(nevermind, answered my own question after spending the time to type this up!)(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Hi,

I was flipping through Hilbert's Geometry and the Imagination, and in it, he includes a proof of Leibniz' series ( pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ... ) which is carried out by estimating the area of a circle at the origin using unit squares. I have a simple question about the appearance of a single " - 1" in the proof, but unfortunately need to describe half of the proof to ask about it. I assume I'm overlooking something extremely easy, but I just haven't been able to see why it's there.

The proof utilizes a theorem regarding the number of ways to express an integer n as the sum of squares of two integers: that this number is 4 times the quantity ( number of factors of n which are congruent to 1 mod 4 minus the number of factors of n which are congruent to 3 mod 4). In symbols,

S_n = | {(a,b) : a^2 + b^2 = n } | = 4 * (|{ d : d divides n and d = 1 mod 4 }| - |{ d : d divides n and d = 3 mod 4 }|)

where S_n is the number of ways to express n as the sum of two squares, and || is for the size of the set.

The main idea is to use this theorem to determine the number of unit squares whose bottom left corner is contained inside a circle of radius r; we'll call this number f(r). Now, Hilbert says that according to the above theorem, we can get (1/4)(f(r) - 1) by adding up the differences between the number of factors of the form 4k+1 and the number of factors of the form 4k+3 for all of the n <= r^2.

My question is regarding this "-1" in the "(1/4)(f(r) - 1)". Since you have a point inside/on the circle for each pair of integers (x,y) satisfying x^2 + y^2 <= r^2, it seems that f(r) should be the sum of the S_n for each integer n less than or equal to r^2. Then f(r) - 1 would be the sum over all of the S_n, minus 1. Further, (1/4)(f(r) - 1) would be the sum over all of the S_n, minus 1, all divided by 4; that is, -(1/4) + the sum of the differences between the number of factors of the form 4k+1 and the number of factors of the form 4k+3 for each n. So, it looks to me like that -1 doesn't fit (because it causes f(r) to differ from the sum Hilbert claims by -(1/4). I don't see where it came from, but I imagine I'm overlooking something incredibly simple.

Thanks

edit: Well, after typing this out, I reread the section again and noticed I had been completely ignoring that he starts discussing only the positive n's. Subtracting the 1 then takes care of the (0,0) solution.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Plane lattice proof of Leibniz series

Loading...

Similar Threads - Plane lattice proof | Date |
---|---|

I Multiplication by a matrix in GL rotates a plane's basis? | May 6, 2016 |

Issue with behavior of ray-plane intersection algorithm | Jan 28, 2016 |

Weyls representation of a propagating (z-v*t) spherical wave | Jan 10, 2016 |

Software for drawing group lattice diagrams? | Sep 6, 2015 |

Symmetries on the plane | Aug 2, 2015 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**