $rho^pm$ becomes vertical. For example, here is the situation when $R=129.5pi$:



$hspace{35mm}$enter image description here



$$
hspace{-1cm}small
begin{array}{}
z_{64}^+=5.99292081954932666 + 403.67969492855003099 i\
z_{65}^-=6.00848352082933166 + 403.67988772309602824 i\
z_{65}^+=6.00848352082933166 + 409.96307303027561472 i\
z_{66}^-=6.02380774554030566 + 409.96326053797959857 i
end{array}
$$
As $Rtoinfty$, on $rho^pm$ in the upper half-plane, $(9)$ and $(10)$ imply that $arg(zmppi i)tofracpi2$; thus, as indicated by $(8)$, $e^z$ and $zmppi i$ cancel only when $mathrm{Im}(z)approxfracpi2!!!!pmod{2pi}$. Likewise, $e^z$ and $zmppi i$ reinforce when $mathrm{Im}(z)approxfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$.



Therefore, when $Requivfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$ and $zinoverset{frown}{gamma}_Rcaprho^pm$, we have that $|e^z-zpmpi i|sim2R$. As $zinoverset{frown}{gamma}_R$ moves to the right, by even just $1$, $e^z$ more than doubles, and dominates $zmppi i$; thus, $|e^z-zpmpi i|ge2R-R$. As $zinoverset{frown}{gamma}_R$ moves to the left, by even just $1$, $e^z$ decreases by more than half, and $zmppi i$ dominates; thus, $|e^z-zpmpi i|ge R-R/2$. Therefore, when $Requivfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$, $|e^z-zpmpi i|ge R/2$, and $|(e^z-z)^2+pi^2|ge R^2/4$. This guarantees that, as $Rtoinfty$, the integral over $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ vanishes.



Thus, the integral along the real axis is $2pi i$ times the sum of the residues in the upper half-plane.



The Residues



Let $z_k^pm=-W_{-k}(1)pmpi i$. We will use the fact that $e^{z_k^pm}-z_k^pm=mppi i$.



The residue of $displaystylefrac1{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}$ at $z_k^pm=-W_{-k}(1)pmpi i$ is
$$
begin{align}
lim_{zto z_k^pm}frac{z-z_k^pm}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}
&=frac1{2(mppi i)(e^{z_k^pm}-1)}\
&=frac1{2pi i}frac1{mp(z_k^pm-1mppi i)}\
&=frac1{2pi i}frac1{pm(W_{-k}(1)+1)}\
end{align}
$$
Thus, the residues at the pairs of singularities cancel each other, leaving us with the residue at $z_0^+$ which is $dfrac1{2pi i}dfrac1{W_0(1)+1}$. Thus, the integral is
$$
int_{-infty}^inftyfrac{mathrm{d}x}{(e^x-x)^2+pi^2}=frac1{W_0(1)+1}
$$






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 2




    Thanks for the fantastic answer!
    – Argon
    Oct 8 '12 at 17:33






  • 4




    @Argon: This is a marvelous question! It's nice to see LambertW appear as the result an integral (or a rational function thereof).
    – robjohn
    Oct 8 '12 at 17:41










  • @ robjohn: Good lesson to learn (+1)
    – user 1357113
    Oct 9 '12 at 9:51













up vote
29
down vote



+100







up vote
29
down vote



+100




+100




We wish to compute
$$
int_{-infty}^inftyfrac{mathrm{d}x}{(e^x-x)^2+pi^2}tag{1}
$$
We will do so by computing the contour integral
$$
int_{gamma_R}frac{mathrm{d}z}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}tag{2}
$$
over a family of contours $gamma_R$ for suitable values of $R$.



The Singularities



The singularities of the integrand in $(2)$ occur when $(e^z-z)^2+pi^2=(e^z-z+pi i)(e^z-z-pi i)$ vanishes; that is, for $z_k^pm=x_k^pm+iy_k^pm$ where
$$
e^{z_k^pm}-z_k^pmpmpi i=0tag{3}
$$
that is
$$
e^{2x_k^pm}={x_k^pm}^2+(y_k^pmmppi)^2tag{4}
$$
and
$$
y_k^pm=mathrm{atan2}(y_k^pmmppi,x_k^pm)tag{5}
$$
In fact, the roots of $(3)$ can be expressed in terms of the multivalued Lambert W function as
$$
z_k^pm=-W_{-k}(1)pmpi itag{6}
$$
The negative indices ensure that $z_0^+$ and $z_k^pm$ for $k>0$ are in the upper half-plane. In Mathematica, these can be computed as -LambertW[-k,1]+Pi I and -LambertW[-k,1]-Pi I.



Note that as $|z_k^pm|toinfty$, $(3)$ precludes $x_k^pm$ from being negative. In fact, as specified in $(6)$, only $x_0^pm<0$. Equation $(4)$ says that
$$
|y_k^pmmppi|=sqrt{e^{2x_k^pm}-{x_k^pm}^2}tag{7}
$$
As $|z_k^pm|toinfty$, $(5)$ and $(7)$ yield
$$
|y_k^pm|tofracpi2pmod{2pi}tag{8}
$$



The Contours



We will use the contours, $gamma_R=overline{gamma}_Rcupoverset{frown}{gamma}_R$, which circle the upper half plane, $overline{gamma}_R$ passing from $-R$ to $R$ on the real axis, then $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ circling back counter-clockwise along $|z|=R$ in the upper half-plane. To get the desired decay of the integral along $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$, we will also require that $Requivfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$; this is so that $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ passes well between the singularities.



