Sum to Product / Product to Sum

  • Thread starter Thread starter amcavoy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Product Sum
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conversion between series and products, specifically exploring the relationship expressed in the equation involving the Riemann Zeta function. It highlights that if the coefficients of a Dirichlet series are a multiplicative function, it can be represented as an Euler product, assuming absolute convergence. Exponentiation can transform sums into products, while logarithms can convert products back into sums, emphasizing the importance of convergence in these transformations. The original product mentioned is identified as likely representing the Euler product form of the Riemann Zeta function, although direct matching through exponentiation may not align perfectly. Understanding these conversions is essential for deeper insights into analytic number theory and related functions.
amcavoy
Messages
663
Reaction score
0
Is there any reliable way to convert a series to a product, or the opposite? I was looking at the following and wanted to know more:

\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{s}}=\prod_{p}\left(1-p^{-s}\right)^{-1}
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
apmcavoy said:
Is there any reliable way to convert a series to a product, or the opposite? I was looking at the following and wanted to know more:

\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{s}}=\prod_{p}\left(1-p^{-s}\right)^{-1}

If the coefficients of your Dirichlet series is a multiplicative function f, that is

\sum_{n=1}^\infty f(n)n^{-s}

then you can write this as an Euler product

\prod_{p}(1+f(p)p^{-s}+f(p^2)p^{-2s}+\ldots)

where the product is over the primes (this is assuming you have absolute convergence of both product and sum). You can think of this as the fundamental theorem of arithmetic in an analytic form. There are plenty of interesting examples of this, powers of Zeta, Dirichlet L-functions, and anything that gets the name "L-function" is usually assumed to satisfy some form of this (as well as many other properties).

For more general sums and products you can still use exponentiation and logarithms to convert from one to another, again being careful with convergence issues if any.
 
apmcavoy said:
Is there any reliable way to convert a series to a product, or the opposite? I was looking at the following and wanted to know more:

\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{s}}=\prod_{p}\left(1-p^{-s}\right)^{-1}
Exponentials turn sums into products, while logarithms turn products into sums. So:
exp(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{s}})=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}exp(\frac{1}{n^{s}})
You must now find p such that
\left(1-p^{-s}\right)^{-1} = exp(\frac{1}{n^{s}})
 
SGT said:
Exponentials turn sums into products, while logarithms turn products into sums. So:
exp(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{s}})=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}exp(\frac{1}{n^{s}})
You must now find p such that
\left(1-p^{-s}\right)^{-1} = exp(\frac{1}{n^{s}})

Although it wasn't mentioned, the product in the orignal post is almost surely a product over all the primes (it's the Euler product form of the Riemann Zeta function. The terms won't match up via exponentiation like this.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top