8
$\begingroup$

The following would appear to be true.

For real $0 < \sigma < 1,$ we seem to have a very satisfying sum minus integral limit, $$ \zeta(\sigma) \; \; = \; \; \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \; \; \left( \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k^\sigma} \right) - \frac{n^{1-\sigma}}{1-\sigma} \; \; . $$

A little more detail in these examples:

$$ \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \; \; \left( \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{\sqrt k} \right) - 2 \sqrt n - \frac{1}{2 \sqrt n} + \frac{1}{24 n^{3/2}} \; \; = \; \; \zeta \left(\frac{1}{2}\right) \approx -1.460354508809586 $$

$$ \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \; \; \left( \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{\sqrt[3] k} \right) - \frac{3 n^{2/3}}{2} - \frac{1}{2 \sqrt[3] n} + \frac{1}{36 n^{4/3}} \; \; = \; \; \zeta \left(\frac{1}{3}\right) \approx -0.973360248350782 $$

So, are the above items really really true (rather than wishful thinking), and, if so, given $0 < \sigma < 1,$ what real numbers $A = A(\sigma), B = B(\sigma),$ make the short asymptotic expansion below correct?

$$ \left( \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k^\sigma} \right) - \frac{n^{1-\sigma}}{1-\sigma} - A n^{-\sigma} + B n^{-1-\sigma} \; \; = \; \; \zeta(\sigma) \; \; + \; \; O(n^{-2-\sigma}) \; \; ? $$

Here is an estimate of $\zeta\left( \frac{1}{5} \right)$ using Daniel's expansion as far as the $3+\sigma$ term, ignoring $5+\sigma$: $$ \zeta(\sigma) =\left( \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k^\sigma} \right) - \frac{n^{1-\sigma}}{1-\sigma} - \frac{1}{2 n^\sigma} + \frac{\sigma}{12 n^{1 + \sigma}} - \frac{\sigma (1 + \sigma)(2 + \sigma)}{720 n^{3+\sigma}} + O \left( \frac{1}{n^{5 + \sigma}} \right)$$ I think it will let me fit 33 lines in a "code" window without introducing a scroll bar.

    1   1                   -0.7340666666666666   
    2   1.870550563296124   -0.7339263390330826   
    3   2.673292125056355   -0.7339216399387463   
    4   3.431150408311554   -0.7339210905379737   
    5   4.155930071989249   -0.7339209776636304   
    6   4.854757190760828   -0.7339209455319796   
    7   5.532368104161309   -0.7339209342063361   
    8   6.192122059547756   -0.7339209295629763   
    9   6.836516074525011   -0.7339209274322004   
   10   7.467473419005204   -0.7339209263652269   
   11   8.086517339689049   -0.7339209257924113   
   12   8.694881681582254   -0.7339209254668952   
   13   9.293584537123753   -0.7339209252729478   
   14   9.883479099480143   -0.7339209251526775   
   15   10.46528985863283   -0.7339209250754953   
   16   11.03963903613135   -0.7339209250244763   
   17   11.60706632180293   -0.7339209249898626   
   18   12.16804389452603   -0.7339209249658375   
   19   12.72298804735438   -0.7339209249488197   
   20   13.27226831900744   -0.7339209249365428   
   21   13.81621476189632   -0.7339209249275397   
   22   14.35512379575268   -0.7339209249208374   
   23   14.8892629725969    -0.7339209249157863   
   24   15.41887489312131   -0.7339209249119263   
   25   15.94418045400206   -0.733920924908948   
   26   16.46538156214071   -0.7339209249066238   
   27   16.98266342011249   -0.7339209249047942   
   28   17.49619646365717   -0.7339209249033369   
   29   18.00613801451264   -0.7339209249021712   
   30   18.51263369862476   -0.7339209249012291   
   31   19.01581866962328   -0.733920924900462   
   32   19.51581866962328   -0.7339209248998368   
   33   20.0127509533112    -0.7339209248993227 

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ actually, when doing 1/2, I tried to get the next term and it kept coming out zero. I gave up. However, it allows for the possibility that the $O$ term may not always be what I indicate above... $\endgroup$ – Will Jagy Jan 8 '18 at 21:56
  • $\begingroup$ Happy New Year Will. I assume that you used The Euler-Maclaurin Summation Formula. Recall that if the original sum begins at, say $m$, then the integral term has $m-1$ as the lower limit. $\endgroup$ – Mark Viola Jan 8 '18 at 22:03
  • $\begingroup$ @MarkViola, no, I adjusted terms in a short asymptotic expansion without being entirely sure that the limit was as advertised. I minimized the tail sum... $\endgroup$ – Will Jagy Jan 8 '18 at 22:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Will, application of the EMSF gets you the coveted result. $\endgroup$ – Mark Viola Jan 8 '18 at 22:40
5
$\begingroup$

There is a standard technique that produces the complete asymptotic expansion for this sum and many others like it, which is to use harmonic sums and Mellin transforms.

Introduce the telescoping sum where $0\lt\sigma\lt 1$

$$S(x) = \sum_{k\ge 1} \left(\frac{1}{k^\sigma}- \frac{1}{(x+k)^\sigma}\right).$$

This sum has the property that

$$S(n) = \sum_{p=1}^n \frac{1}{p^\sigma},$$

so that $S(n)$ is the value we are looking for.

Re-write the sum as follows:

$$S(x) = \sum_{k\ge 1} \frac{1}{k^\sigma} \left(1-\frac{1}{(x/k+1)^\sigma}\right).$$

The sum term is harmonic and may be evaluated by inverting its Mellin transform.

Recall the harmonic sum identity $$\mathfrak{M}\left(\sum_{k\ge 1} \lambda_k g(\mu_k x);s\right) = \left(\sum_{k\ge 1} \frac{\lambda_k}{\mu_k^s} \right) g^*(s)$$ where $g^*(s)$ is the Mellin transform of $g(x).$

In the present case we have $$\lambda_k = \frac{1}{k^\sigma}, \quad \mu_k = \frac{1}{k} \quad \text{and} \quad g(x) = 1 - \frac{1}{(1+x)^\sigma}.$$

It follows that $$\sum_{k\ge 1} \frac{\lambda_k}{\mu_k^s} = \sum_{k\ge 1} \frac{1}{k^\sigma} \times k^s = \zeta(\sigma-s)$$ which has fundamental strip $\sigma-s > 1$ or $s < \sigma-1.$

We need the Mellin transform $g^*(s)$ of $g(x)$ which is $$\int_0^\infty \left(1 - \frac{1}{(1+x)^\sigma}\right) x^{s-1} dx$$

which is immediately seen to be a beta function integral with value $$g^*(s) = - \frac{1}{\Gamma(\sigma)} \Gamma(s)\Gamma(\sigma-s)$$

and fundamental strip $\langle -1, 0 \rangle.$ We check that the abscissa of convergence of the zeta function term is right in this strip as required. It follows that the Mellin transform $Q(s)$ of the harmonic sum $S(x)$ is given by

$$Q(s) = - \frac{1}{\Gamma(\sigma)} \Gamma(s)\Gamma(\sigma-s) \zeta(\sigma-s).$$

The Mellin inversion integral here is $$\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\sigma-1-\varepsilon-i\infty} ^{\sigma-1-\varepsilon+i\infty} Q(s)/x^s ds$$

which we evaluate by shifting it to the right for an expansion at infinity.

First treat the pole from the zeta function term at $s=\sigma-1$, which has

$$\mathrm{Res}(Q(s)/x^s; s=\sigma-1) = -\frac{1}{\Gamma(\sigma)} \Gamma(\sigma-1)\Gamma(1) \times -1 \times x^{1-\sigma} = -\frac{1}{1-\sigma} x^{1-\sigma}.$$

For the pole at $s=0$ from the simple gamma function term we obtain

$$\mathrm{Res}(Q(s)/x^s; s=0) = -\frac{1}{\Gamma(\sigma)} \Gamma(\sigma) \zeta(\sigma) = -\zeta(\sigma).$$

For the pole at $s=\sigma$ from the compound gamma function term we obtain

$$\mathrm{Res}(Q(s)/x^s; s=\sigma) = -\frac{1}{\Gamma(\sigma)} \Gamma(\sigma) \times -1 \times\zeta(0) \times \frac{1}{x^\sigma} = -\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{x^\sigma}.$$

The remaining poles are at $s = q+\sigma$ where $q\ge 1$ and contribute

$$\mathrm{Res}(Q(s)/x^s; s=q+\sigma) = -\frac{1}{\Gamma(\sigma)} \Gamma(\sigma+q) \frac{(-1)^{q+1}}{q!} \zeta(-q) \frac{1}{x^{q+\sigma}} \\ = - \prod_{p=0}^{q-1} (p+\sigma) \times \frac{(-1)^{q+1}}{q!} (-1)^q \frac{B_{q+1}}{q+1} \frac{1}{x^{q+\sigma}} = {q+\sigma-1\choose q} \frac{B_{q+1}}{q+1} \frac{1}{x^{q+\sigma}}.$$

The zero values of the Bernoulli numbers correctly represent cancelation of the gamma function poles by the trivial zeros of the zeta function.

Setting $x=n$ and observing that the shift to the right produces a minus sign we obtain the following asymptotic expansion:

$$S(n) = \sum_{p=1}^n \frac{1}{p^\sigma} \\ \sim \frac{1}{1-\sigma} n^{1-\sigma} + \zeta(\sigma) + \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{n^\sigma} - \sum_{q\ge 1} {q+\sigma-1\choose q} \frac{B_{q+1}}{q+1} \frac{1}{n^{q+\sigma}}.$$

Actually computing the Bernoulli number terms we get for the example by OP with $\sigma=1/3$ the expansion

$$3/2\,{n}^{2/3}+\zeta \left( 1/3 \right) +1/2\,{\frac {1}{\sqrt [3]{n}}} -1/36\,{n}^{-4/3}+{\frac {7}{4860\,{n}^{10/3}}} \\-{\frac {13}{26244\,{n}^{16/3}}} +{\frac {247}{590490}{n}^{-{\frac {22}{3}}}} -{\frac {6175}{9565938}{n}^{-{\frac {28}{3}}}} \\+{\frac {406999}{258280326}{n}^{-{\frac {34}{3}}}} -{\frac {12966835}{2324522934}{n}^{-{\frac {40}{3}}}}+\cdots$$

This MSE link points to a series of similar calculations.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

The Euler-Maclaurin formula gives the asymptotic expansion

\begin{equation} \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \frac{1}{k^{\sigma}} = \zeta(\sigma) + \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^k}{1-\sigma} \binom{1-\sigma}{k} B_k n^{1-\sigma-k}\,. \end{equation}

Thus $A = -B_1 = \frac{1}{2}$ and $B = -\frac{(-1)\sigma}{2}B_2 = \frac{\sigma}{12}$.

Taking a few more terms, we get

\begin{align} \zeta(\sigma) &= \sum_{k = 1}^n \frac{1}{k^{\sigma}} - \frac{n^{1-\sigma}}{1-\sigma} - \frac{1}{2n^{\sigma}} + \frac{\sigma}{12 n^{1+\sigma}} - \frac{\sigma(1+\sigma)(2+\sigma)}{720 n^{3+\sigma}} \\ &\qquad+ \frac{\sigma(1+\sigma)(2+\sigma)(3+\sigma)(4+\sigma)}{30240n^{5+\sigma}} + O(n^{-7-\sigma})\,. \end{align}

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So the part I think of as the integral being subtracted off is your $k=0?$ Pushing my luck, what is the very next term, $C n^{-2 - \sigma} \; ?$ $\endgroup$ – Will Jagy Jan 8 '18 at 22:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, $k = 0$ gives $\frac{n^{1-\sigma}}{1-\sigma}$. The next term corresponds to $k = 3$, and conveniently the odd-indexed Bernoulli numbers except $B_1$ all vanish, so $C = 0$. After that, $k = 4$ with $B_4 = -\frac{1}{30}$ produces $\frac{\sigma(\sigma+1)(\sigma+2)}{720}n^{-(3+\sigma)}$. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jan 8 '18 at 22:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But now I have a rendez-vous with my mattress. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jan 8 '18 at 22:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user243301 The $B_k$ are Bernoulli numbers (I use the variant with $B_1 = -\frac{1}{2}$), the $B$ without subscript is from the expansion in the question, $$\Biggl(\sum_{k = 1}^n \frac{1}{k^{\sigma}}\Biggr) - \frac{n^{1-\sigma}}{1-\sigma} - An^{-\sigma} + Bn^{-1-\sigma}\,.$$ $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jan 9 '18 at 9:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @WillJagy Oops. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jan 9 '18 at 18:23
2
$\begingroup$

This is indeed true. In fact, this formula can be derived from the Euler summation formula with $f(x)=x^{-s}$ with $0<s<1$. We have

$$\begin{align*} \sum_{n\leq x}\frac{1}{x^s}&=\int_1^x\frac{dt}{t^s}-s\int\frac{t-[t]}{t^{s+1}}dt+1-\frac{x-[x]}{x^s} \\ &=\frac{x^{1-s}}{1-s}-\frac{1}{1-s}+1-s\int_1^\infty\frac{t-[t]}{t^{s+1}}dt+O(x^{-s}). \end{align*}$$

If we take the limit as $x\rightarrow\infty$ we find that

$$1-\frac{1}{1-s}-s\int_1^\infty\frac{t-[t]}{t^{s+1}}dt=\zeta(s)$$

so we then have

$$\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty}\left(\sum_{n\leq x}\frac{1}{n^s}-\frac{x^{1-s}}{1-s}\right)=\zeta(s),\;\;0<s<1$$

as desired.

Note that $[t]$ is the greatest integer function. This proof can be found in Introduction to Analytic Number Theory by Apostol.

$\endgroup$

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.