Shifting the Summation Index in Zeta Function Convergence Proof?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Skynt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Index Summation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the equality of two summation expressions related to the zeta function convergence proof. The initial claim that \(\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k(k+1)}\) equals \(\frac{1}{2} + \sum_{k=2}^{n+1} \frac{1}{k(k-1)}\) is proven incorrect, particularly when tested with \(n=1\). Participants suggest that this discrepancy may stem from a misreading or an error in the referenced book, "The Art and Craft of Problem Solving." Correctly shifting the index reveals that \(\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k(k+1)}\) equals \(\sum_{k=2}^{n+1}\frac{1}{k(k-1)}\), leading to a stronger result regarding the convergence of the series. The conversation highlights the importance of accurate summation identities in mathematical proofs.
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:
\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k(k+1)} = \frac{1}{2} + \sum_{k=2}^{n+1} \frac{1}{k(k-1)}

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:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
They're not equal. Just consider the case n=1 in which case the identity states:
\frac{1}{1(1+1)} = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2(2-1)}
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:
\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k(k+1)} = \sum_{k=2}^{n+1}\frac{1}{k(k-1)}

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:
\begin{align*}<br /> \sum_{k=2}^n \frac{1}{k^2} &amp;&lt; \sum_{k=2}^n \frac{1}{k(k-1)} \\<br /> &amp;= \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \frac{1}{k(k+1)} \\<br /> &amp;= 1 - \frac{1}{n}<br /> \end{align*}
Here we use the inequality 1/k^2 &lt; 1/k(k-1) mentioned in the text, we shift the index by one and finally we either use the formula:
\sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{1}{k(k+1)} = 1 - \frac{1}{n+1}
given in the text or simply notice that the sum telescopes as 1/k(k+1) = 1/k - 1/(k+1).
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top