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 ζ, to Euler's Γ, 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

ζ(z)=2zπ1+zΓ(1z)sin(πz2)ζ(1z)True

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

ζ(z)=n1nz=i11(pi)z



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

{2z,πz1,Γ(1z),sin(πz2),ζ(1z)}


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

{12,1π2,1,1,π26}{18192,1π14,1,6227020800,2π1418243225}


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


n1n14=2π1418243225


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

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...