Inequality involving Zeta Function

In summary: You can write as you told. In fact you have $$\frac{\left(1+3^{r}\right)}{1+3^{2r}}^{2}=\frac{\left(3^{r}\left(1+\frac{1}{3^{r}}\right)\right)^{2}}{3^{2r}\left(1+\frac{1}{3^{2r}}\right)}=\frac{\left(1+\frac{1}{3^{r}}\right)^{2}}{1+\frac{1}{3^{2r}}}$$ but I haven't understood how your proof can show my inequality.In summary, we are trying to prove the inequality $\frac{\zeta(r
  • #1
Bibubo
14
0
Prove that for $r>2$ we have $$\frac{\zeta\left(r\right)}{\zeta\left(2r\right)}<\left(1+\frac{1}{2^{r}}\right)\frac{\left(1+3^{r}\right)^{2}}{1+3^{2r}}.$$ I've tried to write Zeta as Euler product but I haven't solve it.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Bibubo said:
Prove that for $r>2$ we have $$\frac{\zeta\left(r\right)}{\zeta\left(2r\right)}<\left(1+\frac{1}{2^{r}}\right)\frac{\left(1+3^{r}\right)^{2}}{1+3^{2r}}.$$ I've tried to write Zeta as Euler product but I haven't solve it.

There is an explicit expression of the function in term of Dirichlet series...

$\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (r)}{\zeta (2\ r)} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{\mu^{2} (n)} {n^{r}}\ (1)$

... where $\mu(n)$ is the Moebious function. May be that the (1) is the right way but it requires some work...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
  • #3
Ideally, a proof would probably involve the Euler product instead of the Dirichlet series

$$\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)} = \prod_p \left ( 1 + \frac1{p^s} \right )$$
 
  • #4
mathbalarka said:
Ideally, a proof would probably involve the Euler product instead of the Dirichlet series

$$\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)} = \prod_p \left ( 1 + \frac1{p^s} \right )$$

I've tried the Euler product way, but I haven't found a solution.
 
  • #5
I've been working on this problem, but no solution. Where did it come from? I observed that, since $\zeta(2)= \frac{\pi^2}{6}$ and $\zeta(4)=\frac{\pi^4}{90}$, we have

$$\frac{\zeta(2)}{\zeta(4)}=\frac{15}{\pi^2}\approx 1.51981$$

and

$(1+\frac{1}{4})\frac{(1+9)^2}{1+81}\approx 1.52439$

so the inequality also holds for $r=2$.
 
  • #6
Writing the function as Euler product...

$\displaystyle \varphi(r)= \frac{\zeta(r)}{\zeta(2\ r)} = \prod_{p} (1 + \frac{1}{p^{r}}) = (1 + \frac{1}{2^{r}})\ (1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})\ ... (1)$

... and taking the logarithm we obtain...

$\displaystyle \ln \frac{\varphi(r)}{1 + \frac{1}{2^{r}}} = \ln (1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}}) + ...\ (2)$

But is...

$\displaystyle \ln (1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}}) = \frac{1}{3^{r}} - \frac{1}{2\ 3^{2\ r}} + \frac{1}{3\ 3^{3\ r}} + ...\ (3)$

... and ...

$\displaystyle \ln \frac{(1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})^{2}}{1 + \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}}} = \frac{2}{3^{r}} - \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}} + \frac{2}{3\ 3^{3\ r}} - ... - \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}} + \frac{1}{2\ 3^{4\ r}} - ... = \frac{2}{3^{r}} - \frac{2}{3^{2\ r}} + \frac{2}{3\ 3^{3\ r}} + ...\ (4)$

... so that comparing (3) and (4) we obtain that...

$\displaystyle \ln \frac{\varphi(r)}{1 + \frac{1}{2^{r}}} < \ln \frac{(1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})^{2}}{1 + \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}}}\ (5)$

... what we intend to demonstrate...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Last edited:
  • #7
chisigma said:
Writing the function as Euler product...

$\displaystyle \varphi(r)= \frac{\zeta(r)}{\zeta(2\ r)} = \prod_{p} (1 + \frac{1}{p^{r}}) = (1 + \frac{1}{2^{r}})\ (1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})\ ... (1)$

... and taking the logarithm we obtain...

$\displaystyle \ln \frac{\varphi(r)}{1 + \frac{1}{2^{r}}} = \ln (1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}}) + ...\ (2)$

But is...

$\displaystyle \ln (1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}}) = \frac{1}{3^{r}} - \frac{1}{2\ 3^{2\ r}} + \frac{1}{3\ 3^{3\ r}} + ...\ (3)$

... and ...

