Why rotate Beukers's 0th integral to calculate zeta(2)?

In summary, the conversation discusses the use of rotation in evaluating the integral \zeta(2)=\sum_{i=1}^\infty\frac 1{i^2}=\int_0^1 dx\int_0^1 dy\frac1{1-xy}=I_\circ in order to make it easier to evaluate. This is done by both James Stewart in Calculus 3rd ed. and Mathworld, and is also discussed in Simmons (1992). The rotation is not to remove the pole at (x,y)=(1,1), but to make the integrand easier to work with. The rotated integrand still has a pole, but is still integrable.
  • #1
inkliing
25
0
While reviewing calculus, I noticed that James Stewart's Calculus 3rd ed., chap 14, problems plus (at the end of the chapter), p.965, prob#2 asks the student to show that
[tex]\zeta(2)=\sum_{i=1}^\infty\frac 1{i^2}=\int_0^1 dx\int_0^1 dy\frac1{1-xy}=I_\circ[/tex]
by rotating the integration region by [itex]-\frac {\pi}4[/itex]. Mathworld also evaluates the same integral with the same rotation, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RiemannZetaFunctionZeta2.html . Mathworld refers to Simmons (1992), which is Simmons, G. F. "Euler's Formula [itex]\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac 1{k^2}=\frac {\pi^2}6[/itex] by Double Integration." Ch. B. 24 in Calculus Gems: Brief Lives and Memorable Mathematics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992, which is in Google Books, but as usual, the needed page is missing.

1. I assume both Stewart and mathworld rotate the integration region in an attempt to remove the pole at (x,y)=(1,1). Rotating by
[tex]\begin{pmatrix}u\\v\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix} \cos\frac {\pi}4&\sin\frac {\pi}4\\-\sin\frac {\pi}4&\cos\frac {\pi}4\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}x\\y\end{pmatrix}[/tex]
gives
[tex]I_\circ=\int_0^{\frac 1{\sqrt2}} du\int_{-u}^u dv\frac 1{1-\frac 12(u^2-v^2)}+\int_{\frac 1{\sqrt2}}^{\sqrt2} du\int_{-\sqrt2+u}^{\sqrt2-u} dv\frac 1{1-\frac 12(u^2-v^2)}[/tex]
which still blows up at (u,v)=([itex]\sqrt2[/itex],0).

2. It seems to me that
[tex]\begin{align*}I_\circ&=\int_0^1 dx\int_0^1 dy\frac1{1-xy}\\&=\lim_{b\to 1^{-}}\int_0^b dx\lim_{a\to 1^{-}}\int_0^a dy\frac1{1-xy}\\
&=\lim_{b\to 1^{-}}\int_0^b dx\lim_{a\to 1^{-}}\int_0^a dy\sum_{i=0}^\infty x^iy^i\\&=\zeta(2)\end{align*}[/tex]
So why rotate if the rotated integrand still blows up?
Please be specific. Please stay as close as possible to the question. Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
outermeasure at http://www.sosmath.com/CBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58677 explained it simply:
outermeasure said:
The rotation is not to get rid of the pole, but to make it into a form that you can integrate the inner integral to get something you can integrate further for the outer integral. Contrast this with naively integrating the y-integral giving [itex]\displaystyle\int_0^1\frac{1}{1-xy}\,\mathrm{d}y=-\frac{\log(1-x)}{x}[/itex] which does not have a nice (elementary) antiderivative.

The pole doesn't pose much problem because the function is actually integrable (i.e. with finite integral), similar to 1/sqrt(|x|) near x=0.

Seems obvious now. Rotate to be able to integrate both of the iterated integrals with antiderivatives of elementary functions rather than power series. I should have seen that. :)
 

What is Beukers's 0th integral and how is it related to zeta(2)?

Beukers's 0th integral is a mathematical integral that can be used to calculate the value of zeta(2), also known as the Basel problem. This integral was discovered by mathematician Frits Beukers and has since been used as a method for calculating zeta(2) with high precision.

Why is it necessary to rotate Beukers's 0th integral when calculating zeta(2)?

The rotation of the integral is necessary because it allows for a more efficient and accurate computation of zeta(2). By rotating the integral, the oscillatory behavior of the function is reduced, making it easier to evaluate the integral numerically.

How does rotating Beukers's 0th integral affect the computation of zeta(2)?

Rotating the integral does not change the value of zeta(2), but it does make the computation more efficient and accurate. By reducing the oscillatory behavior, the integral can be evaluated more quickly and with fewer errors, resulting in a more precise value for zeta(2).

Are there any other methods for calculating zeta(2) besides using Beukers's 0th integral?

Yes, there are other methods for calculating zeta(2), such as using Fourier series or other integrals. However, Beukers's 0th integral is considered to be one of the most efficient and accurate methods for computing zeta(2).

Can Beukers's 0th integral be used to calculate other values besides zeta(2)?

Yes, Beukers's 0th integral can be used to calculate other values, such as zeta(4) and other special values of the Riemann zeta function. It has also been used in other areas of mathematics, such as in the study of modular forms and elliptic curves.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
938
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
293
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
752
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
353
  • Calculus
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top