data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/60af8/60af8492b3eead7509cdfea6faa1e2de68f9c855" alt="This page in English This page in English"
12 Other
binomial coefficients
There's not just central binomial
coefficients in life! We can also find some series with other
combination to the denominator,
for example. An other idea is also useful :
The numerous series with
can cleverly be accelerated by taking uniquely part of the terms in
this series, for example by keeping the .
Here is a little lot of series giving ,
or , and who are most likely not all known.
Followed by the proof of a few of them. A few are among the fastest
known rational series!
Unless otherwise stated, all the series are
personal discovery, ignoring any reference I don't know of!
12.1
Primitive formulae
In the whole document, we will call primitive
formula those that minimise the degree of considered polynomials in the
series, and who minimise the number of members of series such as the
BBP binomial considered a few paragraph lates. In fact, for a
polynomial binomial formula , the decomposition
into even and odd parts (sum on
amd ) gives another serie but which is
still equivalent. This said, maybe all the formulae that follows are
not primitive, it's sometime hard to see!
12.2
Factorial polynomials formulae
First of all, we are interested in series of
the form , generalisation
of the previously seen central binomial series .
- With
:
|
(485) |
Such a simplicity, it's beautiful...
We have ,
which allows us to conclude that the previous serie gives just a bit
more than one decimal per term, i.e. a speed of roughly .
- With
:
|
(Guillera) |
|
(486) |
whom I give two proofs after all those
formulae.
|
(487) |
this last fform is not random... as we will see
in part 12.4.
[link].
Note that which is
not uninteresting from a calculation point of view! But wait to see the
rest....
I remind you here that if I write ,
this means that we already gains more than one decimal by iteration.
The exact calculation is done by using the decimal logarithm (because
it's the reciprocal of the function
hence this gives us the number of decimals, in base 10,
equivalentes to the given number) Here,
is the are very big in front of very quickly.
- With
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c8b68/c8b6887791e6625b0fe424ecff61f1167b5aefd0" alt="C2n
5n"
I found nothing.... which does not mean there
exist nothing !
- With
:
|
(488) |
Note that
- With
:
The last formula is among those that make a
appear but no for the same power in the denominator...
Note that .
- With
:
It's the order of Bellard's
relation. It's a particular order, because is
an odd number ( !).
Numeriquely, it's the only order
(at least I think so) for which we can find a coefficient
implied.
|
(492) |
but also
|
(493) |
Concerning the speed of the convergence, we
have
- With
:
|
(494) |
With
- With
:
We have
- With
:
|
(497) |
This time, we have
- With
:
|
(498) |
At equivalent levels, we have
- With
:
|
(499) |
With
- With
:
|
(500) |
|
(501) |
|
(502) |
The speed is
- With
:
|
(503) |
|
(504) |
the speed is :
- With
:
|
(505) |
with
|
(506) |
with
|
(507) |
with
Note on the way that ! ! The last formula adds a bit
more than 6 new decimals at each iteration ! It is now better than the best
rational series of Ramanujan !
- With
:
|
(508) |
. Impossible unfortunatly to find a formula for .
- With
:
|
(509) |
where
|
(510) |
where
but also
where
And if we look at the speed of convergence, we
get
which gives at least 12 new decimals at each step of the
serie !
Even with it's apparent complexity, it's a
rational serie, hence simple to put to work. The calculation of the
central binomial coefficeint can as well be done in a recursive way
from one step to the next.
- With
:
where
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/779a0/779a04daa5cede9daa46c6ceed31120370ca5ef4" alt="10 11
- 1401040504596445070899138565913722649517902102528n +4488300494138137535781366329518100596922844610560n"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fa95e/fa95e947db38f9b569053983217700759cc29049" alt="12 13
- 11827398936905381920358994038925975320579657957376n +25695792588467683854423928595051100389120969539584n"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/31e8b/31e8b5567342f1ffa3e1b5646bc0c7431d2f7e67" alt="14 15
- 46008127131406502564765669946976843765906667470848n +67674182522091504564791351456373805642285433487360n"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/74378/74378a323457d775dd609c88bf0631499f80ca6c" alt="16 17 18 19
- 81254118178422030960760468039239656346429891280896n +78808966451353174037517246676769934231381227864064n - 60775164646173353226062113514203716402153529540608n + 36385314363927335868453330316855779017586439618560n"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0eb4e/0eb4e8ee91b84bcba6cae9526a43c14c536a2198" alt="20 21
- 16298284219960028553979877506702436175888783507456n +5139260980144703889225203033782459240512648904704n"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75560/755605172d287d74c4d2f812c211ab574ca978ab" alt="22 23
- 1017402895725449845366234974452573952900845273088n +95133777262638723375339529534690070114850570240n"
12.3
So, what to make of all of this ?
Several things need to be noted :
- The big coefficients in front of the
constants can be generally factorised into product of simple prime
numbers, but this does not give much information on the nature of the
coefficients.... the one inside the brackets they on the other hand
contains big prime factors.
Exemple :
In dront of the coefficient of of
the last serie (denominator of the fraction in fron of the serie), we
have but on the other hand the first coeefient of the
brackets is factorise as follow : (which is a lot less simple !).
- Second of all, we can already note that at
each order there exists some relation with
and the logarithm, we can find series wuth null sums like we did for
the BBP series. I think that they are done "mechanically" and that
there must exists a polynomial of
degree of at least which cancel . But I don't
have the proof.
- Then, it seems that only well determined
constants can be represented under this form. For my part, with this
kind of exploration, I have never find anything other than
. No or at the horizon... I can understand for ,
but for the logarithm it's quite surprising!
- We can also notice that the repartition of
the signs is so regular (especially in this two by two presentation in
the brackets!) to give a constant, that seems not to have an existance
more justified than an other... unless if
or , are very important... Furthermore,
between the formulae for
and the formulae for , the coefficients are of same order and
same sign.
- The coefficients themself are interesting.
They are increasing according to the powers, up to a point, and then
decreasing for the rest, as if they had reach a maximum. This
phenominum is particularly visible with the presentation of the serie
in
where we can obswerve the maximal coefficient comes in
front of (and by coincindence, a power of
and a third of 48 !).
- We can finnaly notice that apart from the
case
, we have in general some formulae for combination of
kind , where . And thanks to the properties of
combinations, we know that a formula with
is also a formula with since . We can already create a little table of formulae that
have to naturaly appear. In fact, we will notice that between all those
formulae there are a few charecteristics that come back. Hence, there
systematicly exist some formula of kind where is
of degree and . We also have formulae for and .
This last point is confirm by the article [7]. For the
we often have some but not always ( ).
For the we always have some and sometimes some (because !).For the we have some series with uniquely it seems to me. In all cases, if there is no
powers of , we found a serie giving .
If there is a power of 2, we have or
. Easy ! For all
those formulae, with a the polynomial
function of used in the numerator has a degree of at most
or most of the time .
Note 24 Since I wrote this document, I found an article
printed in octobre 2001 [7] which present
the fundamental research principles of such formulae, and which shows
that we can find some series as fast as we with with the central
binomial coefficients of type .
12.4 Proofs
Those formulae seems difficult to proof
because the functions they represent and hence the differential
equations that they satisfy have few chances of being simples...
The differential equations are most likelt
very complicated, but we be a bit cunning. Notice that we already know
the sum
|
(513) |
and that the serie is the even
composant of the previous serie. Then, we have two method that can seem
natural. A third then appeared when following [7].
- The first consist to build differential
equation according to the series using a few of their properties (even
part of another serie...). Then, in certain particular cased those
differential equations will gives some series:
Let us pay attention to the case of the serie .
First of all, we have . We need therefore to extract to the first serie 513
part of it's members (those in ).
