What is the value of the Dirichlet Eta Function at s=1/2?
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Although $eta(1)$ is known to be $ln(2)$, I have not seen an analytically calculated value for $eta(frac{1}{2});$
$$etaleft(frac{1}{2}right) = sum_{n=1}^{infty}frac{(-1)^{(n+1)}}{sqrt{n}}$$
A web calculator gives the value to be 0.6, which seems to be right.
number-theory
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Although $eta(1)$ is known to be $ln(2)$, I have not seen an analytically calculated value for $eta(frac{1}{2});$
$$etaleft(frac{1}{2}right) = sum_{n=1}^{infty}frac{(-1)^{(n+1)}}{sqrt{n}}$$
A web calculator gives the value to be 0.6, which seems to be right.
number-theory
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Although $eta(1)$ is known to be $ln(2)$, I have not seen an analytically calculated value for $eta(frac{1}{2});$
$$etaleft(frac{1}{2}right) = sum_{n=1}^{infty}frac{(-1)^{(n+1)}}{sqrt{n}}$$
A web calculator gives the value to be 0.6, which seems to be right.
number-theory
New contributor
Although $eta(1)$ is known to be $ln(2)$, I have not seen an analytically calculated value for $eta(frac{1}{2});$
$$etaleft(frac{1}{2}right) = sum_{n=1}^{infty}frac{(-1)^{(n+1)}}{sqrt{n}}$$
A web calculator gives the value to be 0.6, which seems to be right.
number-theory
number-theory
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
User525412790
313114
313114
New contributor
asked Nov 13 at 10:08
Akira Bergman
214
214
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
Isn't just
$$etaleft(frac{1}{2}right)=sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac{(-1)^{(n+1)}}{sqrt{n}}=left(1-sqrt{2}right) zeta left(frac{1}{2}right)approx 0.6048986434$$
Edit
Remember the general relation
$$etaleft(sright)=left(1-2^{1-s}right) zeta (s)$$ If you want a quick and dirty shortcut evaluation, for $0 leq s leq 1$, you could use
$$etaleft(sright)=frac 12+left( log (2)-frac{1}{2}right), s^{0.895}$$
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
A careful computation shows that the numerical value is
$$0.6048986434216303702472...$$
which is not $0.6$. One should be aware that the above series converge really slowly.
As Claude Leibovici indicates, one can relate its value to the Riemann's Zeta function value at $1/2$. However, as far as I know, there is no analytic formula of $zeta(1/2)$, so this is why you haven't seen an "analytically calculated value for $eta(1/2)$".
EDIT2: As pointed again in the comments by leftaroundabout, I missread the OEIS link given in the answer of R. J. Mathar. What equals $$gamma/2 + pi/4 - (1/2 + sqrt{2})log(2) + log(pi)/2,$$where $gamma$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, is $eta'(1/2)/eta(1/2)$ not $eta(1/2)$.
You are very correct ! We start a no-end loop. By the way $to +1$
– Claude Leibovici
Nov 13 at 10:51
4
It does seem to be expressible exactly in terms of the Euler-Mascheroni constant though.
– leftaroundabout
Nov 13 at 16:01
@leftaroundabout Do you have a reference, I searched, but I didn't find it.
– Josué Tonelli-Cueto
Nov 13 at 18:47
1
@user3059799 Corrected, editing from the phone is hard
– Josué Tonelli-Cueto
Nov 13 at 20:11
1
The formula seems incorrect - I get the wrong answer when calculating it. OEIS seems to say that if $c$ is the OP's constant, and $d$ is the constant described here, then your formula gives $d/c$. The formula on OEIS for $d$ includes $zeta(1/2)$, so I suspect all they are giving is Claude Leibovici's formula in disguise.
– Mike Miller
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
The numerical value of 0.604898... is provided in http://oeis.org/A113024 .
New contributor
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
Isn't just
$$etaleft(frac{1}{2}right)=sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac{(-1)^{(n+1)}}{sqrt{n}}=left(1-sqrt{2}right) zeta left(frac{1}{2}right)approx 0.6048986434$$
Edit
Remember the general relation
$$etaleft(sright)=left(1-2^{1-s}right) zeta (s)$$ If you want a quick and dirty shortcut evaluation, for $0 leq s leq 1$, you could use
$$etaleft(sright)=frac 12+left( log (2)-frac{1}{2}right), s^{0.895}$$
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
Isn't just
$$etaleft(frac{1}{2}right)=sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac{(-1)^{(n+1)}}{sqrt{n}}=left(1-sqrt{2}right) zeta left(frac{1}{2}right)approx 0.6048986434$$
Edit
Remember the general relation
$$etaleft(sright)=left(1-2^{1-s}right) zeta (s)$$ If you want a quick and dirty shortcut evaluation, for $0 leq s leq 1$, you could use
$$etaleft(sright)=frac 12+left( log (2)-frac{1}{2}right), s^{0.895}$$
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
Isn't just
$$etaleft(frac{1}{2}right)=sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac{(-1)^{(n+1)}}{sqrt{n}}=left(1-sqrt{2}right) zeta left(frac{1}{2}right)approx 0.6048986434$$
Edit
Remember the general relation
$$etaleft(sright)=left(1-2^{1-s}right) zeta (s)$$ If you want a quick and dirty shortcut evaluation, for $0 leq s leq 1$, you could use
$$etaleft(sright)=frac 12+left( log (2)-frac{1}{2}right), s^{0.895}$$
Isn't just
$$etaleft(frac{1}{2}right)=sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac{(-1)^{(n+1)}}{sqrt{n}}=left(1-sqrt{2}right) zeta left(frac{1}{2}right)approx 0.6048986434$$
Edit
Remember the general relation
$$etaleft(sright)=left(1-2^{1-s}right) zeta (s)$$ If you want a quick and dirty shortcut evaluation, for $0 leq s leq 1$, you could use
$$etaleft(sright)=frac 12+left( log (2)-frac{1}{2}right), s^{0.895}$$
edited 2 days ago
answered Nov 13 at 10:43
Claude Leibovici
116k1156131
116k1156131
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
A careful computation shows that the numerical value is
$$0.6048986434216303702472...$$
which is not $0.6$. One should be aware that the above series converge really slowly.
As Claude Leibovici indicates, one can relate its value to the Riemann's Zeta function value at $1/2$. However, as far as I know, there is no analytic formula of $zeta(1/2)$, so this is why you haven't seen an "analytically calculated value for $eta(1/2)$".
EDIT2: As pointed again in the comments by leftaroundabout, I missread the OEIS link given in the answer of R. J. Mathar. What equals $$gamma/2 + pi/4 - (1/2 + sqrt{2})log(2) + log(pi)/2,$$where $gamma$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, is $eta'(1/2)/eta(1/2)$ not $eta(1/2)$.
You are very correct ! We start a no-end loop. By the way $to +1$
– Claude Leibovici
Nov 13 at 10:51
4
It does seem to be expressible exactly in terms of the Euler-Mascheroni constant though.
– leftaroundabout
Nov 13 at 16:01
@leftaroundabout Do you have a reference, I searched, but I didn't find it.
– Josué Tonelli-Cueto
Nov 13 at 18:47
1
@user3059799 Corrected, editing from the phone is hard
– Josué Tonelli-Cueto
Nov 13 at 20:11
1
The formula seems incorrect - I get the wrong answer when calculating it. OEIS seems to say that if $c$ is the OP's constant, and $d$ is the constant described here, then your formula gives $d/c$. The formula on OEIS for $d$ includes $zeta(1/2)$, so I suspect all they are giving is Claude Leibovici's formula in disguise.
– Mike Miller
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
A careful computation shows that the numerical value is
$$0.6048986434216303702472...$$
which is not $0.6$. One should be aware that the above series converge really slowly.
As Claude Leibovici indicates, one can relate its value to the Riemann's Zeta function value at $1/2$. However, as far as I know, there is no analytic formula of $zeta(1/2)$, so this is why you haven't seen an "analytically calculated value for $eta(1/2)$".
EDIT2: As pointed again in the comments by leftaroundabout, I missread the OEIS link given in the answer of R. J. Mathar. What equals $$gamma/2 + pi/4 - (1/2 + sqrt{2})log(2) + log(pi)/2,$$where $gamma$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, is $eta'(1/2)/eta(1/2)$ not $eta(1/2)$.
You are very correct ! We start a no-end loop. By the way $to +1$
– Claude Leibovici
Nov 13 at 10:51
4
It does seem to be expressible exactly in terms of the Euler-Mascheroni constant though.
– leftaroundabout
Nov 13 at 16:01
@leftaroundabout Do you have a reference, I searched, but I didn't find it.
– Josué Tonelli-Cueto
Nov 13 at 18:47
1
@user3059799 Corrected, editing from the phone is hard
– Josué Tonelli-Cueto
Nov 13 at 20:11
1
The formula seems incorrect - I get the wrong answer when calculating it. OEIS seems to say that if $c$ is the OP's constant, and $d$ is the constant described here, then your formula gives $d/c$. The formula on OEIS for $d$ includes $zeta(1/2)$, so I suspect all they are giving is Claude Leibovici's formula in disguise.
– Mike Miller
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
A careful computation shows that the numerical value is
$$0.6048986434216303702472...$$
which is not $0.6$. One should be aware that the above series converge really slowly.
As Claude Leibovici indicates, one can relate its value to the Riemann's Zeta function value at $1/2$. However, as far as I know, there is no analytic formula of $zeta(1/2)$, so this is why you haven't seen an "analytically calculated value for $eta(1/2)$".
EDIT2: As pointed again in the comments by leftaroundabout, I missread the OEIS link given in the answer of R. J. Mathar. What equals $$gamma/2 + pi/4 - (1/2 + sqrt{2})log(2) + log(pi)/2,$$where $gamma$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, is $eta'(1/2)/eta(1/2)$ not $eta(1/2)$.
