Is this a mathematical coincidence? For $n=1,\dots,7$: $$ \left\lfloor \prod_{k=1}^n \arg\left(\rho_k\right)\right\rfloor = F_{n+1}, $$ where $\arg$ is the complex argument, $\rho_n$ is the $n$th nontrivial zero of the Riemann zeta function, and $F_n$ is the $n$th Fibonacci number. I've found this experimentally.

For larger $n$ values I've checked that for $n = 1,\dots,800$: $$ F_{n+1} - \prod_{k=1}^n \arg\left(\rho_k\right) + 1 > 0. $$

I haven't found any counterexamples.


This is not as surprising as it might seem. Let me address your second observation first and sketch a proof that it holds for all $n$. It is known that all non-trivial zeros $s$ lie in the "critical strip" $0<\Re(s)<1$ where $\Re$ is the real part of a complex number. Notice that the further away from the real axis we get, the closer the argument of any number in this strip will get to $\frac{\pi}2$, so we expect the product in your question be approximately $\left(\frac{\pi}2\right)^n$, but always strictly less. The Fibonacci numbers are asymptotic to $\varphi^n$ (where $\varphi$ is the golden ratio). Since $\varphi > \frac{\pi}2$ eventually the Fibonacci numbers will dominate the product in question, explaining your second observation. This may easily be extended into a formal proof of the fact.

This also gives us a hint about why the Fibonacci numbers are so close to the product in question - $\varphi$ and $\frac{\pi}2$ are very close to each other, so if the series are well-enough aligned to start with, they'll probably stay that way for a while, which is exactly what we observe. In particular, let us note that, $\frac{\pi}2$ is more than $F_2=1$, so the fact that our product will eventually be less than the Fibonacci sequence means things are being "pulled together" for the moment, allowing the coincidence to persist a while.

To really illustrate us, look at two bounds for your product. For $n=\{1,2,\ldots,7\}$ we have the following upper then lower bound: $$\left\lfloor\left(\frac{\pi}2\right)^n\right\rfloor=\{1,2,3,6,9,15,23\}$$ $$\lfloor\operatorname{arg}(\rho_1)^n\rfloor=\{1,2,3,5,8,13,20\}$$ where the true product is somewhere between there. We're already pretty close to the Fibonacci sequence no matter what, and the true value just gets a little lucky and hits it right on.

In short: This is mostly a coincidence of how $\frac{\pi}2$ and $\varphi$ are close to each other, and the particular choice of $\operatorname{arg}(\rho_n)$ rather than $\frac{\pi}2$ tempers things "just enough" to make everything work out, but the coincidence doesn't rely on too many particulars of the Riemann zeta function.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Nice explanation! +1 $\endgroup$ – Markus Scheuer Aug 25 '15 at 9:03

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.