No closed form for $sum_{nin P} frac{1}{n^2}$












4












$begingroup$


I think that I can say with a fair amount of assurance that $$sum_{nin mathcal P} frac{1}{n^2}$$ has no closed form (assuming that $mathcal P$ represents the full set of primes)



I currently know the following:



a) The sum converges at $ 0.45224742dots$



b) The definition of a closed from expression is that you can express the constant with the following:




  • addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division

  • raising a number to a power that exists (Includes reciprocals, roots, powers, and powers to fractional exponents)

  • known constants such as $pi,e, gamma, phi cdots$ and no others

  • trigonometric functions and their inverses ($sin,text{arccsc}, cot, text{arcsec}cdotstext{etc.}$)

  • hyperbolic trig functions and their inverses ($text{arccosh},text{tanh},text{arccoth}$)

  • You may not use anything that involves limits. A few off limits :) might be limits, derivatives, integrals, infinite sums, infinite products, and so on.


c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational. The irrationality of this concept [in part] inspired this question.



The reason I think that there is no closed form is due to the randomness of primes and that often times even random sums have no closed form. But really, I am not looking for whether or not this has a closed form, but a proof that there exists no closed form. Go as complicated as necessary to solve. Thanks for any help.



I realize that the a proof of the closed form is often extremely difficult, and even unknown for even the simplest of constants ($gamma$ and $zeta(3)$). I did know of the difficulty of a proof like this before asking this question. The reason I thought it might be easier was due to how random the distribution of primes were. (Remember we are trying to prove that there is no closed form not the opposite.)



PS: As a high school student, could you please namedrop the names of theorems please in your proof so I could learn more?






sequences-and-series number-theory prime-numbers closed-form







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    If you want a mathematical proof, you'll need to specify a mathematical definition.
    $endgroup$
    – pre-kidney
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:23






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You are probably right. But wouldn't your thoughts expressed there imply that $$prod_{n in P}left(1-frac{1}{n^2}right)$$ also has no closed form?
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:24






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @pre-kidney Its kinda rude to dissect the small stuff and ignore the question. Which you are obviously doing.
    $endgroup$
    – user253055
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:34








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Proving that there is no closed form for some expression can be extremely difficult. No one knows, for example, whether there is a closed form for $zeta(3)=sum n^{-3}$, or for Euler's $gamma$.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:44








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Now posted to MO (with no link from either site to the other), mathoverflow.net/questions/223064/…
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 9 '15 at 4:47
















4












$begingroup$


I think that I can say with a fair amount of assurance that $$sum_{nin mathcal P} frac{1}{n^2}$$ has no closed form (assuming that $mathcal P$ represents the full set of primes)



I currently know the following:



a) The sum converges at $ 0.45224742dots$



b) The definition of a closed from expression is that you can express the constant with the following:




  • addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division

  • raising a number to a power that exists (Includes reciprocals, roots, powers, and powers to fractional exponents)

  • known constants such as $pi,e, gamma, phi cdots$ and no others

  • trigonometric functions and their inverses ($sin,text{arccsc}, cot, text{arcsec}cdotstext{etc.}$)

  • hyperbolic trig functions and their inverses ($text{arccosh},text{tanh},text{arccoth}$)

  • You may not use anything that involves limits. A few off limits :) might be limits, derivatives, integrals, infinite sums, infinite products, and so on.


c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational. The irrationality of this concept [in part] inspired this question.



The reason I think that there is no closed form is due to the randomness of primes and that often times even random sums have no closed form. But really, I am not looking for whether or not this has a closed form, but a proof that there exists no closed form. Go as complicated as necessary to solve. Thanks for any help.



I realize that the a proof of the closed form is often extremely difficult, and even unknown for even the simplest of constants ($gamma$ and $zeta(3)$). I did know of the difficulty of a proof like this before asking this question. The reason I thought it might be easier was due to how random the distribution of primes were. (Remember we are trying to prove that there is no closed form not the opposite.)



PS: As a high school student, could you please namedrop the names of theorems please in your proof so I could learn more?






sequences-and-series number-theory prime-numbers closed-form







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    If you want a mathematical proof, you'll need to specify a mathematical definition.
    $endgroup$
    – pre-kidney
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:23






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You are probably right. But wouldn't your thoughts expressed there imply that $$prod_{n in P}left(1-frac{1}{n^2}right)$$ also has no closed form?
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:24






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @pre-kidney Its kinda rude to dissect the small stuff and ignore the question. Which you are obviously doing.
    $endgroup$
    – user253055
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:34








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Proving that there is no closed form for some expression can be extremely difficult. No one knows, for example, whether there is a closed form for $zeta(3)=sum n^{-3}$, or for Euler's $gamma$.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:44








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Now posted to MO (with no link from either site to the other), mathoverflow.net/questions/223064/…
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 9 '15 at 4:47














4












4








4


0



$begingroup$


I think that I can say with a fair amount of assurance that $$sum_{nin mathcal P} frac{1}{n^2}$$ has no closed form (assuming that $mathcal P$ represents the full set of primes)



