39

How to evaluate the limit: $$\lim\limits_{x \to \infty} \sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty} (-1)^{n-1}\frac{x^{2n-1}}{(2n)!\log (2n)}$$

I have tried to break the sum into even and odd $n$ and estimate each sum to be $\sim \frac{e^{x}}{\log (4x)}$ by estimating the summations in the range $\sum\limits_{x/c \le n \le cx} \frac{x^{4n}}{(4n+s)!\log (4n+s)}$ with the trivial bounds while $e^{-x}\sum\limits_{n > cx} \frac{x^{4n}}{(4n+s)!\log (4n+s)}$ and $e^{-x}\sum\limits_{0 \le n < x/c} \frac{x^{4n}}{(4n+s)!\log (4n+s)}$ both decay exponentially for arbitrary $c > 1$ as $x \to +\infty$ ($s=2,4$). The precise estimates I have used are similar to here.

However, I suppose stronger asymptotics will be required for calculating the limit of their difference. Any help/hint is appreciated. Thanks!

I am not much acquainted with the Laplace method or probabilistic interpretations (I'd appreciate it some references are mentioned, should the answer involve advanced tools like them.)


Machinato suggests that $f(z)=\sum_{n=2}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^n z^{n-1}}{n! \log n}$ approaches $\log z$. This seems to be true! As evidence, here are plots of the real (red) and imaginary (blue) parts of $f(e^{2+i \theta})$, for $-\pi<\theta<\pi$. For comparison, the red and blue dashed lines are the real and imaginary parts of $\log z = 2+i \theta$. It's not clear from this image whether the limit holds for all $\theta$, but for $-\pi/2 < \theta < \pi/2$ the fit is very good.

enter image description here

I'm offering a bounty for a proof of this bizarre behavior. I imagine the precise formulation is that, for $\theta$ fixed in $(-\pi,\pi)$, we have $\lim_{R \to \infty} f(R e^{i \theta}) - \log R = i \theta$ but I'll certain accept other asymptotic results of a similar flavor. (For $\theta = \pi$, it is easy to see that $f(-R)$ grows faster than any power of $R$, so it can't mimic $\log R$.)

After some more experimentation, I suspect the limit only holds for $-\pi/2<\theta<\pi/2$. Here are plots of $\mathrm{Im}(f(r e^{i \theta}))$ for $\theta = \pi/3$ (first plot) and $2 \pi/3$ (second plot), with $0 < r < 10$. In each case, the dashed line is at $\theta$. Convergence looks great in the first one, terrible in the second.

enter image description here

enter image description here

r9m
  • 17,938
  • 1
    Hm, I fact much challenge computing this numerically. Very interesting series... – Simply Beautiful Art Feb 13 '17 at 23:53
  • 6
    My money is on $\frac{\pi}{2}$. It's just a guess from computing it for $x= 2000$ with $3000$ terms in the series and using $1000$ digits in the calculation. The result is $1.57066$ – Winther Feb 14 '17 at 01:10
  • @Winther Cool! Any heuristics for that? :-) – r9m Feb 14 '17 at 01:13
  • 6
    Tried it for $x=10^4$ for which it starts to become really slow as we need a precision of $\sim 4500$ digits in the calculation and we need to sum $\sim 14000$ terms before they start to become irrelevant. The sum here evaluates to $1.5707792 = 0.999989 \cdot \frac{\pi}{2}$. – Winther Feb 14 '17 at 01:37
  • 3
    I have strong numericel evidence that the complex function $$f(z)=\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}(-1)^n\frac{z^{n-1}}{n! \ln n}$$ behaves when $|z|\to \infty$ as $\ln z$. From this your original sum is just $$\lim_{x\to \infty} \mathrm{Im} f(ix) = \lim_{x\to \infty} \mathrm{Im} \ln(ix) = \frac{\pi}{2}$$ – Machinato Jun 17 '17 at 23:14
  • 3
    Here's a possible method of proof that could resolve this problem:

    Define $$F(s,z)=\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\frac{z^{n-1}n^{-s}}{n!\log n}.$$ Then we want to understand $F(0,z)$ for large $z$. Notice that $$F(s,z)=s\int_{2}^{\infty}\frac{x^{-s-1}}{\log x}\sum_{2\leq n\leq x}(-1)^{n}\frac{z^{n-1}}{n!}dx.$$ Letting $s=\frac{1}{z}$, the ranges of $x$ in the integral should be such that the sum over $n$ is approximately a truncated exponential. Hence $$F\left(\frac{1}{z},z\right)\approx \frac{e^{-z}+z-1}{z^2}\cdot \int_2^\infty \frac{x^{-1-1/z}}{\log x} dx.$$

    – Eric Naslund Aug 31 '17 at 17:19
  • 3
    The integral $$\int_2^{\infty} \frac{x^{-1-1/z}}{\log x} dx = \log z+O(1)$$ for $z$ large, by the techniques in this answer https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1584514/6075 and this answer https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1584507/6075 and so we expect as $z\rightarrow \infty$ the function $F\left(\frac{1}{z},z\right)$ will behave like $\log z$, and hence by Machinato's argument we get a final value of $\frac{\pi}{2}$ for the limit of the original integral.

