Help - Derivation of formula for Pi (1 Viewer)

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
8,220
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
With the first bit there should be a |z|4 in one of the terms. By the way the method you used to derive the series is quite unusual. What I do is rewrite the fraction as



then sub z in which then leads to the result

Otherwise I think the working is fine other than the justification of the integral converging to zero.
 
Last edited:

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
A brief lapse of my bos hiatus.

Sy, your ideas are quite good although I do have one significant issue with your third page. You attempt to show that the alpha-integral tends to zero as n->inf by showing that the integrand tends to zero for each theta in (0,pi) as n->inf. This is in general not valid! Whilst this integral obviously needs to tend to zero by our knowledge of the value of zeta(2), you will need to show it another way.

A simple demonstration of why "bringing the limit inside" is generally illegal:

 
Last edited:

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
With the first bit there should be a |z|4 in one of the terms. By the way the method you used to derive the series is quite unusual. What I do is rewrite the fraction as



then sub z in which then leads to the result

Otherwise I think the working is fine other than the justification of the integral converging to zero.
Ah yes, sorry about that my 3rd line on the 1st page should be:



The reason I didn't sub in cis theta earlier is due to it just being messier and longer to write for me. Its easier this way because I know |cis theta| = 1 so I have less terms to compute.


A brief lapse of my bos hiatus.

Sy, your ideas are quite good although I do have one significant issue with your third page. You attempt to show that the alpha-integral tends to zero as n->inf by showing that the integrand tends to zero for each theta in (0,pi) as n->inf. This is in general not valid! Whilst this integral obviously needs to tend to zero by our knowledge of the value of zeta(2), you will need to show it another way.

A simple demonstration of why "bringing the limit inside" is generally illegal:

Awww man :/
So right from the first step on page 3, it is an illegal step? What if we just pretend not to evaluate the limit until the end and do this:





???

Is this invalid as well?
So close, yet so far :(


EDIT: Or what about doing that thing I did above but by applying squeeze theorem ->



Now, if we compute the upper bound:



And the problem is

does not converge....

How would I be able to prove that:

 
Last edited:

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Ah yes, sorry about that my 3rd line on the 1st page should be:



The reason I didn't sub in cis theta earlier is due to it just being messier and longer to write for me. Its easier this way because I know |cis theta| = 1 so I have less terms to compute.




Awww man :/
So right from the first step on page 3, it is an illegal step? What if we just pretend not to evaluate the limit until the end and do this:





???

Is this invalid as well?
So close, yet so far :(
Yep, that is the same thing just written differently unfortunately.
 

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
8,220
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Ah yes, sorry about that my 3rd line on the 1st page should be:



The reason I didn't sub in cis theta earlier is due to it just being messier and longer to write for me. Its easier this way because I know |cis theta| = 1 so I have less terms to compute.
Actually, the way I proposed it is much quicker because you don't even need to expand anything since you immediately get the in the numerator and denominator. It's just a matter of removing the i's to realise the denominator.
 
Last edited:

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Yep, that is the same thing just written differently unfortunately.
How about this then:




Now, if we compute the upper bound:



And the problem is

does not converge....

How would I be able to prove that:



===============

If I am able to prove the last fact that I needed, I end up with:



The second term converges to zero, and so does the first one according to Wolfram Alpha.... if I can prove that the first term converges to zero, then I can apply squeeze law right? Because I haven't carried in the limit which I assume is the cause of the rigour issues.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
The first term is not defined. As you noted earlier the integral does not converge, so how can we divide something that doesn't exist by 2n?
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Actually, the way I proposed it is much quicker because you don't even need to expand anything since you immediately get the in the numerator and denominator. It's just a matter of removing the i's to realise the denominator.
You edited your post so I assume you saw it but the things you were sandwiching your integral between weren't finite.
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
The first term is not defined. As you noted earlier the integral does not converge, so how can we divide something that doesn't exist by 2n?
Well I was thinking of the situation of:


And I was thinking if we can do somethng similar here for the non-convergent integral divided by something that could have a faster convergence? (I'm not very familiar with the rigour of convergence so please excuse any garbage in this post).

EDIT: Now I know I can't justify it straight away, but coming back all the way to the beginning after I integrate once, how about I take the limit to infinity at that time:



I can already prove that the RHS side is zero, I just integrate again and its still zero (with same limits of 0 and pi). The only problem here is, I can't justify integrating infinite number of terms right? So how would I be able to justify it?

EDIT2: Ok, sorry for the big blob of text, but I after some reading I found that I am allowed to justify integrating term by term if and only if the series converges, right?
 
Last edited:

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
No, convergence itself is not enough to justify the interchange of summation and integration. You need something stronger, like uniform convergence for example.

Typically the sort of interchanges you are talking about are done via Fubini's theorem (wiki it). Note that summation is just a special case of integration when we introduce the measure-theoretic definition of the latter.

The interchange you want to do cannot be justified by Fubini (unless I made a mistake, I only looked at it quite briefly), and I cannot think of any easy way to make the method work.
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
This is related to the current problem at hand, but I won't explain my question in case it turns out to be stupidly wrong:

Conjecture:



Is this true?



Where J(n) is a constant in this case, however it is in terms of n (this is important).

If I can prove that this is true, a more rigorous proof of the Basel problem arises. (I will explain how so when I get an answer or I may give background later)

EDIT: It would increase the rigour in my statement if I can show that J(n) is a polynomial, or at least diverges to infinity as n approaches infinity.
 
Last edited:

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
This is related to the current problem at hand, but I won't explain my question in case it turns out to be stupidly wrong:

Conjecture:



Is this true?



Where J(n) is a constant in this case, however it is in terms of n (this is important).

If I can prove that this is true, a more rigorous proof of the Basel problem arises. (I will explain how so when I get an answer or I may give background later)

EDIT: It would increase the rigour in my statement if I can show that J(n) is a polynomial, or at least diverges to infinity as n approaches infinity.
bump, is it possible to prove the result above if its even true?
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
How about this then:




Now, if we compute the upper bound:



And the problem is

does not converge....

How would I be able to prove that:



===============

If I am able to prove the last fact that I needed, I end up with:



The second term converges to zero, and so does the first one according to Wolfram Alpha.... if I can prove that the first term converges to zero, then I can apply squeeze law right? Because I haven't carried in the limit which I assume is the cause of the rigour issues.
Reviving because there was a mistake in my working that eventually crashed everything, now that I have found my mistake, everything actually dissolves quite nicely =)



Integrating by parts, and I will do this step out in full because this is where I made the mistake:











Once more I will apply squeeze theorem, but notice this time I have a - where there was a plus before in the FIRST TERM, which was the mistake the caused the convergence issue.



Now the cool thing is, when I evaluate the integrals of the upper and lower bound (the theta integral), the result is -1/2sin theta, and when we pair this with the alpha integral limit AND the minus on the outside of the integral, in the end it cancels out with the first term! (evaluate it for yourself), so in the end I get:











Now, I repeat, the only thing I did different is that in my stage 3 (the evalution of the integral), I used squeeze theorem, but I did it without any algebraic mistakes this time, resulting in a neat cancellation and when I take it to infinity due to the constant 1/2n at the front everything converges to zero including the integral.

Is everything completely valid now? Is the Basel problem proof complete?
 

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
8,220
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
There are a couple of typos like the sum for pi should be (-1)k-1 rather than (-1)2k-1.

So far the general idea seems to be fine to me.

(In b4 purists seanie or carrot point out any errors lol :p)
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
There are a couple of typos like the sum for pi should be (-1)k-1 rather than (-1)2k-1.

So far the general idea seems to be fine to me.

(In b4 purists seanie or carrot point out any errors lol :p)
Oops, haha hopefully there are no other typos or rigour issues. If there are no rigor issues now, I will retype it in full latex with better explanation of justification of the inequality
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Another quick visit to BoS. If you can convince me of page three you can convince me that your idea works, (after fixing up less important typos that may exist). From a glance right now I think the inequality part is dodgy. If you can explain each step of that part to me as if I knew no more than the average high school student I could better assess your work (ie agree that it works or pinpoint a mistake). Also brackets would help when it comes to the integrations so I know exactly what you are integrating in each, eg in your current inequality line you have thetas floating around OUTSIDE of the theta integral...
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Another quick visit to BoS. If you can convince me of page three you can convince me that your idea works, (after fixing up less important typos that may exist). From a glance right now I think the inequality part is dodgy. If you can explain each step of that part to me as if I knew no more than the average high school student I could better assess your work (ie agree that it works or pinpoint a mistake). Also brackets would help when it comes to the integrations so I know exactly what you are integrating in each, eg in your current inequality line you have thetas floating around OUTSIDE of the theta integral...
Ok, so we can already establish that:




Now we can also establish:



This means, that if we take away the cos2ntheta the magnitude of the expression becomes greater than it was before, thus we can create the upper bound in this way (the fact that we take it from the integral as well doesn't matter anyway)
The point is the bounds of the function we are taking away, the lower bound is obvious, we just put the minus there to make the lower bound of opposite magnitude to the first so I must lie in those bounds.



It must follow that:"



However on the chance that J is negative, then it must follow that:



This doesn't change the result of the squeeze theorem and I suspect this is what I was missing?

Anyway, we just evaluate the integral, variables cancel out, and we have a constant to integrate, which again becomes a constant since its a definite alpha integral, when n goes to infinity the 1/2n dominates the constant hence making J approach zero

Is this succinct enough?

And thanks very much again :)
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
But if alpha is greater than pi/2, then cos theta is negative on the interval of integration of the inside integral. So making the magnitude of that integrand bigger is making your inner integral smaller (more negative). Whereas if alpha is smaller than pi/2 then the opposite is true.

Eg the integral of x*cos(x) is less than the integral of x when integrated between 0 and 1, but GREATER when integrated between -1 and 0.


I just don't buy your justification for that inequality yet if it is even true. Also, I would prefer you to be the opposite of succinct here. Because of succinctness, it is difficult to know exactly what logic you are using to get from each line to the next. Do one thing at a time if possible for the key progression: from your expression for I to your claim that -J = < I = < J.
 
Last edited:

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
But if alpha is greater than pi/2, then cos theta is negative on the interval of integration of the inside integral. So making the magnitude of that integrand bigger is making your inner integrand smaller (more negative). Whereas if alpha is smaller than pi/2 then the opposite is true.

Eg the integral of x*cos(x) is less than the integral of x when integrated between 0 and 1, but GREATER when integrated between -1 and 0.
Ok so what I need to do to fix this, is:

1) Consider domain of Alpha, I am allowed to restrict it to 0 to pi right? because that is the only alpha that I will ever deal with?

2) Consider all the cases of cos2ntheta in this domain.

3) Find inequalities for all these cases?

Would that fix it?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top