If n = 1 ∑ ∞ n 0 . 5 ( − 1 ) n = k × ζ ( 0 . 5 ) , find lo g 2 ( k + 1 ) .
Notation : ζ ( ⋅ ) denote the Riemann zeta function .
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Well, Comrade, "can we do that"? The problem is that your first three lines do not apply to s = 2 1 since ∑ n = 1 ∞ n 1 / 2 1 diverges.
Log in to reply
Oh, I should have figured out that it wouldn't be so easy.
Who's Comrade?
Log in to reply
I am a comrade of Professor Bretscher, and he is mine.
Does it have to do with analytic continuation? (Something I have no idea in)
Log in to reply
Yes, exactly, ζ ( s ) is defined by analytic continuation when ℜ ( s ) ≤ 1 . Maybe this problem is a bit too theoretical; I just felt like bringing up the issue.
I have a nice anecdote on the subject: Back in the 80s, I tried to rent a flat in Cambridge, MA, from an Indian landlord, a physicist. He did not ask for any references or credentials, but, having learned of my subject of study, he just asked: "Tell me, Otto, what is an analytic continuation?" I answered as best I could, and he replied: "Well, I can tell that you are not an analyst (indeed, I'm an algebraist by training), but the answer is good enough so that I can give you the apartment." I ended up happily staying there for many years.
I'm a bit busy tonight but I noticed an interesting question you asked about ∑ n 2 2 Ω ( n ) ... I believe that one can be expressed in terms of the Feller Tornier Constant
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – I was hoping to be able to find a closed form for the prime product though.
Log in to reply
@Julian Poon – The fact that they introduced a constant for it seems to indicate that there is no other closed form... I'm posting my solution now.
I have rewritten the solution. Is it okay?
Log in to reply
I don't get it, Comrade: Everything you do on the first five lines holds for ℜ ( s ) > 1 only, so, what is the work in the last two lines based on?
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – It appears that if we define ζ ( s ) = 1 − s 1 n = 1 ∑ ∞ ( ( n + 1 ) s n − n s n − s ) , the convergent is extended to ℜ [ s ] > 0 , but I think not for ℜ [ s ] = 1 . See under Representations . Checked with Wolfram Alpha the infinite sum converges by comparison test for s = 0 . 5 , but it did not give the value of ζ ( 0 . 5 ) .
Log in to reply
@Chew-Seong Cheong – Yes, this is a promising approach, Comrade!
I will be traveling until the end of the month, in Switzerland and Spain, and I will be on Brilliant only rarely and briefly. I'll be back.
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – Comrade, have a safe journey and enjoy yourself.
Log in to reply
@Chew-Seong Cheong – Thanks Comrade. I'm looking forward to seeing the tiles of the Alhambra... it will be a feast for the eyes of a mathematician! Viva la Revolución!
Sir can you post your solution?
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher sir I guess you didn't read the notification. Can you post your solution? I'm eager to know what's the correct method.
I will try to get to it this coming weekend. The solution will be a bit longer than my usual 1, 2, or 3 line solutions...
There's a typo in the last line. It should've been k+1 instead of k-1. Nice solution!
Log in to reply
Aditya, but the solution doesn't work. The sum n = 1 ∑ ∞ n s 1 diverges for s ≤ 1 .
Log in to reply
Yes sir it diverges. But see it is not used alone. Here we are allowed to use the terms of diverging sums. Eg. take the case of improper integrals. The terms mostly diverge if they are taken individually. But when they are combined they converge. Similarly, we can do the same here. I feel your solution is right.
Sir don't you think simple algebraic manipulation of rearranging terms.
Log in to reply
That is what he actually did. What you did is essentially the same. However, your working isn't justified because the sum diverges.
