Shifting the Summation Index in Zeta Function Convergence Proof?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Skynt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Index Summation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the property of shifting the summation index in the context of a proof related to the convergence of the zeta function. Participants are examining a specific identity involving summation notation and its implications for the proof presented in a textbook.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the equality of two summation expressions, specifically \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k(k+1)} and \frac{1}{2} + \sum_{k=2}^{n+1} \frac{1}{k(k-1)}, expressing confusion over their equivalence.
  • Another participant asserts that the two expressions are not equal, providing a counterexample with n=1 to demonstrate the discrepancy.
  • A third participant agrees with the assertion of error, suggesting that the book may contain a mistake or that there was a misreading of the text.
  • A fourth participant proposes a corrected approach to the summation, indicating a stronger result and providing a series of inequalities and equalities that involve shifting the index correctly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that there is an error in the book regarding the summation identity, but there is no consensus on the implications of this error for the overall proof or the correctness of the subsequent derivations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential limitations in the original text, including possible errors in the presented formulas and the reliance on specific summation identities that may not hold as stated.

Skynt
Messages
39
Reaction score
1
Can anyone explain this property of shifting the index on the summation notation?

I'm reading a book and came across this which has confused me. I don't see how these are equal:
[tex]\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k(k+1)} = \frac{1}{2} + \sum_{k=2}^{n+1} \frac{1}{k(k-1)}[/tex]

It's part of an explanation that proves that the zeta function converges for values equal to or larger than 2. I just fail to see how they're equal.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
They're not equal. Just consider the case n=1 in which case the identity states:
[tex]\frac{1}{1(1+1)} = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2(2-1)}[/tex]
which is clearly false since the left hand side is 1/2 while the right hand side is 1/2 + 1/2 = 1. We do however have:
[tex]\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k(k+1)} = \sum_{k=2}^{n+1}\frac{1}{k(k-1)}[/tex]

Perhaps you misread/miscopied your book or it's an error in the book.
 
Yeah that's exactly what confused me. I tested it too. It's definitely an error or I misread it. If anyone has the Art and Craft of Problem Solving, it's on page 162 of the Algebra chapter. Perhaps someone could clear me up on this proof lol.
 
Last edited:
It seems to be an error in the book (and not just a typo as his later derivations depends on the formula). Anyway doing the correct shifting we can show a slightly stronger result:
[tex]\begin{align*}<br /> \sum_{k=2}^n \frac{1}{k^2} &< \sum_{k=2}^n \frac{1}{k(k-1)} \\<br /> &= \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \frac{1}{k(k+1)} \\<br /> &= 1 - \frac{1}{n}<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]
Here we use the inequality [itex]1/k^2 < 1/k(k-1)[/itex] mentioned in the text, we shift the index by one and finally we either use the formula:
[tex]\sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{1}{k(k+1)} = 1 - \frac{1}{n+1}[/tex]
given in the text or simply notice that the sum telescopes as [itex]1/k(k+1) = 1/k - 1/(k+1)[/itex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K