Abstract
We prove the new upper bound \(5.095412\) for the irrationality exponent of \(\zeta (2)=\pi ^2/6\); the earlier record bound \(5.441243\) was established in 1996 by G. Rhin and C. Viola.
Résumé
Nous obtenons une nouvelle borne pour l’exposant d’irrationnalité de \(\zeta (2)=\pi ^2/6\), à savoir \(5.095412\), cette dernière améliorant le record \(5.441243\) établi par G. Rhin et C. Viola.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The principal aim of this note is to prove the following result.
Theorem 1
The irrationality exponent \(\mu (\zeta (2))\) of \(\zeta (2)=\pi ^2/6\) is bounded from above by \(5.09541178\dots \) .
Recall that the irrationality exponent \(\mu (\alpha )\) of a real number \(\alpha \) is the supremum of the set of exponents \(\mu \) for which the inequality \(|\alpha -p/q|<q^{-\mu }\) has infinitely many solutions in rationals \(p/q\).
The history of \(\mu (\zeta (2))\) can be found in the 1996 paper [13] of G. Rhin and C. Viola, where they not only establish the previous record estimate \(\mu (\zeta (2))\le 5.44124250\dots \) but also introduce the remarkable permutation group arithmetic method based on birational transformations of underlying multiple integrals.
One of the corollaries of Theorem 1 is the estimate \(\mu (\pi \sqrt{d})\le 10.19082357\dots \) valid for any choice of nonzero rational \(d\). Note, however, that for some particular values of \(d\) better bounds are known: the results
are due to Salikhov [9], Androsenko and Salikhov [1], and the present author [18], respectively.
A particular case of the hypergeometric constructions below was discussed in [20, Section 1.3] (see also [19, Section 2]) in relation with simultaneous rational approximations to \(\zeta (2)\) and \(\zeta (3)\). In the joint paper [4] with S. Dauguet, we address these simultaneous approximations more specifically.
Our proof of Theorem 1 below is organised as follows. In Sect. 2 we introduce some analytical and arithmetic ingredients, while Sects. 3 and 4 are devoted to exposing details of our first hypergeometric construction of rational approximations to \(\zeta (2)\). Sections 2–4 are closely related to the corresponding material in [4]. In Sect. 5 we discuss an identity between two hypergeometric integrals that motivates another hypergeometric construction of approximations to \(\zeta (2)\), the construction we further examine in Sect. 6. We finalise our findings in Sect. 7, where we prove Theorem 1 and comment on related hypergeometric constructions.
2 Prelude: auxiliary lemmata
This section discusses auxiliary results about decomposition of Barnes–Mellin-type integrals and special arithmetic of integer-valued polynomials.
Lemma 1
For \(\ell =0,1,2,\dots \),
Proof
The integrand is
the evaluation in (1) follows from Barnes’s first lemma [10, Section 4.2.1]. \(\square \)
Lemma 2
For \(k=0,1,2,\dots \),
Proof
Since
partial integration on the left-hand side in (2) transforms the integral into
By considering first integration along the rectangular closed contour with vertices at
where \(N>0\) is an integer, applying the residue sum theorem as in [15, Lemma 2.4] and finally letting \(N\rightarrow \infty \), we arrive at claim (2). \(\square \)
Remark 1
The form and principal ingredients of Lemma 2 are suggested by [7, Lemma 2]. The statement is essentially a particular case of [15, Lemma 2.4], where an artificial assumption on the growth of a regular rational function at infinity was used; the assumption can be dropped out by applying partial integration as above.
In what follows \(D_n\) denotes the least common multiple of the numbers \(1,2,\dots ,n\).
