Inequality involving Zeta Function

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving an inequality involving the Riemann Zeta function for values of \( r > 2 \). Participants explore different approaches to establish the inequality, including the use of the Euler product and Dirichlet series representations of the Zeta function. The conversation includes attempts to derive the inequality and analyze its components, but no consensus is reached on a definitive proof.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose using the Euler product representation of the Zeta function as a potentially effective method for proving the inequality.
  • Others suggest that expressing the Zeta function in terms of Dirichlet series may also be relevant, though it appears to require more work.
  • A participant notes specific values of the Zeta function at \( r = 2 \) and \( r = 4 \) to illustrate that the inequality holds for these cases.
  • There are discussions about taking logarithms of expressions to compare terms, with some participants attempting to derive inequalities from these logarithmic forms.
  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the implications of certain logarithmic identities and Taylor expansions in relation to the inequality being discussed.
  • Another participant acknowledges a misunderstanding of an identity that relates to the inequality, which affects their ability to follow the proof being proposed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on a proof for the inequality. Multiple competing views and approaches are presented, with some participants expressing uncertainty about the validity of certain steps in the proposed proofs.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific mathematical identities and the unresolved nature of the proposed proofs. The discussion reflects various assumptions and interpretations of the Zeta function's properties.

Bibubo
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Prove that for $r>2$ we have $$\frac{\zeta\left(r\right)}{\zeta\left(2r\right)}<\left(1+\frac{1}{2^{r}}\right)\frac{\left(1+3^{r}\right)^{2}}{1+3^{2r}}.$$ I've tried to write Zeta as Euler product but I haven't solve it.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Bibubo said:
Prove that for $r>2$ we have $$\frac{\zeta\left(r\right)}{\zeta\left(2r\right)}<\left(1+\frac{1}{2^{r}}\right)\frac{\left(1+3^{r}\right)^{2}}{1+3^{2r}}.$$ I've tried to write Zeta as Euler product but I haven't solve it.

There is an explicit expression of the function in term of Dirichlet series...

$\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (r)}{\zeta (2\ r)} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{\mu^{2} (n)} {n^{r}}\ (1)$

... where $\mu(n)$ is the Moebious function. May be that the (1) is the right way but it requires some work...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Ideally, a proof would probably involve the Euler product instead of the Dirichlet series

$$\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)} = \prod_p \left ( 1 + \frac1{p^s} \right )$$
 
mathbalarka said:
Ideally, a proof would probably involve the Euler product instead of the Dirichlet series

$$\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)} = \prod_p \left ( 1 + \frac1{p^s} \right )$$

I've tried the Euler product way, but I haven't found a solution.
 
I've been working on this problem, but no solution. Where did it come from? I observed that, since $\zeta(2)= \frac{\pi^2}{6}$ and $\zeta(4)=\frac{\pi^4}{90}$, we have

$$\frac{\zeta(2)}{\zeta(4)}=\frac{15}{\pi^2}\approx 1.51981$$

and

$(1+\frac{1}{4})\frac{(1+9)^2}{1+81}\approx 1.52439$

so the inequality also holds for $r=2$.
 
Writing the function as Euler product...

$\displaystyle \varphi(r)= \frac{\zeta(r)}{\zeta(2\ r)} = \prod_{p} (1 + \frac{1}{p^{r}}) = (1 + \frac{1}{2^{r}})\ (1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})\ ... (1)$

... and taking the logarithm we obtain...

$\displaystyle \ln \frac{\varphi(r)}{1 + \frac{1}{2^{r}}} = \ln (1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}}) + ...\ (2)$

But is...

$\displaystyle \ln (1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}}) = \frac{1}{3^{r}} - \frac{1}{2\ 3^{2\ r}} + \frac{1}{3\ 3^{3\ r}} + ...\ (3)$

... and ...

$\displaystyle \ln \frac{(1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})^{2}}{1 + \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}}} = \frac{2}{3^{r}} - \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}} + \frac{2}{3\ 3^{3\ r}} - ... - \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}} + \frac{1}{2\ 3^{4\ r}} - ... = \frac{2}{3^{r}} - \frac{2}{3^{2\ r}} + \frac{2}{3\ 3^{3\ r}} + ...\ (4)$

... so that comparing (3) and (4) we obtain that...

