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).
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Back
Top