Lemma 3
Given integers \(b<a\), set
Then for any \(k,\ell \in {\mathbb {Z}}\), \(\ell \ne k\),
Proof
Denote by \(m=b-a\) the degree of the polynomial \(R(t)\). The first two family of inclusions are classical [17]. For the remaining one, introduce the polynomial
of degree \(m-1.\) As \(D_m\cdot 1/(k-\ell )\) is an integer for \(k=\ell +1,\ell +2,\dots ,\ell +m\) as well as \(R(k)-R(\ell )\in {\mathbb {Z}}\), we deduce that \(D_m\cdot P(k)\in {\mathbb {Z}}\) for those values of \(k\). This means that the polynomial \(D_mP(t)\) of degree \(m-1\) assumes integer values at \(m\) successive integers. By [12, Division 8, Problem 87] the polynomial is integer-valued. \(\square \)
Lemma 4
Let \(R(t)\) be a product of several integer-valued polynomials
where \( b_j<a_j\) and \(m=\max _j\{a_j-b_j\}\). Then for any \(k,\ell \in {\mathbb {Z}}\), \(\ell \ne k\),
Proof
It is sufficient to establish the result for a product of just two polynomials \(R(t)\) and \(\widetilde{R}(t)\) satisfying the assertions in (3) and then use mathematical induction on the number of such factors. We have
and the result follows. \(\square \)
3 First hypergeometric tale
The construction in this section is a general case of the one considered in [19, Section 2].
For a set of parameters
subject to the conditions
define the rational function
where
We also introduce the ordered versions \(a_1^*\le a_2^*\le a_3^*\le a_4^*\) of the parameters \(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4\) and \(b_1^*\le b_2^*\le b_3^*\) of \(b_1,b_2,b_3\), so that \(\{a_1^*,a_2^*,a_3^*,a_4^*\}\) coincide with \(\{a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4\}\) and \(\{b_1^*,b_2^*,b_3^*\}\) coincide with \(\{b_1,b_2,b_3\}\) as multi-sets. Then \(R(t)\) has poles at \(t=-k\) where \(k=a_4^*,a_4^*+1,\dots ,b_4-1\), has zeroes at \(t=-\ell \) where \(\ell =b_1^*,b_1^*+1,\dots ,a_3^*-1\) and has double zeroes at \(t=-\ell \) where \(\ell =b_2^*,b_2^*+1,\dots ,a_2^*-1\).
Decomposing (5) into the sum of partial fractions, we get
where \(P(t)\) is a polynomial of degree \(d\) (see (4)) and
for \(k=a_4^*,a_4^*+1,\dots ,b_4-1\).
Lemma 5
Set \(c=\max \{a_1-b_1,a_2-b_2,a_3-b_3\}\). Then \(D_cP(t)\) is an integer-valued polynomial of degree \(d\).
Proof
Write \(R(t)=R_1(t)R_2(t)\), where
is the product of three integer-valued polynomials and
It follows from Lemma 4 that
Furthermore, note that
and the expression in fact vanishes if \(k\) is outside the range \(a_4^*\le k\le b_4-1\).
For \(\ell \in {\mathbb {Z}}\), we have
and
Therefore,
and this implies, on the basis of the inclusions (9) above, that \(D_cP(-\ell )\in {\mathbb {Z}}\) for all \(\ell \in {\mathbb {Z}}\). \(\square \)
Finally, define the quantity
where \(C\) is arbitrary from the interval \(-a_2^*<C<1-b_2^*\). The definition does not depend on the choice of \(C\), as the integrand does not have singularities in the strip \(-a_2^*<\mathrm{Re }t<1-b_2^*\).
Proposition 1
We have
where
Furthermore, the quantity \(r({\varvec{a}},\,{\varvec{b}})/\Pi ({\varvec{a}},\,{\varvec{b}})\) is invariant under any permutation of the parameters \(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4\).
Proof
We choose \(C=1/2-a_2^*\) in (10) and write (7) as
where
and \(D_cA_\ell \in {\mathbb {Z}}\) in accordance with Lemma 5. Applying Lemmas 1 and 2 we obtain
This representation clearly implies that \(r({\varvec{a}},{\varvec{b}})\) has the desired form (11), while the invariance of \(r({\varvec{a}},{\varvec{b}})/\Pi ({\varvec{a}},{\varvec{b}})\) under permutations of \(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4\) follows from (6) and definition (10) of \(r({\varvec{a}},{\varvec{b}})\). \(\square \)
4 Towards proving Theorem 1
For the particular case
from Proposition 1 we obtain
The asymptotic behaviour of \(r_n\) and \(q_n\) for a generic choice
where the integral parameters \(\alpha _j\) and \(\beta _j\) satisfy
(to ensure the earlier imposed conditions (4)), is pretty standard.
Lemma 6
Assume that the cubic polynomial
has one real zero \(\tau _1\) and two complex conjugate zeroes \(\tau _0\) and \(\overline{\tau _0}\). Then
where
For a proof of the statement we refer to similar considerations in [15–17]. An alternative proof can be given, based on Poincaré’s theorem and on explicit recurrence relations satisfied by both \(r_n\) and \(q_n\) — we touch the latter aspect for our concrete choice (12) in Sect. 5.
When the parameters are chosen in accordance with (12), we obtain
For a generic choice (14), the quantities \(c_1\) and \(c_2\) in Proposition 1 assume the form \(\gamma _1n\) and \(\gamma _2n\), where the integers \(\gamma _1\) and \(\gamma _2\) only depend on the data \(\alpha _j,\beta _j\) for \(j=1,\dots ,4\); for simplicity we order them: \(\gamma _1\ge \gamma _2\). In what follows, \(\lfloor \,\cdot \,\rfloor \) denotes the integer part of a real number.
Lemma 7
In the above notation, we have
with
where
the maximum being taken over all permutations \((\alpha _1',\alpha _2',\alpha _3',\alpha _4')\) of \((\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3,\alpha _4)\). Furthermore,
where \(\psi (x)\) is the logarithmic derivative of the gamma function.
Proof
The arithmetic “correction” in (16) uses by now a standard method, based on the permutation group from Proposition 1; see the original source [13] or its adaptation to hypergeometric settings in [17] for details. The function \(\varphi (x)\) is chosen to count the maximum
\(\square \)
Remark 2
There is an alternative way to compute \(\varphi (x)\) using
though it is not at all straightforward that this expression represents the same function \(\varphi (x)\) as in Lemma 7. The technique is discussed in related contexts, for example, in [15, Section 4], [17, Section 7] and [8, Section 2]. We use this strategy in Sect. 6 below.
Under the choice (12), we get \(\gamma _1=9\), \(\gamma _2=8\) and
so that
Taking then
and applying [6, Lemma 2.1] we arrive at the following irrationality measure for \(\zeta (2)\):
This estimate is clearly worse than the one obtained by Rhin and Viola in [13]. We will see later that the inclusions (16) can be further sharpened in our case (12).
Remark 3
A different choice of parameters than in (12), namely,
allows us to obtain the estimate \(\mu (\zeta (2))\le 5.20514736\dots \) already better than the one in [13]. This choice, however, fails to achieve a significant sharpening by means of the machinery that we discuss below.
5 Interlude: a hypergeometric integral
Let us prove the following result.
Proposition 2
For each \(n=0,1,2,\dots \), the following identity is true:
where the integration paths separate the two groups of poles of the integrands; (for example, \(C_1=-2n-1/2\) and \(C_2=-1/2\)).
Proof
Executing the Gosper–Zeilberger algorithm of creative telescoping for the rational functions
and
we find out that the integrals
satisfy the same recurrence equation
where \(s_0(n)\), \(s_1(n)\), \(s_2(n)\) and \(s_3(n)\) are polynomials in \(n\) of degree 64. Verifying the equality in (18) directly for \(n=0\), \(1\) and \(2\), we conclude that it is valid for all \(n\). \(\square \)
Other applications of the algorithm of creative telescoping to proving identities for Barnes-type integrals are discussed in [5, 11].
Remark 4
Note that the left-hand side in (18) is the linear form from Sect. 3 which corresponds to our particular choice (12) of the parameters. The characteristic polynomial of the recurrence equation is equal to
and its zeroes determine the asymptotics (15) of \(r_n\) and \(q_n\) by means of Poincaré’s theorem.