$\displaystyle \ln \frac{\varphi(r)}{1 + \frac{1}{2^{r}}} < \ln \frac{(1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})^{2}}{1 + \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}}}\ (5)$

... what we intend to demonstrate...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Last edited:
chisigma said:
Writing the function as Euler product...

$\displaystyle \varphi(r)= \frac{\zeta(r)}{\zeta(2\ r)} = \prod_{p} (1 + \frac{1}{p^{r}}) = (1 + \frac{1}{2^{r}})\ (1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})\ ... (1)$

... and taking the logarithm we obtain...

$\displaystyle \ln \frac{\varphi(r)}{1 + \frac{1}{2^{r}}} = \ln (1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}}) + ...\ (2)$

But is...

$\displaystyle \ln (1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}}) = \frac{1}{3^{r}} - \frac{1}{2\ 3^{2\ r}} + \frac{1}{3\ 3^{3\ r}} + ...\ (3)$

... and ...

$\displaystyle \ln \frac{(1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})^{2}}{1 + \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}}} = \frac{2}{3^{r}} - \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}} + \frac{2}{3\ 3^{3\ r}} - ... - \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}} + \frac{1}{2\ 3^{4\ r}} - ... = \frac{2}{3^{r}} - \frac{2}{3^{2\ r}} + \frac{2}{3\ 3^{3\ r}} + ...\ (4)$

... so that comparing (3) and (4) we obtain that...

$\displaystyle \ln \frac{\varphi(r)}{1 + \frac{1}{2^{r}}} < \ln \frac{(1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})^{2}}{1 + \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}}}\ (5)$

... what we intend to demonstrate...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

Sorry but I don't see the point. You have something like $$\log\left(\frac{\left(1+3^{r}\right)^{2}}{1+3^{2r}}\right)=2\left(\underset{n\, odd}{\sum}\frac{1}{n}\,\frac{1}{3^{rn}}-2\underset{n\, even,\,4\nmid n}{\sum}\frac{1}{n}\,\frac{1}{3^{2rn}}\right)$$ because if $4\mid n$ we have a cancellation. Why is this bigger than $$\underset{p\geq3}{\sum}\log\left(1+\frac{1}{p^{r}}\right)?$$
 
Bibubo said:
Sorry but I don't see the point. You have something like $$\log\left(\frac{\left(1+3^{r}\right)^{2}}{1+3^{2r}}\right)=2\left(\underset{n\, odd}{\sum}\frac{1}{n}\,\frac{1}{3^{rn}}-2\underset{n\, even,\,4\nmid n}{\sum}\frac{1}{n}\,\frac{1}{3^{2rn}}\right)$$ because if $4\mid n$ we have a cancellation. Why is this bigger than $$\underset{p\geq3}{\sum}\log\left(1+\frac{1}{p^{r}}\right)?$$

I apologize for having understood the identity $\displaystyle \frac{(1 + 3^{r})^{2}}{1 + 3^{2\ r}}= \frac{(1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})^{2}}{1 + \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}}}$, that permits to me to use the Taylor expansion $\displaystyle \ln (1 + \varepsilon) = \varepsilon - \frac{\varepsilon^{2}}{2} + \frac{\varepsilon^{3}}{3} - ...$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
chisigma said:
I apologize for having understood the identity $\displaystyle \frac{(1 + 3^{r})^{2}}{1 + 3^{2\ r}}= \frac{(1 + \frac{1}{3^{r}})^{2}}{1 + \frac{1}{3^{2\ r}}}$, that permits to me to use the Taylor expansion $\displaystyle \ln (1 + \varepsilon) = \varepsilon - \frac{\varepsilon^{2}}{2} + \frac{\varepsilon^{3}}{3} - ...$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

You can write as you told. In fact you have $$\frac{\left(1+3^{r}\right)}{1+3^{2r}}^{2}=\frac{\left(3^{r}\left(1+\frac{1}{3^{r}}\right)\right)^{2}}{3^{2r}\left(1+\frac{1}{3^{2r}}\right)}=\frac{\left(1+\frac{1}{3^{r}}\right)^{2}}{1+\frac{1}{3^{2r}}}$$ but I haven't understood how your proof can show my inequality.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K