info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Musatov * Bondarenko | Riemann Hypothesis / Matlab Seed Proof
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Martin Musatov
May 27, 2009, 5:04:57 AM5/27/09
to
Search: Login 1. Create Account 2. Login 1. File Exchange 2.
Newsgroup 3. Link Exchange 4. Blogs 5. Contest 6.
MathWorks.com • About the MATLAB Newsgroup • Post A New Message
• E-mail this page MATLAB Central > MATLAB Newsreader > An exact
simplification challenge - 91 (eerie P... Add thread to My Watch
List What is a Watch List? Thread Subject: An exact
simplification challenge - 91 (eerie PolyGamma) Subject: An exact
simplification challenge - 91 (eerie PolyGamma) From: Vladimir
Bondarenko Date: 25 May, 2009 03:23:31 Message: 1 of 6 Reply to this
message Add author to My Watch List View original format Flag as
spam Hello, - PolyGamma[0, 1 + I] -
PolyGamma[0, 1 - I] - PolyGamma[0, 3/2 +
I] - PolyGamma[0, 3/2 - I] + 2 PolyGamma[0,
2 + 2 I] + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 - 2 I] + (1/2 +
I) PolyGamma[1, 1 + I] + (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 1 -
I] - (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 + I] - (1/2
- I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 - I] + (2 + 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 + 2
I] + (2 - 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 - 2 I] - 2 Re
[I PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]] + 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1 -
I]] ?Folks, please give not just the
answer but the processing.Cheers,Vladimir BondarenkoCo-founder, CEO,
Mathematical Directorhttp://www.cybertester.com/ Cyber Tester
Ltd.----------------------------------------------------------"We must
understand that technologieslike these are the way of the
future."----------------------------------------------------------
Subject: An exact simplification challenge - 91 (eerie PolyGamma)
From: Martin Musatov Date: 25 May, 2009 03:36:14 Message: 2 of 6
Reply to this message Add author to My Watch List View original
format Flag as spam Vladimir Bondarenko wrote:> Hello,>> -
PolyGamma[0, 1 + I]> - PolyGamma[0, 1 - I]> - PolyGamma[0, 3/2 + I]> -
PolyGamma[0, 3/2 - I]> + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 + 2 I]> + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 -
2 I]> + (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]> + (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]
> - (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 + I]> - (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 - I]
> + (2 + 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 + 2 I]> + (2 - 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 - 2 I]
> - 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]]> + 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]]>> ?>>
Folks, please give not just the answer but the processing.>> Cheers,>>
Vladimir Bondarenko>> Co-founder, CEO, Mathematical Director>>
http://www.cybertester.com/ Cyber Tester Ltd.>>
---------------------------------------------------------->> "We must
understand that technologies> like these are the way of the future.">>
----------------------------------------------------------People, did
I or did I not call it: "eerie effectiveness". Googlesearch sci.math:
"Musatov" and "Eerie". Want to keep going? I enjoyit. It keeps getting
more gratifying each passing day, like puttingpennies into a piggy
bank. Subject: An exact simplification challenge - 91 (eerie
PolyGamma) From: Martin Musatov Date: 25 May, 2009 03:40:46 Message: 3
of 6 Reply to this message Add author to My Watch List View
original format Flag as spam (C)2009:Here you go folks, call me
the information prophet what youare witnessing is simple P=NP
mathematics over large data sets:"Eerie" isn't it?...The
"Effectiveness"...Martin Musatov wrote:> Vladimir Bondarenko wrote:> >
Hello,> >> > - PolyGamma[0, 1 + I]> > - PolyGamma[0, 1 - I]> > -
PolyGamma[0, 3/2 + I]> > - PolyGamma[0, 3/2 - I]> > + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2
+ 2 I]> > + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 - 2 I]> > + (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]
> > + (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]> > - (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 +
