In a previous question, I derived the real and imaginary parts for $\zeta(s)$, where $s = \sigma + it$ and $\text{Re}(s) > 1$:

$$\text{Re}(\zeta(s)) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\cos(t\log n)}{n^\sigma} \\ \text{Im}(\zeta(s)) = -\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\sin(t\log n)}{n^\sigma} $$

These sums converge proportionally to the harmonic series; in other words, they converge very slowly.

How can we accelerate the convergence of these sums?

P.S.: I’m familiar with applying the Euler-Maclaurin formula to the Zeta Function, but I don’t see how this formula could apply to complex values. I tried plugging in $s = \sigma +it$ into that numerical algorithm, but things got complicated quickly.

  • $\begingroup$ The first idea I’m thinking about is to consider $(1-2^{1-s})\zeta(s)=\sum_{n \geq 1}{\frac{1}{(2n-1)^s}-\frac{1}{(2n)^s}}$. This converges in $O(n^{s+1})$ so slightly faster (although, of course, it’s still rather slow). $\endgroup$
    – Aphelli
    Jun 9 at 16:27

1 Answer 1


I suspect your formulas are equivalent to

$$\Re(\zeta(s))=\underset{N\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{n=1}^N \left(n^{-(\Re(s)+i \Im(s))}+n^{-(\Re(s)-i \Im(s))}\right)\right)\tag{1}$$


$$\Im(\zeta(s))=\underset{N\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(-\frac{i}{2}\sum\limits_{n=1}^N \left(n^{-(\Re(s)+i \Im(s))}-n^{-(\Re(s)-i \Im(s))}\right)\right)\tag{2}$$.

in which case they're only valid for $\Re(s)>1$, and more terms will need to be evaluated the closer $s$ is to $1$ to maintain the same level of accuracy.

If you want accelerate the convergence near $s=1$, I suggest you consider using a globally convergent formula such as

$$\zeta(s)=\underset{K\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\frac{1}{1-2^{1-s}}\sum\limits_{n=0}^K \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}\sum\limits_{k=0}^n \frac{(-1)^k \binom{n}{k}}{(k+1)^s}\right)\tag{3}$$

(see Globally convergent series) which I believe can also be evaluated as

$$\zeta(s)=\underset{K\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\frac{1}{\left(1-2^{1-s}\right) 2^{K+1}}\sum\limits_{n=0}^K \frac{(-1)^n}{(n+1)^s} \sum\limits_{k=0}^{K-n} \binom{K+1}{K-n-k}\right)\tag{4}$$

(see formula (3) in my related question) which moves the exponentiation operation from the inner sum to the outer sum.

You can still use the relationships

$$\Re(\zeta(s))=\frac{1}{2} \left(\zeta(s)+\zeta\left(s^*\right)\right)\tag{5}$$


$$\Im(\zeta(s))=-\frac{i}{2} \left(\zeta(s)-\zeta\left(s^*\right)\right)\tag{6}$$

to separate out the real and imaginary parts if desired where $s^*$ represents the complex conjugate of $s$.

Another alternative would be to use a formula such as

$$\zeta(s)=\underset{K\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\frac{K^{1-s}}{s-1}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^K k^{-s}\right),\quad\Re(s)>0\tag{7}$$

which increases the rate of convergence near $s=1$ compared to the Dirichlet series

$$\zeta(s)=\underset{K\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\sum\limits_{k=1}^K k^{-s}\right),\quad\Re(s)>1\tag{8}$$

or better yet a formula such as

$$\zeta(s)=\underset{K\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\frac{(s+2 K-1)\, K^{-s}}{2\, (s-1)}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K-1} k^{-s}\right),\quad\Re(s)>-1\tag{9}$$

which converges more rapidly than formula (7) above for the entire critical strip.

  • $\begingroup$ Excuse me, because I’m still pretty new to complex analysis. I’m confused about why you still have the $s$ left over in both the real and imaginary parts, which would have an $it$ term in it. Wouldn’t that mean that both the real and imaginary parts would be complex, assuming $t$ is not zero? $\endgroup$
    – Mailbox
    Jun 9 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Mailbox I'm not sure which formulas you're looking at (formulas (1) and (2) or formulas (5) and (6)?), but assuming $s=\sigma+i\,t$ where $\sigma,t\in\mathbb{R}$, then $\Re(s)=\sigma$ and $\Im(s)=t$. Formulas (1) and (2) (and I suspect your formulas as well) are based on formulas (5) and (6). $\endgroup$ Jun 9 at 17:16
  • $\begingroup$ @Mailbox Formulas (5) and (6) are based on $\Im(\zeta (s))=-\Im\left(\zeta \left(s^*\right)\right)$ where $s^*$ represents the complex conjugate of $s$, so if $s=\sigma+i\,t$ then $s^*=\sigma-i\,t$. $\endgroup$ Jun 9 at 19:50
  • $\begingroup$ Let’s take formula (5), for example. Substituting $s = \sigma + it$, we get $\Re(\zeta(s)) = \frac12 \zeta(\sigma + it) + \frac12 \zeta(\sigma - it)$. The outputs of $\zeta(z)$ will always be a complex number, so we’ll let $\frac12 \zeta(\sigma + it) = a + bi$ and $\frac12 \zeta(\sigma - it) = c + di$. This means that $\Re(\zeta(s)) = (a + c) + i(b + d)$. But this is nonsensical to me! How can the real part of the zeta function be a complex number—how could it have an imaginary part? $\endgroup$
    – Mailbox
    Jun 9 at 21:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Mailbox Sorry, I mentioned $\Im(\zeta (s))=-\Im\left(\zeta \left(s^*\right)\right)$ but forgot to mention $\Re(\zeta(s))=\Re\left(\zeta\left(s^*\right)\right)$. $\endgroup$ Jun 9 at 22:49

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.