Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm trying to see how to get from

$$A = 1 - \frac{1}{3^n} + \frac{1}{5^n} - \frac{1}{7^n} + \frac{1}{9^n} - \cdots $$

to

$$A = \frac{3^n}{3^n + 1} \cdot \frac{5^n}{5^n - 1} \cdot \frac{7^n}{7^n + 1} \cdot \frac{11^n}{11^n + 1} \cdot \frac{13^n}{13^n - 1} \cdot \frac{17^n}{17^n - 1} \cdots $$

This equality stems from this post in Gaussianos, so if you can read Spanish it will help. I'm pretty clueless. This gives a proof a la Euler that we can write $\pi$ as

$$\pi = 1 + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{4} - \frac{1}{5} + \frac{1}{6} + \frac{1}{7} + \frac{1}{8} + \frac{1}{9} - \frac{1}{{10}} + \frac{1}{{11}} + \frac{1}{{12}} - \frac{1}{{13}} + \ldots $$

where the signs are as follows:

  1. We leave a $+$ if the denominator is a prime of the form $4m-1$. We also leave a $+$ for $2$.
  2. We change to $-$ if the denominator is a prime of the form $4m+1$.
  3. If the number is composite, we calculate the product of the signs of the previous rules to obtain the corresponding sign.
share|improve this question
1  
Define $\chi(m)$ to be equal to $1$ if $m\equiv1\pmod 4$, equal to $-1$ if $m\equiv3\pmod 4$, and $0$ if $m$ is even. Then $\chi$ is a completely multiplicative function. The general theory of Euler products then gives us the identity $\sum_{m=1}^\infty \chi(m)/m^z = \prod_p ( 1-\chi(p)/p^z)^{-1}$ that you want, as long as $\Re z > 1$. Convergence is certainly an issue, especially right at $z=1$, but you can find the details by looking up references on Dirichlet series and their Euler products. –  Greg Martin May 2 '12 at 4:02
    
@GregMartin Now that seems awfully interesting! Thanks! –  Pedro Tamaroff May 2 '12 at 19:59
    
@Michael Hardy You really can't stand bad $\LaTeX$, can't you? =) –  Pedro Tamaroff May 2 '12 at 20:54
    
@PeterTamaroff : This one seemed like an attempt at parodying the things I mentioned earlier. –  Michael Hardy May 2 '12 at 23:24
    
@MichaelHardy My comment or the question's formatting? The comment is meant with no harm Michael =), and the question, well, that's how I format. –  Pedro Tamaroff May 2 '12 at 23:26

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Note that we can write $\displaystyle A = 1 - \frac1{3^n} + \frac1{5^n} - \frac1{7^n} + \frac1{9^n} - \frac1{11^n} + \frac1{13^n} - \cdots$ as $$A = \left(1 - \frac1{3^n} + \left(\frac1{3^n} \right)^2 - \cdots \right) \left(1 + \frac1{5^n} + \left(\frac1{5^n} \right)^2 + \cdots \right)\left(1 - \frac1{7^n} + \left(\frac1{7^n} \right)^2 - \cdots \right) \times$$ $$ \left(1 - \frac1{11^n} + \left(\frac1{11^n} \right)^2 - \cdots \right) \left(1 + \frac1{13^n} + \left(\frac1{13^n} \right)^2 + \cdots \right)\cdots$$ Since every odd number of the form $4k+3$ must have odd number of prime factors of the form $4k+3$ counted with multiplicity and every every odd number of the form $4k+1$ must have even number of prime factors of the form $4k+3$ counted with multiplicity.

EDIT

We will now prove what you have stated for $n>1$.