Let us also define the curves $rho^pm$ to be where $|e^z|=|zmppi i|$. Note that all the singularities of the integrand in $(2)$ lie on $rho^pm$.



On $rho^pm$, we have $R-pile e^xle R+pi$, therefore,
$$
log(R-pi)le xlelog(R+pi)tag{9}
$$
Furthermore, because $R-|y|=frac{x^2}{R+|y|}<frac{log(R+pi)^2}{R}$, we have
$$
R-frac{log(R+pi)^2}{R}le|y|le Rtag{10}\
$$
Therefore, at $overset{frown}{gamma}_Rcaprho^pm$ as $Rtoinfty$,
$$
text{on }overset{frown}{gamma}_Rtext{, }x^2+y^2=R^2Rightarrowleft|frac{mathrm{d}y}{mathrm{d}x}right|=left|frac xyright|simfrac{log(R)}{R}to0
$$
and
$$
text{on }rho^pmtext{, }e^{2x}=x^2+(ymppi)^2Rightarrowleft|frac{mathrm{d}y}{mathrm{d}x}right|=left|frac{e^{2x}-x}{ymppi}right|sim Rtoinfty
$$
Thus, at $overset{frown}{gamma}_Rcaprho^pm$ as $Rtoinfty$, $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ becomes horizontal and $rho^pm$ becomes vertical. For example, here is the situation when $R=129.5pi$:



$hspace{35mm}$enter image description here



$$
hspace{-1cm}small
begin{array}{}
z_{64}^+=5.99292081954932666 + 403.67969492855003099 i\
z_{65}^-=6.00848352082933166 + 403.67988772309602824 i\
z_{65}^+=6.00848352082933166 + 409.96307303027561472 i\
z_{66}^-=6.02380774554030566 + 409.96326053797959857 i
end{array}
$$
As $Rtoinfty$, on $rho^pm$ in the upper half-plane, $(9)$ and $(10)$ imply that $arg(zmppi i)tofracpi2$; thus, as indicated by $(8)$, $e^z$ and $zmppi i$ cancel only when $mathrm{Im}(z)approxfracpi2!!!!pmod{2pi}$. Likewise, $e^z$ and $zmppi i$ reinforce when $mathrm{Im}(z)approxfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$.



Therefore, when $Requivfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$ and $zinoverset{frown}{gamma}_Rcaprho^pm$, we have that $|e^z-zpmpi i|sim2R$. As $zinoverset{frown}{gamma}_R$ moves to the right, by even just $1$, $e^z$ more than doubles, and dominates $zmppi i$; thus, $|e^z-zpmpi i|ge2R-R$. As $zinoverset{frown}{gamma}_R$ moves to the left, by even just $1$, $e^z$ decreases by more than half, and $zmppi i$ dominates; thus, $|e^z-zpmpi i|ge R-R/2$. Therefore, when $Requivfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$, $|e^z-zpmpi i|ge R/2$, and $|(e^z-z)^2+pi^2|ge R^2/4$. This guarantees that, as $Rtoinfty$, the integral over $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ vanishes.



Thus, the integral along the real axis is $2pi i$ times the sum of the residues in the upper half-plane.



The Residues



Let $z_k^pm=-W_{-k}(1)pmpi i$. We will use the fact that $e^{z_k^pm}-z_k^pm=mppi i$.



The residue of $displaystylefrac1{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}$ at $z_k^pm=-W_{-k}(1)pmpi i$ is
$$
begin{align}
lim_{zto z_k^pm}frac{z-z_k^pm}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}
&=frac1{2(mppi i)(e^{z_k^pm}-1)}\
&=frac1{2pi i}frac1{mp(z_k^pm-1mppi i)}\
&=frac1{2pi i}frac1{pm(W_{-k}(1)+1)}\
end{align}
$$
Thus, the residues at the pairs of singularities cancel each other, leaving us with the residue at $z_0^+$ which is $dfrac1{2pi i}dfrac1{W_0(1)+1}$. Thus, the integral is
$$
int_{-infty}^inftyfrac{mathrm{d}x}{(e^x-x)^2+pi^2}=frac1{W_0(1)+1}
$$






share|cite|improve this answer














We wish to compute
$$
int_{-infty}^inftyfrac{mathrm{d}x}{(e^x-x)^2+pi^2}tag{1}
$$
We will do so by computing the contour integral
$$
int_{gamma_R}frac{mathrm{d}z}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}tag{2}
$$
over a family of contours $gamma_R$ for suitable values of $R$.



The Singularities



The singularities of the integrand in $(2)$ occur when $(e^z-z)^2+pi^2=(e^z-z+pi i)(e^z-z-pi i)$ vanishes; that is, for $z_k^pm=x_k^pm+iy_k^pm$ where
$$
e^{z_k^pm}-z_k^pmpmpi i=0tag{3}
$$
that is
$$
e^{2x_k^pm}={x_k^pm}^2+(y_k^pmmppi)^2tag{4}
$$
and
$$
y_k^pm=mathrm{atan2}(y_k^pmmppi,x_k^pm)tag{5}
$$
In fact, the roots of $(3)$ can be expressed in terms of the multivalued Lambert W function as
$$
z_k^pm=-W_{-k}(1)pmpi itag{6}
$$
The negative indices ensure that $z_0^+$ and $z_k^pm$ for $k>0$ are in the upper half-plane. In Mathematica, these can be computed as -LambertW[-k,1]+Pi I and -LambertW[-k,1]-Pi I.