    With such an approach, there are a lot of technicalities that would need to be worked out exactly, but I think it has some hope of working.

    – Eric Naslund Aug 31 '17 at 17:21
  • 1
    I was playing with the concept of writing it as a contour integral of $\frac{(-z)^{s-1}}{\Gamma(s)\log(s)(\cos(2\pi s)-1)}$, and then trying to take the contour the other way. But I was working on this for too long and have to go back to work! – Teddy Baker Sep 05 '17 at 19:28
  • I was worried about convergence issues with this approach, but I think maybe the cos will overcome the power in the numerator. I would have to think about this more. Also, the branch cut of the logarithm would probably be better chosen on the negative real axis. – Teddy Baker Sep 05 '17 at 20:12

1 Answers1

13

EDITED. It suffices to prove the following claim.

Proposition. Assume that $f(z) = \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} a_n z^n$ has radius of convergence $R$ and define

$$ F(z) = \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} \frac{n a_n}{n-1} z^n = z \int_{0}^{z} \frac{f'(w)}{w} \, dw. $$

Then for all $|z| < R$, we have

$$ \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} \frac{a_n}{\log n} z^n = \int_{0}^{1} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{t^{s-1}}{\Gamma(s)} F(z e^{-t}) \, dtds. $$

Proof. The proof is a straightforward computation:

\begin{align*} \int_{0}^{1} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{t^{s-1}}{\Gamma(s)} F(z e^{-t}) \, dtds &= \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} \frac{n a_n}{n-1} z^n \int_{0}^{1} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{t^{s-1}}{\Gamma(s)} e^{-nt} \, dtds \\ &= \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} \frac{n a_n}{n-1} z^n \int_{0}^{1} \frac{ds}{n^s} \\ &= \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} \frac{a_n}{\log n} z^n. \end{align*}


In our case, we can set $f(z) = 1 - \cos z$ and consequently $F(z) = z \operatorname{Si}(z)$, where $\operatorname{Si}(z)$ is the sine integral. Then for real $x$, we have

\begin{align*} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{(2n)!\log(2n)} x^{2n-1} &= \int_{0}^{1} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{t^{s-1}}{\Gamma(s)} e^{-t} \operatorname{Si}(x e^{-t}) \, dtds \\ &\hspace{3em} \xrightarrow[x\to\infty]{} \quad \frac{\pi}{2} \int_{0}^{1}\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{t^{s-1}}{\Gamma(s)} e^{-t} \, dtds = \frac{\pi}{2} \end{align*}

where the limiting procedure can be easily justified by the dominated convergence theorem.

Similarly, setting $f(z) = e^{-z} - 1 + z$ gives $F(z) = z (\log z + \gamma + \Gamma(0,z))$ for $\operatorname{Re}(z) > 0$, where $\Gamma(s, z)$ is the upper incomplete gamma function. Plugging this back, we obtain

$$ \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n}}{n!\log n} z^{n-1} = \log z + \gamma - \frac{1}{2} + \int_{0}^{1} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{t^{s-1}}{\Gamma(s)} e^{-t} \Gamma(0, z e^{-t}) \, dtds. $$

Note that the last integral vanishes if we let $z \to \infty$ along the cone $|\arg(z)| \leq \frac{\pi}{2} - \delta$. So this again confirms numerical observation made by Machinato.

Sangchul Lee
  • 167,468
  • May I ask the difference between $|\arg(z)|\le\frac\pi2-\delta$ and $|\arg(z)|<\frac\pi2$? If there is none, any reason for such a preference? – Simply Beautiful Art Oct 13 '17 at 01:45
  • @SimplyBeautifulArt, To be honest, I do not know how the incomplete gamma function behaves if we do not impose Stolz angle condition. So I chose a safer way :) – Sangchul Lee Oct 15 '17 at 22:38
  • =P Okay then. Was just curious. – Simply Beautiful Art Oct 15 '17 at 22:39
  • If $t>0$, then $${\rm e}^{ - t} \Gamma (0,z{\rm e}^{ - t} ) = {\rm e}^{ - t} E_1 (z{\rm e}^{ - t} ) \sim z^{ - 1} \exp ( - z{\rm e}^{ - t} ) $$ as $z\to\infty$ and $\left| {\arg z} \right| \le \frac{3}{2}\pi - \delta < \frac{3}{2}\pi$. – Gary Jul 12 '23 at 07:05