## LARGE FINITE PRODUCTS OF SMALL FRACTIONS

## ARNALDO MANDEL

A bstract . Fix positive reals a b c d , , , , and let h x ( ) be a real function behaving sort of like sin x near 0. Then, provided m grows linearly with n . there exists a positive constant C such that

$$\prod _ { j = 0 } ^ { m } \frac { h \left ( ( c j + a ) \frac { d } { n } \right ) } { h \left ( ( c j + b ) \frac { d } { n } \right ) } \sim C n ^ { \frac { a - b } { c } }.$$

Let n ≥ 4 be an integer, denote θ = π 2 n , and consider the finite product

$$D _ { n } = \frac { \sin 5 \theta } { \sin 3 \theta } \cdot \frac { \sin 9 \theta } { \sin 7 \theta } \cdot \frac { \sin 1 3 \theta } { \sin 1 1 \theta } \cdots$$

where the terms go on while the arguments of sin stay below π 2 . The proof of an important result in Mandel and Robins [3] hinges on showing that Dn grows unboundedly with n . It is shown there that Dn = Ω ( n 1 2 -ε ), which is enough; here we remove the annoying -ε from the exponent and determine the precise order of growth.

Here is an outrageous idea, just do some obvious cancellations:

∏ j sin(4 j + 5) θ sin(4 j + 3) θ = ∏ j sin(4 j + 5) θ ✚ ✚ sin(4 j + 3) θ = ∏ j (4 j + 5) θ (4 j + 3) ✄ θ = ∏ j 4 j + 5 4 j + 3 , and proceed from there. Some people will have an issue with that, of course; however, this dumb idea turns out to be useful! Indeed, we will tackle a strong generalization of the product above, presenting good asymptotics, and the product obtained by illegal cancellation will be a major tool.

$$\prod _ { \substack { \hat { s a n } ( 4 j + 5 ) \theta \\ \frac { \hat { s a n } ( 4 j + 5 ) \phi \\ \beta } } } ^ { \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \Dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots\dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \Delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta\delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \dots \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \Delta \Delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta$$

The sin function is not very special in this context. The following encapsulates what about it is relevant here. We use primes to denote derivatives.

Proposition 1. For a real function h, analytic around 0 , the following are equivalent:

- (1) h (0) = h ′′ (0) = 0 , h ′ (0) &gt; 0 , and h ′′ ( x ) ≤ 0 for positive x close to 0 .
- (2) h x ( ) is the identity function or there exist reals α, λ &gt; 0 and integer k ≥ 3 such that h x ( ) = α ( x -λ x k ) + O x k ( + 1 ) .

Proof.

$$P r o o f. \text{ Exercise}.$$

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 41A60; Secondary: 33B15. This work was partially supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientí-

fico e Tecnológico - CNPq (Proc. 423833 2018-9). /

For convenience, call a function as above an S-function (a generalized sine, so to speak).

Let a b c d , , , be positive reals; they are supposed to be constant, throughout. We consider an additional positive real parameter ε , subject to the following compatibility condition : ε ≤ cd , and, if ε = cd , then cd &gt; 1; this weird condition will only surface in lemma 7. Finally, given n ∈ N , let m = m n ( ) ∈ N be maximum such that both ( cm + a ) d n , ( cm + b ) d n ≤ ε , that is m = /floorleft n ε cd -max( a b , ) c /floorright . Given a real function h , we define two products:

$$\cdot$$

$$\overline { \underset { c } { \varphi } } \, \text{I. even a real function $n$, we use me to $p$} \\ D _ { n } ( a, b, c, d, \varepsilon ; h ) & = \prod _ { j = 0 } ^ { m } \frac { h \left ( ( c j + a ) \frac { d } { n } \right ) } { h \left ( ( c j + b ) \frac { d } { n } \right ) }, \\ K _ { n } ( a, b, c, \varepsilon ) & = \prod _ { j = 0 } ^ { m } \frac { c j + a } { c j + b } \cdot \\ \text{if one chooses $h(x) = x$. then $K_{m}(a.b.c.\varepsilon) = D_{m}(a$}$$

Note that if one chooses h x ( ) = x , then Kn ( a b c , , , ε ) = Dn ( a b c d , , , , ε ; h ), just a special case - or, as mentioned before, by silly cancellation of h 's on the expression of Dn . Note that there is no loss of generality in taking d = 1, but we keep the extra parameter to cater for the looks of the motivating example.

