MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The Riemann's zeta function can be expressed as a continued fraction as follows \begin{align*} \zeta(z)=\newcommand{\bigk}{\mathop{\Huge\vcenter{\hbox{K}}}}\left(1-\bigk_{k=1}^{\infty }\frac{-e^{-2\cdot (coth^{-1}(2k+1))\cdot z}}{1+e^{-2\cdot (coth^{-1}(2k+1))\cdot z}}\right)^{-1}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;(1) \end{align*} and its reciprocal as \begin{align*} \frac{1}{{\zeta(z)}}=\newcommand{\bigk}{\mathop{\Huge\vcenter{\hbox{K}}}}1-\bigk_{k=1}^{\infty }\frac{-e^{-2\cdot (coth^{-1}(2k+1)) \cdot z}}{1+e^{-2\cdot(coth^{-1}(2k+1))\cdot z}}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;(2) \end{align*} Proof: Note that \begin{align*} ln(n)=2 \sum_{m=1}^{n-1} \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{2k+1}\left( \frac{1}{2\cdot m+1} \right)^{2k+1} \end{align*} and that \begin{align*} coth^{-1}(2 n +1)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{2k+1}\left( \frac{1}{2\cdot n+1} \right)^{2k+1} \end{align*} so \begin{align*} ln(n)=2 \sum_{m=1}^{n-1} coth^{-1}(2 m +1) \end{align*} so teh Riemann's zeta function is expressed as \begin{align*} \zeta(z)=1+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\prod_{k=1}^{n-1}e^{-2\cdot(coth^{-1}(2k+1))\cdot z} \end{align*} and using Euler's continued fraction formula the result follows. \begin{equation*} \zeta(z)= \cfrac{1}{ 1- \cfrac{e^{-2(coth^{-1}(3))z}}{ 1+e^{-2(coth^{-1}(3))z}- \cfrac{e^{-2(coth^{-1}(5))z}}{ 1+e^{-2(coth^{-1}(5))z}- \cfrac{e^{-2(coth^{-1}(7))z}}{ 1+e^{-2(coth^{-1}(7))z} - \ddots}}}} \end{equation*} wich in Gauss' notation is (1)

Now considere \begin{align*} f(z)=\newcommand{\bigk}{\mathop{\Huge\vcenter{\hbox{K}}}}\bigk_{k=1}^{\infty }\frac{-e^{-2\cdot (coth^{-1}(2k+1))\cdot z}}{1+e^{-2\cdot(coth^{-1}(2k+1))\cdot z}} \end{align*}

Using Śleszyński–Pringsheim theorem we can see that $f(z)$ converges for $\Im{z}=0$ and $\Re{z}\geq 0$. This is saying that $1/\zeta(z)$ converges for $x\geq 0$.

My question: can a bigger region of convergence be found using the theory of continued fractions?

share|cite|improve this question
Better in what way? – Igor Rivin Dec 22 '11 at 20:05
This question could be improved: – Stopple Dec 22 '11 at 20:19
Is this $ \mathop{\large{\bf K}}_{k=1}^\infty $ notation standard? The only other place I've seen it is in other recent questions from A.Neves. – Noam D. Elkies Dec 23 '11 at 0:30
@Noam: it's somewhat standard in CF literature. I'm told it's originally Gauss's. – J. M. Dec 23 '11 at 1:17
I don't really understand Gauss's notation. Why is it not $\zeta(z)=\left(1+\bigk\cdots\right)^{-1}$? – Sylvain JULIEN Nov 11 '13 at 11:13

(Too long for a comment.)

There's a (somewhat) simpler (Eulerian) continued fraction:

$$\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac1{k^s}=1+\sum_{k=2}^{\infty} \prod_{j=2}^k \left(1-\frac1{j}\right)^s=\cfrac1{1-\cfrac{\left(1-\frac12\right)^s}{1+\left(1-\frac12\right)^s-\cfrac{\left(1-\frac13\right)^s}{1+\left(1-\frac13\right)^s-\cfrac{\left(1-\frac14\right)^s}{1+\left(1-\frac14\right)^s-\cdots}}}}\;\;\;\;\;\;$$

but as you can see from comparing successive convergents of this continued fraction and the successive partial sums of the Dirichlet series, it's not terribly useful.



so your CF could certainly be simplified a fair bit...

share|cite|improve this answer
this $e^{-2arcoth((2k+1)z)}$ is not what I mean the correct expression is $e^{-2(arcoth(2k+1))z}$ – A.Neves Dec 23 '11 at 10:15
OK, I see${}{}$. – A.Neves Dec 23 '11 at 12:31

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.