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.

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

Definitions: $\Phi(s) = \displaystyle\sum_{p} \frac{\log p}{p^s}$ where $p$ denotes a prime number.

$\zeta(s) = \displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^s}$ denotes the Riemann zeta function.

I am proving this lemma:

Lemma: The function $\Phi(s) - \frac{1}{s-1}$, initially defined for $\Re(s) > 1$, extends to a meromorphic function on the half-plane $\Re(s) > \frac{1}{2}$, and is analytic for $\Re(s) \geq 1$.

In the proof, we derive the following relationship:

$$- \frac{\zeta'(s)}{\zeta(s)} = \Phi(s) + \displaystyle\sum_p \frac{\log p}{p^s(p^s - 1)}.$$

The proof then goes on to say "The infinite sum converges to an analytic function for $\Re(s) > \frac{1}{2}$ by comparison with $\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{\log(n)}{n^{2s}}$."

This is where I get stuck. Here is why:

I start by bounding the sum by absolute value, then throwing in the rest of the terms that have been omitted by summing over primes, then pull the absolute value inside:

$$\begin{array}{ll} \left| \displaystyle\sum_p \frac{\log(p)}{p^s (p^s - 1)} \right| &\leq \left| \displaystyle\sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}^+} \frac{\log(n)}{n^s (n^s - 1)} \right| \\ &\leq \displaystyle\sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}^+} \frac{|\log(n)|}{n^{\Re(s)} (n^{\Re(s)} - 1)} \\ &= \displaystyle\sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}^+} \frac{|\log(n)|}{n^{2\Re(s)} - n^{\Re(s)}}. \end{array}$$

If the quotation above from the paper is to be believed, the next step should look like

$$\leq \displaystyle\sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}^+} \frac{|\log(n)|}{n^{2\Re(s)}},$$

which can be shown convergent by the integral test. But to do this would require that

$$\frac{1}{n^{2 \Re(s)} - n^{\Re(s)}} \leq \frac{1}{n^{2\Re(s)}},$$

but I have a problem with that statement because it would imply

$$n^{2 \Re(s)} - n^{\Re(s)} \geq n^{2\Re(s)},$$

which is not true.

Am I missing something or is there an error in the paper? If it is an error, how should I proceed to show that the series converges?

share|cite|improve this question
So your $\Phi(s)$ is the negative of the derivative of the prime zeta function? What paper are you looking at, BTW? – J. M. Dec 1 '11 at 5:27
Reading this set of notes: --- the proof in question starts on page 12. Also, yes, if you differentiate $\Phi$ you get negative the Prime Zeta Function, since $\frac{d}{ds}[p^{-s}] = -\frac{\log p}{p^{s}}$. – tomcuchta Dec 1 '11 at 5:35
up vote 1 down vote accepted

This follows from the limit comparison test (instead of the plain comparison test): $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}{n^{2\sigma}\over n^\sigma(n^\sigma-1)}=1$$ So either both $\sum_{n\ge 2}{\log(n)\over n^\sigma(n^\sigma-1)}$ and $\sum_{n\ge 2}{\log(n)\over n^{2\sigma}}$ converge or diverge.

share|cite|improve this answer

Let me write $\sigma$ for the real part of $s$. Perhaps you can prove that for $\sigma\gt1/2$ and $n\ge2$ you have something like $n^{2\sigma}-n^{\sigma}\ge(1/1000)n^{2\sigma}$, which would be good enough.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.