Note that as $|z_k^pm|toinfty$, $(3)$ precludes $x_k^pm$ from being negative. In fact, as specified in $(6)$, only $x_0^pm<0$. Equation $(4)$ says that
$$
|y_k^pmmppi|=sqrt{e^{2x_k^pm}-{x_k^pm}^2}tag{7}
$$
As $|z_k^pm|toinfty$, $(5)$ and $(7)$ yield
$$
|y_k^pm|tofracpi2pmod{2pi}tag{8}
$$



The Contours



We will use the contours, $gamma_R=overline{gamma}_Rcupoverset{frown}{gamma}_R$, which circle the upper half plane, $overline{gamma}_R$ passing from $-R$ to $R$ on the real axis, then $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ circling back counter-clockwise along $|z|=R$ in the upper half-plane. To get the desired decay of the integral along $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$, we will also require that $Requivfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$; this is so that $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ passes well between the singularities.



Let us also define the curves $rho^pm$ to be where $|e^z|=|zmppi i|$. Note that all the singularities of the integrand in $(2)$ lie on $rho^pm$.



On $rho^pm$, we have $R-pile e^xle R+pi$, therefore,
$$
log(R-pi)le xlelog(R+pi)tag{9}
$$
Furthermore, because $R-|y|=frac{x^2}{R+|y|}<frac{log(R+pi)^2}{R}$, we have
$$
R-frac{log(R+pi)^2}{R}le|y|le Rtag{10}\
$$
Therefore, at $overset{frown}{gamma}_Rcaprho^pm$ as $Rtoinfty$,
$$
text{on }overset{frown}{gamma}_Rtext{, }x^2+y^2=R^2Rightarrowleft|frac{mathrm{d}y}{mathrm{d}x}right|=left|frac xyright|simfrac{log(R)}{R}to0
$$
and
$$
text{on }rho^pmtext{, }e^{2x}=x^2+(ymppi)^2Rightarrowleft|frac{mathrm{d}y}{mathrm{d}x}right|=left|frac{e^{2x}-x}{ymppi}right|sim Rtoinfty
$$
Thus, at $overset{frown}{gamma}_Rcaprho^pm$ as $Rtoinfty$, $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ becomes horizontal and $rho^pm$ becomes vertical. For example, here is the situation when $R=129.5pi$:



$hspace{35mm}$enter image description here



$$
hspace{-1cm}small
begin{array}{}
z_{64}^+=5.99292081954932666 + 403.67969492855003099 i\
z_{65}^-=6.00848352082933166 + 403.67988772309602824 i\
z_{65}^+=6.00848352082933166 + 409.96307303027561472 i\
z_{66}^-=6.02380774554030566 + 409.96326053797959857 i
end{array}
$$
As $Rtoinfty$, on $rho^pm$ in the upper half-plane, $(9)$ and $(10)$ imply that $arg(zmppi i)tofracpi2$; thus, as indicated by $(8)$, $e^z$ and $zmppi i$ cancel only when $mathrm{Im}(z)approxfracpi2!!!!pmod{2pi}$. Likewise, $e^z$ and $zmppi i$ reinforce when $mathrm{Im}(z)approxfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$.



Therefore, when $Requivfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$ and $zinoverset{frown}{gamma}_Rcaprho^pm$, we have that $|e^z-zpmpi i|sim2R$. As $zinoverset{frown}{gamma}_R$ moves to the right, by even just $1$, $e^z$ more than doubles, and dominates $zmppi i$; thus, $|e^z-zpmpi i|ge2R-R$. As $zinoverset{frown}{gamma}_R$ moves to the left, by even just $1$, $e^z$ decreases by more than half, and $zmppi i$ dominates; thus, $|e^z-zpmpi i|ge R-R/2$. Therefore, when $Requivfrac{3pi}{2}!!!!pmod{2pi}$, $|e^z-zpmpi i|ge R/2$, and $|(e^z-z)^2+pi^2|ge R^2/4$. This guarantees that, as $Rtoinfty$, the integral over $overset{frown}{gamma}_R$ vanishes.



Thus, the integral along the real axis is $2pi i$ times the sum of the residues in the upper half-plane.



The Residues



Let $z_k^pm=-W_{-k}(1)pmpi i$. We will use the fact that $e^{z_k^pm}-z_k^pm=mppi i$.



The residue of $displaystylefrac1{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}$ at $z_k^pm=-W_{-k}(1)pmpi i$ is
$$
begin{align}
lim_{zto z_k^pm}frac{z-z_k^pm}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}
&=frac1{2(mppi i)(e^{z_k^pm}-1)}\
&=frac1{2pi i}frac1{mp(z_k^pm-1mppi i)}\
&=frac1{2pi i}frac1{pm(W_{-k}(1)+1)}\
end{align}
$$
Thus, the residues at the pairs of singularities cancel each other, leaving us with the residue at $z_0^+$ which is $dfrac1{2pi i}dfrac1{W_0(1)+1}$. Thus, the integral is
$$
int_{-infty}^inftyfrac{mathrm{d}x}{(e^x-x)^2+pi^2}=frac1{W_0(1)+1}
$$







