Results 1 to 12 of 12

Math Help - The Riemann Zeta Function

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    53

    The Riemann Zeta Function

    Consider the function

    f(s) = \sum_{r=1} ^ {\infty} \frac{1}{r^s}.
    I have so far managed to show that the series converges for each  s\in\ (1,{\infty}) and that this series defines a continuous function f : (1,{\infty}) \rightarrow\mathbb{R} . I am however struggling to show that:

    (i) f is differentiable and that f'(s) < 0 for all  s \in\ (1,{\infty}).
    (ii) f is differentiable and that f''(s) > 0 for all  s \in\ (1,{\infty}).

    Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    thanks
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor Mathstud28's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,641
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmccormick View Post
    Consider the function

    f(s) = \sum_{r=1} ^ {\infty} \frac{1}{r^s}.
    I have so far managed to show that the series converges for each  s\in\ (1,{\infty}) and that this series defines a continuous function f : (1,{\infty}) \rightarrow\mathbb{R} . I am however struggling to show that:

    (i) f is differentiable and that f'(s) < 0 for all  s \in\ (1,{\infty}).
    (ii) f is differentiable and that f''(s) > 0 for all  s \in\ (1,{\infty}).

    Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    thanks
    Note that on the specified interval that \zeta(x) converges uniformly on (1,\infty) since those points are on the interior of its interval of convergence. Now note that \frac{1}{r^x} is differentiable to \frac{-x}{r^{x+1}} and that by the Weirstrass test or using the ratio/root test that this is uniformly convergent on (0,\infty) we can conclude that

    \forall{x}\in(1,\infty)~\zeta'(x)=\sum_{n=1}^{\inf  ty}\frac{-x}{r^{x+1}}

    Now it is obvious that \forall{x}\in(1,\infty)~\frac{-x}{r^{x+1}}<0, so there is part i and for part two repeat a similar process of establishing, uniform convergence of \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{-x}{r^{x+1}} on (1,\infty), uniform convergence of \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{x(x+1)}{r^{x+2}} on (1,\infty), and the differentiability of \frac{-x}{r^{x+1}} on (1,\infty)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    53
    I feel really stupid because your explanation is very clear but I don't follow....can you please explain why the derivative of \frac{1}{r^x} is \frac{-x}{r^{x+1}} because I make it out to be -r^{-x}ln(r). The second thing is the ratio test on \frac{-x}{r^{x+1}} gives convergence, does that necessarily imply uniform convergence.
    Sorry about this and thanks a lot
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor Mathstud28's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,641
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmccormick View Post
    I feel really stupid because your explanation is very clear but I don't follow....can you please explain why the derivative of \frac{1}{r^x} is \frac{-x}{r^{x+1}} because I make it out to be -r^{-x}ln(r). The second thing is the ratio test on \frac{-x}{r^{x+1}} gives convergence, does that necessarily imply uniform convergence.
    Sorry about this and thanks a lot
    Because \zeta(x) is a function of x so \zeta'(x)=\frac{d}{dx}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{  r^x} now since the appropriate conditions were met as I showed you \frac{d}{dx}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{r^x}=\sum_  {n=1}^{\infty}\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{r^x}=\sum_{n=1}  ^{\infty}\frac{-x}{r^{x+1}}. And to answer your other question, I mistyped, forgive me. Disregard the ratio/root test comment and stick the Weirstrass M-test.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Moo
    Moo is offline
    A Cute Angle Moo's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    P(I'm here)=1/3, P(I'm there)=t+1/3
    Posts
    5,618
    Thanks
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathstud28 View Post
    Because \zeta(x) is a function of x so \zeta'(x)=\frac{d}{dx}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{  r^x} now since the appropriate conditions were met as I showed you \frac{d}{dx}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{r^x}=\sum_  {n=1}^{\infty}\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{r^x}=\sum_{n=1}  ^{\infty}\frac{-x}{r^{x+1}}. And to answer your other question, I mistyped, forgive me. Disregard the ratio/root test comment and stick the Weirstrass M-test.
    As you said, it is a function of x.