If we let $$ F(n) = 1 - \frac1{3^n} + \frac1{5^n} - \frac1{7^n} + \frac1{9^n} - \frac1{11^n} + \frac1{13^n} - \frac1{15^n} + \frac1{17^n}\cdots,$$ then $$ \frac{F(n)}{3^n} = \frac1{3^n} - \frac1{9^n} + \frac1{15^n} - \frac1{21^n} + \frac1{27^n} - \frac1{33^n} + \frac1{39^n} - \frac1{45^n} + \frac1{51^n}\cdots$$

Hence, $$F_3(n) = F(n) \left( 1 + \frac1{3^n} \right) = F(n) + \frac{F(n)}{3^n} = 1 + \frac1{5^n} - \frac1{7^n} - \frac1{11^n} + \frac1{13^n} + \frac1{17^n} - \frac1{19^n} - \cdots$$

By doing the above, we have now removed all the multiples of $3$. Note that while adding we are allowed to rearrange and add since we have assumed $n>1$ and we know that for $n>1$, $F(n)$ converges absolutely. Repeat the process for $F_3(n)$ using the rest of the primes by adding or subtracting depending on whether the prime is $\pm 1 \bmod 4$.

For instance, $$\frac{F_3(n)}{5^n} = \frac1{5^n} + \frac1{{25}^n} - \frac1{{35}^n} - \frac1{{55}^n} + \frac1{{65}^n} + \frac1{{85}^n} - \frac1{{95}^n} - \cdots$$

Subtract the above from $F_3(n)$ to get $$F_5(n) = F_3(n) \left(1 - \frac1{5^n} \right)$$ where $F_5(n)$ has all multiples of $3$ and $5$ removed.

This can be done over all the primes. Note the adding or subtracting depends on whether the prime is $\pm 1 \mod 4$. This is due to the following reason.

If $\displaystyle (4k+1) = p_1^{\alpha_1} p_2^{\alpha_2} \cdots p_m^{\alpha_m} q_1^{\beta_1} q_2^{\beta_2} \cdots q_n^{\beta_n}$, where $p_i \equiv 1 \bmod 4$, $q_j \equiv 3 \bmod 4$, then $\beta_1 + \beta_2 + \cdots + \beta_n$ is even. (Why?)

If $\displaystyle (4k+3) = p_1^{\alpha_1} p_2^{\alpha_2} \cdots p_m^{\alpha_m} q_1^{\beta_1} q_2^{\beta_2} \cdots q_n^{\beta_n}$, where $p_i \equiv 1 \bmod 4$, $q_j \equiv 3 \bmod 4$, then $\beta_1 + \beta_2 + \cdots + \beta_n$ is odd. (Why?)

Hence, $$\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k+1} = \frac1{p_1^{\alpha_1} p_2^{\alpha_2} \cdots p_m^{\alpha_m} q_1^{\beta_1} q_2^{\beta_2} \cdots q_n^{\beta_n}} = \frac1{p_1^{\alpha_1} p_2^{\alpha_2} \cdots p_m^{\alpha_m} (-q_1)^{\beta_1} (-q_2)^{\beta_2} \cdots (-q_n)^{\beta_n}}$$

Similarly, $$\displaystyle \frac{-1}{4k+3} = \frac1{p_1^{\alpha_1} p_2^{\alpha_2} \cdots p_m^{\alpha_m} q_1^{\beta_1} q_2^{\beta_2} \cdots q_n^{\beta_n}} = \frac1{p_1^{\alpha_1} p_2^{\alpha_2} \cdots p_m^{\alpha_m} (-q_1)^{\beta_1} (-q_2)^{\beta_2} \cdots (-q_n)^{\beta_n}}$$

share|improve this answer
    
I don't follow why the equality follows. Maybe a small aisled example can help. –  Pedro Tamaroff May 2 '12 at 0:01
    
@PeterTamaroff Each term within $()$ is a geometric progression which sums up to what you want. –  user17762 May 2 '12 at 0:03
    
I know what goes on after, but not why the first equality follows. I see there is some number theory going on, so since I'm not illustrated in that, I need a little more information. –  Pedro Tamaroff May 2 '12 at 0:09
    
@PeterTamaroff I will add some more details. –  user17762 May 2 '12 at 0:14
    
@Peter Imagine expanding Marvis's product. Each term from an expansion would choose the "$1$" from all but finitely many factors. The non-$1$ selections from each factor would multiply together and correspond in a one-to-one manner with a terms from your original sum. (However this is not a rigorously proven equality without showing absolute convergence, which is not even true for $n=1$.) –  alex.jordan May 2 '12 at 0:17

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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