10
$\begingroup$

When I first watched numberphile's 1+2+3+... = $\frac{-1}{12}$ I thought the sum actually equalled $\frac{-1}{12}$ without really understanding it.

Recently I read some wolframalpha pages and watched some videos and now I understand (I think), that $\frac{-1}{12}$ is just an associative value to the sum of all natural numbers when you analytically continue the riemann-zeta function. 3Blue1Brown's video really helped. What I don't really understand is why it gives the value $\frac{-1}{12}$ specifically. The value $\frac{-1}{12}$ seems arbitrary to me and I don't see any connection to the sum of all natural numbers. Is there any intuition behind why you get $\frac{-1}{12}$ when analytically continue the zeta function at $\zeta(-1)$?

EDIT(just to make my question a little clearer): I'll use an example here. Suppose you somehow didn't know about radians and never associated trig functions like sine to $\pi$ but you knew about maclaurin expansion. By plugging in x=$\pi$ to the series expansion of sine, you would get sine($\pi$) = 0. You might have understood the process in which you get the value 0, the maclaurin expansion, but you wouldn't really know the intuition behind this connection between $\pi$ and trig functions, namely the unit circle, which is essential in almost every branch of number theory.

Back to this question, I understand the analytic continuation of the zeta function and its continued form for $s < 0$ $$\zeta(s)=2^s\pi^{s-1}\sin\frac{\pi s}2\Gamma(1-s)\zeta(1-s)$$ and how when you plug in s = -1, things simplify down to $\frac{-1}{12}$ but I don't see any connection between the fraction and the infinite sum. I'm sure there is a beautiful connection between them, like the one between trig functions and $\pi$, but couldn't find any useful resources on the internet. Hope this clarified things.

  • 0
    Well obviously as a result this is wrong .... the Riemann zeta function is not defined as a series anymore if $s \leq 1$ .2017-01-06
  • 1
    You may actually look for the relation zeta Riemann satisfies in that domain ... that shall clear a lot of things up2017-01-06
  • 0
    Yes ... right !! Silly mistake by my part...2017-01-06
  • 0
    You have series formula for zeta function. Now derive a new form of this zeta function from the old one. Make sure its analytic and goes all the way to $s=-1$...2017-01-06
  • 0
    @Tolaso it is indeed. For $Re(s) > 0$ : $\zeta(s) = \frac{1}{s-1}+\sum_{n=1}^\infty (n^{-s}-\int_n^{n+1} x^{-s}dx)$ and for $Re(s) > -1$ : $\zeta(s) = \frac{1}{s-1}+\frac{1}{2}+\sum_{n=1}^\infty \int_n^{n+1}\int_n^x s (t^{-s-1}-x^{-s-1})dt dx$ or something like that. Note those are a **regularization of $\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-s}$**2017-01-06
  • 2
    +1 for escaping the pit of eternal unfortune and beliefs on things like $1+2+3+\dots=-1/12$2017-01-06
  • 3
    https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/the-euler-maclaurin-formula-bernoulli-numbers-the-zeta-function-and-real-variable-analytic-continuation/2017-01-06
  • 9
    The guys at Numberphile should pay £ 1 to whichever decent educational organization in mathematics they want, for every poor soul who arrives on math.se asking about their video...2017-01-06
  • 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcKRGpMiVTw2017-01-06
  • 0
    @DietrichBurde while a part of me wants to close, this question begs "can you make this right **and** intuitive while still something I can understand?"2017-01-06
  • 0
    @SimpleArt yes, I can understand this, too. On the other hand, there is no way around the Riemann zeta function here - which is always more than pure intuition (and this is right so).2017-01-06
  • 0
    I did see the [Why does $1+2+3+... = -\frac{1}{12}$](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/39802/why-does-123-cdots-frac112) post before posting this. The reason I still posted this question was because the answers mainly explained how you got to the value $-\frac{1}{12}$ using analytic continuation and whatnot. As mentioned in the question, I already know this and understand it to some degree. What I want to know is if there is some intuiting behind the specific value $-\frac{1}{12}$2017-01-06

7 Answers 7

10

There is a really nice answer by master Terence Tao on his blog.

