No closed form for $sum_{nin P} frac{1}{n^2}$
$begingroup$
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
edited Jun 13 '18 at 9:39
Klangen
1,70511334
$endgroup$
|
show 14 more comments
$begingroup$
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
edited Jun 13 '18 at 9:39
Klangen
1,70511334
$endgroup$
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
|
show 14 more comments
$begingroup$
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
edited Jun 13 '18 at 9:39
Klangen
1,70511334
$endgroup$
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
edited Jun 13 '18 at 9:39
Klangen
1,70511334
edited Jun 13 '18 at 9:39
Klangen
1,70511334
edited Jun 13 '18 at 9:39
Klangen
1,70511334
edited Jun 13 '18 at 9:39
Klangen
1,70511334
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
|
show 14 more comments
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
|
show 14 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
answered Dec 3 '18 at 9:53
KlangenKlangen
1,70511334
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
answered Dec 3 '18 at 9:53
KlangenKlangen
1,70511334
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered Dec 3 '18 at 9:53
KlangenKlangen
1,70511334
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered Dec 3 '18 at 9:53
KlangenKlangen
1,70511334
$endgroup$
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.
answered Dec 3 '18 at 9:53
KlangenKlangen
1,70511334
answered Dec 3 '18 at 9:53
KlangenKlangen
1,70511334
answered Dec 3 '18 at 9:53
KlangenKlangen
1,70511334
answered Dec 3 '18 at 9:53
KlangenKlangen
1,70511334
1,70511334
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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