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Oct 8 '12 at 10:52

























answered Oct 5 '12 at 8:28









robjohn

263k27301623




263k27301623








  • 2




    Thanks for the fantastic answer!
    – Argon
    Oct 8 '12 at 17:33






  • 4




    @Argon: This is a marvelous question! It's nice to see LambertW appear as the result an integral (or a rational function thereof).
    – robjohn
    Oct 8 '12 at 17:41










  • @ robjohn: Good lesson to learn (+1)
    – user 1357113
    Oct 9 '12 at 9:51














  • 2




    Thanks for the fantastic answer!
    – Argon
    Oct 8 '12 at 17:33






  • 4




    @Argon: This is a marvelous question! It's nice to see LambertW appear as the result an integral (or a rational function thereof).
    – robjohn
    Oct 8 '12 at 17:41










  • @ robjohn: Good lesson to learn (+1)
    – user 1357113
    Oct 9 '12 at 9:51








2




2




Thanks for the fantastic answer!
– Argon
Oct 8 '12 at 17:33




Thanks for the fantastic answer!
– Argon
Oct 8 '12 at 17:33




4




4




@Argon: This is a marvelous question! It's nice to see LambertW appear as the result an integral (or a rational function thereof).
– robjohn
Oct 8 '12 at 17:41




@Argon: This is a marvelous question! It's nice to see LambertW appear as the result an integral (or a rational function thereof).
– robjohn
Oct 8 '12 at 17:41












@ robjohn: Good lesson to learn (+1)
– user 1357113
Oct 9 '12 at 9:51




@ robjohn: Good lesson to learn (+1)
– user 1357113
Oct 9 '12 at 9:51










up vote
9
down vote













While this is by no means rigorous, but it gives the correct solution. Any corrections to this are welcome!



Let



$$f(z) := frac{1}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}$$



Let $C$ be the canonical positively-oriented semicircular contour that traverses the real line from $-R$ to $R$ and all around $Re^{i theta}$ for $0 le theta le pi$ (let this semicircular arc be called $C_R$), so



$$oint_C f(z), dz = int_{-R}^R f(z),dz + int_{C_R}f(z), dz$$



To evaluate the latter integral, we see



$$
left| int_{C_R} frac{1}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}, dz right| =
int_{C_R} left| frac{1}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}right| , dz le
int_{C_R} frac{1}{(|e^z-z|)^2-pi^2} , dz le
int_{C_R} frac{1}{(e^R-R)^2-pi^2} , dz
$$



and letting $R to infty$, the outer integral disappears.



Looking at the denominator of $f$ for singularities:



$$(e^z-z)^2 + pi^2 = 0 implies e^z-z = pm i pi implies z = -W (1)pm ipi$$



using this.



We now use the root with the positive $ipi$ because when the sign is negative, the pole does not fall within the contour because $Im (-W (1)- ipi)<0$.



$$z_0 := -W (1)+ipi$$



We calculate the beautiful residue at $b_0$ at $z=z_0$:



$$
b_0=
operatorname*{Res}_{z to z_0} f(z) =
lim_{zto z_0} frac{(z-z_0)}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2} =
lim_{zto z_0} frac{1}{2(e^z-1)(e^z-z)} =
frac{1}{2(-W(1) -1)(-W(1)+W(1)-ipi)} =
frac{1}{-2pi i(-W(1) -1)} =
frac{1}{2pi i(W(1)+1)}
$$



using L'Hopital's rule to compute the limit.



And finally, with residue theorem



$$
oint_C f(z), dz = int_{-infty}^infty f(z),dz = 2 pi i b_0 = frac{2 pi i}{2pi i(W(1)+1)} =
frac{1}{W(1)+1}
$$





An evaluation of this integral with real methods would also be intriguing.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Just as there are infinitely many solutions to $wexp(w)=1$, there are infinitely many singularities in the upper half plane. Let $z_k=-W_k(1)mp ipi$, where $W_k(1)$ are the solutions to $W_k(1)exp(W_k(1))=1$, then $e^z-z=pm ipi$. All but one of these singularities seem to be ignored in the contour integration.
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 7:17












  • Here are the first seven singularities $$ begin{align} -W_0(1)+ipi&=-0.5671432904097838730 + 3.1415926535897932385 i\ -W_{-1}(1)-ipi&=+1.5339133197935745079 + 1.2335924994721051470 i\ -W_{-1}(1)+ipi&=+1.5339133197935745079 + 7.5167778066516916239 i\ -W_{-2}(1)-ipi&=+2.4015851048680028842 + 7.6347068625252776600 i\ -W_{-2}(1)+ipi&=+2.4015851048680028842 + 13.917892169704864137 i\ -W_{-3}(1)-ipi&=+2.8535817554090378070 + 13.971942885822352674 i\ -W_{-3}(1)+ipi&=+2.8535817554090378070 + 20.255128193001939151 i\ &vdots end{align} $$
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 7:18












  • What do you consider rigorous? Other than not catching all of the singularities, your proof looks like a pretty standard application of contour integration.
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 9:25










  • I have finally updated my answer so that the contour misses the singularities.
    – robjohn
    Oct 8 '12 at 9:23















up vote
9
down vote













While this is by no means rigorous, but it gives the correct solution. Any corrections to this are welcome!