A careful computation shows that the numerical value is
$$0.6048986434216303702472...$$
which is not $0.6$. One should be aware that the above series converge really slowly.
As Claude Leibovici indicates, one can relate its value to the Riemann's Zeta function value at $1/2$. However, as far as I know, there is no analytic formula of $zeta(1/2)$, so this is why you haven't seen an "analytically calculated value for $eta(1/2)$".
EDIT2: As pointed again in the comments by leftaroundabout, I missread the OEIS link given in the answer of R. J. Mathar. What equals $$gamma/2 + pi/4 - (1/2 + sqrt{2})log(2) + log(pi)/2,$$where $gamma$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, is $eta'(1/2)/eta(1/2)$ not $eta(1/2)$.
edited 2 days ago
answered Nov 13 at 10:48
Josué Tonelli-Cueto
3,6521027
3,6521027
You are very correct ! We start a no-end loop. By the way $to +1$
– Claude Leibovici
Nov 13 at 10:51
4
It does seem to be expressible exactly in terms of the Euler-Mascheroni constant though.
– leftaroundabout
Nov 13 at 16:01
@leftaroundabout Do you have a reference, I searched, but I didn't find it.
– Josué Tonelli-Cueto
Nov 13 at 18:47
1
@user3059799 Corrected, editing from the phone is hard
– Josué Tonelli-Cueto
Nov 13 at 20:11
1
The formula seems incorrect - I get the wrong answer when calculating it. OEIS seems to say that if $c$ is the OP's constant, and $d$ is the constant described here, then your formula gives $d/c$. The formula on OEIS for $d$ includes $zeta(1/2)$, so I suspect all they are giving is Claude Leibovici's formula in disguise.
– Mike Miller
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
You are very correct ! We start a no-end loop. By the way $to +1$
– Claude Leibovici
Nov 13 at 10:51
4
It does seem to be expressible exactly in terms of the Euler-Mascheroni constant though.
– leftaroundabout
Nov 13 at 16:01
@leftaroundabout Do you have a reference, I searched, but I didn't find it.
– Josué Tonelli-Cueto
Nov 13 at 18:47
1
@user3059799 Corrected, editing from the phone is hard
– Josué Tonelli-Cueto
Nov 13 at 20:11
1
The formula seems incorrect - I get the wrong answer when calculating it. OEIS seems to say that if $c$ is the OP's constant, and $d$ is the constant described here, then your formula gives $d/c$. The formula on OEIS for $d$ includes $zeta(1/2)$, so I suspect all they are giving is Claude Leibovici's formula in disguise.
– Mike Miller
2 days ago
You are very correct ! We start a no-end loop. By the way $to +1$
– Claude Leibovici
Nov 13 at 10:51
You are very correct ! We start a no-end loop. By the way $to +1$
– Claude Leibovici
Nov 13 at 10:51
4
4
It does seem to be expressible exactly in terms of the Euler-Mascheroni constant though.
– leftaroundabout
Nov 13 at 16:01
It does seem to be expressible exactly in terms of the Euler-Mascheroni constant though.
– leftaroundabout
Nov 13 at 16:01
@leftaroundabout Do you have a reference, I searched, but I didn't find it.
– Josué Tonelli-Cueto
Nov 13 at 18:47
@leftaroundabout Do you have a reference, I searched, but I didn't find it.
– Josué Tonelli-Cueto
Nov 13 at 18:47
1
1
@user3059799 Corrected, editing from the phone is hard
– Josué Tonelli-Cueto
Nov 13 at 20:11
@user3059799 Corrected, editing from the phone is hard
– Josué Tonelli-Cueto
Nov 13 at 20:11
1
1
The formula seems incorrect - I get the wrong answer when calculating it. OEIS seems to say that if $c$ is the OP's constant, and $d$ is the constant described here, then your formula gives $d/c$. The formula on OEIS for $d$ includes $zeta(1/2)$, so I suspect all they are giving is Claude Leibovici's formula in disguise.
– Mike Miller
2 days ago
The formula seems incorrect - I get the wrong answer when calculating it. OEIS seems to say that if $c$ is the OP's constant, and $d$ is the constant described here, then your formula gives $d/c$. The formula on OEIS for $d$ includes $zeta(1/2)$, so I suspect all they are giving is Claude Leibovici's formula in disguise.
– Mike Miller
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
The numerical value of 0.604898... is provided in http://oeis.org/A113024 .
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
The numerical value of 0.604898... is provided in http://oeis.org/A113024 .
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
The numerical value of 0.604898... is provided in http://oeis.org/A113024 .
New contributor
The numerical value of 0.604898... is provided in http://oeis.org/A113024 .
New contributor
New contributor
answered Nov 13 at 14:29
R. J. Mathar
511
511
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Akira Bergman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Akira Bergman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Akira Bergman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Akira Bergman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2996561%2fwhat-is-the-value-of-the-dirichlet-eta-function-at-s-1-2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown