2

Is it possible to get an exact value of the sum (using divergent series summation methods) $$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty~ \frac{(n+k)!}{n!} \quad?$$ where $k$ is a positive integer.

The only other divergent sum of factorials I have seen is $\sum_{n=0}^\infty(-1)^nn!$.

Does anyone know any useful techniques or references?

3 Answers3

4

I don't know how to check this, but here might be one possible approach using the Riemann zeta function:

You can write the factorials as a rising factorial and express this as a sum of powers using the unsigned Stirling numbers of the first kind:

\begin{align} \sum_{n=0}^\infty~\frac{(n+k)!}{n!} &= \sum_{n=0}^\infty~(n+1)^{(k)} \\ &= \sum_{n=0}^\infty~\sum_{p=0}^k~ {k\brack p}(n+1)^p \\ &= \sum_{p=0}^k~ {k\brack p} \sum_{n=0}^\infty~ (n+1)^p \\ &=-\sum_{p=0}^k~ {k\brack p}\frac{B_{p+1}}{p+1} \end{align} where $B_p$ are the Bernoulli numbers (you must use $B_1=1/2$). The last line is not a real equality. This is the same as Gottfred's answer.

The first few values are: $$\frac{1}{2},~\frac{-1}{12},~\frac{-12}{12},~\frac{-19}{120},~\frac{-9}{20},\frac{-863}{504},\frac{-1375}{168}$$

  • I like this. Maybe show the actual values for k=0, 1, 2, 3. – marty cohen Mar 31 '16 at 03:47
  • 1
    Could you please post your method as an answer? – Matt Majic Mar 31 '16 at 23:01
  • I deleted my comment saying the magnitudes of our answers are the same. I made a mistake – Matt Majic Apr 01 '16 at 09:46
  • I found that using rising factorials gives the same values as your method. I'm not sure what went wrong using falling factorials. – Matt Majic Apr 01 '16 at 11:26
  • Just two small bugs: for $k=2$ it should surely be $-1/12$ instead of $-11/12$? And for $k=0$ it should surely be $-1/2$ instead of $1/2$ because this should equal $\zeta(0)$? – Gottfried Helms Apr 01 '16 at 11:29
  • Very well! Now the last step is, that you must find an argument, that/why that reordering of summation is valid although you work with divergent series (zetas at negative arguments, or positive p in the exponent) in the third- and second-last equation. I know a very nice/instructive example where this does (counterintuitively) not work. That is the reason why I introduced the function $f_k(s)$ in my answer. – Gottfried Helms Apr 01 '16 at 11:40
  • OK to me it seems perfectly safe to reorder the summation - its just a polynomial. Surely $\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^2+1=\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^2+\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1$ - what is the example you had? – Matt Majic Apr 01 '16 at 23:13
  • @Matt: look at this: http://go.helms-net.de/math/tetdocs/ProblemWithBellmatrix.pdf – Gottfried Helms Apr 02 '16 at 18:10
  • Ah, and look at this one. I'm not sure at the moment, whether that problem was really solved:http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/41263/exercising-divergent-summations-lim-1-24-69-1216-20-ldots-ldots – Gottfried Helms Apr 02 '16 at 18:46
  • (Interestingly, applying the method which I employ in my answer, the result in the linked question is $1/8$ - where the solution proposed by efferari there is off again) – Gottfried Helms Apr 02 '16 at 19:30
  • Matt, concerning your comment "OK to me..." - perhaps it is a theorem that series, which can be seen as linear compositions of finitely many formal zeta- and (Dirichlet) eta-series, can be evaluated by the same compositions of the zeta and eta-evaluations, valid also for the divergent cases (possibly except that of zeta at 1). However although I've read Hardy and Knopp I cannot remember to have seen such a theorem - perhaps is somehow implied though- I'm not an expert in formalisms. I'd be interested to see such a theorem! In principle, what I've tried in my answer, is assuming just this... – Gottfried Helms Apr 02 '16 at 20:18
2

My basic idea is, that it might be possible to understand the series $S_k$ as composition of zeta-series where the arguments are negative integers and then assume, that that insertion of the negative integer arguments can be justified by some analytical continuation/zeta-regularization.

