camilus
- 146
- 0
The discussion centers on the relationship between Euler's formula and the Zeta function, particularly focusing on the transition from product representations of series involving prime numbers to their corresponding summation forms. Participants explore the mathematical steps involved in these transformations, including the implications of signs in the formulas.
Participants express differing views on the handling of signs in the mathematical expressions, and there is no consensus on the correctness of certain steps or the implications of the negative sign. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact nature of the transformations between the product and sum representations.
Some participants note potential confusion regarding the application of geometric series and the handling of signs in the formulas, indicating that assumptions about the series may not be fully clarified.
Should \prod_\mathbb{P} \left( \sum_{\mathbb{Z} \ge 0} p^{-s n} \right) ^{-1} have that ^(-1) after it? Or am I missing something..? Are you rewriting 1/(1-p^-s) using geometric series?lurflurf said:We know
$$\prod_\mathbb{P} (1-p^{-s})^{-1}=\prod_\mathbb{P} \left( \sum_{\mathbb{Z} \ge 0} p^{-s n} \right) ^{-1} = \sum_{\mathbb{Z}>0} n^{-s}$$
with the minus sign it is a little more complicated
$$\prod_\mathbb{P} (1+p^{-s})^{-1}=\prod_\mathbb{P} \left( \sum_{\mathbb{Z} \ge 0} (-p)^{-s n} \right) ^{-1} = \sum_{\mathbb{Z}>0} (-1)^{\sum ord_p(k)}n^{-s}$$
Where the ord_p(k) makes sure we get the right sign (it counts the minuses), clearly
$$\left( \prod_\mathbb{P} (1-p^{-s})^{-1} \right) \left( \prod_\mathbb{P} (1+p^{-s})^{-1} \right) =\zeta(2n)$$
but instead of using that your link makes a simple estimate