I Series for coth(x/2) via Bernoulli numbers

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a potential error in equation 7.61 from "Guide to Essential Math" by S.M. Blinder, specifically regarding the series for coth(x/2). Users question whether the transition to this equation is incorrect and seek clarification on its intended meaning. One participant suggests that the correct series should actually represent tanh(x/2) instead of coth(x/2). The conversation highlights the importance of accurately interpreting mathematical series and the role of Bernoulli numbers in these equations. The thread emphasizes the need for clear explanations in mathematical texts.
Oppie
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Hello,

I've been using "Guide to Essential Math" by S.M. Blinder from time to time to stay on top of my basic mathematics. I'm currently on the section on Bernoulli Numbers. In that section he has the following (snippet below).

Is the transition to equation 7.61 just wrong? The equation just doesn't make sense. If it is wrong, can anyone "see" what he may have had in mind? What is the "explicit" series equal to if not coth(x/2)? Thank you.

1623621585705.png



 
Physics news on Phys.org
\coth x =\frac{1}{x}+\frac{x}{3}+...
So why don't you correct (7.61) by yourself ?
 
Oppie said:
What is the "explicit" series equal to if not coth(x/2)?
It's the series for ##\tanh(x/2)##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K