For instance beginning for k=2 with $$ S_2 = 1\cdot 2 + 2 \cdot 3 + 3 \cdot 4 + ... \tag 1$$ then introducing $$ \begin{align} {} f_2(s) &= {1\cdot 2 \over 1^s} + {2 \cdot 3 \over 2^s} + {3 \cdot 4 \over 3^s} + ... \\ &= 2! \sum _{i=0}^\infty \binom{i+2}{2} { 1\over (1+i)^s}\\ \end{align} \tag 2$$

It is obvious, that there are continuous intervals for s like $ C_k \lt s \lt \infty $ with some fixed constand $C_k$ depending on k where this are convergent expressions. Then I assume, that it is meaningful to set $$ S_2 = \lim_{s \to 0} f_2(s) \tag 3$$ as a limit-expression or by zeta-regularization or analytical continuation (don't know what the correct expression would be). I think that the general key for the analytical continuation is the said observation, that there is a continuous interval for s where the expression $f_2(s)$ is convergent - because for that s it can freely be decomposed into partial series.
Thus the goal is finding a composition of zeta's at s,s-1,s-2,... valid for continuously and infinitely many $s \gt C_2$ where the series is convergent and then let s=0 .

For the given example and some s (for $s \gt 3 $ this is convergent) we can then rewrite $$ \begin{array} {rll} f_2(s) &= \large {1\cdot 2 \over 1^s} + {2 \cdot 3 \over 2^s} + {3 \cdot 4 \over 3^s} + ... \\ &= \large { 2 \over 1^{s-1}} + { 3 \over 2^{s-1}} + { 4 \over 3^{s-1}} + ... \\ &= \large { 1 \over 1^{s-1}} + { 1 \over 2^{s-1}} + { 1 \over 3^{s-1}} + ... & + \large { 1 \over 1^{s-1}} + { 2 \over 2^{s-1}} + { 3 \over 3^{s-1}} + ... \\ &= \zeta(s-1) & + \large { 1 \over 1^{s-2}} + { 1 \over 2^{s-2}} + { 1 \over 3^{s-2}} + ... \\ &= \zeta(s-1) & + \zeta(s-2) \\ \to S_2 & \underset{\mathcal Z}{=} f_2(0) = \zeta(-1)+\zeta(-2) &= - {1\over12} \end{array} \tag 4\\ $$ where $\mathcal Z$ means the zeta-regularization/ analytical continuation/ limiting-process.

For small k the sums $S_k$ can so be determined by -some tedious- manual pattern-detection, but the pattern-detection provides then also some simple general scheme where the zeta's are to be composed by Stirling numbers first kind which seems to be provable by relative simple compositions of matrices of binomial-coefficients and Stirling numbers.
Let $s_{r,c}$ denote the unsigned Stirling number first kind from the (infinite) array whose indices begin at zero $$\Large S1 = \small \begin{bmatrix} 1 & . & . & . & . & . \\ 0 & 1 & . & . & . & . \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & . & . & . \\ 0 & 2 & 3 & 1 & . & . \\ 0 & 6 & 11 & 6 & 1 & . \\ 0 & 24 & 50 & 35 & 10 & 1 \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\ddots \end{bmatrix} \tag 5$$ then the sums in question are expressible in closed forms as $$S_k = \sum_{i=0}^k s_{k,i} \zeta(-i) \tag 6$$ Similarly the $f_k(s)$ - versions are $$f_k(s) = \sum_{i=0}^k s_{k,i} \zeta(s-i) \tag {6.1} $$ The results for the $S_k$ are then $$\small \begin{array} {r|r} k & S_k \\ \hline 0 & -1/2 \\ 1 & -1/12 \\ 2 & -1/12 \\ 3 & -19/120 \\ 4 & -9/20 \\ 5 & -863/504 \\ 6 & -1375/168 \\ 7 & -33953/720 \\ \vdots & \vdots \end{array} \tag 7$$


For a further justification of this method I looked with the same scheme at the alternating series $A_k$ istead of the original series $S_k$. Also using the alternating zeta-series $\eta()$ instead gives $$A_k = \sum_{i=0}^k s_{k,i} \eta(-i) \tag 8$$ and identical results pop up as when I do the sum of the explicite alternating series using Euler-summation. Here the results are $$ \small \begin{array} {r|r} k & A_k \\ \hline 0 & 1/2 \\ 1 & 1/4 \\ 2 & 1/4 \\ 3 & 3/8 \\ 4 & 3/4 \\ 5 & 15/8 \\ 6 & 45/8 \\ 7 & 315/16 \\ \vdots & \vdots \end{array} \tag 9$$
Final remark: it might be interesting, that the numerators and denominators of the $S_k$ are in the OEIS, see numerators and denominators (the numerators are given with alternating signs) and there is a whole bunch of furtherly interesting links and references!
0

We have $$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(n+k)!}{n!}x^n=\frac{d^k}{dx^k}\sum_{n=0}^\infty x^{n+k}=\frac{d^k}{dx^k}\frac{x^k}{1-x}=\frac{k!}{(1-x)^{k+1}} $$ for $|x|<1$ and may use the elementary Ramanujan summation (definition) (or simply linearity) and obtain your result, which corresponds to $k!(\sum_{n=0}^\infty 1)^{k+1}$ as a Cauchy product of series (here and here) (not $k!(-1/2)^{k+1}$).

