0
$\begingroup$

Recently I have made some interesting observations on the limit $$\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}{\sum_{n=1}^{k}{\dfrac{(-1)^{n-1}\biggl( \cos \left(\beta\ln(n)\right)\biggr)}{n^{\alpha}}}}. $$ When this limit exist denoteits convergence point by $\zeta$. If we define $f_k$ to be the partial sums of this series:

$$f_k(\alpha,\beta):= \sum_{n=1}^{k}{\dfrac{(-1)^{n-1}\biggl( \cos \left(\beta\ln(n)\right)\biggr)}{n^{\alpha}}} $$ I want to prove that $$f_{2k}(\alpha,\beta)\le \zeta \le f_{2k+1}(\alpha,\beta)$$ for all values k. One approach is to prove them separately. First show $\zeta-f_{2k}(\alpha,\beta)\ge 0$ and then $f_{2k+1}(\alpha,\beta) - \zeta \le 0$.

From this we can easily obtain small bounds on the actual value of the zeta function and hopefully show that the there is only one value of $\alpha$ such that both the limits $$\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}{\sum_{n=1}^{k}{\dfrac{(-1)^{n-1}\biggl( \cos \left(\beta\ln(n)\right)\biggr)}{n^{\alpha}}}}$$ and $$\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}{\sum_{n=1}^{k}{\dfrac{(-1)^{n-1}\biggl( \sin\left(\beta\ln(n)\right)\biggr)}{n^{\alpha}}}}$$ are both simultaneously zero. We should be able to bound zeta by the first few terms.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Please spell Riemann's name correctly. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Apr 15, 2023 at 1:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ hahah sure sure $\endgroup$
    – MrPie
    Commented Apr 15, 2023 at 1:15
  • $\begingroup$ Note $$\sum_{n=1}^{k}{\dfrac{(-1)^{n-1}\biggl( \cos \left(\beta\ln(n)\right)\biggr)}{n^{\alpha}}}$$ does not depend on $n$, yet you call it $f_k(n)$. Perhaps it should be something like $f_k(\alpha,\beta)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 15, 2023 at 1:15
  • $\begingroup$ @GeraldEdgar yes of course oops $\endgroup$
    – MrPie
    Commented Apr 15, 2023 at 1:18
  • $\begingroup$ For some $n$ you could have $\cos(\beta\ln (2n+1)) < 0$ which will violate the inequality $f_{2n} \le f_{2n+1}$ . $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 15, 2023 at 1:22

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

The inequality you want to prove is false. For example, $$f_5(1/2,1)=0.6096\dots,$$ while $$\lim_{k\to\infty}f_k(1/2,1)=0.6398\dots$$

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ I will have to check your calculations. see this post for more numerical evidence. mathoverflow.net/questions/441121/… $\endgroup$
    – MrPie
    Commented Apr 15, 2023 at 1:33
  • $\begingroup$ @MrPie Note also that Gerald Edgar was right in his comment. If $\cos(\beta\ln (2k+1))$ is negative, then $f_{2k+1}(\alpha,\beta)<f_{2k}(\alpha,\beta)$ for any $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Apr 15, 2023 at 1:38
  • $\begingroup$ maybe the inequality just flips in the other situations. $\endgroup$
    – MrPie
    Commented Apr 15, 2023 at 1:40
  • $\begingroup$ It seems to satisy some type of wave behavior that we can study. Find out how fast these waves are decreasing or increasing and try to capture an appropriate value of zeta from it. It doesnt seem far off from its first few points. Its definitely oscillating around its convergence point. $\endgroup$
    – MrPie
    Commented Apr 15, 2023 at 1:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ At any rate, I answered your question. If you have an other question, please open a new page for it. Note also that lengthy discussions are discouraged here (MO is not a forum). I finish the discussion here. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Apr 15, 2023 at 1:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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