What's the name of this series?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter puzzled fish
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Series
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the evaluation of a series related to the net Newtonian gravitational force on a mass at rest at a vertex of a cube, with other masses arranged on an orthogonal lattice. Participants explore the convergence of the series and its mathematical properties, including both triple and double sums.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the series $$\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty} \sum\limits_{j=0}^{\infty} \sum\limits_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac 1 {i^2 + j^2 + k^2}$$ and suggests it converges based on numerical evaluations of related sums.
  • Another participant challenges the convergence of the series, stating "It does not converge."
  • Some participants discuss the similarity of the series to an integral over $$\frac{1}{r^2}$$ in three-dimensional space, suggesting implications for convergence.
  • One participant attempts to establish a rigorous lower bound for the two-dimensional sum, encountering technical difficulties due to the nature of polar coordinates and the specific point of interest.
  • A crude approximation for the two-dimensional sum is proposed, relating it to an integral, and a participant asks if numerical computations align with this approximation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express conflicting views on the convergence of the series, with some asserting it converges while others argue it does not. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the overall convergence of the series.

Contextual Notes

Participants note technical challenges in evaluating the sums and the dependence on specific mathematical properties, such as the behavior around the origin in polar coordinates.

puzzled fish
Messages
51
Reaction score
5
I found this series, when I tried to evaluate the net Newtonian gravitational force on a mass at rest upon one vertex of a cube while all the other masses were arranged on an orthogonal lattice inside the cube:
## \sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty} \sum\limits_{j=0}^{\infty} \sum\limits_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac 1 {i^2 + j^2 + k^2} ##
I tried to evaluate, ## \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\infty} \sum\limits_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac 1 {i^2 + j^2} ## with a quick VB macro ( Mathematica was very slow ) up to i = j = 500000 and it seems to converge. The amount of calculations for the triple series is enormous, I haven't done it, but it still converges I think.
Sorry, I don't know how to fix this Latex code.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You can include LaTeX by putting ## or $[/color]$ around formulas, done in the quote here:
puzzled fish said:
I found this series, when I tried to evaluate the net Newtonian gravitational force on a mass at rest upon one vertex of a cube while all the other masses were arranged on an orthogonal lattice inside the cube.
$$\sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty} \sum\limits_{j=0}^{\infty} \sum\limits_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac 1 {i^2 + j^2 + k^2}$$ with the first term i = j = k = 0 removed.
I tried to evaluate, $$\sum\limits_{j=0}^{\infty} \sum\limits_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac 1 {i^2 + j^2}$$ ( first term removed ) with a quick VB macro ( Mathematica was very slow ) up to i = j = 500000 and it seems to converge. The amount of calculations for the triple series is enormous, I haven't done it, but it still converges I think.
The individual sums have analytic expressions: WolframAlpha result. You can see if you can sum over these expressions again.
 
It does not converge.
 
Oh, good point.

It is similar to an integral over ##\frac{1}{r^2}## in 3-dimensional space.
 
So, it does converge...
 
puzzled fish said:
So, it does converge...
No. And by forgetting that the forces come with different directions you made it even less convergent.
 
For a moment I tried to get a rigorous lower bound for the two dimensional sum by starting from

[tex] \frac{1}{x^2 + y^2} \leq \frac{1}{\lfloor x\rfloor^2 + \lfloor y\rfloor^2}[/tex]

but unfortunately a bunch of technical difficulties arise from the polar coordinates working nicely around the origin (0,0), and the original sum having instead the point (1,1) with a special meaning, and eventually I gave up thinking that this isn't such an interesting problem. Anyway, it looks like that if you invest enough effort to this, you can come up with some rigorous lower bound eventually. If puzzled fish is still taking this sum seriously, perhaps he should take finding that lower bound as challenge?

Meanwhile, I wrote down the following crude approximation:

[tex] \sum_{n,m=1}^{N-1} \frac{1}{n^2 + m^2} \approx \int\limits_1^N dx\int\limits_1^N dy\frac{1}{x^2 + y^2}<br /> \approx \int\limits_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}}d\theta \int\limits_1^N dr \;r \frac{1}{r^2} = \frac{\pi}{2}\ln(N)[/tex]

puzzled fish, does it look like that your numerical computation are in agreement with this approximation, at least concerning the magnitudes?
 
jostpuur said:
For a moment I tried to get a rigorous lower bound for the two dimensional sum by starting from

[tex] \frac{1}{x^2 + y^2} \leq \frac{1}{\lfloor x\rfloor^2 + \lfloor y\rfloor^2}[/tex]

but unfortunately a bunch of technical difficulties arise from the polar coordinates working nicely around the origin (0,0), and the original sum having instead the point (1,1) with a special meaning, and eventually I gave up thinking that this isn't such an interesting problem. Anyway, it looks like that if you invest enough effort to this, you can come up with some rigorous lower bound eventually. If puzzled fish is still taking this sum seriously, perhaps he should take finding that lower bound as challenge?

Meanwhile, I wrote down the following crude approximation:

[tex] \sum_{n,m=1}^{N-1} \frac{1}{n^2 + m^2} \approx \int\limits_1^N dx\int\limits_1^N dy\frac{1}{x^2 + y^2}<br /> \approx \int\limits_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}}d\theta \int\limits_1^N dr \;r \frac{1}{r^2} = \frac{\pi}{2}\ln(N)[/tex]

puzzled fish, does it look like that your numerical computation are in agreement with this approximation, at least concerning the magnitudes?
Thank you for your answer. Very foolish question of me indeed! Next time I shall remember to take the integral rest sooner..
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K