No closed form for $sum_{nin P} frac{1}{n^2}$












4












$begingroup$


I think that I can say with a fair amount of assurance that $$sum_{nin mathcal P} frac{1}{n^2}$$ has no closed form (assuming that $mathcal P$ represents the full set of primes)



I currently know the following:



a) The sum converges at $ 0.45224742dots$



b) The definition of a closed from expression is that you can express the constant with the following:




  • addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division

  • raising a number to a power that exists (Includes reciprocals, roots, powers, and powers to fractional exponents)

  • known constants such as $pi,e, gamma, phi cdots$ and no others

  • trigonometric functions and their inverses ($sin,text{arccsc}, cot, text{arcsec}cdotstext{etc.}$)

  • hyperbolic trig functions and their inverses ($text{arccosh},text{tanh},text{arccoth}$)

  • You may not use anything that involves limits. A few off limits :) might be limits, derivatives, integrals, infinite sums, infinite products, and so on.


c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational. The irrationality of this concept [in part] inspired this question.



The reason I think that there is no closed form is due to the randomness of primes and that often times even random sums have no closed form. But really, I am not looking for whether or not this has a closed form, but a proof that there exists no closed form. Go as complicated as necessary to solve. Thanks for any help.



I realize that the a proof of the closed form is often extremely difficult, and even unknown for even the simplest of constants ($gamma$ and $zeta(3)$). I did know of the difficulty of a proof like this before asking this question. The reason I thought it might be easier was due to how random the distribution of primes were. (Remember we are trying to prove that there is no closed form not the opposite.)



PS: As a high school student, could you please namedrop the names of theorems please in your proof so I could learn more?






sequences-and-series number-theory prime-numbers closed-form







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    If you want a mathematical proof, you'll need to specify a mathematical definition.
    $endgroup$
    – pre-kidney
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:23






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You are probably right. But wouldn't your thoughts expressed there imply that $$prod_{n in P}left(1-frac{1}{n^2}right)$$ also has no closed form?
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:24






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @pre-kidney Its kinda rude to dissect the small stuff and ignore the question. Which you are obviously doing.
    $endgroup$
    – user253055
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:34








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Proving that there is no closed form for some expression can be extremely difficult. No one knows, for example, whether there is a closed form for $zeta(3)=sum n^{-3}$, or for Euler's $gamma$.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:44








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Now posted to MO (with no link from either site to the other), mathoverflow.net/questions/223064/…
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 9 '15 at 4:47
















4












$begingroup$


I think that I can say with a fair amount of assurance that $$sum_{nin mathcal P} frac{1}{n^2}$$ has no closed form (assuming that $mathcal P$ represents the full set of primes)



I currently know the following:



a) The sum converges at $ 0.45224742dots$



b) The definition of a closed from expression is that you can express the constant with the following:




  • addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division

  • raising a number to a power that exists (Includes reciprocals, roots, powers, and powers to fractional exponents)

  • known constants such as $pi,e, gamma, phi cdots$ and no others

  • trigonometric functions and their inverses ($sin,text{arccsc}, cot, text{arcsec}cdotstext{etc.}$)

  • hyperbolic trig functions and their inverses ($text{arccosh},text{tanh},text{arccoth}$)

  • You may not use anything that involves limits. A few off limits :) might be limits, derivatives, integrals, infinite sums, infinite products, and so on.


c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational. The irrationality of this concept [in part] inspired this question.



The reason I think that there is no closed form is due to the randomness of primes and that often times even random sums have no closed form. But really, I am not looking for whether or not this has a closed form, but a proof that there exists no closed form. Go as complicated as necessary to solve. Thanks for any help.



I realize that the a proof of the closed form is often extremely difficult, and even unknown for even the simplest of constants ($gamma$ and $zeta(3)$). I did know of the difficulty of a proof like this before asking this question. The reason I thought it might be easier was due to how random the distribution of primes were. (Remember we are trying to prove that there is no closed form not the opposite.)



PS: As a high school student, could you please namedrop the names of theorems please in your proof so I could learn more?






sequences-and-series number-theory prime-numbers closed-form







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    If you want a mathematical proof, you'll need to specify a mathematical definition.
    $endgroup$
    – pre-kidney
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:23






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You are probably right. But wouldn't your thoughts expressed there imply that $$prod_{n in P}left(1-frac{1}{n^2}right)$$ also has no closed form?
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:24






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @pre-kidney Its kinda rude to dissect the small stuff and ignore the question. Which you are obviously doing.
    $endgroup$
    – user253055
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:34








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Proving that there is no closed form for some expression can be extremely difficult. No one knows, for example, whether there is a closed form for $zeta(3)=sum n^{-3}$, or for Euler's $gamma$.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:44








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Now posted to MO (with no link from either site to the other), mathoverflow.net/questions/223064/…
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 9 '15 at 4:47














4












4








4


0



$begingroup$


I think that I can say with a fair amount of assurance that $$sum_{nin mathcal P} frac{1}{n^2}$$ has no closed form (assuming that $mathcal P$ represents the full set of primes)



