55

I came on the following multiple integral while renormalizing elliptic multiple zeta values: $$\int_0^1\cdots \int_0^1\int_1^\infty {{1}\over{t_n(t_{n-1}+t_n)\cdots (t_1+\cdots+t_n)}} dt_n\cdots dt_1.$$ Only the variable $t_n$ goes from $1$ to $\infty$, the others all go from $0$ to $1$. Numerically, I seem to be getting a rational multiple of $\pi^n$. I would like to prove this. Has anyone ever seen an integral like this before?

Edit: After reworking out why I thought it would be a power of $\pi$, I now have a different integral, which numerically really does seem to give a rational multiple of $\zeta(n)$ for each $n$ (though I have only been able to go up to n=4 numerically). I want to integrate $1/(z_1\cdots z_n)$ over the part of the simplex $0\le z_n\le \cdots \le z_1\le 1$ in which $|z_i -z_{i+1}|>\varepsilon$, then let $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$. The integral is $$\int_{n\epsilon}^{1-\varepsilon}\int_{(n-1)\varepsilon}^{z_1-\epsilon}\cdots \int_{\varepsilon}^{z_{n-1}-\varepsilon} {{1}\over{z_1\cdots z_n}} dz_n\cdots dz_1.$$ It actually diverges when $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$, but it can be regularised like ordinary multizeta values by computing the integral as a power series in $ln(\varepsilon)$ and $\varepsilon$ and then taking its constant term. It's related to the previous integral by the variable change $z_1=\varepsilon(t_1+\cdots+t_n),\ldots,z_n=\varepsilon t_n$, but the new bounds of the integral form an $(n+1)$-angled polyhedron, not a cube.

Leila Schneps
  • 1,277
  • 9
  • 9
  • For $n=3$ Mathematica tells me the integral equals approximately $\pi^3\cdot 0.0080767040839409997793\ldots$, which does not look very rational to me. – Timothy Budd Apr 17 '17 at 19:34
  • 1
    for $n=3$ the integral equals $-2 \text{Li}_3\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)+\text{Li}_3\left(-\frac{1}{3}\right)-3 \text{Li}_2\left(\frac{1}{3}\right) \log 3+\frac{1}{2} \text{Li}_2\left(\frac{1}{9}\right) \log 3+\frac{19 }{8}\zeta (3)-\frac{1}{3} \log ^3 3$ and $\pi^3/{\rm integral}=123.812880799769683289081455581$ – Carlo Beenakker Apr 17 '17 at 19:39
  • Interesting. I doubt the answer is in $Q[\pi]$. Perhaps you like to look into https://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.2557.pdf and https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7267 and references therein. – T. Amdeberhan Apr 17 '17 at 19:55
  • 16
    For $n=3$ the integral seems to be $5\zeta(3)/24$. – Peter Mueller Apr 17 '17 at 20:02
  • 1
    Not sure if this might be useful but it is easy to get rid of the last variable. Just substitute $t_n=\frac1x$, so the integrand becomes$$-\frac{x^{n-2}}{(1+xt_1)(1+xt_1+xt_2)\cdots(1+xt_1+...+xt_{n-1})}$$and then integrate wrt $x$ from $0$ to $1$ using the partial fraction decomposition to get$$\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}(-1)^{n-k} \int_0^1\cdots\int_0^1\frac{\log \left(1+\displaystyle\sum {j=k}^{n-1} t_j\right)}{\left(\displaystyle\prod _{l=1}^{k-1} \sum _{j=l}^{k-1} t_j\right)\left(\displaystyle\prod _{l=k}^{n-1} \sum _{j=k}^l t_j\right)}dt{n-1}\cdots dt_1$$ – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Apr 17 '17 at 20:21
  • For n=2 you can expand $1/(t_1+t_2) = (1/t_2)\sum_{n \geq 0} (-1)^n (t_1/t_2)^n $ and then integrate wrt $t_1$. – François Brunault Apr 17 '17 at 21:20
  • @FrançoisBrunault -- for $n=2$ the integral equals $\pi^2/12$, it's for larger $n$ that the conjecture of the OP breaks down. – Carlo Beenakker Apr 17 '17 at 21:42
  • If you have guesses for the coefficient of $\pi^n$ for the first few values of $n$ you might be able to find some form of the sequence in the OEIS. – Noam D. Elkies Apr 18 '17 at 04:27
  • 1
    I corroborate Peter Mueller's computation that for $n=3$ the integral agrees numerically with $5 \zeta(3) / 24$ (using gp's intnum for the integrals over $[0,1]$). Possibly a rational multiple of $\zeta(n)$ for all $n$? – Noam D. Elkies Apr 18 '17 at 04:45
  • 2
    For $n=4$ the same method produces (after about 3 minutes) $0.081724116967726819510127555243991754831$, which doesn't seem to be a simple multiple of $\pi^4$ ---
    but I don't know how many of those digits are trustworthy coming from an improper triple integral . . .
    – Noam D. Elkies Apr 18 '17 at 04:52
  • 5
    Some say the integral will end in pi, some say it's not so nice. From what I've tasted of periods, I hold with those who favor pi. But only if n is twice An integer or else I think, The integral won't be so nice, but still pretty great, and zetas sould suffice. – Marty Apr 18 '17 at 06:24
  • 2
    We may denote $x_i=t_n+t_{n-1}+\dots+t_{n-i+1}$ for $i=1,\dots,n$, then $1<x_1<x_2<\dots<x_n$, conditions are $x_{i+1}<x_i+1$ and we integrate $dx_1\dots dx_n/x_1\dots x_n$. Multiplying by $n!$ we may integrate the same guy over the set of $n$-tuples $(x_1,\dots,x_n)\in (1,\infty)$ satisfying the condition `any two consecutive differ by at most 1'. Denoting $x_i=e^{y_i}$ we want to find the volume of the set in $(0,\infty)^n$ satisfying the strange condition 'exponents of two consecutive numbers differ by at most 1'. Well, this is probably already weird way. – Fedor Petrov Apr 18 '17 at 11:57
  • It doesn't seem to be a rational multiple of $\pi^n$ after all. I still want to have an expression for the value, though. Thanks for noticing $5\zeta(3)/24$. An expression in multizeta values would be great. I'm actually mostly interested in even values of n. Thanks everyone. – Leila Schneps Apr 18 '17 at 13:05
  • @NoamD.Elkies what are best rational approximations of this ratio with small denominator? If they approximate it well enough, we may hope that this is only the error of integration. – Fedor Petrov Apr 18 '17 at 16:19
  • 3
    @FedorPetrov No reason to ask Noam for a computation we can easily do -- the first few are 1/12, 4/49, 17/208, 55/673, 237/2900, 1240/15173, 2717/33246 . None of these are particularly accurate given their denominator. – David E Speyer Apr 18 '17 at 16:29
  • 2
    Convergents are {0, 12, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 2, 3, 1, 2, 45, 7, 1, 14, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6, 3, 1, 31, 2, 4, 4, 2, 8, 2, 1, 1} if you want to keep computing more. – David E Speyer Apr 18 '17 at 16:53
  • It looks probable that a change of variables suggested by მამუკა ჯიბლაძე makes the integral not only proper, but more appropriate for precise numerical computations. – Fedor Petrov Apr 18 '17 at 20:36
  • Incidentally, the reciprocal of Noam's constant seems to be rather close to $ 10+\sqrt{5}+1/4500 $. I thus doubt it could be rational, but it could lie in $ \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{5}) $ . – Sylvain JULIEN Apr 18 '17 at 21:02
  • 3
    @SylvainJULIEN I'm pretty sure that this is not the case. I too computed an approximation (using quad from mpmath), which matches Noam Elkies' calculation on 18 decimal digits, while your number matches only 7 digits. – Peter Mueller Apr 18 '17 at 23:12
  • 2
    Let $I_n$ denote the $n$-variable integral above. The representation

    \begin{align} I_{n+1}=\frac{1}{n!} \int_0^\infty (F(z))^n,\frac{e^{-z}}{z},dz;;, \end{align} where $F(z)=\int_0^z \frac{1-e^{-y}}{y},dy$, may also be of interest. (It can be obtained by writing $\frac{1}{t_k+\ldots t_n}=\int_0^\infty e^{-(t_k+\ldots + t_n)x_k},dx_k$ for $k=1,..,n$, carrying out the $t_k$ integrals, and a symmetry argument).

    – esg Apr 23 '17 at 10:42
  • 2
    For $n=4$, Mathematica can do the $t_1$, $t_2$ and $t_3$ integrals, reducing the problem to a single integral over $[1,\infty)$, which looks messy but not impossible. Currently, my progress is impeded by not being able to to evaluate $\int_1^2{\frac{\operatorname{Li}_2(q)\log{(3-q)}}{q}, \mathrm{d}q}$. – Eckhard Apr 29 '17 at 07:55
  • From the question Is this integral representation of $\zeta(2n+1)$ known? and answers there, it seems like @Zurab Silagadze may shed some light on this too. In particular, one of his preprints listed there contains some multiple integral representations of $\zeta(n)$ which may be highly relevant. – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე May 03 '17 at 09:26
  • What is the status of the last version? Is it the same or is it something different that has to replace the previous one? Btw since $\frac1{z_1\cdots z_n}$ is symmetric, the result must be equal to $\frac1{n!}$ times the integral over the whole unit cube, no? – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე May 05 '17 at 17:14
  • 1
    The last version replaces the previous one. It turns out to be better adapted to what I need. Numerical calculation shows that for n=3 the value of the regularised integral is $\zeta(3)/3$ and for $n=4$ the regularized value is $\pi^4/1440$. Note that the domain of integration doesn't cover the whole cube even when all the permutations of the $z_i$ are used, because the integration limits enforce a minimum distance of $\epsilon$ between all of the $z_i$'s, so all the parts of the cube where two consecutive $z_i$ are close together are left out. – Leila Schneps May 06 '17 at 16:48
  • Even though convergence only requires $z_i>\varepsilon$? I mean, the integral of $\frac1{z_1\cdots z_n}$ over $[\varepsilon,1]^n$ (which is $\log(\frac1\varepsilon)^n$) seems to give the only singular contribution, I don't think separating $z_i$ from $z_j$ or making them smaller than $1-\varepsilon$ will alter regularization result. Or will it?? – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე May 07 '17 at 14:55
  • 1
    If I calculate the value of the integral of $1/(z_1z_2)$ over the simplex $\varepsilon<z_2<z_1<1-\epsilon$, I obtain a series in $ln(\varepsilon)$ and $\epsilon$ whose constant term is zero. Thus I take $0$ to be the regularized value of that integral. If I calculate the one that I want, which is the integral of $1/(z_1z_2)$ over the set $\varepsilon<z_2<z_1-\varepsilon<1-2\varepsilon$, again I obtain a power series in $ln(\varepsilon)$ and $\epsilon$, but now the constant term is $-\pi^2/12$. So not the same value. – Leila Schneps May 08 '17 at 15:11

4 Answers4

25

Let's record what is possible, so far. The case $n=2$, from the comments: $$\int_0^1\frac{dy}{x(x+y)}=\frac1{x^2}\int_0^1\frac{dy}{1+\frac{y}x}=\int_0^1\sum_{k\geq0}\frac{(-1)^ky^k}{x^{k+2}}dy=\sum_{k\geq0}\frac{(-1)^k}{k+1}\frac1{x^{k+2}}.$$ Hence, $$\int_1^{\infty}\sum_{k\geq0}\frac{(-1)^k}{k+1}\frac{dx}{x^{k+2}}=\sum_{k\geq0}\frac{(-1)^k}{(k+1)^2}=\frac{\zeta(2)}2.$$

The case $n=3$: $$\begin{aligned}\int_0^1\frac{dz}{x(x+y)(x+y+z)}&=\frac1{x(x+y)^2}\int_0^1\frac{dz}{1+\frac{z}{x+y}}\\&=\frac1x\sum_{k\geq0}\int_0^1\frac{(-1)^kz^kdz}{(x+y)^{k+2}}\\&=\frac1x\sum_k\frac{(-1)^k}{(k+1)(x+y)^{k+2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\frac1x\int_0^1\sum_k\frac{(-1)^kdy}{(k+1)(x+y)^{k+2}}=\frac1x\sum_k\frac{(-1)^k}{(k+1)^2}\left[\frac1{x^{k+1}}-\frac1{(x+1)^{k+1}}\right].$$ Now, integrate with respect to $x$ (standard): $$\int_1^{\infty}\frac{dx}{x^{k+2}}=\frac1{k+1} \qquad \text{and} \qquad \int_1^{\infty}\frac{dx}{x(x+1)^{k+1}}=\sum_{j=k+1}^{\infty}\frac1{j\cdot 2^j}.$$ Therefore, we compute the two series: $$\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k^3}=\frac34\zeta(3) \qquad \text{and} \qquad \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k^2}\sum_{j=k}^{\infty}\frac1{j\cdot 2^j}=\frac{13}{24}\zeta(3).$$ We arrived at the valued predicted by Peter Mueller, $$\int_1^{\infty}\int_0^1\int_0^1\frac{dz\,dy\,dx}{x(x+y)(x+y+z)}=\frac5{24}\zeta(3).$$

Caveat. One may anticipate higher values of $n$ to scale up the challenge.

UPDATE. Regarding Fedor's question, one contention is a follows: the sum in question is a weight 3 polylog, so it is a rational combination of $\zeta(3), \zeta(2)\log 2$ and $\log^3(2)$. Since a large numerical agreement verifies equality with only $\frac{13}{24}\zeta(3)$, it must be the exact evaluation.

UPDATE. I like to address the request from GH from MO directed to Agno. Then, a direct answer to Fedor's question.

This time, we start integrating with respect to $x$: $$\int_1^{\infty}\frac{dx}{x(x+y)(x+y+z)} =\frac{y\,\log(1+y)+z\,\log(1+y)-y\,\log(1+y+z)}{yz(y+z)}.$$ Next, integrate in the variable $y$: $$\int_0^1\frac{y\,\log(1+y)+z\,\log(1+y)-y\,\log(1+y+z)}{yz(y+z)}\,dy =\frac{\text{Li}_2(z+2)-\text{Li}_2(z+1)-\text{Li}_2(2)}z;$$ where $\text{Li}_2(z)$ is the dilogarithm function $$\text{Li}_2(z)=\int_1^z\frac{\log t}{1-t}\,dt.$$ Finally, we integrate in the last variable $z$: $$\begin{align} \int_0^1\frac{\text{Li}_2(z+2)-\text{Li}_2(z+1)-\text{Li}_2(2)}z\,dz &=\int_0^1\left(\int_1^{z+2}\frac{\log t}{1-t}\,dt-\int_1^{z+1}\frac{\log t}{1-t}\,dt-\int_1^2\frac{\log t}{1-t}\,dt \right)\frac{dz}z \\ &=\int_0^1\left(\int_{z+1}^{z+2}\frac{\log t}{1-t}\,dt-\int_1^2\frac{\log t}{1-t}\,dt \right)\frac{dz}z \\ &=\int_0^1\left(\int_2^{z+2}\frac{\log t}{1-t}\,dt-\int_1^{z+1}\frac{\log t}{1-t}\,dt\right)\frac{dz}z \\ &=\int_2^3\frac{\log t}{1-t}\left(\int_{t-2}^1\frac{dz}z\right)dt-\int_1^2\frac{\log t}{1-t}\left(\int_{t-1}^1\frac{dz}z\right)dt \\ &=\int_2^3\frac{\log t\,\log(t-2)}{t-1}\,dt-\int_1^2\frac{\log t\,\log(t-1)}{t-1}\,dt \\ &=\int_0^1\frac{\log (t+2)\,\log t}{t+1}\,dt-\int_0^1\frac{\log(t+1)\,\log t}t\,dt \\ &=\int_0^1\frac{\log (t+2)\,\log t}{t+1}\,dt+\frac34\zeta(3). \end{align}$$ For the first integral in the last equality, write $\log(t+2)=\log 2+\log(1+\frac{t}2)$ and apply Taylor series: $$\begin{align} \int_0^1\frac{\log (t+2)\,\log t}{t+1}\,dt &=\log 2\int_0^1\frac{\log t}{t+1}\,dt+\sum_{n\geq1}\frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{2^nn}\int_0^1\frac{t^n\log t}{t+1}\,dt \\ &=-\frac12\zeta(2)\,\log2+\sum_{n\geq1}\frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{2^nn}\int_0^1\frac{t^n\log t}{t+1}\,dt \\ &=-\frac12\zeta(2)\,\log2+\sum_{n\geq1}\frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{2^nn}\left[\frac{(-1)^{n-1}}2\zeta(2)+(-1)^{n-1}\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{(-1)^k}{k^2}\right] \\ &=-\frac12\zeta(2)\,\log2+\frac12\zeta(2)\sum_{n\geq1}\frac1{2^nn}+\sum_{n\geq1}\frac1{2^nn}\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{(-1)^k}{k^2} \\ &=-\frac12\,\zeta(2)\,\log2+\frac12\,\zeta(2)\,\log2+\sum_{n\geq1}\frac1{2^nn}\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{(-1)^k}{k^2} \\ &=\sum_{k\geq1}\frac{(-1)^k}{k^2}\sum_{n=k}^{\infty}\frac1{2^nn}. \end{align}$$ The above derivations indicate we do not need Agno's $\log(e^x\pm1)$ integrals, instead we got Robert Z's $\log$-integral which sends us to his useful link evaluating as $\frac{13}{24}\zeta(3)$.

T. Amdeberhan
  • 41,802
  • If a calculation of this kind for $n=4$ doesn't work (or becomes too cumbersome), then one might compute the integral numerically to a high precision and try the inverse symbolic calculator at http://isc.carma.newcastle.edu.au/advanced . – Peter Mueller Apr 18 '17 at 08:16
  • 4
    Why $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k^2}\sum_{j=k}^{\infty}\frac1{j\cdot 2^j}=\frac{13}{24}\zeta(3)?$ – Fedor Petrov Apr 18 '17 at 11:18
  • 1
    After inserting Noam's high precision calculation from above, the inverse symbolic calculator answered "Wow, really found nothing" :( – Leila Schneps Apr 18 '17 at 13:15
  • Maybe try again with somewhat fewer digits -- again, I don't know how reliable gp's numerical integration is in this context. – Noam D. Elkies Apr 18 '17 at 14:37
  • 3
    I would also like to see the crucial step pointed out by Fedor Petrov. – GH from MO Apr 18 '17 at 16:46
  • 1
    For what it's worth. After some integration by parts and substitution of variables, I found that $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k^2}\sum_{j=k}^{\infty}\frac1{j\cdot 2^j}$ could also be expressed as: $$\int_{ln(2)}^{\infty} (\ln(e^x+1)-x),\ln(e^x-1), dx$$ or even simpler, it would imply that: $$\frac{13}{24}\zeta(3)=-\int_{0}^{\ln(2)} \ln(e^x+1),\ln(e^x-1) ,dx$$ Note that numerically the following related integral also seems true: $$\int_{0}^{\infty} \left(\ln(e^x+1)-x\right)\ln(e^x-1) dx = \frac18,\zeta(3)$$ – Agno Apr 25 '17 at 12:34
  • 7
    From Agno's comment, by letting $t=e^x-1$, we obtain $$-\int_{0}^{\ln(2)} \ln(e^x+1),\ln(e^x-1) ,dx=\int_0^1 \frac{\log \left(\frac{1}{t}\right) \log (t+2)}{t+1} , dt$$ which is equal to $\frac{13}{24}\zeta(3)$ by https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1344455/proving-that-int-01-frac-log-left-frac1t-right-log-t2t1-d – Robert Z Apr 25 '17 at 17:38
  • 1
    @Agno: Can you provide the details for $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k^2}\sum_{j=k}^{\infty}\frac1{j\cdot 2^j}=-\int_{0}^{\ln(2)} \ln(e^x+1),\ln(e^x-1) ,dx$? Perhaps in a response instead of a comment. Then, together with Robert Z's comment, we would have a complete proof. – GH from MO Apr 25 '17 at 22:43
  • Sure. Will post tomorrow. – Agno Apr 26 '17 at 00:07
  • @T Amdeberhan. We posted our answers at almost exactly the same time, which makes my more cumbersome answer now redundant and I therefore deleted it. – Agno Apr 26 '17 at 12:27
  • @Agno: I did not know you were posting. Thanks for the good ideas, anyways. – T. Amdeberhan Apr 26 '17 at 12:33
13

You can easily reduce to a double integral and in a few seconds you obtain 0.0817241169677268267134627567961242656233303062217211895... (all digits correct, I checked at higher accuracy), but still cannot recognize it.

Henri Cohen
  • 11,624
13

The following is a somewhat simplified version of the proof by T. Amdeberhan, Agno, and Robert Z that $$\int_0^1 \int_0^1 \int_1^\infty \frac{dx\,dy\,dz}{x(x+y)(x+y+z)}=\frac{5}{24}\zeta(3).$$ We integrate with respect to $x$ first, then with respect to $y$: \begin{align*}\int_0^1\int_1^\infty \frac{dx\,dy}{x(x+y)(x+y+z)}&=\int_0^1\left(\frac{\log(1+y)}{yz}-\frac{\log(1+y+z)}{(y+z)z}\right)dy\\ &=\int_0^1\frac{\log(1+t)}{tz}\,dt-\int_z^{1+z}\frac{\log(1+t)}{tz}\,dt\\ &=\int_0^z\frac{\log(1+t)}{tz}\,dt-\int_1^{1+z}\frac{\log(1+t)}{tz}\,dt.\\ \end{align*} The integral of the right hand side with respect to $z$ equals, by Fubini, \begin{align*}&=\int_0^1\int_0^z\frac{\log(1+t)}{tz}\,dt\,dz-\int_0^1\int_1^{1+z}\frac{\log(1+t)}{tz}\,dt\,dz\\ &=\int_0^1\int_t^1\frac{\log(1+t)}{tz}\,dz\,dt-\int_1^2\int_{t-1}^1\frac{\log(1+t)}{tz}\,dz\,dt\\ &=-\int_0^1\frac{\log(t)\log(t+1)}{t}\,dt+\int_1^2\frac{\log(t-1)\log(t+1)}{t}\,dt\\ &=-\int_0^1\frac{\log(t)\log(t+1)}{t}\,dt+\int_0^1\frac{\log(t)\log(t+2)}{t+1}\,dt. \end{align*} On the right hand side, the second integral equals $-\frac{13}{24}\zeta(3)$ by this MSE post, while the first integral equals \begin{align*}\int_0^1\frac{\log(t)\log(t+1)}{t}\,dt &=\int_0^1\frac{\log(t)}{t}\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^{n-1}t^n}{n}\,dt\\ &=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{n}\int_0^1 t^{n-1}\log(t)\,dt=\\ &=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^n}{n^3}=-\frac{3}{4}\zeta(3). \end{align*} To summarize, $$\int_0^1 \int_0^1 \int_1^\infty \frac{dx\,dy\,dz}{x(x+y)(x+y+z)}=\frac{3}{4}\zeta(3)-\frac{13}{24}\zeta(3)=\frac{5}{24}\zeta(3).$$

GH from MO
  • 98,751
5

As suggested by მამუკა ჯიბლაძე, for n=2,3 there is indeed an interesting connection of $$I_n=\int\limits_0^1\cdots \int\limits_0^1 dt_1\cdots dt_{n-1}\int\limits_1^\infty dt_n \frac{1}{t_n(t_n+t_{n-1})\cdots(t_n+\cdots +t_1)}$$ with the Beukers-type integrals. Using the Feynman parametrization $$\frac{1}{A_1A_2\cdots A_n}=(n-1)!\int\limits_0^1\cdots \int\limits_0^1\frac{\delta\left(1-\sum\limits_{i=1}^n x_i\right)dx_1\cdots dx_n}{(x_1A_1+x_2A_2+\cdots +x_nA_n)^n},$$ we get after the parametrization and subsequent trivial integration over $t_n$: $$I_n=\frac{(n-1)!}{n-1}\int\limits_0^1\cdots \int\limits_0^1 \frac{dx_1\cdots dx_n dt_1\cdots dt_{n-1}\;\delta(1-x_1-\cdots-x_n)}{[1+t_{n-1}(x_{n-1}+\cdots x_1)+\cdots +t_1x_1]^{n-1}}.$$ In particular, for n=2 we get immediately $$I_2=\int\limits_0^1\int\limits_0^1 \frac{dx dt}{1+xt}=\frac{1}{2}\zeta(2),$$ and for n=3 we get $$I_3=\int\limits_0^1\cdots\int\limits_0^1 \frac{dx_1 dx_2 dx_3dt_1 dt_2\;\delta(1-x_1-x_2-x_3)}{[1+t_2(x_1+x_2)+t_1x_1]^2}=$$ $$\iint\limits_0^1\frac{dx_1dx_2dx_3\delta(1-\sum\limits_{i=1}^3 x_i)}{x_1(x_1+x_2)}\left [\ln{(1+x_1+x_2)}+\ln{(1+x_1)}-\ln{(1+2x_1+x_2)}\right]=$$ $$\iiint\limits_0^1\frac{dx_1dx_2dx_3\;\delta(1-\sum\limits_{i=1}^3 x_i)}{x_1(1-x_3)}\left [\ln{(2-x_3)}+\ln{(1+x_1)}-\ln{(2+x_1-x_3)}\right].$$ Making $x=x_1,y=1-x_3,z=x_2$ change of variables in the integral, and performing integration over $z$ thanks to the $\delta$-function, we get $$I_3=\iint\limits_0^1\frac{dx dy}{xy}\left[\ln{(1+x)}+\ln{(1+y)}-\ln{(1+x+y)}\right]\theta(y-x)=$$ $$ \frac{1}{2}\iint\limits_0^1\frac{dx dy}{xy}\left[\ln{(1+x)}+\ln{(1+y)}-\ln{(1+x+y)}\right], \tag{1}$$ where in the last step we used the symmetry of the integrand and $\theta(y-x)+\theta(x-y)=1$. This result can be represented in the form $$I_3=\frac{1}{2}\iiint\limits_0^1\frac{dx dy dz}{1+x+y+xyz}. \tag{2}$$ Note the resemblance with Beukers integrals $$ \iiint\limits_0^1\frac{dx dy dz}{1-z+xyz}=2\zeta(3),\;\; \iiint\limits_0^1\frac{dx dy dz}{1+xyz}=\frac{3}{4}\iiint\limits_0^1\frac{dx dy dz}{1-xyz}=\frac{3}{4}\zeta(3).$$ Analogously, for $I_4$ we get $$I_4=\iiint\limits_0^1\frac{dx dy dz}{xyz}\left[\ln{(1+x)}+\ln{(1+y)}+ \ln{(1+z)}+\ln{(1+x+y+z)}-\right . $$ $$ \left . \ln{(1+x+y)}- \ln{(1+x+z)}-\ln{(1+y+z)}\right]\theta(z-x)\theta(y-z).$$ $\theta(z-x)\theta(y-z)$ term is a consequence of integration with the help of the $\delta$-function and reflects $x_2=z-x>0$ and $x_3=y-z>0$ conditions. After symmetrization, we finally get $$I_4=\frac{1}{6}\iiint\limits_0^1\frac{dx dy dz}{xyz}\left[\ln{(1+x)}+\ln{(1+y)}+ \ln{(1+z)}+\ln{(1+x+y+z)}-\right . $$ $$ \left . \ln{(1+x+y)}- \ln{(1+x+z)}-\ln{(1+y+z)}\right],$$ and the analogy with Beukers-type integrals is less obvious, because it doesn't seem this can be represented in the form analogous to (2).

