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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter inkliing
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral Rotate
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion clarifies the reasoning behind rotating the integration region in the calculation of zeta(2) using the integral representation \(\zeta(2)=\int_0^1 dx\int_0^1 dy\frac{1}{1-xy}\). The rotation by \(-\frac{\pi}{4}\) is employed not to eliminate the pole at (x,y)=(1,1), but to transform the integrand into a more manageable form that allows for the integration of both iterated integrals using elementary functions. This approach contrasts with direct integration, which leads to complications due to the pole.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of double integrals and their properties
  • Familiarity with the Riemann zeta function, specifically \(\zeta(2)\)
  • Knowledge of integration techniques, including rotation of integration regions
  • Basic concepts of calculus as presented in James Stewart's "Calculus" 3rd edition
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Riemann zeta function and its integral representations
  • Learn about the rotation of integration regions in double integrals
  • Explore advanced integration techniques, particularly in the context of singularities
  • Review the application of power series in evaluating integrals
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, calculus students, and educators interested in advanced integration techniques and the properties of the Riemann zeta function will benefit from this discussion.

inkliing
Messages
25
Reaction score
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
\zeta(2)=\sum_{i=1}^\infty\frac 1{i^2}=\int_0^1 dx\int_0^1 dy\frac1{1-xy}=I_\circ
by rotating the integration region by -\frac {\pi}4. 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 \sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac 1{k^2}=\frac {\pi^2}6 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
\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}
gives
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)}
which still blows up at (u,v)=(\sqrt2,0).

2. It seems to me that
\begin{align*}I_\circ&amp;=\int_0^1 dx\int_0^1 dy\frac1{1-xy}\\&amp;=\lim_{b\to 1^{-}}\int_0^b dx\lim_{a\to 1^{-}}\int_0^a dy\frac1{1-xy}\\<br /> &amp;=\lim_{b\to 1^{-}}\int_0^b dx\lim_{a\to 1^{-}}\int_0^a dy\sum_{i=0}^\infty x^iy^i\\&amp;=\zeta(2)\end{align*}
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
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 \displaystyle\int_0^1\frac{1}{1-xy}\,\mathrm{d}y=-\frac{\log(1-x)}{x} 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. :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K