2

Consider the sum following sum:

$$ I=\sum_{i = 0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{i}}{(2i+1)^{2}(2i+2)}. $$

Clearly this can be transformed into a triple integral:

$$ I=\int_{0}^{1}\int_{0}^{1}\int_{0}^{1} \frac{x}{1+x^{2}y^{2}z^{2}}dxdydz.$$

However, because of symmetry I can rewrite the integral as follows:

$$ I=\int_{0}^{1}\int_{0}^{1}\int_{0}^{1} \frac{y}{1+x^{2}y^{2}z^{2}}dxdydz=\int_{0}^{1}\int_{0}^{1}\int_{0}^{1} \frac{z}{1+x^{2}y^{2}z^{2}}dxdydz.$$

Now apply the following substitution to each of the integrals:

$$ x = \frac{\sin(u)}{\cos(v)},\space y = \frac{\sin(v)}{\cos(w)},\space z = \frac{\sin(w)}{\cos(u)} $$

and you will find out that suddenly, those integrals are not mutually equal. Why is that so? The same substitution can be used to evaluate, for instance, the alternating sum of the reciprocals of odd cubes, in which case it yields a correct result.

$$ \sum_{i = 0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{i}}{(2i+1)^{3}}=\int_{0}^{1}\int_{0}^{1}\int_{0}^{1} \frac{1}{1+x^{2}y^{2}z^{2}}dxdydz = \frac{\pi^{3}}{32}. $$

  • What makes you say that they are not equal? What do you get after doing the substitutions? Two integrals can of course have the same value even if it's not “visually obvious”. – Hans Lundmark Aug 30 '21 at 08:27
  • 1
    These two are not equal: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=integrate%5Bintegrate%5Bintegrate%5B++sin%28u%29%2Fcos%28v%29+%2Cw%2C+0%2C+pi+%2F+2+-+v%5D%2C+v%2C+0%2C+pi+%2F+2+-+u%5D%2C+u%2C+0%2C+pi+%2F+2%5D https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=integrate%5Bintegrate%5Bintegrate%5B++sin%28w%29%2Fcos%28u%29+%2Cw%2C+0%2C+pi+%2F+2+-+v%5D%2C+v%2C+0%2C+pi+%2F+2+-+u%5D%2C+u%2C+0%2C+pi+%2F+2%5D – Artur Wiadrowski Aug 30 '21 at 08:57
  • 1
    OK, I see. But are you really integrating over the correct domain? According to the original B-K-C paper, it's supposed to be ${ u>0, v>0, w>0, u+v<\pi/2, v+w<\pi/2, w+u<\pi/2 }$, and if you use the triangle ${ u>0, v>0, u+v<\pi/2 }$ as your “bottom plate” in the $uv$-plane, then you should split it into two parts along the line $u=v$, since the “ceiling” is given by $w = \min(\pi/2-u,\pi/2-v)$ and you need to deal with the two cases $u \gtrless v$. – Hans Lundmark Aug 30 '21 at 11:52
  • The area of integration is exactly the same as in the case of computing the sum of cubes, where I do get the correct result. – Artur Wiadrowski Aug 30 '21 at 13:57
  • You've written exactly the same integral for the sum of cubes as for the first sum $I$. Is it supposed to be like that, or is it a copy-and-paste error. If it is indeed the same, then the same argument could be used to criticize your sum-of-cubes calculation, couldn't it? – Hans Lundmark Aug 30 '21 at 14:12
  • Thank you for noticing. That was a mistake, I have now edited the post. – Artur Wiadrowski Aug 30 '21 at 14:13
  • OK, but with 1 in the denominator, the integral over your domain becomes $\pi^3/24$, not $\pi^3/32$ as you claim, so in fact you don't get the correct result in that way. (WA link.) – Hans Lundmark Aug 30 '21 at 14:40
  • 1
    Compare to the result you get using $\int_{w=0}^{\min(\pi/2-u,\pi/2-v)}$ instead: WA link. – Hans Lundmark Aug 30 '21 at 14:46
  • 1
    Yes, turns out the bounds were a problem. Thank you! Could you please post it as an answer so that I could tick the question off? – Artur Wiadrowski Aug 30 '21 at 17:56

