MHB Evaluating Summation Problem: Floor Function Solution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saitama
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Summation
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around evaluating the double summation involving the floor function and the Riemann zeta function. The main approach involves rewriting the summation to express it in terms of the zeta function, specifically showing that the sum can be simplified to 2013 plus a small correction term. It is established that the sum of the zeta function values from k=2 to 2014 is less than 2014, leading to the conclusion that the floor of the total sum is 2013. The participants express appreciation for the clarity of the solution and the absence of complex functions in the proof. The final consensus is that the evaluated expression yields a floor value of 2013.
Saitama
Messages
4,244
Reaction score
93
Problem:
Evaluate:
$$\left[\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sum_{k=2}^{2014} \frac{1}{n^k}\right]$$
where $[x]$ denotes the floor function.Attempt:
I can see that the above can be written as:
$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^2}+\frac{1}{n^3}+\frac{1}{n^4}+\cdots + \frac{1}{n^{2014}}$$
$$=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^2}\left(\frac{1-1/n^{2013}}{1-1/n}\right)$$
$$=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^{2014}}\left(\frac{n^{2013}-1}{n-1}\right)$$

How do I proceed after this? :confused:

I am not sure if this belongs to the Algebra section.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Pranav said:
Problem:
Evaluate:
$$\left[\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sum_{k=2}^{2014} \frac{1}{n^k}\right]$$
where $[x]$ denotes the floor function.Attempt:
I can see that the above can be written as:
$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^2}+\frac{1}{n^3}+\frac{1}{n^4}+\cdots + \frac{1}{n^{2014}}$$
$$=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^2}\left(\frac{1-1/n^{2013}}{1-1/n}\right)$$
$$=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^{2014}}\left(\frac{n^{2013}-1}{n-1}\right)$$

How do I proceed after this? :confused:

I am not sure if this belongs to the Algebra section.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks!

In...

http://mathhelpboards.com/challenge-questions-puzzles-28/not-too-challenge-question-562.html

... it has been demonstrated that...

$\displaystyle \sum_{k=2}^{\infty} \{ \zeta(k) -1\} = 1\ (1)$

... so that we can write...

$\displaystyle S = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sum_{k=2}^{2014} \frac{1}{n^k} = \sum_{k=2}^{2014} \zeta(k) = 2013 + \sum_{k=2}^{2014} \{ \zeta(k) -1\} < 2014\ (2) $

... so that is $\displaystyle \left[ S \right] = 2013$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
chisigma said:
In...

http://mathhelpboards.com/challenge-questions-puzzles-28/not-too-challenge-question-562.html

... it has been demonstrated that...

$\displaystyle \sum_{k=2}^{\infty} \{ \zeta(k) -1\} = 1\ (1)$

... so that we can write...

$\displaystyle S = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sum_{k=2}^{2014} \frac{1}{n^k} = \sum_{k=2}^{2014} \zeta(k) = 2013 + \sum_{k=2}^{2014} \{ \zeta(k) -1\} < 2014\ (2) $

... so that is $\displaystyle \left[ S \right] = 2013$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

Nice!

And it's not a $B, \Gamma, W, $ or $A$ function! ;)

If we expand the proof for $\sum\limits_{k=2}^{\infty} \{ \zeta(k) -1\} = 1$, there is not even a zeta function.
 
We need only prove that

$$\sum_{k=2} \zeta(k)-1 = 1$$

which can be done by interchanging the two sums.

It is clear that $\zeta(k)>1$ for all $k\geq 2$

so it must be the case that $ \sum_{n=2}^k \{\zeta(n) \} $ is less than $1$ .
 
chisigma said:
In...

http://mathhelpboards.com/challenge-questions-puzzles-28/not-too-challenge-question-562.html

... it has been demonstrated that...

$\displaystyle \sum_{k=2}^{\infty} \{ \zeta(k) -1\} = 1\ (1)$

... so that we can write...

$\displaystyle S = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sum_{k=2}^{2014} \frac{1}{n^k} = \sum_{k=2}^{2014} \zeta(k) = 2013 + \sum_{k=2}^{2014} \{ \zeta(k) -1\} < 2014\ (2) $

... so that is $\displaystyle \left[ S \right] = 2013$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

Thank you chisigma! :)
 
There are probably loads of proofs of this online, but I do not want to cheat. Here is my attempt: Convexity says that $$f(\lambda a + (1-\lambda)b) \leq \lambda f(a) + (1-\lambda) f(b)$$ $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (f(a) - f(b))$$ We know from the intermediate value theorem that there exists a ##c \in (b,a)## such that $$\frac{f(a) - f(b)}{a-b} = f'(c).$$ Hence $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (a - b) f'(c))$$ $$\frac{f(b + \lambda(a-b)) - f(b)}{\lambda(a-b)}...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K