Is there an accepted analytic continuation of $\sum_{n=1}^m \frac{1}{n}$? Even a continuation to positive reals would be of interested, though negative and complex arguments would also be interesting.

I don't have a specific application in mind, but I'd very much like to understand how / if such a continuation could be accomplished. I've Googled but haven't come up with anything meaningful - perhaps because it's not possible?


@Noble below suggests $\frac{\Gamma'(x)}{\Gamma(x)}$. But this produces the following mismatched plots:

enter image description here

Can anyone explain?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ As is the case with the Gamma function, it would help to specify what properties you want the analytic continuation to retain. For instance, Euler tells us that $H_n=\int_0^1 \frac {1-x^n}{1-x}dx$. Replacing $n$ by a continuous parameter gives you an analytic continuation (at least for $n>0$). Is it useful? $\endgroup$ – lulu Jan 1 at 14:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Richard Burke-Ward Here's the explanation: the correct comparison is: Plot[{EulerGamma + Gamma'[z + 1]/Gamma[z + 1], HarmonicNumber[z]}, {z, -1, 5}] $\endgroup$ – Dr. Wolfgang Hintze Jan 2 at 9:11

I am not sure if this is what you meant, but Wolfram Alpha has an analytic formula for the $n^{\text{th}}$ harmonic number:

enter image description here

Here, the digamma function is $\psi_0(x)=\frac{\Gamma'(x)}{\Gamma(x)}$, which I believe is defined for all numbers in the complex plane except for negative real integers.

  • $\begingroup$ Hi @Noble. The two don't seem to match when plotted - see my addendum to the OP. Many thanks though! $\endgroup$ – Richard Burke-Ward Jan 1 at 21:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @RichardBurke-Ward I am sorry, but you plotted the wrong function. You plotted just $\phi_0(n)$ vs $H_n$. However, what I proposed was $\gamma+\phi_0(n+1)$ vs $H_n$. Here is the correct plot on Wolfram Alpha: wolframalpha.com/input/… As you can see, the two plots coincide. $\endgroup$ – Noble Mushtak Jan 1 at 21:48
  • $\begingroup$ Understood. Appreciated, both of you. $\endgroup$ – Richard Burke-Ward Jan 2 at 13:39

Let's try it in an elementary manner

  1. We can use the defining recursion of the harmonic number valid for $n\in Z^{+}$

$$H_{n} = H_{n-1} + \frac{1}{n}, H_{1}=1\tag{1a}$$

also for any complex $z$

$$H_{z} = H_{z-1} + \frac{1}{z}, H_{1}=1\tag{1b}$$

For instance for $z=1$ we obtain $$H_{1} = H_{0} + \frac{1}{1}$$

from which we conclude that $H_{0}=0$.

If we try to find $H_{-1}$ we encounter the problem that from $H_0 = 0 = \lim_{z\to0}(H_{-1+z} + \frac{1}{z})$ we find that $H_{z} \simeq \frac{1}{z}$ for $z\simeq 0$. In other words, $H_{z}$ has a simple pole at $z=-1$.

Hence we cannot continue in this manner to go to further into the region of negative $z$, so let us move to the following general approach.

  1. Starting with this formula for the harmonic number which is valid for $n\in Z^{+}$

$$H_{n} = \frac{1}{2}+ ... + \frac{1}{n}\\\\=\frac{1}{1}+ \frac{1}{2}+ ... + \frac{1}{n} +\frac{1}{1+n}+\frac{1}{n+2} + ... \\\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;-\frac{1}{1+n}- \frac{1}{n+2} + ...\\=\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left(\frac{1}{k}-\frac{1}{ (k+n)}\right)\tag{2}$$

The sum can be written as

$$H_{n}= \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{n}{k (k+n)}\tag{3}$$

and this can be extended immediately to complex values $z$ in place of $n$

$$H_{z}= \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{z}{k (k+z)}=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \left(\frac{1}{k} -\frac{1}{k+z}\right)\tag{4}$$

This sum is convergent (the proof is left to the reader) for any $z$ except for $z=-1, -2, ...$ where $H_{z}$ has simple poles with residue $-1$.

Hence $(4)$ gives the analytic continuation.

For instance close to $z=0$ we have as in 1. that

$$H_{z} \simeq z \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k^2} = z\;\zeta(2) =z\;\frac{\pi^2}{6}\to 0 $$

We can also derive an integral representation from the second form of $(4)$ writing

$$\frac{1}{k} -\frac{1}{k+z} =\int_0^1 (x^{k-1}-x^{z+k-1})\,dx $$

Performing the sum under the integral is just doing a geometric sum and gives

$$H_{z} = \int_0^1 \frac{1-x^{z}}{1-x}\,dx \tag{5}$$

  1. $H_{z}$ at negativ half integers ($z = -\frac{1}{2}, -\frac{3}{2}, ...$)

These can be calculated from $(1b)$ as soon as $H_{\frac{1}{2}}$ is known.

So let us calculate $H_\frac{1}{2}$.


$$H_{2n} = \frac{1}{1} + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} + ... + \frac{1}{2n}$$

Splitting even and odd terms gives

$$H_{2n}= \frac{1}{1} + \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{5} + ... + \frac{1}{2n-1}\\+ \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} + ... + \frac{1}{2n}\\= \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{2k-1} + \frac{1}{2} H_{n}\tag{6}$$

Now for the sum of the odd terms we write as in $(1)$

$$O_{n} = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \left(\frac{1}{2k-1} - \frac{1}{2(n+k)-1}\right)\tag{7}$$

This can be anlytically continued to any complex $n\to z$.

Replacing as before the summand by an integral and doing the summation under the integral gives

$$O_{z} = \int_0^1 \frac{1-x^{2z}}{1-x^2}\,dx\tag{8} $$

Substituting $x \to \sqrt{t}$ we find

$$O_{z} = \frac{1}{2}\int_0^1 \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\frac{1-t^{z}}{1-t}\,dt\\= \frac{1}{2}\int_0^1 \frac{1-t^{z-\frac{1}{2}}}{1-t}\,dt- \frac{1}{2}\int_0^1 \frac{1-t^{-\frac{1}{2}}}{1-t}\,dt\\ =\frac{1}{2}H_{z-\frac{1}{2}}+\log{2}\tag{9}$$

Hence $(6)$ can be written as

$$H_{2z} = \frac{1}{2} H_{z} +\frac{1}{2} H_{z-\frac{1}{2}}+\log{2}\tag{10} $$

Letting $z=1$ this gives

$$H_{2} = \frac{1}{2} H_{1} +\frac{1}{2} H_{\frac{1}{2}}+\log{2} $$

from which we deduce finally

$$H_{\frac{1}{2}} = 2(1-\log{2})\simeq 0.613706 \tag{11}$$


Altenatively, the calculation of $H_{\frac{1}{2}}$ can be done using $(5)$ with the substitution $(x\to t^2)$:

$$H_{\frac{1}{2}} = \int_0^1 \frac{1-x^{\frac{1}{2}}}{1-x}\,dx = 2\int_0^1 t \frac{(1-t)}{{1-t^2}}\,dt = 2\int_0^1 t \frac{(1-t)}{(1+t)(1-t)}\,dt \\=2\int_0^1 \frac{t}{{1+t}}\,dt=2\int_0^1 \frac{1+t}{{1+t}}\,dt -2\int_0^1 \frac{1}{{1+t}}\,dt = 2 - 2 \log(2)$$

and we have recovered $(11)$.

As an exercise calculate $H_{\frac{1}{n}}$ for $n =3, 4,...$.

I found that Mathematica returns explicit expression up to $n=12$ except for the case $n=5$. I have not yet unerstood the reason for this exception. Maybe someone else can explain it?

  • $\begingroup$ I think there's a typo in (2) and similar, the sums should start from 1, not 0. $\endgroup$ – Bladewood Jan 2 at 1:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Bladewood You are right. Thanks. Have corrected it. $\endgroup$ – Dr. Wolfgang Hintze Jan 2 at 8:46

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.