Is Riemann's Zeta at 2 Related to Pi through Prime Numbers?

In summary: The product of all numbers of the form (1 + 1/p) is called the Euler Product of the Riemann Zeta Function, and it is a standard example of an analytic continuation in complex analysis. See the Wikipedia article for more.
  • #36
The ##\sqrt{2\pi\sigma ^2}## is a normalising factor.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #37
nuuskur said:
The ##\sqrt{2\pi\sigma ^2}## is a normalising factor.
But why does ##\pi## appear there to start with?
 
  • #39
WWGD said:
But why does ##\pi## appear there to start with?
You are effectively asking, why
[tex]
\int _{\mathbb R} \exp \left (-t^2\right )\mathrm{d}t = \sqrt{\pi}
[/tex]
is true. It is proved. If you start looking for reasons why this equality holds and relate it to ##\pi## somehow, you are endangered by confirmation bias.

Similarly, there is no call for esoterics between ##\pi## and the prime numbers. Just because some equality holds that contains said quantities does not imply there has to be some "deep" connection "intertwining" them. The fancy lingo is impressive, isn't it?

The following is as uncharitable as I can be at this hour.

Take any conditionally convergent series. Then there exists a rearrangement that converges to ##\pi##. Now find a foundational discovery in the fabric of space time continuum that makes this happen (or at least insist that there exists one).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes bland
  • #40
nuuskur said:
You are effectively asking, why
[tex]
\int _{\mathbb R} \exp \left (-t^2\right )\mathrm{d}t = \sqrt{\pi}
[/tex]
is true. It is proved. If you start looking for reasons why this equality holds and relate it to ##\pi## somehow, you are endangered by confirmation bias.

Similarly, there is no call for esoterics between ##\pi## and the prime numbers. Just because some equality holds that contains said quantities does not imply there has to be some "deep" connection "intertwining" them. The fancy lingo is impressive, isn't it?

Take any conditionally convergent series. Then there exists a rearrangement that converges to ##\pi##. Now find a foundational discovery in the fabric of space time continuum that makes this happen.
Well, it's not clear whether there is a connection or not. Naively, you'd expect to find it in connection with settings related to circles. But there are coincidences as well.
 
  • Like
Likes nuuskur
  • #41
Indeed, the connection to circles is an example of potential confirmation bias. That in theory ##\pi## appears in circles and geometry does not imply that ##\pi## is exclusively about circles. Of course, it would be nice if there was some pretty (and consistent) explanation -- maybe there is! But we can't assume a priori there exists one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes WWGD
  • #42
I'm not sure it's confirmation bias. Finding the integral requires squaring it and transforming to polar coordinates.
$$\left(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{e^{-x^2}\ dx}\right)^2=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-\left(x^2+y^2\right)}\ dx\ dy=\int_{0}^{2\pi} \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-r^2}r\ dr \ d\theta$$
To be absolutely rigorous, you have to treat the improper integrals correctly, since the Cartesian integral is over a square and the polar integral is over a circle. In practice, this involves comparing the integral over the square with the integrals over its incircle and circumcircle, and using the squeeze theorem in the limit that the size of the square goes to infinity. So circles are in fact involved directly in the proof.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn, dextercioby, Klystron and 1 other person
  • #43
I'm having a hard time finding a derivation of the series in OP. I would think it would converge to ##\frac{4}{\pi}## instead of ##\frac{2}{\pi}##. Maybe someone can spot my math error.

I started with the Leibniz formula:
$$\frac{\pi}{4}=1-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{1}{7}+\frac{1}{9}-\cdots$$
Multiplying both sides by ##\frac{1}{3}## and subtracting the result from the original series gives the series with all the multiples of 3 missing:
$$\left(1-\frac{1}{3}\right)\frac{\pi}{4}=1+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{1}{7}-\frac{1}{11}+\cdots$$
Repeating the process with ##-\frac{1}{5}## gives the series with all the remaining multiples of 5 missing:
$$\left(1+\frac{1}{5}\right)\left(1-\frac{1}{3}\right)\frac{\pi}{4}=1-\frac{1}{7}-\frac{1}{11}+\cdots$$
Continuing ad infinitum gives:
$$\frac{\pi}{4}\prod_{p\equiv3\ mod\ 4}{\left(1-p^{-1}\right)}\prod_{p\equiv1\ mod\ 4}{\left(1+p^{-1}\right)}=1$$
and multiplying both sides by ##\frac{4}{\pi}## would give me the series, except there's a factor of 2 that I've picked up somewhere.

Any thoughts?
Edit: a few sign errors
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes DrClaude
  • #44
BTW, if the derivation of the series does in fact ultimately come from the Leibniz formula, that itself is related to circles through the arctangent function, in that
$$\frac{\pi}{4}=1-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{1}{7}+\frac{1}{9}-\cdots$$
is simply the Taylor series expansion of ##\arctan(1)##.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn, dextercioby, Klystron and 2 others
  • #45
TeethWhitener said:
I'm having a hard time finding a derivation of the series in OP.
Which one?

TeethWhitener said:
$$\frac{\pi}{4}\prod_{p\equiv3\ mod\ 4}{\left(1-p^{-1}\right)}\prod_{p\equiv1\ mod\ 4}{\left(1+p^{-1}\right)}=1$$
That looks right, it's sometimes called Euler's formula (no, not that one :-p).
 
  • #46
pbuk said:
That looks right, it's sometimes called Euler's formula (no, not that one :-p).
Actually, @TeethWhitener's formula has the prime modulos reversed.
 
  • Like
Likes pbuk, TeethWhitener and nuuskur
  • #47
TeethWhitener said:
I started with the Leibniz formula:
$$\frac{\pi}{4}=1-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{1}{7}+\frac{1}{9}-\cdots$$
Multiplying both sides by ##\frac{1}{3}## and subtracting the result from the original
This part.
Oop, DrClaude beat me to it.
 
  • Like
Likes TeethWhitener and DrClaude
  • #48
pbuk said:
Which one?That looks right, it's sometimes called Euler's formula (no, not that one :-p).
I figured the derivation might look a lot like Euler's derivation of the Riemann zeta function, but I'm not a mathematician, so apologies for lack of rigor.
 
  • #49
TeethWhitener said:
I'm not sure it's confirmation bias. Finding the integral requires squaring it and transforming to polar coordinates.
$$\left(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{e^{-x^2}\ dx}\right)^2=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-\left(x^2+y^2\right)}\ dx\ dy=\int_{0}^{2\pi} \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-r^2}r\ dr \ d\theta$$
To be absolutely rigorous, you have to treat the improper integrals correctly, since the Cartesian integral is over a square and the polar integral is over a circle. In practice, this involves comparing the integral over the square with the integrals over its incircle and circumcircle, and using the squeeze theorem in the limit that the size of the square goes to infinity. So circles are in fact involved directly in the proof.
I don't know if it really actually requires it. There may be other ways of finding the integral ( though none I am aware of) that doesn't use polar coordinates. But, once you've chosen the method you describe, then, yes.
 
  • #50
nuuskur said:
Indeed, the connection to circles is an example of potential confirmation bias. That in theory ##\pi## appears in circles and geometry does not imply that ##\pi## is exclusively about circles. Of course, it would be nice if there was some pretty (and consistent) explanation -- maybe there is! But we can't assume a priori there exists one.
I agree, but not fully convinced by your argument. If ##\pi## had been derived by manipulating a conditionally-convergent series, then yes, you have a point, but in this case, AFAIK, it had not come about that way.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron and nuuskur
  • #51
Another fascinating relationship is to do with points generated by repeated multiplication and modulus plotted around a circle.



These are sequences generated based on number theoretic phenomena that is related to primality and divisibility. And they form the same patterns you get if you roll circles around other circles. Which also happen to be the shapes of magnetic fields in microphones, and a basis for forming Fibonacci spirals, and the shape of the Mandelbrot fractal.
 
  • #52
In #11 PeroK mentions finite series,

as someone who has rudimentary maths & is recovering from a brain injury ,
I'm assuming these series converge to some value , π in the instance the OP
alluded to.

Infinite Series are treated in some other way [ eg 12x +1 which contains all the
primes of the form 6x +1 ] ?
 
  • #53
Janosh89 said:
In #11 PeroK mentions finite series,
I mentioned finite sequences. A sequence is a list of numbers; a series is a sum. That's the formal mathematical usage of those terms.
Janosh89 said:
I'm assuming these series converge to some value , π in the instance the OP
alluded to.
All finite series have a finite sum. It's only infinite series where we need to talk about convergence or divergence.
Janosh89 said:
Infinite Series are treated in some other way [ eg 12x +1 which contains all the
primes of the form 6x +1 ] ?
I don't know what you mean here.
 
  • #54
Please take down my post if it does not contribute to the thread
 
  • #55
I might repeat what is already said but one has of course

$$\prod_{p\; prime}\frac1{1-p^{-2}} = \frac{\pi^2}{6}$$

which also proves that there are infinitely many prime numbers. Otherwise the left side is a rational number.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes DrClaude, WWGD, dextercioby and 1 other person
  • #56
martinbn said:
I might repeat what is already said but one has of course

$$\prod_{p\; prime}\frac1{1-p^{-2}} = \frac{\pi^2}{6}$$

which also proves that there are infinitely many prime numbers. Otherwise the left side is a rational number.
Can you point to a proof of that?
 
  • #58
## \prod_{p \ prime}{} \frac{p^{2}+1}{p^{2}-1} = \frac{5}{2} ##
## \prod_{p \ prime}{} \frac{p^{4}+1}{p^{4}-1} = \frac{7}{6} ##
 
Back
Top