Riemann Zeta Function and Pi in Infinite Series

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the convergence of two infinite series involving natural number exponents. The first series, \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^\phi}, converges to a rational multiple of π when φ is an even natural number. The second series, \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^\alpha}, converges to the Riemann Zeta Function evaluated at α, denoted as ζ(α). The relationship between these series highlights that both converge to ζ at their respective exponents, with the even integer cases having a specific connection to π. The complexities of these values, especially for odd integers, remain a topic of intrigue in mathematical studies.
Kevin_Axion
Messages
912
Reaction score
3
I was playing around with an infinite series recently and I noticed something peculiar, I was hoping somebody could clarify something for me.

Suppose we have an infinite series of the form:

\sum^_{n = 1}^{\infty} 1/n^\phi

where \phi is some even natural number, it appears that it is always convergent to a rational multiple of \pi.

Now if we take this series and change it slightly:

\sum^_{n = 1}^{\infty} 1/n^\alpha

where \alpha is some even natural number, it appears that it is always convergent to the Riemann Zeta Function evaluated at \alpha i.e. \zeta(\alpha).

Can someone explain the relationship expressed in these infinite series?

EDIT: What's wrong with my LaTeX for the infinite series?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I don't see what the difference between the two series you posted is, except changing phi to alpha. The LaTeX is perhaps not working because you wrote an extra ^ after the \sum, which shouldn't be there.

The reason that the sum "converges" to the Riemann Zeta function is that for integer exponents that series is the definition of the Riemann Zeta function. It is then extended to arbitrary complex exponents by analytic continuation. If you compute \zeta(2n) for n a postive integer, you would find it is a multiple of \pi to some power.
 
Here's the post with fixed LaTeX...
Maybe there should be something different between the first and two series?

Kevin_Axion said:
I was playing around with an infinite series recently and I noticed something peculiar, I was hoping somebody could clarify something for me.

Suppose we have an infinite series of the form:

\sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^\phi}

where \phi is some even natural number, it appears that it is always convergent to a rational multiple of \pi.

Now if we take this series and change it slightly:

\sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^\alpha}

where \alpha is some even natural number, it appears that it is always convergent to the Riemann Zeta Function evaluated at \alpha i.e. \zeta(\alpha).

Can someone explain the relationship expressed in these infinite series?

EDIT: What's wrong with my LaTeX for the infinite series?
 
Very cool, the only difference I made was that the exponent is even in one and odd in the other.
 
Kevin_Axion said:
Very cool, the only difference I made was that the exponent is even in one and odd in the other.

Ah, then you probably made a typo :smile:

Anyway, the first series will also converge to \zeta(\phi), and this will have a nice characterization as a rational function of pi.
If alpha is odd, then all we know is that the value is \zeta(\alpha). These values are very mysterious and not well understood. For example, \zeta(3) is called Apery's constant and shows up in some physics problems.

But you'll see more of this in your future math major! :biggrin:
 
Haha! Engineering :approve:!
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K