Jay wrote: .... the 4th power polylogarithm of 1 is precisely equal to : ..... Li4(1) = pi^4/90 ......
Is anyone else aware of this? I am surprised that I was never aware of this.
{not an exact quote}
Hi Jay,
I did not have the coefficient '90' in my memory but it is impossible for me to forget the formula for Li2(1) = pi ^2 / 6 as it is so ingrained by now. As a student I still remember the homework where we had to show that Li2(1) converged. We were probably given some hint to go on to find the exact formula, I can't remember that much as it was nearly fifty years ago. I should imagine that almost every maths graduate knows that formula. You knew about tossing blocks of wood. I knew about pi^2/6 in a similar fashion.
... given that pi emerges from n=4. I wonder if e=2.7182818284 emerges from some variation of this. Our buddy Ben may have something to say about this.
Well, pi emerges from Li2(1) also, and presumably from many others. I do not know the most efficient way of calculating pi [to a given degree of accuracy] from fewest terms in a series. Presumably Li4(1) is more efficient than Li2(1) but I doubt it is the most efficient series.
In terms of being 'exact', if you have a known value of pi at the outset then you shortcut straight to the answer pi^2 / 4 or pi^4 / 90 to solve your infinite series. But, reversing that process, and using the infinite series as a way of finding an exact value of pi ... then you still have to sum more and more and more terms of the infinite series to gradually home in on a more and more and more exact value for pi.
There are many series for e here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_representations_of_eThese series seemingly all involve, for e, terms of the type 1/n! rather than the terms of the type 1/n^m which lead to pi.
(Ignoring the well-known formula connecting e, i, pi and -1.)
Some time long ago I did some reading on number theory from A Source Book in Mathematics by D.E.Smith Volumes 1 and 2, Dover, 1959. But it was difficult to find the time to continue with it while employed working in a different area. I also, in the later years, when I first had a home computer, played at reading and using some papers by Euler trying to find a formula to predict the primes using the zeta function. But it is headache territory. If 'he who cannot be named' is a third rate mathematical statistician then I am nth rate one with n>>3.