Let



$$f(z) := frac{1}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}$$



Let $C$ be the canonical positively-oriented semicircular contour that traverses the real line from $-R$ to $R$ and all around $Re^{i theta}$ for $0 le theta le pi$ (let this semicircular arc be called $C_R$), so



$$oint_C f(z), dz = int_{-R}^R f(z),dz + int_{C_R}f(z), dz$$



To evaluate the latter integral, we see



$$
left| int_{C_R} frac{1}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}, dz right| =
int_{C_R} left| frac{1}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}right| , dz le
int_{C_R} frac{1}{(|e^z-z|)^2-pi^2} , dz le
int_{C_R} frac{1}{(e^R-R)^2-pi^2} , dz
$$



and letting $R to infty$, the outer integral disappears.



Looking at the denominator of $f$ for singularities:



$$(e^z-z)^2 + pi^2 = 0 implies e^z-z = pm i pi implies z = -W (1)pm ipi$$



using this.



We now use the root with the positive $ipi$ because when the sign is negative, the pole does not fall within the contour because $Im (-W (1)- ipi)<0$.



$$z_0 := -W (1)+ipi$$



We calculate the beautiful residue at $b_0$ at $z=z_0$:



$$
b_0=
operatorname*{Res}_{z to z_0} f(z) =
lim_{zto z_0} frac{(z-z_0)}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2} =
lim_{zto z_0} frac{1}{2(e^z-1)(e^z-z)} =
frac{1}{2(-W(1) -1)(-W(1)+W(1)-ipi)} =
frac{1}{-2pi i(-W(1) -1)} =
frac{1}{2pi i(W(1)+1)}
$$



using L'Hopital's rule to compute the limit.



And finally, with residue theorem



$$
oint_C f(z), dz = int_{-infty}^infty f(z),dz = 2 pi i b_0 = frac{2 pi i}{2pi i(W(1)+1)} =
frac{1}{W(1)+1}
$$





An evaluation of this integral with real methods would also be intriguing.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Just as there are infinitely many solutions to $wexp(w)=1$, there are infinitely many singularities in the upper half plane. Let $z_k=-W_k(1)mp ipi$, where $W_k(1)$ are the solutions to $W_k(1)exp(W_k(1))=1$, then $e^z-z=pm ipi$. All but one of these singularities seem to be ignored in the contour integration.
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 7:17












  • Here are the first seven singularities $$ begin{align} -W_0(1)+ipi&=-0.5671432904097838730 + 3.1415926535897932385 i\ -W_{-1}(1)-ipi&=+1.5339133197935745079 + 1.2335924994721051470 i\ -W_{-1}(1)+ipi&=+1.5339133197935745079 + 7.5167778066516916239 i\ -W_{-2}(1)-ipi&=+2.4015851048680028842 + 7.6347068625252776600 i\ -W_{-2}(1)+ipi&=+2.4015851048680028842 + 13.917892169704864137 i\ -W_{-3}(1)-ipi&=+2.8535817554090378070 + 13.971942885822352674 i\ -W_{-3}(1)+ipi&=+2.8535817554090378070 + 20.255128193001939151 i\ &vdots end{align} $$
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 7:18












  • What do you consider rigorous? Other than not catching all of the singularities, your proof looks like a pretty standard application of contour integration.
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 9:25










  • I have finally updated my answer so that the contour misses the singularities.
    – robjohn
    Oct 8 '12 at 9:23













up vote
9
down vote










up vote
9
down vote









While this is by no means rigorous, but it gives the correct solution. Any corrections to this are welcome!



Let



$$f(z) := frac{1}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}$$



Let $C$ be the canonical positively-oriented semicircular contour that traverses the real line from $-R$ to $R$ and all around $Re^{i theta}$ for $0 le theta le pi$ (let this semicircular arc be called $C_R$), so



$$oint_C f(z), dz = int_{-R}^R f(z),dz + int_{C_R}f(z), dz$$



To evaluate the latter integral, we see



$$
left| int_{C_R} frac{1}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}, dz right| =
int_{C_R} left| frac{1}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}right| , dz le
int_{C_R} frac{1}{(|e^z-z|)^2-pi^2} , dz le
int_{C_R} frac{1}{(e^R-R)^2-pi^2} , dz
$$



and letting $R to infty$, the outer integral disappears.



Looking at the denominator of $f$ for singularities:



$$(e^z-z)^2 + pi^2 = 0 implies e^z-z = pm i pi implies z = -W (1)pm ipi$$



using this.



We now use the root with the positive $ipi$ because when the sign is negative, the pole does not fall within the contour because $Im (-W (1)- ipi)<0$.



$$z_0 := -W (1)+ipi$$



We calculate the beautiful residue at $b_0$ at $z=z_0$:



$$
b_0=
operatorname*{Res}_{z to z_0} f(z) =
lim_{zto z_0} frac{(z-z_0)}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2} =
lim_{zto z_0} frac{1}{2(e^z-1)(e^z-z)} =
frac{1}{2(-W(1) -1)(-W(1)+W(1)-ipi)} =
frac{1}{-2pi i(-W(1) -1)} =
frac{1}{2pi i(W(1)+1)}
$$



using L'Hopital's rule to compute the limit.



And finally, with residue theorem



$$
oint_C f(z), dz = int_{-infty}^infty f(z),dz = 2 pi i b_0 = frac{2 pi i}{2pi i(W(1)+1)} =
frac{1}{W(1)+1}
$$





An evaluation of this integral with real methods would also be intriguing.






share|cite|improve this answer














While this is by no means rigorous, but it gives the correct solution. Any corrections to this are welcome!



