Zeta function and summation convergence

rman144
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
I need to know if the following series converges:

∑(k=1 to k=oo)[(((-1)^k) ζ(k))/(e^k)]


The problem is that zeta(1)=oo; however, the equation satisfies the conditions of convergence for an alternating series [the limit as k->oo=0 and each term is smaller than the last.]

Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
How did you arrive at the sum?
 
well yeah I see what you're saying about zeta of 1. To see if the summation converges, try one of the tests, like tha ratio test.
 
rman144 said:
I need to know if the following series converges:

∑(k=1 to k=oo)[(((-1)^k) ζ(k))/(e^k)]


The problem is that zeta(1)=oo; however, the equation satisfies the conditions of convergence for an alternating series [the limit as k->oo=0 and each term is smaller than the last.]

Any thoughts?

This one converges
<br /> \sum_{k=2}^\infty \frac{(-1)^k \zeta(k)}{e^k}<br />

But in the original zeries, the k=1 term is the problem.
 
Yes if memory serves me right that sum is just a constant and an x away from being a taylor series of the digamma function.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top