I]> > - (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 - I]> > + (2 + 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2
+ 2 I]> > + (2 - 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 - 2 I]> > - 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1
+ I]]> > + 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]]> >> > ?> >> > Folks, please
give not just the answer but the processing.> >> > Cheers,> >> >
Vladimir Bondarenko> >> > Co-founder, CEO, Mathematical Director> >> >
http://www.cybertester.com/ Cyber Tester Ltd.> >> >
----------------------------------------------------------> >> > "We
must understand that technologies> > like these are the way of the
future."> >> >
----------------------------------------------------------> People,
did I or did I not call it: "eerie effectiveness". Google> search
sci.math: "Musatov" and "Eerie". Want to keep going? I enjoy> it. It
keeps getting more gratifying each passing day, like putting> pennies
into a piggy bank.Martin MusatovFounderMeAmI.org Subject: An
exact simplification challenge - 91 (eerie PolyGamma) From:
clicl...@freenet.de Date: 25 May, 2009 18:32:02 Message: 4 of 6
Reply to this message Add author to My Watch List View original
format Flag as spam Vladimir Bondarenko schrieb:>> - PolyGamma[0,
1 + I]> - PolyGamma[0, 1 - I]> - PolyGamma[0, 3/2 + I]> - PolyGamma[0,
3/2 - I]> + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 + 2 I]> + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 - 2 I]> + (1/2
+ I) PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]> + (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]> - (1/2 + I)
PolyGamma[1, 3/2 + I]> - (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 - I]> + (2 + 4 I)
PolyGamma[1, 2 + 2 I]> + (2 - 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 - 2 I]> - 2 Re[I
PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]]> + 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]]>> ?>This simple
challenge seems to be specifically made for Derive 6.10:-POLYGAMMA
(0,1+#i)-POLYGAMMA(0,1-#i)-POLYGAMMA(0,3/2+#i)-POLYGAM~MA(0,3/2-#i)
+2*POLYGAMMA(0,2+2*#i)+2*POLYGAMMA(0,2-2*#i)+(1/2+#i~)*POLYGAMMA
(1,1+#i)+(1/2-#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,1-#i)-(1/2+#i)*POLYGAMM~A(1,3/2+#i)-(1/2-
#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,3/2-#i)+(2+4*#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,2+~2*#i)+(2-4*#i)
*POLYGAMMA(1,2-2*#i)-2*RE(#i*POLYGAMMA(1,1+#i))+2*~RE(#i*POLYGAMMA(1,1-
#i))" ... is automatically rewritten to ... "-DIGAMMA(3/2-#i)-DIGAMMA
(3/2+#i)+2*DIGAMMA(2-2*#i)+2*DIGAMMA(2+2~*#i)-DIGAMMA(1-#i)-DIGAMMA
(1+#i)-ZETA(2,1/2-#i)/2-ZETA(2,1/2+#i)~/2+2*ZETA(2,1-2*#i)+2*ZETA
(2,1+2*#i)+ZETA(2,1-#i)/2+ZETA(2,1+#i)~/2+#i*(-CONJ(ZETA(2,1-#i))+CONJ
(ZETA(2,1+#i))+ZETA(2,1/2-#i)-ZET~A(2,1/2+#i)-4*ZETA(2,1-2*#i)+4*ZETA
(2,1+2*#i))" judicious substitution of the helper functions ... "mpsi
(z,m):=1/m*SUM(DIGAMMA((z+k)/m),k,0,m-1)+LN(m)mzeta(s,z,m):=1/m^s*SUM
(ZETA(s,(z+k)/m),k,0,m-1)" ... along with manual help for CONJ
(ZETA) ... "-DIGAMMA(3/2-#i)-DIGAMMA(3/2+#i)+2*mpsi(2-2*#i,2)+2*mpsi
(2+2*#i,~2)-DIGAMMA(1-#i)-DIGAMMA(1+#i)-ZETA(2,1/2-#i)/2-ZETA
(2,1/2+#i)/2~+2*mzeta(2,1-2*#i,2)+2*mzeta(2,1+2*#i,2)+ZETA(2,1-#i)/
2+ZETA(2,1~+#i)/2+#i*(-ZETA(CONJ(2),CONJ(1-#i))+ZETA(CONJ(2),CONJ
(1+#i))+ZE~TA(2,1/2-#i)-ZETA(2,1/2+#i)-4*mzeta(2,1-2*#i,2)+4*mzeta
(2,1+2*#i~,2))ZETA(2,1-#i)+ZETA(2,1+#i)+4*LN(2)2*RE(ZETA(2,1+#i))+4*LN
(2)3.698588915Martin. Subject: An exact simplification challenge - 91
(eerie PolyGamma) From: Vladimir Bondarenko Date: 25 May, 2009
19:41:14 Message: 5 of 6 Reply to this message Add author to My
Watch List View original format Flag as spam On May 25, 9:32 pm,
cliclic...@freenet.de wrote:> Vladimir Bondarenko schrieb:>>>>>> >
- PolyGamma[0, 1 + I]> > - PolyGamma[0, 1 - I]
> > - PolyGamma[0, 3/2 + I]> > - PolyGamma
[0, 3/2 - I]> > + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 + 2 I]> >
+ 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 - 2 I]> > + (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1,
1 + I]> > + (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]> >
- (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 + I]> > - (1/2 - I)
PolyGamma[1, 3/2 - I]> > + (2 + 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 + 2
I]> > + (2 - 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 - 2 I]> >
