Does there exist positive rational $s$ for which the Riemann Zeta function $\zeta(s) \in N$ or equivalently, does there exist finite positive integers $\ell,m$ and $n$ such that $$\zeta\left(1+\dfrac{\ell}{m}\right) = n$$

Update: 23-Mar-2023: New and faster code using hash map. Using this code and the method described in my answer below, I have been able to show that if there is a solution then $l > 1.7\times 10^5$.

def get_n_value(a,b):
    c_b = (b/a).n(prec = prec)
    return max(2, -1 + floor(0.07281584548367672486058637587/(eg - c_b)))

def get_c_value(m):
    i   = 1
    c_m = 0
    while (i <= itr):
        c_m = (m + c_m - zeta(1 + 1/(m - 1 + c_m))).n(prec = prec)
        i = i + 1
    return c_m

def get_next_b(c_n1,b):
    b_prev = b
    b = 1 + floor(c_n1*a)
    if b <= b_prev:
        b = b_prev + 1
    if gcd(a,b) > 1:
        b = b + 1 
    return b

a = 1 
step = 10^1
target = a + step - 1
sd = 0

prec = 1500
n_max = 0 
eg = (1 - euler_gamma).n(prec = prec)
itr = 50
# c_dict = {}
c_2 = get_c_value(2)

while True:
    c_n1 = c_2
    b = 1 + floor(c_2*a)
    b_max = floor(eg*a)
    depth = 0
    while(b <= b_max):
        if(gcd(b,a) == 1):
            found = False
            test = b/a.n(prec = prec)
            n = get_n_value(a,b)
            if n in c_dict:
                c_n = c_dict.get(n)
                c_n = get_c_value(n)
                c_dict[n] = c_n
            while found == False:
                if (n+1) in c_dict:
                    c_n1 = c_dict.get(n+1)
                    c_n1 = get_c_value(n+1)
                    c_dict[n+1] = c_n1

                if c_n < test and test < c_n1:
                    found = True
                    depth  = depth + 1

                    if (n > n_max):
                        n_max = n
                        # print("Maximum n is at:", a, b, n_max)
                    # print('found',a,b,'witness =',n)
                    c_n = c_n1
                    n = n + 1
            b = get_next_b(c_n1,b)
            if(b > b_max):
            b = get_next_b(c_n1,b)
            if(b > b_max):

    sd = sd + depth
    if a == target:
        l = len(c_dict)
        print(a,'dict', l,l/a.n(), 'dep', depth, 'sd',sd, sd/a.n())
        target = target + step

    a = a + 1
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ I would expect that $\zeta(r)$ is irrational for all rationals $r > 1$, but to prove this may be beyond the current state of the art. We don't even know that $\zeta(5)$ is irrational. $\endgroup$ Aug 19, 2018 at 5:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $\zeta$ denotes the Riemann zeta function, please include it in your question. $\endgroup$
    – Klangen
    Aug 22, 2018 at 13:07

3 Answers 3


I misread $l$ as $1$, but in any case, as a partial result, here's a resolution for the case $l=1$.

Fix $s\in\mathbb{R}$, with $s > 1$.

On the interval $(0,\infty)$, let $f(x)={\small{{\displaystyle{\frac{1}{x^{\large{s}}}}}}}$.

It's easily verified that $ {\displaystyle{ \int_{1}^\infty \!f(x)\,dx = {\small{\frac{1}{s-1}}} }} $.

Consider the infinite series $ {\displaystyle{ \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k^s} }} $.

Since $f$ is positive, continuous, and strictly decreasing, we get \begin{align*} \int_{1}^\infty \!f(x)\,dx < \;&\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k^s} < 1+\int_{1}^\infty \!f(x)\,dx\\[4pt] \implies\;{\small{\frac{1}{s-1}}} < \;&\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k^s} < 1+{\small{\frac{1}{s-1}}}\\[4pt] \end{align*} If $m$ is a positive integer, then letting $s=1+{\large{\frac{1}{m}}}$, we have ${\large{\frac{1}{s-1}}}=m$, hence \begin{align*} {\small{\frac{1}{s-1}}} < \;&\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k^s} < \;1+{\small{\frac{1}{s-1}}}\\[4pt] \implies\;m < \;\,&\zeta\bigl(1+{\small{\frac{1}{m}}}\bigr) < \;m + 1\\[4pt] \end{align*} so $\zeta\bigl(1+{\large{\frac{1}{m}}}\bigr)$ is not an integer.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Thanks. In fact I have a slightly stronger result can be one of the approach to tackle this problem. Using the Stieltjes series expansion of thte Riemann Zeta function we can show that for $l = 1$, the fractional part of $\zeta(1+1/m)$ starts from $\pi^2/2 - 1 = 0.6449341$ for $m = 1$ and strictly decreases with $m$ and approaches the limiting value of $1-\gamma \sim 0.422785$ where $\gamma$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. Hence $\pi^2/2 - 1 \le (\zeta(1+1/m)) \le \gamma$. I have been trying to see if this method can be generalized for the case $l > 1$. $\endgroup$ Aug 19, 2018 at 10:52
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I had that result, but it doesn't go anywhere for $l > 1$. $\endgroup$
    – quasi
    Aug 19, 2018 at 11:02
  • $\begingroup$ Can you resolve the problem for any other value of $l$, other than $l=1$? For example, can you resolve the case $l=2$? $\endgroup$
    – quasi
    Aug 19, 2018 at 11:04
  • $\begingroup$ Note that for positive integers $l,m$, the expression $1+l/m$ can take any rational value greater than $1$, so your question can be recast as asking if there exists a rational number $s > 1$ such that $\zeta(s)$ is an integer. My sense (seconding Robert Israel's comment) is that an answer to that question is out of range of current knowledge. $\endgroup$
    – quasi
    Aug 19, 2018 at 11:09
  • $\begingroup$ I think that the case for integer should be easier than the case for deciding rationality. I will outline my approach below since it will be too long for a comment. $\endgroup$ Aug 20, 2018 at 6:36

Can you resolve the problem for any other value of l, other than l=1? For example, can you resolve the case l=2?

Yes and in fact I can show that there is no solution for $l \le 3*10^4$. Here is the outline of my approach which I am posting as an answer since it is too long to be a comment.

Step 1: The first step was to derive the following result

For every real $x \ge 1$ there exists a positive real $c_x$ such that ${\displaystyle{ \zeta\Big(1+\frac{1}{x-1+c_x}\Big) = x. }}$

The first few terms of the asymptotic expansion of $c_x$ in terms of $n$ and the Stieltjes constants $\gamma_i$ are

$$ c_x = 1-\gamma_0 + \frac{\gamma_1}{x-1} + \frac{\gamma_2 + \gamma_1 - \gamma_0 \gamma_1}{(x-1)^2} + \frac{\gamma_2 +2\gamma_2 - 2\gamma_2 \gamma_0 + \gamma_1 - 2\gamma_1 \gamma_0 + \gamma_1 \gamma_0^2 - \gamma_1^2}{(x-1)^3} + O\Big(\frac{1}{x^4}\Big) $$

Step 2: I computed the first few values of $c_n$ but I did not use the above result. Instead I used the following recurrence formula.

Let $\alpha_0$ be any positive real and ${\displaystyle{ \alpha_{r+1} = n + \alpha_r - \zeta\Big(1+\frac{1}{n -1 + \alpha_r}\Big); }}$ then ${\displaystyle{ \lim_{r \to \infty}\alpha_r = c_n}}$.

Using this we obtained $$ c_2 \approx 0.3724062 $$ $$ c_3 \approx 0.3932265 $$ $$ \ldots $$ $$ c_{12} \approx 0.4164435 $$

Step 3: Show that $l \ge 5$

Let ${\displaystyle{ \zeta\Big(1+\frac{l}{m}\Big) \in N}}$ and let $m = lk+d$ where $\gcd(l,d) = 1$ and $1 \le d < l$.

Clearly, $c_2 \le c_n < 1-\gamma_0$ or $0.3724062 \le c_n < 0.422785$. Hence we must have ${\displaystyle{ 0.3724062 \le \frac{d}{l} < 0.422785}}$. The fraction with the smallest value of $l$ satisfying this condition is ${\displaystyle{\frac{2}{5} }}$ hence $l \ge 5$.

Extending this approach using numerical computations, I am able to show that there is no solution for $l < 3*10^4$.

Problems with this approach:

With this approach and with powerful computing, we can prove results like if ${\displaystyle{ \zeta\Big(1+\frac{l}{m}\Big) \in N }}$ then $l$ must be greater than some large positive integer but I don't see how this approach will solve the general problem.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Nice work! Seems like a lot of progress. Is this your own problem? $\endgroup$
    – quasi
    Aug 20, 2018 at 9:37
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Thanks. Yes its my own problem that I worked way back in 2005 and then it got lost among other things. Revisiting it now after 13 years. $\endgroup$ Aug 20, 2018 at 9:52
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This certainly seems worth publishing. Here is one possibility: tandfonline.com/loi/uexm20 $\endgroup$ Oct 4, 2018 at 5:47

Whilst not a solution, I thought it might be interesting to see What happens if we use the functional equation:


$\zeta(s)$ is known to be rational at the negative integers,


You actually get $\zeta(-a)=0$ for $a$ even due to the trivial zeros.

But it appears that when you combine this with the functional equation, then in the limit, you get something non-zero and irrational, so that doesn't even give you an integer.

On the other hand if $m/n=2k-1$ is odd then we have


by Euler's formula, which is "almost" rational except for the $\pi$ factor. Bugger. So no chance of being integral.

If you modify your problem slightly, then using the above you can produce positive integers, but that's no fun.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .