Proof of an infinite product formula

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving the infinite product formula \(\prod_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(1-\frac{q^2}{n^2} \right) = \frac{\sin(\pi q)}{\pi q}\). Participants mention that both sides are entire functions of \(q\) and share the same zeros at integer values. A reference to the Weierstrass factorization theorem is made as a potential proof method, alongside contour integration techniques, though these require knowledge of complex analysis. One contributor notes that a textbook on the Riemann Zeta Function contains simpler proofs as exercises, which can be worked through without advanced complex analysis. The conversation concludes with a mention of related identities inspired by the original formula, linking them to the multi zeta function.
Omri
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am looking for a proof of the following formula:

\prod_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(1-\frac{q^2}{n^2} \right) = \frac{\sin(\pi q)}{\pi q}

Does anyone know where to find such a proof?

Thanks :smile:
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
In any good textbook on Complex Analysis. Observe that both the left and the right hand side of your equation is an entire function of q (considered as a complex variable) and that the zeroes of both side coincide, more precisely the zeros are exactly the integers.

The theorem is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weierstrass_factorization_theorem"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First I must confess that I have never heard of the term "entire function" or about the factorization theorem. This is probably because I don't know everything about complex analysis, and have never taken a real university course in the subject (hence I wouldn't have a good textbook...). I only know about it from my tutor, who taught me the basics, and now he asked me to find a proof of the product above.

It is indeed easily seen that the zeros of both sides coincide, and that they are indeed the cases where q is an integer. But is that enough? And also, that factor (pi*q)^-1 on the right-hand side has now effect on the zeros, so in general I could have replaced it with any other numeric factor. Why should it be this specific one?

Thanks a lot for you help.
 
This can be proved as a special case of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weierstrass_factorization_theorem" , or more directly by contour integration. However, that requires complex analysis.

A book I have (An introduction to the theory of the Riemann Zeta-Function by S.J. Patterson) contains a couple of simple proofs, given as exercises. They in fact prove
<br /> \pi\cot\pi z=z^{-1}+\sum_{n&gt;0}2z/(z^2-n^2)<br />
which is just the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_derivative" of the identity you state.


The first proof only requires knowing that the only bounded entire functions (i.e. differentiable functions on the complex plane) are the constant functions, whereas the second doesn't require any complex analysis). I'll write it out as it appears in the book and let you work through the details of the proofs yourself.

1.12 Show that
<br /> f(z)=z^{-1}+\sum_{n&gt;0}2z/(z^2-n^2)<br />
can be expressed as
<br /> f(z)=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{n=-N}^N(z-n)^{-1}.<br />
Deduce that
<br /> f(z+1)=f(z).<br />
Show also that if |Im(z)|>4 then |f(z)|<5. Conclude that
<br /> f(z)-\pi\cot\pi z<br />
is a constant. Finally show that this constant is zero.

And, the second proof.

1.13 Show that with f as in Exercise 1.12
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> f(z)^2=&amp;z^{-2}+\sum_{n&gt;0}\left\{4z^2(z^2-n^2)^{-2}+4(z^2-n^2)^{-1}\right\}\\<br /> &amp; +4z^2\sum_{\substack{m,n&gt;0\\ m\not=n}}(z^2-n^2)^{-1}(z^2-m^2)^{-1}\\<br /> =&amp; z^{-2}+\sum_{n&gt;0}\left\{4z^2(z^2-n^2)^{-2}+4(z^2-n^2)^{-1}\right\}\\<br /> &amp; - 8z^2\sum_{n&gt;0}(z^2-n^2)^{-1}\sum_{\substack{m&gt;0\\ m\not=n}}(m^2-n^2)^{-1}.<br /> \end{align*}<br />
Show that
<br /> \sum_{\substack{m&gt;0\\ m\not=n}}(m^2-n^2)^{-1}=3/4n^2<br />
and deduce that
<br /> f^\prime(z)=-f(z)^2-6\sum_{n\ge 1}n^{-2}.<br />
Finally prove that
<br /> f(z)=\pi\cot\pi z<br />
and
<br /> \sum_{n&gt;0}n^{-2}=\pi^2/6.<br />
(This argument, which avoids the techniques of complex analysis and Fourier theory, is due to Eisenstein).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Omri said:
Hi,

I am looking for a proof of the following formula:

\prod_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(1-\frac{q^2}{n^2} \right) = \frac{\sin(\pi q)}{\pi q}

Does anyone know where to find such a proof?

Thanks :smile:


I found this thread and I just wanted to say that this identity inspired me to find these identities:
  • - \frac{\pi ^2}{3!} = \displaystyle \sum_{j_1=1}^{\infty} -j_1^{-2}
  • \frac{\pi ^4}{5!} = \displaystyle \sum_{j_1,j_2=1 \atop j_1 \neq j_2}^{\infty} (j_1j_2)^{-2}
  • - \frac{\pi ^6}{7!} = \displaystyle \sum_{j_1,j_2,j_3=1 \atop j_i \neq j_k} - (j_1j_2j_3)^{-2}
  • \vdots
  • \frac{\pi ^{2n}}{(2n+1)!} = \displaystyle \sum_{j_1,...j_n=1 \atop j_i \neq j_k}^{\infty} (j_1j_2...j_n)^{-2}
  • \vdots

I explain how at my math blog http://www.futurebird.com/?p=156

It turns out these sums are something called the multi zeta function... Neat, no?
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Back
Top