5
$\begingroup$

About 6 months ago I asked for an analytic continuation of $\varphi(s)=\sum_{n\ge1} e^{-n^s}.$

What's the maximal analytic continuation of $\varphi(s)?$

Doing this will help me better understand how the function behaves.

As is stated in the comments, the main question is whether the line $\Re z=1$ is the natural boundary for the analytic continuation:

$$ \varphi(s)=\Gamma\left(1+\frac1s\right)+\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{(-1)^n}{n!}\zeta(-ns).$$

As noted by metamorphy, this series converges for complex $s\ne0$ with $\Re s<1$.

$\endgroup$
10
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Erm... And what are the function values for $s<0$ that you would like to extend? The series, as written, certainly diverges there, so you surely meant something different from what you wrote :-) $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Feb 12, 2021 at 1:02
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @M.G. In this interpretation it has already been established by metamorphy in the MSE thread (the function can be analytically extended to the half-plane $\Re s<1$ from $(0,1)$ with just one pole at $0$) $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Feb 12, 2021 at 10:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @fedja maximal analytic continuation of $\varphi(s)$. Better? $\endgroup$
    – geocalc33
    Commented Feb 12, 2021 at 22:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @geocalc33 Yep. Basically at this point the main question is whether the line $\Re z=1$ is the natural boundary for metamorphy's analytic continuation. $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Feb 12, 2021 at 22:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GHfromMO The function is clearly analytic for $s>0$ as a real variable No, no, and once more no! When $s>1$, it is $C^\infty$ and even in a quasi-analytic class, but not real analytic. $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Mar 4, 2021 at 16:39

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

I think the issue with trying to analytically continue this function is that it really defines two different, incompatible, functions. This is suggested, for instance, since $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty (e^{-n^s}-1) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^k}{k!} \zeta(-sk)$$ When we look at the left half-plane. However, when we construct an expansion on the right half-plane we instead obtain $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty e^{-n^s} = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{ (-1)^k}{k!} \zeta(-sk) + \mathbf{\Gamma\left(1+\frac{1}{s}\right)}$$ If we were dealing with a single function, we would expect that $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty e^{-n^s} - \sum_{n=1}^\infty (e^{-n^s}-1) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty 1 = \zeta(0)$$ And without the bolded Gamma function term, we do find this. Thus, our sum is probably best represented as $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty e^{-n^s} = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{ (-1)^k}{k!} \zeta(-sk)+ \begin{cases} \Gamma\left(1+\frac{1}{s}\right) & \mathfrak{Re}(s)<0 \\ 0 & \mathfrak{Re}(s)>0 \end{cases}$$

To see this, let us add in an extra term to our sum so that converges on the whole real line. Let us consider $g(s,k) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{e^{-n^s}}{n^w}$ with $k>1$ so that it absolutely converges. Then we have $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{e^{-n^s}}{n^w} = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^k}{k!} \sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{sk-w} = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^k}{k!} \zeta(w-sk)$$ Notice that in this step, if $\mathfrak{Re}(s)>0$ the inner series is diverging, and so it is only equal to the $\zeta$ function by analytical continuation. When we do a step like this, we have to pick up the residues created by the function we analytically continued (in this case the $\zeta$ function). (Note: to see a bit more about why this step is necessary, see this question of my mine). Thus, we pick up the residue $$ \frac{\csc(\pi z) \zeta(w-zs)}{\Gamma(z+1)2i} \bigg|_{z=\frac{w-1}{s}} = \frac{\Gamma\left(1-\frac{-1+s+w}{s}\right)}{s}$$ However, when $\mathfrak{Re}(s)<0$ the sums all converge, so we don't pick up that residue.

Thus, we obtain that on the real line when $\mathfrak{Re}(w)>1$ $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{e^{-n^s}}{n^w} = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{ (-1)^k}{k!} \zeta(w-sk)+ \begin{cases} \frac{\Gamma\left(1-\frac{-1+s+w}{s}\right)}{s} & \mathfrak{Re}(s)<0 \\ 0 & \mathfrak{Re}(s)>0 \end{cases}$$

One short note is in order, which is that $\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{ (-1)^k}{k!} \zeta(w-sk)$ does not converge for for some values. This is not a problem, we just replace the sum using the residue theorem with the integral $\int_{C} \frac{\csc(\pi z) \zeta(w-sz)}{z!2i} dz$ and making sure we choose $C$ so that we only pick up the residues at the natural numbers.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ thanks for this insight. did you ever find anything with respect to the integral $\varphi(s)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{c-i\infty}^{c+i\infty}\frac{2K_1(2\sqrt{z})}{\sqrt{z}}\bigg(\sum_{n=1}^\infty e^{zn^{-s}}\bigg)~dz$? You had said it agreed with what you had obtained in the other post $\endgroup$
    – geocalc33
    Commented Jan 26, 2023 at 13:58
  • $\begingroup$ so the piecewise nature of the function is the problem with the analytic continuation? $\endgroup$
    – geocalc33
    Commented Jan 30, 2023 at 0:26
  • $\begingroup$ @geocalc33 The piecewise nature means that there can't be a single analytic function that captures the behavior on the real line. However, this doesn't mean that it's not possible for each of the branches to be analytically continued everywhere (for instance, log has a branch cut, but the branches can be continued everywhere minus the cut). When that $n^w$ term is present, the function has a natural boundary-- I think there are poles when $k$ makes $n^{sk}+w=0$, $n>0$ However, at $w=0$ the method breaks down and I'm not sure if the poles get pushed to infinity or if they remain somehow. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 30, 2023 at 0:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ sent you an email $\endgroup$
    – geocalc33
    Commented Feb 1, 2023 at 2:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The idea of abrupt changes in continuation at least vaguely reminds of the ideas here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_phenomenon. Supposedly high powered summation techniques like Ecalle’s resurgence theory become multivalued because of that, and so the multiple inconsistent branches you are finding might be indicating a similar thing here $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 28, 2023 at 14:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .