How can the sum of reciprocals be derived from the product of primes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter heartless
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the sum of reciprocals from the product of primes, specifically the equation ∑(n=1 to ∞) 1/n^s = ∏(p) (1 - p^(-s))^(-1). The user seeks an alternative proof method for this relationship, starting from the prime product. A suggested approach involves using a finite product of primes and expanding it with geometric series, then comparing it to the sum of reciprocals up to a certain limit. The goal is to demonstrate that the difference between these two expressions approaches zero as the limit increases. The conversation emphasizes the need for clarity in mathematical notation and proof techniques.
heartless
Messages
220
Reaction score
2
Hello,
I'm trying to prove that

\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^s} = \prod_{p} (1-p^ {-s} )^ {-1}

I know why it is and a proof, but I'm actually looking for
a different way to prove going backward and deriving the
sum from the product of primes. Can you show me a way to do that?
I'd like to start with...
\prod_{p} (1-p^ {-s} )^ {-1} = ...

Thanks,

p.s that -s above and then following -1 should be both exponents for the equation
same with -s and -1 on the bottom, I'm not the master latex writer. Can somebody also tell me why it doesn't work?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
heartless said:
Hello,
I'm trying to prove that

\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^s} = \prod_{p} (1-p^ {-s} )^ {-1}

I know why it is and a proof, but I'm actually looking for
a different way to prove going backward and deriving the
sum from the product of primes. Can you show me a way to do that?
I'd like to start with...
\prod_{p} (1-p^ {-s} )^ {-1} = ...

Thanks,

p.s that -s above and then following -1 should be both exponents for the equation
same with -s and -1 on the bottom, I'm not the master latex writer. Can somebody also tell me why it doesn't work?

The golden key lives in the golden house with goldielocks. It is guarded by two dragons. Penitent man will pass.
 
SirArthur333 said:
The golden key lives in the golden house with goldielocks. It is guarded by two dragons. Penitent man will pass.

I will never pass... but! I wouldn't have to, if you show me the very proof :)
 
heartless said:
I know why it is and a proof, but I'm actually looking for
a different way to prove going backward and deriving the
sum from the product of primes. Can you show me a way to do that?

What proof do you know? The usual is to look at the finite product \prod_{p\leq x}(1-p^{-s})^{-1} and expand using geometric series. Then compare with \sum_{n\leq x} n^{-s}, and show the difference the two goes to zero as x-> infinity.
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
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