Let



$$f(z) := frac{1}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}$$



Let $C$ be the canonical positively-oriented semicircular contour that traverses the real line from $-R$ to $R$ and all around $Re^{i theta}$ for $0 le theta le pi$ (let this semicircular arc be called $C_R$), so



$$oint_C f(z), dz = int_{-R}^R f(z),dz + int_{C_R}f(z), dz$$



To evaluate the latter integral, we see



$$
left| int_{C_R} frac{1}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}, dz right| =
int_{C_R} left| frac{1}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2}right| , dz le
int_{C_R} frac{1}{(|e^z-z|)^2-pi^2} , dz le
int_{C_R} frac{1}{(e^R-R)^2-pi^2} , dz
$$



and letting $R to infty$, the outer integral disappears.



Looking at the denominator of $f$ for singularities:



$$(e^z-z)^2 + pi^2 = 0 implies e^z-z = pm i pi implies z = -W (1)pm ipi$$



using this.



We now use the root with the positive $ipi$ because when the sign is negative, the pole does not fall within the contour because $Im (-W (1)- ipi)<0$.



$$z_0 := -W (1)+ipi$$



We calculate the beautiful residue at $b_0$ at $z=z_0$:



$$
b_0=
operatorname*{Res}_{z to z_0} f(z) =
lim_{zto z_0} frac{(z-z_0)}{(e^z-z)^2+pi^2} =
lim_{zto z_0} frac{1}{2(e^z-1)(e^z-z)} =
frac{1}{2(-W(1) -1)(-W(1)+W(1)-ipi)} =
frac{1}{-2pi i(-W(1) -1)} =
frac{1}{2pi i(W(1)+1)}
$$



using L'Hopital's rule to compute the limit.



And finally, with residue theorem



$$
oint_C f(z), dz = int_{-infty}^infty f(z),dz = 2 pi i b_0 = frac{2 pi i}{2pi i(W(1)+1)} =
frac{1}{W(1)+1}
$$





An evaluation of this integral with real methods would also be intriguing.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Oct 5 '12 at 1:55

























answered Oct 4 '12 at 23:12









Argon

16.3k672122




16.3k672122








  • 1




    Just as there are infinitely many solutions to $wexp(w)=1$, there are infinitely many singularities in the upper half plane. Let $z_k=-W_k(1)mp ipi$, where $W_k(1)$ are the solutions to $W_k(1)exp(W_k(1))=1$, then $e^z-z=pm ipi$. All but one of these singularities seem to be ignored in the contour integration.
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 7:17












  • Here are the first seven singularities $$ begin{align} -W_0(1)+ipi&=-0.5671432904097838730 + 3.1415926535897932385 i\ -W_{-1}(1)-ipi&=+1.5339133197935745079 + 1.2335924994721051470 i\ -W_{-1}(1)+ipi&=+1.5339133197935745079 + 7.5167778066516916239 i\ -W_{-2}(1)-ipi&=+2.4015851048680028842 + 7.6347068625252776600 i\ -W_{-2}(1)+ipi&=+2.4015851048680028842 + 13.917892169704864137 i\ -W_{-3}(1)-ipi&=+2.8535817554090378070 + 13.971942885822352674 i\ -W_{-3}(1)+ipi&=+2.8535817554090378070 + 20.255128193001939151 i\ &vdots end{align} $$
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 7:18












  • What do you consider rigorous? Other than not catching all of the singularities, your proof looks like a pretty standard application of contour integration.
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 9:25










  • I have finally updated my answer so that the contour misses the singularities.
    – robjohn
    Oct 8 '12 at 9:23














  • 1




    Just as there are infinitely many solutions to $wexp(w)=1$, there are infinitely many singularities in the upper half plane. Let $z_k=-W_k(1)mp ipi$, where $W_k(1)$ are the solutions to $W_k(1)exp(W_k(1))=1$, then $e^z-z=pm ipi$. All but one of these singularities seem to be ignored in the contour integration.
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 7:17












  • Here are the first seven singularities $$ begin{align} -W_0(1)+ipi&=-0.5671432904097838730 + 3.1415926535897932385 i\ -W_{-1}(1)-ipi&=+1.5339133197935745079 + 1.2335924994721051470 i\ -W_{-1}(1)+ipi&=+1.5339133197935745079 + 7.5167778066516916239 i\ -W_{-2}(1)-ipi&=+2.4015851048680028842 + 7.6347068625252776600 i\ -W_{-2}(1)+ipi&=+2.4015851048680028842 + 13.917892169704864137 i\ -W_{-3}(1)-ipi&=+2.8535817554090378070 + 13.971942885822352674 i\ -W_{-3}(1)+ipi&=+2.8535817554090378070 + 20.255128193001939151 i\ &vdots end{align} $$
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 7:18












  • What do you consider rigorous? Other than not catching all of the singularities, your proof looks like a pretty standard application of contour integration.
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 9:25










  • I have finally updated my answer so that the contour misses the singularities.
    – robjohn
    Oct 8 '12 at 9:23








1




1




Just as there are infinitely many solutions to $wexp(w)=1$, there are infinitely many singularities in the upper half plane. Let $z_k=-W_k(1)mp ipi$, where $W_k(1)$ are the solutions to $W_k(1)exp(W_k(1))=1$, then $e^z-z=pm ipi$. All but one of these singularities seem to be ignored in the contour integration.
– robjohn
Oct 5 '12 at 7:17