I currently know the following:



a) The sum converges at $ 0.45224742dots$



b) The definition of a closed from expression is that you can express the constant with the following:




  • addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division

  • raising a number to a power that exists (Includes reciprocals, roots, powers, and powers to fractional exponents)

  • known constants such as $pi,e, gamma, phi cdots$ and no others

  • trigonometric functions and their inverses ($sin,text{arccsc}, cot, text{arcsec}cdotstext{etc.}$)

  • hyperbolic trig functions and their inverses ($text{arccosh},text{tanh},text{arccoth}$)

  • You may not use anything that involves limits. A few off limits :) might be limits, derivatives, integrals, infinite sums, infinite products, and so on.


c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational. The irrationality of this concept [in part] inspired this question.



The reason I think that there is no closed form is due to the randomness of primes and that often times even random sums have no closed form. But really, I am not looking for whether or not this has a closed form, but a proof that there exists no closed form. Go as complicated as necessary to solve. Thanks for any help.



I realize that the a proof of the closed form is often extremely difficult, and even unknown for even the simplest of constants ($gamma$ and $zeta(3)$). I did know of the difficulty of a proof like this before asking this question. The reason I thought it might be easier was due to how random the distribution of primes were. (Remember we are trying to prove that there is no closed form not the opposite.)



PS: As a high school student, could you please namedrop the names of theorems please in your proof so I could learn more?






sequences-and-series number-theory prime-numbers closed-form







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I think that I can say with a fair amount of assurance that $$sum_{nin mathcal P} frac{1}{n^2}$$ has no closed form (assuming that $mathcal P$ represents the full set of primes)



I currently know the following:



a) The sum converges at $ 0.45224742dots$



b) The definition of a closed from expression is that you can express the constant with the following:




  • addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division

  • raising a number to a power that exists (Includes reciprocals, roots, powers, and powers to fractional exponents)

  • known constants such as $pi,e, gamma, phi cdots$ and no others

  • trigonometric functions and their inverses ($sin,text{arccsc}, cot, text{arcsec}cdotstext{etc.}$)

  • hyperbolic trig functions and their inverses ($text{arccosh},text{tanh},text{arccoth}$)

  • You may not use anything that involves limits. A few off limits :) might be limits, derivatives, integrals, infinite sums, infinite products, and so on.


c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational. The irrationality of this concept [in part] inspired this question.



The reason I think that there is no closed form is due to the randomness of primes and that often times even random sums have no closed form. But really, I am not looking for whether or not this has a closed form, but a proof that there exists no closed form. Go as complicated as necessary to solve. Thanks for any help.



I realize that the a proof of the closed form is often extremely difficult, and even unknown for even the simplest of constants ($gamma$ and $zeta(3)$). I did know of the difficulty of a proof like this before asking this question. The reason I thought it might be easier was due to how random the distribution of primes were. (Remember we are trying to prove that there is no closed form not the opposite.)



PS: As a high school student, could you please namedrop the names of theorems please in your proof so I could learn more?






sequences-and-series number-theory prime-numbers closed-form




sequences-and-series number-theory prime-numbers closed-form






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jun 13 '18 at 9:39









Klangen

1,70511334




1,70511334










asked Nov 8 '15 at 1:14







user285523















  • 5




    $begingroup$
    If you want a mathematical proof, you'll need to specify a mathematical definition.
    $endgroup$
    – pre-kidney
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:23






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You are probably right. But wouldn't your thoughts expressed there imply that $$prod_{n in P}left(1-frac{1}{n^2}right)$$ also has no closed form?
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:24






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @pre-kidney Its kinda rude to dissect the small stuff and ignore the question. Which you are obviously doing.
    $endgroup$
    – user253055
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:34








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Proving that there is no closed form for some expression can be extremely difficult. No one knows, for example, whether there is a closed form for $zeta(3)=sum n^{-3}$, or for Euler's $gamma$.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:44








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Now posted to MO (with no link from either site to the other), mathoverflow.net/questions/223064/…
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 9 '15 at 4:47














  • 5




    $begingroup$
    If you want a mathematical proof, you'll need to specify a mathematical definition.
    $endgroup$
    – pre-kidney
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:23






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You are probably right. But wouldn't your thoughts expressed there imply that $$prod_{n in P}left(1-frac{1}{n^2}right)$$ also has no closed form?
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:24






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @pre-kidney Its kinda rude to dissect the small stuff and ignore the question. Which you are obviously doing.
    $endgroup$
    – user253055
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:34








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Proving that there is no closed form for some expression can be extremely difficult. No one knows, for example, whether there is a closed form for $zeta(3)=sum n^{-3}$, or for Euler's $gamma$.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:44








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Now posted to MO (with no link from either site to the other), mathoverflow.net/questions/223064/…
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 9 '15 at 4:47








5




5




$begingroup$
If you want a mathematical proof, you'll need to specify a mathematical definition.
$endgroup$
– pre-kidney
Nov 8 '15 at 1:23