$\displaystyle \ln \frac{(1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})^{2}}{1 + \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}}} = \frac{2}{3^{r}} - \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}} + \frac{2}{3\ 3^{3\ r}} - ... - \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}} + \frac{1}{2\ 3^{4\ r}} - ... = \frac{2}{3^{r}} - \frac{2}{3^{2\ r}} + \frac{2}{3\ 3^{3\ r}} + ...\ (4)$

... so that comparing (3) and (4) we obtain that...

$\displaystyle \ln \frac{\varphi(r)}{1 + \frac{1}{2^{r}}} < \ln \frac{(1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})^{2}}{1 + \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}}}\ (5)$

... what we intend to demonstrate...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

Sorry but I don't see the point. You have something like $$\log\left(\frac{\left(1+3^{r}\right)^{2}}{1+3^{2r}}\right)=2\left(\underset{n\, odd}{\sum}\frac{1}{n}\,\frac{1}{3^{rn}}-2\underset{n\, even,\,4\nmid n}{\sum}\frac{1}{n}\,\frac{1}{3^{2rn}}\right)$$ because if $4\mid n$ we have a cancellation. Why is this bigger than $$\underset{p\geq3}{\sum}\log\left(1+\frac{1}{p^{r}}\right)?$$
 
  • #8
Bibubo said:
Sorry but I don't see the point. You have something like $$\log\left(\frac{\left(1+3^{r}\right)^{2}}{1+3^{2r}}\right)=2\left(\underset{n\, odd}{\sum}\frac{1}{n}\,\frac{1}{3^{rn}}-2\underset{n\, even,\,4\nmid n}{\sum}\frac{1}{n}\,\frac{1}{3^{2rn}}\right)$$ because if $4\mid n$ we have a cancellation. Why is this bigger than $$\underset{p\geq3}{\sum}\log\left(1+\frac{1}{p^{r}}\right)?$$

I apologize for having understood the identity $\displaystyle \frac{(1 + 3^{r})^{2}}{1 + 3^{2\ r}}= \frac{(1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})^{2}}{1 + \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}}}$, that permits to me to use the Taylor expansion $\displaystyle \ln (1 + \varepsilon) = \varepsilon - \frac{\varepsilon^{2}}{2} + \frac{\varepsilon^{3}}{3} - ...$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
  • #9
chisigma said:
I apologize for having understood the identity $\displaystyle \frac{(1 + 3^{r})^{2}}{1 + 3^{2\ r}}= \frac{(1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})^{2}}{1 + \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}}}$, that permits to me to use the Taylor expansion $\displaystyle \ln (1 + \varepsilon) = \varepsilon - \frac{\varepsilon^{2}}{2} + \frac{\varepsilon^{3}}{3} - ...$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

You can write as you told. In fact you have $$\frac{\left(1+3^{r}\right)}{1+3^{2r}}^{2}=\frac{\left(3^{r}\left(1+\frac{1}{3^{r}}\right)\right)^{2}}{3^{2r}\left(1+\frac{1}{3^{2r}}\right)}=\frac{\left(1+\frac{1}{3^{r}}\right)^{2}}{1+\frac{1}{3^{2r}}}$$ but I haven't understood how your proof can show my inequality.
 

What is the Zeta Function and how is it related to inequality?

The Zeta Function, denoted as ζ(s), is a mathematical function that is used to study the distribution of prime numbers. It is related to inequality as it can be used to prove the Riemann Hypothesis, which states that all non-trivial zeros of the Zeta Function lie on the critical line with a real part of 1/2.

What is the Riemann Hypothesis and why is it important?

The Riemann Hypothesis is one of the most famous unsolved problems in mathematics. It states that all non-trivial zeros of the Zeta Function lie on the critical line with a real part of 1/2. It is important because it has many implications in number theory, and its proof would have a significant impact on the field of mathematics.

How does the Zeta Function relate to prime numbers?

The Zeta Function has a close connection to prime numbers through the Euler product formula. This formula expresses the Zeta Function as an infinite product involving all prime numbers, giving insight into the distribution of primes.

What are some common techniques used to study inequalities involving the Zeta Function?

Some common techniques used to study inequalities involving the Zeta Function include analytic methods, probabilistic methods, and algebraic methods. These techniques involve manipulating the properties of the Zeta Function to prove various inequalities.

What are some applications of inequalities involving the Zeta Function?

Inequalities involving the Zeta Function have various applications in number theory, analysis, and geometry. They have been used to study the distribution of prime numbers, estimate the size of certain sets, and investigate the behavior of certain functions.

Similar threads

  • General Math
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
745
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
226
Replies
1
Views
168
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top