I don't know Cher-Seong Cheong sir did so here is my solution
First Note that
ζ ( x ) = ∑ n = 1 ∞ n x 1
I would manipulate these terms by rearranging them ). We have
( 1 − 1 + 2 1 − 3 1 + . . . ) = ( 2 1 + 4 1 + 6 1 + . . . ) − ( 1 1 + 3 1 + 5 1 + . . . ) = ( 1 1 + 2 1 + 3 1 + . . . ) − 2 ( 1 1 + 3 1 + 5 1 + . . . ) = ζ ( 0 . 5 ) − 2 ( 1 1 + 2 1 + 3 1 + . . . ) + 2 ( 2 1 + 4 1 + 6 1 + . . . ) = ζ ( 0 . 5 ) − 2 ζ ( 0 . 5 ) + 2 2 ( 1 1 + 2 1 + 3 1 + . . . ) = ( 2 − 1 ) ζ ( 0 . 5 )
Hence k = ( 2 ) − 1
This implies lo g 2 ( 2 − 1 + 1 ) = lo g 2 2 = 0 . 5
Again, I'm sorry to report that this is not a solution. Along the way you are dealing with ∞ − ∞ and then you are using the flawed equation ζ ( 0 . 5 ) = ∑ k = 1 ∞ n 1 .
When you write ∞ − ∞ , you can "prove" anything you want.
Log in to reply
Sir actually I know the sum diverges but what I think in solution is that ζ ( 0 . 5 ) is just a notation. and i just manipulated it. Sir about the Hardy's book, the starting chapters are something I know did you read all of the chapters?
Log in to reply
Re Hardy's book: The calculus starts in Chapter 4. Skip whatever you know already!
I do not agree that ζ ( 0 . 5 ) is "just a notation". It is a real number, but it is not given by ∑ k = 1 ∞ k 1
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – Can you please explain me about ζ ( 0 . 5 ) why don't you join slack we can talk further there.
Log in to reply
@Department 8 – I will be traveling until the end of the month, in Switzerland and Spain, and I will be on Brilliant only rarely and briefly. I'll be back.
ζ ( 0 . 5 ) is defined by analytic continuation
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – Sir can you suggest me a good book where I can practice pre-calculus summations, like trigonometric summations, complex roots summations, etc? I am not so good at them.
Log in to reply
@Aditya Kumar – Sorry, I can't think of anything in English on these specific topics... can anybody help?
@Otto Bretscher – @Lakshya Sinha , in simple terms, what Comrade Otto means to say that ζ ( s ) = j = 1 ∑ ∞ j s 1 is only true for s > 1 .
My solution will look similar to that of Comrade @Chew-Seong Cheong , but we need to think carefully about the domains of all the functions involved.
Consider the Dirichlet Eta Function η ( s ) = ∑ n = 1 ∞ n s ( − 1 ) n − 1 , defined when ℜ ( s ) > 0 . As Comrade Cheong observes, we have the equation η ( s ) = ( 1 − 2 1 − s ) ζ ( s ) when ℜ ( s ) > 1 . Thus ζ ( s ) = ( 1 − 2 1 − s ) − 1 η ( s ) is the analytic continuation of ζ ( s ) when ℜ ( s ) > 0 and 2 1 − s = 1 . It follows that k = 2 1 − s − 1 = 2 0 . 5 − 1 , and the answer is lo g 2 ( k + 1 ) = 0 . 5 .
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
We note that:
n = 1 ∑ ∞ n s ( − 1 ) n + n = 1 ∑ ∞ n s 1 ⇒ n = 1 ∑ ∞ n s ( − 1 ) n = 2 ( 2 s 1 + 4 s 1 + 6 s 1 + . . . ) = 2 n = 1 ∑ ∞ ( 2 n ) s 1 = 2 1 − s n = 1 ∑ ∞ n s 1 = 2 1 − s n = 1 ∑ ∞ n s 1 − n = 1 ∑ ∞ n s 1 = ( 2 1 − s − 1 ) n = 1 ∑ ∞ n s 1
We can rewrite n = 1 ∑ ∞ n s 1 = 1 − s 1 n = 1 ∑ ∞ ( ( n + 1 ) s n − n s n − s ) which converges for ℜ ( s ) > 0 and it is found that ζ ( 2 1 ) ≈ − 1 . 4 6 0 3 5 4 5 .
⇒ n = 1 ∑ ∞ n s ( − 1 ) n = ( 2 1 − s − 1 ) ζ ( 2 1 )
⇒ lo g 2 ( k + 1 ) = lo g 2 2 = 0 . 5