The Bohr-Mollerup theorem states that the Gamma function is the unique function that satisfies:


1) f(x+1) = x\*f(x)


2) f(1) = 1


3) ln(f(x)) is convex


The Gamma function is meant to interpolate the factorial function, so I can see the importance of the first two properties. But why is log convexity important? How does it affect the Gamma function's applicability in other areas of mathematics?



Importance of Log Convexity of the Gamma Function
First, let me mention that log convexity of a function is implied by an analytic property, which appears to be more natural than log convexity itself. Namely, if $\mu$ is a Borel measure on $[0,\infty)$ such that the $r$th moment 
$$f(r)=\int\_{0}^{\infty}z^r d\mu(z)$$
is finite for all $r$ in the interval $I\subset \mathbb R$, then $\log f$ is convex on $I$.


Log convexity can be effectively used in derivation of various inequalities involving the gamma function (particularly, two-sided estimates of products of gamma functions). It is linked with the notion of [Schur convexity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorization) which is itself used in many applications.


**An appetizer.** Let $m=\max x\_i$, $s=\sum x\_i$, $x\_i > 0$, $i = 1,\dots,n$, then
$$[\Gamma(s/n)]^n\leq\prod\limits\_{1}^{n}\Gamma (x\_i)\leq \left[\Gamma\left(\frac{s-m}{n-1}\right)\right]^{n-1}\Gamma(m).\qquad\qquad\qquad (1)$$


(1) is trivial, of course, when all $x\_i$ and $s/n$ are integers, but in general the bounds do not hold without assuming log convexity.


**Edit added: a sketch of the proof**. Let $f$ be a continuous positive function defined on an interval $I\subset \mathbb R$. One may show that the function $\phi(x)=\prod\limits\_{i=1}^{n}f(x\_i)$, $x\in I^n$ is Schur-convex on $I^n$ if and only if $\log f$ is convex on $I$. Thus the function 
$$\phi(x)=\prod\limits\_{i=1}^n \Gamma(x\_i),\quad x\_i>0,\qquad \quad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad (2)$$ 
is Schur-convex on $I^n=(0,\infty)^n$. Since $x\_i\le m$, $i=1,\dots,n$, and $\sum x\_i=s$, it is easy to check that 
$$x \prec \left(\frac{s-m}{n-1},\dots,\frac{s-m}{n-1},m\right).$$
The latter [majorization](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorization) and the fact that $\phi(x)$ defined by (2) is Schur-convex imply the upper bound (1). The lower bound follows from the standard majorization $x\succ (s/n,\dots,s/n)$.




---


Have a look at [the recent short article](http://www.springerlink.com/content/k4285g1811744605/) by Marshall and Olkin concerning this and related inequalities for the gamma function.