We introduce
|
(514) |
They are, more or less, the even and odd
composant of ... more
precisely,
Let us now find a relation between the
functions and :
from which if we derive the relation from 515, we get
|
(518) |
|
(519) |
The right hand side is not very nice, but it
contains a . We just now need to let
to find
|
(520) |
let
|
(521) |
and it is the serie we were looking for.
We can also let to find
|
(522) |
this also allows to find nearly the same
relations for .
Finnaly, we can use the famous relation to obtain
|
(523) |
This case works we find ourself with the two
equations for and ,
which allows us to come out with a quite useful differential equation.
If we divide in the same way in three part so for example to find some
series in , nothing is garented ! In a general way, the
differential equations will most likely be unsolvable, but we can use
them to find a few relations.
when is
prime, two cases are possible: is
not a multiple of , so since the ,
are the -th
distinct root of unity, . If is
a multiple of , each
is worth , hence . With all of
this, we obtain the sum only on the multiples of ,
i.e.
|
(525) |
Let us apply all of this without further ado ! But I will only detail one case,
because it is quite a lot of work still...
Let us take the case
with the serie .
We obtain on one hand
|
(526) |
and on the other
By bringing those two expression together and
composing with , we obtain
|
(528) |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/deb31/deb31acb079c751672c39d1551ba1b8da645d5eb" alt=""
We can see that we can directly obtain with
this form a serie giving
since we can cancel thw term in front of the logarithm (which we then
obtain a diverging series if we had the idea to multiply the expression
by and take ...). We need to derive the serie 528, which after
multiplication by gives:
it's not very nice... but by doing , we get
|
(530) |
and we can also use an extra differention so
to make appear a serie in , but that completly
ugly !
by letting , we get
|
(532) |
Starting form here, we can use 530 and 532 to obtain
then
|
(534) |
There we go !
Might as well say that the other series in can be deduced in the same way while the method seems
more complicated to use for example for the series in . If we step back to look at the two method explained
above, we note that the first, is based on differential equation, gives
accurate information from wehre comes the coefficients of polynomial
in by giving us
directly the formuation formula of those coefficient through
differential equation. The second gives more fredom in concerning the
produced series since we have the exact expression of the serie.
- The method presented now gives the start of
a proof for each formulae above. It comes from the article [7].
This method consist of representing the combination as an integral,
then sum it and hence obtain an integral equivalent to the serie, which
can be more easily solved. Explenations!
We consider first of all the integral
representation of the function Bêta, which gives to integers
value the formula
|
(535) |
We then sum on to
obtain the represantation equivalent of the sum under integral form
|
(536) |
The polynomial is
the key to the problem. If it is of degree ,
then to obtain the sum of , we derive successively and we multiply each time by so
to compensate the which appears with each derivation,
whichallows us to get
|
(537) |
where the polynomial is
of degree . By writing that
|
(538) |
we have finaly
|
(539) |
where
is a polynomial in of degree . The roots of the polynomial will be fundamental in what concern the apperance of the
constants. In fact, if divide this polynomial, we will have
some , after
decomposition into simple elements, which appears. If divides , we will have some .
The authors did not seems to consider the explicite conditions on the
values and to see any remarkable constants appear, which
we will do, us, for the factorial BBP formulae !
12.5
Fast combinations: Factorial formulae BBP
In the same way as the 12.2, we can
find some factorial formulae having the BBP series form. There are as
fast! We are therefore interested in series with the form , generalisation of BBP series.
Here's a little anthology, among which the
proof for Guillera's formula is given. We will work out during this
that the method is not that different from the second one presented for
non BBP fast factorial formulae.
Then a method for a more general proof inspired
by the idea [7]
will have it's own special section !
Note that on the contrary to polynomial
factorial formulae, here it's is very fundamental to find some series
that we will call "primitive" because we can easily see that a formula
in will mechanicly give birth
to a formula in by division of the sum into even parts ( )
and odd parts ( ) then bringing together the terms.
To a formula
is also associated a formula in ,
etc... But it is not sure that I have alway written here uniquely some
"primitive" formulae ! Doesn't matter, they are so beautiful :-)
We are at least sure that for a sum , if , we have a primitive formula...
An example yet again to understand this
deception in the case of binomial BBP formulae: to artificially
accelerate the series we can reorganise the terms in such a way so to
obtain for example but this can be seen when we factorise the integers
which then have the annoying tendence of being quite simple... Typical
example, has Jesus
Guillera reminded me. The formula
which seems very fast, is essentialy reducable
to the formula since this breaks down to take
pratically. We can see that the integers coefficients that are used are
very simple ( mostly).
- With
:
|
(Guillera) |
|
(541) |
|
(Guillera) |
- With
:
|
(Guillera) |
|
(Guillera) |
|
(542) |
|
(543) |
|
(Guillera) |
- With
:
|
(Guillera) |
|
(Guillera) |
- With
:
As with Bellard's formula, we can find a lot
of very interesting sums for the
|
(544) |
|
(545) |
|
(546) |
|
(547) |
|
(548) |
We also obtain as often some representations
of 0, uniquely for the combination which gives values to some
remarquable constants ( and ).
|
(549) |
By looking onto the side of the powers of 3,
we can also find some happiness
|
(550) |
but to be truthful, that is it!
- With
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/76f9c/76f9c21584a1afae5b5a2e79ff40282e63253a1f" alt="3n
C 7n"
|
(551) |
We don't know any formula for ...
- With
:
|
(552) |
|
(553) |
Note that hear also we can not apparently find
similar formula for , which is quite
suprising!Furthermore, the
repartition of the signs of the terms in the brackets does not seem to
be random at all... Is it really a primitive formula ? ?
- With
:
|
(Guillera) |
Jesús Guillera gave this very nice and
simple formula in november 2001 but it is not a real primitive formulae
but is more from a formula in .
- With
:
|
(Guillera) |
- With
:
The following formulae are most likely not
primitive formulae but so well.... they are still very nice :-)
|
(554) |
You will have noticed that ,
that's really nice !
|
(555) |
|
(556) |
the speed is of
- With
:
|
(557) |
where
|
(558) |
where
We can also find a function
of the same kind as , which
represent the fastest way since a long time to calculate 0 ! !
- With
:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6a6f2/6a6f21f40c8fb4a39599e8a122780edcc49508ec" alt="( 6355284697691500746427743822689241562572914688 1247765746954168283601712063903296488776216424 )
33011744322082215394870n82504638950531572299094+0 38511288486239761948811n5+01768160497305977517600
+ 14264333966331821549482n5+02092119575576663395250+ 20919712264130242154338n1+3464843587638893080328
+ ---------------48n+5---------------+ --------------48n+7--------------
+ 81762055362572179784568n1+684803581674796560400 + 12805790943577678046884n7+8313060036565557507280
+5114334327206169964989n64+712159862867874359910+ 826411873463214358418n21+410393110653412727480
+ 333913091163753891489n74+413440118030547637500+ 549483732443874324084n52+31762928680293835488
+ 2236393234029626341842n0+51717563617661168900+ 372441164571775004687n78+9109231109083404100
+ 152338243904226845845n1+42480313872086330000+ 25584803104931302486n2+29292892511257703944
sum o o n=0 655316nC16n +10502716832369394288n5+42573463216001826900+ 17750057985560144285n9+9623572596951740300
48n + 73065196804183540881n7+822368694863915944-+ 1240837130711064484n1+7229896329332538000
+ 5118716098513968968017041993051100+ 872653523109331662374029939407900
+36061373153746381n+42289800678743296288+ 61672251805694781n09+03216759767867500
+ 2552183444148085n5+5639227924504332680+ 4376247736732488n1+333148303949011210
+ 181325034634488n8+6834597161611745680+ 3116954747941781n3+18307304376640400
129348550894982n59+03487902628326328 2239327478249487n5+4740895445517950
+ 93992848404488n8+06431186608045600-+ 184522963090488n9+5942377437828140-
+ 48n+441078185110096+82190614859364248n+46
+ 48n+47"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4c9cf/4c9cf6bbc6bf4156c02273338aafbe75f764cba9" alt="63 1266 2
+3 7.74606281.2385 191 = 2 3 5 7.13.29.31.1753p"
If this is not beautiful.... admire the
perfectly regular decrease in the integer coefficients....
Concerning the speed, we have : i.e. 18 new decimals at each itteration, great! But
obviously, more terms are needed to be calculated one in the other...
12.6
So, what does it all mmean?
This time again, a few things to note :
- The big coefficients in front of the
constant can be factorised into product of fairly simple prime numbers
generally, but this does not bring any structal information on the
serie...
- The integer coefficients on the
can be factorise but not always with the powers of 2 for
example. This does not give much indication if the serie does or not
follow from an easy cut of a serie with inferior order.
- One inconveniant of those formulae is to
have to use
termes in when we are dealing with a coefficient in the serie. For the polynomial series, we had more
termes in that case...
- What about greater orders ? That is the constants
,
etc... ? the series of kind
[link towards my cubic formula] uses central binomial coefficients, but
with other binomial coefficients? well funily enough we don't really
find any BBP formula in the usual sens, with loads of terms . No explenation to this phenomene if it's not the
complexity of the integral coming into play, which does not give any
remarquable constant, but that's not really satisfying...We need to
study in detail the dividors of the polynomial in the denominators of
the formulae. A few elements later on.
- We can ask ourself seing the serie that are
a bit equivalent to polynomials and BBP (and we can even find some for
the values
of the coefficinets ) if there really exist some "canonic" formulae, some
basic formulae, the simplest possible in the sense of factorial
writting. In fact, we can notice that the BBP series can be put under
polynomial form if we really want it
with .
But of course, we can see there that we can not put the factorials
under combiatorial form. It is not purely due to notation, the
combination have a real sense and a coherance in the development of
power series as Newton's binomial formula shows.
In fact, the integral representation shows that often the BBP form is
more natural and simple that the polynomial form, but that only an
intuitive remark, there is still missing some clarification to the
evaluation of the complexity of one of those series compare to the
others.
12.7
Typical Proof
Jesús Guillera and myself offer here a
method for proof for those formulae (which does not involve ), this is done to show the
existance of this kind of proof for each formulae, followed by an
application of the first formula of the section. This method was
inspired from the one [7], by atempting to go just
a bit further in the detail...
12.7.1
La méthode
The serie is presented under the form
|
(559) |
Great...
We use the integral representration of the
function Beta so to directly obtain that
|
(560) |
which gives us the sum
from which we can deal with by decomposition
of the denominator into simple elements (careful, I never said it was
easy ! :-)
).
Good, but what do we do for the , ? ?
For a fixed ,
the decomposition into simple elements of
seing it's a rational fraction in n gives a sequence such that
|
(562) |
with . For all values
from to , we then have some sequences that we can linearly
combine so to form the coefficients
of the sum . This is the same as writing down and solving the system
|
(563) |
The vector B contains the coefficients of the
linear combination of the integrals containing ,
which gives the polynomial of degree
such that
There we go, it's not that hard !
We can also, if we worry about the
construction of formulae and not of proofs, choose a polynomial
which voluntary simplify certain divisors of the denominator of the
equivalent integral. We then found ourself in a situation which I spend
time on in 12.7.4.
12.7.2
Application : Proof of the first
formula
We take yet again the first formula by Guillera
|
(565) |
We use the integral formula
|
(566) |
which is proved by recurrance for example for
the pure mathematician! We deduce that
For , it's a bit more
complicated, butwe can found our way around anyway by following the
method of the above section, know that
|
(568) |
We have
hence
|
(571) |
which is equivalent to considering the famous
polynomial we are looking for is because we have
|
(572) |
since the polynomial is simple, we can
explicitely determine it, but this will not always be the case (see
proof below).
The calculation is now direct
hence finaly by recopying the method of 6.2by
Gery Huvent , we have
|
(574) |
We
now choose so to cancel down the participation
of our dear and obtain Guillera.
We can also let so to obtain 541.
12.7.3
Proof of the formula in data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cdfa7/cdfa7a4752e5cd81c474f06b368554d72b17e251" alt="C27nn"
Jesus Guillera and myself now offer you a
quick proof of one of the best formula in the packet, 546.
We remind ourself that the principal is to
find a polynomial such that
While the solution, for each k, is not unique,
we know that the degree of
is . By the method of linear system, we get
Now, we put it together....
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/61dba/61dba63b4e5a62f78220da8922a946b8053f450a" alt="sum oo sum 6 integral 1 sum 6 sum oo integral 1 sum oo 5n 2n
-n1-n- -ak---= akPk(x) x5n(1- x)2n dx = P (x) x--(1-nx)--dx =
n=02 C 2n k=1 7n+ k 0 k=1 n=0 0 n=0 2"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d9833/d98335171685104692900d788ea5ab801899eb5a" alt="integral 1 --------2------
0 P(x)x7 -2x6 + x5- 2dx"
With the
of the formula 546,
we have
and
|
(575) |
Incredible, no
? ? That this
quite big sum is in fact equivalent to a very simple integral, it's
great!
12.7.4
Predictions of formulae
Looking at the proof, we might ask ourself if
there exist a way to predict for which combinations there exists a
formula. I have not for the moment a complete answer, but a sufficient
condition is already quite simple to show.
We have seen in fact with the formula in that the integral was equivalent to . This comes
from the fact that
divides and the polynomial in the
numerator (hence the coefficients) is only used to simplify the other
factors. But for non alternating formulae, the polynomial in the
denominator comes from which we will call a
generating polynomial. Starting from that, a sufficient existance
condition for a formula for is
that
Hence we need that
and are roots of .
In particular, we have for ,
, . This
proof the existance for a formula in for . But since
and are 4th root of ,
we can multiply by
without changing the existance of the roots
and . This then proof the existance of a formula in .
Let us try to specify the sufficient condition :
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3ec0c/3ec0cf17ef2c9f322e6c5d480064c97c0de0d3e5" alt="{ (m-p) }
<==> q - (± i) (1± i)p = 0,p < m"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3ffb3/3ffb36185c485a83814c828d726ed5b4d23f37ba" alt="<==> {(1 ± i)p = (- 1)m+pq(± i)m,p < m}"
by
conjugate
by using modulus and argument
![{ p } { k }
<==> 22 = q, p < m et - p =_ 2m [8] <==> p = 2k, 2 = q, p < m et 7p =_ 2m[8]](../mathematiciens/huvent/hyperg1715x.gif)
Things are clear. So that we can obtain a non
alternating factorial BBP formula thanks to the integral , it is
necessary and sufficient that is
a power of , even and smaller than
and most of all the great relation of congruence . We can easily check that the conditions satisfy those
conditions. We also find that the condition is satisfied for , formulae that I missed in
my experimentations! Just to show, that sometimes the theory is faster
than the pratical... :-)
By applying the same method to alternating
series, to the roots
(which allows us to find
thanks to ), to the
polynomial (so to find ), we find the following conditions, and hence the
following formulae :
For non-alternating series data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/592d4/592d4b0fbe582a34f520d56517e21195ac815abb" alt="oo ( )
sum ---1-- --a1---+ --a2---+ ...+ -----a2-----
n=0qnCpnmn mn + 1 mn + 2 mn + (m - 1)"
|
|
|
|
|
Pole |
Constant |
Condition with roots |
Condition of existance of pole |
Type of existing formula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f3fdb/f3fdbedfcae8fc1d3d0ccc0ff97373ae8c365e18" alt="oo sum 1 sum oo 1 sum oo 1
