Help with capital sigma notation please.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation and manipulation of the Riemann Zeta function, particularly in the context of expressing it using exponential and factorial terms. Participants explore the implications of rewriting the function and the validity of certain mathematical transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines the Riemann Zeta function as ζ(s) = ∑(n=1 to ∞) (1/n^s) and expresses it using the exponential function, suggesting a transformation involving factorials.
  • Another participant challenges the validity of inverting terms in the exponential series and provides an alternative expression for 1/exp(s ln n) using a Taylor series expansion.
  • A third participant emphasizes the condition Re(s) > 1 for the Zeta function to be meaningful, adding a cautionary note to the discussion.
  • There is a proposal to define a new term a_k to represent a sum involving factorials, leading to a further inquiry about the structure of sums within sums.
  • A later reply questions whether it is necessary to sum over both n and r in the context of the exponential series, suggesting a double summation approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of certain mathematical manipulations, particularly regarding the transformation of the exponential function and the structure of sums. No consensus is reached on these points.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the convergence of the series and the conditions under which the Zeta function is defined. The discussion includes unresolved mathematical steps and dependencies on definitions.

rustynail
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
I was playing a bit with the Riemann Zeta function, and have been struggling with some notation problems.

The function is defined as follows

\zeta (s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^s}

where s \in \mathbb{C}

we know that

n^s = exp(s\;ln\;n)

so I can write

\zeta (s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{exp(s\;ln\;n)}

but since

\frac{1}{exp(s\;ln\;n)} = 1 + \frac{1!}{(s\;ln\;n)} + \frac{2!}{(s\;ln\;n)^2} + ... = <br /> 1 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{n!}{(s\;ln\;n)^n}

how can I write this ''sum within a sum''? ζ(s) here, if I am correct, would be an infinite sum of terms which are infinite sums.

Thank you for taking the time to help!edit :

Could I say

1 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{n!}{(s\;ln\;n)^n} = a_k

then

\zeta (s) = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_k

Does that make any sense?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
rustynail said:
but since

\frac{1}{exp(s\;ln\;n)} = 1 + \frac{1!}{(s\;ln\;n)} + \frac{2!}{(s\;ln\;n)^2} + ... = <br /> 1 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{n!}{(s\;ln\;n)^n}
No.

What you can say is that
\exp (s \ln n) = \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(s\ln n)^r}{r!}
What you did, simply inverting each term on the right hand side to get 1/\exp(s\ln n), is invalid.

This is what you need to use for 1/\exp(s\ln n):
\frac 1{\exp(s\ln n)} = \exp (-s \ln n) =<br /> \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-s\ln n)^r}{r!} =<br /> \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^r(s\ln n)^r}{r!}
 
rustynail said:
I was playing a bit with the Riemann Zeta function, and have been struggling with some notation problems.

The function is defined as follows

\zeta (s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^s}

where s \in \mathbb{C}


This only makes sense for \,Re(s)&gt;1\,...careful!

DonAntonio


we know that

n^s = exp(s\;ln\;n)

so I can write

\zeta (s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{exp(s\;ln\;n)}

but since

\frac{1}{exp(s\;ln\;n)} = 1 + \frac{1!}{(s\;ln\;n)} + \frac{2!}{(s\;ln\;n)^2} + ... = <br /> 1 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{n!}{(s\;ln\;n)^n}

how can I write this ''sum within a sum''? ζ(s) here, if I am correct, would be an infinite sum of terms which are infinite sums.

Thank you for taking the time to help!


edit :

Could I say

1 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{n!}{(s\;ln\;n)^n} = a_k

then

\zeta (s) = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_k

Does that make any sense?
 
Thank you DH for the help, and DonAntonio for your rigor, I need to work on that.

But in this part,

\sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^r(s\ln n)^r}{r!}

Don't we need to to take the sum of all terms with both n and r, from 1 to ∞? Could I write it as

\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \; \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^r(s\ln n)^r}{r!} ??
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K