3
$\begingroup$

I have encountered a limiting process on some infinite series. So, I would like to ask:

QUESTION. Assume $n$ is an even positive integer. Is this true? $$\lim_{r\rightarrow1^{-}}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\left(\sqrt{\frac2n}-\cos\left(\frac{\pi j^2}n\right) -\sin\left(\frac{\pi j^2}n\right)\right)r^j=\frac12\left(1-\sqrt{\frac2n}\right).$$

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

We will use the following well known fact (e.g., see sections 1.1 and 1.2 in this article):

Given $f(x)$ with period $1$, its Fourier series $$ f(x)=\sum_{j=0}^\infty a_j\cos(2\pi jx), $$ and a positive integer $n\in\mathbb{N}$, one has $$ \sum_{j=0}^\infty a_je^{\pi i j^2/n}=\frac{e^{\pi i (1-n)/4}}{\sqrt{n}}\sum _{j=1}^n(-1)^jf\Big(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{j}{n}\Big)e^{-\pi i j^2/n}. $$

The idea behind this fact is due to Dirichlet (see Andrews, Askey and Roy's book).

Now take $a_j=r^j$, $|r|<1$. Then $$ f(x)=\frac{1-r\cos(2\pi x)}{1-2r\cos(2\pi x)+r^2}. $$

This allows one to calculate the part of OP's series that contain cosine and sine terms. The part that contains $\sqrt{2/n}$ is trivial.

Now that the series is reduced to a finite sum, one can put $r\to 1-0$.

In the resulting finite sum, the singular terms $(1-r)^{-1}$ come from the terms in the series that contain $\sqrt{2/n}$, and one is contained in the finite sum from $f(0)$ (the term $j=n$), and they would cancel each other.

Since for $x\neq 0$ $$ \lim_{r\to 1}f(x)=1/2,\quad x\neq 0, $$ OP's claim reduces to a calculation of a Gauss sum. However, there is no need to calculate this Gauss sum explicitly, because its value follows from the general formula if one takes $f\equiv 1$.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Can you explain how the "(well known?) fact" is proved? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 13 at 22:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think the formula is correct, but the manipulations with the delta functions need detalization/justification. I think answers are written not only for the OP, but also for their other readers -- so, they should be detailed enough in any case. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 14 at 20:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Sorry for the delayed response. No, I don't have a better answer, and I don't think I ever implied anything like that. Concerning the first line of your first proof, I think there is at least one typo there. Concerning the first line of your second proof, I think the factor $(-1)^{-1/4}$ is missing on right-hand side there; hopefully, this does not affect the final result. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 16 at 18:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you detail the second equality in your first proof (where $f$ first appears) and the use of the Poisson summation formula (?) in your second proof, where $\sum_{n=0}^a$ first appears? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 18 at 2:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also, why the Gauss sums don't depend on $j$? I have just tried $n=5$, and then the sums do depend on $j$. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 18 at 2:27

You must log in to answer this question.

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