Just as there are infinitely many solutions to $wexp(w)=1$, there are infinitely many singularities in the upper half plane. Let $z_k=-W_k(1)mp ipi$, where $W_k(1)$ are the solutions to $W_k(1)exp(W_k(1))=1$, then $e^z-z=pm ipi$. All but one of these singularities seem to be ignored in the contour integration.
– robjohn
Oct 5 '12 at 7:17














Here are the first seven singularities $$ begin{align} -W_0(1)+ipi&=-0.5671432904097838730 + 3.1415926535897932385 i\ -W_{-1}(1)-ipi&=+1.5339133197935745079 + 1.2335924994721051470 i\ -W_{-1}(1)+ipi&=+1.5339133197935745079 + 7.5167778066516916239 i\ -W_{-2}(1)-ipi&=+2.4015851048680028842 + 7.6347068625252776600 i\ -W_{-2}(1)+ipi&=+2.4015851048680028842 + 13.917892169704864137 i\ -W_{-3}(1)-ipi&=+2.8535817554090378070 + 13.971942885822352674 i\ -W_{-3}(1)+ipi&=+2.8535817554090378070 + 20.255128193001939151 i\ &vdots end{align} $$
– robjohn
Oct 5 '12 at 7:18






Here are the first seven singularities $$ begin{align} -W_0(1)+ipi&=-0.5671432904097838730 + 3.1415926535897932385 i\ -W_{-1}(1)-ipi&=+1.5339133197935745079 + 1.2335924994721051470 i\ -W_{-1}(1)+ipi&=+1.5339133197935745079 + 7.5167778066516916239 i\ -W_{-2}(1)-ipi&=+2.4015851048680028842 + 7.6347068625252776600 i\ -W_{-2}(1)+ipi&=+2.4015851048680028842 + 13.917892169704864137 i\ -W_{-3}(1)-ipi&=+2.8535817554090378070 + 13.971942885822352674 i\ -W_{-3}(1)+ipi&=+2.8535817554090378070 + 20.255128193001939151 i\ &vdots end{align} $$
– robjohn
Oct 5 '12 at 7:18














What do you consider rigorous? Other than not catching all of the singularities, your proof looks like a pretty standard application of contour integration.
– robjohn
Oct 5 '12 at 9:25




What do you consider rigorous? Other than not catching all of the singularities, your proof looks like a pretty standard application of contour integration.
– robjohn
Oct 5 '12 at 9:25












I have finally updated my answer so that the contour misses the singularities.
– robjohn
Oct 8 '12 at 9:23




I have finally updated my answer so that the contour misses the singularities.
– robjohn
Oct 8 '12 at 9:23










up vote
4
down vote













I also considered this integral in another site, but it is only imperfect and non-rigorous one.



It seems that the Formelsammlung Mathematik is rendering a complete solution. It is written in German, but your bona fide translater Google may read this for you.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Your proof on AoPS seems to be along the same lines as mine. Using the tools of contour integration, it appears rigorous enough. (+1)
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 9:01












  • @robjohn, Thanks for your upvote! Though numerically justified, I was not sure if my assumptions on the zeros can be justified...
    – Sangchul Lee
    Oct 5 '12 at 23:06












  • Actually, I did notice a problem with the arbitrary selection of the radius of the semicircular contours. It turns out that we need to avoid $Requivfrac{pi}{2}pmod{2pi}$ to avoid the singularities so that we can assure that the integral along the semicircle vanishes. I have almost updated my answer to handle this.
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 23:50










  • I have finally updated my answer so that the contour misses the singularities.
    – robjohn
    Oct 8 '12 at 9:30










  • @robjohn: I am surprised by the detail of your final solution!
    – Sangchul Lee
    Oct 8 '12 at 11:41















up vote
4
down vote













I also considered this integral in another site, but it is only imperfect and non-rigorous one.



It seems that the Formelsammlung Mathematik is rendering a complete solution. It is written in German, but your bona fide translater Google may read this for you.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Your proof on AoPS seems to be along the same lines as mine. Using the tools of contour integration, it appears rigorous enough. (+1)
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 9:01












  • @robjohn, Thanks for your upvote! Though numerically justified, I was not sure if my assumptions on the zeros can be justified...
    – Sangchul Lee
    Oct 5 '12 at 23:06












  • Actually, I did notice a problem with the arbitrary selection of the radius of the semicircular contours. It turns out that we need to avoid $Requivfrac{pi}{2}pmod{2pi}$ to avoid the singularities so that we can assure that the integral along the semicircle vanishes. I have almost updated my answer to handle this.
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 23:50










  • I have finally updated my answer so that the contour misses the singularities.
    – robjohn
    Oct 8 '12 at 9:30










  • @robjohn: I am surprised by the detail of your final solution!
    – Sangchul Lee
    Oct 8 '12 at 11:41













up vote
4
down vote










up vote
4
down vote









I also considered this integral in another site, but it is only imperfect and non-rigorous one.



It seems that the Formelsammlung Mathematik is rendering a complete solution. It is written in German, but your bona fide translater Google may read this for you.






share|cite|improve this answer












I also considered this integral in another site, but it is only imperfect and non-rigorous one.



