arXiv:1406.1168v1 [] 4 Jun 2014

ON SOME PROPERTIES OF PARTIAL SUMS
Duong Quoc Viet and Truong Thi Hong Thanh
Department of Mathematics, Hanoi National University of Education
136 Xuan Thuy Street, Hanoi, Vietnam
Emails: duongquocviet@fmail.vnn.vn and thanhtth@hnue.edu.vn

ABSTRACT: The paper gives some criteria for partial sums
of rational number sequences to be not rational functions and to
be not algebraic functions. As an application, we study partial
sums of some famous rational number sequences in mathematical analysis with relevance to number theory.

1

Introduction

P
To determine properties of partial sums S(n) = ni=1 ui of number sequences (ui )i>1
is usually an interesting problem. Although one has given different tools for this
problem, but it is hard to know that functions for partial sums are algebraic functions
or transcendental functions.
In this paper, we give some criteria for functions in one positive integer variable
to be not rational functions (see Theorem 2.1) and to be not algebraic functions
(see Theorem 2.5). In particular, we get the following corollaries for partial sums
of rational number sequences
P (see Section 2). Let (ui )i>1 be a rational number
sequence. Then S(n) = ni=1 ui is not a rational function in n if any one of the
following conditions holds (see Corollary 2.3):
(a) limn→∞ S(n) = ∞ and limn→∞

S(n)
n

= 0.

(b) limn→∞ S(n) = 0 and limn→∞ nS(n) = ∞.
(c) limn→∞ S(n) is an irrational number.
Mathematics Subject Classification(2010): Primary 11B83. Secondary 12B31; 11B34.
Key words and phrases: Partial sums; number sequences; transcendental function.

1

2

And if limn→∞ S(n) is a transcendental number then S(n) =
dental function in n (see Corollary 2.8).

Pn

i=1

ui is a transcen-

Using these criteria, we study partial sums of some famous rational number sequences in mathematical analysis with relevance to number theory (see Section 3).

2

Some Criteria for Partial Sums

This section gives some criteria for functions in one positive integer variable to be
not rational functions and algebraic functions.
Denote by Q; C the field of the rational numbers; the field of the complex numbers, respectively. Let K be a subfield of C; α ∈ C. Let f (n) be a complex-valued
function in one positive integer variable n. Then one can make the following definitions:
(i) α is a rational number if α ∈ Q[i]. And α is an irrational number if α ∈
/ Q[i].
(ii) α is algebraic over K if there exist c0 , . . . , ch ∈ K with ch 6= 0 such that
ch αh + ch−1αh−1 + · · · + c1 α + c0 = 0.
And α is a transcendental number over K if it is not an algebraic number over
K.
(iii) α is an algebraic number if α is algebraic over Q. And α is a transcendental
number if it is not an algebraic number. Denote by Q the field of the algebraic
numbers.
(iv) f (n) is a rational function over K if
f (n) =

am nm + am−1 nm−1 + · · · + a1 n + a0
bd nd + bd−1 nd−1 + · · · + b1 n + b0

where a0 . . . . , am ; b0 , . . . , bd ∈ K with bd 6= 0.
(v) f (n) is an algebraic function over K if there exist polynomials in n with coefficients in K: q0 (n), . . . , qk (n) ∈ K[n] with qk (n) 6= 0 such that
qk (n)[f (n)]k + qk−1 (n)[f (n)]k−1 + · · · + q1 (n)[f (n)] + q0 (n) = 0.
And f (n) is a transcendental function over K if it is not an algebraic function
over K.

3

Then we obtain the following results.
Theorem 2.1. Let f (n) be a function in one positive integer variable n. Then the
following statements hold.
(i) If limn→∞ f (n) = ∞ and limn→∞
in n over C.

f (n)
n

= 0 then f (n) is not a rational function

(ii) If limn→∞ f (n) = 0 and limn→∞ nf (n) = ∞ then f (n) is not a rational function
in n over C.
(iii) If limn→∞ f (n) is an irrational number then f (n) is not a rational function in
n over Q[i].
(n)
Proof. The proof of (i): If f (n) is a rational function over C then f (n) = PQ(n)
here P (n) and Q(n) are two polynomials in n over C. Then on the one hand, since
limn→∞ f (n) = ∞, it follows that deg P (n) > deg Q(n). On the other hand, since
P (n)
= limn→∞ nQ(n)
= 0, deg nQ(n) > deg P (n). From the above facts we
limn→∞ f (n)
n
get
deg P (n) ≥ deg Q(n) + 1 = deg nQ(n) > deg P (n),

contradiction. Arguing similarly with the proof of (i), we obtain (ii). The proof of
(iii): Suppose that f (n) is a rational function over Q[i]. Since limn→∞ f (n) = c is
an irrational number, c 6= 0. Consequently, we have
f (n) =

am nm + am−1 nm−1 + · · · + a1 n + a0
bm nm + bm−1 nm−1 + · · · + b1 n + b0

where a0 , . . . , am ; b0 , . . . , bm ∈ Q[i] with am bm 6= 0. Note that
am
am nm + am−1 nm−1 + · · · + a1 n + a0
=
∈ Q[i].
m
m−1
n→∞ bm n + bm−1 n
+ · · · + b1 n + b0
bm
lim

So c ∈ Q[i]. This contradiction shows that f (n) is not a rational function in n over
Q[i].
4

Remark 2.2. The reverse of Theorem 2.1 does not hold. For (i): f (n) = n 3 is not a
rational function and limn→∞ f (n) = ∞, but limn→∞ f (n)
=∞=
6 0. For (ii): g(n) =
n
− 45
n is not a rational function for which limn→∞ g(n) = 0, but limn→∞ ng(n) = 0.
For (iii): q(n) = 2−n is not a rational function, but limn→∞ q(n) = 0 ∈ Q.
P
Let (ui )i>1 be a rational number sequence. Then S(n) = ni=1 ui is a function in
n. Hence from Theorem 2.1 we immediately get the following corollary.

4

Corollary 2.3. Let (ui )i>1 be a rational number sequence. Then S(n) is not a
rational function in n over Q[i] if any one of the following conditions holds:
(i) limn→∞ S(n) = ∞ and limn→∞

S(n)
n

= 0.

(ii) limn→∞ S(n) = 0 and limn→∞ nS(n) = ∞.
(iii) limn→∞ S(n) is an irrational number.
Remark 2.4. In general, the reverse of Corollary 2.3 does not hold. Indeed, for (i):
Choose (ui = i.i!)i>1 , then
S(n) =

n
X
i=1

i.i! = (n + 1)! − 1

is not a rational function and limn→∞ S(n) = ∞, but limn→∞ S(n)
=∞=
6 0. For
n
i
1
(ii): Let (ui )i>1 be a rational number sequence defined by u1 = − 2 and ui = (i+1)!
Pn
1
i
= − (n+1)!
is not a rational function for which
for all i ≥ 2. Then S(n) = i=1 (i+1)!
P
limn→∞ S(n) = 0, but limn→∞ nS(n) = 0 6= ∞. For (iii): S(n) = ni=1 2−i = 1 − 2−n
is not a rational function, but limn→∞ S(n) = 1 ∈ Q.
Theorem 2.5. Let K be a subfield of C, and let f (n) be a function in one positive
integer variable n. Assume that limn→∞ f (n) is a transcendental number over K.
Then f (n) is a transcendental function in n over K.
Proof. Arguing by contradiction, suppose that f (n) is a algebraic function over K.
Then there exist polynomials in n with coefficients in over K: q0 (n), . . . , qk (n) ∈
K[n] with qk (n) 6= 0 such that
qk (n)[f (n)]k + qk−1 (n)[f (n)]k−1 + · · · + q1 (n)[f (n)] + q0 (n) = 0.
∈ K for all
Set d = max{deg q0 (n), . . . , deg qk (n)}. It is easily seen that limn→∞ qin(n)
d
qi (n)
0 ≤ i ≤ k. Set limn→∞ f (n) = α and limn→∞ nd = ci for all 0 ≤ i ≤ k. Then α is
a transcendental number over K and c0 , . . . , ck ∈ K are not all zero. Since
qk (n)
qk−1 (n)
q1 (n)
q0 (n) 
][f (n)]k + [
][f (n)]k−1 + · · · + [ d ][f (n)] + [ d ]
d
d
n→∞
n
n
n
n
qk (n)
q
(n)
k−1
= lim [ d ] lim [f (n)]k + lim [
] lim [f (n)]k−1
n→∞ n
n→∞
n→∞
n→∞
nd
q1 (n)
q0 (n)
+ · · · + lim [ d ] lim [f (n)] + lim [ d ]
n→∞ n
n→∞
n→∞ n
= ck αk + ck−1 αk−1 + · · · + c1 α + c0 ,