- 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]]> > + 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1
- I]]>> > ?>> This simple challenge
seems to be specifically made for Derive 6.10:>> -POLYGAMMA(0,1+#i)-
POLYGAMMA(0,1-#i)-POLYGAMMA(0,3/2+#i)-POLYGAM~> MA(0,3/2-#i)
+2*POLYGAMMA(0,2+2*#i)+2*POLYGAMMA(0,2-2*#i)+(1/2+#i~> )*POLYGAMMA
(1,1+#i)+(1/2-#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,1-#i)-(1/2+#i)*POLYGAMM~> A(1,3/2+#i)-
(1/2-#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,3/2-#i)+(2+4*#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,2+~> 2*#i)+(2-4*#i)
*POLYGAMMA(1,2-2*#i)-2*RE(#i*POLYGAMMA(1,1+#i))+2*~> RE(#i*POLYGAMMA
(1,1-#i))>> " ... is automatically rewritten to ... ">> -DIGAMMA(3/2-
#i)-DIGAMMA(3/2+#i)+2*DIGAMMA(2-2*#i)+2*DIGAMMA(2+2~> *#i)-DIGAMMA(1-
#i)-DIGAMMA(1+#i)-ZETA(2,1/2-#i)/2-ZETA(2,1/2+#i)~> /2+2*ZETA(2,1-2*#i)
+2*ZETA(2,1+2*#i)+ZETA(2,1-#i)/2+ZETA(2,1+#i)~> /2+#i*(-CONJ(ZETA(2,1-
#i))+CONJ(ZETA(2,1+#i))+ZETA(2,1/2-#i)-ZET~> A(2,1/2+#i)-4*ZETA
(2,1-2*#i)+4*ZETA(2,1+2*#i))>> " judicious substitution of the helper
functions ... ">> mpsi(z,m):=1/m*SUM(DIGAMMA((z+k)/m),k,0,m-1)+LN(m)>>
mzeta(s,z,m):=1/m^s*SUM(ZETA(s,(z+k)/m),k,0,m-1)>> " ... along with
manual help for CONJ(ZETA) ... ">> -DIGAMMA(3/2-#i)-DIGAMMA(3/2+#i)
+2*mpsi(2-2*#i,2)+2*mpsi(2+2*#i,~> 2)-DIGAMMA(1-#i)-DIGAMMA(1+#i)-ZETA
(2,1/2-#i)/2-ZETA(2,1/2+#i)/2~> +2*mzeta(2,1-2*#i,2)+2*mzeta(2,1+2*#i,
2)+ZETA(2,1-#i)/2+ZETA(2,1~> +#i)/2+#i*(-ZETA(CONJ(2),CONJ(1-#i))+ZETA
(CONJ(2),CONJ(1+#i))+ZE~> TA(2,1/2-#i)-ZETA(2,1/2+#i)-4*mzeta(2,1-2*#i,
2)+4*mzeta(2,1+2*#i~> ,2))>> ZETA(2,1-#i)+ZETA(2,1+#i)+4*LN(2)>> 2*RE
(ZETA(2,1+#i))+4*LN(2)>> 3.698588915>> Martin.Great!I'd only offer a
bit simpler answer1-pi^2*CSCH(pi)^2+4*LOG(2)3.698588915But there's
still something about this andmany other challenges untold :)
Cheers,Vladimir BondarenkoCo-founder, CEO, Mathematical
Directorhttp://www.cybertester.com/ Cyber Tester
Ltd.----------------------------------------------------------"We must
understand that technologieslike these are the way of the
future."----------------------------------------------------------
Subject: An exact simplification challenge - 91 (eerie PolyGamma)
From: clicl...@freenet.de Date: 25 May, 2009 21:34:03 Message: 6 of
6 Reply to this message Add author to My Watch List View original
format Flag as spam Vladimir Bondarenko schrieb:> On May 25, 9:32
pm, cliclic...@freenet.de wrote:> > Vladimir Bondarenko schrieb:> >> >
> - PolyGamma[0, 1 + I]> > > - PolyGamma[0, 1 - I]> > > - PolyGamma[0,
3/2 + I]> > > - PolyGamma[0, 3/2 - I]> > > + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 + 2 I]>
> > + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 - 2 I]> > > + (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]> >
> + (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]> > > - (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 +
I]> > > - (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 - I]> > > + (2 + 4 I) PolyGamma
[1, 2 + 2 I]> > > + (2 - 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 - 2 I]> > > - 2 Re[I
PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]]> > > + 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]]> >> > > ?> >>
> This simple challenge seems to be specifically made for Derive
6.10:> >> > -POLYGAMMA(0,1+#i)-POLYGAMMA(0,1-#i)-POLYGAMMA(0,3/2+#i)-
POLYGAM~> > MA(0,3/2-#i)+2*POLYGAMMA(0,2+2*#i)+2*POLYGAMMA(0,2-2*#i)
+(1/2+#i~> > )*POLYGAMMA(1,1+#i)+(1/2-#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,1-#i)-(1/2+#i)
*POLYGAMM~> > A(1,3/2+#i)-(1/2-#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,3/2-#i)+(2+4*#i)
*POLYGAMMA(1,2+~> > 2*#i)+(2-4*#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,2-2*#i)-2*RE
(#i*POLYGAMMA(1,1+#i))+2*~> > RE(#i*POLYGAMMA(1,1-#i))> >> > " ... is
automatically rewritten to ... "> >> > -DIGAMMA(3/2-#i)-DIGAMMA(3/2+#i)
+2*DIGAMMA(2-2*#i)+2*DIGAMMA(2+2~> > *#i)-DIGAMMA(1-#i)-DIGAMMA(1+#i)-
ZETA(2,1/2-#i)/2-ZETA(2,1/2+#i)~> > /2+2*ZETA(2,1-2*#i)+2*ZETA
(2,1+2*#i)+ZETA(2,1-#i)/2+ZETA(2,1+#i)~> > /2+#i*(-CONJ(ZETA(2,1-#i))
+CONJ(ZETA(2,1+#i))+ZETA(2,1/2-#i)-ZET~> > A(2,1/2+#i)-4*ZETA(2,1-2*#i)
+4*ZETA(2,1+2*#i))> >> > " judicious substitution of the helper
functions ... "> >> > mpsi(z,m):=1/m*SUM(DIGAMMA((z+k)/m),k,0,m-1)+LN
(m)> >> > mzeta(s,z,m):=1/m^s*SUM(ZETA(s,(z+k)/m),k,0,m-1)> >> > " ...
along with manual help for CONJ(ZETA) ... "> >> > -DIGAMMA(3/2-#i)-
DIGAMMA(3/2+#i)+2*mpsi(2-2*#i,2)+2*mpsi(2+2*#i,~> > 2)-DIGAMMA(1-#i)-
DIGAMMA(1+#i)-ZETA(2,1/2-#i)/2-ZETA(2,1/2+#i)/2~> > +2*mzeta(2,1-2*#i,
2)+2*mzeta(2,1+2*#i,2)+ZETA(2,1-#i)/2+ZETA(2,1~> > +#i)/2+#i*(-ZETA
(CONJ(2),CONJ(1-#i))+ZETA(CONJ(2),CONJ(1+#i))+ZE~> > TA(2,1/2-#i)-ZETA
(2,1/2+#i)-4*mzeta(2,1-2*#i,2)+4*mzeta(2,1+2*#i~> > ,2))> >> > ZETA
(2,1-#i)+ZETA(2,1+#i)+4*LN(2)> >> > 2*RE(ZETA(2,1+#i))+4*LN(2)> >> >
3.698588915> >>> Great!>> I'd only offer a bit simpler answer>> 1-
pi^2*CSCH(pi)^2+4*LOG(2)>> 3.698588915>Sorry, I didn't try to
"elementarize" the ZETA's.ZETA(2, 1+#i) + ZETA(2, 1-#i) =ZETA(2, 1+#i)
+ ZETA(2, -#i) + 1 =-(2 pi)^2 LI(-1, #e^(-2 pi)) + 1which is
equivalent to your expression since LI(-1,z) = z/(1-z)^2.Can Maple or
Mathematica perform the conversion automatically?Martin.Tags for this
Thread Everyone's Tags: spam(2) Add a New Tag: Separated by
commasEx.: root locus, bode What are tags? A tag is like a keyword or
category label associated with each thread. Tags make it easier for
you to find threads of interest. Anyone can tag a thread. Tags are
public and visible to everyone. Tag Activity for This Thread Tag
Applied By Date/Time spam per isakson 25 May, 2009 00:25:24 spam
John D'Errico 24 May, 2009 23:32:10 Feed for this Thread Public
Submission Policy NOTICE: Any content you submit to MATLAB Central,
including personal information, is not subject to the protections
which may be afforded information collected under other sections of
The MathWorks, Inc. Web site. You are entirely responsible for all
content that you upload, post, e-mail, transmit or otherwise make
available via MATLAB Central. The MathWorks does not control the
content posted by visitors to MATLAB Central and, does not guarantee
the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such content. Under no
circumstances will The MathWorks be liable in any way for any content
not authored by The MathWorks, or any loss or damage of any kind
incurred as a result of the use of any content posted, e-mailed,
transmitted or otherwise made available via MATLAB Central. Read the
complete Disclaimer prior to use. Contact us at fi...@mathworks.com
• Featured MathWorks.com Topics: • New Products • Support •
Documentation • Training • Webinars • Newsletters • MATLAB Trials •
Careers • © 1994-2009 The MathWorks, Inc. • Site Help • Patents •
Trademarks • Privacy Policy • Preventing Piracy
Newsgroup 3. Link Exchange 4. Blogs 5. Contest 6.
