-2
$\begingroup$

Let $0<\alpha <1$ and $\beta > 0$. Consider the mapping $$F(\alpha, \beta) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{\dfrac{(-1)^{n-1}\biggl( \cos \left(\beta\ln(n)\right)\biggr)}{n^{\alpha}}}.$$ Can we prove $F(\alpha, \beta)$ exist (in other words the series converges), and how should one approach studying the roots of $F(\alpha, \beta)$ that is $$F(\alpha, \beta) = 0.$$ Numerical results suggest the partial sums $$F_k(\alpha,\beta) : = \sum_{n=1}^{k}{ (-1)^{n-1}\dfrac{\cos(\beta \ln(n))}{n^\alpha}}$$ of this series satisfies $$F_{2k}(\alpha,\beta)\le F(\alpha, \beta)\le F_{2k+1}(\alpha,\beta)$$ I want to then look for a $C^k$ (infinitely differential in $k$) function $g(k,\alpha,\beta)$ such that $$\dfrac{\partial }{\partial k} g(k,\alpha, \beta) = 0 $$ and $$g(k,\alpha, \beta) = F_k(\alpha, \beta)$$ for each $k\in \mathbb{N}$ (but not necessarily all real numbers) so that at each point of $k$ the partial sum the derivative is zero and we get a maximum or minimum (wave like structure) of $g$. Can we find such a function $g$? If so, I claim $g$ will converge to $F(\alpha,\beta)$ for large $k$. That is $$\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}{g(k,\alpha,\beta)} = F(\alpha,\beta)$$ but can we prove it? There should be many functions we can find. Here is an image for $\alpha = 0.90 $ and $\beta = 8.264$ enter image description here If we compare to the function $$g(k,\alpha,\beta) := \cos(\beta \ln(k))/k^{\alpha}$$ (see blue graph) enter image description here we find similar behavior in regard to its convergence point and its periodicity it seems the action of taking this series on a periodic function does not really change it much. Hence, suggesting the series is not really affecting the periodicity of the function instead it is just changing the amplitude and frequency (its convergence points). So it seems this is modeling the frequency of some wave.

source code provided by Roy Bursonenter image description here

$\endgroup$
18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ this is just the real part of $\eta(s)=\sum_{n \ge 1}(-1)^{n+1}n^{-s}, s=\alpha+i\beta$ so it converges and should have tons of zeroes on every vertical line for $0 < \alpha \le 1$ (because at least for $1/2 < \alpha \le 1$ lots of things are known about $\zeta$ hence $\eta$ (eg $\zeta$ sends each vertical line there in a dense plane set, so does $\eta$ and then the real part cannot be eventually positive or eventually negative on the line) $\endgroup$
    – Conrad
    Commented Feb 18, 2023 at 20:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Conrad it seems to also be related to the zeroes of the $\zeta$ function $\endgroup$
    – MrPie
    Commented Feb 18, 2023 at 20:11
  • $\begingroup$ this is the real part so every zero of $\eta$ is a zero of this but of course there are tons of zeroes of this that are not zeroes of $\eta$ or $\zeta$; for example every eta zero on the line $\alpha=1$ which are known (the roots of $2^{it}=1$) is a zero of this $\endgroup$
    – Conrad
    Commented Feb 18, 2023 at 20:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Conrad yes but I can relate this series to the zeroes of $\zeta$. I can show that $F(\alpha, \beta ) = 0$ must be true if $\zeta(\alpha+\beta i) = 0$ $\endgroup$
    – MrPie
    Commented Feb 18, 2023 at 20:16
  • $\begingroup$ Yes that's obvious since zeroes of zeta are zeroes of eta so are zeroes of the real part; but $F$ has many more zeroes than eta or zeta; it definitely has zeroes to the right of of $\Re s >1$ up to wherever $\zeta(\sigma)=2$ $\endgroup$
    – Conrad
    Commented Feb 18, 2023 at 20:19

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

I prove the convergence of the series. For $n \ge 1$, let $$S_n = \sum_{k=1}^n k^{-i\beta-\alpha} \text{ and } S'_n = \sum_{k=1}^n (-1)^ {k-1} k^{-i\beta-\alpha}$$ Then $$S_{2n}-S'_{2n} = 2 \sum_{k=1}^n (2k)^{-i\beta-\alpha} = 2^{1-i\beta-\alpha}S_n.$$ Let us study the behavior of those sums as $n \to +\infty$.
Since \begin{eqnarray*} k^{i\beta-\alpha} - \frac{k^{1-i\beta-\alpha} - (k-1)^{1-i\beta-\alpha}}{1-i\beta-\alpha} &=& k^{1-i\beta-\alpha}\Big(\frac{1}{k} - \frac{1}{1-i\beta-\alpha} \big(1 - \Big(1-\frac{1}{k}\Big)^{1-i\beta-\alpha}\big) \Big) \\ &=& k^{1-i\beta-\alpha} O(k^{-2}) \\ &=& O(k^{-\alpha-1}), \end{eqnarray*} the series $$\sum_k \Big( k^{-i\beta-\alpha} - \frac{1}{1-i\beta-\alpha} \big(k^{1-i\beta-\alpha} - (k-1)^{1-i\beta-\alpha}\big)\Big)$$ converges, so $$S_n - \frac{n^{1-i\beta-\alpha}}{1-i\beta-\alpha} \to \ell, \text{ for some } \ell\in \mathbb{C}.$$ Thus \begin{eqnarray*} S'_{2n} &=& S_{2n} - 2^{1-i\beta-\alpha}S_n \\ &=& \ell + \frac{(2n)^{1-i\beta-\alpha}}{1-i\beta-\alpha} - 2^{1-i\beta-\alpha} \Big(\ell + \frac{n^{1-i\beta-\alpha}}{1-i\beta-\alpha}\Big)+o(1)\\ &=& (1- 2^{1-i\beta-\alpha})\ell+o(1). \end{eqnarray*} The sequence $(S'_{2n})$ to $(1- 2^{1+i\beta-\alpha})\ell)$ and therefore the sequence $(S'_{2n+1})$ and the whole sequence $(S'_{2n})$.

