-1

I'm interested in knowing some values of the zeta function at infinite inputs. If we accept that $$\zeta(\infty) = 1$$ (as shown here in WolframAlpha) then, is it possible to evaluate the zeta function at a divergent series? To be specific, let's take the harmonic series.

Question. What is the value of $$\zeta \left( \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n} \right)$$ and is it equal to $\zeta(\infty)$?

Unit
  • 7,601
  • 3
    Neither $\zeta\left(\sum\frac{1}{n}\right)$ nor $\zeta(\infty)$ are actually well-defined. – Wojowu Nov 05 '16 at 19:32
  • @Wojowu True, but improper integrals have no actual value, only a limit, but often , it is written $\int_0^{\infty}\cdots = \cdots$. We could define $\zeta(\infty)=1$ as well in a similar manner. I do not know however, if such a definition is common. – Peter Nov 05 '16 at 19:38
  • I think if it is not defined at infty wolfram alpha able to show that going to show "Undefined" – zeraoulia rafik Nov 05 '16 at 19:39
  • 2
    @Peter Improper integrals do have a value, which is defined to be the limit you mention, but I see your point. – Wojowu Nov 05 '16 at 19:39
  • I added the tag "soft-question" because I am not sure whether it is clear whether the expressions here are well defined or not. – Peter Nov 05 '16 at 19:47
  • @Peter I think that in mathematics, if things aren't well defined, they deserve the tag "Fantasy", "Hokus-Pokus" or something like that, not "soft-question" ... – DonAntonio Nov 05 '16 at 19:56
  • Wolfram alpha gives " undefined" for any things if it is , why then dosn't show that ? – zeraoulia rafik Nov 05 '16 at 19:59
  • Just to clarify : Does Wolfram alpha really claim $\zeta(1)=\infty$ or only $\zeta(\infty)=1$ ? The latter claim would make more sense, although it is debatable whether it is actually valid. – Peter Nov 05 '16 at 20:36
  • yes of cours it's claim that as it claimed gcd(0,0)=0 , try to check it out – zeraoulia rafik Nov 05 '16 at 20:40
  • @user51189 Really strange! I begin to understand what DonAntonio says below. And I also wonder that $0^0$ is declared undefined, whereas it is usually defined to be $1$. But note that Wolfram's answers depend on the definitions given by the author of the program, so such special exercises well can be solved wrong. I came across another weird thing : If you try to solve $A^3=\pmatrix{1&0&0\0&1&0\0&0&1}$, you get the result "no solutions exists", which is clearly wrong. – Peter Nov 05 '16 at 21:01
  • In short : Do not trust such applets in the case of very special questions. The intend of those applets is to do calculations, not verifying definitions. – Peter Nov 05 '16 at 21:05

1 Answers1

4

There is nothing fancy going on here. If $$H_n = \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k}$$ then $\displaystyle \lim_{n \to \infty} H_n = \infty$ and since $\zeta(s) \to 1$ as $s$ goes to infinity along the real line, we conclude $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \zeta(H_n) = 1.$$ I believe this is the most obvious interpretation of your symbols.


Given the consternation in the comments, I feel I need to mention the following:

  1. The series $\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}$ is a series of non-negative real numbers. These are the simplest kinds of series: the associated sequence of partial sums is either bounded or unbounded, and so the series converges to a finite real number or the series diverges; this type of divergence can be interpreted as convergence to $+\infty$ (distinguished from $-\infty$) in the topological space $\overline{\mathbb{R}}$ (the affinely extended real number line).
  2. Whereas the real line has two natural points at infinity, the complex plane has only one, and it is obtained via the Alexandroff a.k.a. one-point compactification of $\mathbb{C}$ to $\overline{\mathbb{C}}$. The resulting space is called the Riemann sphere or the extended plane and it is homeomorphic to the real sphere $S^2$ via stereographic projection and also to complex projective space, $\mathbb{C}P^1$ (notations vary). (Note that the one-point compactification of $\mathbb{R}$ is not the space $\overline{\mathbb{R}}$ in item 1.) On the Riemann sphere, convergence to infinity means eventual departure from any given compact subset of $\mathbb{C}$; thus "$\displaystyle \lim_{z \to \infty} f(z) = L$" means "for all $\epsilon > 0$ there exists $M > 0$ such that $|f(z) - L| < \epsilon$ for all $|z| > M$" for finite $L$; and "$\displaystyle\lim_{z \to \infty} f(z) = \infty$" means "for all $N > 0$ there exists $M > 0$ such that $|f(z)| > N$ for all $|z| > M$".
  3. The obvious interpretation of a real number $x$ as a complex number $x + i0$ is a topological embedding $\iota:\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{C}$, and $\iota$ extends to the compactifications, yielding a map $\iota^*:\overline{\mathbb{R}} \to \overline{\mathbb{C}}$ which is no longer injective: $\iota^*(+\infty) = \iota^*(-\infty) = \infty$.
  4. When faced with an expression involving a function evaluated at a point outside of that function's domain, it is standard in analysis to interpret the expression as meaning the value of some continuous or analytic extension of the function at that point. This is reasonable whenever said extension is unique w.r.t. the property of being continuous or analytic, and often the issue is not even explicitly addressed. Thus, if $f(z) = \frac{\sin z}{z}$ then $f(0)$ means $1$ because there's nothing else it could reasonably be; $\displaystyle \lim_{z \to 0} \tfrac{\sin z}{z} = 1$ and extending $f$ in this manner results in a continuous, even an analytic, function. Another common example is $g(z) = \frac{e^z - 1}{z}$ with $g(0) = 1$. Yet another is $h(x) = x^{-2}$ with $h(0) = +\infty$ (in $\overline{\mathbb{R}}$). Likewise, $\zeta(0)$ means $-\frac{1}{2}$, even though $\zeta$'s typical domain of definition begins with the half-plane $\operatorname{Re} s > 1$ (coming from the Dirichlet series $\sum_{n \ge 1} n^{-s}$) before being extended to $\mathbb{C}\setminus\{1\}$ via the analytic continuation of $\zeta$.
  5. A suggested edit to my answer added the statement that $\zeta(1) = \infty$, but this is false. It is true that $\zeta$ has a pole at the point $1$, but this only means $\displaystyle \lim_{s\to 1} |\zeta(s)| = \infty$. In fact, the limit without the absolute value bars does not exist: $$\lim_{s \to 1^+} \zeta(s) = \infty$$ whereas $$\lim_{s \to 1^-} \zeta(s) = -\infty$$ as $s$ goes through real values; see this graph.
  6. By items 3 and 5, we interpret $\zeta(\infty)$ to mean $\displaystyle \lim_{s \to \infty} \zeta(s)$ as a limit on the Riemann sphere. Alas, this limit does not exist. As I already pointed out, $\zeta(s) \to 1$ as $s \to \infty$ through reals, but $$\displaystyle \lim_{\substack{s\to -\infty \\ s\in\mathbb{R}}} \zeta(s)$$ does not exist because $\zeta$ oscillates wildly for large negative $s$, thanks to the sine and Gamma terms in the functional equation. Limits along other directions of escape may or may not exist (e.g. people talk about $i\infty$, and $\displaystyle \lim_{t \to \infty} \zeta(1 + it) = 0$, if I'm not mistaken), but the fact that already these few "sub"-limits don't agree means there is no continuous extension of $\zeta$ to $\infty$.
  7. By the way, there do exist complex functions with continuous extensions at $\infty$; $f(z) = \frac{1}{z}$ is one, as are other Mobius transformations. But if $f$ is entire and $\displaystyle \lim_{z \to \infty} f(z)$ exists, then $f$ is constant.

Now we are in a position for a satisfactory resolution of your problem. First, we interpret $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n} = +\infty \in \overline {\mathbb{R}}.$$ In my answer above, I implicitly considered $\zeta$ as a function of a real variable only, because this does possess a continuous extension to $(1, \infty) \cup \{+\infty\}$. We can evaluate $\zeta(+\infty)$ by taking the limit of $\zeta$ evaluated at the partial sums $H_n$, as I did above, and under this interpretation, $$\zeta \left( \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n} \right) = 1.$$

However, if we are to consider $\zeta$ truly for what it is—a function of a complex variable—then we should interpret the input accordingly: either as a complex number, $$\iota^*\left(\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n}\right) = \iota^*(+\infty) = \infty \in \overline{\mathbb{C}},$$ or as the sum of a series of complex numbers, $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n} = \infty \in \overline{\mathbb{C}}.$$ In either case, $$\zeta \left( \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n} \right) \text{ does not exist.}$$

In conclusion, whether or not we have the "identity" $$\zeta \left(\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n} \right) = \zeta(\infty)$$ essentially depends on your interpretation of $\infty$.


And finally, the answer to your more general question "is it possible to evaluate $\zeta$ at a divergent series" is "it depends on the interpretation of the series".

Unit
  • 7,601
  • Clear and concise. +1 – Mark Viola Nov 05 '16 at 19:48
  • This answer, just as the question itself, seem to miss, or forget, the fact that $;\zeta(1);$ is not even defined (it has a simple pole there) . – DonAntonio Nov 05 '16 at 19:55
  • If we have $n\ge 2$, $\zeta(1)$ does not occur, so we do not need to worry about $\zeta(1)$. – Peter Nov 05 '16 at 20:04
  • @Peter Yet the OP's question says otherwise...not to mention that $;\lim\limits_{x\to\infty}\zeta(s);$ , besides being not well defined as $;s;$ is a complex variable, doesn't seem to tend to infinity...not even when only the imaginary part tends to infinity. – DonAntonio Nov 05 '16 at 20:04
  • @DonAntonio As I see it , it says $\zeta(\infty)=1$. I do not see where $\zeta(1)$ occurs. – Peter Nov 05 '16 at 20:05
  • $\lim_{n \to \infty} s_n = \infty=\zeta(1) $ occurs in the given answer as shown in question by wolfram alpha, then what's DonAntonio said is true " the question is identic to the answer – zeraoulia rafik Nov 05 '16 at 20:07
  • 1
    @Peter I think you're right, I misviewed that...anyway, that limit is wrong, I think. – DonAntonio Nov 05 '16 at 20:07
  • @user51189 This is even more problematic than defining $\zeta(\infty)=1$ because the limit does not even exist. – Peter Nov 05 '16 at 20:08
  • 1
    @user51189 Perhaps that's true, yet to take WA as base for a justification is, I think, a rather weak argument. Almost anyone who's been a member of this site had the opporunity to see WA has big mistakes sometimes. Who knows what interpetration is that program taking – DonAntonio Nov 05 '16 at 20:08
  • @Peter Exactly my point: the limit doesn't exist...and, in this case, it is not even well defined: do we mean $;|s|\to\infty;$ , or perhaps Im$,(s)\to\infty;$ , etc.? – DonAntonio Nov 05 '16 at 20:09
  • @DonAntonio If you mean that Unit's anwer is wrong, I disagree! The limit given by Unit is right (the fact that Wolfram alpha mentions $\zeta(1)$ is something completely different and has nothing to do with Unit's limit). – Peter Nov 05 '16 at 20:14
  • @Peter You can disagree if you want, but for a complex variable $;s;$ , what does talking the limit when $;s\to\infty;$ mean at all ? It's like writing in the real plane that $;(x,y)\to\infty;$ ... – DonAntonio Nov 05 '16 at 20:18
  • @DonAntonio Why complex values ? We have the zeta-function at real numbers getting bigger and bigger. So, the limit must be $1$, since the zeta-function tends to $1$, if $x$ tends to $\infty$ and keeps being real. So, where do you see complex arguments in this example ? – Peter Nov 05 '16 at 20:23
  • @Peter You may want to take a peek at this thread in mathexchange: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/991737/limit-of-riemann-zeta-function-as-imaginary-part-tends-to-infinity I have a whole load of stuff about the Riemann Function, Dirichlet's Series and related stuff, and sometimes it takes a while to find something there... – DonAntonio Nov 05 '16 at 20:24
  • @Peter , 0/0 is not defined but how we are coming to gcd(0,0)=0 ? the same example for that – zeraoulia rafik Nov 05 '16 at 20:26
  • 1
    I admit I did not realize that one particular term of my sequence is undefined (namely, the $n = 1$ term, which is $\zeta(1)$). However, it is common practise in analysis to disregard finitely many initial terms of sequences when considering their limits. Moreover, I did not claim that $\lim_{s \to \infty} \zeta(s)$ exists as a complex limit (so $|s| \to \infty$ in any direction); this is a much stronger statement than mine (and it is false). – Unit Nov 05 '16 at 20:27
  • @user51189 $gcd(0,0)$ is not defined because every natural number is a divisor of $0$ – Peter Nov 05 '16 at 20:27
  • @Unit exactly my opinion! – Peter Nov 05 '16 at 20:28
  • 1
    @Peter It is the same: if as written in the above answer the intention is to take the limit of the zeta function when $;s\to\infty,,s\in\Bbb R;$ , then it must be proved the limit is infinity. Observe the OP wrote $$;\zeta\left(\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1n\right);$$ which, imo, seems to be a mathematical nonsense as the argument of the zeta function doesn't even exist as defined in real series...but even if the intention was to take the limit, as this answer means, things must be proved: $$\text{is it true that};;;\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac1{n^x}=\infty.....??$$ That is my point. – DonAntonio Nov 05 '16 at 20:28
  • I agree that the sum does not exist (and therefore it makes no sense to define the zeta-function with the infinite sum as the argument). In this sense, the answer might have missed the exact intent of the question. – Peter Nov 05 '16 at 20:30
  • @Peter, take a look at this :http://math.stackexchange.com/q/1386651/156150 – zeraoulia rafik Nov 05 '16 at 20:30
  • 1
    I'll end this long and rather interesting thread by pointing out that iff the limit exists then it seems (to me, at least) to be $;1;$ because of the values of $;\zeta(2n);$ . So far I haven't found anything else on this in all my stuff, perhaps later I shall make a search in the web or whatever. Thanks. – DonAntonio Nov 05 '16 at 20:32