$begingroup$
If you want a mathematical proof, you'll need to specify a mathematical definition.
$endgroup$
– pre-kidney
Nov 8 '15 at 1:23




2




2




$begingroup$
You are probably right. But wouldn't your thoughts expressed there imply that $$prod_{n in P}left(1-frac{1}{n^2}right)$$ also has no closed form?
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Nov 8 '15 at 1:24




$begingroup$
You are probably right. But wouldn't your thoughts expressed there imply that $$prod_{n in P}left(1-frac{1}{n^2}right)$$ also has no closed form?
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Nov 8 '15 at 1:24




3




3




$begingroup$
@pre-kidney Its kinda rude to dissect the small stuff and ignore the question. Which you are obviously doing.
$endgroup$
– user253055
Nov 8 '15 at 1:34






$begingroup$
@pre-kidney Its kinda rude to dissect the small stuff and ignore the question. Which you are obviously doing.
$endgroup$
– user253055
Nov 8 '15 at 1:34






2




2




$begingroup$
Proving that there is no closed form for some expression can be extremely difficult. No one knows, for example, whether there is a closed form for $zeta(3)=sum n^{-3}$, or for Euler's $gamma$.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Nov 8 '15 at 1:44






$begingroup$
Proving that there is no closed form for some expression can be extremely difficult. No one knows, for example, whether there is a closed form for $zeta(3)=sum n^{-3}$, or for Euler's $gamma$.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Nov 8 '15 at 1:44






2




2




$begingroup$
Now posted to MO (with no link from either site to the other), mathoverflow.net/questions/223064/…
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Nov 9 '15 at 4:47




$begingroup$
Now posted to MO (with no link from either site to the other), mathoverflow.net/questions/223064/…
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Nov 9 '15 at 4:47










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

Your sum is equal to $P(2)$, where $P(n)$ denotes the prime zeta function defined as



$$
P(n)=sum_{pinmathbb{P}}frac{1}{p^n}.
$$



No closed-form expression is known for any values of the prime zeta function.




c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational.




The irrationality of the prime zeta function at any positive integer $ngeq2$ is unknown. A proof of your statement would immediately gain you considerable fame.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1518214%2fno-closed-form-for-sum-n-in-p-frac1n2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown
























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0












    $begingroup$

    Your sum is equal to $P(2)$, where $P(n)$ denotes the prime zeta function defined as



    $$
    P(n)=sum_{pinmathbb{P}}frac{1}{p^n}.
    $$



    No closed-form expression is known for any values of the prime zeta function.




    c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational.




    The irrationality of the prime zeta function at any positive integer $ngeq2$ is unknown. A proof of your statement would immediately gain you considerable fame.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      Your sum is equal to $P(2)$, where $P(n)$ denotes the prime zeta function defined as



      $$
      P(n)=sum_{pinmathbb{P}}frac{1}{p^n}.
      $$



      No closed-form expression is known for any values of the prime zeta function.




      c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational.




      The irrationality of the prime zeta function at any positive integer $ngeq2$ is unknown. A proof of your statement would immediately gain you considerable fame.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        Your sum is equal to $P(2)$, where $P(n)$ denotes the prime zeta function defined as



        $$
        P(n)=sum_{pinmathbb{P}}frac{1}{p^n}.
        $$



        No closed-form expression is known for any values of the prime zeta function.




        c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational.




        The irrationality of the prime zeta function at any positive integer $ngeq2$ is unknown. A proof of your statement would immediately gain you considerable fame.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Your sum is equal to $P(2)$, where $P(n)$ denotes the prime zeta function defined as



        $$
        P(n)=sum_{pinmathbb{P}}frac{1}{p^n}.
        $$



        No closed-form expression is known for any values of the prime zeta function.




        c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational.




        The irrationality of the prime zeta function at any positive integer $ngeq2$ is unknown. A proof of your statement would immediately gain you considerable fame.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 3 '18 at 9:53









        KlangenKlangen

        1,70511334




        1,70511334






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1518214%2fno-closed-form-for-sum-n-in-p-frac1n2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Ellipse (mathématiques)

            Image
            Pour les articles homonymes, voir Ellipse. L'ellipse est le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante. Section du cône ou projection du cercle. En géométrie, une ellipse est une courbe plane fermée obtenue par l’intersection d’un cône de révolution avec un plan, à condition que celui-ci coupe l'axe de rotation du cône ou du cylindre : c'est une conique d'excentricité strictement comprise entre 0 et 1. On peut également la définir comme le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante (sa construction par la méthode du jardinier est très simple). Dans la vie courante, l’ellipse est la forme qu'on perçoit en regardant un cercle en perspective, ou la figure formée par l’ombre d'un disque sur une surface plane. On retrouve aussi, en première approximation [ 1 ] , des ellipses dans les trajectoires des corps célestes (planètes, comètes ou satellites arti...
            Read more

            Quarter-circle Tiles

            Image
            up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2 ...
            Read more

            Mont Emei

            Image
            Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog...
            Read more