0 = lim [

5

we obtain ck αk + ck−1 αk−1 + · · · + c1 α + c0 = 0 for c0 , . . . , ck ∈ K, not all zero; i.e.,
α is algebraic over K. This contradiction concludes the proof.
Remember that Q is algebraic over Q, α ∈ C is algebraic over Q if and only if
α is an algebraic number (see e.g. [6, 8]). Consequently, we immediately have the
following consequence by Theorem 2.5.
Corollary 2.6. Let f (n) be a function in one positive integer variable n. Assume
that limn→∞ f (n) is a transcendental number. Then f (n) is a transcendental function in n over Q.
Remark 2.7. F (n) = 1 + 3−n is a transcendental function in n over Q which tends
to 1 (an algebraic number). Hence the reverse of Corollary 2.6 does not hold.
Pn
Now, assume that (ui )i>1 is a rational number sequence and S(n) =
i=1 ui .
Then S(n) is a function in n. Hence as an immediate consequence of Corollary 2.6
we obtain the following result.
Corollary 2.8. Let (ui )i>1 be a rational number sequence. Assume that limn→∞ S(n)
P
is a transcendental number. Then S(n) = ni=1 ui is a transcendental function in n
over Q.
Remark 2.9. The reverse of Corollary 2.8 does not hold. Indeed, now we choose
P
(ui = 3−i )i>1 , then S(n) = ni=1 3−i = 21 (1 − 3−n ) is a transcendental function in n
over Q, however limn→∞ S(n) = 12 is an algebraic number.

3

Some Applications

In this section, we give some applications of Section 2 for partial sums of famous rational number sequences in mathematical analysis with relevance to number theory.
Example 3.1. Let a and b be non-negative integers with a 6= 0. Then
S(n) =

n
X
j=1

1
aj + b

is not a rational function in n over Q.
Proof. Set c = max{a, b}. Since
S(n) =

n
X
j=1

n

n

X 1
1
1X 1
≥
=
aj + b
cj + c
c j=1 j + 1
j=1

6

P
1
and limn→∞ nj=1 j+1
= ∞ (see e.g. [5]), it follows that limn→∞ S(n) = ∞. Now,
we will prove that
n
X
1 √
< 2n + 1
j
j=1
√
by induction on n. The result is true for n = 1 since 1 < 3. Next assume that
n > 1. By the inductive assumption we have
n
X
1

n−1
X
1

+

2(n − 1) + 1 =

√

j=1

Since

√

2n + 1 −

p

j

=

j=1

p

j

1 p
1
< 2(n − 1) + 1 + .
n
n

2n+1+

√2

2(n − 1) + 1 +

2(n−1)+1

, it follows that

1 √
< 2n + 1
n

p
√
to p
4n3 (n−2)+1 > 0.
if and only if 2n > 2n + 1+ 2(n − 1) + 1. This is equivalent
√
3
Remember that n ≥ 2, 4n (n − 2) + 1 > 0. So 2n > 2n + 1 +√ 2(n − 1) + 1 for
P
all n ≥ 2. Induction is complete. We obtain S(n) ≤ nj=1 1j < 2n + 1. From this
it follows that limn→∞
Corollary 2.3(i).

S(n)
n

= 0. Thus, S(n) is not a rational function over Q by

Note 1: In mathematics, the n-th harmonic number is the sum of the reciprocals
P
of the first n natural numbers: Hn = nj=1 1j . Example 3.1 showed that Hn is not
a rational function in n over Q. Euler found in 1734 that limn→∞ [Hn − ln n] is a
constant called the Euler’s constant and one denoted by γ this constant (see e.g.
[3, 10, 12]). γ = 0.577215665... has not yet been proven to be transcendental or even
irrational. Sondow gave in 2002 [11] criteria for irrationality of γ. Now, we need to
talk more about Hn . Denote by ψ(x) the digamma function, that is, the logarithmic
derivative of Euler’s Γ-function. Then we have Hn = ψ(n + 1) + γ (see e.g. [9]). By
Murty and Saradha in 2007 [9, Theorem 1], ψ(x) + γ takes transcendental values
at infinitely many x rational. Consequently, ψ(x) + γ is a transcendental function
over Q. Hence we would like to give a conjecture that ”Hn = ψ(n + 1) + γ is a
transcendental function over Q”.
Example 3.2. Let (un )n≥1 be a sequence defined by u1 = 1 and
ui+1 =

ui +

2
ui

2

for all i ≥ 1. Then the function F (n) = un in n is not a rational function over Q.