I don't know whether there are some further deeper connections to Beukers-type integrals, or to its generalizations (for example Vasilenko integrals - see section 8 in https://eudml.org/doc/249095).

P.S. From (1) we have $$I_3=\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1f(x)\;d\ln{x}=-\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1 \ln{x}\,\frac{df(x)}{dx}\;dx,$$ where $$f(x)=\int\limits_0^1\frac{dy}{y}\left[\ln{(1+x)}+\ln{(1+y)}-\ln{(1+x+y)}\right],$$ and $$\frac{df(x)}{dx}=\int\limits_0^1 \frac{dy}{y}\left[\frac{1}{1+x}-\frac{1}{1+x+y}\right]=\frac{\ln{(2+x)}-\ln{(1+x)}}{1+x}.$$ Therefore $$I_3=-\frac{1}{2}\left[\int\limits_0^1 \frac{\ln{x}\ln{(2+x)}}{1+x}-\int\limits_0^1 \frac{\ln{x}\ln{(1+x)}}{1+x}\right]dx=-\frac{1}{2}\left[-\frac{13}{24}+\frac{1}{8}\right]\zeta(3)=\frac{5}{24}\zeta(3),$$ because $$\int\limits_0^1 \frac{\ln{x}\ln{(2+x)}}{1+x}dx=-\frac{13}{24}\zeta(3),$$ and $$\int\limits_0^1 \frac{\ln{x}\ln{(1+x)}}{1+x}dx=-\frac{1}{8}\zeta(3).$$ In the case of $I_4$, we analogously get $$I_4=\frac{1}{6}\int\limits_0^1\int\limits_0^1\frac{\ln{x}\ln{y}}{(1+x+y)^2}\left[\ln{(2+x+y)}-\ln{(1+x+y)}+\frac{1}{2+x+y}\right],$$ however further progress doesn't seem feasible.

Zurab Silagadze
  • 16,340
  • 1
  • 47
  • 92
  • 2
    Just like to share a (maybe trivial) observation on the beautiful integral for $\zeta(3)$ in your arxiv paper. When we slightly alter it into: $$f(n):=\frac{1}{7},\int_0^{\pi} x^n,\frac{\pi-x}{\sin(x)}dx$$

    we get closed forms expressed as finite series of $\zeta(2k+1)$ that are all weighted by $\pi^k$ and a rational. E.g. $f(2) = \frac12\pi\zeta(3)$, $f(3) = \frac32\pi^2\zeta(3)-\frac{93}{7}\zeta(5)$, $f(4) = 2,\pi^3\zeta(3)-\frac{279}{14}\zeta(5)$, etc.

    – Agno May 09 '17 at 13:23
  • Interesting observation. How do you got them? By the way while checking f(2), due to an accidental error, I got (numerically) $$\int\limits_0^1\frac{x^2(\pi-x)}{\pi \sin{x}}dx=\sin\left(\frac{13\pi}{46}\right)-\sin\left(\frac{6\pi}{53}\right).$$ How this identity can be proved? – Zurab Silagadze May 10 '17 at 05:25
  • It seems the last identity is only correct up to the precision $10^{-10}$ but not exactly: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/269405/interesting-identity – Zurab Silagadze May 10 '17 at 07:20
  • I have used Maple to evaluate $f(n)$ and it came back with the closed forms. Not exactly sure how it does the evaluation, however I have the strong impression that it first expresses the integrals as a finite series of weighted polylogarithms (+other some components) that only for this specific integrals can be simplified and reduced to the form with only weighted $\zeta(2k+1)$s. – Agno May 10 '17 at 09:13
  • I have changed my comment into a follow-up question here: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/270286/a-closed-form-for-an-integral-expressed-as-a-finite-series-of-zeta2k1-p# – Agno May 21 '17 at 12:17