Theorem 2. Suppose that h is an S-function, and let H ( x ) = h x ( ) x . Assume that a compatible ε is such that in [0 , ε ] we have that H x ( ) &gt; 0 and H ′′ ( x ) ≤ 0 . Then, there exists a constant C = C a b c ( , , , ε ; h ) such that

$$D _ { n } ( a, b, c, \varepsilon ; h ) & \sim C n ^ { \frac { a - b } { c } }. \\, & \quad \,.$$

Notice that, given h , one can always choose ε as required, since H x ( ) = 1 -λ x k -1 + O x k ( ).

The result will be obtained by comparing Dn and Kn . The asymptotics for Kn is well known (it essentially appears in [1, 11 th formula line]).

The motivating example in [3] is Dn (5 , 3 4 , , π/ 2 , π/ 2; sin); some routine algebraic manipulation show that ε = π 2 conforms to the requirements of the Theorem, and we obtain Dn ∼ C √ n for some constant C .

$$& \text{Proposition} \, 3. \ K _ { n } ( a, b, c, \varepsilon ) \sim \frac { \Gamma ( b / c ) } { \Gamma ( a / c ) } \left ( \frac { \varepsilon } { c } \right ) ^ { \frac { a - b } { c } } n ^ { \frac { a - b } { c } }. \\ & \text{Proo} \, \text{We can rewrite}$$

Proof. We can rewrite

$$\lambda K _ { n } ( a, b, c, \varepsilon ) = \prod _ { j = 0 } ^ { m } \frac { j + a / c } { j + b / c } = \frac { \Gamma ( b / c ) } { \Gamma ( a / c ) } \frac { \Gamma ( m + 1 + a / c ) } { \Gamma ( m + 1 + b / c ) } \cdot$$

The last quotient is asymptotic to m c a -b (this follows easily from Stirling's formula; it falls into 'well known', see [4], [2, eq. 5.11.12]). The result follows by noticing that m ∼ ε n c . /square

Without loss of generality, we will assume d = 1 from now on, and remove it altogether from the notation. Define

$$E _ { n } ( a, b, c, \varepsilon ; h ) & = \frac { D _ { n } ( a, b, c, \varepsilon ; h ) } { K _ { n } ( a, b, c, \varepsilon ) } = \prod _ { j = 0 } ^ { m } \frac { H \left ( \frac { c j + a } { n } \right ) } { H \left ( \frac { c j + b } { n } \right ) } \cdot \\ \prod _ { j = 0 } ^ { \ } \text{Our goal will be met by showing that lim} _ { n \to \infty } E _ { n } \text{ exists and is positiv}.$$

Our goal will be met by showing that lim n →∞ En exists and is positive. This result is as interesting as theorem 2 itself, so we state it in full, granting H first class status, in parallel with proposition 1.

Proposition 4. For a nonconstant real function H, analytic around 0 , the following are equivalent:

- (1) H (0) &gt; 0 ,H ′ (0) = 0 , and H ′′ ( x ) ≤ 0 for positive x close to 0 .

Motivated as before, we call such a function a C-function . Clearly, h x ( ) is an S-function if and only if h x ( ) / x is a C-function. Therefore, En ( a b c , , , ε ; h ) = Dn a b c ( , , , ε ; H ) if H x ( ) = h x ( ) / x .

- (2) There exist reals α, λ &gt; 0 and integer k ≥ 2 such that H x ( ) = α (1 -λ x k ) + O x k ( + 1 ) .

Theorem 5. Suppose that H is a C-function. Assume that a compatible ε is such that in [0 , ε ] we have that H x ( ) &gt; 0 and H ′′ ( x ) ≤ 0 . Then lim n →∞ Dn ( a b c , , , ε ; H exists and is positive. )

Noting that Dn a b c d ( , , , , ε ; h ) = Dn ( b a c d , , , , ε ; h ) -1 , we will assume, in what follows, that b &lt; a , as this will entail both theorems in full. The hypotheses of either Theorem are assumed in the following lemmas, and h x ( ) = xH x ( ).

Lemma 6. For all su ffi ciently large n, Dn ( a b c , , , ε ; H ) is bounded away from 0 - that is, D n ( a b c , , , ε ; h ) = Ω ( n c a -b ) .

Proof. We will prove below that there exists a positive constant A (independent of n ) such that for all relevant j , and su ffi ciently large n ,

$$& \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \\ & \frac { H \left ( \frac { c j + a } { n } \right ) } { H \left ( \frac { c j + b } { n } \right ) } \geq 1 - \frac { A } { m } \cdot \\ & \text{Having proved that, it follows that}$$

Having proved that, it follows that

$$D _ { n } ( a, b, c, \varepsilon ; H ) & \geq \left ( 1 - \frac { A } { m } \right ) ^ { m + 1 }, \\ \intertext { a \colon a \infty \infty \infty \infty \infty \infty } \frac { - A } { \lambda } \ e d i n c { i \infty \infty \infty \infty }$$

and the right hand side converges to e -A , proving the Lemma.

It remains to prove (2). For that matter, consider parameters δ, α &gt; 0, and define

$$g _ { \delta } ( x, y ) = \frac { 1 } { x } \left ( 1 - \frac { H ( ( y + \delta ) x ) } { H ( y x ) } \right ),$$

for x &gt; 0 , y ≥ α, yx ≤ ε , and with g δ (0 , y ) = 0. One easily verifies that g δ is continuous: from the expression, this is only an issue for x = 0, and that is quickly handled using the Taylor approximation for H (this is also where the requirement that k ≥ 2 in the definition of C-function shows its hand). It follows that g δ attains a maximum A ( δ ), hence, for all x y , in the domain,

$$\frac { H ( ( y + \delta ) x ) } { H ( y x ) } \geq 1 - A ( \delta ) x.$$

To obtain (2) we take x = 1 , n α = b , y = c j + b , δ = a -b . We are almost done, except that the right hand side reads 1 -A ( δ ) n . Since m = /floorleft ε n c -a /floorright ≥ ε n c - -a 1, m n ≥ ε c -a + 1 n ≥ ε 2 c for su ffi ciently large n . Choosing now A = A ( δ ) ε 2 c yields (2).

/square

Lemma 7. For all relevant j and su ffi ciently large n,

$$\begin{array} { c } \lambda & \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \} \\ \frac { H \left ( \frac { c j + a } { n } \right ) } { n } \right ) & \lambda \, \geq \, \frac { H \left ( \frac { c ( j + 1 ) + a } { n + 1 } \right ) } { H \left ( \frac { c ( j + 1 ) + b } { n + 1 } \right ) } \cdot \\ \text{equivalent to proving that} \end{array}$$

Proof. This is clearly equivalent to proving that

$$\lambda & \lambda \quad \frac { H \left ( \frac { c j + a } { n } \right ) } { H \left ( \frac { c ( j + 1 ) + a } { n + 1 } \right ) } > \frac { H \left ( \frac { c j + b } { n } \right ) } { H \left ( \frac { c ( j + 1 ) + b } { n + 1 } \right ) } \cdot \\ \text{Let } \delta ( t ) & = \frac { c ( j + 1 ) + t } { n + 1 } - \frac { c j + t } { n } = \frac { ( n - j ) c - t } { n ( n + 1 ) } \text{ and } f ( x ) = \frac { H ( x ) } { H ( v + \delta ( a ) ) } ; \text{ n}$$

Let δ ( ) t = c ( j + 1) + t n + 1 -cj + t n = ( n -j ) c -t n n ( + 1) and f ( x ) = H x ( ) H x ( + δ ( a )) ; notice that n n ( + 1) δ ( a ) ≥ ( n -m c ) -a ≥ n c ( -ε ) + a c ( -1) &gt; 0 for all su ffi ciently large n, by compatibility. Let us show that f is increasing; it is enough to show that its logarithmic derivative, that is

$$\frac { d } { d x } \log f ( x ) = \frac { H ^ { \prime } ( x ) } { H ( x ) } - \frac { H ^ { \prime } ( x + \delta ( a ) ) } { H ( x + \delta ( a ) ) },$$

is positive. Since δ ( a ) &gt; 0, this will follow if we show that H ′ ( x ) H x ( ) is decreasing; that follows, as its derivative is HH ′′ -H ′ 2 H 2 , which, by the choice of ε , is negative. So, we have proved that f is increasing. Taking X = cj + a n , Y = cj + b n , we have that X &gt; Y , hence f ( X ) &gt; f ( Y ), that is,

$$\frac { H ( X ) } { H ( X + \delta ( a ) ) } > \frac { H ( Y ) } { H ( Y + \delta ( a ) ) } > \frac { H ( Y ) } { H ( Y + \delta ( b ) ) },$$

where the last inequality follows since δ ( b ) &gt; δ ( a ) and H is decreasing. Expanding X and Y , we obtain (3). /square