7

Proof. Since ui+1 =

ui + u2

i

2

q
√
≥ ui . u2i = 2 for all i ≥ 1, it follows that
ui+1 =

ui +

2
ui

2

√
ui + 2
≤
≤ ui
2

for all i ≥ 2. So (un )n≥1 is convergent. Hence there exists limn→∞ un . Set
lim un = x.

n→∞

√
√
ui + 2
x+ 2
Then x = 2 x since ui+1 = 2 ui . Consequently, x = 2. Since limn→∞ un = 2 is
an irrational number, the function F (n) = un in n is not a rational function over Q
by Theorem 2.1(iii).
Pn (−1)j−1
Pn 1
Pn (−1)j−1
; L(n) =
Example 3.3. F (n) =
j=1 2j−1 ; S(n) =
j=1 j! are
j=1
j
transcendental functions in n over Q.
P
(−1)j−1
= ln 2 (see e.g. [5]). So limn→∞ F (n) = ln 2.
Proof. Remember that ∞
j=1
j
Since 2 ∈ Q\{0, 1}, ln 2 is transcendental by the Hermite-Lindemann theorem (see
e.g. [6, Appendix 1]). Hence F (n) is transcendental over Q by Corollary 2.8. By
the Leibnitz formula for π, we have
lim L(n) =

n→∞

∞
X
(−1)j−1
j=1

2j − 1

=

π
4

(see e.g. [2, 4, 5, 13]). Since π is a transcendental number by the Lindemann theorem
(see e.g. [1, 6, 7]), L(n) is a transcendental function over Q by Corollary 2.8. Since
∞
X
1
=e
1 + lim S(n) =
n→∞
j!
j=0

(see e.g. [5]) is a transcendental number by the Hermite theorem (see e.g. [1, 6, 7]),
n
X
1
S(n) =
j!
j=1

is a transcendental function in n over Q by Corollary 2.8.
P
Example 3.4. U(n) = nj=1 j12 is a transcendental function in n over Q.

8

Proof. Recall that the Basel problem asks for the precise summation of the reciprocals of the squares of the natural numbers, i.e., the precise sum of the infinite
series:
∞
X
1
.
j2
j=1
This problem is a famous problem in mathematical analysis with relevance to number
theory, first posed by Pietro Mengoli in 1644 and solved by Leonhard Euler in 1735
P
1
π2
that ∞
j=1 j 2 = 6 (see e.g. [3, 12]). So
∞
X
π2
1
=
.
lim U(n) =
n→∞
j2
6
j=1
2

Since π is a transcendental number by the Lindemann theorem (see e.g. [1, 6, 7]), π6
P
is also a transcendental number. Hence U(n) = nj=1 j12 is a transcendental function
in n over Q by Corollary 2.8.
Note 2: Recall that ψ(x) is the digamma function, that is, the logarithmic derivative
P
2
of Euler’s Γ-function. Then it is known that nj=1 j12 = π6 − ψ ′ (n + 1) (see e.g. [9]).
Hence
∞
X
1
π2
π2
′
lim [ − ψ (n)] =
=
.
n→∞ 6
j2
6
j=1
2

So ψ ′ (n) − π6 is a transcendental function in n over Q by Corollary 2.6. Now, since
P
2
ψ ′ (n + 1) = π6 − nj=1 j12 , it follows that ψ ′ (k) takes transcendental values for all k
positive integer. Hence ψ ′ (n) is a transcendental function in n over Q.

References
[1] A. Baker, Transcendental Number Theory, Cambridge University Press 1975, ISBN 0-521-20461-5,
Zbl 0297. 10013.
[2] J. Borwein, D. Bailey and R. Girgensohn, Experimentation in Mathematics-Computational Paths to
Discovery, A K Peters 2003, ISBN 1-56881-136-5.
[3] W. Dunham, Euler: The Master of Us All, Mathematical Association of America 1999, ISBN 088385-328-0.
[4] R. C. Gupta, On the remainder term in the Madhava-Leibniz’s series, Ganita Bharati 14(1992)(1-4),
68-71.
[5] A. W. Knapp, Basic real analysis: along with a companion volume Advanced Real Analysis, ISBN08176-3250-6 (2005), QA300. K56.

9

[6] S. Lang, Algebra, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company (1965).
[7] K. Mahler, Lectures on Transcendental Numbers, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 546, Springer-Verlag
1976, ISBN 3-540-07986-6, Zbl 0332. 10019.
[8] P. J. McCarthy, Algebraic extensions of fields, Dover Publications 1991, ISBN 0-486-66651-4.
[9] M. R. Murty and N. Saradha, Transcendental values of the digamma function, J. Number theory,
125(2007), 298-318.
[10] J. Sondow, An antisymmetric formula for Euler’s constant, Mathematics Magazine 71(1998), 219220.
[11] J. Sondow, Criteria for irrationality of Euler’s constant, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 131(2003), 33353344.
[12] A. Weil, Number Theory: An Approach Through History, Springer-Verlag 1999, ISBN 0-8176-3141-0.
[13] D. Wells, The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, England: Penguin Books
1986.

