<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>On the sums of series of reciprocals · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/math_0506415/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/math_0506415/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>On the sums of series of reciprocals — mentioned by svat</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17444724</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:math_0506415:17444724</guid><pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2018 19:37:34 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Euler&amp;#x27;s first major work, the one that brought him fame, was his solution to the Basel problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_problem), when he was 28. Namely, he found the sum of the reciprocals of the squares of the integer, i.e. the value of the series (1 + 1/4 + 1/9 + 1/16 + ...), to be π²/6. According to https://faculty.math.illinois.edu/~reznick/sandifer.pdf Euler gave three solutions in his 1736 paper now numbered E41: http://eulerarchive.maa.org/pages/E041.html (&amp;quot;De summis serierum reciprocarum&amp;quot; = &amp;quot;On the sums of series of reciprocals&amp;quot;) Here is Jordan Bell&amp;#x27;s translation…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/math_0506415/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.HO</category></item><item><title>On the sums of series of reciprocals — mentioned by scythe</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2731368</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:math_0506415:2731368</guid><pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:14:23 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;And it was chosen hastily. It was chosen here: http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0506415 Elegance is found in arguments and proofs, not in results, and so any attempt to look at equations is really missing the point. If you believe Euler&amp;#x27;s methods might be simplified by using 2pi instead of pi, first consider a look at the methods themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/math_0506415/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.HO</category></item></channel></rss>