Proof of theorem 2. It follows from lemma 7 that for su ffi ciently large n En + 1 ( a b c , , , ε ; h ) is a product of terms smaller than the corresponding terms

of En , and a few more terms, all of them &lt; 1. So, the products En form a decreasing sequence, which by lemma 6 is bounded above 0. Therefore, it has a positive limit C 0 , so Dn ( a b c , , , ε ; h ) ∼ C Kn 0 ( a b c , , , ε ) ∼ Cn c a -b . /square

It would be nice to describe C = C a b c ( , , , ε ; h ) in terms of the parameters. Maybe a precise estimate of A in lemma 6 would cinch it. We present an upper bound for C , assuming a &gt; b :

$$& \text{Proposition $8$. $C(a,b,c,\varepsilon;h) \leq \frac{\Gamma(b/c)}{\Gamma(a/c)}\left(\frac{\varepsilon\right)^{a-b}c}$} \,. \\ & \text{Proof.} \, \text{ Since $H(x)$ is decreasing, $E_{n}$ is a product of te}$$

Proof. Since H x ( ) is decreasing, En is a product of terms &lt; 1, hence En &lt; 1. The result follows from proposition 3. /square

There are several common functions in each of the two classes: sin, arctan, tanh, sinh ( -1) , erf are S-functions, while cos, cot ( -1) , sech, e -x 2 , (1 + x 2 ) -1 are C-functions, and one can produce plenty of rational functions on each class. Besides, the C-functions form a semiring with pointwise sum and product, and the S-functions are a semimodule over that semiring; also the derivative of an S-funtion is a C-function. All together, one can write very impressive products, provided one can come with a nicely expressed ε (for instance, if h x ( ) = sin x , one can take ε = π 2 ). It may happen that for some suitable choice of parameters, coincidence happens, a slick proof is forthcoming and even an exact result can be provided. That could become an interesting exercise or competition question. For instance:

$$& \text{$an moving access or compression quorum, $u$ in memory.} \\ & \text{EXERCISE: Prove that, for $k\geq 2$, $lim_{n\to\infty} D_{n} \left ( a, b, c, d, \left ( \frac { k - 1 } { k } \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { k } }, e ^ { - x ^ { k } } \right ) = e ^ { - \frac { k - 1 } { k } \frac { a - b } { c } }. \\ & \text{Notice that $e^{-x^{k}}$ is a C-function and the choice of $\varepsilon$ was driven by the condi-}$$

Notice that e -x k is a C-function and the choice of ε was driven by the conditions of theorem 5. Never mind about compatibility, which in this specific case is not necessary.

We close with two open problems:

P roblem 1: Find an insightful expression for C as in theorem 2 or the limit in theorem 5 in terms of the parameters.

P roblem 2: Estimate the rate of convergence to the limit in theorem 5. A little computational experimentation suggests that it is slow, the di ff erence between Dn and the limit behaving as O (1 / log n ).

## R eferences

- [1] A. Dieckmann. Collection of Infinite Product and Series . 2018. url : http://www-elsa.physik.uni-bonn.de/~dieckman/InfProd/InfProd.html (visited on 01 03 2019). / /
- [2] NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions . http: // dlmf.nist.gov , / Release 1.0.21 of 2018-12-15. url : http://dlmf.nist.gov/5.11.12 .

6

## REFERENCES

- [3] Arnaldo Mandel and Sinai Robins. 'Dragging the roots of a polynomial to the unit circle'. In: arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1908.03208 (Aug. 2019), arXiv:1908.03208. arXiv: 1908.03208 [math.CV] .
- [4] J. G. Wendel. 'Note on the gamma function'. In: Amer. Math. Monthly 55 (1948), pp. 563-564. doi : 10.2307/2304460 .

C omputer S cience D epartment , I nstituto de M atematica e ´ E statistica ´ , U niversidade de S˜ ao P aulo , São Paulo, SP, Brazil 05508-970 , O rcid : 0000-0003-0661-4495 E-mail address : am@ime.usp.br
Arnaldo Mandel
Large finite products of small fractions
Fix positive reals $a,b,c,d$, and let $h(x)$ be a real function behaving sort
of like $\sin x$ near 0. Then, provided $m$ grows linearly with $n$. there
exists a positive constant $C$ such that$$
  \prod_{j=0}^m\frac{h\left((cj+a)\frac{d}{n}\right)}{h\left((cj+b)\frac{d}{n}\right)}\sim
C n^{\frac{a-b}c}.
  $$