How Can Ramanujan's Identity Simplify Summing Powers of Integers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zetafunction
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identity
zetafunction
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
i do not remember the webpage i watched this but i remember that they said ' IN chapter 1 of his notebook Ramanujan wrote '

\sum_{n=0}^{x}n^{r}= (r+1)^{-1}x^{r+1}+ \zeta (-r) - \sum_{k}B_{2k}\frac{\Gamma (r+1)}{\Gamma (k-2r+2)}

does anyone knows how to get this ??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
zetafunction said:
i do not remember the webpage i watched this but i remember that they said ' IN chapter 1 of his notebook Ramanujan wrote '

\sum_{n=0}^{x}n^{r}= (r+1)^{-1}x^{r+1}+ \zeta (-r) - \sum_{k}B_{2k}\frac{\Gamma (r+1)}{\Gamma (k-2r+2)}

does anyone knows how to get this ??

To begin with, what is B? and in the sum what is the range of k?
 
ramsey2879 said:
To begin with, what is B? and in the sum what is the range of k?

A Bernoulli number and "0 to infinity", I believe.
 
oh, excuse me the lack of notation

here B_2k means the 2k-th Bernoulli Number, and yes the summation (is finite) goes to k=0 to k= infinite

i know he used Euler-Maclaurin summation formula but the term \zeta (-r) seems strange to me
 
Last edited:
The "Euler Summation Formula" might give you some insight to why the Bernouli numbers pop up in this formula. The term \zeta (-r) is just \frac{B_{r+1}}{r+1} for a positive integer value of r. Another formula that will compute this sum for a positive integer value of r is :



f_{r}(x)= \sum_{n=0} ^{x} n^{r} = r\int f_{r-1}dx + xB_{r}

where

f_{1}(x)=\frac{x^2}{2} + \frac{x}{2}



I think one of the Bernoulli brothers could calculate 1^{10}+2^{10}+3^{10} + ... 1000^{10} in about fifteen minutes using one of these formulas. Try it using just pen and paper and see how long it takes you...
 
Last edited:
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top