Talk:Inverse gamma function

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information. This article was accepted from this draft on 21 July 2023 by reviewer Raydann (talk · contribs). Mathematics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

Missing Explanation

Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

In the Approximation section, what does \Psi mean in \Psi\left(1,\ \alpha\right)? Other notations, such as the Lambert W function are explained, just not this one. Sudleyplace (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am fairly confident that it is the digamma function. But I don't know this particular equation, so I can't be sure. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

But the digamma function takes one variable, this one takes two. Possibly Multiple gamma function ? Sudleyplace (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I agree that the digamma function takes only one parameter. There can be two parameters when describing a gamma distribution, so I suppose it is possible that this article's Ψ is somehow a derivative of that probability density function with respect to one of its parameters. But in short, I just don't know. ☹ —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not really. It’s actually the trigamma function, or ${\displaystyle \psi ^{(1)}(x)}$ . If you don’t believe me, you can evaluate the approximation with ${\displaystyle \Psi (1,x)=\psi ^{(1)}(x)}$  in some graphing calculator like Desmos to see for yourself. In fact, I already decided to make the graph: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/dxagxahiek Keep in mind that ${\displaystyle T(x)=\psi ^{(1)}(x)}$  in the graph and that later values won’t be accurate due to it coming from a Taylor series. 107.9.36.50 (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you are convinced, please go ahead and edit boldly. Thank you —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply