...that is yet unsolved.

I joined almost at launch, and things were RADICALLY different back then in terms of the website's interface. One of the differences is a forums section (which was a pretty awesome feature, I don't know why anyone decided to take it down), and one of the threads contained a cool problem:

Diverges or Converges?

**$\displaystyle \sum _{ n=0 }^{ \infty }{ \frac {(-1)^n \tau(2n+1) }{2n+1 } } ,$**

where $\tau(N)$ denotes the number of positive integer divisors of N.

I have the answer. I also have two solutions. However, what is missing is a proof of the answer.

This seems to be a hard-core Number Theory problem. So whoever likes these, you're more than welcome to try this problem!

I shall post the answers I have if necessary. But first, give it your own shot.

Good luck!

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

$</code> ... <code>$</code>...<code>."> Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in $</span> ... <span>$ or $</span> ... <span>$ to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestIt sure seems to converge to 1.5708...., which looks a lot like $\dfrac { \pi }{ 2 }$ ...., but I have no proof. It'd be fascinating if it really is that.

Log in to reply

Honestly, I did not expect this problem to blow up after two months. But just to line things up, no it does not converge to that. Good try though.

Log in to reply

Okay, better define exactly what "number of positive integer divisors of N" means, because I've numerically worked this out for n up to 200,000, and that's the number I'm getting and it looks pretty stable, i.e., very little difference between n = 100,000 and n = 200,000. Also, I'm adding the series in pairs, i.e., eliminating this alternating jigger.

For example, 13 would have 2 divisors, while 12 would have 6. Yes or no?

Log in to reply

Oh, and for the record: the solutions look MAD complicated! Like, alien complicated.

Log in to reply

$\dfrac { \pi }{ 2 }$, in fact, I'm not sure now if it even converges. I'll have another look at this.

Okay, once in a while, I get egg all over my face, and this is one of those times. No, it's not anything likeI was too distracted with another problem I was working on. So, finally, I've decided to tackle a few electricity problems, and I think I'm doing all right with those. Even though I still don't like it much.

Log in to reply

alrighty.

LOL!!!

s

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Dam I gotta write like a Nobel-Peace Prize quality comment to get an upvote from you.

And that makes it only so much precious ;p

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

$55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555!$

(I'll bet $5\$$ that you read that as a factorial ;))

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Im getting something close to $\frac{1-\sqrt(5)}{2}$

Log in to reply

The Golden Ratio? Wow! You're almost there! 0.00002% error! A hint: the expression involves $\pi$.

Log in to reply

$\pi$, please post it for sure tomorrow, which is 3/14/15! Don't miss this wonderful opportunity to do so on such a significant day. Then I'll reshare it tomorrow.

John, by all means, if the solution involvesLog in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Anyway, I've been looking for this notebook I had solutions in for about an hour, and it's gone! Dunno what happened to it, but there I had lots of other cool stuff and I hope to find it someday.

When I do, I'll post it up right away.

Cheers

Log in to reply

Wait...that thread doesn't exist anymore?

Log in to reply

It probably does but it's really old and I forgot what was the name of the thread so... I just posted it all over.

Log in to reply

Do you have a link to the solutions?

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Isn't it 61685?

Log in to reply