Zwiebach Problem 12.4: Struggling to Understand

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
11 replies · 3K views
ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


The first part of this problem makes no sense to me because n is a constant in gamma and when you multiply gamma by zeta the n is somehow supposed to get inside the zeta function...


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
ehrenfest said:
The first part of this problem makes no sense to me because n is a constant in gamma and when you multiply gamma by zeta the n is somehow supposed to get inside the zeta function...

It's pretty straight forward. What does equation (1) look like after the replacement t -> nt?
 
I understand what he wants:

[tex]\Gamma (s) \zeta (s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\Gamma (s) n^{-s}[/tex]

and it is easy from there.

But that equation is like saying that

[tex](a x^2 + bx +n) (\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n^2) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} (a x^2 + bx +n) n^2[/tex]

My point is that there is very poor notation in this problem.

Zwiebach uses an n outside the summation which simply does not make sense.
 
My bad. I should have written:

Replace t with nt in

[tex]\Gamma(s) = \int_0^{\infty}dte^{-t}t^{s-1}[/tex]

after you put the gamma inside the sum.
 
Last edited:
I see. I was stupidly replacing t with nt before I put the gamma inside the sum. I take back what I said about the poor notation.
 
How do you justify the last inequality?
 

Attachments

  • zwiebach_sol_125.jpg
    zwiebach_sol_125.jpg
    5.6 KB · Views: 585
Sorry. I mean equality.
 
Cool. I knew that 1/(1+t) = 1 -t + t^2 -t^3 +t^4. I didn't know it was true when you replaced t with an arbitrary function of t.

Is there a quick way to prove that?
 
ehrenfest said:
Cool. I knew that 1/(1+t) = 1 -t + t^2 -t^3 +t^4. I didn't know it was true when you replaced t with an arbitrary function of t.

Is there a quick way to prove that?
This is not a statement about the function f, it is a statement about the number f(t).
 
Last edited: