View Single Post
  #7  
Old November 28th, 2008, 04:19 AM
Opalg's Avatar
Opalg Opalg is offline
MHF Contributor

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 2,063
Country:
Thanks: 126
Thanked 1,258 Times in 1,046 Posts
Opalg has a brilliant futureOpalg has a brilliant futureOpalg has a brilliant futureOpalg has a brilliant futureOpalg has a brilliant futureOpalg has a brilliant futureOpalg has a brilliant futureOpalg has a brilliant futureOpalg has a brilliant futureOpalg has a brilliant futureOpalg has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmccormick View Post
I am pretty sure that the derivative exist and is equal to \zeta'(s) = -\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{\ln r}{r^s} = -\sum_{r=2}^{\infty}\frac{\ln r}{r^s}.
The series -\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{\ln r}{r^s} converges uniformly in any interval [a,∞), where a>1 (by the Weierstrass M-test). So you can integrate this series term by term (getting \zeta(s)), and by the fundamental theorem of calculus the integrated series will have the required derivative, which is clearly negative.

The same argument, repeated, will show that the second derivative is \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{(\ln r)^2}{r^s}, which is clearly positive.
Reply With Quote
The following users thank Opalg for this useful post:
Donate to MHF