By Arun Iyer on Wednesday, December 19,
2001 - 06:13 pm:
could anyone please evaluate....
love arun
By Michael Doré on Thursday, December 20, 2001 - 01:04
am:
I would suggest splitting up
as:
i.e. a geometric series (which we can do since
for
).
Note that
.
So the answer is
. I can't actually remember the
value of
offhand, but it is well known (it is a rational multiple
of
).
By Arun Iyer on Thursday, December 20,
2001 - 05:58 pm:
Well, that's some neat transformation
there...beautiful.
I know that
However, do you know a way of proving this...Michael?
love arun
By Arun Iyer on Saturday, December 22,
2001 - 06:42 pm:
Well, anyone know proof for
?
love arun
By Yatir Halevi on Saturday, December 22,
2001 - 07:14 pm:
I know that it is not a proof
but i did see somewhere that:
,
,
, ...
let's take
.
we get: The second bernoulli number is 1/30
Yatir
By Arun Iyer on Saturday, December 22,
2001 - 07:36 pm:
i know that formula...
i had given the link for that some months back..
this is the site..
http://numbers.computation.free.fr/Constants/Miscellaneous/bernoulli.html
love arun
By Michael Doré on Sunday, December 23, 2001 - 01:44 am:
I think it is easy if you're willing to accept
Euler's sine product. If we start with:
then on taking logarithms and differentiating you get:
where
is taken over the naturals.
Differentiate each side
times:
Bring the
term to the other side then take the limit as
:
Write
, multiply throughout by
and you
get:
So:
Setting
and using the chain rule this becomes:
(*)
Note that
and
can both be series expanded:
where
is the
th Bernoulli number (using the well known fact that
is the generating function for the Bernoulli numbers).
If you substitute these series in (*) and expand out the product then you
should find that the reciprocal terms cancel (so luckily the function doesn't
blow up at the origin) and then the final result follows on applying the
(well known??) identity:
which is easily proved by equating coefficients in the identity:
.
Of course this can all be greatly speeded up for
.
By Michael Doré on Sunday, December 23, 2001 -
02:56 am:
Oops, ignore the penultimate line. And I
think the identity is only for n > 1.
By Arun Iyer on Sunday, December 23, 2001
- 05:47 pm:
whoa!!pretty long proof....phew!!
thanks michael...