Why is the Euler Sum Infinite for Zeta=1?

overlook1977
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
This may be a stupid question, but I do not understand why the Euler sum is infinite for zeta=1. Why is "1+1/2+1/3+1/4+... " infinite, but zeta=2 (1+1/4+1/9+...) not?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
1+1/2+1/3+... is \sum_n \frac{1}{n} is a harmonic series and there are various tests to show that this diverges while
1+1/4+1/9+... is really \sum_n \frac{1}{n^2} and this series converges
 
The first series is a p series where p is equal to 1. We know for convergence of p series that a condition is that p>1.

The second series converges to \pi^2/6 but is somewhat harder to show. Just to show it converges at all though, p=2 which is more than 1. Look up p series.
 
1+1/2+1/3+1/4+1/5+1/6+1/7+1/8+...>
1+1/2+1/4+1/4+1/8+1/8+1/8+1/8+...=
1+1/2+1/2+ 1/2+... which diverges.
 
mathman said:
1+1/2+1/3+1/4+1/5+1/6+1/7+1/8+...>
1+1/2+1/4+1/4+1/8+1/8+1/8+1/8+...=
1+1/2+1/2+ 1/2+... which diverges.

Brilliant!
 
You can use the integral test: 1+1/2+1/3+++1/n> \int_N\frac{1}{x}dx =ln (N )\rightarrow \infty.

And: 1/4+1/9+1/16 +(1/(N+1)^2 < \int_1^N\frac{1}{x^2}dx =1-1/N.
 
Last edited:
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top