Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

By considering the integral Zeta function





There has clearly been much confusion here. I am asking for the analytic continuation of the integral Zeta function at 0. I am asking for the sum of the series in the sense that


share|cite|improve this question
@Mike, how did you make your comment only 3 characters? I thought that wasn't possible. – recursive recursion Mar 29 '14 at 22:52
Also, who downvoted the question and every single answer? – recursive recursion Mar 29 '14 at 22:53
I've upvoted, because I think the downvotes were a smidge unfair, having said that what has the OP tried! Don't make us (them, but it's nice to pretend:P) do your homework! – Alec Teal Mar 29 '14 at 23:05
This is not homework in case your interested. I know the solution to this will probably involve some complex analysis which is beyond my knowledge at the moment. Hence my question. – Elie Bergman Mar 29 '14 at 23:07
Maybe you should put "regularization" in the title. Everybody is just repeating how obvious the divergence is. – orion Mar 29 '14 at 23:23
up vote 11 down vote accepted

This sum is of course divergent (as proved by others).

But the idea is probably to use zeta regularization and get a formal derivation like : \begin{align} \int_0^{\infty}(\zeta(x)-1)\,dx&=\int_0^{\infty} \sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac 1{n^x}\,dx\\ &=\sum_{n=2}^\infty \int_0^{\infty} e^{-x\ln(n)}\,dx\\ &=-\sum_{n=2}^\infty \left.\frac1{\ln(n)\,n^x}\right|_{x=0}^{\infty}\\ &=\sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac1{\ln(n)}\\ \end{align} From the simple pole of $\zeta(x)$ at $x=1$ we should write our 'regularized sum' as the Cauchy principal value of the integral : $$\sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac1{\ln(n)}=PV \int_0^{\infty}(\zeta(x)-1)\,dx\\=-0.243238342890980755415059\cdots$$ (if I didn't make an error...)

For numerical evaluation use $\displaystyle \lim_{N\to+\infty}\int_0^N \zeta(x)-1-\frac 1{x-1}\,dx+\ln(N-1)$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Hmm, the term $\zeta(x)- {1 \over x-1}$ occured so often lately in my exercises that I think an "incomplete zeta" function should become some standard function in the handbooks (and software). For such an "incomplete zeta" there is also a power series nicely converging at small absolute values of the argument... – Gottfried Helms Mar 30 '14 at 8:35
@GottfriedHelms: ... so that 'Stieltjes function' could be appropriate! :-) (Stieltjes studied in great detail $\;\displaystyle\zeta(x)-\frac 1{x-1}$ and $\displaystyle\int \frac {\zeta(x)-\frac 12-\frac 1{x-1}}x\,dx\;$ after all). This function is analytic everywhere with just the (important) drawback that the zeros don't appear so neat‌​. Cheers, – Raymond Manzoni Mar 30 '14 at 10:04
Nice answer. Do you suspect a closed form exists? In the case of the differential Zeta function, evaluating ln(2)+ln(3)+ln(4)+...=ln(sqrt(2*pi)). So one would suspect a closed form for the reciprocals also exists. – Elie Bergman Mar 30 '14 at 10:25
It's quite funny how about 4-5 people seem to answer all of my MSE questions. Small world! – Elie Bergman Mar 30 '14 at 10:41
@ElieBergman: I didn't find a closed form yet (using the $300$ first digits) and wouldn't bet on its existence (concerning the series many will return a closed form like $\sum_{n=2}^\infty \zeta(n)-1=1$ but integrals look harder perhaps because $\zeta(s)$ is often multiplied by $\Gamma(s)$ not sure...). Concerning the small world you are meeting people attracted by $\zeta$ and divergent series in these cases. Excellent continuation! – Raymond Manzoni Mar 30 '14 at 11:24

$\ln(x)$ is smaller than $x$ for all positive values.

By that logic we can say that $\frac{1}{\ln(x)}$ is larger than $\frac{1}{x}$ for all positive x's

This means that $\frac{1}{\ln(2)}+\frac{1}{\ln(3)}+\frac{1}{\ln(4)}+...$ is larger than $\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{4}+...$

We know that $\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{4}+...$ diverges and equals an infinite sum, and since $\frac{1}{\ln(2)}+\frac{1}{\ln(3)}+\frac{1}{\ln(4)}+...$ is larger than that infinite sum, we can conclude that $\frac{1}{\ln(2)}+\frac{1}{\ln(3)}+\frac{1}{\ln(4)}+...$ is an infinite sum.

share|cite|improve this answer

$$\sum^\infty_{n=1}\dfrac{1}{\ln(n+1)}$$ The comparison test, available here, shows that this is divergent.

share|cite|improve this answer

Since $$ \ln k \le k \quad\forall k \ge 2, $$ it follows that $$ \sum_{k=2}^\infty\frac{1}{\ln k}\ge \sum_{k=2}^\infty\frac{1}{k}=\infty. $$

share|cite|improve this answer
I don't really understand why my answer was downvoted. Could you please tell me where my mistake is! – Mercy King Mar 29 '14 at 22:55
I think I have confused everyone in this question. I am asking for the analytic continuation of the sum. Your argument is correct, but I am asking for something completely different. – Elie Bergman Mar 29 '14 at 23:00
I edited it because as it stands your proof isn't correct, $-2^k \leq k$ $\forall k \geq 2$ but obviously $-\sum_{k = 2}^{\infty} \frac {1} {2^k}$ does exist. You need that ln$ k$ is positive as well for it to actually follow. – CameronJWhitehead Mar 30 '14 at 14:14
$\ln k$ is obviously positive because $k \ge 2$. – Mercy King Mar 30 '14 at 14:55

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.