2 Answers2

2

The conditions are that $u$, $v$ and $w$ are all positive, while $u+v$, $v+w$ and $w+u$ are all less than $\pi/2$, so the correct way of integrating is $$ \int_{u=0}^{\pi/2} \int_{v=0}^{\pi/2-u} \int_{w=0}^{\min(\pi/2-u,\pi/2-v)} \cdots $$

Hans Lundmark
  • 53,395
  • In fact, there is a way to evaluate the volume of this Beuker, Calabi, Kolk polytope in any dimension. See my answer or this joint paper by Daniele Ritelli and myself for more details: https://www.ams.org/journals/qam/2018-76-03/S0033-569X-2018-01499-3/ – Vivek Kaushik Sep 28 '22 at 04:34
  • @VivekKaushik: I wasn't able to access your paper (no subscription), but the volume of the polytope was evaluated (in terms of Euler or Bernoulli numbers depending on the parity of the dimension) already in the original Beukers–Calabi–Kolk article, wasn't it? – Hans Lundmark Sep 28 '22 at 08:59
  • sorry, here is the ArXiv preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.03637. Yes Beukers, Calabi, Kolk, as well as Elkies, Stanley, and plenty of others evaluated the polytope in terms of Euler and Bernoulli numbers. But my paper I referenced (as well as my asnwer to this question), show the generalization of your answer through an alternative combinatorial means without using Bernoulli/Euler numbers (it amounts to evaluating certain monomial functions over simplices). – Vivek Kaushik Sep 28 '22 at 20:11
  • @VivekKaushik: OK, thanks. – Hans Lundmark Sep 28 '22 at 20:43
0

To answer your question in general, one can evaluate the sum $S(k)=\sum_{n \ge 0} \frac{(-1)^{nk}}{(2n+1)^k}$ for $k \in \mathbb{N}$ via evaluating the multidimensional integral $$I_k=\int_{(0,1)^k} \frac{1}{1-(-1)^k x_1^2 \ \dots \ x_k^2} \ dx_k \ \dots \ dx_1.$$

With some rigorous justification, we can use Calabi's change of variables $x_i=\frac{\sin(u_i)}{\cos(u_{i+1})}$ for $1 \le i \le k,$ with $u_{k+1} :=u_1$ to evaluate this integral $I_k.$ Calabi's change of variables has Jacobian determinant: $$\left |\frac{\partial(x_1, \ \dots \ ,x_k)}{\partial (u_1, \ \dots \ , u_k)} \right|=\left(\frac{\pi}{2} \right)^k \left(1-(-1)^k x_1^2 \ \dots \ x_k^2\right),$$ and diffeomorphically maps the open cube $(0,1)^k$ to the convex polytope $$\Delta^k = \left \lbrace (u_1, \ \dots \, u_k): u_i+u_{i+1} < 1, u_i>0, i \in \lbrace 1, \ \dots \ , k \rbrace \right \rbrace.$$ Thus, $$S(k)= \left( \frac{\pi}{2} \right)^k \text{Volume}(\Delta^k).$$

There is a general way to compute the volume of $\Delta^k,$ which amounts to dissecting $\Delta^k$ into a disjoint union consisting of the open cube $(0,1/2)^k$ and simplices in $\mathbb{R}^k$ based on combinatorial arguments. See this joint paper by Daniele Ritelli and myself: https://www.ams.org/journals/qam/2018-76-03/S0033-569X-2018-01499-3/

I used a special case $k=4$ of the general argument to answer this question: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1794967/169367.

When it is all said and done, the result is the following: $$S(k)= \left(\frac{\pi}{4} \right)^k +\left(\frac{\pi}{4} \right)^k \sum_{n=1}^{ \left \lfloor \frac{k}{2} \right \rfloor} \sum_{\substack{(r_1, \dots, r_n) \in [k]^n: \\ |r_p-r_q| \notin \lbrace 0,1,k-1 \rbrace, \\ p,q \in [n]} } \prod_{i=1}^{n} \frac{1}{i+\sum_{j=1}^{i} \alpha_j},$$ where $[m]:= \lbrace 1, \dots, m \rbrace$ and $$\alpha_j=2- \delta(k,2) - \sum_{m=1}^{j-1} \delta(|r_m-r_j|,2)+\delta(|r_m-r_j|,k-2)$$ and $\delta(a,b)$ is the Kronecker Delta Function. In particular, the inner sum in the second term of that gargantuan formula above is taken over all tuples $(r_1, \dots, r_n) \in [k]^ n$ having cyclically pairwise nonconsecutive entries.