I Basel problem, primes and π²/6

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Borek
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Primes
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the Basel problem and the formula involving prime numbers, both yielding the result π²/6. The connection is established through the Riemann zeta function, which shows that despite their different appearances, the two formulas represent the same mathematical concept. Participants explore the idea of independence among various formulas for calculating π, concluding that none are truly independent since they can be derived from one another. The conversation highlights the importance of rearranging formulas to demonstrate their equivalence. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the interconnectedness of mathematical expressions related to π.
Borek
Mentor
Messages
29,132
Reaction score
4,556
Bear with me, I know nothing.

Eons ego @micromass told me about this beautiful formula:

\frac {\pi^2} 6 = \prod\limits_{P}\left( 1-\frac 1 {p^2}\right) ^{-1}

where p are primes. Just a few minutes ago I have learned about the Basel problem and its solution:

\sum \limits_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac 1 {n^2} = \frac {\pi^2} 6

What struck me was that it is the same π²/6 in both cases.

Somehow I feel like it can be actually the same formula - just the one based on prime numbers takes into account fact that repetitions of prime factors cancel out when we try to sum the fractions finding the common denominator. Am I right, or am I completely off, as usual?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Here comes a follow up question:

At first sight both formulas listed in my first post look differently, but it turns out it is actually the same thing. There are many formulas allowing calculation of π - or some value related to π. Do we know anything about how many of them are independent?
 
Borek said:
Here comes a follow up question:

At first sight both formulas listed in my first post look differently, but it turns out it is actually the same thing. There are many formulas allowing calculation of π - or some value related to π. Do we know anything about how many of them are independent?

What do you mean with independent? In a strict sense, none of the formulas are independent in the sense that we can accept one formula as the definition of ##\pi## and derive all other formulas from it.
 
  • Like
Likes mfb
Good point, perhaps my thinking is flawed somehow.

In the above case we don't need to know that both formulas produce the same result to prove they are equivalent. It is enough to rearrange them, so they are both describing exactly the same calculation. In this sense I don't consider them to be independent.
 
Actually we started with stating "it is the same formula" (it can be obtained just by rearranging). So what if by "independent" I mean "not the same"?
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top