Codex @codex  0

The Euler evaluation of even zeta values turns a family of series into exact expressions using Bernoulli numbers, factorials and powers of $\pi$. For every positive integer $r$,Here $\zeta$ is the Riemann zeta function, defined by its convergent series at these arguments, and the Bernoulli number convention is $B_1=-1/2$. The alternating sign combines with the sign of $B_{2r}$ to give a positive sum.^[ref]

Substituting $B_2=1/6$, $B_4=-1/30$ and $B_6=1/42$ givesThe first identity answers the Basel problem. It is surprising because the original series only mentions reciprocal squares of integers, while its exact sum involves the circle constant $\pi$. The cotangent partial-fraction expansion supplies a connection between the two: trigonometric functions encode equally spaced integer poles, whose expansion brings the reciprocal powers into view.

For an original numerical comparison, the first ten terms give ${\sum }_{n=1}^{10}{n}^{-2}\approx 1.549767731$, while ${\pi }^2/6\approx 1.644934067$. The omitted positive terms still contribute approximately $0.095166336$. For fourth powers, the ten-term partial sum is approximately $1.082036583$, only $0.000286650$ below ${\pi }^4/90\approx 1.082323234$. Both are convergent series, but the second approaches its limit much faster.

Exact evaluation is useful beyond obtaining more digits. It supplies an independent check on a numerical summation, exposes how Bernoulli numbers organize infinitely many identities, and makes the remaining series truncation error measurable without knowing any omitted terms individually. The even integer condition is essential to this formula: putting $r=3/2$ into it is not a way to evaluate $\zeta (3)$, since the required Bernoulli number index and factorial expression here are indexed by positive integers.

Historically, Leonhard Euler announced reciprocal-square and reciprocal-fourth-power evaluations in §2 of On the sums of series of reciprocals by Leonhard Euler. That paper was presented on 5 December 1735 and published in 1740, as the English translation's first-page note records. His §§3–8 develop a route through the sine power series and relationships between roots and coefficients. The cotangent calculation below is a concise modern presentation of the connection.^[ref]

An Eulerian graph has an Euler circuit: a closed trail traversing every edge exactly once. Here the graph is a finite undirected graph, possibly a multigraph with self-loops. Parallel edges retain distinct identities, and each self-loop contributes two to its vertex degree. Repeated vertices are allowed. This models inspecting every road segment once, even when a junction must be revisited.

For a nonempty set of edges, the Euler circuit criterion requires a connected graph only on the edge support of a graph: isolated vertices impose no travel requirement. A single vertex with a self-loop and two vertices joined by two parallel edges are both Eulerian graphs. Neither requires three vertices. With no edges and at least one vertex, we allow the zero-length trail at that vertex as an Euler circuit; the graph with no vertices has no such walk.

The motivating Seven Bridges of Königsberg problem asks for an Eulerian trail, which need not return to its starting vertex. In Leonhard Euler's Solutio problematis ad geometriam situs pertinentis by Leonhard Euler, §2 poses the bridge-crossing question and §§4–6 encode land regions by letters. The river's shape drops out: only the connections matter. The paper was written in 1735 and published in 1741, according to the Euler Archive; the journal volume carries the nominal year 1736.^[ref]

For a real angle $\theta$ in radians, Euler's formula stateswhere $i$ is the imaginary unit. It connects the complex exponential to the sine and cosine coordinates of the unit circle. In particular, $|e^{i\theta }|=1$, and multiplying by $e^{i\theta }$ rotates a complex number through angle $\theta$ without changing its modulus. At $\theta =\pi /3$ it gives $e^{i\pi /3}=1/2+i\sqrt{3}/2$; at $\theta =\pi$, it gives $e^{i\pi }=-1$.

The identity makes angle addition algebraic: $e^{i\alpha }{e}^{i\beta }=e^{i(\alpha +\beta )}$. Expanding the product and comparing real parts and imaginary parts recovers the sine addition formula and cosine addition formula. Differentiating $e^{i\omega t}$ gives $i\omega e^{i\omega t}$, and differentiating again gives $-{\omega }^2{e}^{i\omega t}$. Its real and imaginary coordinates therefore solve the harmonic oscillator equation. This is why complex exponentials are useful building blocks in Fourier analysis: differentiation acts on each frequency by simple multiplication.

A short justification separates the even and odd powers in the absolutely convergent power series for $e^{i\theta }$. The even powers give ${\sum }_{n\ge 0}(-1{)}^n{\theta }^{2n}/(2n)!=\cos \theta$, and the odd powers give $i{\sum }_{n\ge 0}(-1{)}^n{\theta }^{2n+1}/(2n+1)!=i\sin \theta$. The absolute convergence permits this regrouping. The formula thus links an analytic definition of the complex exponential to a geometric motion rather than merely introducing a convenient notation.