    \frac{d}{dx} \left(\frac{1}{r^x} \right)=\frac{d}{dx} \left(e^{-x \ln(r)}\right)=-\ln(r) \cdot \frac{1}{r^x}

    So davidmccormick, you are correct.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    53
    But all I've done is differentiating the first term of the original series. I am pretty sure that the derivative exist and is equal to \zeta'(s) = -\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{lnr}{r^s} = -\sum_{r=2}^{\infty}\frac{lnr}{r^s}. But I have not actually shown that \zeta is differentiable.
    Any thoughts.
    thanks
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmccormick View Post
    I am pretty sure that the derivative exist and is equal to \zeta'(s) = -\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{\ln r}{r^s} = -\sum_{r=2}^{\infty}\frac{\ln r}{r^s}.
    The series -\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{\ln r}{r^s} converges uniformly in any interval [a,∞), where a>1 (by the Weierstrass M-test). So you can integrate this series term by term (getting \zeta(s)), and by the fundamental theorem of calculus the integrated series will have the required derivative, which is clearly negative.

    The same argument, repeated, will show that the second derivative is \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{(\ln r)^2}{r^s}, which is clearly positive.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmccormick View Post
    But all I've done is differentiating the first term of the original series. I am pretty sure that the derivative exist and is equal to \zeta'(s) = -\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{lnr}{r^s} = -\sum_{r=2}^{\infty}\frac{lnr}{r^s}. But I have not actually shown that \zeta is differentiable.
    Any thoughts.
    thanks
    It is sufficient to show that the sequence of parital sums:

    S_N(x)=\sum_{r=1}^N \frac{1}{r^x}

    in a neighbourhood of x is uniformly convergent, and that S'_N(x) is also uniformly convergent to conclude that:

     <br />
 \frac{d \zeta}{dx}=\frac{d}{dx}\left[ \lim_{N \to \infty} S_N(x) \right] = \lim _{N \to \infty}<br />
\frac{dS_N(x)}{dx}<br />

    The uniform convergence on the sequence of partial sums for the zeta function can be demonstrated fairly easily on any closed interval [a,b],\ 1<a<b, and with a bit more trouble for the sequence of derivatives of the partial sums. Together these prove that the derivative of the zeta function can be found by term by term differentiation of the series for the zeta function on (1,\infty).

    CB
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathstud28 View Post
    Note that on the specified interval that \zeta(x) converges uniformly on (1,\infty) since those points are on the interior of its interval of convergence.
    This needs clarifying. If this is saying that the series is uniformly convergent on (0, \infty) then I suspect its wrong.

    CB
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    53
    For the Weierstrass M-test what series do we use to show that -\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{\ln r}{r^s} and \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{(\ln r)^2}{r^s} respectively are uniformly convergent.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmccormick View Post
    For the Weierstrass M-test what series do we use to show that -\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{\ln r}{r^s} and \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{(\ln r)^2}{r^s} respectively are uniformly convergent.
    These series are uniformly convergent on the interval [a,∞), for any given a>1. In fact, \frac{(\ln r)^k}{r^s} is decreasing as a function of s, because its derivative is -\frac{(\ln r)^{k+1}}{r^s}. So its maximum value on the interval [a,∞) is its value at the left endpoint s=a, and we take M_r = \frac{(\ln r)^k}{r^a} (where k = 1 or 2 as appropriate) in the M-test. The fact that \sum_{r=1}^\infty \frac{(\ln r)^k}{r^a} converges (for a>1) then tells you that these series converge uniformly on that interval.

    But note that uniform convergence on the interval [a,∞) for every a>1 does not imply uniform convergence on the interval (1,∞); and in fact the Riemann zeta series is not uniformly convergent on (1,∞).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    53
    you've been very helpful and thorough. thank you
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Riemann Zeta Function
    Posted in the Math Challenge Problems Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 22nd 2010, 09:53 PM
  2. Riemann Zeta Function
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 10th 2009, 09:23 AM
  3. Riemann Zeta Function
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 27th 2009, 06:56 AM
  4. Riemann Zeta function - Zeta(0) != Infinity ??
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 8th 2009, 12:50 AM
  5. Riemann Zeta Function
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 27th 2008, 04:39 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum