In the last post we proved that ζ(2) is irrational. Now we shall prove in a similar manner that ζ(3) is irrational. Note that this proof is based on Beukers' paper "A Note on the Irrationality of ζ(2) and ζ(3)."
∫10∫10−logxy1−xyxryrdxdy=2∞∑n=11(n+r)3∫10∫10−logxy1−xyxrysdxdy=1r−s{1(s+1)2+1(s+2)2+⋯+1r2}
Now putting α=0 the first result is established. This means that ∫10∫10−logxy1−xydxdy=2ζ(3)
Next from equation (3) of last post we have ∫10∫10xr+αys+α1−xydxdy=1r−s{1s+α+1+1s+α+2+⋯+1r+α}
From the above results it is now clear that if P(x),Q(x) are polynomials of degree n with integer coefficients then ∫10∫10−logxy1−xyP(x)Q(y)dxdy=aζ(3)+bd3n
We will establish that
First we need to observe that ∫10dz1−az=[−1alog(1−az)]z=1z=0=−log(1−a)a
After substituting these expressions we get In=∫10∫10∫10(1−x)n(1−w)nPn(y)1−(1−xy)wdxdydw
We next need to find an estimate for the function f(x,y,w) defined by f(x,y,w)=x(1−x)y(1−y)w(1−w)1−(1−xy)w
The denominator of f(x,y,w) is 1−w+xyw and clearly we have 1−w+xyw≥2√(1−w)xyw
Print/PDF Version
Irrationality of ζ(3)
Like the case of ζ(2) we first establish certain formulas concerning some double integrals which are related to ζ(3). The derivation of these formulas is based on the integral formulas established in last post.Preliminary Results
Let r,s be non-negative integers with r>s. Then we have∫10∫10−logxy1−xyxryrdxdy=2∞∑n=11(n+r)3∫10∫10−logxy1−xyxrysdxdy=1r−s{1(s+1)2+1(s+2)2+⋯+1r2}
Using equation (2) from the last post we get
∫10∫10xr+αyr+α1−xydxdy=∞∑n=11(n+r+α)2
Differentiating the above relation with respect to α we get
∫10∫10xr+αyr+αlogxy1−xydxdy=∞∑n=1−2(n+r+α)3
Now putting α=0 the first result is established. This means that ∫10∫10−logxy1−xydxdy=2ζ(3)
and if r is a positive integer then
∫10∫10−logxy1−xyxryrdxdy=2{ζ(3)−(113+123+⋯+1r3)}
Next from equation (3) of last post we have ∫10∫10xr+αys+α1−xydxdy=1r−s{1s+α+1+1s+α+2+⋯+1r+α}
Differentiating the above relation with respect to α we get
∫10∫10xr+αys+αlogxy1−xydxdy=1r−s{−1(s+α+1)2+−1(s+α+2)2+⋯+−1(r+α)2}
Putting α=0 in the above equation we obtain equation (2).
From the above results it is now clear that if P(x),Q(x) are polynomials of degree n with integer coefficients then ∫10∫10−logxy1−xyP(x)Q(y)dxdy=aζ(3)+bd3n
where a,b are some integers dependent on polynomials P(x),Q(x) and dn denotes the LCM of numbers 1,2,…,n (aslo for completeness we can assume d0=1).
Strategy of the Proof
Now we choose a specific polynomial Pn(x) defined by Pn(x)=1n!dndxn{xn(1−x)n}
Since Pn(x) is a polynomial of degree n with integer coefficients it follows that the integral defined by
In=∫10∫10−logxy1−xyPn(x)Pn(y)dxdy
can be expressed in the form
In=anζ(3)+bnd3n
where an,bn are integers dependent on n.
We will establish that
- In≠0 for all positive integers n.
- d3nIn→0 as n→∞.
Estimation of In
Now we come to the proof of the two claims mentioned above which are vital to obtain a contradiction needed to prove the irrationality of ζ(3).First we need to observe that ∫10dz1−az=[−1alog(1−az)]z=1z=0=−log(1−a)a
hence on putting a=1−xy we get
−logxy1−xy=∫10dz1−(1−xy)z
Using the above equation we can write the integral In as a triple integral
In=∫10∫10∫10Pn(x)Pn(y)1−(1−xy)zdxdydz
Using integration by parts n times with respect to x we get
In=∫10∫10∫10(xyz)n(1−x)nPn(y){1−(1−xy)z}n+1dxdydz
Following Beukers, we apply the substitution
w=1−z1−(1−xy)z
so that
z=1−w1−(1−xy)w,1−z=xyw1−(1−xy)w
Hence
dz=−xy{1−(1−xy)w}2dw
and
zn{1−(1−xy)z}n+1=(1−w)n{1−(1−xy)w}nwn+1(1−z)n+1=(1−w)n(1−(1−xy)w)(xy)n+1
Also note that as z moves from 0 to 1, w moves from 1 to 0.
After substituting these expressions we get In=∫10∫10∫10(1−x)n(1−w)nPn(y)1−(1−xy)wdxdydw
Using integration by parts n times with respect to y we get
In=∫10∫10∫10xn(1−x)nyn(1−y)nwn(1−w)n{1−(1−xy)w}n+1dxdydw
and from this expression it is clear that In>0 as the integrand is positive for all x,y,w∈(0,1).
We next need to find an estimate for the function f(x,y,w) defined by f(x,y,w)=x(1−x)y(1−y)w(1−w)1−(1−xy)w
for x,y,w∈(0,1). Finding the maximum value using first and second partial derivatives seems a bit complicated hence it is better to go for a simpler approach based on inequalities.
The denominator of f(x,y,w) is 1−w+xyw and clearly we have 1−w+xyw≥2√(1−w)xyw
and hence we have
f(x,y,w)≤12√x(1−x)√y(1−y)√w(1−w)
If we put x=t2 then √x(1−x)=t(1−t2)=t−t3 which is maximum when t=1/√3 and the maximum value is 2/(3√3). Similar is the case for √y(1−y). The maximum value of √w(1−w) is clearly (w+1−w)/2=1/2. Hence we have
f(x,y,w)≤1223√323√312=127
Therefore by equation (4) we get
In=∫10∫10∫10{f(x,y,w)}n1−(1−xy)wdxdydw≤(127)n∫10∫10∫1011−(1−xy)wdxdydw=(127)n∫10∫10−logxy1−xydxdy=2ζ(3)(127)n
From the last post we know that if K>e is a fixed number then dn<Kn for all sufficiently large values of n. Hence it follows that
d3nIn<2ζ(3)(K327)n
for all sufficiently large values of n. If we choose K such that e<K<3 then we can see that the right hand side of equation (5) above tends to zero as n→∞. Therefore d3nIn→0 as n→∞. We have thus completed the proof of irrationality of ζ(3).
Print/PDF Version
0 comments :: Irrationality of ζ(2) and ζ(3): Part 2
Post a Comment