I currently know the following:



a) The sum converges at $ 0.45224742dots$



b) The definition of a closed from expression is that you can express the constant with the following:




  • addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division

  • raising a number to a power that exists (Includes reciprocals, roots, powers, and powers to fractional exponents)

  • known constants such as $pi,e, gamma, phi cdots$ and no others

  • trigonometric functions and their inverses ($sin,text{arccsc}, cot, text{arcsec}cdotstext{etc.}$)

  • hyperbolic trig functions and their inverses ($text{arccosh},text{tanh},text{arccoth}$)

  • You may not use anything that involves limits. A few off limits :) might be limits, derivatives, integrals, infinite sums, infinite products, and so on.


c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational. The irrationality of this concept [in part] inspired this question.



The reason I think that there is no closed form is due to the randomness of primes and that often times even random sums have no closed form. But really, I am not looking for whether or not this has a closed form, but a proof that there exists no closed form. Go as complicated as necessary to solve. Thanks for any help.



I realize that the a proof of the closed form is often extremely difficult, and even unknown for even the simplest of constants ($gamma$ and $zeta(3)$). I did know of the difficulty of a proof like this before asking this question. The reason I thought it might be easier was due to how random the distribution of primes were. (Remember we are trying to prove that there is no closed form not the opposite.)



PS: As a high school student, could you please namedrop the names of theorems please in your proof so I could learn more?






sequences-and-series number-theory prime-numbers closed-form







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I think that I can say with a fair amount of assurance that $$sum_{nin mathcal P} frac{1}{n^2}$$ has no closed form (assuming that $mathcal P$ represents the full set of primes)



I currently know the following:



a) The sum converges at $ 0.45224742dots$



b) The definition of a closed from expression is that you can express the constant with the following:




  • addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division

  • raising a number to a power that exists (Includes reciprocals, roots, powers, and powers to fractional exponents)

  • known constants such as $pi,e, gamma, phi cdots$ and no others

  • trigonometric functions and their inverses ($sin,text{arccsc}, cot, text{arcsec}cdotstext{etc.}$)

  • hyperbolic trig functions and their inverses ($text{arccosh},text{tanh},text{arccoth}$)

  • You may not use anything that involves limits. A few off limits :) might be limits, derivatives, integrals, infinite sums, infinite products, and so on.


c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational. The irrationality of this concept [in part] inspired this question.



The reason I think that there is no closed form is due to the randomness of primes and that often times even random sums have no closed form. But really, I am not looking for whether or not this has a closed form, but a proof that there exists no closed form. Go as complicated as necessary to solve. Thanks for any help.



I realize that the a proof of the closed form is often extremely difficult, and even unknown for even the simplest of constants ($gamma$ and $zeta(3)$). I did know of the difficulty of a proof like this before asking this question. The reason I thought it might be easier was due to how random the distribution of primes were. (Remember we are trying to prove that there is no closed form not the opposite.)



PS: As a high school student, could you please namedrop the names of theorems please in your proof so I could learn more?






sequences-and-series number-theory prime-numbers closed-form




sequences-and-series number-theory prime-numbers closed-form






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jun 13 '18 at 9:39









Klangen

1,75811334




1,75811334










asked Nov 8 '15 at 1:14







user285523















  • 5




    $begingroup$
    If you want a mathematical proof, you'll need to specify a mathematical definition.
    $endgroup$
    – pre-kidney
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:23






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You are probably right. But wouldn't your thoughts expressed there imply that $$prod_{n in P}left(1-frac{1}{n^2}right)$$ also has no closed form?
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:24






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @pre-kidney Its kinda rude to dissect the small stuff and ignore the question. Which you are obviously doing.
    $endgroup$
    – user253055
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:34








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Proving that there is no closed form for some expression can be extremely difficult. No one knows, for example, whether there is a closed form for $zeta(3)=sum n^{-3}$, or for Euler's $gamma$.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:44








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Now posted to MO (with no link from either site to the other), mathoverflow.net/questions/223064/…
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 9 '15 at 4:47














  • 5




    $begingroup$
    If you want a mathematical proof, you'll need to specify a mathematical definition.
    $endgroup$
    – pre-kidney
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:23






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You are probably right. But wouldn't your thoughts expressed there imply that $$prod_{n in P}left(1-frac{1}{n^2}right)$$ also has no closed form?
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:24






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @pre-kidney Its kinda rude to dissect the small stuff and ignore the question. Which you are obviously doing.
    $endgroup$
    – user253055
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:34








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Proving that there is no closed form for some expression can be extremely difficult. No one knows, for example, whether there is a closed form for $zeta(3)=sum n^{-3}$, or for Euler's $gamma$.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 8 '15 at 1:44








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Now posted to MO (with no link from either site to the other), mathoverflow.net/questions/223064/…
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 9 '15 at 4:47








