37
$\begingroup$

I recently printed a paper that asks to prove the "amazing" claim that for all $a_1,a_2,\dots$

$\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{a_1a_2\cdots a_{k-1}}{(x+a_1)\cdots(x+a_k)}=\frac{1}{x}$

and thus (probably) that

$\zeta(3)=\frac{5}{2}\sum_{n=1}^\infty {2n\choose n}^{-1}\frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{n^3}$

Since the paper gives no information on $a_n$, should it be possible to prove that the relation holds for any "context-reasonable" $a_1$? For example, letting $a_n=1$ gives

$\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{1}{(x+1)^k}=\frac{1}{x}$

which is true.

The article is "A Proof that Euler Missed..." An Informal Report - Alfred van der Poorten.

  • 0
    Here is one I found that is not on the Wikipedia list. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71856/a-serendipitous-riemann-identity2012-04-20

2 Answers 2

31

For every $n\geqslant1$ and every $(x,a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ such that $x\ne -a_k$ for every $k$, $ \color{red}{\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{a_1a_2\cdots a_{k-1}x}{(x+a_1)\cdots(x+a_k)}=1-\frac{a_1a_2\cdots a_{n}}{(x+a_1)\cdots(x+a_n)}} $ Hence the formula in the post holds if and only if $ \prod_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{a_k}{x+a_k}=0, $ which, for $x\gt0$ and at least if the sequence $(a_k)$ is nonnegative, is equivalent to the fact that $ \color{green}{\sum_{k}\frac1{a_k}}\ \text{diverges}. $ Here is a probabilistic proof of the finitary version, valid for every nonnegative $a_k$ and positive $x$ (note that once one knows these two rational expressions in $(x,a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ coincide for these values, one knows they are in fact identical).

Proof: Assume that one performs a sequence of $n$ independent experiments and that the $k$th experiment succeeds with probability $p_k=\frac{x}{x+a_k}.$ Then the $k$th term of the sum on the LHS of the equation above is the probability that every experiment from $1$ to $k-1$ failed and that experiment $k$ succeeded. Hence their sum is the probability of the disjoint union of these events, which is exactly the event that at least one experiment from $1$ to $n$ succeeded. The complementary event corresponds to $n$ failures, hence its probability is the product from $1$ to $n$ of the probabilities of failures $1-p_k$, that is, $\prod_{k=1}^n(1-p_k)=\prod_{k=1}^n\frac{a_k}{x+a_k}.$ This proves the claim.

  • 0
    @did OK. I don't think it changes the quality of your answer, but I will let you know next time.2012-06-08
36

Formally, the first identity is repeated application of the rewriting rule

$\dfrac 1 x = \dfrac 1 {x+a} + \dfrac {a}{x(x+a)} $

to its own rightmost term, first with $a = a_1$, then $a=a_2$, then $a=a_3, \ldots$

The only convergence condition on the $a_i$'s is that the $n$th term in the infinite sum go to zero. [i.e. that $a_1 a_2 \dots a_n / (x+a_1)(x+a_2) \dots (x+a_n)$ converges to zero for large $n$].

  • 9
    Some "amazing" things aren't so amazing after all :)2012-04-13