Why is the polylogarithm equation for n=1 a logarithm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MathematicalPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The polylogarithm equation for n=1 simplifies to a logarithm because it converges to the Taylor series for ln(x+1). The series presented, y = x/1 + x^2/2 + x^3/3 + ..., does not represent ln(x) but rather ln(x+1), which is defined for x > -1. The original inquiry seeks clarification on why the polylogarithm is identified as a logarithm in this specific case. The distinction lies in the domain of the logarithmic function, as ln(x) is undefined at x=0, while ln(x+1) is valid. Understanding this relationship clarifies the connection between the polylogarithm and logarithmic functions.
MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
the equation of pl is:
(infinity)
y= sum x^i/i^n
i=1
in here http://www.2dcurves.com/exponential/exponentialpo.html it states in the case n=1 it is a logarithm i want to know why?

for all of my knowledge it should be y=x/1+x^2/2+x^3/3+...
is this the taylor expansion series for a logarithm?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Not exactly. For one thing that series gives y= 0 when x= 0 and log(x) is not defined for x=0.

The series you give is the Taylor's series for ln(x+1).
 
so is this what meant in the webpage?
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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