2nC2n----..., 4nC4n-----..., 8nC6n-----
n=0 (3+4k)n n=0 (6+4k)n n=0 (9+4k)n" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quite a few seing the relation ! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0138e/0138e68f9a633a672fd0ca058c012fc2d20645ce" alt="(z+1)
ln z" |
|
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/81df5/81df5924cc9dae4daf087eaf4f079f8addb4d084" alt="1+ (z- 1)x" |
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a3372/a3372f684d849b2b84f328647cf5f0420c3c1e6d" alt="( )(m -p)( )p
-z1-1 1+ z1-1 = q" |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that when we need a polynomial with complex roots that divides our
generating plynomial, we only need one of the complex root that is root
of this polynomial, by conjugates (due to the fact that the generating
polynomial is real). This table indicates for example why we find so
often some formulae for
but not always for . While we are dealing here with a sufficient
condition and not a necessary one, the conditions on the logarithm
shows that it is probable that we can not obtain any other intigers
logarithm than with some integer powers .
For alternating series data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7c0c/c7c0cf9c94cd5a984ceaffe36dc2cc1deecd91f7" alt="oo sum n ( )
(-n1)pn- --a1--+ ---a2--+ ...+ -----a2-----
n=0q Cmn mn + 1 mn + 2 mn + (m - 1)"
|
|
|
|
|
Pole |
Constant |
Condition with roots |
Condition of existance of pole data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0fe5f/0fe5f7979bac397f5ab547e0c4d783d4cbcd95a1" alt="p < m" |
Type of existing formula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/caf31/caf31408cbc936f45694f8e0e587fdd0cea40d2e" alt="oo sum --(--1)n--- sum oo -(--1)n--- sum oo ---1-----
2nC2n ..., 4nC4n ..., 8nC6n
n=0 (5+4k)n n=0 (8+4k)n n=0 (7+4k)n" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quite a few seing the relation ! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0f4d2/0f4d2966ef7f745803cdc68ce5ff10e075a18d87" alt="ln(z+1)
z" |
|
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7187f/7187f5bcbf133b99b201b95d0e5e6f19bbad8334" alt="1+ (z- 1)x" |
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/67ab9/67ab98af2c3b6ca29009bdd6693053a2aacad10a" alt="( )(m -p)( )p
-z1-1 1+ z1-1 = q" |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.8
Product of combinaisons
A very interesting questiong concern the
possible presence of several combinations in a serie giving . I
have to admit that I thought this was very improbable, until I
discovered the following formula in december 2001, thanks to
Jesús
Guillera
|
(Guillera) |
The same with factorials
|
(Guillera) |
We also have
|
(Gourevitch) |
or
|
(Gourevitch) |
So, where does this comes from ? Well instead of starting from
integers power in the integral, we use rational powers and in
particular square roots. In fact, considering the integral
|
(576) |
we obtain sums of the form
|
(577) |
or for example for
and
|
(578) |
or even for
and
|
(579) |
The BBP sums are then deduced after
integration so to give formulae of the type
|
(580) |
|
(581) |
For the first formula of Guillera, we
consider for example the following proof
Proof.
and we then use the known values of . _
An other example contains
where
is the elliptical function of first sort in the first singular value,
famous constant of elliptical theory !
It is obtained from
|
(583) |
and
|
(584) |
and the integral
|
(585) |
All of this open some very interesting
perspectives !
Equaly note that the BBP form is is a very
general form of series in the sense where even the formulae like the
ones by
Ramanujan can be put under BBP form, like
|
(586) |
On the other hand, unfortunatly, we still have
not find a method to pove those formulae with the method Bêta...
A lot more details and a few other formulae
will be given in the article [13], available sometime soon
I hope !
back to home page |