Example $k=0$. We have $$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty x^n=\frac{1}{1-x}=\frac{x}{1-x}+1~. $$ As $x/(1-x)=x+x^2+x^3+\cdots$ for $|x|<1$, corresponding to $1+1+1+\cdots=-1/2=\zeta(0)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1$, we obtain $\sum_{n=0}^\infty 1=1-1/2=1/2$.

Example $k=1$. We have $$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty (n+1)x^n=\sum_{n=0}^\infty nx^n + \sum_{n=0}^\infty x^n=\frac{x}{(1-x)^2}+\frac{1}{1-x}=\frac{1}{(1-x)^2}~. $$ As $x/(1-x)^2=x+2x^2+3x^3+\cdots$ for $|x|<1$, corresponding to $1+2+3+\cdots=-1/12=\zeta(-1)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty n$, we obtain $\sum_{n=0}^\infty (n+1)=-1/12+1/2=5/12$.

Example $k=2$. We have $$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty (n+1)(n+2)x^n=\frac{x+x^2}{(1-x)^3}+\frac{3x}{(1-x)^2}+ \frac{2}{1-x}=\frac{2}{(1-x)^3}~. $$ As $(x+x^2)/(1-x)^3=x+4x^2+9x^3+\cdots$ for $|x|<1$, corresponding to $1+4+9+\cdots=0=\zeta(-2)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^2$, we obtain $\sum_{n=0}^\infty (n+1)(n+2)=0+3\times(-1/12)+2\times(1/2)=3/4$.

The elementary Ramanujan summation of a series is consistent with the analytic continuation of Dirichlet series (here, here and here).

For the example $k=2$, using the venerable method of analytic continuation of Dirichlet series to sum the series $\sum_{n=0}^\infty (n+1)(n+2)=2+\sum_{n=1}^\infty (n^2+3n+2)$, corresponding to $$ F(s)=2+\sum_{n=1}^\infty(n^2+3n+2)n^{-s}=2+\zeta(s-2)+3\zeta(s-1)+2\zeta(s)~, $$ we obtain $F(0)=2+\zeta(-2)+3\zeta(-1)+2\zeta(0)=2+0+3\times(-1/12)+2\times(-1/2)=3/4$, in agreement with the elementary Ramanujan summation.

It is well-known that, in general, the sum of a divergent series and the sum of the shifted series are different (here and here).

  • How did you get the first equality? And the final result should be $k!/(-2)^{k+1}$ right? – Matt Majic Mar 31 '16 at 22:57
  • I think that solution is not optimal. For instance, the same scheme should be applicable for the alternating version of the series, and using the $\eta()$ - function instead of the $\zeta()$-function. The advantage of such an application would be, that for the evaluation of the alternating series we have concurring evaluation-methods like Abel and Euler-summation. I've checked that scheme which I used in my answer (applied to the $\eta()$-function) and that is compatible with the results for the alternating series taken by Euler-summation. – Gottfried Helms Apr 01 '16 at 08:42
  • @GottfriedHelms Wrong. The elementary Ramanujan summation gives the same result for alternating series as those methods because it is an extension of the Abel summation. –  Apr 01 '16 at 13:15
  • What is "wrong"? That I've tested the alternating series? That I found the results comparing two methods compatible? That the alternating-series testing should be compatible with using the eta-values instead of zeta-values? – Gottfried Helms Apr 01 '16 at 13:21
  • @MattMajic Your last result is actually the sum of the shifted series, not the series in your question (due to the choice in the last equality in your answer). –  Apr 02 '16 at 12:05
  • Actually I think its right since $\zeta(-p)= \sum_{n=1}^\infty n^p$ – Matt Majic Apr 02 '16 at 12:23
  • 1
    @MattMajic Thus for $k=0$, you have $\sum_{n=0}^\infty 1=1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1$=1+\zeta(0)=1/2$, not $-1/2$. –  Apr 02 '16 at 13:10
  • True, but the other values are fine – Matt Majic Apr 03 '16 at 01:26