How can I evaluate a tricky Euler-Maclaurin sum involving hyperbolic functions?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter FranzDiCoccio
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sum
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on evaluating the Euler-Maclaurin sum involving hyperbolic functions, specifically the function F(b, ℓ) = sinh(2ℓb) - Σ e^(2ℓbc_k)(2ℓbs_k² - c_k) for large ℓ. The user has made progress using the Euler-Maclaurin sum formula (EMSF) but encounters issues with the cancellation of terms, particularly the vanishing of the integral term and the derivatives evaluated at endpoints. Despite numerical confirmations using Mathematica, the user expects a non-zero result for F(b, ℓ) as b approaches zero, suggesting a scaling behavior of F(b, ℓ) ∼ Cb^(2ℓ-1).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Euler-Maclaurin sum formula (EMSF)
  • Familiarity with hyperbolic functions, specifically sinh and cosh
  • Knowledge of Bernoulli numbers and their properties
  • Basic proficiency in Mathematica for numerical verification
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the application of the Euler-Maclaurin sum formula in evaluating complex sums
  • Study the properties and applications of Bernoulli numbers in mathematical analysis
  • Explore numerical methods for evaluating limits and series in Mathematica
  • Investigate asymptotic analysis techniques for functions involving large parameters
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and researchers dealing with complex summation problems, particularly those involving hyperbolic functions and asymptotic analysis.

FranzDiCoccio
Messages
350
Reaction score
43
Hi everybody,

I'm facing a tricky summation problem. The problem is (both mathematically and physically) related to this thread I started a while ago. I'm starting a new thread because the functions are not exactly the same, and I have (perhaps) made some progress, using Euler-Maclaurin sum formula. However, there is something that still really puzzles me.

So, my goal would be to evaluate a function

<br /> F(b,\ell) = \sinh(2 \ell\, b)- \sum_{k=1}^{\ell-1} e^{2 \ell\, b\, c_k} \left(2 \ell\, b\, s_k^2-c_k \right)<br />
where
<br /> f_k(b,\ell) = e^{2 \ell\, b\, c_k} \left(2 \ell\, b\, s_k^2-c_k \right)= -\frac{\ell}{\pi}\frac{d}{dk} \left(s_k e^{2 \ell\, b\, c_k}\right)<br />

<br /> c_k = \cos \left(\frac{\pi}{\ell} k\right)<br /> , \quad s_k = \sin \left(\frac{\pi}{\ell} k\right)<br />and \ell is a positive integer. Actually, I'd like to find out the result for large \ell .

I thought of using the Euler-Maclaurin sum formula (EMSF) to evaluate the sum.

The result seems to be that the above sum exactly cancels the hyperbolic sin everywhere.
Specifically, as it is easy to check, the integral term in the EMSF vanishes. The term in the EMSF involving the value of f_k at k=0 and k=\ell is exactly the sinh term.

Thus F[b,L] should be given by the series containing the Bernoulli numbers and the (odd) derivatives of f_k evaluated at k=0 and k=\ell.
The problem is that it seems to me that all of these derivatives contain an overall factor s_k, which is exactly zero at both "endpoints". Several tests using Mathematica confirm this.

But this cannot be right. I know (e.g. numerically) that F[b,\ell] is not zero at all. I expect that F[b,\ell]\sim C b^{2\ell-1} for small b.

I do not understand what's wrong.

Thanks a lot for your interest.
F
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How sure are you about the scaling of ##F[b,l]##? Expanding around ## b = 0## seems to give zero to second order.
 
Hi Strum,

thanks for your interest in my problem. I hope you can help me.

As to your comment, I'm not sure I understand it. Are you saying that you find a nonzero contribution to the third order? Or that you find zero up to the second?

Because it seems to me that the latter is compatible with what I expect.
If a function vanishes as b^{2\ell-1}, it is zero to second order, provided that \ell&gt;1, which in my case is (as I say, I'd like to find an analytic expression for F in the limit \ell \gg 1).
I mean, the first nonzero contribution is of order {2\ell-1}.

I expect that behavior because F(b,\ell) b^{1-2\ell} is a known constant for b=0. I can check this behavior numerically, although for very small b the calculations become very imprecise due to roundoff (or poor programming).

Thanks again
-F
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K