The Euler-Maclaurin formula, Bernoulli numbers, The zeta function and real variable analytic continuation/

It shows that smoothed sums $\eta$ for $\sum\limits_{n\le N}n^s\,\eta(n/N)$ have a divergent part in $N^{s+1}$ and a convergent part $-\frac{B_{s+1}}{s+1}$.

The second part of the paper shows how it is related to analytics continuation in the complex plane.

  • 0
    (for $s \in \mathbb{N}$, otherwise there are other terms in $\frac{N^{s+1-k}}{(s+1)\ldots(s+1-k)}$)2017-01-06
  • 1
    @user1952009: Using the Euler-Maclaurin Sum Formula, the first three "divergent terms" are included in [my answer](http://math.stackexchange.com/a/2086323). For $s=0$, one of the terms is divergent; for $s=-1$, two of the terms are divergent; and for $s=-2$, three of the terms are divergent.2017-01-06
6

We have the functional equation for $\;\zeta\;$ :

$$\zeta(s)=2^s\pi^{s-1}\sin\frac{\pi s}2\Gamma(1-s)\zeta(1-s)$$

which allows to extend the usual definition of the zeta function as infinite series to $\;\text{Re}\,s<1\;$, and then:

$$\zeta(-1)=\frac1{2\pi^2}\cdot(-1)\cdot1\cdot\frac{\pi^2}6=-\frac1{12}$$

  • 3
    If only things like this were more intuitive for the laymen.2017-01-06
  • 0
    @SimpleArt They are not "intuitive" even for mathematicians...at least not for me. Anyway, when someone messes with the definition domain of zeta function, there doesn't seem to be much options but use the functional equation...2017-01-06
4

An Elementary Non-Proof

Note that $\dfrac{1}{(1-z)^2}=\sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty\,(k+1)\,z^{k}$ leads to $$\beta = 1-2+3-4+\ldots=\frac{1}{\big(1-(-1)\big)^2}=\frac{1}{4}\,.$$ Hence, if $\alpha =1+2+3+\ldots$, then $$\alpha-\beta =4+8+12+\ldots=4\,(1+2+3+\ldots)=4\,\alpha \,.$$ Thus, $$\zeta(-1)=\alpha=-\frac{\beta}{3}=-\frac{1}{12}\,.$$

Hope it helps.

4

The following is taken from this answer.

Using the Dirichlet Eta function and integration by parts twice, we get $$ \begin{align} (1-2^{1-z})\zeta(z)\Gamma(z) &=\eta(z)\Gamma(z)\\ &=\int_0^\infty\frac{x^{z-1}}{e^x+1}\,\mathrm{d}x\\ &=\frac1z\int_0^\infty\frac{x^ze^x}{\left(e^x+1\right)^2}\,\mathrm{d}x\\ &=\frac1{z(z+1)}\int_0^\infty\frac{x^{z+1}\left(e^{2x}-e^x\right)}{\left(e^x+1\right)^3}\,\mathrm{d}x\\ \end{align} $$ Multiply by $z(x+1)$ to get $$ (1-2^{1-z})\zeta(z)\Gamma(z+2)=\int_0^\infty\frac{x^{z+1}\left(e^{2x}-e^x\right)}{\left(e^x+1\right)^3}\,\mathrm{d}x $$ Plugging in $z=-1$, gives a pretty simple integral. $$ \begin{align} (1-2^2)\zeta(-1)\Gamma(1) &=\int_0^\infty\frac{e^{2x}-e^x}{(e^x+1)^3}\mathrm{d}x\\ &=\int_1^\infty\frac{u-1}{(u+1)^3}\mathrm{d}u\\ &=\int_1^\infty\left(\frac1{(u+1)^2}-\frac2{(u+1)^3}\right)\mathrm{d}u\\ &=\frac14 \end{align} $$ This gives $$ \bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{\zeta(-1)=-\frac1{12}} $$


The relation between $\boldsymbol{\zeta(z)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\eta(z)}$

An alternating sum can be viewed as the sum of the non-alternating terms minus twice the sum of the even terms. $$ \begin{align} \eta(z) &=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{n^z}\\ &=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1{n^z}-2\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1{(2n)^z}\\ &=\left(1-2^{1-z}\right)\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1{n^z}\\[6pt] &=\left(1-2^{1-z}\right)\zeta(z) \end{align} $$


The integral for $\boldsymbol{\eta(z)\Gamma(z)}$ $$ \begin{align} \int_0^\infty\frac{x^{z-1}}{e^x+1}\,\mathrm{d}x &=\int_0^\infty x^{z-1}\sum_{k=1}^\infty(-1)^{k-1}e^{-kx}\,\mathrm{d}x\\ &=\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k^z}\int_0^\infty x^{z-1}e^{-x}\,\mathrm{d}x\\[6pt] &=\eta(z)\Gamma(z) \end{align} $$

4

In equation $(10)$ of this answer, it is shown, using the Euler-Maclaurin Sum Formula, that the analytic continuation of the zeta function for $\newcommand{\Re}{\operatorname{Re}}\Re(z)\gt-3$ is given by $$ \zeta(z)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[\sum_{k=1}^n{k^{-z}}-\frac1{1-z}n^{1-z}-\frac12n^{-z}+\frac{z}{12}n^{-1-z}\right]\tag{1} $$ Note that for $\Re(z)\gt1$, the terms beyond the sum vanish and we are left with the well-known definition of $\zeta(z)$: $$ \zeta(z)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-z}\tag{2} $$

For $z=-1$, $(1)$ becomes $$ \begin{align} \zeta(-1) &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[\sum_{k=1}^nk-\frac12n^2-\frac12n-\frac1{12}\right]\\ &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[\frac{n^2+n}2-\frac12n^2-\frac12n-\frac1{12}\right]\\[3pt] &=-\frac1{12}\tag{3} \end{align} $$

Furthermore, for $z=0$, $(1)$ becomes $$ \begin{align} \zeta(0) &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[\sum_{k=1}^n1-n-\frac12+\frac0{12n}\right]\\ &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[n-n-\frac12+\frac0{12n}\right]\\[3pt] &=-\frac12\tag{4} \end{align} $$ and for $z=-2$, $(1)$ becomes $$ \begin{align} \zeta(-2) &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[\sum_{k=1}^nk^2-\frac13n^3-\frac12n^2-\frac16n\right]\\ &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[\frac{2n^3+3n^2+n}6-\frac13n^3-\frac12n^2-\frac16n\right]\\[9pt] &=0\tag{5} \end{align} $$

1

$$1+1+1+\dots+1=n$$

$$\int_{-1}^0x\ dx=-\frac12$$


$$1+2+3+\dots+n=\frac{n(n+1)}2$$

$$\int_{-1}^0\frac{x(x+1)}2\ dx=-\frac1{12}$$


$$1^2+2^2+3^2+\dots+n^2=\frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}6$$

$$\int_{-1}^0\frac{x(x+1)(2x+1)}6\ dx=0$$


Integrating the formula for the sum of all natural numbers

  • 0
    I remember seeing this somewhere, but I don't know where... Or why... This works.2017-01-06
  • 1
    I think this is the closest thing to what I want if only it had an explanation of why/how this works. Anyways, thanks! :)2017-01-06
  • 0
    @Brian010515 I'll try to find or figure out the proof after school, since it'll probably take me a while.2017-01-06
  • 0
    For whomever, I don't mind downvotes if you explain why you've downoted. Thank you!2017-01-06
  • 0
    @Brian010515 Please see [here](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2252550/integrating-the-formula-for-the-sum-of-all-natural-numbers).2017-08-23
  • 0
    @Brian010515 Check the edits for a rigorous explanation.2017-09-15
-2

The values of $\zeta$ for negative integers can be directly calculated from the Bernoulli numbers, from:

$$\zeta(-n)=(-1)^n\frac {B_{n+1}}{n+1}$$

and $B_2=\dfrac 16$.

  • 1
    I think you've missed the word "intuition" in the question.2017-01-06
  • 2
    @Wojowu the question is bizarre. I think that it's impossible to provide an "intuitive" explanation.2017-01-06
  • 0
    @OpenBall How are you so sure of that? Just because a formal explanation of this is difficult and underlying maths are nontrivial doesn't mean there cannot be a way to explain the result in an intuitive way.2017-01-06
  • 1
    @Wojowu I wasn't intending to come across as *that* sure. I toned my comment down a little bit. I think that there cannot be an intuitive explanation because it is a really conceptually advanced result with much underlying technical aspects.2017-01-06