In 1735 Euler gave the value of $\gamma$ as $0.577218.$ The constant is generally defined as the limit of the difference between the harmonic series and $\log n:~\gamma= \lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{1}{k}-\log n.$ Euler apparently relished this sort of calculation and must have taken quite a few terms to get such a good approximation.

My question is whether without a computer one can now prove that

$$\gamma < \sqrt{1/3}$$

with at least some savings in terms of the type of work Euler apparently expended? I don't think there's any point in raising the bar to $\gamma < \ln 2\sqrt{\frac{23}{29}} $ because it seems to be the same sort of question.

My own thought was to compare $\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{1/3}\frac{dx}{\sqrt{x}}$ to something like $(-1)\cdot\int_0^\infty e^{-u}\ln u~du$ but I expect there's a better way.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ In this answer is a method that can be used to compute $\gamma$ to high precision using simple tools. I will see how much is required to get $\gamma$ to within $\frac1{7430}$. $\endgroup$
    – robjohn
    Dec 16 '14 at 0:12

We may exploit an integral representation for $\gamma$ and some trivial bounds. Since: $$\begin{eqnarray*}\gamma&=&\lim_{n\to +\infty}(H_n-\log n) = \lim_{n\to +\infty}\left(\int_{0}^{1}\frac{x^n-1}{x-1}\,dx-\int_{1}^{n}\frac{dt}{t}\right)\\&=&\lim_{n\to +\infty}\left(\int_{0}^{+\infty}\frac{1-e^{-nx}}{e^x-1}\,dx-\int_{1}^{n}\int_{0}^{+\infty}e^{-tx}\,dx\,dt\right)\\&=&\lim_{n\to +\infty}\left(\int_{0}^{+\infty}\left(\frac{1}{1-e^{-x}}-\frac{1}{x}\right)e^{-x}\,dx+\int_{0}^{+\infty}\left(\frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{e^x-1}\right)e^{-nx}\,dx\right)\end{eqnarray*}$$ but $$\frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{e^x-1}\in\left[0,\frac{1}{2}\right]\quad\forall x\in\mathbb{R}^+,$$ the last integral is $O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)$ and we simply have: $$\gamma = \int_{0}^{+\infty}\left(\frac{1}{1-e^{-x}}-\frac{1}{x}\right)e^{-x}\,dx.\tag{1}$$ Since $f(x)=\frac{1}{1-e^{-x}}-\frac{1}{x}$ is concave on $\mathbb{R}^+$, for any $x\in\mathbb{R}^+$ we have $f(x)\leq\frac{1}{2}+\frac{x}{12}$, so: $$\gamma\leq\int_{0}^{+\infty}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{x}{12}\right)e^{-x}\,dx = \frac{7}{12}.$$ This bound is a bit worse than $\gamma\leq\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}$, but it can be improved by considering further terms of the Taylor series of $f(x)$ around the origin.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "This bound is a bit worse...": Ah, you noticed! This does rather spoil your answer. $\endgroup$
    – TonyK
    Dec 15 '14 at 21:47

Well, you need a hand calculator but only to get $\ln(3)$ or $\ln(4)$.

Using Euler's summation formula for $H_n = \sum(1/n)$, and then isolating $\gamma$ on the left side, you have: $$ \gamma = H_n - \ln (n) -\frac{1}{2n}+\frac{1}{12n^2} - \frac{1}{120n^4} + \frac{\theta}{256n^6}$$ where $0 < \theta < 1$.

One would think you need to go out a ways in the harmonic series to get an excellent approximation to $\gamma$, but with these three asymptotic terms you need only go to $n=3$.

We get $0.5772197 < \gamma < .5772162 < .57735 < \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}$ for $n=3$.

For $n=4$ we need only to the $n^2$ term to determine that $$ \gamma < 0.577247$$ and going to the $n^4$ accuracy we have here, we can see that $$ 0.57721475 < \gamma < 0,57721573 < \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} $$ And yes, unless my hand arithmetic is wrong, you have an error in your 6-th decimal place of Euler's constant, which should be 5 or 6, not 8.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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