Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Please how to find order of $$ f_k(z) = \prod\limits_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(1-\frac{z}{n^k}\right) .$$

Let $M(r) = \max \{|f_k(z)|:|z| = r\}.$ Then order of $f_k(z)$ is defined as : $$\lambda = \limsup_{r\to \infty} \frac{\log \log M(r)}{\log r}.$$

Can someone help to solve this. Thank you.

share|cite|improve this question
What have you done? I claim it's obvious which $z$ maximizes $f_k(r)$ to get an explicit formula for $M(r)$. Taylor/Laurent series are often useful; did you get anywhere with those? – Hurkyl Mar 17 '12 at 17:19
@Hurkyl: I fairly new to this...can u help me start. – Yuri Mar 17 '12 at 17:47

The order of this function is $\frac{1}{k}$, and we must have $k>1$.

Proof: First, note that $\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(1-\frac{z}{n^{k}}\right)$ will attain its maximum modulus on the circle of radius $r$ at $z=-r$. Taking the logarithm of this, we need to examine $$h(r)=\log\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(1+\frac{r}{n^{k}}\right)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\log\left(1+\frac{r}{n^{k}}\right).$$ If we can prove that this is bounded below and above by something close to $r^\frac{1}{k}$, then we will have shown that $\lambda=\frac{1}{k}$ since $$\lambda = \lim_{r\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\log h(r)}{\log r}.$$

Lower Bound: We have that $$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\log\left(1+\frac{r}{n^{k}}\right)\geq\sum_{n\leq r^{\frac{\epsilon}{k}}}\log\left(1+\frac{r}{n^{k}}\right)\geq r^{\frac{\epsilon}{k}}\log\left(1+r^{1-\epsilon}\right)$$ for any $0<\epsilon<1.$ Taking $\epsilon=1-\frac{1}{\log r},$ we see that $r^{1-\epsilon}=e,$ and hence the above is $$\geq e^{-\frac{1}{k}}r^{\frac{1}{k}}\log\left(1+e\right)\geq e^{-\frac{1}{k}}r^{\frac{1}{k}}.$$ This then implies that $\lambda\geq\frac{1}{k}.$

Upper Bound: We split the sum based on the size of $n$. If $n>r^{\frac{1}{k}},$ by using the bound $\log\left(1+\frac{r}{n^{k}}\right)\leq\frac{r}{n^{k}},$ we have $$\sum_{n>r^{\frac{1}{k}}}^{\infty}\log\left(1+\frac{r}{n^{k}}\right)\leq r\sum_{n>r^{\frac{1}{k}}}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{k}}\ll\frac{r}{r^{\frac{1}{k}k-1}}=r^{\frac{1}{k}}.$$ Next, for $n^{k}\leq r,$ we have that $\log\left(1+\frac{r}{n^{k}}\right)\leq\log\left(r+1\right),$ which implies that $$\sum_{n\leq r^{\frac{1}{k}}}^{\infty}\log\left(1+\frac{r}{n^{k}}\right)\leq r^{\frac{1}{k}}\log\left(r+1\right).$$ Thus $$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\log\left(1+\frac{r}{n^{k}}\right)\ll r^{\frac{1}{k}}\log r,$$ which implies that $\lambda\leq\frac{1}{k}.$

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank for the answer. What is $\ll$? – Yuri Mar 17 '12 at 23:30
@Yuri: Writing $f(x)\ll g(x)$ is just another notation for $f(x)=O(g(x))$. See Big-O notation. This just means there exists a constant $M$ such that $|f(x)|\leq M|g(x)|$ for all large $x$. – Eric Naslund Mar 18 '12 at 8:17

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.