MathWorks.com • About the MATLAB Newsgroup • Post A New Message
• E-mail this page MATLAB Central > MATLAB Newsreader > An exact
simplification challenge - 91 (eerie P... Add thread to My Watch
List What is a Watch List? Thread Subject: An exact
simplification challenge - 91 (eerie PolyGamma) Subject: An exact
simplification challenge - 91 (eerie PolyGamma) From: Vladimir
Bondarenko Date: 25 May, 2009 03:23:31 Message: 1 of 6 Reply to this
message Add author to My Watch List View original format Flag as
spam Hello, - PolyGamma[0, 1 + I] -
PolyGamma[0, 1 - I] - PolyGamma[0, 3/2 +
I] - PolyGamma[0, 3/2 - I] + 2 PolyGamma[0,
2 + 2 I] + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 - 2 I] + (1/2 +
I) PolyGamma[1, 1 + I] + (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 1 -
I] - (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 + I] - (1/2
- I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 - I] + (2 + 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 + 2
I] + (2 - 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 - 2 I] - 2 Re
[I PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]] + 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1 -
I]] ?Folks, please give not just the
answer but the processing.Cheers,Vladimir BondarenkoCo-founder, CEO,
Mathematical Directorhttp://www.cybertester.com/ Cyber Tester
Ltd.----------------------------------------------------------"We must
understand that technologieslike these are the way of the
future."----------------------------------------------------------
Subject: An exact simplification challenge - 91 (eerie PolyGamma)
From: Martin Musatov Date: 25 May, 2009 03:36:14 Message: 2 of 6
Reply to this message Add author to My Watch List View original
format Flag as spam Vladimir Bondarenko wrote:> Hello,>> -
PolyGamma[0, 1 + I]> - PolyGamma[0, 1 - I]> - PolyGamma[0, 3/2 + I]> -
PolyGamma[0, 3/2 - I]> + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 + 2 I]> + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 -
2 I]> + (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]> + (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]
> - (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 + I]> - (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 - I]
> + (2 + 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 + 2 I]> + (2 - 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 - 2 I]
> - 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]]> + 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]]>> ?>>
Folks, please give not just the answer but the processing.>> Cheers,>>
Vladimir Bondarenko>> Co-founder, CEO, Mathematical Director>>
http://www.cybertester.com/ Cyber Tester Ltd.>>
---------------------------------------------------------->> "We must
understand that technologies> like these are the way of the future.">>
----------------------------------------------------------People, did
I or did I not call it: "eerie effectiveness". Googlesearch sci.math:
"Musatov" and "Eerie". Want to keep going? I enjoyit. It keeps getting
more gratifying each passing day, like puttingpennies into a piggy
bank. Subject: An exact simplification challenge - 91 (eerie
PolyGamma) From: Martin Musatov Date: 25 May, 2009 03:40:46 Message: 3
of 6 Reply to this message Add author to My Watch List View
original format Flag as spam (C)2009:Here you go folks, call me
the information prophet what youare witnessing is simple P=NP
mathematics over large data sets:"Eerie" isn't it?...The
"Effectiveness"...Martin Musatov wrote:> Vladimir Bondarenko wrote:> >
Hello,> >> > - PolyGamma[0, 1 + I]> > - PolyGamma[0, 1 - I]> > -
PolyGamma[0, 3/2 + I]> > - PolyGamma[0, 3/2 - I]> > + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2
+ 2 I]> > + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 - 2 I]> > + (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]
> > + (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]> > - (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 +
I]> > - (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 - I]> > + (2 + 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2
+ 2 I]> > + (2 - 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 - 2 I]> > - 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1
+ I]]> > + 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]]> >> > ?> >> > Folks, please
give not just the answer but the processing.> >> > Cheers,> >> >
Vladimir Bondarenko> >> > Co-founder, CEO, Mathematical Director> >> >
http://www.cybertester.com/ Cyber Tester Ltd.> >> >
----------------------------------------------------------> >> > "We
must understand that technologies> > like these are the way of the
future."> >> >
----------------------------------------------------------> People,
did I or did I not call it: "eerie effectiveness". Google> search
sci.math: "Musatov" and "Eerie". Want to keep going? I enjoy> it. It
keeps getting more gratifying each passing day, like putting> pennies
into a piggy bank.Martin MusatovFounderMeAmI.org Subject: An
exact simplification challenge - 91 (eerie PolyGamma) From:
clicl...@freenet.de Date: 25 May, 2009 18:32:02 Message: 4 of 6
Reply to this message Add author to My Watch List View original
format Flag as spam Vladimir Bondarenko schrieb:>> - PolyGamma[0,
1 + I]> - PolyGamma[0, 1 - I]> - PolyGamma[0, 3/2 + I]> - PolyGamma[0,
3/2 - I]> + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 + 2 I]> + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 - 2 I]> + (1/2
+ I) PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]> + (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]> - (1/2 + I)
PolyGamma[1, 3/2 + I]> - (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 - I]> + (2 + 4 I)
PolyGamma[1, 2 + 2 I]> + (2 - 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 - 2 I]> - 2 Re[I
PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]]> + 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]]>> ?>This simple
challenge seems to be specifically made for Derive 6.10:-POLYGAMMA
(0,1+#i)-POLYGAMMA(0,1-#i)-POLYGAMMA(0,3/2+#i)-POLYGAM~MA(0,3/2-#i)
+2*POLYGAMMA(0,2+2*#i)+2*POLYGAMMA(0,2-2*#i)+(1/2+#i~)*POLYGAMMA
(1,1+#i)+(1/2-#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,1-#i)-(1/2+#i)*POLYGAMM~A(1,3/2+#i)-(1/2-
#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,3/2-#i)+(2+4*#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,2+~2*#i)+(2-4*#i)
*POLYGAMMA(1,2-2*#i)-2*RE(#i*POLYGAMMA(1,1+#i))+2*~RE(#i*POLYGAMMA(1,1-
#i))" ... is automatically rewritten to ... "-DIGAMMA(3/2-#i)-DIGAMMA
(3/2+#i)+2*DIGAMMA(2-2*#i)+2*DIGAMMA(2+2~*#i)-DIGAMMA(1-#i)-DIGAMMA
(1+#i)-ZETA(2,1/2-#i)/2-ZETA(2,1/2+#i)~/2+2*ZETA(2,1-2*#i)+2*ZETA
(2,1+2*#i)+ZETA(2,1-#i)/2+ZETA(2,1+#i)~/2+#i*(-CONJ(ZETA(2,1-#i))+CONJ
(ZETA(2,1+#i))+ZETA(2,1/2-#i)-ZET~A(2,1/2+#i)-4*ZETA(2,1-2*#i)+4*ZETA
(2,1+2*#i))" judicious substitution of the helper functions ... "mpsi
(z,m):=1/m*SUM(DIGAMMA((z+k)/m),k,0,m-1)+LN(m)mzeta(s,z,m):=1/m^s*SUM
(ZETA(s,(z+k)/m),k,0,m-1)" ... along with manual help for CONJ
(ZETA) ... "-DIGAMMA(3/2-#i)-DIGAMMA(3/2+#i)+2*mpsi(2-2*#i,2)+2*mpsi
(2+2*#i,~2)-DIGAMMA(1-#i)-DIGAMMA(1+#i)-ZETA(2,1/2-#i)/2-ZETA
(2,1/2+#i)/2~+2*mzeta(2,1-2*#i,2)+2*mzeta(2,1+2*#i,2)+ZETA(2,1-#i)/
2+ZETA(2,1~+#i)/2+#i*(-ZETA(CONJ(2),CONJ(1-#i))+ZETA(CONJ(2),CONJ
(1+#i))+ZE~TA(2,1/2-#i)-ZETA(2,1/2+#i)-4*mzeta(2,1-2*#i,2)+4*mzeta
(2,1+2*#i~,2))ZETA(2,1-#i)+ZETA(2,1+#i)+4*LN(2)2*RE(ZETA(2,1+#i))+4*LN
(2)3.698588915Martin. Subject: An exact simplification challenge - 91
(eerie PolyGamma) From: Vladimir Bondarenko Date: 25 May, 2009
19:41:14 Message: 5 of 6 Reply to this message Add author to My
Watch List View original format Flag as spam On May 25, 9:32 pm,
cliclic...@freenet.de wrote:> Vladimir Bondarenko schrieb:>>>>>> >
- PolyGamma[0, 1 + I]> > - PolyGamma[0, 1 - I]
> > - PolyGamma[0, 3/2 + I]> > - PolyGamma
[0, 3/2 - I]> > + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 + 2 I]> >
+ 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 - 2 I]> > + (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1,
1 + I]> > + (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]> >
- (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 + I]> > - (1/2 - I)
PolyGamma[1, 3/2 - I]> > + (2 + 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 + 2
I]> > + (2 - 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 - 2 I]> >
- 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]]> > + 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1
- I]]>> > ?>> This simple challenge
seems to be specifically made for Derive 6.10:>> -POLYGAMMA(0,1+#i)-
POLYGAMMA(0,1-#i)-POLYGAMMA(0,3/2+#i)-POLYGAM~> MA(0,3/2-#i)
+2*POLYGAMMA(0,2+2*#i)+2*POLYGAMMA(0,2-2*#i)+(1/2+#i~> )*POLYGAMMA
(1,1+#i)+(1/2-#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,1-#i)-(1/2+#i)*POLYGAMM~> A(1,3/2+#i)-
(1/2-#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,3/2-#i)+(2+4*#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,2+~> 2*#i)+(2-4*#i)
*POLYGAMMA(1,2-2*#i)-2*RE(#i*POLYGAMMA(1,1+#i))+2*~> RE(#i*POLYGAMMA
(1,1-#i))>> " ... is automatically rewritten to ... ">> -DIGAMMA(3/2-
#i)-DIGAMMA(3/2+#i)+2*DIGAMMA(2-2*#i)+2*DIGAMMA(2+2~> *#i)-DIGAMMA(1-
#i)-DIGAMMA(1+#i)-ZETA(2,1/2-#i)/2-ZETA(2,1/2+#i)~> /2+2*ZETA(2,1-2*#i)
+2*ZETA(2,1+2*#i)+ZETA(2,1-#i)/2+ZETA(2,1+#i)~> /2+#i*(-CONJ(ZETA(2,1-
#i))+CONJ(ZETA(2,1+#i))+ZETA(2,1/2-#i)-ZET~> A(2,1/2+#i)-4*ZETA
(2,1-2*#i)+4*ZETA(2,1+2*#i))>> " judicious substitution of the helper
functions ... ">> mpsi(z,m):=1/m*SUM(DIGAMMA((z+k)/m),k,0,m-1)+LN(m)>>
mzeta(s,z,m):=1/m^s*SUM(ZETA(s,(z+k)/m),k,0,m-1)>> " ... along with
manual help for CONJ(ZETA) ... ">> -DIGAMMA(3/2-#i)-DIGAMMA(3/2+#i)
+2*mpsi(2-2*#i,2)+2*mpsi(2+2*#i,~> 2)-DIGAMMA(1-#i)-DIGAMMA(1+#i)-ZETA
(2,1/2-#i)/2-ZETA(2,1/2+#i)/2~> +2*mzeta(2,1-2*#i,2)+2*mzeta(2,1+2*#i,
2)+ZETA(2,1-#i)/2+ZETA(2,1~> +#i)/2+#i*(-ZETA(CONJ(2),CONJ(1-#i))+ZETA
(CONJ(2),CONJ(1+#i))+ZE~> TA(2,1/2-#i)-ZETA(2,1/2+#i)-4*mzeta(2,1-2*#i,
2)+4*mzeta(2,1+2*#i~> ,2))>> ZETA(2,1-#i)+ZETA(2,1+#i)+4*LN(2)>> 2*RE
(ZETA(2,1+#i))+4*LN(2)>> 3.698588915>> Martin.Great!I'd only offer a
bit simpler answer1-pi^2*CSCH(pi)^2+4*LOG(2)3.698588915But there's
still something about this andmany other challenges untold :)
Cheers,Vladimir BondarenkoCo-founder, CEO, Mathematical
Directorhttp://www.cybertester.com/ Cyber Tester
Ltd.----------------------------------------------------------"We must
understand that technologieslike these are the way of the
future."----------------------------------------------------------
Subject: An exact simplification challenge - 91 (eerie PolyGamma)
From: clicl...@freenet.de Date: 25 May, 2009 21:34:03 Message: 6 of
6 Reply to this message Add author to My Watch List View original
format Flag as spam Vladimir Bondarenko schrieb:> On May 25, 9:32
pm, cliclic...@freenet.de wrote:> > Vladimir Bondarenko schrieb:> >> >
> - PolyGamma[0, 1 + I]> > > - PolyGamma[0, 1 - I]> > > - PolyGamma[0,
3/2 + I]> > > - PolyGamma[0, 3/2 - I]> > > + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 + 2 I]>
> > + 2 PolyGamma[0, 2 - 2 I]> > > + (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]> >
> + (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]> > > - (1/2 + I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 +
I]> > > - (1/2 - I) PolyGamma[1, 3/2 - I]> > > + (2 + 4 I) PolyGamma
[1, 2 + 2 I]> > > + (2 - 4 I) PolyGamma[1, 2 - 2 I]> > > - 2 Re[I
PolyGamma[1, 1 + I]]> > > + 2 Re[I PolyGamma[1, 1 - I]]> >> > > ?> >>
> This simple challenge seems to be specifically made for Derive
6.10:> >> > -POLYGAMMA(0,1+#i)-POLYGAMMA(0,1-#i)-POLYGAMMA(0,3/2+#i)-
POLYGAM~> > MA(0,3/2-#i)+2*POLYGAMMA(0,2+2*#i)+2*POLYGAMMA(0,2-2*#i)
+(1/2+#i~> > )*POLYGAMMA(1,1+#i)+(1/2-#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,1-#i)-(1/2+#i)
*POLYGAMM~> > A(1,3/2+#i)-(1/2-#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,3/2-#i)+(2+4*#i)
*POLYGAMMA(1,2+~> > 2*#i)+(2-4*#i)*POLYGAMMA(1,2-2*#i)-2*RE
(#i*POLYGAMMA(1,1+#i))+2*~> > RE(#i*POLYGAMMA(1,1-#i))> >> > " ... is
automatically rewritten to ... "> >> > -DIGAMMA(3/2-#i)-DIGAMMA(3/2+#i)
+2*DIGAMMA(2-2*#i)+2*DIGAMMA(2+2~> > *#i)-DIGAMMA(1-#i)-DIGAMMA(1+#i)-
ZETA(2,1/2-#i)/2-ZETA(2,1/2+#i)~> > /2+2*ZETA(2,1-2*#i)+2*ZETA
(2,1+2*#i)+ZETA(2,1-#i)/2+ZETA(2,1+#i)~> > /2+#i*(-CONJ(ZETA(2,1-#i))
+CONJ(ZETA(2,1+#i))+ZETA(2,1/2-#i)-ZET~> > A(2,1/2+#i)-4*ZETA(2,1-2*#i)
+4*ZETA(2,1+2*#i))> >> > " judicious substitution of the helper
functions ... "> >> > mpsi(z,m):=1/m*SUM(DIGAMMA((z+k)/m),k,0,m-1)+LN
(m)> >> > mzeta(s,z,m):=1/m^s*SUM(ZETA(s,(z+k)/m),k,0,m-1)> >> > " ...
