2
$\begingroup$

I was reading about how the harmonic numbers are analogues to the logarithm in that $\displaystyle \log(x) = \int \frac{1}{x}dx$ and $\displaystyle H_x = \sum \frac{1}{1+x} \delta x$

Where indefinite summation is the inverse operator of $\Delta f(x) = f(x+1) - f(x)$ and $\frac{1}{x+1} = x^{\underline{-1}}$

The Wikipedia page derives the following Newton series:

$$\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{k} \frac{x^{\underline{k}}}{k!} \hspace{10mm} (1)$$

But even though the proof makes sense I feel like it should have been $$\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{k} {x^{\underline{k}}} \hspace{10mm} (2)$$

As it mirrors the familiar Mercator series for the logarithm.

In other cases such as the "discrete exp" $2^x$ we have the Newton series which works nicely thanks to the binomial theorem.

$$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{x^{\underline{k}}}{k!}$$ which perfectly mirrors $e^x$ 's power series.

My question is, if (1) is right series, what does (2) define, if anything, and why the discrepancy?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The summation must start with $k=1$ and according to Wolfram alpha, the result is : wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum(k%3D1,infinity,(-1)%5E(k%2B1)*x%5Ek%2Fk!%2Fk) $\endgroup$ – Peter Jan 4 '18 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ thanks for spotting fixed now, your link is for something different though no? $\endgroup$ – Theo Diamantakis Jan 4 '18 at 16:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not sure,whether the link works properly : The function is $$f(x)=\ln(x)+\Gamma(0,x)+\gamma$$ where $\gamma$ is the Euler-Mascheroni-constant and $\Gamma(x,y)$ the incomplete Gamma-function $\endgroup$ – Peter Jan 4 '18 at 16:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A proof will require the series of the incomplete gamma-function, apparently it must begin with $-\gamma-\ln(x)$ , containing the diverging (for $x\rightarrow 0$) term $\ln(x)$. We have $$\Gamma(0,x)=\int_x^{\infty} \frac{e^{-t}}{t} dt$$ Maybe this helps. $\endgroup$ – Peter Jan 4 '18 at 16:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Theo $f(1)=1$, observe that $x^\underline k=0$ if $x\in\Bbb N$ and $k>x$. $\endgroup$ – Masacroso Jan 4 '18 at 17:35
2
$\begingroup$

Well, I didnt noticed before but observe that if $x\in\Bbb C\setminus\Bbb N$ then the sequence $\{(-1)^{k+1}x^\underline k/k\}_{k\in\Bbb N}$ doesnt converges in $\Bbb C$. In any case: $\lim_{n\to\infty}|x^\underline n/n|=\infty$ for any $x\in\Bbb C\setminus\Bbb N$, then these sequences cannot define a convergent series.

By the other hand, when $x\in\Bbb N$, then $x^\underline k=0$ when $k>x$, so the series reduces to a finite sum, that is

$$\sum_{k=1}^\infty(-1)^{k+1}\frac{x^\underline k}k=\sum_{k=1}^x(-1)^{k+1}\frac{x^\underline k}k,\quad\text{when }x\in\Bbb N$$

Then certainly your series in $(2)$ fails to define a function that represent the generalized harmonic numbers.

Also observe that, contrary to the Mercator series, your series defined by $(1)$ converges for a wide range of values of $x$ (I guess, but not totally sure now, for all complex $x$ such that ${\rm Re}(x)>0$). Thus it cannot be compared directly to the Mercator series who radius of convergence is just $1$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting, I guess the mercator series must be quite sensitive to perturbations so trying to replace the powers with falling powers breaks everything. $\endgroup$ – Theo Diamantakis Jan 4 '18 at 21:07

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.