Fun ways to find the bounds of π2 using Riemann Zeta Functions!
We all know that n=1∑∞n(n+1)1=n=1∑∞(n1−n+11)=1 by partial fractions followed by telescoping sum. But if we raise the expression n(n+1)1 to the power of any positive number greater than 1, something interesting happens!
By partial fractions, (n(n+1)1)3=(n31−(n+1)31)−(n21+(n+1)21)−6(n1−n+11).
With the knowledge of the Basel function: n=1∑∞n21=6π2.
Because n=1∑∞(n(n+1)1)3 is the sum of all positive terms, then it must be strictly positive, then 10−π2>0, equivalently π2<10. Thus we just found an upper bound of π2. Wonderful isn't it?
You could keep increasing the value of m for the expression (n(n+1)1)m for positive number m to increase the accuracy of the bound!
Try it yourself!
Question 1: Prove the partial fraction (n(n+1)1)2≡(n21+(n+1)21)−2(n1−n+11). And determine the value of n=1∑∞(n(n+1)1)2. Thus show that π>3.
Question 2: Given that n=1∑∞n41=90π4 and find the partial fraction of (n(n+1)1)5, prove that π2<23(1729−35). Consider the example given and the answer you've found, can you determine a systematic way to increase the upper bound of π2?
Question 3: Suppose we restrict m (as mentioned above) to an odd number, why does the accuracy of the upper bound increases when the number m increases?
Question 4: Consider n=1∑∞(n(n+1)(n+2)1)2, prove that π>239. Similarly, consider n=1∑∞(n(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)1)2, prove that 9.85<π2<10.
Question 5 Using the answers you got from Question 2, find the partial fractions for (n(n+1)1)4, and thus prove the inequality 15(42−5)<π2<23(1729−35).
Question 6 (warning: tedious): Like in Question 4, consider n=1∑∞(n(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)(n+4)1)2, prove that π2>1121105.
Question 7: From Question 4 and 6, can you spot a pattern to find a lower bound of π2? Prove that using this technique you've found, you can always find a rational number A such that π2>A.
Question 8 (warning: very tedious): If we are further given that ζ(6)=n=1∑∞n61=945π6, and find the partial fraction of (n(n+1)1)7 and by Cardano's method, prove that π2<−42+3(37486+62791465−37486+62791465189).
Question 9 (warning: extremely tedious): From Question 8, if we are again further given that ζ(8)=9450π8, using the approaches we had before, prove that the equation below has a positive real root B such that B−π2 is a significantly small positive number.
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science
related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should
explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments
should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.
Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.
Markdown
Appears as
*italics* or _italics_
italics
**bold** or __bold__
bold
- bulleted - list
bulleted
list
1. numbered 2. list
numbered
list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.
print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.
print "hello world"
Math
Appears as
Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3
2×3
2^{34}
234
a_{i-1}
ai−1
\frac{2}{3}
32
\sqrt{2}
2
\sum_{i=1}^3
∑i=13
\sin \theta
sinθ
\boxed{123}
123
Comments
If we continue to use this trick, will it eventually converge to pi ( or pi^2,pi^4 etc), or will it always be really close, but not pi itself?I doubt it, because every time we have an algebraic number as an approximation and pi is transcendental.
I love it :) .........Sir finding an estimate for pi requires the zeta at even integers ..... can we reverse this method to instead approximate for zeta at odd integers?
Just asking, is the polynomial in question 8 wrong? I'm not sure about it but I graphed it out and there was no root near π2. It may be possible that Desmos screwed up because the numbers are too big.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
If we continue to use this trick, will it eventually converge to pi ( or pi^2,pi^4 etc), or will it always be really close, but not pi itself?I doubt it, because every time we have an algebraic number as an approximation and pi is transcendental.
Woah! I'll check this out soon :)
I love it :) .........Sir finding an estimate for pi requires the zeta at even integers ..... can we reverse this method to instead approximate for zeta at odd integers?
Cool! Please keep on sharing such awesome things like this with us .
Just asking, is the polynomial in question 8 wrong? I'm not sure about it but I graphed it out and there was no root near π2. It may be possible that Desmos screwed up because the numbers are too big.
Log in to reply
LINK?
Log in to reply
It's correct now... I think I made a mistake typing it last night.