For a “sufficiently generic” set of integral parameters, the following identity is expected to be true:
The satellite identity, in which \((\pi /\sin \pi t)^2\) and \(\pi /\sin 2\pi t\) are replaced with
respectively, is expected to hold as well; the other integrals represent rational approximations to \(\zeta (3)\) [4, 20]. These identities can be possibly shown in full generality using contiguous relations for the integrals on both sides; it seems to be a tough argument though.
Proposition 2 is a particular case of (19) when
Identity (19) and its satellite should be a special case of a hypergeometric-integral identity valid for generic complex parameters. We could not detect the existence of the more general identity in the literature, though there are a few words about it at the end of W. N. Bailey’s paper [2]:
“The formula (1.4)Footnote 1 and its successor are rather more troublesome to generalize, and the final result was unexpected. The formulae obtained involve five series instead of three or four as previously obtained. In each case two of the series are nearly-poised and of the second kind, one is nearly-poised and of the first kind, and the other two are Saalschützian in type. In the course of these investigations some integrals of Barnes’s type are evaluated analogous to known sums of hypergeometric series. Considerations of space, however, prevent these results being given in detail.”
It is quite similar in spirit to Fermat’s famous “I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain”, is not it? Interestingly enough, the last paragraph in Chapter 6 of Bailey’s book [3] again reveals us no details about the troublesome generalization. Did Bailey possess the identity?
6 Second hypergeometric tale
Our discussion in the previous section suggests a different construction of rational approximations to \(\zeta (2)\). This time we design the rational function to be
where
and the integral parameters
satisfy the conditions
The latter condition implies that \(\hat{R}(t)=O(1/t^2)\) as \(t\rightarrow \infty \). Though it will not be as important as it was in our arithmetic consideration of Sect. 3, we introduce the ordered versions \(\hat{a}_1^*\le \hat{a}_2^*\le \hat{a}_3^*\) of the parameters \(\hat{a}_1,\hat{a}_2,\hat{a}_3\) and \(\hat{b}_2^*\le \hat{b}_3^*\) of \(\hat{b}_2,\hat{b}_3\). Then this ordering and conditions (20) imply that the rational function \(\hat{R}(t)\) has poles at \(t=-k\) for \(\hat{a}_2^*\le k\le \hat{b}_3^*-1\), double poles at \(t=-k\) for \(\hat{a}_3^*\le k\le \hat{b}_2^*-1\), and zeroes at \(t=-\ell /2\) for \(\hat{b}_0\le \ell \le \hat{a}_0^*-1\) where \(\hat{a}_0^*=\min \{\hat{a}_0,2\hat{a}_2^*\}\).
The partial-fraction decomposition of the regular rational function \(\hat{R}(t)\) assumes the form
where
with \(\hat{d}=\hat{b}_2+\hat{b}_3\), for \(k=\hat{a}_3^*,\hat{a}_3^*+1,\dots ,\hat{b}_2^*-1\) and, similarly,
for \(k=\hat{a}_2^*,\hat{a}_2^*+1,\dots ,\hat{b}_3^*-1\). In addition,
by the residue sum theorem.
The inclusions
follow then from standard consideration; see, for example, Lemma 3 and the proof of Lemma 4 in [17]. More importantly, for primes \(p\) we have
for \(k=\hat{a}_2^*,\dots ,\hat{b}_3^*-1\). These estimates on the \(p\)-adic order of the coefficients in the partial-fraction decomposition of \(\hat{R}(t)\) follow from [17, Lemmas 17 and 18].
The quantity of our interest in this section is
where \(C\) is arbitrary from the interval \(-\hat{a}_0^*<C<1-\hat{b}_0\).
Proposition 3
We have
where
Proof
We use
for \(m\ge 1-\hat{a}_0^*\;\) to write
where the equality (22) was used. In view of the inclusions (21), (23) the found representation of \(\hat{r}(\hat{\varvec{a}},\hat{\varvec{b}})\) implies the form (25). \(\square \)
Remark 5
The binomial expressions (8) and (21) allow us to write
as certain \({}_4F_3\)- and \({}_5F_4\)-hypergeometric series, respectively (see the books [3, 10] for the definition of generalized hypergeometric series). Then Whipple’s classical transformation [10, p. 65, eq. (2.4.2.3)],
can be stated as the following identity:
Note that (19) is equivalent to
so that it is Whipple’s transformation (26) that offers us to expect the coincidence of the two families of linear forms in \(1\) and \(\zeta (2)\).
As in Sect. 4, we take the parameters \((\hat{\varvec{a}},\hat{\varvec{b}})\) as follows:
where the fixed integers \(\hat{\alpha }_j\) and \(\hat{\beta }_j\), \(j=0,\dots ,3\), satisfy
to ensure that all hypotheses (20) are satisfied. Though we can give the analogue of Lemma 6, our principal interest in the construction of this section is purely arithmetic.
Lemma 8
Assuming the choice (27), for each prime \(p\) we have
where the (\(1\)-periodic and integer-valued) function \(\hat{\varphi }(x)\) is given by
Proof
This follows from the estimates (24), the explicit expressions for \(\hat{q}(\hat{\varvec{a}},\hat{\varvec{b}})\) and \(\hat{p}(\hat{\varvec{a}},\hat{\varvec{b}})\) given in the proof of Proposition 3: we simply assign \(y=(k-1)/p\) and minimise over \(k\). \(\square \)
Note that the special choice of parameters \((\hat{\varvec{a}},\hat{\varvec{b}})\),
results in the linear forms
which are related, by Proposition 2, to the linear forms (12), (13) as follows:
so that \(q_n=\hat{q}_n\) and \(p_n=\hat{p}_n\) for \(n=0,1,2,\dots \) .
Then with the help of Lemma 8, we find that
where
and
so that
Comparing (17) and (28) we find out that \(\varphi (x)\ge \hat{\varphi }(x)\) for all \(x\in [0,1)\) except for \(x\in \bigl [\frac{1}{5},\frac{2}{9}\bigr )\cup \bigl [\frac{3}{7},\frac{4}{9}\bigr )\cup \bigl [\frac{6}{7},\frac{7}{8}\bigr )\). It means that with the choice
where
we have the inclusions
and
7 Finale: Proof of Theorem 1 and concluding remarks
Here is the
Proof of Theorem 1
In the course of our study, we constructed the forms
such that their rational coefficients \(q_n\) and \(p_n\) satisfy (29), while the growth of \(r_n\) and \(q_n\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) is determined by (15). Denoting
and applying [6, Lemma 2.1] we arrive at the estimate
for the irrationality exponent of \(\zeta (2)=\pi ^2/6\). \(\square \)
As discussed in [4], the sequence of approximations \(r_n=q_n\zeta (2)-p_n\) constructed in the proof of Theorem 1 can be complemented with the satellite sequence
of rational approximations to \(\zeta (3)\), which satisfy
and
(cf. (15)). Because
the linear forms
are unbounded as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) and, therefore, cannot be used for proving the irrationality of \(\zeta (3)\) (which would in this case also lead to the \(\mathbb Q\)-linear independence of \(1\), \(\zeta (2)\) and \(\zeta (3)\)).
With the help of the recurrence equation, used in our proof of Proposition 2 and satisfied by the sequences
we computed the first 300 terms of the sequence
The primes involved in the factorisation of \(\Lambda _n\) do not seem to possess a structural dependence on \(n\), and for the majority of \(n\)’s these primes \(p\) are in the (asymptotically neglectable) range \(p\le \sqrt{8n}\). Nevertheless, the absolute values of the forms
happen to be simultaneously less than 1 for
in the range \(n\le 300\).
It would be nice to investigate arithmetically the other classical hypergeometric instances from Bailey’s and Slater’s books [3, 10]: the philosophy is that behind any hypergeometric transformation there is some interesting arithmetic. Already the previously achieved irrationality measure for \(\zeta (2)\) in [13] and the best known irrationality measure for \(\zeta (3)\) in [14], both due to Rhin and Viola, have deep hypergeometric roots (see [17]). Another example in this direction is the hypergeometric construction of rational approximations to \(\zeta (4)\) in [16].
Notes
This formula appears as equation (26) below.
References
Androsenko, V.A., Salikhov, V.K.: Marcovecchio’s integral and an irrationality measure of \(\pi /\sqrt{3}\). Vestnik Bryansk State Tech. Univ. 34(4), 129–132 (2011)
Bailey, W.N.: Some transformations of generalized hypergeometric series, and contour-integrals of Barnes’s type. Q. J. Math. (Oxford) 3(1), 168–182 (1932)
Bailey, W.N.: Generalized Hypergeometric Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1935)
Dauguet, S.; Zudilin, W.: On simultaneous diophantine approximations to \(\zeta (2)\) and \(\zeta (3)\) (2013, Preprint). arxiv:1401.5322 [math.NT]
Guillera, J.: WZ-proofs of “divergent” Ramanujan-type series. In: Kotsireas, I., Zima, E.V. (eds.) Advances in Combinatorics, Waterloo Workshop in Computer Algebra, W80 (May 26–29, 2011), pp. 187–195. Springer, Berlin (2013)
Hata, M.: Rational approximations to \(\pi \) and some other numbers. Acta Arith. 63(4), 335–349 (1993)
Nesterenko, Yu.V.: A few remarks on \(\zeta (3)\), Mat. Zametki 59, 865–880 (1996); English transl. Math. Notes 59, 625–636 (1996)
Nesterenko, Yu.V.: On the irrationality exponent of the number \(\ln 2\). Mat. Zametki 88, 549–564 (2010); English transl. Math. Notes 88, 530–543 (2010)
Salikhov, V.Kh.: On the irrationality measure of \(\pi \). Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 63(3), 163–164 (2008). English transl. Russ. Math. Surv. 63, 570–572 (2008)
Slater, L.J.: Generalized Hypergeometric Functions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1966)
Stan, F.: On recurrences for Ising integrals. Adv. Appl. Math. 45, 334–345 (2010)
Pólya, G., Szegő, G.: Problems and theorems in analysis. vol. II. Grundlehren Math. Wiss., vol. 216. Springer, Berlin (1976)
Rhin, G., Viola, C.: On a permutation group related to \(\zeta (2)\). Acta Arith. 77(1), 23–56 (1996)
Rhin, G., Viola, C.: The group structure for \(\zeta (3)\). Acta Arith. 97(3), 269–293 (2001)
Zudilin, W.: On the irrationality of the values of the Riemann zeta function. Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat. 66(3), 49–102 (2002). English transl. Izv. Math. 66, 489–542 (2002)
Zudilin, W.: Well-poised hypergeometric service for diophantine problems of zeta values. J. Théorie Nombres Bordeaux 15(2), 593–626 (2003)
Zudilin, W.: Arithmetic of linear forms involving odd zeta values. J. Théorie Nombres Bordeaux 16(1), 251–291 (2004)
Zudilin, W.: Ramanujan-type formulae and irrationality measures of some multiples of \(\pi \), Mat. Sb. 196(7), 51–66 (2005). English transl. Sb. Math. 196, 983–998 (2005)
Zudilin, W.: Approximations to -, di- and tri- logarithms. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 202(2), 450–459 (2007)
Zudilin, W.: Arithmetic hypergeometric series. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 66(2), 163–216 (2011). English transl. Russian Math. Surveys 66, 369–420 (2011)
Acknowledgments
I am deeply thankful to Stéphane Fischler who has re-attracted my attention to [19] and forced me to write the details of the general construction there. This has finally grown up in a joint project with Simon Dauguet. My special thanks go to Yuri Nesterenko for many helpful comments on initial versions of the paper, and I also thank Raffaele Marcovecchio for related discussions and corrections. Finally, I acknowledge a healthy criticism of the anonymous referee that helped me to improve the presentation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The author is supported by the Australian Research Council.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zudilin, W. Two hypergeometric tales and a new irrationality measure of \(\zeta (2)\) . Ann. Math. Québec 38, 101–117 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40316-014-0016-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40316-014-0016-0