along with manual help for CONJ(ZETA) ... "> >> > -DIGAMMA(3/2-#i)-
DIGAMMA(3/2+#i)+2*mpsi(2-2*#i,2)+2*mpsi(2+2*#i,~> > 2)-DIGAMMA(1-#i)-
DIGAMMA(1+#i)-ZETA(2,1/2-#i)/2-ZETA(2,1/2+#i)/2~> > +2*mzeta(2,1-2*#i,
2)+2*mzeta(2,1+2*#i,2)+ZETA(2,1-#i)/2+ZETA(2,1~> > +#i)/2+#i*(-ZETA
(CONJ(2),CONJ(1-#i))+ZETA(CONJ(2),CONJ(1+#i))+ZE~> > TA(2,1/2-#i)-ZETA
(2,1/2+#i)-4*mzeta(2,1-2*#i,2)+4*mzeta(2,1+2*#i~> > ,2))> >> > ZETA
(2,1-#i)+ZETA(2,1+#i)+4*LN(2)> >> > 2*RE(ZETA(2,1+#i))+4*LN(2)> >> >
3.698588915> >>> Great!>> I'd only offer a bit simpler answer>> 1-
pi^2*CSCH(pi)^2+4*LOG(2)>> 3.698588915>Sorry, I didn't try to
"elementarize" the ZETA's.ZETA(2, 1+#i) + ZETA(2, 1-#i) =ZETA(2, 1+#i)
+ ZETA(2, -#i) + 1 =-(2 pi)^2 LI(-1, #e^(-2 pi)) + 1which is
equivalent to your expression since LI(-1,z) = z/(1-z)^2.Can Maple or
Mathematica perform the conversion automatically?Martin.Tags for this
Thread Everyone's Tags: spam(2) Add a New Tag: Separated by
commasEx.: root locus, bode What are tags? A tag is like a keyword or
category label associated with each thread. Tags make it easier for
you to find threads of interest. Anyone can tag a thread. Tags are
public and visible to everyone. Tag Activity for This Thread Tag
Applied By Date/Time spam per isakson 25 May, 2009 00:25:24 spam
John D'Errico 24 May, 2009 23:32:10 Feed for this Thread Public
Submission Policy NOTICE: Any content you submit to MATLAB Central,
including personal information, is not subject to the protections
which may be afforded information collected under other sections of
The MathWorks, Inc. Web site. You are entirely responsible for all
content that you upload, post, e-mail, transmit or otherwise make
available via MATLAB Central. The MathWorks does not control the
content posted by visitors to MATLAB Central and, does not guarantee
the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such content. Under no
circumstances will The MathWorks be liable in any way for any content
not authored by The MathWorks, or any loss or damage of any kind
incurred as a result of the use of any content posted, e-mailed,
transmitted or otherwise made available via MATLAB Central. Read the
complete Disclaimer prior to use. Contact us at fi...@mathworks.com
• Featured MathWorks.com Topics: • New Products • Support •
Documentation • Training • Webinars • Newsletters • MATLAB Trials •
Careers • © 1994-2009 The MathWorks, Inc. • Site Help • Patents •
Trademarks • Privacy Policy • Preventing Piracy
Martin Michael Musatov
May 29, 2009, 3:46:41 PM5/29/09
to
Oh this is just too cool to not top-post. I never even registered for
the site: Musatov
(Note the geometry of P=NP throughout, post backi-ping results every
20 minutes or when a prime strikes 3}fg.--MMM (Musatov)
the site: Musatov
(Note the geometry of P=NP throughout, post backi-ping results every
20 minutes or when a prime strikes 3}fg.--MMM (Musatov)
0 new messages