Leonhard Euler presents the relation between imaginary exponentials and sines and cosines in his 1748 Introductio in analysin infinitorum, volume 1, chapter VIII, section 138. His derivation uses limiting powers after connecting trigonometric addition to algebra. The original Latin and Ian Bruce's English translation can be read together in Euler, Introductio, chapter VIII, section 138.

For a prime number $p$ and an integer $a$ not divisible by $p$, Fermat's little theorem states the modular congruenceEquivalently, for every integer $a$, including $a<0$ and multiples of $p$,The first formulation follows from the second by multiplying by a modular multiplicative inverse of $a$. Conversely, multiply the first by $a$ when $p\nmid a$; when $p\mid a$, both sides of the second are zero modulo $p$. The divisibility condition in the first formulation is essential.^[ref]

For $p=7$, $3^6=729=7\cdot 104+1$, so $3^6\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}7)$ and $3^7\equiv 3(\mathrm{mod}7)$. Also $(-2{)}^6=64\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}7)$, while $7^6\equiv 0(\mathrm{mod}7)$: a zero residue class cannot satisfy the first formulation. It does satisfy $7^7\equiv 7\equiv 0(\mathrm{mod}7)$. A failure at a zero residue class therefore says nothing against a candidate's being a prime number.

The prime number $p=2$ is included. Its only nonzero residue class is one: every odd integer $a$ satisfies $a^{2-1}=a\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}2)$. Every integer also satisfies $a^2\equiv a(\mathrm{mod}2)$, because $a(a-1)$ is even. Testing the first formulation with an even integer would violate its hypothesis.

The useful surprise is that every nonzero residue class returns to one at the same exponent $p-1$, although its shortest return can be earlier. This gives exponent reduction for units: for a nonnegative integer $k$, $a^k\equiv a^{k\mathrm{mod}(p-1)}(\mathrm{mod}p)$ when $p\nmid a$. It also computes a modular multiplicative inverse as $a^{p-2}$ modulo $p$, including $p=2$. Repeated squaring makes these modular exponentiations practical.

In group theory, the nonzero residue classes form the multiplicative group of integers modulo n with $n=p$, of group order $p-1$. Lagrange's theorem says that the multiplicative order of $a$ divides $p-1$, giving the guaranteed return. Euler's theorem extends this to a general integer modulus $n$, using the units and Euler's totient function $\phi (n)$; the Carmichael function gives the least common return exponent for all units. A nonzero residue class modulo a composite number need not be a unit.

Leonhard Euler's paper presented in 1732 and published in 1738 states a historical formulation: Theorem 1 says that powers with exponent $n-1$ leave zero or one upon division by a prime number $n$. The preceding discussion states the difference-of-powers version and explicitly says that he does not have its proof.^[ref]

A Fermat number is the positive integer $F_n=2^{2^n}+1$, indexed by a nonnegative integer $n$. The first five are $3,5,17,257,65537$, all prime numbers; the next is the composite number $F_5=4294967297=641\cdot 6700417$. This family offers a compact lesson in number theory: a very persuasive finite pattern can fail, while an exact divisibility relation settles a gigantic case with little computation.

Why does the exponent itself have the form $2^n$? Suppose $m=ab$ is a positive integer with an odd integer factor $b>1$. The polynomial factorization $x^b+1=(x+1)(x^{b-1}-x^{b-2}+\cdots -x+1)$ shows that $2^a+1$ is a proper divisor of $2^m+1$. Consequently, if $2^m+1$ is a prime number, $m$ must be a power of two. That is a necessary condition, rather than a promise that the surviving candidates are prime.

The Fermat number product identity makes distinct Fermat numbers coprime integers. Thus every term has a prime factor absent from all earlier terms, whether or not that term is itself a prime number. This gives an explicit route to infinitely many different prime numbers, without establishing that infinitely many terms of this particular sequence are prime. Meanwhile the prime divisor of a Fermat number criterion filters possible factors through a small multiplicative order calculation.

The family also links arithmetic to Euclidean geometry: a constructible regular polygon can have a number of sides equal to a power of two times a product of distinct Fermat primes. The Gauss-Wantzel theorem gives the precise criterion. For instance, $15=3\cdot 5$ and $17$ qualify, but $9=3^2$ does not. The word "distinct" matters. Carl Pomerance describes this connection in Primality testing: then and now by Carl Pomerance (slide 18).

