Sign up ×
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.

Let $ p_1 <p_2 <\ldots <p_k <\ldots $ the increasing list in set $\mathbb{P}$ of all prime numbers . By sum of infinite geometric series $\sum_{k=0}^\infty r^k = \frac{1}{1-r}$ for $0<r<1$ we have for all $s>1$ and $r=\frac{1}{p_k^{-s}}$ \begin{align*} \frac{1}{1-p_1^{-s}} = & 1 + \frac{1}{\left(p_1^{s}\right)^{1}} + \frac{1}{\left(p_1^{s}\right)^{2}} + \ldots +\frac{1}{\left(p_1^{s}\right)^{\alpha_1}}+\ldots \\ \frac{1}{1-p_2^{-s}} = & 1 + \frac{1}{\left(p_2^{s}\right)^{1}} + \frac{1}{\left(p_2^{s}\right)^{2}} + \ldots +\frac{1}{\left(p_2^{s}\right)^{\alpha_2}}+\ldots \\ \vdots\hspace{10mm} & \hspace{+1mm} \vdots \hspace{+8mm} \vdots \hspace{+18mm} \vdots \hspace{+10mm} \ldots \hspace{+8mm} \vdots \hspace{+13mm} \ldots \\ \frac{1}{1-p_k^{-s}}= & 1 + \frac{1}{\left(p_k^{\,s}\right)^{1}} + \frac{1}{\left(p_k^{\,s}\right)^{2}} + \ldots +\frac{1}{\left(p_k^{\,s}\right)^{\alpha_k}}+\ldots \\ \vdots\hspace{10mm} & \hspace{+1mm} \vdots \hspace{+8mm} \vdots \hspace{+18mm} \vdots \hspace{+10mm} \ldots \hspace{+8mm} \vdots \hspace{+13mm} \ldots \end{align*} And the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic tells us that every integer $ n> 1$ can be decomposed uniquely as a product $$ n= p_{i_1}^{\alpha_{i_1}}p_{i_2}^{\alpha_{i_2}}\ldots p_{i_k}^{\alpha_{i_k}} $$ of powers of prime numbers $p_{i_1}< p_{i_2}< \ldots < p_{i_k}$ for integers $\alpha_{i_1},\alpha_{i_2},\ldots,\alpha_{i_k}\geq 1$. Since $ n^s= (p_{i_1}^s)^{\alpha_{i_1}}(p_{i_2}^{s})^{\alpha_{i_2}}\ldots (p_{i_k}^s)^{\alpha_{i_k}}$ and using brute force with I can prove that $$ \prod_{p\in\mathbb{P}}\frac{1}{1-p^{-s}}=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^s} $$ But I would like to know if there is a simple and elegant way to achieve this result is up through the above list.

share|cite|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 18 down vote accepted

I absolutely love this result, I literally cannot stop from getting goosebumps and smiling whenever I think about it. It is a proof from probability theory! I learned it in David William's Probability with Martingales, of which it is part of exercise E4.2.

Fix $s>1$ and recall that $\zeta(s) = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{N}} n^{-s}$, so we aim to show that $1/\zeta(s) = \prod_p(1-p^{-s})$ where of course $p$ ranges over the primes.

First, define a probability measure $P$ and an $\mathbb{N}$-valued random variable $X$ such that $P(X=n) = n^{-s}/\zeta(s)$ (for example take $P(\{n\}) = n^{-s}/\zeta(s)$ and $X(\omega)=\omega$). Let $E_k := \{X \text{ is divisible by } k\}$. We claim that the events $(E_p : p \text{ prime})$ are independent. We note that $$ P(E_k) = \sum_{i=1}^\infty P(X=ik) = \sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac{(ik)^{-s}}{\zeta(s)} = k^{-s} \frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(s)} = k^{-s}. $$

Then if $p_1,\ldots,p_n$ are distinct primes we have $$\bigcap_{i=1}^n E_{p_i} = E_{\prod_{i=1}^np_i},$$ so that $$ P(\cap_{i=1}^n E_{p_i}) = P(E_{\prod_{i=1}^np_i}) = \left(\prod_{i=1}^n p_i \right)^{-s} = \prod_{i=1}^n p_i^{-s} = \prod_{i=1}^n P(E_{p_i}) $$ so our independence claim is proved. Then we note that $1$ is the unique positive integer which is not a multiple of any prime. Hence $$ \frac{1}{\zeta(s)} = P(X=1) = P(\cap_{p} E_p^c) = \prod_p(1-P(E_p)) = \prod_p(1-p^{-s}). $$

share|cite|improve this answer
This is indeed a cool proof! Picky point: how does one justify the independence of infinitely many events (used in the last line) when one has shown only independence of finitely many events? –  Greg Martin Jun 28 '13 at 3:48
@GregMartin Independence of an infinite collection is defined to mean every finite subcollection is independent (which I did show). Then we have $$P(\cap_p E^c_p) = P(\cap_n \cap_{p \leq n} E^c_p) = \lim_n P(\cap_{p \leq n} E^c_p) = \lim_n \prod_{p \leq n} (1-P(E_p)) = \prod_p(1-p^{-s}).$$ Of course $p$ ranges over primes and $n$ ranges over natural numbers (should be clear by context). –  nullUser Jun 28 '13 at 4:02
Note that one never has to worry about convergence of products of probabilities because $a_n := \prod_{i=1}^n P[\cdots]$ is a monotone (decreasing) sequence bounded below by $0$, this is why I left out my previous comment from my original argument. –  nullUser Jun 28 '13 at 4:11
@nullUser Congratulations to replicate here this fantastic race. It displays a fantastic correspondence between primality of numbers and independence of measurable sets. –  MathOverview Jul 3 '13 at 15:40
@ThomasAndrews What part confuses you? Make sure to read my comment above. –  nullUser Jul 3 '13 at 19:57

Your Answer


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.