11
$\begingroup$

By definition of the Riemann Zeta Function, $$\zeta\left(\frac{1}{2}\right) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}.$$ Since $\forall n \geq 1 : \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \geq \frac{1}{n}$, we have that for all $N \geq 1$, $$\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \geq \sum_{n=1}^N \frac{1}{n},$$ but it is well known that $$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{1}{n}=\infty,$$ so $\zeta\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)$ diverges by the comparison test.

In other words, $\zeta\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)$ should equal positive infinity, correct? If so, why do Maple, Mathematica, and Matlab all return a value of around $-1.4604$ when asked to numerically approximate this value? For example, see here.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The question becomes even more clear for $\zeta(-1) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty n = -\frac{1}{12}$. Why would a sum of positive numbers give a negative number? $\endgroup$ – Fabian Mar 4 '11 at 20:00
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ That is not the definition of the zeta function! $\endgroup$ – quanta Apr 19 '11 at 11:36
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ You cannot apply the formula $\zeta(s)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^s}$ to $s=1/2$ because its hold for $\Re(s)>1$ only. You have to use its analytic continuation. $\endgroup$ – Américo Tavares Apr 19 '11 at 16:35
20
$\begingroup$

The analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ for $Re(s)>0$ is given by

$$\zeta(s) = \frac{1}{1-2^{1-s} } \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{n^s}.$$

So this is why WolframAlpha gives you

$$\zeta \left( \frac12 \right) = -(1+\sqrt{2}) \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{\sqrt{n}}.$$

See here for more details.

$\endgroup$
17
$\begingroup$

To supplement Derek's answer, the Riemann zeta function $\zeta(s) = \sum_{n} n^{-s}$ was originally only considered for $s = \sigma + i t$, where $\sigma > 1$. Note that when $\sigma > 1$, the zeta function always converges absolutely. However, Riemann showed that the definition of the $\zeta$ function could be extended via analytic continuation to the whole complex plane (with a pole at $s = 1$). There, it satisfies the functional equation

$$ \Gamma(s/2) \pi^{-s/2} \zeta(s) = \Gamma\left(\frac{1-s}{2}\right) \pi^{- \frac{1-s}{2}}\zeta(1-s). $$

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

We have such a thing even with geometric series (which has many things easier than the Dirichlet/zeta-series).
Consider $s_2=1+2+4+8+...+2^k+...$ and $s_3=3+9+27+81+...+3^k+...$ .
Although each term of $s_3$ is bigger that that of the same index k in $s_2$ (and both sums are diverging), the sum $s_2=-1 (={1 \over 1-2}) $ is bigger that $s_3 = -{3 \over 2} (={3 \over 1-3})$ (You may look for "geometric series/analytic continuation")

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Another way to put it: the values assigned to $s_2$ and $s_3$ are thought of as "antilimits" of the geometric series. $\endgroup$ – J. M. is a poor mathematician Apr 19 '11 at 11:36
0
$\begingroup$

To the formula: $\zeta(s)=\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^s}$

is written in small print: $1<\Re(s)$

That's a classical trap. Here my solution:

According to the russian Wikipedia :

$\zeta(s)=\displaystyle\lim_{N \to \infty}(\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{N} \frac{1}{n^s} -\frac{N^{1-s}}{1-s})$ ;for $\Re(s)>0$ and $\Re(s)\ne 1$.

By putting s=1/2 , we get:

$\zeta(1/2)=\displaystyle\lim_{N \to \infty}(\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{N} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} -2\sqrt{N})$

This series converges very slowly but converge.

$\endgroup$

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.