11

When I first watched numberphile's 1+2+3+... = $\frac{-1}{12}$ I thought the sum actually equalled $\frac{-1}{12}$ without really understanding it.

Recently I read some wolframalpha pages and watched some videos and now I understand (I think), that $\frac{-1}{12}$ is just an associative value to the sum of all natural numbers when you analytically continue the riemann-zeta function. 3Blue1Brown's video really helped. What I don't really understand is why it gives the value $\frac{-1}{12}$ specifically. The value $\frac{-1}{12}$ seems arbitrary to me and I don't see any connection to the sum of all natural numbers. Is there any intuition behind why you get $\frac{-1}{12}$ when analytically continue the zeta function at $\zeta(-1)$?

EDIT(just to make my question a little clearer): I'll use an example here. Suppose you somehow didn't know about radians and never associated trig functions like sine to $\pi$ but you knew about maclaurin expansion. By plugging in x=$\pi$ to the series expansion of sine, you would get sine($\pi$) = 0. You might have understood the process in which you get the value 0, the maclaurin expansion, but you wouldn't really know the intuition behind this connection between $\pi$ and trig functions, namely the unit circle, which is essential in almost every branch of number theory.

Back to this question, I understand the analytic continuation of the zeta function and its continued form for $s < 0$ $$\zeta(s)=2^s\pi^{s-1}\sin\frac{\pi s}2\Gamma(1-s)\zeta(1-s)$$ and how when you plug in s = -1, things simplify down to $\frac{-1}{12}$ but I don't see any connection between the fraction and the infinite sum. I'm sure there is a beautiful connection between them, like the one between trig functions and $\pi$, but couldn't find any useful resources on the internet. Hope this clarified things.

  • Well obviously as a result this is wrong .... the Riemann zeta function is not defined as a series anymore if $s \leq 1$ . – Tolaso Jan 06 '17 at 12:27
  • 1
    You may actually look for the relation zeta Riemann satisfies in that domain ... that shall clear a lot of things up – Tolaso Jan 06 '17 at 12:28
  • Yes ... right !! Silly mistake by my part... – Tolaso Jan 06 '17 at 12:31
  • You have series formula for zeta function. Now derive a new form of this zeta function from the old one. Make sure its analytic and goes all the way to $s=-1$... – Simply Beautiful Art Jan 06 '17 at 12:33
  • @Tolaso it is indeed. For $Re(s) > 0$ : $\zeta(s) = \frac{1}{s-1}+\sum_{n=1}^\infty (n^{-s}-\int_n^{n+1} x^{-s}dx)$ and for $Re(s) > -1$ : $\zeta(s) = \frac{1}{s-1}+\frac{1}{2}+\sum_{n=1}^\infty \int_n^{n+1}\int_n^x s (t^{-s-1}-x^{-s-1})dt dx$ or something like that. Note those are a regularization of $\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-s}$ – reuns Jan 06 '17 at 12:34
  • 4
    +1 for escaping the pit of eternal unfortune and beliefs on things like $1+2+3+\dots=-1/12$ – Simply Beautiful Art Jan 06 '17 at 12:35
  • 3
    https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/the-euler-maclaurin-formula-bernoulli-numbers-the-zeta-function-and-real-variable-analytic-continuation/ – Chappers Jan 06 '17 at 12:37
  • 11
    The guys at Numberphile should pay £ 1 to whichever decent educational organization in mathematics they want, for every poor soul who arrives on math.se asking about their video... – Did Jan 06 '17 at 12:42
  • 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcKRGpMiVTw – Did Jan 06 '17 at 12:48
  • @DietrichBurde while a part of me wants to close, this question begs "can you make this right and intuitive while still something I can understand?" – Simply Beautiful Art Jan 06 '17 at 13:11
  • @SimpleArt yes, I can understand this, too. On the other hand, there is no way around the Riemann zeta function here - which is always more than pure intuition (and this is right so). – Dietrich Burde Jan 06 '17 at 13:33
  • I did see the Why does $1+2+3+... = -\frac{1}{12}$ post before posting this. The reason I still posted this question was because the answers mainly explained how you got to the value $-\frac{1}{12}$ using analytic continuation and whatnot. As mentioned in the question, I already know this and understand it to some degree. What I want to know is if there is some intuiting behind the specific value $-\frac{1}{12}$ – Brian010515 Jan 06 '17 at 14:52

7 Answers7

12

There is a really nice answer by master Terence Tao on his blog.

The Euler-Maclaurin formula, Bernoulli numbers, The zeta function and real variable analytic continuation/

It shows that smoothed sums $\eta$ for $\sum\limits_{n\le N}n^s\,\eta(n/N)$ have a divergent part in $N^{s+1}$ and a convergent part $-\frac{B_{s+1}}{s+1}$.

The second part of the paper shows how it is related to analytics continuation in the complex plane.

zwim
  • 28,563
  • (for $s \in \mathbb{N}$, otherwise there are other terms in $\frac{N^{s+1-k}}{(s+1)\ldots(s+1-k)}$) – reuns Jan 06 '17 at 12:47
  • 1
    @user1952009: Using the Euler-Maclaurin Sum Formula, the first three "divergent terms" are included in my answer. For $s=0$, one of the terms is divergent; for $s=-1$, two of the terms are divergent; and for $s=-2$, three of the terms are divergent. – robjohn Jan 06 '17 at 18:07
6

The following is taken from this answer.

Using the Dirichlet Eta function and integration by parts twice, we get $$ \begin{align} (1-2^{1-z})\zeta(z)\Gamma(z) &=\eta(z)\Gamma(z)\\ &=\int_0^\infty\frac{x^{z-1}}{e^x+1}\,\mathrm{d}x\\ &=\frac1z\int_0^\infty\frac{x^ze^x}{\left(e^x+1\right)^2}\,\mathrm{d}x\\ &=\frac1{z(z+1)}\int_0^\infty\frac{x^{z+1}\left(e^{2x}-e^x\right)}{\left(e^x+1\right)^3}\,\mathrm{d}x\\ \end{align} $$ Multiply by $z(x+1)$ to get $$ (1-2^{1-z})\zeta(z)\Gamma(z+2)=\int_0^\infty\frac{x^{z+1}\left(e^{2x}-e^x\right)}{\left(e^x+1\right)^3}\,\mathrm{d}x $$ Plugging in $z=-1$, gives a pretty simple integral. $$ \begin{align} (1-2^2)\zeta(-1)\Gamma(1) &=\int_0^\infty\frac{e^{2x}-e^x}{(e^x+1)^3}\mathrm{d}x\\ &=\int_1^\infty\frac{u-1}{(u+1)^3}\mathrm{d}u\\ &=\int_1^\infty\left(\frac1{(u+1)^2}-\frac2{(u+1)^3}\right)\mathrm{d}u\\ &=\frac14 \end{align} $$ This gives $$ \bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{\zeta(-1)=-\frac1{12}} $$


The relation between $\boldsymbol{\zeta(z)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\eta(z)}$

An alternating sum can be viewed as the sum of the non-alternating terms minus twice the sum of the even terms. $$ \begin{align} \eta(z) &=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{n^z}\\ &=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1{n^z}-2\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1{(2n)^z}\\ &=\left(1-2^{1-z}\right)\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1{n^z}\\[6pt] &=\left(1-2^{1-z}\right)\zeta(z) \end{align} $$


The integral for $\boldsymbol{\eta(z)\Gamma(z)}$ $$ \begin{align} \int_0^\infty\frac{x^{z-1}}{e^x+1}\,\mathrm{d}x &=\int_0^\infty x^{z-1}\sum_{k=1}^\infty(-1)^{k-1}e^{-kx}\,\mathrm{d}x\\ &=\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k^z}\int_0^\infty x^{z-1}e^{-x}\,\mathrm{d}x\\[6pt] &=\eta(z)\Gamma(z) \end{align} $$

robjohn
  • 345,667
6

In equation $(10)$ of this answer, it is shown, using the Euler-Maclaurin Sum Formula, that the analytic continuation of the zeta function for $\newcommand{\Re}{\operatorname{Re}}\Re(z)\gt-3$ is given by $$ \zeta(z)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[\sum_{k=1}^n{k^{-z}}-\frac1{1-z}n^{1-z}-\frac12n^{-z}+\frac{z}{12}n^{-1-z}\right]\tag{1} $$ Note that for $\Re(z)\gt1$, the terms beyond the sum vanish and we are left with the well-known definition of $\zeta(z)$: $$ \zeta(z)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-z}\tag{2} $$

For $z=-1$, $(1)$ becomes $$ \begin{align} \zeta(-1) &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[\sum_{k=1}^nk-\frac12n^2-\frac12n-\frac1{12}\right]\\ &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[\frac{n^2+n}2-\frac12n^2-\frac12n-\frac1{12}\right]\\[3pt] &=-\frac1{12}\tag{3} \end{align} $$

Furthermore, for $z=0$, $(1)$ becomes $$ \begin{align} \zeta(0) &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[\sum_{k=1}^n1-n-\frac12+\frac0{12n}\right]\\ &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[n-n-\frac12+\frac0{12n}\right]\\[3pt] &=-\frac12\tag{4} \end{align} $$ and for $z=-2$, $(1)$ becomes $$ \begin{align} \zeta(-2) &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[\sum_{k=1}^nk^2-\frac13n^3-\frac12n^2-\frac16n\right]\\ &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[\frac{2n^3+3n^2+n}6-\frac13n^3-\frac12n^2-\frac16n\right]\\[9pt] &=0\tag{5} \end{align} $$

robjohn
  • 345,667
5

We have the functional equation for $\;\zeta\;$ :

$$\zeta(s)=2^s\pi^{s-1}\sin\frac{\pi s}2\Gamma(1-s)\zeta(1-s)$$

which allows to extend the usual definition of the zeta function as infinite series to $\;\text{Re}\,s<1\;$, and then:

$$\zeta(-1)=\frac1{2\pi^2}\cdot(-1)\cdot1\cdot\frac{\pi^2}6=-\frac1{12}$$

DonAntonio
  • 211,718
  • 17
  • 136
  • 287
  • 6
    If only things like this were more intuitive for the laymen. – Simply Beautiful Art Jan 06 '17 at 12:37
  • 1
    @SimpleArt They are not "intuitive" even for mathematicians...at least not for me. Anyway, when someone messes with the definition domain of zeta function, there doesn't seem to be much options but use the functional equation... – DonAntonio Jan 06 '17 at 12:41
4

An Elementary Non-Proof

Note that $\dfrac{1}{(1-z)^2}=\sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty\,(k+1)\,z^{k}$ leads to $$\beta = 1-2+3-4+\ldots=\frac{1}{\big(1-(-1)\big)^2}=\frac{1}{4}\,.$$ Hence, if $\alpha =1+2+3+\ldots$, then $$\alpha-\beta =4+8+12+\ldots=4\,(1+2+3+\ldots)=4\,\alpha \,.$$ Thus, $$\zeta(-1)=\alpha=-\frac{\beta}{3}=-\frac{1}{12}\,.$$

Hope it helps.

  • How the subtraction $\alpha - \beta$ has been made ? What are $\alpha$ and $\beta$ ? Both the series do not converge, hence we can not perform the subtraction indicated. – Dèö Mar 25 '19 at 08:21
2

$$1+1+1+\dots+1=n$$

$$\int_{-1}^0x\ dx=-\frac12$$


$$1+2+3+\dots+n=\frac{n(n+1)}2$$

$$\int_{-1}^0\frac{x(x+1)}2\ dx=-\frac1{12}$$


$$1^2+2^2+3^2+\dots+n^2=\frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}6$$

$$\int_{-1}^0\frac{x(x+1)(2x+1)}6\ dx=0$$


Integrating the formula for the sum of all natural numbers

-2

The values of $\zeta$ for negative integers can be directly calculated from the Bernoulli numbers, from:

$$\zeta(-n)=(-1)^n\frac {B_{n+1}}{n+1}$$

and $B_2=\dfrac 16$.

JMP
  • 21,771
  • 2
    I think you've missed the word "intuition" in the question. – Wojowu Jan 06 '17 at 12:55
  • 3
    @Wojowu the question is bizarre. I think that it's impossible to provide an "intuitive" explanation. –  Jan 06 '17 at 16:22
  • @OpenBall How are you so sure of that? Just because a formal explanation of this is difficult and underlying maths are nontrivial doesn't mean there cannot be a way to explain the result in an intuitive way. – Wojowu Jan 06 '17 at 16:24
  • 2
    @Wojowu I wasn't intending to come across as that sure. I toned my comment down a little bit. I think that there cannot be an intuitive explanation because it is a really conceptually advanced result with much underlying technical aspects. –  Jan 06 '17 at 16:27