Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was recently told that the Möbius Inversion Formula can be applied to the Chebyshev Function.

Let $\vartheta(x)$,$\psi(x)$ be the first and second Chebyshev functions so that:

$$\vartheta(x) = \sum_{p\le{x}}\log p$$

$$\psi(x) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\vartheta(\sqrt[n]{x})$$

Then applying the Möbius Inversion Formula, we get:

$$\vartheta(x) = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu(k)\psi(\sqrt[k]{x}) = \psi(x) - \psi(\sqrt{x}) -\psi(\sqrt[3]{x}) -\psi(\sqrt[5]{x}) + \psi(\sqrt[6]{x}) + \ldots$$

As I understand it, Möbius Inversion Formula can only be applied to functions of the following form:

$$g(n) = \sum_{d\,\mid \,n}f(d)$$

With the inversion being of the form:

$$f(n)=\sum_{d\,\mid\, n}\mu(d)g(n/d)$$

So, I'm not clear how the inversion formula can be applied to the Chebyshev functions.

If someone could help me to understand why the inversion formula can be applied in this situation, that will really help.

Thanks,

-Larry

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 6 down vote accepted

I spent an embarrassingly long time thinking this through, trying to do all-too-clever things (as it turns out) before this appeared for me. But here's how this works.

$$ \begin{align} \sum_{k \geq 1} \mu(k) \psi(x^{1/k}) &= \sum_{k \geq 1} \mu(k) \sum_{l \geq 1} \vartheta (x^{1 / kl}) \\ &= \sum_{n \geq 1} \sum_{k \mid n}\mu(k)\vartheta(x^{1/n}) \\ &= \sum_{n \geq 1} \left( \delta_{1,n}\right)\vartheta(x^{1/n}) \\ &= \vartheta(x) \end{align}$$

This shows that we always have that $$F(x) = \sum_{k \geq 1} G(x^{1/k}) \iff G(x) = \sum_{k \geq 1}\mu(k)F(x^{1/k})$$

or, more generally (but with no extra difficulty), if $\alpha(n)$ is arithmetic with Dirichlet convolution inverse $\alpha^{-1}(n)$, $$F(x) = \sum_{k \geq 1} \alpha(k)G(x^{1/k}) \iff G(x) = \sum_{k \geq 1}\alpha^{-1}(k)F(x^{1/k})$$

So in fact we have another form of Möbius Inversion, relying on nothing that we haven't seen before.

share|improve this answer
    
What's worse is that I now recognize that I've seen this before, too. (I think) –  mixedmath Apr 23 '13 at 6:05
    
Thanks very much. This is a nice example of how to reason with the Mobius Inversion Formula! :-) –  Larry Freeman Apr 23 '13 at 6:23
    
I don't know if this is the place where you saw it before, but I found the same proof with explanation about $\delta_{1,n}$, here. See page 2. –  Larry Freeman May 7 '13 at 15:42

Your Answer

 
discard

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.