It seems that the Formelsammlung Mathematik is rendering a complete solution. It is written in German, but your bona fide translater Google may read this for you.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Oct 5 '12 at 8:40









Sangchul Lee

90.9k12163263




90.9k12163263












  • Your proof on AoPS seems to be along the same lines as mine. Using the tools of contour integration, it appears rigorous enough. (+1)
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 9:01












  • @robjohn, Thanks for your upvote! Though numerically justified, I was not sure if my assumptions on the zeros can be justified...
    – Sangchul Lee
    Oct 5 '12 at 23:06












  • Actually, I did notice a problem with the arbitrary selection of the radius of the semicircular contours. It turns out that we need to avoid $Requivfrac{pi}{2}pmod{2pi}$ to avoid the singularities so that we can assure that the integral along the semicircle vanishes. I have almost updated my answer to handle this.
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 23:50










  • I have finally updated my answer so that the contour misses the singularities.
    – robjohn
    Oct 8 '12 at 9:30










  • @robjohn: I am surprised by the detail of your final solution!
    – Sangchul Lee
    Oct 8 '12 at 11:41


















  • Your proof on AoPS seems to be along the same lines as mine. Using the tools of contour integration, it appears rigorous enough. (+1)
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 9:01












  • @robjohn, Thanks for your upvote! Though numerically justified, I was not sure if my assumptions on the zeros can be justified...
    – Sangchul Lee
    Oct 5 '12 at 23:06












  • Actually, I did notice a problem with the arbitrary selection of the radius of the semicircular contours. It turns out that we need to avoid $Requivfrac{pi}{2}pmod{2pi}$ to avoid the singularities so that we can assure that the integral along the semicircle vanishes. I have almost updated my answer to handle this.
    – robjohn
    Oct 5 '12 at 23:50










  • I have finally updated my answer so that the contour misses the singularities.
    – robjohn
    Oct 8 '12 at 9:30










  • @robjohn: I am surprised by the detail of your final solution!
    – Sangchul Lee
    Oct 8 '12 at 11:41
















Your proof on AoPS seems to be along the same lines as mine. Using the tools of contour integration, it appears rigorous enough. (+1)
– robjohn
Oct 5 '12 at 9:01






Your proof on AoPS seems to be along the same lines as mine. Using the tools of contour integration, it appears rigorous enough. (+1)
– robjohn
Oct 5 '12 at 9:01














@robjohn, Thanks for your upvote! Though numerically justified, I was not sure if my assumptions on the zeros can be justified...
– Sangchul Lee
Oct 5 '12 at 23:06






@robjohn, Thanks for your upvote! Though numerically justified, I was not sure if my assumptions on the zeros can be justified...
– Sangchul Lee
Oct 5 '12 at 23:06














Actually, I did notice a problem with the arbitrary selection of the radius of the semicircular contours. It turns out that we need to avoid $Requivfrac{pi}{2}pmod{2pi}$ to avoid the singularities so that we can assure that the integral along the semicircle vanishes. I have almost updated my answer to handle this.
– robjohn
Oct 5 '12 at 23:50




Actually, I did notice a problem with the arbitrary selection of the radius of the semicircular contours. It turns out that we need to avoid $Requivfrac{pi}{2}pmod{2pi}$ to avoid the singularities so that we can assure that the integral along the semicircle vanishes. I have almost updated my answer to handle this.
– robjohn
Oct 5 '12 at 23:50












I have finally updated my answer so that the contour misses the singularities.
– robjohn
Oct 8 '12 at 9:30




I have finally updated my answer so that the contour misses the singularities.
– robjohn
Oct 8 '12 at 9:30












@robjohn: I am surprised by the detail of your final solution!
– Sangchul Lee
Oct 8 '12 at 11:41




@robjohn: I am surprised by the detail of your final solution!
– Sangchul Lee
Oct 8 '12 at 11:41










up vote
2
down vote













The identity is due to Victor Adamchik, see




http://mathworld.wolfram.com/OmegaConstant.html




You may want to contact Dr Adamchik himself via the e-mail at




http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~adamchik/research.html




because this particular paper doesn't seem to be in the list, as far as I can see.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Are you also able to give useful answers as well?
    – Von Neumann
    Nov 12 '16 at 10:44















up vote
2
down vote













The identity is due to Victor Adamchik, see




http://mathworld.wolfram.com/OmegaConstant.html




You may want to contact Dr Adamchik himself via the e-mail at




http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~adamchik/research.html




because this particular paper doesn't seem to be in the list, as far as I can see.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Are you also able to give useful answers as well?
    – Von Neumann
    Nov 12 '16 at 10:44













up vote
2
down vote










up vote
2
down vote









The identity is due to Victor Adamchik, see




http://mathworld.wolfram.com/OmegaConstant.html




You may want to contact Dr Adamchik himself via the e-mail at




http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~adamchik/research.html




because this particular paper doesn't seem to be in the list, as far as I can see.






share|cite|improve this answer












The identity is due to Victor Adamchik, see




http://mathworld.wolfram.com/OmegaConstant.html




You may want to contact Dr Adamchik himself via the e-mail at




http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~adamchik/research.html




because this particular paper doesn't seem to be in the list, as far as I can see.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jun 16 '11 at 19:20









Luboš Motl

7,00611625




7,00611625












  • Are you also able to give useful answers as well?
    – Von Neumann
    Nov 12 '16 at 10:44


















  • Are you also able to give useful answers as well?
    – Von Neumann
    Nov 12 '16 at 10:44
















Are you also able to give useful answers as well?
– Von Neumann
Nov 12 '16 at 10:44




Are you also able to give useful answers as well?
– Von Neumann
Nov 12 '16 at 10:44


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f45745%2finteresting-integral-related-to-the-omega-constant-lambert-w-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Quarter-circle Tiles

build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

Mont Emei