3
$\begingroup$

Just for fun I was trying to find a formula that calculates the value of the sum of the Riemann zeta non trivial roots raised to a power $n$, $Z(n)$.

$$Z(n) = \sum_{\rho} ' \frac{1}{\rho ^n}$$

I managed to find one monster of an equation after a while and it seems to work fine for $n=1$ but when I try $n=3$ the sum I have is almost exactly the same as the one given on Wolfram but with a negative sign on the $3\gamma \gamma_1 $ term.

According to the relation I derived there should be alternating signs in the gamma terms but Wolfram disagrees. If it is needed I can type down my work, but basically I worked out that for $n>1$ $$ Z(n) = 1 - \frac{2^n - 1}{2^n} \zeta (n) + \sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{(-1)^{n-1-k} (k-1)!}{(n-1)!} B_{n,k} ((-1)^{n-k+1}(n-k+1)\gamma _{n-k}. $$ For $n=1$ the equation it's slightly different but I have confirmed that case to be true.

Plugging in $n=3$ for this equation gives $$ Z(3)=1+\frac{3}{2} \gamma _2 -3\gamma \gamma_1 +\gamma^3 - \frac{7}{8} \zeta (3) $$ Wolfram gives the value $$ Z(3)=1+\frac{3}{2} \gamma _2 +3\gamma \gamma_1 +\gamma^3 - \frac{7}{8} \zeta (3) $$ instead. Can anybody prove the Wolfram version so at least I can try to find where I went wrong?

The $B_{n,k}$ are the Bell polynomials that I used in Faa di Bruno's formula to calculate $Z(n)$ and I shorthanded the notation slightly because it was too long.

Link to the page:

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/RiemannZetaFunctionZeros.html

$\endgroup$
9
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (1) You use the notation $Z(n)$, but you never tell us what it means. (2) Somehow, when you plug in $n=3$, the left side remains $Z(n)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 19, 2021 at 10:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ OK. Now you can include the definition of $\gamma_i$. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 19, 2021 at 10:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @David, I figured as much, but it should be explicitly in the body of the question. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 19, 2021 at 13:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A closing parenthesis is missing in your long formula for $Z(n)$. Also, what's the meaning of the apostrophe on the first sum $\sum\limits_{\rho} '$? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 19, 2021 at 16:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You need to correct your formula for $Z(n)$. Assuming the first opening parenthesis following $B_{n,k}$ can be deleted, your formula doesn't match your result for $n=3$. Also note $(-1)^{n-k-1} (-1)^{n-k+1}=1$ so these two factors just drop out. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 19, 2021 at 17:13

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

This comes directly from the Hadamard product given in the Wolfram page you refer to by taking logarithmic derivatives and identifying powers of $s$. However, following Harold Stark, the classical formula given in Wolfram should be replaced by the much simpler formula $s(s-1)\Lambda(s)=\prod_{\rho}(1-s/\rho)$, where the product is to be understood as the limit as $T\to\infty$ of $\prod_{|\Im(\rho)|<T}$, and as usual $\Lambda(s)=\pi^{s/2}\Gamma(s/2)\zeta(s)$. Now take logarithmic derivatives and the formula follows.

One can also easily obtain a recursion (equivalent to your use of Bell polynomials): define by induction $$\delta_{k+1}=(k+1)\dfrac{\gamma_k}{k!}+\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\dfrac{\gamma_j\delta_{k-j}}{j!}\quad\text{($\delta_1=\gamma_0=\gamma)$}\;.$$ Then $Z(k)=1-(1-1/2^k)\zeta(k)+\delta_k\;.$

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ You're right I'm stupid, didn't do the derivative properly. $\endgroup$
    – Horus
    Commented Aug 20, 2021 at 9:40

You must log in to answer this question.

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