A curious definite integral. - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-21T10:30:26Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/91158http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/91158/a-curious-definite-integralA curious definite integral.Koundinya Vajjha2012-03-14T10:31:24Z2012-03-14T12:49:36Z
<p>I was playing around with $\mathcal{I}=\int_0^1\text{frac}({\frac{1}{x^n}}) dx$, where $\text{frac(.)}$ is the fractional part function, and I discovered that
$$\mathcal{I}=~~~ \frac{1}{1-n}; n\leq0$$
\begin{align*}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\frac{1}{1-n}-\zeta(1/n)~~;n\in(0,1)
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
~~~~~~~~~~~1-\gamma~; n=1
\end{align*}</p>
<p>Where $\gamma$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. And $\zeta(s)$ is the Riemann Zeta function.</p>
<p>My questions are</p>
<p>1) Is anything similar known? Any other definite integrals relating the fractional part and the Riemann zeta function?</p>
<p>2) It is apparent from the above that $\zeta(1/n)
< \frac{1}{1-n}$ for $n\in(0,1)$. Now I've found out that the same inequality holds even when $n>1$. However, the same technique for evaluation for $\mathcal{I}$ doesnt work when $n>1$, as the computation depends on the sum $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^p}$$
which diverges when $p\leq 1$. And if $n>1$, we have that $1/n<1$ so one of the sums in the process of evaluation becomes divergent. </p>
<p>I'm guessing that some complex analysis is required to overcome this difficulty. But I'm not familiar with that as of now. </p>
<p>I'd be grateful for any comments on this.</p>
<p>Thank you. :)</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/91158/a-curious-definite-integral/91171#91171Answer by Peter Humphries for A curious definite integral.Peter Humphries2012-03-14T12:49:36Z2012-03-14T12:49:36Z<p>This really isn't particularly remarkable. By definition,
$$\zeta(s) = \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{n^s}} = s \int_{1}^{\infty}{\frac{\lfloor x \rfloor}{x^s} \frac{dx}{x}}$$
for $\Re(s) > 1$, where the second inequality follows by a partial summation argument, and $\lfloor x \rfloor$ is the floor function. We can write $\lfloor x \rfloor = x - \{x\}$, where $\{x\}$ is the fractional part of $x$, and split up the integral above in order to find that
$$\zeta(s) = \frac{1}{s - 1} + 1 - s \int_{1}^{\infty}{\frac{\{ x \}}{x^s} \frac{dx}{x}}.$$
This is now defines a meromorphic function on $\Re(s) > 0$ with just a simple pole at $s = 1$ with residue $1$. In any case, this is a well-known integral representation of $\zeta(s)$.</p>
<p>This should explain your result for $0 < n < 1$, by making the change of variables $n = 1/s$, and then making the change of variables $y = x^{-1/n}$ in the integral. Also, the $n = 1$ case is definitional, as the Euler--Mascheroni constant is defined to be
$$1 - \int_{1}^{\infty}{\frac{\{ x \}}{x^2} dx}$$
A partial summation argument should show why this is the same as $\lim_{x \to \infty} \left( \sum_{n \leq x}{\frac{1}{n}} - \log x\right)$.</p>
<p>You can also see why
$$\zeta(\sigma) < \frac{\sigma}{\sigma - 1}$$
for all $\sigma > 0$; this is simply because
$$\sigma \int_{1}^{\infty}{\frac{\{ x \}}{x^{\sigma}} \frac{dx}{x}} > 0.$$</p>
<p>Note that none of this really uses complex analysis, apart from the fact that $\zeta(s)$ isn't implicitly defined for $0 < \Re(s) < 1$ initially, so you need to take a leap of faith to believe that the integral representation of $\zeta(s)$ is actually valid in this strip.</p>