Skip to main content

special functions - Why do these two different zetas produce the same value?



Zeta[-13] == Zeta[-1] == -1/12  

Why do these two different zetas produce the same value?



Answer




In order to understand the issue, we should provide the underlying definitions. Mathematica helps in verifying appropriate relations and definitions. The main functional equation relating Riemann's zeta function $\zeta\;$, to Euler's $\Gamma\;$, established in Riemann's famous paper Über die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebener Grösse (1859, English translation here), where he formulated the Riemann hypothesis, can be simply written and evaluated with the system:


Through @ { HoldForm, FullSimplify}[
Zeta[z] == 2^z Pi^(z - 1) Sin[Pi z/2] Gamma[1 - z] Zeta[1 - z]]//
Column // TraditionalForm

$$\begin{align*}&\zeta(z)=2^z\pi^{-1+z}\Gamma(1-z)\sin\left(\frac{\pi z}{2}\right)\zeta(1-z)\\ &\text{True}\end{align*}$$ Similarly we can exploit the definition of Zeta for Re[z] > 1 (see SumConvergence[1/n^z, n]):


Sum[ 1/n^z, {n, Infinity}] == Defer[ Sum[ 1/n^z, {n, Infinity}]] == 
Defer[Product[ 1/(1 - Prime[i]^-z), {i, Infinity}]] // TraditionalForm

$$\zeta(z)=\sum_{n}^\infty \frac1{n^z}=\prod_{i}^\infty \frac1{1-(p_i)^{-z}}$$



List @@ (2^z Pi^(z - 1) Sin[Pi z/2] Gamma[1 - z] Zeta[1 - z])

$$\left\{2^z,\pi^{z-1},\Gamma(1-z),\sin\left(\frac{\pi z}{2}\right),\zeta(1-z)\right\}$$


Let's find adequate values:


Table[{2^z, Pi^(z - 1), Sin[Pi z/2], Gamma[1 - z], Zeta[1 - z]},
{z, {-1, -13}}] // Column

$$\begin{align*} &\left\{\frac12,\frac1{\pi^2},-1,1,\frac{\pi^2}{6}\right\}\\ &\left\{\frac1{8192},\frac1{\pi^{14}},-1,6227020800,\frac{2\pi^{14}}{18243225}\right\} \end{align*}$$


For positive even integers, Zeta evaluates to exact values, and one can calculate them from the above definition, but Mathematica can do it too, e.g.:


HoldForm[ Sum[ 1/n^14, {n, Infinity}]] == Sum[1/n^14, {n, Infinity}] // TraditionalForm


$$\sum_n^\infty \frac1{n^{14}}=\frac{2\pi^{14}}{18243225}$$


Moreover, we have a simple relation between the Euler gamma function and factorial for natural numbers:


 FullSimplify[ Gamma[n] == Factorial[n - 1], n ∈ Integers && n > 0]


True

Finally, one has to check also the rational coefficients of the above formulae:


FactorInteger @ { 8192, 18243225, 6227020800} // Column



{{3, 6}, {5, 2}, {7, 1}, {11, 1}, {13, 1}}
{{2, 10}, {3, 5}, {5, 2}, {7, 1}, {11, 1}, {13, 1}}
{{2, 13}}

Comparison of the factorization results completes our proof. Q.E.D.


Edit


There are infinitely many arguments where Zeta[x]==-1/12, though -13 and -1 seem to be the only integers among them on the other hand negative odd arguments yield rational values.


Reduce[ Zeta[x] == -(1/12) && -1000 < x < 1000, x, Integers]



x == -13 || x == -1

Here we add a plot of contours of the real part equal to -1/12 and the vanishing imaginary part of Zeta in the complex plane:


ContourPlot[ {Re[Zeta[x + I y]] == -(1/12), Im[Zeta[x + I y]] == 0},
{x, -20, 20}, {y, -20, 20}, Evaluated -> True,
PlotPoints -> 100, MaxRecursion -> 5]

enter image description here



Points of Zeta[x + I y] == -(1/12) lie on intersections of the blue and red curves


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1....