[This question is copied from math.stackexchange, it didn't get answers so far]

For some exercises with (divergent) summation of the Stieltjes constants,see also MSE I'm trying a formula, which involves derivatives of the $\zeta()$ -function at negative integers; perhaps better formulated as $$ f(x) = \zeta(1-x) + 1/x \qquad x \in \mathbb N $$ and then the scaled derivatives $$ g(x,d) = x^d \cdot {f^{(d)}(x)\over d!} $$.

In Pari/GP there is a very nice procedure for the computation of $\zeta$ implemented, but I don't see anything for the derivatives except to implement numerical differentiation along the line ${f(x+\epsilon/2) - f(x-\epsilon/2)\over \epsilon}$ and so on, but which becomes inaccurate for higher derivatives.
For small x I can use the representation of the function $f(x)$ as a power series involving the Stieltjes-constants themselves, but a suitable computation is then possible only for a small range of x-values if I use only, say 100 or 200 terms of the power series.

Q: What would be a more efficient representation of $f(x)$ and/or $g(x)$ for the actual computation, where -say- x and d both can go up to 100 or 200 ? Note, that for high c (the index for the partial sums, see below) there is the significant effect , that either (x is small and d is high) or converse, such that d+x in the terms of one partial sum is constant.

More context: what I'm finally after is to be able to explore the partial sums and its single terms in
$$ S \underset{\mathfrak E}{=} \lim_{c\to \infty} S(c) = \sum_{k=0}^{c} (-1)^k g( c+1-k ,k) $$ which should be a representation for the (divergent) sum of the Stieltjes constants, taken by some "Eulerian" summation procedure $\mathfrak E$ (see an earlier post here on MO).


The Euler-Maclaurin formula works quite well.

I have implemented simultaneous computation of $(\zeta(s,a), \zeta'(s,a) \ldots, \zeta^{(n)}(s,a))$ for arbitrary $s, a \in \mathbb{C}$, with the option to subtract $1/(s-1)$ to remove the singularity at $s = 1$, in my library for ball arithmetic Arb. All the derivatives are computed with rigorous error bounds (as currently described on this page).

As a benchmark, computing the first 1000 Stieltjes constants to 1000 accurate digits (using 1500 digits of precision to give $\gamma_0$ accurate to 1500 digits and $\gamma_{1000}$ accurate to 1000 digits) takes 14 seconds, and computing the first 5000 Stieltjes constants to 5000 digits takes 40 minutes.

  • $\begingroup$ Hi Fredrik, did you mean to apply the Euler-Maclaurin formula directly at the Stieltjes-numbers? $\endgroup$ – Gottfried Helms Mar 8 '13 at 18:10
  • $\begingroup$ Yes (if I understand your question directly), the Euler-Maclaurin formula works directly for zeta at any integer, and gives you the Stieltjes constants at $s = 1$ after just removing the singular $1/(s-1)$ term. $\endgroup$ – Fredrik Johansson Mar 8 '13 at 20:59
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, so I see, there was possibly a misunderstanding. I have the first 500 Stieltjes constants to 1000 digits by a nice, small procedure. What I was trying to do, was to give a sense to the sum-of-all-Stieltjes numbers, by some summation-procedure. That procedure requires to use the derivatives of the zetas in a certain manner in finite sums as written above. That finite sums, having more and more terms according to the increasing parameter c, approximate something like 0.4990749...xyz , but convergence is slow and needs many of the zeta's derivatives... $\endgroup$ – Gottfried Helms Mar 9 '13 at 6:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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