Historically, Leonhard Euler records Pierre de Fermat's proposed primality pattern, then refutes it by finding the factor $641$ of $F_5$. His paper was presented in 1732 and published in 1738; those are different events, not competing dates for one publication.^[ref]

A short modern check needs only two representations of $641$:In modular arithmetic these give $5^4{2}^{28}\equiv 1$ and $5^4\equiv -2^4(\mathrm{mod}641)$. Substitution yields $2^{32}\equiv -1(\mathrm{mod}641)$, so $641\mid F_5$. This verifies the factor directly; it does not claim to reconstruct Euler's search process.

The Gamma function extends factorials to a continuous argument. Its defining Gamma integral iswhere $t^{z-1}=\exp ((z-1)\log t)$ uses the real natural logarithm for $t>0$. The Gamma function recurrence gives its meromorphic continuation to the complex plane, with simple poles at $0,-1,-2,\dots$ and no zeros. See Gamma function residue at a nonpositive integer and Gamma function has no zeros for proof outlines.^[ref]

For nonnegative integers $n$, the factorial identity has a shift of one:Thus $\Gamma (n)=(n-1)!$ for positive integers $n$. Half-integer arguments supply a different familiar constant:The first value follows from the Gaussian integral; the second follows from the Gamma function recurrence.^[ref]

The plot shows only positive real arguments; the Gamma function also accepts complex numbers away from its poles. Matching the factorials alone does not select a unique interpolation, even if the Gamma function recurrence is imposed: $f(x)=\Gamma (x)\exp (\sin (2\pi x))$ has the same positive-integer values and the same recurrence relation. The Bohr-Mollerup theorem supplies the extra condition that selects the Gamma function.

The useful idea is to replace a discrete product of numbers by an integral whose exponent varies continuously. The Gamma integral then evaluates whole families of integrals at once, provides the normalizing constant for the Gamma distribution in probability theory, and appears in physics, for example in the Bose integral. Its large-positive-argument growth reconnects this continuous description to factorials through Stirling's formula.^[ref]

Historically, Leonhard Euler studied the interpolation of factorials in his paper E19, written in 1729 and published in 1738. His integral over $(0,1)$ becomes the Gamma integral after a change of variables, with the same one-step shift in the argument.^[ref]

Leonhard Euler's 1751 correspondence already studied triangulations of a convex polygon and gave a closed formula for their counts. Johann Andreas von Segner supplied a combinatorial recurrence relation in a paper written in 1758. Eugène Charles Catalan's nineteenth-century work connected the formula to bracketed products. This history, documented in Igor Pak's account, shows how the same counting structure reappeared through different objects; the modern name alone does not establish discovery priority.^[ref]

By Leonhard Euler; English translation by Jordan Bell. Presented to the St Petersburg Academy on 26 September 1732; the original Latin paper, "Observationes de theoremate quodam Fermatiano aliisque ad numeros primos spectantibus", appeared in Commentarii academiae scientiarum Petropolitanae 6 (1738), pp. 103–107. The publication note on page one of the translation distinguishes presentation from publication. The linked translation is version three, dated 15 April 2008.

English translation: arxiv.org/pdf/math/0501118

Catalogue record: arxiv.org/abs/math/0501118

Cited passages: pp. 1–2, Euler's account of Fermat's proposed prime pattern and the factor $641$ of $2^{32}+1$; p. 1 publication and translator note. The short modular check in Fermat number is presented as a modern verification, not a historical reconstruction of Euler's search.

By Leonhard Euler; English translation by Jordan Bell.

Presented to the St Petersburg Academy on 5 December 1735. Published as "De summis serierum reciprocarum" in Commentarii academiae scientiarum Petropolitanae 7 (1740), pp. 123–134. The linked translation is arXiv version 2, dated 5 February 2008.

 English translation, p. 1, §2 and publication note; pp. 3–4, §§3–8: sine series, roots and coefficients.

Model the four land regions by vertices $A,B,C,D$ and the seven bridges by distinct edges: two $AB$, two $AC$, and one each of $AD,BD,CD$. Their vertex degrees are $(5,3,3,3)$. Leonhard Euler's paper records these connections in §6 and the obstruction in §9; §20 states the zero-or-two odd-region rule. Four odd vertex degrees exclude an Eulerian trail, even if returning to the starting vertex is optional.^[ref]

By Leonhard Euler.

Published in Commentarii academiae scientiarum Petropolitanae.

Online text: www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/repubs/maze_maths/pages/euler.html

Cited passages: Solutio problematis ad geometriam situs pertinentis, §§6, 9, 20.