Zwiebach Problem 12.4: Struggling to Understand

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem from Zwiebach concerning the relationship between the gamma function and the zeta function, specifically addressing the manipulation of variables within summations and integrals.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants express confusion regarding the notation and the placement of constants within the gamma and zeta functions. There are attempts to clarify the manipulation of variables, particularly the replacement of t with nt and its implications. Some participants question the validity of certain expansions and seek justifications for inequalities and equalities presented in the problem.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants exploring various interpretations of the problem. Some have offered clarifications regarding notation and manipulation, while others are questioning specific steps and seeking further understanding of the mathematical principles involved.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of potential confusion due to the notation used in the problem, particularly concerning the use of the variable n outside of summations. Participants are also navigating the implications of expanding functions and the conditions under which such expansions are valid.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


The first part of this problem makes no sense to me because n is a constant in gamma and when you multiply gamma by zeta the n is somehow supposed to get inside the zeta function...


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
ehrenfest said:
The first part of this problem makes no sense to me because n is a constant in gamma and when you multiply gamma by zeta the n is somehow supposed to get inside the zeta function...

It's pretty straight forward. What does equation (1) look like after the replacement t -> nt?
 
I understand what he wants:

[tex]\Gamma (s) \zeta (s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\Gamma (s) n^{-s}[/tex]

and it is easy from there.

But that equation is like saying that

[tex](a x^2 + bx +n) (\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n^2) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} (a x^2 + bx +n) n^2[/tex]

My point is that there is very poor notation in this problem.

Zwiebach uses an n outside the summation which simply does not make sense.
 
My bad. I should have written:

Replace t with nt in

[tex]\Gamma(s) = \int_0^{\infty}dte^{-t}t^{s-1}[/tex]

after you put the gamma inside the sum.
 
Last edited:
I see. I was stupidly replacing t with nt before I put the gamma inside the sum. I take back what I said about the poor notation.
 
How do you justify the last inequality?
 

Attachments

  • zwiebach_sol_125.jpg
    zwiebach_sol_125.jpg
    5.6 KB · Views: 579
Sorry. I mean equality.
 
For the last equality, they are expanding 1/(1+f(t))=1-f(t)+f(t)^2-f(t)^3+... and keeping only the first few terms.
 
Cool. I knew that 1/(1+t) = 1 -t + t^2 -t^3 +t^4. I didn't know it was true when you replaced t with an arbitrary function of t.

Is there a quick way to prove that?
 
  • #10
ehrenfest said:
Cool. I knew that 1/(1+t) = 1 -t + t^2 -t^3 +t^4. I didn't know it was true when you replaced t with an arbitrary function of t.

Is there a quick way to prove that?
This is not a statement about the function f, it is a statement about the number f(t).
 
Last edited:
  • #11
You can expand 1/(1+whatever) that way as long as |whatever|<1.
 
  • #12
I see. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K