View Single Post
  #8  
Old November 28th, 2008, 04:21 AM
CaptainBlack's Avatar
CaptainBlack CaptainBlack is offline
Grand Panjandrum
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: South of England
Posts: 11,379
Country:
Thanks: 667
Thanked 3,619 Times in 2,916 Posts
CaptainBlack has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainBlack has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainBlack has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainBlack has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainBlack has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainBlack has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainBlack has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainBlack has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainBlack has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainBlack has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainBlack has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmccormick View Post
But all I've done is differentiating the first term of the original series. I am pretty sure that the derivative exist and is equal to \zeta'(s) = -\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{lnr}{r^s} = -\sum_{r=2}^{\infty}\frac{lnr}{r^s}. But I have not actually shown that \zeta is differentiable.
Any thoughts.
thanks
It is sufficient to show that the sequence of parital sums:

S_N(x)=\sum_{r=1}^N \frac{1}{r^x}

in a neighbourhood of x is uniformly convergent, and that S'_N(x) is also uniformly convergent to conclude that:

\frac{d \zeta}{dx}=\frac{d}{dx}\left[ \lim_{N \to \infty} S_N(x) \right] = \lim _{N \to \infty}
\frac{dS_N(x)}{dx}

The uniform convergence on the sequence of partial sums for the zeta function can be demonstrated fairly easily on any closed interval [a,b],\ 1<a<b, and with a bit more trouble for the sequence of derivatives of the partial sums. Together these prove that the derivative of the zeta function can be found by term by term differentiation of the series for the zeta function on (1,\infty).

CB
__________________
Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

Giordano Bruno
Reply With Quote
The following users thank CaptainBlack for this useful post:
Donate to MHF