Taking real parts, the convergence of the series defining $F(\alpha,\beta)$ follows.

Moreover, I only used that $\alpha>0$ to ensure the convergences above. And when $\alpha>1$, we have simply $\ell = \zeta(\alpha+i\beta)$, so $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty (-1)^ {k-1} k^{i\beta-\alpha} = (1- 2^{1-i\beta-\alpha})\zeta(\alpha+i\beta).$$

If we check that the series on the left-hand side define an holomorphic function, we get the holomorphic extension of $z \mapsto (1-2^{1-z})\zeta(z)$ to the half plane $\{z \in \mathbb{C} : \Re(z)>0\}$. Hence the zeroes of the function $F$ are given by the complex numbers $z$ such that $\Re((1-2^{1-z})\zeta(z))=0$.

ADDENDUM

In a same way, consider $$S_n(x) = \sum_{k=1}^n (k+x)k^{-i\beta-\alpha} \text{ and } \tilde{S}_n = \sum_{k=1}^n (-1)^ {k-1} (k+x)^{-i\beta-\alpha}$$ I expect that (but I did not check everything) $$S_n(x) - \frac{(n+x)k^{1-i\beta-\alpha}}{1-i\beta-\alpha} \to L(x) \text{ as } n \to +\infty.$$ \begin{eqnarray*} \tilde{S}_{2n}(x) &=& S_{2n}(x) - 2^{1-i\beta-\alpha}S_n(x) \\ &=& L(x) + \frac{(2n+x)^{1-i\beta-\alpha}}{1-i\beta-\alpha} - 2^{1-i\beta-\alpha} \Big(L(x) + \frac{(n+x)^{1-i\beta-\alpha}}{1-i\beta-\alpha}\Big)+o(1)\\ &=& (1- 2^{1-i\beta-\alpha})L(x)+o(1). \end{eqnarray*} We have a convergent series, so we set $$\tilde{S}(x) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty (-1)^ {k-1} (k+x)^{-i\beta-\alpha}$$
Observe that for every integer $N \ge 1$ $$\tilde{S}(0)-\tilde{S}(N) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty (-1)^ {k-1} k^{-i\beta-\alpha} - \sum_{k=N+1}^\infty (-1)^ {k-1} k^{-i\beta-\alpha} = \sum_{k=1}^N (-1)^ {k-1} k^{-i\beta-\alpha}.$$
Therefore, the function $x \mapsto \tilde{S}(0)-\tilde{S}(x)$ provides a natural interpolation of the partial sums $(S_N)_{N \ge 1}$.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ please see revised version from what we studied @ChristopheLeuridan $\endgroup$
    – MrPie
    Commented Feb 19, 2023 at 2:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Mr Pie. It is absolutely not clear. What are the quantities $F_k(\alpha,\beta)$? Partial sums? The inequalities $F_k \le F \le F_{k+1}$ car not be true for all integer $k$. Do you want them when $k$ is even? Are you looking for a functions $k \mapsto F_k(\alpha,\beta)$ which interpolates of the partial sums with minima at odd $k$ and maxima at even $k$? Is there a good reason to desire those properties? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 19, 2023 at 13:36
  • $\begingroup$ the partial sums are defined explicitly by the formula $F_k(\alpha,\beta) = \sum_{n=1}^{k}{ (-1)^{n-1}\dfrac{\cos(\beta \ln(n))}{n^\alpha}}$. If you plot them for many values of $k$ provided $\alpha$ and $\beta$ the partial sums bounce around its convergence point behaving like a wave. This makes me want to find a smooth wave function to model this behavior. $\endgroup$
    – MrPie
    Commented Feb 19, 2023 at 15:05
  • $\begingroup$ You still have to correct the inequality $F_k \le F \le F_{k+1}$, saying that it holds $k$ when is even or replacing $k$ by $2k$. A natural smooth interpolating function will probably have local extrema close to the integer points, but possibly not exactly at the integers. I will think about it to produce a formula. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 19, 2023 at 18:07
  • $\begingroup$ I posted more general form of question here to avoid technicalities with the cosine function mathoverflow.net/questions/441171/… we only need to analyze this system under bounded and periodic conditions. The logarithm isn't really doing anything to the convergence point. It just affecting the rate at which the partial sums converge not the actual convergence point. The convergence point seems to match the frequency of some wave and maybe is the solution to some PDE or ODE. $\endgroup$
    – MrPie
    Commented Feb 19, 2023 at 18:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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