5




5




$begingroup$
If you want a mathematical proof, you'll need to specify a mathematical definition.
$endgroup$
– pre-kidney
Nov 8 '15 at 1:23




$begingroup$
If you want a mathematical proof, you'll need to specify a mathematical definition.
$endgroup$
– pre-kidney
Nov 8 '15 at 1:23




2




2




$begingroup$
You are probably right. But wouldn't your thoughts expressed there imply that $$prod_{n in P}left(1-frac{1}{n^2}right)$$ also has no closed form?
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Nov 8 '15 at 1:24




$begingroup$
You are probably right. But wouldn't your thoughts expressed there imply that $$prod_{n in P}left(1-frac{1}{n^2}right)$$ also has no closed form?
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Nov 8 '15 at 1:24




3




3




$begingroup$
@pre-kidney Its kinda rude to dissect the small stuff and ignore the question. Which you are obviously doing.
$endgroup$
– user253055
Nov 8 '15 at 1:34






$begingroup$
@pre-kidney Its kinda rude to dissect the small stuff and ignore the question. Which you are obviously doing.
$endgroup$
– user253055
Nov 8 '15 at 1:34






2




2




$begingroup$
Proving that there is no closed form for some expression can be extremely difficult. No one knows, for example, whether there is a closed form for $zeta(3)=sum n^{-3}$, or for Euler's $gamma$.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Nov 8 '15 at 1:44






$begingroup$
Proving that there is no closed form for some expression can be extremely difficult. No one knows, for example, whether there is a closed form for $zeta(3)=sum n^{-3}$, or for Euler's $gamma$.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Nov 8 '15 at 1:44






2




2




$begingroup$
Now posted to MO (with no link from either site to the other), mathoverflow.net/questions/223064/…
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Nov 9 '15 at 4:47




$begingroup$
Now posted to MO (with no link from either site to the other), mathoverflow.net/questions/223064/…
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Nov 9 '15 at 4:47










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

Your sum is equal to $P(2)$, where $P(n)$ denotes the prime zeta function defined as



$$
P(n)=sum_{pinmathbb{P}}frac{1}{p^n}.
$$



No closed-form expression is known for any values of the prime zeta function.




c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational.




The irrationality of the prime zeta function at any positive integer $ngeq2$ is unknown. A proof of your statement would immediately gain you considerable fame.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1518214%2fno-closed-form-for-sum-n-in-p-frac1n2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown
























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0












    $begingroup$

    Your sum is equal to $P(2)$, where $P(n)$ denotes the prime zeta function defined as



    $$
    P(n)=sum_{pinmathbb{P}}frac{1}{p^n}.
    $$



    No closed-form expression is known for any values of the prime zeta function.




    c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational.




    The irrationality of the prime zeta function at any positive integer $ngeq2$ is unknown. A proof of your statement would immediately gain you considerable fame.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      Your sum is equal to $P(2)$, where $P(n)$ denotes the prime zeta function defined as



      $$
      P(n)=sum_{pinmathbb{P}}frac{1}{p^n}.
      $$



      No closed-form expression is known for any values of the prime zeta function.




      c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational.




      The irrationality of the prime zeta function at any positive integer $ngeq2$ is unknown. A proof of your statement would immediately gain you considerable fame.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        Your sum is equal to $P(2)$, where $P(n)$ denotes the prime zeta function defined as



        $$
        P(n)=sum_{pinmathbb{P}}frac{1}{p^n}.
        $$



        No closed-form expression is known for any values of the prime zeta function.




        c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational.




        The irrationality of the prime zeta function at any positive integer $ngeq2$ is unknown. A proof of your statement would immediately gain you considerable fame.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Your sum is equal to $P(2)$, where $P(n)$ denotes the prime zeta function defined as



        $$
        P(n)=sum_{pinmathbb{P}}frac{1}{p^n}.
        $$



        No closed-form expression is known for any values of the prime zeta function.




        c) I know, at least, that the number is irrational.




        The irrationality of the prime zeta function at any positive integer $ngeq2$ is unknown. A proof of your statement would immediately gain you considerable fame.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 3 '18 at 9:53









        KlangenKlangen

        1,75811334




        1,75811334






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1518214%2fno-closed-form-for-sum-n-in-p-frac1n2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            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







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

            Image
            3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question ...
            Read more

            Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

            Image
            0 I want to add Tabulator js to my java project. I added tabulator.min.js, tabulator.min.css to resources folder. After that added to my html page these dependencies as recommending in readme.md. <link rel="stylesheet" th:href="@{/css/tabulator.min.css}"> <script type="text/javascript" th:src="@{/js/tabulator.min.js}"></script> Now my tables view all elements, that I have in the html page, but not correct. In the documentation of Tabulator is example how to create header and table, var table = new Tabulator("#example-table", { columns:[ {title:"Name", field:"name", sorter:"string", width:200, editor:true}, {title:"Age", field:"age", sorter:"...
            Read more

            Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

            Image
            up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx...
            Read more