3

By integrating the function:

$$ f(x) = \frac{1}{x^2 \tan(x)} $$

I would like to show that:

$$ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^2} = \frac{\pi^2}{6} $$

First, by integrating $f(x)$ over a semi-circle contour and using the residue theorem, I found that the function has simple poles at $x = n\pi$ for $n \in \mathbb{Z} \setminus \{0\}$, and a third-order pole at $x = 0$. The residues at $x = n\pi$ (for $n \neq 0$) are $\frac{1}{n^2 \pi^2}$, and the residue at $x = 0$ is $-\frac{1}{3}$ which I computed with the series expansion of $\frac{\cot(x)}{x^2}$.

Thus we have:

$$ \oint_{C} \frac{1}{x^2 \tan(x)} \, dx = 2\pi i \left( \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z} \setminus \{0\}} \frac{1}{n^2 \pi^2} + \left(-\frac{1}{3}\right) \right). $$

I made the first assumption that as the radius of the contour goes to infinity, the integral over the arc vanishes. While I assume this is true (based on the fact that according to WolframAlpha $\lim_{R\to\infty}\frac{1}{R^2\tan(R\exp{i\theta})}=0$), I’m not sure how to rigorously prove this in this specific case.

Then the other assumption I made is that the remaining real part somehow vanishes when integrated over $\mathbb{R}$. Which yields the desired result:

$$ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^2} = \frac{\pi^2}{6}. $$

However, as you may have guessed this is not a satisfactory result at all. And I would like help formalizing the two assumptions I made and learn through them. (I assume there must exist a trick or a theorem that allows to prove those two things fast enough as this problem should be done is around 30 minutes)

Xirven
  • 131
  • 2
    A semicircle contour actually doesn't work for this. See the discussion in Zeta function values in terms of Bernoulli numbers., for instance. – Mark S. Nov 20 '24 at 15:11
  • @MarkS. So, if I understand correctly, they parametrized the contour as a rectangle. In that case, the parts parallel to the real axis indeed vanish at infinity. However, they said that somehow, if they took the contour so that it crossed between singularities, it would work. But it seems weird, as then we take a limit to infinity. So, does the fact that we are between two singularities still hold? – Xirven Nov 21 '24 at 06:08
  • 1
    Since you know the singularities are at integers, a rectangle with vertical sides at half-integers necessarily is between singularities. If you're imagining a limit of a real variable like "length of rectangle", then you are correct that that would cause problems since some rectangles would lie on singularities. Instead, you should consider the limit of the sequence for larger and larger rectangles with vertical sides always at half-integers. This is a general thing you've likely already encountered with simpler contour integral exercises: not every circle avoids singularities, etc. – Mark S. Nov 21 '24 at 10:28
  • @MarkS. Ok, got it thank you so much for your help – Xirven Nov 21 '24 at 13:08

0 Answers0